Sea Lion: Why not just invade the UK in 1940?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- Quite often people remark Hitler should just have finished off the UK before attacking the Soviet Union. Well, there are many problems with that assumption.
»» GET OUR BOOK: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 German/English - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» SOURCES «
Lavery, Brian: We shall fight on the Beaches. Defying Napoleon & Hitler: 1805 and 1940
Ferris, John; Mawdsely, Evan: The war in the West, 1939-1940 - The Battle of Britain? In: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I. p. 315-330
Germany and the Second World War. Volume II.
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Band 2.
Germany and the Second World War. Volume VII - The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943-1944
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 7: Das Deutsche Reich in der Defensive. Strategischer Luftkrieg in Europa, Krieg im Westen und in Ostasien 1943-1944/1945
Alexander, Joseph: Storm Landings. Naval Institute Press
Penrose, Jane: The D-Day Companion.
Quarrie, Bruce: German Airborne Divisions. Blitzkrieg 1940-41
Overy, Richard: Battle of Britain: Myth & Reality
Maier, Klaus A.: Die Luftschlacht über England in: Michalka, Wolfgang (Hrsg.): Der Zweite Weltkrieg
Lt Col Randy McCanne, USAF; LTC Greg D. Olson, USA; CDR Dario E. Teicher, USN: OPERATION SEA LION: A JOINT CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Faulkner, Marcus: The Kriegsmarine and the Aircraft Carrier: The Design and Operational Purpose of the Graf Zeppelin, 1933-1940, in War in History 19(4)
» DATA CHAIN «
Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.
Made with GeoHack Data. tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geo... - License: creativecommons.org/licenses/...
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](/img/tr.png)
"Just Swim the channel"
- Hans 1940, before being sent towards the Eastern Front
Hans got to sit in Poland for sometime
Was that a Hogan's Heroes reference?
Swen hassel reference?
"Lets fly across the channel and paradrop into the uk"
- Rudolph Hess 1941.
Kendall Scott I'd bet Hans would still want to swim the Channel after seeing the Eastern Front.
"A plan that assumes a passive enemy is not a plan. It's a day dream."
That's the smartest quote I've heard in months.
Sounds like the Japanese view of Americans.
Agreed.
Unless you are invading France
@@unclestuka8543 or Vietnam...
@@clementinovitalino7873 Except Vietnam destroy everysingle colonizers that occupy them. The biggest example is that Vietnam win Vietnam-American war.
“I’ve got it, Hans! We build a time machine and send our tanks back 10,000 years, to when Doggerland was still dry land.”
That does actually sound like a Hitler secret weapon plan.
@@crhu319 Yeah, the brass would have been aware that similar engineering projects have been undertaken, on VASTLY smaller scales, in other conflicts throughout history. So it wouldn’t surprise me if a hand went up in some meeting, and an idea was proposed like, say, sinking a bunch of ships at an average depth of 30 meters, with bridge segments and supplies to interconnect them built over top of the superstructure. It may have caused quite a stir, for about five minutes, until the distances involved thew cold water on it. Along with the need for very risky airborne operations to secure the point where this highly impractical bridge would make landfall in Great Britain. And the dubious ability of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine to defend such a high-profile target for any length of time.
No need to go 10,000 years back. Britain was easily conquerable by sea 900 years before WW2.
But the British had their own time machine!
Winston Churchill from atop the Brittania Massif: 'Don't try it Hitler I have the high ground!'
@@tessasmith3426 But of course in 1066 England did not have the largest navy in the world.
"Tactics win battles, logistics win wars."
That actually describes ww2 pretty well. Germans had genius tactics, but terrible logistics. Britain and America was the other way around.
Logistics. I believe in "The Guns of August" (WWI) the author speaks of the German railways running mainly East and West in order to better transport armies in a two front war.
@@davidladzinski3939 that is actually true. The German Empire shuffled their men across both fronts reasonably often. While Germany in WW2 did have this benefit, they still were poor in logistics mainly due to one thing- oil. Their mobile tactics relied heavily on mechanized forces, armored forces, and planes, which in turn relied heavily on oil.
HOI4 type beat
@@theexam7394 The Germans suffered from several deficiencies in logistics: Poor logistical planning & doctrine, Poor over-water capability, continuous underestimation of the logistical requirements of all their campaigns (except during the invasion of Yugoslavia), the need to use river barges in the English Channel which are the same barges essential to the German war economy, and the biggest systemic issue was that German operational planners did not take logistics as seriously as the Allied nations did. Although the Germans were not amateurs, they were certainly unprepared to handle logistics over the English Channel in all-weather, 24/7, when opposed by highly skilled hostile naval forces.
I don't think you mentioned fuel supplies specifically in your analysis. Transporting gasoline and diesel over the Channel by ship would have been suicidal. The Allies after D-Day ran a fuel pipeline from England to Normandy - PLUTO (pipeline under the ocean) - which would have been impossible for the Germans in 1940.
The regular German Infantry division of 1940 didnt need much fuel anyway. So, not really relevant. And the British army in June 1940 was in a very dire state.
Of course, they could have done what they did in France and use the local petrol stations.
@@lucius1976 The Wehrmacht's tactics relied heavily on its panzers, and panzers are machines that require fuel. They need that fuel to do their Blitzkrieg tactics.
With all the resources the allies had in late 1944 they still ran out of fuel and had to halt advancing in some areas.
@@axebob730 yeah trains and the ability to move things via rail was still utterly vital. They tried to make up the shortfalls but largely didn't manage to until they could capture more rolling stock.
Key phrase, "A plan that assumes a passive enemy is not a plan, it is a dream." Speaking as a former USNCO Academy instructor, our teaching was similar, "If you do not have an obstacle plan, you do not have a plan." I know not the speaker's actual military experience; but I can tell you he is dead on in his analysis. Excellent job and well done!
thank you! Was only a conscript in the Austrian Army, so no experience besides bootcamp.
Ich habe dir einen preußischen General...:)
Also, any plan ought to have someone poke holes at it. Ideally, it should be "gamed" in a Command Post Exercise, where a reasonably competent OPFOR commander does his best to defeat the plan. AIUI, this was actually Wehrmacht doctrine, yet Seelöwe was never tested that way.
Personally, I rather think that's because the senior officers realised it was a pipe dream.
Not true, the Germans did wargame Seelion, though this was done at the Army Group and Army level not at the OKW level
Actually one of the problems for the Germans was that they assumed that the British had many more divisions than they really had, and that those divisions were in better shape than they were. This made them even more reluctant to do the invasion.
I'm reading Churchill's epic six-volume history of the war, and in it he mentions that he actually wishes Germany did go through with the invasion, because he knew for a fact it'd be a disaster and the Germans would suffer enormous losses, which would help turn the tide of the war more quickly.
He also started bombing German cities in the hopes that Hitler would retaliate in the same way, which he did after Berlin was bombed six times. Churchill was a nutjob that didn’t care how many people he got killed to fulfill his hate boner for Germany.
"We are waiting for the long promised invasion, so are the fishes"
Was also supposedly willing to use mustard gas and anthrax.
@@chrisbea49already we’re using it, that’s why they had to say that one event happened
It should be remembered that although a high percentage of British troops were "armed civilians", a large number of them were WW1 veterans. They weren't young men, but they were experienced soldiers who knew how to fight & would have been very dangerous indeed in their own back yards.
I think one thing that often gets overlooked is the geography of the Kent and Sussex coast, especially compared to Normandy. Instead of long sandy beaches, you have cliffs, marshland, and (especially) heavily urbanised areas. One only has to look at the Dieppe raid to see the foolhardiness of an amphibious assault on a prepared urban centre. Between Eastbourne and Portsmouth is pretty much all urban, with perhaps a 10km gap where the waterline is cliffs (the Seven Sisters, between Eastbourne and Seaford). To the East, heavy marshland pervades. Neither of these are ideal for armoured vehicles. The other thing left out is Britain's internal communications - Britain has the densest network of railways in the world, and it was significantly more extensive in 1940. Moving troops and materiel to the south east would have been a doddle.
~A dodd;e omdoeed" After all, the railways had already moved thousands of children around the country when they were evacuated from urban areas when war was declared. And they also moved ex-Dunkirk soldiers by the thousand on arrival at British ports.
And when you get there, there is nowhere to park!
The beaches at dungeness would be ideal though, they were flat back then and made of sand.
Yeah geography would seriously make it harder for Germany to invade the UK. Finally someone else realized this
@@sovietapples6122 And nowhere near the resources of the Allies when thy cross the channel in 1944....
Because the British AI wasn't broken back then.
It still is.
What is the 'British AI'?
TheVilla Aston hearts of iron 4 reference, the AI is very bad without the Expert AI 4.0 Mod and even then it’s still pretty bad
+shayan_03 To be fair you can still pull off Sea Lion against a decent or good UK player as long as you wipe out enough of the Royal Navy and the RAF after years and years of taking them out with the Luftwaffe.
Misaka Mikoto Except UK fighter production>German.
"Now this might work in Hearts Of Iron" I died.
Tbf Hoi4 is very good as a kriegspiel, real military wargames were way worse.
It's only flaw is a passiveness of AI, it's really easy to mistake "works because it's a good plan" with "works against AI".
(Hoi2 was a different case, there you could do Sealion purely on ruleset abuse)
Lol what is your pfp
"Air landing horses wasn't really an option back then" :D
Now I have to go and find out if it's ecer been done.
@@shawnc1016 I'm sure I've seen horses with parachutes. Not sure the loss rate but I know I've seen old black and white photos of it.
Meanwhile a British AA unit on the ground:
"It's the Luftwaffe!"
*Ju-52 drops horse with an attached parachute*
"No! It's the Wunderwaffe!"
@@shawnc1016 There are paratroopers with dogs who land with them, all canines are also ranked 1 higher then their handler in order to instill respect from the handler to the animal
@@EpicRenegade777 I've seen that. Horses are something else entirely though.
UK could have gotten orcas to counter the sea lions.
Sharks with frikken lasers!!!
Orcas are called "killer whales" due to poor translation from the Spanish. They are Whale killing dolphins.
Gate Crasher UK dolphins are a type of whale
1tiercel r/wooosh
@Gate Crasher UK Both Dolphins and Orcas are whale species..
In the 1970s the British and West German military academies ran a simulation, a Kriegspiel game, using the original battle plans from 1940. The British won comprehensively and the Germans never made it to London. The reasons were mostly those laid out in this video, namely the problem of getting enough German units across the channel by sea or air and supplying them. On day 3 of Sealion the Royal Navy cut off the Germans in the Channel, preventing them from shipping tanks across, the British set the beaches on fire and engage in a variety of partisan activities to delay the German advance. The British had planned some seriously nasty defences that could be operated by just a handful of Home Guard or regulars.
interesting. where did the germans land? i'd assume the port of dover was intensely defended, and there aren't any other major harbors nearby.
