ships needed for Sealion

[Andy H]

While its true that the Luftwaffe had little experience attacking warships , it didn't seem to have stopped them sink/damage ~ 1/4 of the UK fleet [~ 100 out of 400] sent to liberate the troops at Dunkirk.

Where did you get that figure from and were these 100 sunk/damaged ships frontline RN vessels or other RN or civilian vessels?

[Groscurth]

For the ones that like top debate the numbers of ships sunk at Dunkerke: this is the site where you'll find each wrek and a small history about each ship and its fate, done for divers but great.:
http://dkepaves.free.fr/

Reagards

[Andy H]

British coastal heavy gun strength facing the Channel as at the end of September 1940

1x14" naval gun
2x13.5" Railway mounted guns from HMS Iron Duke
2x9.2" Railway mounted naval guns
2x9.2" static guns
8x6" static guns
4x5.5" static naval guns from HMS Hood
2x4" naval guns

The destroyer strength for defence of the Channel and anti-invasion work was set at 4 Flotilla's-roughly 32ships, with some 3-4 MTB flotilla's (20 baots)

[Andy H]

Thank you for the link Groscurth.

At present I've reached a figure of 56 Destroyers, minesweepers and other RN vessels sunk during the Dunkirk episode. Another 170misc (Non RN ) vessels were sunk through various causes.

[Roddoss72]

I saw a edition of janes fighting ships 1945 and at the back it had a section on all shipping losses both allied and axis, i am currently writing a book and found it very helpful for me to put together a combined invasion fleet of Vichy French Italian and German ships that were currently available at the time of invasion of Britain

[Andy H]

I saw a edition of janes fighting ships 1945 and at the back it had a section on all shipping losses both allied and axis, i am currently writing a book and found it very helpful for me to put together a combined invasion fleet of Vichy French Italian and German ships that were currently available at the time of invasion of Britain

Italian ships weren't built for the Atlantic. Many of the Italian ships had very poor seakeeping problems. Also a Italian fleet would have to get past Gib and then journey north to find a safe haven from other RN units and air attack

Why and how the Vichy ships take part. Germany didn't have the crews to man them if the French sailors decided not to follow orders, which most wouldn't.

German naval power is limited to 1 heavy cruiser plus some smaller naval assets

[dduff442]

But a Mediterranean strategy for 1941 could surely have seen the Axis seize Malta and Gibraltar? The direct route to goal would have been simply to invade or subvert Spain, seize the rock and sail major Italian forces to Lorient or Bordeaux by late June or July '41. It then becomes very very difficult to see British surface forces operating effectively in the constrained waters of the channel. Am I right in thinking this *conservative* strategy could have guaranteed victory in the west by early summer '42 at the latest?

Regardsio,
dduff

[Tiornu]

There definitely should have been an invasion of Malta.

[Andy H]

direct route to goal would have been simply to invade or subvert Spain

Leaving aside the military consequences (Losses, Occupation troops and longer fortifications lines to build) one has to look at the economic 7 political reprocussions.

Latin & South America provided the Germany with vital war materials via various smuggling routes into Spain. With Spain invaded and occupied there's a good chance firstly that the trade will cease and secondly that the hispanic make up of the area could well turn these countries into allies of UK/USA earlier than in history.

[von_noobie]

well had sealion taken place i believe it would have worked , there were almost no british troops along the cost and from a friend the british were planning in the event of an invasion they were going to lay down a barrage of chemical smoke on the known beaches but i believe that it would not had lasted long as the first wave may have been damaged but not destroyed as the germans were desining an amphibious boat which could carry 20 men and also tow in a trailor a halftrack , i recone most would have gotton off the beaches before the baragge was laid down , i believe at least 2 ports would be secured by the first day , which would bring up probally 2 pnz div which would easily defeat the british armour as the brits were only just starting to work on armoured divisions , thus a major bridge head would have been secured and once enought troops were ammassed by the british the germans would had broken out of there bridge head and then there would be nothing to stop them except pockets of resistance , even if britain had resieved men from australia new zealand and canada they still would make little resistance

[Paul Lakowski]

While its true that the Luftwaffe had little experience attacking warships , it didn't seem to have stopped them sink/damage ~ 1/4 of the UK fleet [~ 100 out of 400] sent to liberate the troops at Dunkirk.

Where did you get that figure from and were these 100 sunk/damaged ships frontline RN vessels or other RN or civilian vessels?

"Hitlers Blitzkrieg Campaigns", J&H Kaufmann,pp259

1 x AA Cruiser [damaged]
56 xDestroyers [9 sunk & 19 damaged]
6 x Sloops [1 damaged]
11 x Corvettes
38 x Minesweepers [5 sunk & 7 Damaged
15 x Torpedo Boats
3 x Naval Transport
3 xArmed Merchant Ships [1 sunk & 2 damaged]
8 x Hospital Ships [ 1 sunk and 5 damaged]
13 x Cargo ships [3 sunk]
45 x Ferry boats [9 sunk & 8 damaged]
40x Tugboats [6 sunk]
230 x Trawlers [23 sunk & 2 damaged]
40 x Dutch Skoots [1 sunk]
27 x yachts [1 sunk]
48 x Barges [4 sunk]

British used barges and they didn't seem to sink as people think German barges would?

