Operation Sealion: Actually a Bad Idea

[@thoughtfulinsanity3050]

Yeah sealion is the kind of thing that is only possible in a video game with incredibly unintelligent ai... No game in particular, why do you ask?

[@jakobschoning7355]

@@thoughtfulinsanity3050 I think we all understood which game you where talking about :P

[@TheSonOfDumb]

lmao true, but it's a very daunting undertaking in HoI3.

[@thoughtfulinsanity3050]

@@jakobschoning7355 yeah that was unnecessary.

[@seamuspink9098]

Victoria 3?

[@faristaj2326]

It's possible in Supreme Ruler Ultimate. Only if you somehow manage to kill their navy.

[@DuckSwagington]

You forgot that to resupply the German forces, they needed to capture a port. Every port in South East England was rigged to blow if the Germans invaded making them utterly useless for any invader. The Allies in 1944 pulled their resources together to create their own harbours and even then they were limited. This is why the capture of ports such as Cherbourg and Le Havre were vital in the latter stages of Overlord. Also keep in mind that things still went badly during Overlord, especially at Omaha beach, and that operation involved the two leading Naval powers of the time, who had been preparing for such an invasion for at least 2 years, and had previous amphibious experience in Norway and the Pacific. And people still say Sealion would've succeeded...

[@EagleSix52]

Sir i like you i see you are a man of culture as well..

[@condorboss3339]

@Andy the Malevolent Exactly. Canada learned that the hard way August 19, 1942

[@GoranXII]

Strictly speaking you _can_ resupply over the beach, but it's a slow, laborious process, and since it would have relied on river-barges (most of which were unpowered), would have seen incredible losses.

[@davehitchman5171]

@@GoranXII We resupplied over the beach by the expedient of building two floating harbours and taking them across the channel with us. Non trivial with a navy and airforce still existing which is why the RAF would need to be defeated before such an attempt (we had defeated the Luftwaffe). With zero air cover but still with ship and subs the RN could have near suicidaly damaged or sunk any similar harbour the Germans had used if they had tried without the superiority at sea. However the idea that we had explosives wired in harbours seems a little dubious, if we had then what was to stop a German bomb triggering the disaster during an air raid? I have little doubt we would have done our best to put the major harbours out of action once an invasion fleet was on the move.

[@GoranXII]

@@davehitchman5171 Resupply 'over the beach' does *not* refer to the Mulberries, but to supplies delivered either by landing craft, or by amphibious vehicles. Also, demolition charges aren't made of raw nitroglycerine, but of gelignite (at least, the British ones were made of a version of it), so for said bomb to unintentionally detonate the explosives, it would have to land very close, probably close enough to do the work of the explosives anyway.

[@runlarryrun77]

Something that is always forgotten among all this is the role that the regular army supported by the Home Guard would have played. Yes, they had a lot of equipment lost at Dunkirk, but ww1 weapons had been mothballed or given to secondary units & would have been brought back into frontline service. Ok they wouldn't have been state of the art, but good enough when you're firing from a defensive position. Also, the Home Guard were not the rag tag badly organised bunch that popular culture believes them to be. Many of them were hardened combat veterans who had a deep seated hatred of the Germans from the last war. I don't think they would have just watched them land & run around yelling "don't panic". Rather they would have poured all available hell onto the beaches & ripped apart whatever made it past the Royal Navy. If any units made it past the beaches, well, much of the south of England is like Normandy. We know what trouble the allies had breaking out of that situation, with equipment vastly superior to that of the Wermacht in 1940, plus the German defenders often didn't really know the area of Normandy they were defending as they'd get transferred around a lot. They wouldn't have had any intimate knowledge of the south of England, unlike the people they would have been fighting, particularly Home Guard units who were often made up of men who'd lived in those areas for many years. Good luck with that, seriously. I feel things would have panned out very differently if Sealion had taken place. The world would have seen that Hitler & the Nazis weren't unstoppable much earlier than they did. Imagine the effect that would have had on people's perceptions & ultimately the outcome of the war.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