@@oldfrend The Sandhust war game had them landing at Folkstone and east of Brighton the scenario had them take the port of Folkstone but were never able to use the port due to demolition and it was re taken by Canadian forces after 36 hours.
This war game was discussed in the Facebook group WWII warships. The players and judges were trained, experienced, and skillfull. An officer from the RN, for instance, played Dudley Pound. The Germans land and capture Folkestone, but the British destroy the docks. As Rhubba says, they all concluded that Sea Lion would have resulted in most of the 80,000 German troops killed or captured. It works out much like CS Forester's story from 1960, "If Hitler had invaded England", German canal barges put ashore one night someplace where they cannot off-load tanks. RAF bombers then smash the landing spot, including any ammunition (and horses!) that had gotten ashore. The RN dashes in the next night with cruisers and destroyers, and wipes out the next run of canal barges and tugs, plus the "escorts" of German Navy PT boats (or equivalent).
Billonaire Riches no chance hitler was bombing empty city’s and his attempt to get air superiority failed
@SOLO how do you figure? The Red Army destroyed the majority of Hitler's war machine.
In fairness to the home guard, it was mostly WW1 veterans. They were combat experienced and hated the Germans.
Thank you, that was a most informative and enlightening explanation of what has always been a mystery to me. I was a young boy in Surrey in Southern England in 1940. After Dunkirk, I watched train after train carrying wounded soldiers pass through Woking. My parent's were very concerned and expected invasion in the near future. When nothing happened, we couldn't understand, but were on tenterhooks waiting for it. The German's seemed invincible at that time and although everyone in our neighbourhood showed a determination to resist. They thought it would inevitably end in our defeat, but they would go down fighting. The thought of an armistice or surrender was never even considered. The rest is history .
Dave - thanks for sharing.
Suggest reading up on the British Cabinet Crisis May 26th - 28th, 1940.
With the BEF trapped at Dunkirk , the initial estimate was that only 45,000 solders could be recused.
Looking at the loss of most of the BEF, the practical Lord Halifax wanted to negotiate with Hitler via the Italians.
Churchill did an end round on Halifax and was able to convince the 25 member outer cabinet to keep fighting.
This is one of the defining moments of the 20th, century .
Had Churchill not been been able to convince the British Cabinet to keep fighting, that would have allowed Hitler to release the entire Wehrmatch on the Soviet Union.
The world would have become a different place .
One point you didn't cover was that when the allies invaded France, they were liberating an occupied country, they were only fighting the German army, not the civilian population. If Germany had invaded Britain, everyone would have been a potential enemy.
+Ally Sloper it's indirectly mentioned, see homeguard and irregular warfare
i believe every citizen should have the right to bear arms to defend there home.
but with all privileges come responsibility and risks. one can't have freedom and security without sacrificing the a part of the other.
same thing the americans faced in their proposed invasion of the japanese home islands. projected losses were in the millions since they would be fighting every japanese face they came across, not just the army.
@@Historyfan476AD You can't be that much of a History fan if you don't know about the English Civil War or what Hobbes wrote.
If you understood either of those you would understand why we have given up our power of life or death to the Leviathan or the Government. That is exactly what Hobbes write after a considerable argument in a much celebrated book that people all over the world study as one of the earliest works on political science, and it was written by an Englishman, but you don't know your own history, obviously.
If you studied the English Civil War as a true and not a plastic, can't spell properly fake student of history who thinks we should be America, you would know exactly what the basis of the unarmed population is. However, during that time and under the Home Guard system, weapons were distributed and kept in the homes of subjects of the crown. You just watch too much American television and think that things should be like there with spree shootings in their schools every 5 seconds, I invite you to go there if you feel that strongly about it.
In the English civil war there were bands of armed men looting, pillaging, and raping, there was no law, it was also brother against brother and we concluded to never have that again, we agreed to give up our arms and give those to the state, and the state would kill and prosecute anyone that broke the peace of the Commonwealth. That is the basis for armed police units and the anti terrorism units we have today, the police and courts still enforce the ban on weapons in public and anyone caught with them in public. You obviously want things to go back to the late Victorian times, when going out armed was common, as was being hurt or killed by the first noted serial killer on the streets was also a problem, and not even transportation could fix it, because as was learnt also in Europe, tougher sentences meant tougher criminals.
I'm personally proud of our history, politics and civil settlement. I think you should be too, instead of being basically a traitor to the crown and our laws, as well as history.
I suggest that because you clearly did not pay any attention in school, and this is why you do not know the difference between "there, their and they're", that is taught in Primary School universally in the UK, you must've been bunking off that day or not listening, like the rest of us do.
I suggest you learn to speak English again, as already taught to you at great expense to the taxpayer.
I suggest you actually read British history, instead of making it up in your head, you utter embarrassment.
This video sums up what most fantasists forget, you need logistics to fight a war. When one considers the amount of prep work needed to just get troops to Normandy you realize that the Germans weren't even close to taking Britain. They had covert operations which sent frogmen to the beaches to get more details to accomplish the landings. This also explains why the British sank the Vichy French fleet in Algeria, so the Germans couldn't take it over. Realistically the Germans probably hoped to get England to the negotiating table so they could turn their attentions to Russia which had the living space they wanted. Naturally the British held out and wouldn't negotiate a peace and Germany ended up fighting on multiple fronts during the war.
schizoidboy - Yes, a neutral Britain with an intact Empire trading with Germany would have suited them. No need to build all those U-boats so materials could be used for other purposes, no Lend-lease to the Soviets, no commitment in North Africa and the Med, probably ignore the Balkans. Significant success against the USSR might also persuade the Japanese military to choose to invade USSR rather than directly confront the USA. No Pearl Harbour, no specific US support for either side and probably pleased to see the 'commies' being kicked.
Indeed. In looking at the fighting in Virginia in 1864, people forget how necessary it was for Sheridan to devastate the Shenandoah Valley in order for Grant to capture Petersburg. Lee’s Army melted away because he could not feed his people. .
the amount of prep work for an invasion in 1944 was considerably larger than that needed for one in 1940 as the balance between invader and attacker were completely different and they had different doctrines. The British required a lot of planning as their troops were not trained to use their own initiative, but to follow orders. Hence a lot of orders had to be written. The Germans were trained to use their own initiative, and plans were developed at a local level. Logistics was important so the Germans planned to land two weeks' rations with the first wave. There was plenty of capacity to resupply their troops over the beaches (like the Allies did in 1944, when the majority of supplies did not go through harbours or Mulberries). Fodder is bulky to transport but its possible that it could have been found in Britain so using horses might have relieved some logistical problems. The logistical problems once in Britain were also smaller than those in Normandy as there was such a small distance to travel to get to London (less than a day's travel, a few hours in a motor vehicle) , compared to hundreds of kilometres to get to Berlin or even Paris.
Christopher Webber the Allies had air and naval supremacy in 1944 and were up against a small portion of the exhausted German Army which featured lots of teenagers with no experience and managed to trick the Germans into leaving most of their men near Calais.....and STILL it was a close-run thing. So 1940 no way.
Indeed. The Allies had more operational ships on D-Day than the Germans had at their best point in the entire war. While the USN and RN were also operating all over the Med, Atlantic and Pacific as well.
Graphics around 4:50 are Priceless: "Mostly Improvised Craft" = Rubber Ducky; "Lack of Experience" = Pacifier Good Job!
It took US industrial capacity two and a half years to assemble the materiel necessary for the invasion of the European mainland. Germany was in no position to carry off an amphibious operation of the scope that would be required to subdue the UK.
You do not engage the British in naval combat for the same reason you don't attack the Russians in winter.
@Fuad Monirgi and one american pirate ship.
Err... Only they did attack the Soviet Union in the Russian Winter....
@@maxidk1805 Brilliant.... For the Russians. You never specified for who. Furthermore you are missing the point. The original post made a comparison about two separate attacks, and im merely pointing out that it's a bad comparison because one event actually HAPPENED. The other did NOT. The Nazis did not engage in naval combat for Operation Sea Lion. Whereas Hitler did opt to enact Operation Barbarossa in the lead up to the Russian Winter.
James MacDonald they attack in summer
You have no fucking clue about history.
it would have been so much worse for Germany than that - the mediterranean fleet would have been ordered home - the British Empire would have supplied almost infinite resources and new troops to the UK.. Germany would have had to land, make a beachhead and push onwards in a ridiculously short time - an absolute impossibility. There is a reason that the UK in all it's forms hasn't been invaded successfully for 950 years!
What about the Norman invasion of England then?
Ryan Hughes that was longer than 950 years ago
ah ok then my bad I thought it was around the 950 time frame
@@ryanhughes6405 you should learn history. The Dutch invaded and occupied you.
William of Orange managed it 1688 with Dutch troops but he had cooperation from the English Parliament and he was opposing the unpopular King James ll.
One thing you seem to have not noted, the US and British had in existence, troops specifically created and trained for amphibious operations, namely the US marine corps (USMC) and the Royal marines, type of troops the wermacht did not have.
Also, there iS the concept that up until the end, Hitler never considered the UK as an enemy, more like fighting cousins. The enemy was bolshevik Russia.
The RN was more of a commando force in WW2. The USMC was still small in September, 1940, but got bigger. By later in 1942, both US and UK took first steps toward serious amphibious landings in Operations Watchtower (Guadalcanal) and Torch (North Africa from Casablanca to Algiers). By June, 1944, the Allies knew. The Germans had no experience and no planning.
The US were not involved at the time, thanks very much.
Light infintry -50%fat, British fear broken tea cup, history lesson with such humor is always welcome.
Lol!
Humour.
Light infantry is great in its place. As a substitute for mech units, it's . . . not so great.
What about armed civilians, a guy with a walking stick and Nazi bodies lying around him. That's funny.
ua-cam.com/video/YnPo7V03nbY/v-deo.html
13:35 "The chief weapons of the Germans were Surprise, Speed, Initiative, and a fanatical devotion to the Führer..." Nobody expects the German Naval Invasion!
''Hans?'' ''Ja?'' ''Did you bring a ladder?'' *both look up towards the top of the cliffs of Dover* ''Ach so.''
They should have confiscated all the ladders in the occupied countries:)
Actually everyone expected a Naval Invasion. If they Airdropped into Manchester or Liverpool, or Newcastle, THAT would be unexpected. But you forgot the nice red uniforms...OH DAMN!
