Could Germany have invaded Britain?

jonniebgood1

Modified Operation Sea-lion of August 1940- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion_Order_of_Battle

Was the plan realistically achieveable? The Germans had their success nearly fully based on blitzkreig tactics rather than amphibious attacks. It is very questionable if they had the naval capacity to support such an attack although if they had air superiority it makes it still possible.

Furthermore if anyone can point in the direction of more information about the Germans plans for occupying Britain (& Ireland). Were there plans for the Jews & gypsy populations, etc? Wiki says "Had Operation Sea Lion succeeded, Einsatzgruppen under Dr. Franz Six were to follow the invasion force to Great Britain to establish the New Order". What new order was planned for Britain and what did it entail for the class system?

Ping Chow Chi

The more I think about the less likely it seems that they would have been able to sucessfully invade.

Just think about how hard the allies found it invading France with pretty much total air superiority, total naval superiority, the might of the US army behind them, germany being bombed for a few years and the Germans having most of their Army fighting in the east.

MAJR

No. The simple, inescapable fact is that Nazi-Germany lacked the strenght of airpower and naval power to actually invade Britain. If they had ever managed to land any force on the British mainland it would have been incredibly difficult, possibly impossible, to maintain it there.

jonniebgood1

MAJR wrote: »

No. The simple, inescapable fact is that Nazi-Germany lacked the strenght of airpower and naval power to actually invade Britain. If they had ever managed to land any force on the British mainland it would have been incredibly difficult, possibly impossible, to maintain it there.

I am inclined to agree but to establish a more cognisant view I will put the case for the Germans forward.

In 1941 they were able to launch a land based offensive in the east that saw over 4 million axis soldiers invade the USSR (i am not sure of the British troop numbers in Britain in 1941). The August 1940 Sea lion plan made use of only 67,000 men. Surely if they had focused their attention on naval and air developments they could have made the progress required to be equipped for the attack. If focus had remained on the airfields in the Battle of Britain as opposed to bombing cities the Germans could have restricted the RAF greatly. The Luftwaffe would then have been able to assist in neutralising the Royal Navy which was a strength of the British.
Whilst the British coast had some coast defences they were no where near what the allies faced in 1944 in Normandy. This would have allowed mass movement of troops onto Britain to occupy the country. With the number of troops availiable as described above the Germans would have been able to withstand large early losses to establish a position and then push on with the plan.

meathstevie

I suppose that the capability British society to fight and fight hard should not be underestimated either. The Nazi's would definitly not have gotten an easy ride from "resistance" fighters either when they would have been able to put any significant amount of troops on the ground in England or Scotland. There would have been no shortage of civilians who would have acquired some sort of combat experience in either WWI or in one of the many colonies Britain ruled at the time.

Stovepipe

Hi there,
I do think that if the Germans had made an airborne assault, with even a modest naval assault, as soon as possible after Dunkirk,the psychological shock to Britain, combined with the weakness of it's Home Army would have led to a significant loss of territory, even up to the surrounds of London. Britain's best asset, south of London was the naval bases on the south coast and the forward airfields. If the British had lost the Southern ports, had the Thames blockaded and had lost the Kentish airfields, it would have seriously threatened London. If the Germans had managed to make a simultaneous feint attack from Norway or Denmark on the Orkneys and the Shetlands, I think the effect on morale would have been disastrous for the British, especially the Commonwealth populations. If they had landed and sustained it beyond a week or two, then it might have prompted an early US entry into the war.
regards
Stovepipe

HugoDrax

Hitler is the big denominator that alternate historians miss.
Hitler was obsessed with the Soviet Union and obsessed with conquest in the East. Sooner or later he was going to attack Russia because he feared the Russians would storm into Germany and conquer Western Europe. That was after all the raison d'etre of Nazism - Jews and Bolsheviks were trying to overthrow Western civilisation as Hitler saw it and the Aryan armies would put a stop to their games.
Hitler's heart was not in the conquest of Britain and he believed he could eventually parley with the British who were fighting a stalemate in Africa and the Mediterranean.
Hitler thought the defeat of Russia was inevitable after such time Britain would surely concede defeat and negotiate a German take over of her colonies and accept second class power status in return for peace.
For Hitler the Battle Of Britain was irrelevant - he had failed to defeat the RAF and terrorize the British into surrender and win an easy victory but he believed that the British were essentially isolated. America was creating trouble by supplying Britain but he believed the U-boats and the German battleships would put a stop to that.
He felt secure enough in 1941 to launch Barbarossa - he thought Moscow would fall in a matter of months if not weeks.