Old WW1 machine guns still fire bullets,ww1 era bullets still kill a man, old artillery and anti-tank guns might not work on panzers but it would rip infantry to pieces, but here is the thing a lot of people who think Germany could successful invade Britain forget., the Germans would have no armour when they land and little to no heavier weaponry either. So even if only a few light British tanks attack the beachhead with infantry support, they could quite easily drive the forces into the channel. The Germans would need to capture a port very soon or on invasion day in order to get there armour and heavier weapons across. Now taking ports in seaborne invasions never go well and the port is destroyed normally before it falls or is damaged from the fighting. I doubt the Germans could take a port at all on invasion day never mind take it intact. Then there is the factor that if the Germans had invaded the UK managed to stay there somehow and form a bridgehead, the supplies would be shaky at best, the commonwealth would send spare troops to the UK in assisting in it's defence alongside any Pacific based British troops who are also called back home. The Canadians i know would quickly muster up some forces to send over to help. never mind the left of revenge seeking units of the occupied nations who have retreated to the UK already. I really doubt the Polish would just sit by as German troops stayed in a beachhead on the UK. they would seek revenge for there homeland. Same goes for other nation's troops as well and even the BEF wanting pay back for Dunkirk.

[@courageunitycompassi]

I think that like America, Hitler would find some willing accomplices in England. He was celebrated before the war. Before the true horror was considered.

[@courageunitycompassi]

“You can always rely on America to do the right thing. When all other possibilities have been exhausted” -Churchill

[@courageunitycompassi]

But Britain and France sent there best to fight Germany and were defeated in France. In 1914 and 1939.

[@uncertified-banger5595]

@@courageunitycompassi France wasn't defeated in WW1 either...

[@Randall1001]

Not to mention the fact that the Germans had no real experience with amphibious operations, almost no dedicated ships/boats for amphibious troop landings (they were pressing barges into service) and no real plan for the creation of artificial harbors to temporarily supply troops (necessary until you capture a good port) and no capability of building anything of the kind. Their navy was inadequate to the task and they had no tradition of a marine-type force who specializes in this kind of thing. It took more than a year of planning and preparation for the allies to successfully execute the Normandy landings, even with their far better knowledge of--and experience with--amphibious warfare... and D-Day was still touch and go. Sea Lion was a crazy idea.

[@fishyc150]

I'm 47. I'm still fit, I'm still healthy and I'm still serving. I first joined the army in 1989. That's 30 years ago. There were literally millions of ex WW1 British servicemen still in a position to serve with very little catch-up training. A 20year old soldier in 1916 would only be in his early 40s in ww2. Don't believe the home guard was made up of just old men.

[@jwadaow]

Old is relative and at the time people got old younger.

[@photoisca7386]

@Adecodoo Why don't you just say what you mean? That the British and anything they achieved during W.W.2 was irrelevant. Its been standard practice to demean Britain for decades. Only the heroic Soviets, who only fought on one front and the U.S who selflessly saved the World count.

[@Robert399]

@@jwadaow Yes but not by 40 and not in the 20th century. Even in antiquity, 40 was very much still military age.

[@jackbruce8309]

@Adecodoo why did they design and produce a special water tight panzer 3 specifically capable of crossing the English channel then? Also why did they bother to capture the channel islands?

[@jackbruce8309]

@Adecodoo the channel islands served no real strategic purpose other than to springboard an invasion, they were more difficult to consistently staff and resupply so why bother occupying them for defense? And yes they did have a panzer able to cross the channel, the tauchpanzer III and they were obviously seriously considering invading as they converted 168 panzer IIIs into tauchpanzers for the invasion

[@Nakrin27]

You want a _very_ bad idea? Take on the British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union all at once.