Nice Reference. :D
Nobody expects the german army!
I forget who it was that said the British owed Franco (nominally a German ally) a huge debt of gratitude for keeping the Germans out of Gibraltar.
First video I've watched on this channel and I subscribed 4 minutes in.
I'm very impressed. Very unbiased and informed report.
thank you, here is a playlist of the stuff I consider is - or better was once I uploaded it -the best on my channel: ua-cam.com/play/PLv0uEimc-uN_POyHyv6_eL6mTJZAnaLUb.html
Operation Sealion - summary of an exercise held at the Staff College, Sandhurst in 1974.
The full text is in 'Sealion' by Richard Cox. The scenario is based on the known plans of each side, plus previously unpublished Admiralty weather records for September 1940. Each side (played by British and German officers respectively) was based in a command room, and the actual moves plotted on a scale model of SE England constructed at the School of Infantry. The panel of umpires included Adolf Galland, Admiral Friedrich Ruge, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, Rear Admiral Edward Gueritz, General Heinz Trettner and Major General Glyn Gilbert.
The main problem the Germans face is that are a) the Luftwaffe has not yet won air supremacy; b) the possible invasion dates are constrained by the weather and tides (for a high water attack) and c) it has taken until late September to assemble the necessary shipping.
Glossary
FJ = Fallschirmjaeger (German paratroops)
MTB = Motor Torpedo Boat (German equivalent, E-Boat)
DD = Destroyer
CA = Heavy Cruiser
BB = Battleship
CV = Aircraft Carrier
22nd September - morning
The first wave of a planned 330,000 men hit the beaches at dawn. Elements of 9 divisions landed between Folkestone and Rottingdean (near Brighton).
In addition 7th FJ Div landed at Lympne to take the airfield.
The invasion fleet suffered minor losses from MTBs during the night crossing, but the RN had already lost one CA and three DDs sunk, with one CA and two DDs damaged, whilst sinking three German DDs. Within hours of the landings which overwhelmed the beach defenders, reserve formations
were despatched to Kent. Although there were 25 divisions in the UK, only 17 were fully equipped, and only three were based in Kent, however the defence plan relied on the use of mobile reserves and armoured and mechanised brigades were committed as soon as the main landings were identified.
Meanwhile the air battle raged, the Luftwaffe flew 1200 fighter and 800 bomber sorties before 1200 hrs. The RAF even threw in training planes hastily armed with bombs, but the Luftwaffe were already having problems with their short ranged Me 109s despite cramming as many as possible into the Pas de Calais.
22nd - 23rd September
The Germans had still not captured a major port, although they started driving for Folkestone. Shipping unloading on the beaches suffered heavy losses from RAF bombing raids and then further losses at their ports in France.
The U-Boats, Luftwaffe and few surface ships had lost contact with the RN, but then a cruiser squadron with supporting DDs entered the Channel narrows and had to run the gauntlet of long range coastal guns, E-Boats and 50 Stukas. Two CAs were sunk and one damaged. However a diversionary German naval sortie from Norway was completely destroyed and other sorties by MTBS and DDs inflicted losses on the shipping milling about in the Channel. German shipping losses on the first day amounted to over 25% of their invasion fleet, especially the barges, which proved desperately unseaworthy.
23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs.
The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and 70 bombers), and the navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back, but large forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a German buildup in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to the South West.
The German Navy were despondant about their losses, especially as the loss of barges was seriously dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for the transfer of the next echelon continued along with the air transport of 22nd Div, despite Luftwaffe losses of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides overestimated losses inflicted by 50%.
The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although long range artillery fire directed by a stay-behind commando group interdicted the runways. The first British counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured brigade halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings.
7th Panzer Div was having difficulty with extensive anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed with sticky bombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken Newhaven (the only German port), however the New Zealand Div arrived at Folkestone only to be attacked in the rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on Dover having lost 35% casualties.
Sep 23rd 1400 - 1900 hrs
Throughout the day the Luftwaffe put up a maximum effort, with 1500 fighter and 460 bomber sorties, but the RAF persisted in attacks on shipping and airfields. Much of this effort was directed for ground support and air resupply, despite Adm Raeders request for more aircover over the Channel. The Home Fleet had pulled out of air range however, leaving the fight in the hands of 57 DDs and 17 CAs plus MTBs. The Germans could put very little surface strength against this. Waves of DDs and CAs entered the Channel, and although two were sunk by U-Boats, they sank one U-Boat in return and did not stop. The German flotilla at Le Havre put to sea (3 DD, 14 E-Boats) and at dusk intercepted the British, but were wiped out, losing all their DDs and 7 E-Boats.
The Germans now had 10 divisions ashore, but in many cases these were incomplete and waiting for their second echelon to arrive that night. The weather
was unsuitable for the barges however, and the decision to sail was referred up the chain of command.
23rd Sep 1900 - Sep 24th dawn
The Fuhrer Conference held at 1800 broke out into bitter inter-service rivalry - the Army wanted their second echelon sent, and the navy protesting that the
weather was unsuitable, and the latest naval defeat rendered the Channel indefensible without air support. Goring countered this by saying it could only be done by stopped the terror bombing of London, which in turn Hitler vetoed. The fleet was ordered to stand by.
The RAF meanwhile had lost 97 more fighters leaving only 440. The airfields of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and once more the threat of collapse, which had receded in early September, was looming. The Luftwaffe had lost another 71 fighters and 142 bombers. Again both sides overestimated losses inflicted, even after allowing for inflated figures.
On the ground the Germans made good progress towards Dover and towards Canterbury, however they suffered reverses around Newhaven when the 45th Div and Australians attacked. At 2150 Hitler decided to launch the second wave, but only the short crossing from Calais and Dunkirk. By the time the order reached the ports, the second wave could not possibly arrive before dawn. The 6th and 8th divisions at Newhaven, supplied from Le Havre, would not be reinforced at all.
Sep 24th dawn - Sep 28th
The German fleet set sail, the weather calmed, and U-Boats, E-Boats and fighters covered them. However at daylight 5th destroyer flotilla found the barges still 10 miles off the coast and tore them to shreds. The Luftwaffe in turn committed all its remaining bombers, and the RAF responded with 19 squadrons of fighters. The Germans disabled two CAs and four DDs, but 65% of the barges were sunk. The faster steamers broke away and headed for Folkestone,
but the port had been so badly damaged that they could only unload two at a time.
The failure on the crossing meant that the German situation became desperate. The divisions had sufficient ammunition for 2 to 7 days more fighting, but without extra men and equipment could not extend the bridgehead. Hitler ordered the deployment on reserve units to Poland and the Germans began preparations for an evacuation as further British attacks hemmed them in tighter. Fast steamers and car ferries were assembled for evacuation via Rye and Folkestone. Of 90,000 troops who landed on 22nd september, only 15,400 returned to France, the rest were killed or captured.
This is exactly the point. The RN could just throw ships into the Channel, accepting that some would be sunk, but in return they could achieve casualty ratios in the realm of 1:5 if not greater against German naval units & landing forces. It’s honestly a pity Sealion didn’t take place. 100,000 Germans would’ve ended up at the bottom of the Channel and the Iron Curtain would
likely never have fallen.
Wildly optimistic for the Germans
The British did some serious damage of the Axis from '40-'41. They, with the Free French, took Equatorial Africa and Gabon, secured Nigeria, defeated the Italians in East Africa, invaded Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, holding Malta, Egypt, and England, and for a time protecting northern Norway, invaded and occupied Iceland, protecting Kuwait, brought Iran into the war with the Soviets, blockaded Germany, striking and repelling Italian forces in Libya, and struck Vichy French and Italian navies in the Mediterranean. In '42 and '43, they continued the blockade of Germany, invaded and occupied Madagascar and Djibouti, and forced Vichy French Guiana to capitulate, all the while defending themselves from German, Italian, and Japanese subs, ships, planes, and troops, amphibious assaults, and colonies. With that in mind, the British, with their empire, had the upper hand colonially, morally, and with the Royal Navy. the Germans could not invade Britain without suffering gigantic casualties because of British ships, morale, and willingness to fight on because of their successes against the Nazi Germans. Churchill succeeded in where the Axis couldn't and didn't.
@Chas Maravel chap*
I read somewhere that the military also occupied the Faroe Islands so the Germans couldn't invade from the north.
This serious damage was a joke. Italys colonies didn't care much and the italien army doesn't rwally need to be damaged to be defeated. They didn't do pretty well in Africa or Greece on their own.
And the blockade did as much as I hold up fingers. Spoiler: I hold up none. With acces to nearly all of Europe it's pretty hard to starve somebody out.
@@ObjectManiacJennifer27 Yeah, that dealt it to them. Invading through Scotland would have been a deadblow to britain. I mean with even more non existing supply lines and terrain that basicly only consist of mountains, they really would have been doomed.
TL;DR: Sea Lion is one of the least feasible operations ever considered.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is worse. More sea to cross. And technologically things have changed to make it harder for an attacker. Taiwan can't match China fighter for fighter and ship for ship but it can build a missile for each Chinese ship or fighter.
Add in Taiwan's Japan like status of a non nuclear power which is presumed to have an ability to become a nuclear power quickly, the fact that the US and Japan might get involved and that no one really knows how the Chinese public would react to Chinese soldiers dying in a war and it's a nightmare for the Chinese government.
I dunno. I think there are many more less feasible operations that were actually tried. One, fairly small but utterly bizzaro one that comes to my recent mind was "Operation Ruthless" a plan to steal an Enigma codebooks where the British Admiralty planned to use a captured Heinkel to follow a returning german bomber formation to France, radioing engine problems and crashing into the sea in order to be picked up by an E-boat where they'd then kill the crew and take the ship back to a UK port.
The bomber and crew were fully prepared yet no formations they could feasibly shadow were identified and the op was called off.
Dylan Mile that is a small operation. If you win, you win big. If you lose you lose a few men, not the whole war.
W Bertie well then operation Barbarossa was surely the largest risk/operation with the smallest chance of winning.
It had a reasonable chance of winning, as it might have taken out Moscow, and in fact nearly achieved it. It failed miserably in the end, of course.
Real life: It took years of planning for the D-Day landings to take place.
Hoi4: Hundreds of thousands of Irish Marines sailed through the coast of German controlled France, the Iberian peninsula, and Medditeranian sea without any escorts, in 1940 and landed on Greece to fight the Italians.
Sailed through the Iberian peninsula? I think you've modded the game a wee tad too much.
"He quite correctly pointed out that attacking from only three beach heads would be too narrow a front, and the allies flanks could be easily turned. "
"Isn't historical knowledge, as opposed to PERSONAL SUPPOSITION a wonderful thing?!"