Manic Moran

The Germans considered the Channel to be effectively a glorified river, and their amphibious fleet pretty much reflects this. When they conducted their invasion of Norway, it is instructive to note that they didn't use amphibious ships as much as civil transports and destroyers to do the transporting.

The Home Fleet may have taken some pretty significant losses in cutting off the German supply lines, but between that and the submarine force dealing with what was effectively a pretty confined space (Think how much of the Channel a battleship sitting at the quayside in Dover harbour could cover), the cut-off would be pretty much assured.

NTM

jonniebgood1

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Germans considered the Channel to be effectively a glorified river, and their amphibious fleet pretty much reflects this. When they conducted their invasion of Norway, it is instructive to note that they didn't use amphibious ships as much as civil transports and destroyers to do the transporting.

The Home Fleet may have taken some pretty significant losses in cutting off the German supply lines, but between that and the submarine force dealing with what was effectively a pretty confined space (Think how much of the Channel a battleship sitting at the quayside in Dover harbour could cover), the cut-off would be pretty much assured.

NTM

It is interesting to consider how much success the U-boats would have had in the channel at this stage in the war. They would have been required given the point above. Is it not feasible that a passage across could have been defended for a period of time (3-4 days) to allow a sizeable crossing? Landing vessel development would have been required- alot of the vessels earmarked were barges, etc that were used to navigate the main German rivers at the time.

Fratton Fred

Can you imagine the battle? The Kreigsmarine v the entire home fleet and force H, with the Canadian, Dutch, French and Polish thrown in for good measure, whilst the Luftwaffe and RAF throw the kitchen sink at each other. All in a channel only 30 miles wide.

It would have made great cinema.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is interesting to consider how much success the U-boats would have had in the channel at this stage in the war. They would have been required given the point above. Is it not feasible that a passage across could have been defended for a period of time (3-4 days) to allow a sizeable crossing? Landing vessel development would have been required- alot of the vessels earmarked were barges, etc that were used to navigate the main German rivers at the time.

The U-Boats may have been less effective than people think. HMS Warspite escaped without being hit in Narvik fjord in 1940 despite a U-Boat firing several torpedoes at it. Problems with the magnetic pistols in the torpedoes mechanisms caused them to run deeper than they should have, it was only in September 1940 after a number of near misses of allied ships that the germans started moving back to contact pistols. They would only start using magnetic pistols again later in the war after capturing an unexploded british torpedo and copying it.

Clay Blairs book The Hunters is pretty detailed on early war U-Boat operations http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-U-Boat-War-Hunters-1939-1942/dp/0304352608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302249370&sr=8-1

Fratton Fred

In that small an area the u boats would have been much easier targets as well.

TerrorFirmer

If Hitler had been as genuinely enthusiastic about subduing Britain as he was about expansion elsewhere, in the long term, there wasn't a chance in hell that Britain would have been able to resist...At the most basic level, war of attrition would have flattened Britiain eventually.

In the short term, the Luftwaffe didn't have a very good record at naval attack by any stretch, so it would have taken a considerable amount of time to reduce the Royal Navy after first besting the Royal Air Force, though the latter in itself wouldn't have necessarily taken as long given how close the Luftwaffe came to ruining the RAF before switching to civilian targets, a mistake they would have realised to be an error before long. And once it switched to land warfare, with the RN and RAF decimated, that would be the most one sided aspect of the conflict....

Manic Moran

In the short term, the Luftwaffe didn't have a very good record at naval attack by any stretch

In fairness...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losses_during_the_Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939-1945)

May 1940: 55,580 tons sunk by U-Boat, 158,348 sunk by air.

(Apr 1941 is similarly in the aircraft's favour)

Of course, sinking freighters is a bit different to sinking warships.

NTM

jonniebgood1

Would a paratrooper assault have been capable of dropping enough troops? They mounted several small scale operations including Crete, Denmark and Norway. The Sealion plan says 70,000 troops required for the attack so it would obviously would have required a processed drop but they would have had time to plan it and prepare for it.

indioblack

There was, I've read somewhere, an invasion exercise by the Germans in 1940 near Boulogne. German observers were disappointed with the landings.
I think Sealion would have failed. An initial landing would have been achieved, but it would have been "The Battle of the Build-up",(in Overlord terminology), that would cause problems. As on D-Day the Germans needed control of the air and the sea - they didn't have it. The contest for control of the air and sea would happen alongside the invasion - not before it. The Germans would be trying to build a bridgehead - the British attempting to disrupt it. I think the odds would swing in favour of the British - though at a cost.