[@lawrencegabrieln.fabula2380]

o o f

[@ryantenbosch7135]

Nah that a great idea look how it went with Hitler

[@Wallyworld30]

Well to be fair it was the British Empire that Declared War on Germany. Germany only declared war on the Soviet Union and the United States, France, Poland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, etc.

[@Epck]

@@dario0523 correct besides it was beligum that set off the Brits...it is possible britan would have taken much longer to join had beligum been left alone

[@hottestcheese7973]

Espc no that was WW1 mate Britain declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland and also the British were the main factors in D day suppling most of the men, ships and equipment

[@sugarnads]

Of course it was a bad idea. It seemed to just assume the Royal Navy would sit on its arse and allow a huge convoy of unarmed or armoured barges to cross the channel entirely unmolested. And the RAF was perfectly capable of providing tactical air superiority over the fleet. RN would have stood off and shat on sealion from 25 miles away (main armament range approx) IF they even allowed it to leave its ports. It was always a ridiculous notion.

[@HaloFTW55]

The Royal Navy might just do that. Once all the German material and men are in one place, a night dash with the home fleet through the channel with guns blazing would probably force Germany to capitulate sooner.

[@iansneddon2956]

It is the resupply problem that would ruin it for the Germans. The RN's stated advice to the government is that they lacked the means to stop the Germans from landing tens of thousands of troops in the south of England. The reason is that they had the Home Fleet stationed far to the north at Scapa Flow - where the Luftwaffe could not bomb their facilities or attack ships at anchor. The German bombers that might be capable of hitting a battleship or cruiser maneuvering at full speed lacked the payload capacity for bombs that could penetrate the ships' armor. The plan was to keep the Home Fleet intact where the Germans could not whittle away at it so that in the event of a landing they could flood the Channel with overwhelming naval strength. Losses would be high on both sides but a German invasion was an existential threat to Britain so the Royal Navy would have thrown everything they had for as long as they could to break the invasion force. And they had so many ships they could lose and still have naval superiority. Also, talk about the Luftwaffe achieving air superiority misses the point. That isn't enough. For D-Day the Allies achieved air supremacy. German bombers supporting the invasion would still face British fighters and at night British heavy bombers would pulverize whatever port facilities the Germans were using on either side of the Channel. Hard to hold a defensive line much less advance through hostile territory when your fuel and ammunition reserves are gone.

[@tomhenry897]

The RN was afraid or the Luftwaffee and the RAF wasn’t big enough then to take on the LUFTwaffee

[@anthonyeaton5153]

​@@tomhenry897being afraid is not the same as being unwilling to fight.

[@KraytTheGreat]

@@tomhenry897 I would argue that the RAF was big enough to take on the Luftwaffe at this point. Because.. you know.. they won the Battle of Britain. Yes, there were moments when the situation was dire, but they weren't going to lose.

[@muhchung]

Just think how much it took for Normandy landing to happen.

Sure, but Germany had 4 years to build the "Atlantikwall".

[@kaletovhangar]

@ Then gets attacked where it's weakest.

[@b-cantaradrianjoesj.8436]

@@kaletovhangar just when Germans thought that they would land in Calais

[@KaiserFranzJosefI]

The Atlantic Wall was breeched within a week. Static, depthless defenses are fundamentally flawed.

[@SvenTviking]

René Wuttke But the atlantic wall was at no one place as powerful as six battleships, twenty cruisers and fifty destroyers. It would only have taken a fraction of that fleet to get into the channel and destroy the invasion fleet or to bombard the invasion forces and supplies on the beach.

[@rayyanma1608]

In the 1970s, the British military conducted a war game scenario of a hypothetical Operation Sea Lion with the assumption that Germany fails to gain air supremacy, but does not bomb London, giving them enough control of the skies to try. In short: Using converted river barges, Germany successfully lands with small losses and establishes a beachhead and also uses paratroopers, they are able to move inland roughly 20km before getting bogged down due to good defenses and lack of good tanks and heavier artillery. As time goes, the British land forces successfully counterattack while the home fleet crushes the little defenses of the Kriegsmarine and blocks necessary supplies and reinforcements. Eventually, the Germans are forced to evacuate with most not making it. Operation Sea Lion was agreed upon by everyone to be a failure. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

[@xSayresthx]

And that only could happen if the Royal marine did not intervene and the Luftwaffe was buffed. Either way it was a failure.