Hypocrite much?
The "planning" for the invasion of France began long before the operational plan was drawn up, and I assume that was what Breadbasketbomb was referring to. Sort an arogant reply on your part, don't you think? A thrity-second Google search reveals:
"Winston Churchill had addressed that problem in a May 30, 1942, memo:
Piers for Use on Beaches. . . . must float up and down with the tide. . . . Let me have the best solution. . . . Don't argue the matter. The difficulties will argue for themselves."
In other words, the "PLANNING" for the invasion of France began at least as early May 30, 1942. This is what I assume Breadbasketbomb was referring to. To be clear, lets look at what the word "planning" means:
"Planning (also called forethought) is the process of thinking about and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal. It involves the creation and maintenance of a plan, such as psychological aspects that require conceptual skills."
So yes, the Allies were "planning" for the invasion of France for YEARS before the actual invasion, even though the massively flawed operational plan for Overlord (due in large part by the ineptitude of the British General Staff and especially "BRITISH General Frederick P Morgan") was eventually rammed down the American army's throat for political reasons in 1944.
"Your point is?!"
My point is that you are making assumptions that are not based in fact, yet trash another poster for supposedly doing the same. However, Breadbasketbomb was correct, when his post is taken literally.
My snarky comment towards the end of my last post about Overlord being a failure was meant to be sarcastic. However, your response to my statement reinforces my point that while you accuse others of "PERSONAL SUPPOSITION," you are guilty of the same charge.
Comments such as this make my point beyond debate:
"The salient point is, the American proposal most certainly was flawed, it would have been a complete disaster. Thank goodness for the influence of consummate professionals, the Boy Scouts were overruled...... ;)"
There is no evidence that the American plan would have been a disaster, yet there is evidence that senior American officers were correct in their belief the good ole Monty wouldn't take Caen on D-Day, nor anytime in the weeks following. Funny that those "boy scouts" realized what the sacred British cow didn't. Granted, I meant the comment about Overlord being flawed to be sarcasm, but perhaps there's some truth to it. Perhaps if the American plan had been implemented, with forces concentrated on three beach heads instead of five and a more lively commander in charge, then maybe Caen would have been captured on D+1 like good ole Monty promised. Unfortunately we'll never know. We can only engage in PERSONAL SUPPOSITION. ;)
PS... Thirty years of book reading. That's very impressive.
+LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Bit of a late reply, and fully off-topic, but if sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, which are higher? I always thought sarcasm was up there.
Well done, well presented. As a designer by training I especially appreciate the pictograms : )
I loved the "duck" icon for "Mostly Improvised Craft!" Great vid. Thanks!
"On D-day, American and British Forces". HOW DARE YOU FORGET CANADA!
pretty sure, I said Commonwealth at one point.
However by the time Sea Lion could have taken place, Canada already had 2 oversize divisions (one mechanzied and one infantry) in place (1st Can. Div deployed in Jan 1940, 2nd by Sept. 1940). In fact by 13 June 1940, the 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade was deployed to France in an attempt to secure the southern flank of the British Expeditionary Force in Belgium, and was evacuated 3 days after Dunkirk.
Germans don't really understand the Empire.
He said Commonwealth
Shnek Fuck Canada...
In Hearts of Iron 4 you simply paradrop 24 divisions into England like it's no big deal, complete with artillery and hospitals, and end the war before the wankers finish their tea.
Realistic ww2 strategy simulator
Yeah Kaiserreich's been put on Hoi4 for a while now
Now that's realism, innit?
Angel Eyes funny enough I did hear about a Russian Focused Kaiserreich mod (on the hoi4 reddit)
24? how about 5 lol
Another brilliant video which answers Questions I have had for many years!
Fabulous data and presentation! Thank you!!
This is why I wish Naval Invasions in HoI4 don't happen every few seconds. It should be literally suicide!
Paz
Ehm, they usually are. I was once tried invading Japan as the Soviet Union with 20 marine divisions and total naval and air supremacy. They got totally slaughtered. Even when I'm playing China and Japanese forces keep trying to land in my ports, they rarely succeed. Once, I spent 5 years cowering on the mainland before getting up the courage to assault the Japanese Home Islands, only to find out they had already used up their entire army in suicidal naval invasions.
Stupid AI, depriving me of an enjoyably hard-fought island-hopping campaign.
Wow you mean the AI wasn't completely retarded and you actually had a challenge invading an island nation for once? Usually they forget to man one port and you can just exploit the shit out of it. With Japan you invade while their still sticking themselves all up into China and they usually don't have enough troops to defend the Home Islands with.
Joseph Ahner
Lol, not in this case. I ended up having to capture some barely-defended port in the Kyuril Islands and had to fight my way all down through the islands.
Although I have seen that happen MANY times with Japan invading Chinese ports. Every time i send them volunteers I have to keep taking troops away from the main front line to deal with growing blobs of Japanese-occupied territory.
Once I was playing France and turning Fascist to help Germany (it was a REALLY weird game). This is what happened: UK declared war on Germany, so I joined Germany and stationed troops on my coasts. They just kept trying to use around 3 divisions to naval invade one section of my coast and failed every time, so much so that one of my divisions was veteran level. Romania decided to fight Germany, Germany was initially successful but then the allies started helping and Germany just kept suiciding their men into Romania (they lost 3 million troops). I led my airforce against the UK (around 2k fighters and 500 bombers, yeah I was building up) but at that point the game slowed tf down so I stopped playing.
The game mechanics are ok, what's stupid is the programming of the AI. Naval invasions should be a one-off event where tons of manpower and material gets thrown at a specific weakpoint.
Also why not make the enemy learn from mistakes? If 4 invasions with a few devisions on low organization didn't work, why carry through with a 5th?
Light infantry - 50 % fat. Love it! Great video. As always very informative.
Aka “why didn’t the Germans preform literal magic”
First, the British said they were willing to park the home fleet in front of the German landing force.
Years ago, I read a book on Operation Sealion. As I recall, a British spy was able to take a look at the troop transport ships the Germans were preparing, the spy said they were barges that had to be towed. Totally unsuitable for crossing the Channel and getting troops to their objectives.
At the local library, must have been about 35 years ago, there was a book on the technology used in Operation Overlord. This technology did not exist in 1940. Everything had to be engineered from the ground up. All of it was specialized equipment: the landing craft, the large transport assault ships, the portable harbor, the underwater gasoline pipe running fuel from Southern England to Normandy, etc. The Germans had none of this in 1940.
Horses transported on stolen dutch river barges with Bristol Blenheims flying overhead. From which port did those stolen dutch river barges sail?
Another key thing to note was after the success of Operation Dynamo, the British got a huge moral boost, which would result in even harder and more determined fighting from them. Excellent video btw
Wartime History plus the secrecy of operation overlord was extensive. No way noone would notice a buildup of men and supplies in the coast of France without anyone noticing, especially with semi hostile locale aiding the British.
True it was a moral boost, but the majority of equipment was left behind leaving the army extremely ineffective; and although the success of Operation Dynamo was a much needed moral boost for the British Public, it was devistating blow for troop and command morale, i.e. Dynamo was propaganda tool used to mask other events such as the Siege of Calais. This isn't to discount Op' Dynamo, but it has to be taken in context.
rockn roll Hitler saw the British as germanic brothers, he didn't want to take the UK or its empire, it wanted to be allies, that's why he tried to offer peace 5 times
What an atrociously over-simplified statement
Air landing horses wasn't really an option back then. LMAO thanks
Depends on your purpose. Do you want calvary or do you want horse meat, pre tenderized by impact.
Sir, I must say that you have a keen analytical mind. I think I can speak for many viewers of these videos in saying that we appreciate your attention to detail and your comprehensive research. I am happy to see detailed analyses on these matters and to see these videos that go far beyond common, less comprehensive interpretations typically encountered. The production quality also should be commended, as well as your excellent, and proper, verbalization of the English language...thank you.
She loves you
with a love like that
You know you should be glad
Love the rubber ducky symbol for "improvised craft" @4:50!
There's people that keep thinking Sea Lion was as simple as throwing a few Grenadiers into rowboats and drop a handful of Fallschirmjager and the UK would fall? Like the Royal Navy and Air Force didn't exist? LOL
stealthpilot7
Seems like a wooosh moment
even if the British did not have much heavy equipment or amour. they don't need much of it to fight back into a sea or eliminate lightly armed Fallschirmjager or Lightly armed Grenadiers scrambling to get off the sides of a boat.
@Dillon Mcconnell U-boats in the channel really, it is way to shallow for them to hide, warships are also hard to hit for u-boats.
Hitler can plan all he wanted does not mean he would happen, The Royal Air force was doing fine when facing the whole German air force and if they where overrun they had plans to retreat up north and wait for the invasion to happen rebuilding their strength.
The Lurwaffe also had a poor track record of sinking warships as well, they where not trained to attack warships nor had aircraft in large enough numbers for it. hitting a warship is harder than a merchant ship.
@Dillon Mcconnell Invading Crete is different from invading the mainland UK. The Royal navy has many small attack craft, destroyers guarding the coast, the royal navy is trained for night fighting.
Do you not know what type of boats they Germans where going to use to invade with, river barges with mostly no engines. at night time would be a disaster.
The Germans could rule the sky but it does not mean the RAF is out of commission nor does it mean the RN won't intervene. The royal navy only has to get one destroyer into the channel and the invasion fleet is mince meat. those lighter ships are also fast enough to be hard to hit for the Luftwaffe. and the British have loads of destroyers and light cruisers. no need for the bigger ships at all.
Before you say no the Germans would not send in their last few capital ships to guard the invasion fleet, as that would just draw out the home fleet of the RN and make everything worse, Bismarck, turpitz etc would have been heavily outnumbered and out gunned.
The Luftwaffe does not have enough planes to attack the RN, Land paratroopers, attack ground troops and also fight off the RAF as well. they where losing planes faster than then could build them.
Just Because the Germans, well correction the Luftwaffe thought it would work does not mean it would. The Kreigsmarine did no want to attempt an invasion and thought it would end in heavy losses and failure. The Wehrmacht did not want no part in it either.
Even if the Germans create a beachhead, it would run out of supply and get no more reinforcements anyway as the RN would blockade it and stop anymore ships coming though.
On D-day the allies landed five divisions with years of preparation and specially made tech and landing experience, the Germans wanted to land ten in one day. This is a fantasy of Hitler's high command.
@Dillon Mcconnell Oh my god your a German fanboy. Bismarck was not as advanced as some royal navy vessels for a start. 13 to one in capital ships mate in odds for the Germans. German ships where not as good as the new king George class.