Tony EH

There are those who posit the theory that "Sea Lion" was nothing but a ruse generated to make the British think twice before persuing the war any further. It's a point of view that I happen to agree with.

It was clear to all concerned that the British and the Germans had stumbled into a war that neither side wanted. Chamerlain's faux declaration of war on Sept 3rd was not something that either he or the Cabinet wished for. The hope was that Hitler would get the jitters if he had to face the combined might of Britain and France and go back to the negotiating table re: Poland. Unfortunately Hitler called Chamberlain's bluff, figuring that if the Western "allies" didn't move a muscle over Czechoslovakia, they wouldn't do too much over Poland either. He was correct in some areas, although the actual declaration of war really did catch Hiler by surprise. He knew that the British and French certainly had no intention of military action over Poland and in fact made no agressive overtures until Churchill's disasterous plans for Norway.

With the German victory in Norway though, Hitler was convinced that the Britsh and French would see the "error" of their ways and shelve their war agiainst him. But it wasn't to be and the phoney war carried on. The Western allies were then pretty much content to do nothing, believing that the Germans wouldn't risk a re-run of the 1914-18 war. They were correct in their assessment that the Fuhrer had no desire to bog down into another WWI'ish stalemate in France. But Hitler wasn't willing to sit still, his mind always on his plans for Russia (the be all end all for his war in the first place) and when he launched Case yellow and subdued France (the speed of which caught everyone by surprise, includiing Hitler), he desparately hoped that the Britsh would give up the ghost, because he knew that the chances of a successful Channel crossing were virtually nil.

1940's "Sea Lion" is conspicuous for the fact that it remained a preliminary "plan" only drawn up in a very short space of time. There really wasn't much built upon it, because Hitler's heart wasn't in it, basically. Looking back from now, it's clear to see why. Hitler, besides being an Anglophile, had absolutely no desire to waste troops and equipment messing about with Britain, when his real goal lay 1000's miles in the opposite direction. He would rather that the British had come in on HIS side than against him and there always existed a desire within him that one day the British would "see" what he was doing and realise the folly that they were engaging in.

Such delusions aside, Hitler was asutely aware that crossing the Channel, even if he wanted to, was an impossible task. The equipment wasn't there for staters and even if the Germans had managed to evade the Royal Navy and actually land some troops onto British soil with the ridiculous barges that were lined up on the French Northern coast, it would only have been a matter of time before they were completely overwhelmed. So, the next best option for the Germans lay in "Sealion". A bluff to make the Britsh believe that the Germans were planning some huge operation to attack and take the island.

The one true aspect of "Sealion" was the Luftwaffe's campaign over Britain. But this op was essential anyway and probably would have been carried out, even if the word "Sealion" had never been uttered. The reason being it was an attempt to damage the British ability to take the air war to Germany, which it was somewhat successful in doing.

In short, the German Operation "Sealion" was the Axis equivilent of the Allies Operation "Fortitude" in 1944. An effort to make the enemy believe that an attack would take place, while the real intent lay elsewhere.

Churchill himself said that "I am not saying that they (the Germans) won't come...but they won't come by Sealion."

Tony EH

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The U-Boats may have been less effective than people think. HMS Warspite escaped without being hit in Narvik fjord in 1940 despite a U-Boat firing several torpedoes at it. Problems with the magnetic pistols in the torpedoes mechanisms caused them to run deeper than they should have, it was only in September 1940 after a number of near misses of allied ships that the germans started moving back to contact pistols. They would only start using magnetic pistols again later in the war after capturing an unexploded british torpedo and copying it.

Clay Blairs book The Hunters is pretty detailed on early war U-Boat operations http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-U-Boat-War-Hunters-1939-1942/dp/0304352608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302249370&sr=8-1

I can only Echo BlaasForRafa's recomendation of Clay Blair's two volume U-Boat history. 'Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunters' and 'Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunted'. If anyone has any interest at all in the U-Boat war, they should check it out. Worth every penny.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Didnt the germans invade jersey?

HugoDrax

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Didnt the germans invade jersey?

Yes they did.

For the officers and men who were posted there it was easy - nice beaches and lots of British women with no husbands around.

The Germans spent the entire war sitting on their collective rear ends.

Tony EH

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Didnt the germans invade jersey?

Yes and the rest of the Channel Islands too. But, there was no ooposition as they weren't worth fighting over. They weren't worth occupying either, for that matter. But, it was hardly an "invasion" in any real sense. The only aggressive moves was a bombing carried out on St Peter Port and St. Hellier. The Germans mistook trucks carrying tomatoes for troop carriers. They also had to ask the Dame of Sark for permission to land!