[@annoyingcat6980]

Laughs in hoi4

[@psk1w1]

I can just imagine the barges en masse. The RAF has a turkey-shoot. Then a large UK boat drives through them, and crushes a few, lots more get sunk by the wash. The rest are totally scattered and have great difficulty reforming. Oh, and the RAF comes back, again, again, again. Not many left

[@patrickodan]

late reply i know. but the british got a few unfair advantages in that game that heavily influenced it. these are even mentioned in the wiki page. it probably wouldn't have resulted in a different outcome, but it's possible. perhaps a new game should be held? :P

[@sillypuppy5940]

I believe in this scenario the RN gave the Germans 24 hours to land unmolested. As if that would have happened!

[@santoast24]

if Germany had just done what Cristo did that one time and played only x5 speed, they would have been able to invade and win in 6 minutes.

[@CountCristo]

simple stuff

[@shadow_wolf6629]

Legend

[@Alessandro-vl8bu]

Count Cristo I love you Cristo

[@mileslisner1004]

Count Cristo Your most popular videos are hoi4 you should make more of those

[@Dog.soldier1950]

A close comparison is the Africa Corps in 1941-42. The RN and RAF successful isolated the Africa Corps from its base of supply and they dropped like a plum. Out of gas, ammo and supply.

[@itsyaboithanos717]

The logistical situation of an invasion force landing in the isle’s would have been extremely dire so no wonder the german high command was unconfident about the operation, unlike the overconfident luftwaffe which thought that it was unstoppable and that Britain would fall in mere weeks

[@historigraph]

Logistics, Logistics, Logistics!

[@Healermain15]

Didn't the Luftwaffe also promise to completely destroy the Dunkirk pocket while they were bottled up? Although to be fair to the germans, they never really had to do a lot of naval invasions before. They barely had an empire, and they had a big land border with most of their enemies.

[@MK-je7kz]

Luftwaffe might have been able to supply the troops for a while, but the invasion would have needed lots of tanks to succeed and that would have been impossible to get over.

[@kaletovhangar]

@@MK-je7kz Tanks can't go anywhere without the fuel and maintenance.

[@FatGouf]

Amateurs think tactics, professsionals think logistics.

[@2headedtasman200]

Even if they landed, they would just have to surrender after a week or two. It would be impossible to supply them. Just no chance.

[@MrToymaster1]

It would have become a reverse Dunkirk by December 1940 The Wehrmacht surrounded in Dover trying to get to Calais

[@steveholmes11]

True that - Sausages were rationed in England.

[@SmelliestElm]

They would just use convoys to supply their troops sure many would be destroyed but just build more dockyards and convoy spam

[@piotrd.4850]

Two weeks of stable supply for Army Group ? Win for Germany anyway. For single army ? Royal problem for British.

[@kaletovhangar]

@@piotrd.4850 Thing is Germans couldn't have maintained secure supply lines, with first night British navy would have attacked German convoys and landings.

[@z_actual]

The Germans lost half their destroyers at Narvik Norway to the hands of the RN. They pretty much burned all their chances at invading England in that one battle. Using barges echoes of Erkine Childers Riddle of the Sands, it was crazy then in 1910, even crazier in 1940

[@TheTTM1]

Riddle of the Sands is an underrated classic

[@daemonofdecay]

Sea lion still has its defenders. But when you ask them to justify all the changes necessary to make it work, they start to get really defensive. Or they try to claim submarines could resupply the Heer, and you can just laugh at them.

[@asnekboi7232]

The Luffwaffe will save us!