Germans numbers 100,000 aircraft your taking the piss now. Germany did not have that many planes.
British already knew about the mines and had cleared channels in them for them to go though. I never said Britain had 100,000 ships or planes.
U-boats don't operate in the channel or near it, it is a dead zone for them.
British knew about the German fleet and can detect that at night. Britain had a plan to run the channel full of patrol boats and destroyers, they only have to kill the transport fleet and they win.
Your forgetting that Germany has an oil supply issue as well, all this stuff flying and moving would cripple their supply.
have those feats you gave the Germans are actually of the 1944 allies when they invaded.
don't matter how many pilots he had Germany only had about 2800 planes max and lots of them are in repair from the battle of France.
Even the German Navy thought the invasion was a stupid idea. here is a link to how bad sealion was for Germany to attempt.
ua-cam.com/video/98zxWQIHD7Y/v-deo.html
It was even worse that you think . There was an emergency program to fix MG 40mm Bofors and Oerlikon 20 mm on to Fishing trawlers and whalers . With the UK Motor Torpedo Boat and Motor Launch engaging the E-Boats the Trawlers and whalers would engage the German barges.
The beach landing area would also be gassed. There was talk about gassing the embarkation port areas.
Sea lion has been been war gamed a lot and in most scenarios not many Germans that attack the UK make it back.
22 miles of open water, no air superiority and the Royal Naval at either end of the channel............ not a good recipe for success.
Don't forget the long-range artillery all along the South coast of England.
Syrians, Iraqis and Afgans seem to manage it - some paddling in canoes.
@@philipm06 (thats so true..lol)
@@philipm06 well you see they were coming to surrender so the British didn't fire
Seeing your better graphics for the first time by watching this video. Nice!
Maybe they aren't really that new, but since I always pick from all over your impressive collection what draws my interest at the time, I can't really tell (I could find out. Well.)
Like your vids very much.
I believe that operation sea lion would have brought a swift end to the war. A victory for the allies.
HenrikPachunke You know your right Russia had not entered the war yet with Germany tied up in England might not have either.
USSR would have invaded Germany thats how the war would have ended (Stalin's plan was to let UK/France/German knock each other out and then he would walk in...French incompetence and Hitler pissing on his cornflakes before he was ready stopped that from happening
NeuesTestament
*Two years.* The first battle of El Alemein was two years after Dunkirk. Also the Germans and their allies were beaten in battle and pushed back a number of times prior to that. The Germans were beaten twice by the RAF in the air before El Alemein, unable to put to sea their capital ships because of the Royal Navy.
@ Richard Vernon We don't know if Stalin would have been brave enough to invade Germany. Remember, a lot of people had to die because the man was so afraid of losing power. The Finland debacle didn't exactly instill confidence either.
On paper, the Soviet army was much stronger than the German army even in 1941.
The losses by all branches of the Wehrmacht may have been enough for the General Staff to dust off coup plans prepared for The Rhineland Occupation or the Munich Crisis, depose and arrest the Nazi leadership.
The biggest nightmare would have been the Home Fleet doing a run down from Scapa Flow to arrive in the Channel at night. Battleships pound UK beachheads and French embarkation ports while cruisers hunt down and decimate cross Channel reinforcement convoys.
The RAF pull their fighter wings from Midlands and northern England to provide air cover for Hoje Fleet, and devastate the Luftwaffe to deny them air superiority.
3rd UK and 1st Canadian divisions form the core of a mobile counterattack force while Home Guard(WW1 vets) and re-armed divisions from Dunkirk contain the invaders.
Peace in 1941?
Not as easy as it sounds and it doesn't sound easy at all.
hitler also made a mistake after the London accident. he gave the fighters a chance to regroup and not suffer ultimate destruction.
Suggest you look up the video about the battle of britain made by the same guy martin
Excellent analysis sir! I would say that because it's all stuff I've more or less been berating people with for ages!
"We can choose to wave a magic wand, and wipe out the RN and the RAF, and examine how successful the invasion was likely to be in their absence. Sandhurst has done this on four occasions to my knowledge. Both sides were given the historical starting positions, with an invasion date of 24 September.
In each case, the details of the fighting varied, but by each analysis resulted in 27 September dawning with the Wehrmacht holding two isolated beachheads, one at roughly 2 divisions strength on Romney March, and one of 1 division at Pevensey. Each were opposed by more numerous forces, with growing numbers of tanks and artillery. German resupply was still across open beaches.
Operation Sealion can only be described as a blueprint for a German disaster. "
Not my words, but explain things to German fanboys a bit...
The Germans did have the fan boys. It was call *redacted by UA-cam*
@@fristnamelastname5549 I finish it
Wehrabo- *this comment has been removed for violating UA-cam's Terms of Service*
*Sorry about that.*
@Dillon Mcconnell Sorry but the RAF is out producing the Germans and out replacing pilots. The Luftwaffe IS losing, that's why they broke off.
From June, the British produced 3325 fighters in 1940, and the Germans? 1219.
@Dillon Mcconnell You want Pilot numbers? Here are pilot numbers:
In 28th December 1940, the fighter command has a number of 1809, and is still growing. Despite the main engagement force, many squadrons are kept far from the fight in Scotland etc. Although the exact number of german pilot not clear, the Luftwaffe has 673 fighter pilot as of November 1940, an extensive loss compares to 906 in June. Well, I guess people would ignore fact just to push an agenda so who am I to criticize.
@Dillon Mcconnell Hum, I do not watch myth-making History channels. But I've read British War production record and Battle of Britain: Myth and Reality. I guess you are more of an expert then Richard Overy then.
Also to note would be the nature of the landing craft used: Rhine barges. The Rhine is a very calm river, so barges there are built with very little freeboard. The Channel is well known to be turbulent, so much so that even ferries built for the Channel still have passengers suffering sea sickness.
Now imagine these shallow barges being flooded by the turbulent waters and the surviving soldiers being incapacitated with awful sea sickness.
And many German barges being swamped simply by having a British destroyer run close by.
@@redskindan78 and then they have to land on british shores, being shot at. Then they need to penetrate further and somehow be resupplied.
If i sealion happened itd be a nightmare often spoken about
In HoI, the UK gets invaded even if they're not at war.
Carlos Rios Paradrop into France and the UK.
Win before 1938
As France declare war for the rearming of the rhineland, curbstomp germany in 36, irremediably fuck the game as vanilla HoI4 depends upon germany to get shit rolling.
Invading the UK while they're _not_ at war would've probably been more promising, actually - still, very unlikely to succeed.
Simply put, Blitzkrieg is not nearly as effective during a naval invasion.
Spadizzle92891 or against people that wouldn't just surrender, the German Blitz Krieg never really met a solid brick wall before.
Blitzkrieg never existed ; See the book "The Blitzkrieg Legend" by Frieser.
As many have said, a great video. I'd just add two observations to the mix:
a) Some people have commented on the difficult nature of the beaches in the proposed invasion area. That's true, but even worse for the Germans: where would they find a port they could capture with any realistic capacity between Portsmouth and Dover (which themselves were heavily-defended military bases)?;
b) The whole of Southern England was being turned in 1940 into a prepared battlefield, with stop lines along rivers and other potential barriers, reinforced with pill-boxes. The Germans would not be entering an open landscape - there was a plan to contain them at least for a while in defined spaces.
I recall reading the account of men who were recruited to basically be a dirty tricks squad of saboteurs. They had fortified the entire coast, or organized militia-type resistance of thousands of men in towns all along the Channel in preparation for a German attack. They had booby trapped a huge part of the coast, stockpiled weapons and supplies, built covert communication channels, etc. All of this was in addition to the formal military. When our author here mentions irregular warfare, he's right, and the Brits were experts.
The southerners had proper men from the north, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand fighting for their soft skins.
Consideration of home defence of the UK in 1940-41 must include the rapidly increasing inflow of Empire and Commonwealth forces. By the fall of 1940 this included 2 divisions of 60,000 Canadian troops with an armoured brigade, 1 NZ division and 1 Australian division.. The lengthy military train from Canada into late 1940 included additional troops along with tank brigades, RCAF squadrons, naval units and significant amounts of materiel. British forces were also being recalled from various parts. The number of tanks available in the fall of 1940 was approximately 500 (light to heavy) not 200, and increased rapidly into early 1941.
Available allied naval and air forces are also massively under represented. The Royal navy had 5 battleships, 3 battlecruisers, 11 cruisers. 115 destroyers, 20 corvettes, 35 submarines and over 700 fast attack craft available in home waters. Canada also provided an additional 8 destroyers and 10 corvettes. Canada also supplied 3 RCAF squadrons in 1940.
Its always fun to position Britain as the plucky underdog in the Second World War or to portray the Empire as hanging by a thread. This is ridiculous. Britain was an enormous power and fully capable of defending itself and the majority of its interests around the world, throughout the war.
Dude, please provide me with some sort of article or research paper detailing this. Not saying you're a liar, actually the complete opposite. I would like to have it archived so i can reference it in the future.
Hey, actually this is complied from a lot of references.
Canadian Armed forces
Stacey, C P. (1948) The Canadian Army, 1939-1945 : An Official Historical Summary King's Printer, Ottawa (Downloadable PDF)
Stacey, C P. (1970) Arms, Men and Governments: The War Policies of Canada, 1939-1945 Queen's Printer, Ottawa (Downloadable PDF) ISBN D2-5569
Stacey, C P. (1955) Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Vol I Six Years of War, Queen's Printer, Ottawa (Downloadable PDF)
Here is a good simple summary of current historical analysis in the UK www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html
Check out RUSI (UK defence strategy think tank) for a great synopsis of the naval position at the time of the proposed invasion rusi.org/commentary/battle-britain-naval-perspective
This book is awesome - here is a selection - paragraph 2 for the actual state of British defences at the time books.google.ca/books?id=zGgjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT9&lpg=PT9&dq=British+home+fleet+operation+sea+lion&source=bl&ots=lUw_XNoJ49&sig=XqWxoZzpc1l6kzwjFsFn7gLv3E4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiousTExJ7XAhUC0YMKHQ4TCDo4ChDoAQhJMAY#v=onepage&q=British%20home%20fleet%20operation%20sea%20lion&f=false
Thanks alot dude!
Plus one must consider the size of German resources. It was speed not weight that gave them victory in 1940. It was as if Billy Conn had continued to box Joe Lewis instead of trying to slug it out with one of the heaviest hitters in Boxing history.
Adam Anderson
The German economy was just not big enough to sustain a long war - as the case proved.