That's a far different kettle of fish to invading and holding territory on the British mainland.

Stovepipe

Hi there,
The Royal Navy were depending on several things happening without fault, if they were to successfully repel a Sealion assault. An unimpeded transit to the Channel, from Scotland; an unimpeded assault on the German landing fleet and an unimpeded transit for the Mediterranean Fleet to Home Waters. None of this would have happened. The Germans were perfectly aware of how vulnerable their invasion force would have been and would have made every effort to screen it, by sea and air. Also, Britain's ability to defend itself on land was very much in doubt, as a huge amount of it's artillery and armour was gone. Secondly, the Germans could have attacked anywhere along the UK east coast as decent defences, especially in depth, were not yet widespread. Personally, I think people credited the RN with too much invincibility and not enough vulnerability. As the Luftwaffe later showed, they were well able to learn how to sink ships, as the campaign in the Med showed. Even in the Battle of Britain, they were able to destroy pointless convoys in the Channel and reduce several southern towns to rubble and render the RN ineffective.
regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

Unfortunately though, as as Hitler's forestalling in Norway had showed, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe were no match for the RN when the RN was employed in numbers. The RN gave a good account of itself and the German victory in Norway was touch and go. The victory in Norway was a land victory. The Navy battles cost the Germans dear.

The U-boat waffe was next to useless in the fjords and would have faced the same problems attacking the surface ships of the RN in the Channel too. They would have been seriously blunted, even if their torpedoes had been working at full capacity. In the Channel, there's nowhere to hide. There's a very good reason why the U-Boats to the long way round, past Scotland, on their way to the Atlantic during the fist years of the war, before the U-Boat pens were built on the West coast of France. The Channel belonged to the Royal Navy.

Plus, it's the very nature of the attacking craft that one has to take into account for "Sealion". Those Rhine river barges were a joke and barely seaworthy, not to mention the fact that there wasn't enough of them. More than likely, the majority of them would have capsized before they even reached a mile out of France as they simply were not designed for sea travel. And even if some of them actually got ashore, it would have been impossible for the Germans to establish a viable beach head or even supply it. Britain may have lost a good amount of equipment with the BEF, but it was still VERY heavily defended. Even if the British had lost its entire account of artillery and tanks in France, the Germans would still have been massacred in a man to man fight, as they wouldn't have had the ability to land heavy weapons themselves.

No, the bottom line is that Sealion would have failed and failed every time...even if the Gerries had been serious about it.

Stovepipe

Hi there
The narrowness of the Channel at Dover works both ways. An RN fleet closing in on an invasion fleet, from either direction, would have been exposing themselves to Stukas and limiting their own room to manouver. Also, as the attacks on "Peewit" showed, the Luftwaffe could make pinpoint attacks on even small coasters, so they clearly were mastering anti-ship warfare. The RN hated having to escort small coasters and colliers thru the Channel, under continuous German observation, just to prove a point. As one RN senior officer noted, "why were they shipping coal thru the Channel when it was quicker and more efficient to use railways? It was an expensive way to prove a point". After Dunkirk, the RN were very wary of the Stuka and Ju88 and kept badgering the RAF for more fighter cover. During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffee were able to destroy Supermarine's aircraft plant, as well as render huge damage to Southern cities such as Portsmouth and Plymouth and negating RN power in the area.
I think the most difficult thing the German Army faced was the comparative inability to transport Panzers and heavy artillery across the Channel in force, in the Rhine barges, without resorting to using freighters, which required capturing crane-equipped dockyards, which I doubt the British would have left usable.
regards
Stovepipe

Tony EH

Stukas can be very accurate, of course. but, more often than not they missed their targets, just like any other bomber and especially if they were moving targets. Also, once a Stuka used it's payload it was useless. In order for the Stukagruppen to be successful (enough for a proper landing to take place) there would have to have been many 100's of them employed in the one ago and the Germans would have to have had complete local air superiority as the stuka was a sitting duck against fighter opposition.

Also, the Channel isn't THAT narrow. It's not the Thames we're talking about here. There would have been plenty of room for manouvere for the ships of the Royal Navy. Plus, it's one thing hitting slow moving coastal vessels and cargo vessels. But it's a different thing entirely trying to hit a fast moving British destroyer that's barreling down on your langing party at 25kts.

The Rhine barges would have been ripped to shreds, assuming they even were able to get out into open sea, without floundering and any U-Boats employed would have been neutered because while the Channel isn't that narrow, it also isn't very deep. There would have been nowhere for the U-Boats to go.