[@seamusmustapha8378]

​@@asnekboi7232hhhmmmmm where have I heard THAT before

[@tomhenry897]

What changes

[@arthursandomine5464]

Submarines? Hah! That's a good one! And they would ship what? One create at the time 🤣🤣

[@dominiccoyne8730]

If they actually tried to launch an invasion there’s a chance that they could’ve immediately lost the entire war by the sheer catastrophic losses and I think that is fucking hilarious

[@Brian-om2hh]

Almost every beach good enough to make a landing on England's South Coast had been fitted with pipework to set the sea ablaze using a mix of oil and some other flammable chemical.....and an army of coast watchers were waiting for an invasion to begin..... Surprise would have been impossible.....

[@davidperin9938]

Honestly had they tried I think the Soviets would have done a stab in the back. Just imagine the German high command in this timeline. You just got finished with operation Sealion which as you predicted would be a trainwreck resulting in the loss of the majority of The Luftwaffe, only to then learn The Red Army has launched an invasion in the East. Not a good time at all.

[@Jobother]

@@davidperin9938they would be even more screwed than they were irl

[@sarjim4381]

Another excellent video. The biggest problem for Germany was not the actual invasion. There's a reasonable chance that could have succeeded with some luck. The biggest problem would be supplying the troops once they got onshore. Even a small salient would have been nearly impossible to supply after the first week. The Kriegsmarine just didn't have the experience or planning to maintain a supply conveyor, and it's doubtful that they could have mobilized enough merchant shipping to carry the volume of supplies needed.

[@gibbletronic5139]

Sar Jim I agree that a large beachhead was impossible for the Germans to maintain, but I've always wondered what would have happened in the Germans had managed to land a battalion sized armored and mechanized group, to be re supplied by air, with orders to hide in the day, attack at night, and hit British airfields, radar stations, and destroy resupply infrastructure, bridges, and communications.

[@sarjim4381]

@@gibbletronic5139 It's an interesting concept. I'm not sure where a battalion sized outfit would be able to hid by day since their landing wouldn't have gone unnoticed, and the RN and RAF would be pounding them around the clock. Given what happened with attempts to resupply in AFrica using lumbering Ju-52's would have an almost impossible time getting to the beachhead and back again. I think the only chance would have been landing in force and then holding enough area to allow resupply by ship and planes landing at airfields. Holding airfields would have allowed the Luftwaffe to get in the fight with the RAF without having to fly cross channel.

[@gibbletronic5139]

Actually, I was thinking that the Germans would land someplace unexpected, like the areas of the peninsula to the north of Cornwall with several company sized units landing at different locations which have British cruiser/crusader tanks attacking multiple objectives simultaneously, with resupply coming in on gliders and paratroopers providing the replacement manpower. This would have given this raiding force the ability to resupply at preselected locations, or wherever needed, according to the tactical situation. The RAF would have a much more difficult time locating smaller groups, and they might even hesitate attacking what looks like friendly troops and tanks. By using english speaking troops in the raiding group, the Germans might even be able to convince some members of the Home Guard that they are friendlies, and sow confusion that way. The Germans had plenty of captured British equipment and uniforms after driving the BEF back across the channel, and I think that this would have been the best use for it if they were going to try and achieve air superiority over the RAF during the early stages of the Battle of Britain. At the very least, such a raid would have diverted the RAF from defending against the Luftwaffe bombing raids, and the RAF would have to worry about their air bases coming under ground attack. If the Germans managed to blow up several bridges to isolate an area around Cornwall for at least several days, they might have seized an airbase or two, and if the Luftwaffe had managed to stage planes from there, things might have become rather interesting, especially if the Germans kept the civilian population mostly in place to avert the anticipated British use of chemical weapons. I think that this sort of raid is high risk, and would have probably failed, but if the Germans had managed to take the air bases around Cornwall, base a few squadrons of fighter planes there, drop in a regiment of paratroopers, and land in a few batteries of 88 flakcannons to support the 40-50 tanks and 50-60 half tracks that remained and that they would already have in place, then things would have become incredibly interesting.