Absolutely the best video on the feasibility of operation Sea Lion! Great job! Thank you once again!
A very nice meta-analysis. The infographics are great and add a LOT to your presentation. Bravo! Thank you. I especially like the way you mentioned psychological aspects: "Fight on the beaches...never surrender." But would they? "Air superiority" would have allowed round-the-clock bombing of London and the rail/road networks. Would that have caused a crisis in British public opinion and morale? Would ANY military/political event have shattered British morale? I really cannot conceive a scenario wherein the Brits simply cave in at some point during or after the establishment of a marginal German beachhead. Anyone else have any ideas?
Watched this video some time ago. I forgot just how good this video is! Excellent video
You're missing several key factors on the British side:
1) The RAF wasn't fully concentrated in southern England, even with the majority of No. 11 Group suppressed, the Luftwaffe barely had the range to scratch either No 10. or No. 12 Group's airfields.
2) The Luftwaffe would be overstretched, protecting the beachhead, the convoy, and the ports from the RAF, as well as protecting the convoy and ports from the RN, and acting as mobile artillery for the forces in the beachhead.
3) Most of the landing craft were converted river barges, thus, not only were they slow (many were completely unpowered) and decidedly bad at dealing with rough seas, but their removal (and especially any losses) would negatively affect industrial capacity in Germany and occupied Europe.
4) The whole of south east England was being turned into a fine demonstration of defence in depth. choke-points, blockades, blown bridges, pillboxes and more dastardly developments (see f.e. the work of the Petroleum Warfare Department) would have made moving forwards difficult and dangerous.
Sort of feeds back into point (2), ie, the one about Luftwaffe strength.
also he didn't count motor torpedo and gunboats in Britain's arsenal day or night with there speed and how hard for aircraft to hit them it was going to be a bloodbath before they got halfway across
And I cannot see the German forces building airfields in their lodgment and stocking them with enough planes and logistics to provide close air support let alone using them to fly long range missions against RAF airfields in the north. And, trying to take and hold existing airfields and operate out of them while surrounded by hostile territory doesn't seen workable either.
There were not much defenses on the British side, at least nothing compared to what they faced in the Normandy.
So as long as they could gain air superiority and to an extend fight of the naval forces it could have definitely been possible to invade the UK, of course not right away, because one thing we are forgetting is that this was already stopped in the planning phase to make room for operation Barbarossa. If you have a look at those numbers for that offensive and imagine them being used against the UK in addition to what was already allocated it could damn well be possible with some more planning, which the allies took as well only invading in 1944. The problem was Hitlers hate against the Russians. He did not necessarily wanted to defeat the British, thats why he hopped for a peace treaty with the UK after taking France.
And they had suffered significant losses in plane and pilots in France.
@Military History Visualised very good quality video......... as usually. But this one in top ten.
Yes, this is a top quality MHV.
Maciej Niedzielski what would u say is his best videos then?
People also forget that the North Downs south of London where fortified for the defense of London such as the Fort hidden in the woods above Reigate in Surrey, also the railway cuttings in the downs had defensive bunkers built into them such as the line south of Croydon where you can still see the gun slits high on the cutting (the London to Brighton line was seen as a major weak point and was heavily defended if you know where to look, also don't forget the secret sabotage home guard units.
Couple of comments FWIW. Even if the Luftwaffe could have somehow managed Air Supremacy it had virtually no anti-ship capability. They had no torpedoes. No specific anti-ship planes. No anti-ship crew training. Look at Dunkirk, they tried their darndest and managed to sink just four destroyers over a whole week, and these were probably virtually stationary at the time. Stopping dozens of warships charging around in the channel? No chance.
Unfortunately your destroyer figures don't tally with the official history. You seem to have included the Home Fleet but not the destroyers detached on the south and east coast reserved for anti invasion duties. There were around forty such destroyers backed by up to ten cruisers that were scattered around these local ports. They would have hit the invasion fleet immediately. Assuming anything was left alive after that then the Home Fleet would arrive. Assuming anything was left after that then the warships on convoy duty in the Western Approaches would arrive. In a long campaign the Mediterranean fleet would then arrive.
Against this vast amount of warships the Germans had just eight destroyers and three cruisers available after the carnage in Norway. Finally they had no chance of surprise, the ports were all being watched by the RAF and Royal Navy who had 300 small patrol craft out on anti-invasion duties. It's no wonder that the Kriegsmarine thought that the whole idea was insane!
The US and Australia lost more cruisers at the Battle off Savo Island in August of 1942, during the early stages of the Guadalcanal campaign than the Kriegsmarine had in service in 1940, and they still kept coming back for more until the Japanese forces were defeated and forced to evacuate Guadalcanal.
Grundy Malone what battleships and cruisers in the eastern Baltic you mean the Russian ones that sat in Leningrad throughout the war most of which dated back to ww1 and pre ww1 not to mention they sat there for years and they sunk a couple of them I mean hell I wouldn’t consider that effective if the us or uk or japan had an airfield that close to an enemy fleet they would be sunk near to completely Germany didn’t have any. Effective anti ship planes I mean yeah a Stuka could sink a old Russian crusier over the course of months but against a modern well trained fleet of battleships and lots of destroyers all of which are evading put simply they couldn’t sink them without lots of time and lots of lots of casualties
Grundy Malone also royalnavyboos?? I mean it’s nothing like being a wehraboos. One is talking about a navy wich was bigger than the navy’s it fought against by a lot so yeah it was powerful duh.
RoyalNavyboos? hahahaha. One wehraboo is just salty as fuck that Germany couldn’t beat the most dominant Navy by far at the time. It was navel going to happen.
RoyalNavyboo haha, never heard that one before. Perhaps it’s because no one else is deluded enough to think that 1940s Germany could hold a candle to it.
@Grundy Malone Forced the English out of Stuka range for the entire war? You're the one who is delusional.
About your statement on resupply by aircraft, Look at the number of aircraft needed by the allies to support Berlin and they weren't being shot at. Even today with our advances in technology, no nation could depend on resupply by aircrafts for long term.
Totally agree, and to support your point look at what happened to the trapped and defending 6th Army and the logistical air fleet in Stalingrad 1942, even when training units and level bombing units were stripped out of their pilots and planes. 350t / day max, far from enough to maintain an army in decent conditions let alone fighting, and a logistic air fleet crippled for the rest of the war due to the loss of expert pilots.
No way the Luftwaffe could have brought the logistic needed for an *attacking* force in England. They would not have suffered from extreme weather, that's the only redeeming thing.
Psychological factors are mentioned at the end of the video ; it could have worked before Dunkirk as lord Halifax was actively pushing for a peace with Germany, but after Dunkirk Churchill and its hard line got the upper hand and peace was out of question. When Churchill promised a war everywhere in England it was not empty rhetoric. Hell, he even ordered to sink down the fleet of his former ally just to be 100% sure to keep naval supremacy in the Channel - he meant business and so did the english seamen ; we can safely assume the Royal Navy would have been out in force in spite of enemy air superiority, and even with big losses (but again Luftwaffe contrary to japanese air force was not trained to fight ships ...) would have sunk several German divisions, the best ones as a cherry on top of the cake, to the bottom.
Luftwaffe as a whole, forgot to say. There were some specialised units in Ju88, but not enough to really challenge the whole Royal Navy
The germans would have hardly landed a force as big as the population of West-Berlin while the Wehrmachts landingforce would have had totally different requierments than x million civilians (Most of what was flown to Berlin was coal!).
The Demjansk Pocket on the other hand proves that the german Airforce was very capable of building up sufficent airsupply for a major force of 95.000 men even for several months in the mid of the russian winter (not only the weather, but the long chain of supply and the conditions of the infrastructure were highly problematic.).
Although it must be said that defensive fighting while holding your positions probably costs less supplies than an offensive against the Tommys. ;D
On the other hand you are maybe capturing useable resources like food, vehicles, fuel and maybe equipment. So it's hard to say but I won't consider it impossible to handle most of it.
Craig L. Young berlin did, in the cold war, and so did the US during vietnam, and probably currently...
A compounding factor was that the Luftwaffe had already lost a large number of transports in the attack on Holland.
Excellent video, always great to content about history that actually back up by some fact, evedence and thought!
Excellent post - thank you for your great insight and your excellent English, with relevant German phrases, to explain the resources , involved
I love the graphics. And you are right about the horse pulled artillery, that would only have been possible with Unicorns...
Small detail the graphic with the moon and te stars at 1:01 is atronomically impossible...
Only one criticism, it's not really a fair description of the Home Guard of any of the major European states at the beginning of WW2 as 'basically armed civilians' it is important to remember that the vast majority of them had military training and battlefield experience from WW1.
Thomas Smith which proved to be useless in poland and france...
Juandavid567 The British had time to prepare and had learned some of the lessons from the success of the blitzkrieg.... look into the Home Guard preparedness and the 'stay behind' sabotage units. There were very well equipped and prepared Home Guard units in south eastern Britain in 1940.
Thomas Smith yes
Germans would of been bogged down fighing repairing bridges. no way they would of had any bridge building equipment
Old but not tottering! Someone who was 25 in 1919 would be 46 in 1940.
Only 8 Royal Navy destroyers in home waters in 1940? Where did you get that number? That is a ridiculously low figure. Are you confusing the Home Fleet at Scapa Flow (the major battle squadron) with Home Waters which included squadrons in the Western Approaches, The North Atlantic, the Nore, the Narrows, ships in training, ships commissioning?
I haven't gone and checked this but I remember a figure of 50 destroyers immediately on hand and another 50 in reserve/training. You also left out the RNs sizeable submarine fleet. The nippy S and U-class being specifically designed for coastal work in shallow narrow seas. They also had a decent submarine, destroyer and aircraft launched mine warfare system.
The Royal Navy would have made a maximum effort in the Channel, its their backyard and most vital space. No admiral wanted to go down in history as the first to fail there since Harold Godwinson. They only needed 24/48 hours effort to render Sealion a disaster, so could afford to strip the convoys and patrol lanes bare for a short period, especially the east coast convoys which would likely be stopped in the event of invasion.
Eight in the whole of UK waters against 30 in the Mediterranean? That doesn't seem odd to you? The Med fleets purpose was to keep the Suez canal open, the entire Royal Navy;s purpose was to protect the UK, and prevent invasion.
I was going to say the same. Not forgetting probably hundreds of frigates corvettes torpedo boats submarines and small patrol craft. And we had more aircraft carriers (admittedly glorious and courageous had already been sunk)
Good point. The RN's Medway squadron had more destroyers available than the entire Kriegsmarine. On a more general note, people keep bandying about the idea that the Stukas would have obliterated the Royal Navy. Hitting a fast moving ship which is shooting at you is actually very hard. Hitting it hard enough either to sink it or put it out of action long enough to matter is even harder still.