Again, there is simply no way for the Germans to cross the Channel with the equipment on offer and the amount of it. It was just impossible and both the Germans and the British knew it.

Ping Chow Chi

Tony EH wrote: »

The Rhine barges would have been ripped to shreds, assuming they even were able to get out into open sea, without floundering

They wouldn't even need to be blown up - Imagine the damage that just one fast moving destorer's wake would wreak if they got in amongst the fleet of barges, it would have been utter carnage for the Germans.

Tony EH

Not only that, but a lot of the craft assembled (for the purpose of the bluff) were unpowered. They would need to be towed! And some of them had canvas sides.

While it may have looked somewhat impressive to a recon photo, it's practical application was nil.

Fratton Fred

Stovepipe.

Portsmouth dockyard actually remained relatively intact during the war, considering its proximity to France and its relative importance. This was due in part to its defences, but this in turn meant the city itself took a bit of a pummeling.

There were though, as you surmised, plans in place to wreak havoc if an invasion took place.

A few years ago Lee on Solent airfield was sold off by the RN but before it could take civilian flights, they had to remove a number of large pipe bombs under the runway. I believe similar arrangements were in place in the harbour as well.

Obviously the Solent's defences were comprehensive and the remnants of the submarine nets can still be seen on southsea beach.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stovepipe.

Portsmouth dockyard actually remained relatively intact during the war, considering its proximity to France and its relative importance. This was due in part to its defences, but this in turn meant the city itself took a bit of a pummeling.

There were though, as you surmised, plans in place to wreak havoc if an invasion took place.

A few years ago Lee on Solent airfield was sold off by the RN but before it could take civilian flights, they had to remove a number of large pipe bombs under the runway. I believe similar arrangements were in place in the harbour as well.

Obviously the Solent's defences were comprehensive and the remnants of the submarine nets can still be seen on southsea beach.

England has a long southerly coastline and portsmouth would have been an appaling choice for various reasons, the sea forts, the isle of wight proximity, the narrowness of the solent would have made it a near perfect killingzone. Also Portsmouth is essentially a glorified island anyway, any landing force there could be cut off from all landlinks in a matter of minutes.

As far as portsmouth is concerned a more likely plan in the event of an invasion would have been to heavily bomb portsmouth's connection to the mainland cutting it off, sink 'something big' at the narrowest point of the mouth of the harbour if possible (which is ridiculously narrow) then you have effectively removed Portsmouth from effective offensive capability for several months. To the best of my knowledge there were no working airfields in portsmouth proper, (there were in hampshire and isle of wight but not portsmouth itself). So all naval personnel living and stationed there along with all equipment and naval supplies etc could have been removed from the invasion scenario had the germans really needed to.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

England has a long southerly coastline and portsmouth would have been an appaling choice for various reasons, the sea forts, the isle of wight proximity, the narrowness of the solent would have made it a near perfect killingzone. Also Portsmouth is essentially a glorified island anyway, any landing force there could be cut off from all landlinks in a matter of minutes.

As far as portsmouth is concerned a more likely plan in the event of an invasion would have been to heavily bomb portsmouth's connection to the mainland cutting it off, sink 'something big' at the narrowest point of the mouth of the harbour if possible (which is ridiculously narrow) then you have effectively removed Portsmouth from effective offensive capability for several months. To the best of my knowledge there were no working airfields in portsmouth proper, (there were in hampshire and isle of wight but not portsmouth itself). So all naval personnel living and stationed there along with all equipment and naval supplies etc could have been removed from the invasion scenario had the germans really needed to.

The airfield is in Gosport, the other side of the harbour. But yes, you are right, Portsmouth is a fortress thanks to Victorian paranoia of the French. I think the fear was that it would have been used as a harbour post invasion rather than as a landing site, although the beaches at southsea were mined.

I don't think I gave my opinion yet, I think that a German invasion (if any) was a long way off. I think it could have happened, but Germany would have had to blockade Britain first and destroyed all its manufacturing capabilities.

MAJR

If there is anything any logical planner would avoid for an invasion of Britain it would be to attempt to land at Portsmouth. Portsmouth is the most heavilly fortified place in the whole of the United Kingdom and once was the most heavilly fortified place in Europe.

While today Portsmouth is the most densely populated place on the British mainland - I say mainland, what I mean is its the most densely populated City in Britain - during WW2 the island had far fewer inhabitants and Portsea Island did have its own airport. It was built in 1930 and was closed in 1973. During WW2 the only military unit based there was the Air Cadet Gliding School but even so the airport itself was operational throughout the war.