[@sarjim4381]

@@gibbletronic5139 I guess the concept of a raid rather than landing in force might have had a chance although what happened in Dieppe might have been the same fate in England for the Germans. If there were specific objectives like blowing up bridges or dams, that may have been doable with planning and good luck. I suspect the Germans didn't have much faith in their skills at amphibious landings, and the experience with paratroopers at Crete in may of 1941 would have put paid to the idea of large scale deployment of paratroopers. It's an interesting concept, and one that may have worked if the Germans had the like of Admiral Yamamoto on their staff.

[@KuK137]

"a reasonable chance that could have succeeded with some luck" Wot? They had literally *zero* chance even if someone gave them cheat codes and deleted RAF and Home Fleet AT ONCE. Nazis had simply not enough ships to actually send a big invasion force, and as noted in video, even what they had were river barges that would be sunk even by wave from fast ship sailing nearby, meaning they would lose the ships they had in next few days. Then you have what, 100.000 soldiers stuck without ammo, food, or fuel in enemy country? It would be week at most before they surrendered and Churchill would have massive propaganda win by parading elite troops in chains through London for all the foreign reporters to see...

[@tisFrancesfault]

Even if they had the equipment to invade and successfully did so, any delay on the ground or sea would leave a beachhead completely vulnerable to the royal navy bombarding the living hell out of them. Trucks fuel, food & water, tanks, artillery etc... Would be destroyed or require extensive repair, which would not be possible. This would cripple any army. It would make Dunkirk look like a swell day out to the seaside. This assuming the royal navy didn't just shell them in France before they even set off.

[@davehitchman5171]

The Royal Navy could have done that assuming the RAF had the skies still. But the operation was always contingent on the RAF being out of it. With no RAF the RN ships would likely have been sunk well before they could inflict more than token damage on an invasion force. The German navy still had some amount of ships and subs at that stage which could have also hurt any such RN attempt.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@cosmonautbilly9570 U-boats don't work well in the channel, to shallow for them to dive from depth charges. The German aircraft also lacked anti capital ship bombs. the british did have heavy weaponry still in Britain. they where not completely disarmed.

[@yourlocalmemeandanimedeale807]

@@cosmonautbilly9570 I think you don't know how stupidly brutal doing an amphibious landing is.

[@HMSPrinceofWhales53p]

The British to my understanding, actually did bombard invasion preperations several times a night. They primarily used older battleships like the Royal Oak class. As to how effective it was I don't know. I just know they did

[@tomhenry897]

The RN pissed themselves at sight of a German plane from the beating they got at dunkrik

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

We all know the Italians raised their flag over Big Ben and conquered the UK Edit 2021: I predicted the future.

[@hottestcheese7973]

Napoleon I Bonaparte spaghetti.exe has stopped working

[@worldisdoomed9994]

Nah it was *THE THUNDER DRAGON EMPIRE*

[@garygartenzwerg9870]

A certain bald Italian who has a boner for re-creating the Roman Empire would be very pleased.

[@mokka1115]

Napoleon with 60,000 troops and the whole french fleet invade britain. Fail Hitler with the Luftwaffe and the entire german navy invade britain. Also fails Some bald guy with a bowl of spaghetti as a boat and some wine travel around the world to invade britain. Somehow succeds.

[@ZnenTitan]

Nah, the Italians only conquered the British mods, and they did that with Vespa scooters and cool cloths.

[@fulcrum2951]

A plan that assumes a passive enemy isn't a plan, it's daydream

[@christophercao7027]

Military History Visualized?

[@fulcrum2951]

@@christophercao7027 yes

[@brucenorman8904]

it is an alcohol and meth fueled fantasy with delusions of competence.

[@3baxcb]

And a daydream that the Bohemian corporal had several times over.