Within 24 hours of a landing, the Royal Navy would have disrupted the Wehrmacht's logistics long enough to render the invasion a crippling failure. The Germans would have had 100000 troops ashore with no food, fuel, ammunition, spares or anything else, in a hostile land where local supplies would have been denied to them.
To those who say that the British Army couldn't fight the Germans, I would like respectfully to point out that after Dunkirk, the British Army rapidly and effectively learned the lessons of Blitzkrieg and rapidly turned it on the Germans. They never suffered a strategic defeat after 1941 and defeated the German army wherever they met after 1943.
@@ScienceChap Yep, landing of German soldiers on British soil would have been disaster for the Germans. It would be impossible for them to supply such a large number of soldiers without naval superiority. They'd essentially be giving Britain thousands of German POWs. The German army was far larger and more equip than the British army in 1940, but being an island made this figure piratically useless. The RN dwarfed the Kriegsmaine.
It's even worse when you look at the barges that the invasion was supposed to be transported on: they were river barges and not capable of handling minor waves...or the wakes of fast-moving ships. It was once calculated that a single RN destroyer or light cruiser could have sunk the entire invasion barge fleet, *twice over* without firing its guns. All it would have had to do was steam at full speed near the barges (which had nothing capable of fighting a warship) and a huge portion of them would have been swamped in the wake, and given the distance the barges would have had to travel and the dead-slow speed they had to travel at, it would have been easy for seafaring ships to roam up and down the entire invasion "fleet" at will. It would have been a man-made equivalent of the typhoon that took out the Mongol invasion of Japan. A few destroyers get among the barges, and it would have been over before they even reached the shore.
Brilliant!!! Any argument I hear about whether Operation Sea Lion could work I will show them this.
A Excellent Video. Highly Recommended. Thank You Very Much For Sharing..
What about landing in Scotland, or even better: Having a single paratrooper land in every major city to instantly capitulate the UK? #HOI4
Hippie McFake It would be harder, there was no #MoronicAI
The Germans tried a paratrooper landing in Rotterdam which failed, and that wasn't expected. Against any English city of any significance it would have been defeated within 48 hours, or been forced to surrender through lack of supplies.
Paratroopers are good at interfering with logistics, impeding movement or seizing facilities used for supply like ports or airfields but hey are wholly ineffective as a main force.
Han Lockhart Yeah. Paratroopers are overpowerd. After taking france germany you can send a bunch of paratroppers in ports and the just send a billion troops (exaguration) over the channel and as long as you have some ships on patrol they wont get intercepted. Which means that now you have an army way larger on great britain and they capitulate. Then you win Ww2 as you have so much production nobody can stand in your way.
They sent a glider-landed force against Eben Emael, which was one static target. The reason that worked was because it had to: it was a key lynchpin for the Northern pincer, so that was meticulously prepared. The landings in the Netherlands were effective, but mostly because they caused havoc in a country which had little to throw against an invasion to begin with. We're talking roughly 8 divisions worth of infantry, about two dozen armoured cars and a handfull of antitank weapons not exceeding 37mm. The airforce was not more than a few dozen planes. The Dutch army had neither the equipment nor the mobility to adequately counter both a conventional spearhead, let alone one supported by spoiling attacks by parachute infantry.
At the time 37mm anti tank guns could kill everything but the Matilda I and II, and the Germans didn't have any of those, obviously.
Your videos are always excellent however in this one you almost missed one point entirely, the Royal Navy's ability to interdict the actual invasion itself. This is the most crucial factor most historians and buffs overlook. There is little the German Navy or Airforce could of done to stop the RN playing havoc with both the initial invasion attempt and the supply of the Wehrmacht had they been able to land sufficient troops in the extremely unlikely event of first wave being successful.
i doubt that. i think the video has got it about right: torpedo bombers were/are incredibly efficient against surface ships.
@Grundy Malone A few hours? In the barges Germany had available it would take two days LOL, these are river barges barely capable of reaching a top speed of twice the average channel current not some 21st century cruise ship... that comment is really embarrassing and shows your complete lack of knowledge of the Battle of Britain... Not to mention simply having a large naval ship travel nearby would cause them to sink.
It takes multiple direct hits for any bomber to even damage a large ship the point it has to retreat let alone sink, of which bombers had terrible accuracy due to a ships maneuverability even in small bits of water like the channel. A single battleship could have sank the entire set of barges in an hour.
The RN was in Scotland at the time, out of the range of bombers and subs. It could have traveled to the channel and back several times before the barges would have landed at the shores of England.
@@xmiraculix82 Shame the Germans didn't have any to worry about.
Great video and well presented. Most enjoyable.
This is an excellent video! Very well explained
"[H]e that commands the sea is at great liberty, and may take as much and as little of the war as he will. Whereas those that be strongest by land are many times nevertheless in great straits."
-Francis Bacon
And he who commands the air, commands the sea
-Me
The 666xp and 7734xp (reference to Sabaton's song) details are great fun!
666 is more commonly a reference to the number of the beast and 7734 spells hell on a calculator.
+nilloc93 Well, it is a general Metal reference and also a Sabaton reference.
Once we were numerous but that's long ago
We are no longer 7734
The last two united and two became one
111 lay perished in flames!
Vennonetes Great !! Did you see the 50% less Fat Paratroopers ?LOL? Real light troop deeze Germun'z!
AYE LAD'Z
M R MaMellow
That's assuming the locals don't manage to grab the 'pink 'chutes' [the Weapon Caches] which the 1.Fallschirmjager dropped on Crete [Kreta] with. Each Bttn had coloured parachutes for each different unit type or supply type. Weapon Pods were dropped using pink chutes so they could be easily identified.
Local Cretans grabbed these weapon pods and helped themselves to the mostly automatic equipment they found there and became very troublesome antagonists for the German Airborne to deal with. Most of the Fallschirmjager at Crete dropped with rather rudimentary parachutes over which they had no control.
Also, the US and UK Paras had a little control over their 'chutes & they could grab several lines and tug at them to direct them landing one way or another, though this change of direction was limited.
A distinct advantage the British Parachutists had over all other Airborne troops was the use of a single 'buckle' to which all the parachute straps attached; one large punch on this buckle and you were released from the 'chute. A lot of US Airborne died in seas and waterways due to them taking several minutes trying to lose themselves free of the 'chutes' webbing. This applied to the German Airborne troops as some Fallschirmjager were dropped into the sea when they were meant to land on the beaches of Northern Crete between the 2 aerodromes.
At Crete, as if it wasn't bad enough that they dropped with little more than a pistol or egg grenade, when they landed? They had to find the weapons' pod which often contained 50-81mm mortars, ammunition, MP40s, MG34s, grenades. MP40s were much lighter than rifles and I believe Fallschirmjager had an automatic rifle which was built in small numbers [I think it was called the FJ42??] but I don't recall them being used during the invasion of Crete.
There were also inland defence lines set up across the south of Britain to slow down an advance after any invasion, on top of being ready to blow bridges etc. There was a simulation done that suggested an invasion might have lasted for 3 months, but been halted before reaching London. It would ultimately have failed due to the logistical problems outlined in the video. However, it was estimated that there would be significant destruction in the area invaded (you only have to look at film of the Allied invasion through France and Germany to see how south east England may have ended up!
Part of the preparations for an invasion include pill boxes along the Kennet and Avon canal. The canal along with the River Avon in the West and the River Thames in the East runs completely across the country from London to Bristol. It was intended to be a tank trap. The ones in a remote locations, e.g. outside London in farming areas, were never demolished and still exist to today.
D-Day Americans and British ......
What about the Canadians
British= British Commonwealth so that means Canada too.
Don't worry we remember you maple leaf bros
Yeah from a Brit can't forget the best American country, or the Australians, New Zealanders, Belgians, French, Norwegians and everyone else. Cheers lads lol
Alex The Reaper canada became infested with zombies who made any excuse to avoid going in the war
Remember Liverpool that a significant proportion of Canadian soldiers and the establishment were either British born or had British parentage. A unique thing in historical terms.
A very informative and detailed analysis, I'm impressed. Having lived in Southern England during the time of the Invasion threat, I am grateful to read that we were not entirely in a hopeless situation after the Dunkirk debacle.However, I think things would have been a lot different if the English Channel hadn't been there. Our bastion of defence only failed us once in 1066.
But that wasn't a war, it was just a battle of leaders and their single armies, basically a coup by a claimant to the throne as William was related to the English kings I'm pretty sure.
Excellent video, as usual. Bravo.
4:49 The "lack of surface ships" icon gets me.....^^
Three words ROYAL FUCKING NAVY
Concentration of all Uboats in the area = Good Night Sweet Royal Navy. But no, they sunk cargo ships instead.
the RN conducted ASW practice in the channel the KM would get fucked
One does not simply invade the UK.
Gocha Avtandilashvili or Israel... or the US... or Canada... or Russia... or China... etc etc.
They should have rode the griffons.
"Oh really? Hold my beer."-William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy
True, William the cunt-bag though. I hate him and his god-damn Norman-French bastards. If we had not fought 3 major battles in 1 year, and just held our position for half an hour more, we would have won that battle and won glory for all time. England would have remained truly ENGLISH: English kings, pure English tongue, no class system. Yeah, fuck William the conqueror and the greedy Norman bastards.
It's still less embarrasing than when you English lost to a schizophrenic peasant girl ala Joan of Arc.
I saw another video someone did about what Germany knew on D-Day. One of the reasons that Germany doubted that the Normandy invasion was the main invasion was because the Allies didn't attempt to capture a port like Cherbourg. They were unaware of how the Allies had constructed the Mulberry artificial harbor to deliver necessary supplies.
Fascinating and in-depth. Here in the UK we tend to view things through the narrative of Dad's Army; old men with pitchforks holding off ze Chermans. It seems a bit mysterious that Hitler didn't just follow the Dynamo fleet across the Channel and land the killer blow. This video pretty much clears up my own misconceptions.
Great vid. One thing that's always bugged me about this topic is people tend to 'reason' that, as the Allies managed Overlord, of course the Germans could've done the same because Germany. Thus they tend to overlook just how much work went into Overlord, and how the Allies had crushing superiority in just about everything while the Germans certainly did not have the same in 1940. In short, I think a lot of people look at the success of Overlord and conclude it was always going to succeed because it did, which is no way to analyse anything.