[Paul Lakowski]

While its true that the Luftwaffe had little experience attacking warships , it didn't seem to have stopped them sink/damage ~ 1/4 of the UK fleet [~ 100 out of 400] sent to liberate the troops at Dunkirk.

Where did you get that figure from and were these 100 sunk/damaged ships frontline RN vessels or other RN or civilian vessels?

"Hitlers Blitzkrieg Campaigns", J&H Kaufmann,pp259

1 x AA Cruiser [damaged]
56 xDestroyers [9 sunk & 19 damaged]
6 x Sloops [1 damaged]
11 x Corvettes
38 x Minesweepers [5 sunk & 7 Damaged
15 x Torpedo Boats
3 x Naval Transport
3 xArmed Merchant Ships [1 sunk & 2 damaged]
8 x Hospital Ships [ 1 sunk and 5 damaged]
13 x Cargo ships [3 sunk]
45 x Ferry boats [9 sunk & 8 damaged]
40x Tugboats [6 sunk]
230 x Trawlers [23 sunk & 2 damaged]
40 x Dutch Skoots [1 sunk]
27 x yachts [1 sunk]
48 x Barges [4 sunk]

British used barges and they didn't seem to sink as people think German barges would?

As I pointed out else where, First Sea Lord Pound, him self conceded the fact that up to 100,000 german troops could land on british ports all round england and scotland, without being intercepted by the RN. Once the ports are secured , they would be followed with 168 merchant ships carring upto 700,000 tons of supplies fuel and heavy weapons.

[Michael N. Ryan]

Gentlemen;

I find this post interesting. I actually wish I had come looking here much ealier. I wrote a novel onthe possible invasion of Britain by the Germans SEALION'S BYTE. And I must conclude the way Hitler played his forces, he would have lost. He lost too many ships off Norway, and; didn't work hard enough to replace them. His invasion preparations though impressive were scanty and shallow. I suspect he was trying to bluff Britain to the peace tables.

1. Hitler didn't have enough ships to carry his men.
2, He didn't have enough warships to cover for them against Royal navy Counter attacks.
3. He didn't give his people enough time to prepare.

4.Though he had enough big artillery to shoot across the channel, he didn't deploy it well enough.
5. By building up directly across Britain along the channel he pretty much told Britain where he was going if he tried.

Even though Britain was on the ropes, he would have lost.

[von_noobie]

well i have to disagree, i think that an onvasion was possible becouse once the ports along the channal are secured the RN has to sail a lot further to go and attack the german ships, germany could just have set up the u-boats into two groups covering each side of the beach head to stop the RN blocking there supply's.

[Michael N. Ryan]

And let us not forget all those mines the germans planned to lay to cover their flanks.

While researching my novel Sealion's Byte I learned quite a lot, and; after it was pubilshed, I learend even more. Overall the German main problem was that they didn't have enough ships. Not enough transports to carry sufficient troops to push through for the kill. Yes the british were on the ropes but they still had enough ground troops to hold their ground against what ever small forces the Germasn managed to get ashore. They didn't have enough ships to supply their troops once they got them ashore, though I suppose they might fly in supplies. They had some interesting ideas similar to the Mulberies but unfortunately nobody planned to implement them. But the big one is that they didn't have enough warships to cover their own forces to protect them. The Royal Navy was big enough to do the job.

Hitler's stupidity created too many opportunities for things to go wrong and that is ultimately where Sealion would have failed if it were tried.

The only way for Sealion to prevail is if Churchill were more of a fool which he was not.

The biggest problem was that the Germans lacked preparations. Hitler was a pathetic planner. His ideas for planning was a List of I Wants and that was as far as he went. When his Generals tried to do a better job, he often sacked them and put toadies in their place.

Had the Germans started preparing for invading Britain at least as far back as they had begun planning their Ardennes offensive, they could have pulled it off the way Macksey theorizes in his book.

All they had to do would be seize a beach, land a couple of panzer divisions and Britain is guttted and down.

But Hitler didn't. He didn't even begin planning for Sealion as soon as the beaches of Dunkirk were evacuated.

So the Germans had to rush. Rushing is the enemy of planning and planning, starting with logistics, is always the key to success in war.

Hitler was really quite pathetic as a war leader.

When war loomed over Poland, Goering wanted to Pearl Harbor the Royal navy at Scapa Flow. Hitler nixed it. If Goering had had his way, the Royal navy would have suffered a crushing set back.

At the beginning of the war, Kriegsemarine wanted to send out its warships raiders and submarines before conflict began. Hitler nixed it. Had Raeder got his way Britain's supply lines wouldhave been cut down deeply.

He seems to have believed swagering around with a fierce face and a nasty step would bring the allies to the peace table. Unfortunately for him Churchill and Roosevelt had enough experience with bullies to see through him.

He never learned. His plans for Russia speak volumes as to his folly.

And because of Hitler's stupidity Germany lost.

To make matters worse, the way the Germans were building up their invasion force, the Brits pretty much knew where he was coming from and where his troops might go. So once the Germasn were on the beaches the Britis could push in First Armored and push them off into the sea.

If the Germans had been more devious, hinting at an invasion of East Anglia with a feign at the Southern Beaches to draw the Royal Navy into a trap along with Britain's armor, I believe the Germans would have succeeded. They would have done their chances better if they had built up or preserved their surface fleet to keep the Royal navy at bay long enough to get their troops ashore and fueled for the gutting of Britain.

Overall, the way Hitler had things set up, Sealion would have failed.