There's also the matter of what might Stalin have considered if Germany had weakened its stance in Poland/East to throw everything at the UK. The French were criminally supine during the 'phoney war' but it's by no means certain the Soviet Union would have been the same (probably would've been, true, but they'd at least have given it some serious consideration I should think).
I read a book by the person who became the head of Czechoslovakia's military intelligence that covered the whole lead up to its dismemberment by Germany as agreed by the UK and France (fascinating book) and he made the point that the Soviets even then were offering something like 25 divisions to back the Czechs. That came to nothing as the Poles said 'no way' (ironic), the French proved totally gutless (despite having a formal military agreement with the Czechs, which probably explains why they held the French far more responsible than the UK), and everyone had misgivings about having that many Soviet troops wandering around (understandable). Indeed, that was a factor that contributed to the non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany as Stalin discovered just how effectively powerless/passive the Allies were.
Cheers
yeah there's a thing called the Royal navy and Royal airforce in the way.
but even if they did manage to pass those they would have to have a colossal overwhelming invasion force in order to push forward, grab a good cunk of land and take the ports quickly, if not they will bogged down and run out of supplies and then be kicked off again by the now more equiped and organized British forces.
it's IMMENSELY difficult to successfully pull off a land invasion, you need to have an advantage in all 3 militant forces in order to succeed, Navy, Airforce and groundforce need to be heavily in your favor aswell as a shit ton of good tactics, Logistics, mobility and luck.
and as HV says, that Norway invasion speaks volumes about it's difficulty, Huge Navy, Airforce and Ground force advantage combined with the Enemy having little to no war industry effort and having the element of surprise and they still had huge loses.
Nah, it would never have worked. For one thing, the Germans had no specialized landing ships, so they would be forced to capture a port. Britain could and would wreck all the nearest ports near France/low countries. The Germans only had barges, which were not designed for shipping people, and crewed by people who had previously only piloted pedaloes. Then lastly the royal navy would turn up in the shape of loads of destroyers and other smaller ships, and they would wreak havoc on their supply lines. German troops would probably land in southern England, but they would have no heavy equipment and would run out of supplies in a week. And how would they get home after that? Small boats?
Losing an army like that would make Barbarossa impossible, or at least severely dent it. The war would be over by 1943.
HistoryMan even if they pulled off the invasion of Britain, Barbarossa would have failed as the British would fight to the last and use most German resources. The Russians would’ve already prepared for a German attack, and thus would’ve fought back the Wehrmacht
@@napraznicul First of all, the German atomic program never took off
@@napraznicul wait then what was that last comment about then
They didn't have enough barges actually they would have had to get basically any boat that would not sink in the channel so you would most likely be on some kind of river boat with leaks everywhere, smells like crap and has to be tugged to the UK because it can't drive itself
Thanks a lot! This is very interesting. I wished you could slow down your speed of GermanEnglish a bit. This would make it easier to understand everything. Because it is worth it.
The British home guard was primarily made up of WW1 veterans in their 40s. These men were battle hardened. My great grandfather was one, he had survived the battle of the Somme.
True. Auchinleck believed that they should be used in conjunction with regular troops, making use of their local knowledge to exploit highways and byways not known to incomers to the area. Unfortunately, Montgomery wanted nothing to do with them.
I prefer the Auk's approach. The Home Guard were nothing like the Dad's Army of the popular TV programme, still less like the Volkssturm fed into the mincing machine by Goebbels.
Also, the image of the Home Guard armed only with pitchforks was outdated. In June 1940 there wasn't spare rifles to go around as the forces evacuated from Dunkirk needed to be re-armed and more equipment was needed for the growing British Army.
So 700,000 M1917 Enfield rifles and 25,000 Browning Automatic Rifles were purchased from USA with a large supply of .30-06 ammunition. All for the Home Guard.
Having WW1 veterans did not seem to work in France's favor
A very thorough assessment of the myriad problems facing the German High Command and the problem of these pesky islands. Difficult to argue with you on any points other than these three.
The RN fleet could have moved from north to the channel and arrived pretty unscathed. The RAF bases along the way south would have given air cover for the whole of the journey day or night and as they squadrons were only flying a matter of a couple of dozen miles to the area of operation this would have given air supremacy for most and maybe all of the journey.
The other problem for the Germans was that they had very few armour piercing bombs for their aircraft therefore any damage to the fleet from bombing may have cause some damage but not enough to have prevent the RN arriving in the channel in a state sufficient to put and shippage they discovered at the bottom of the sea. It has been said that against the shallow drive river barges the RN would not even have had to fire their weapons. They merely had to sail at speed close to the barges, turn and the wave would have done the damage.
The British had taken delivery of a large number of rifles from the USA (I have seen estimates as high as 750 thousand to as low as 100 thousand) The weapons were in the hands of the Home Guard. If only one quarter of those weapons found their way into the hands of the Home Guard troops in the southeast of the country that would still put at least 25 thousand rifles (remember these were extra weapons) the Home Guard already had a large number of Lewis LMG, Thompson SMG Lee Enfie[d rifles, mortars. A large number of these men were veterans of the first war so knew weaponry and had seen action. British factories were producing more military hardware than Axis factories. Any German forces actually making it to England could and would have been neutralized quite quickly.
It was a forlorn hope, if it had any chance of success it would have been implemented. It was a folly with no chance of success whatsoever.
Those points apart I enjoyed watching the video so thank you.
I am impressed by your attention to detail. In fact there is an alternate history book that mentions everything you went over and then some. In fact there are a few things you may have to consider into further detail. The book is called "Invasion, the alternate history of the German invasion of England" by Kenneth Macksey. The few things it mentioned included the problem of pig pile formation that the Germans encountered during actual practice runs. There was also the fact that Germany could have done a risky narrow bridgehead strategy instead of a wide bridgehead strategy as stated in the book.
This being for multiple reasons:
1: there were on the heals of a defeated enemy which had lost most of it's supplies and heavy weapons.
2: Because of the loss of so much heavy weapons and supplies. Britain wouldn't be able to concentrate much resources against the actual bridgehead in time. Due to the fact they had to cover other potential landing points.
3: It would be easier for logistics. To maintain multiple bridgeheads at different places would have been too much for Germany with it's capabilities at that time. Having a single bridgehead to supply, reinforce, build up and maintain would have been easier.
4: Lastly, it would have been easier to defend in order to build up the bridgehead. Having to defend multiple bridgeheads would have been impossible. But protecting a single bridgehead would have been easier. With a combination of surface ships, u-boats, mines, and the luftwaffe(the German airforce) the Royal Navy in an attempt to sever the logistics route, would have had to take numerous evasive actions, from bombers, u-boats, and shell fire, from both naval and ground artillery from German occupied France, Belgium, and in time German occupied southern England. They also had to avoid mines which were as dangerous as torpedos. All while trying to engage German warships and transports. Though it would have been easier for Britain to concentrate against one bridgehead. It also would have taken time. With civilians crowding roads and railways trying to flee from the fighting, which would also would have been attacked be the luftwaffe, damaging railroads, bridges, and roadways. This in turn would have slowed down the British build up for a crucial and decisive counterattack. As for the Royal Navy being aided by the Royal Air Force, it wouldn't receive much. Depending on how much the air force lost during the air campaign as well as the amount of airfields damaged or put out of action. They would only have been able to do so much. As for the actual amphibious landing, it would have been difficult but not impossible. Though the white cliffs of Dover are very hard to assail, it would have still been practical, even with pig pile formation. That is, however, if you take into account glider borne troops and paratroopers who would have attacked and secured the cliff heights from the rear. The same troops could also have aided in the air campaign by capturing critical and crucial airfields away from the British to use to supply the bridgehead from the air. Which again would have been easier to defend. Not to mention being able to use the airfields against the British air force. And by capturing a single airfield the Germans could have gained crucial intelligence as to how the British air defense system actually worked. Including the importance of radar. Some of which by now would have fallen to the German amphibious attack leading to a gap in their aeriel defenses. Such information would have been crucial for the Germans in their campaign to control the skies.
But, there of course were crucial conditions for the invasion to succeed.
1: Germany, preferably Hitler, needed to be convinced no later than late May, 1940, (preferably earlier, though still feasible in late May) of making preparations for an invasion England in the event England does not sue for peace. In other words a plan B, just in case. This includes expanding logistics to ports and air bases while in the finishing stages of the Invasion of France.
2: Upon realizing that Britain will not submit. Germany must conduct preparatory aerial operations as soon as possible before Britain's air force recovers in strength.
Without these two crucial conditions, Germany had very little chance. Unless that is, they completely nullify the Royal Air Force as a threat. In other words winning the Battle of Britain. And believe it or not they could have done so. Had they focused on radar installations and air bases continuesly, they could have worn down Britain's air force to nothingness. By continuesly targeting radar installations, the Royal Air Force's response to air attacks would have collapsed. Additional ideas, tactics, and information, can be further gathered in detail in chapter three of the book "Thief Reich Victorious" edited by Peter G Tsouras, who by the way is an excellent author in alternate history. The chapter called the "Battle of Britain, Luftwaffe Victorious," is written by esteemed historian Charles Messenger. Asides from that, there was little Germany could have done to defeat Britain asides from excluding her from the continent and conducting a successful Mediterranean strategy. That being securing the Mediterranean sea, winning the North Africa campaign, and possibly conquering the middle East and perhaps conduct a successful Oriental strategy to secure India, East Africa, and the Indian ocean in cooperation with Japan. But that is another alternate history for another time. Asides from that, the video was very informative. Excellent job!
Excellent video. I don't think the Wehrmacht leaders themselves ever believed Germany could successfully invade England in 1940. It was only a threat of invasion and the bombing by the air that caused people to worry. Germany's U-boot initiative had a far better chance of defeating Great Britain, and in fact, was the only thing Winston Churchill really worried about.
Sorry, late comment here! Really well done, apart from one thing, I think - you state that the Home Fleet had 8 Destroyers. Indeed, up at Scapa, but there were plenty of others at other bases around the coat - most of them considerably nearer to the SE coast than was the Grand fleet - in truth, 80 is nearer the number than 8. This utter inbalance in naval forces would have rendered Sealion an imposibility, apart from anything else.
In September, 1940, there were 7 RN destroyers at Scapa Flow, 16 at Rosyth, 20 at Portsmouth, 12 at Plymouth, 25 at The Nore, 7 in the Humber, 21 in escort ports, and 8 at sea on escort duty.
However, the Germans had five operational destroyers at Cherbourg, so in the minds of the Sealion fantasists, the Royal Navy was seriously outnumbered.
-see video title
-UK Royal Navy : I'm a joke to you ?
It's pretty amazing how easy something seems when you add the words "just" and "only" to a statement.