[@Prometosermejor]

Good video! Acually Raeder was praying for a failure in the Sky control as he knew Sea Lion was suicidal... there was a wargame played in UK in 1947 that show how bad could Sea Lion had been.

[@solarfreak1107]

I think you are referring to the Sandhurst Wargames. Which as played in the 1970s. They found that the only way to win SeaLion, was you had to take away the army, navy and air force. Only after the Home Guard was left, Germany won lol. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

[@Prometosermejor]

@@solarfreak1107 Yep true. It was not 1947, but 1974....dammm "keyboadr"! ;)

[@nilloc93]

@@Prometosermejor no it was in 1974, good try champ.

[@solarfreak1107]

@@Prometosermejor Don't worry typos happen. You're good ! :)

[@stevelenz8493]

Álvaro Alonso Macías Raeder was extremely incompetent and if Donitz had power at the time operation sea lion would have been possible with air superiority It was hitlers fault at the time as well not allowing the Bismarck and Tirpitz to be put into service early with the later being in port for the whole war

[@Shytzedaka]

How come this Channel has only 53K? wheres the Milion!? Great channel. these kind of videos are why i subscribed in the first place!

[@Schmidty1]

Your're disregarding the historical observation that if you paratroop london with 1 paratrooper division in HOI4, you capitualte the UK. This historical negligence is unacceptable!

[@patrickelliott-brennan8960]

You think Churchill would have surrendered had the Germans suicidally dropped paratroopers on London? I think your historical negligence is shown by how that same person would have fought by himself against any odds and the British wouldn't surrender even if the German paratroopers had gained a foothold. Where were their supplies coming from in the middle of a heavily armed city in the middle of a heavily armed country?

[@Schmidty1]

@@patrickelliott-brennan8960 im joking about a video game. HOI4= Hearts of Iron IV. Lmao, you thought I was serious? LOLOLOLOL you made my day for your inability to understand sarcasm.

[@patrickelliott-brennan8960]

@Schmidty LOL. Sarcasm? Fine.

[@Schmidty1]

@@patrickelliott-brennan8960 have you not heard of hoi4?

[@patrickelliott-brennan8960]

No. I'm afraid not. I had to look it up after you mentioned it just now. Seems quite interesting. Unfortunately these days I don't have much time games, more's the pity.

[@Caratacus1]

Dunkirk showed that even under ideal conditions it's very unlikely that there would have been 'heavy casualties' to RN warships from the Luftwaffe. All those destroyers just parked off Dunkirk with German air superiority and how many did the Luftwaffe sink over the whole campaign? Three. Now imagine them trying to bomb accurately in a swirling melee in the channel where ships are twisting among smoke and shell at high speed. Not a chance. Not only were the Luftwaffe planes inadequate, so was their anti-ship ordinance, and so was their crew training. They didn't even begin to get a decent anti-ship capability until 1941.

[@iroscoe]

Especially given that at least part of any anti invasion fight was likely to happen at night .

[@MaximKretsch]

Tell that to the British sailors whose ships were sunken offshore Crete by the Luftwaffe in May 1941 with the same planes that were fielded already in May 1940.

[@iroscoe]

@@MaximKretsch Operating without air cover and low on AAA ammo neither of which is likely in the channel they still managed to destroy the seaborne element of the invasion of Crete .

[@piotrd.4850]

Indecisive action in Dunkirk was one of many German blunders. Also: remember Prince of Wales ? They were thinking and saying pretty much what you just said. Didn't help much against japanese. Also: Germans didn't need another Taranto - Luftwaffe had to just STALL RN and RAF long enough for Herr to capture major airfields. I agree in principle that Germans had lot of problems and deficiencies for successful operation with reasonable odds - but again, that was true of most of their campaigns, where it didn't hamper them as much as their own command blunders.

[@Diverball1]

The Japanese specifically equipped and trained for anti-ship combat for years before Pearl Harbour, because they believed that knocking out the US Pacific Fleet was essential to their war aims. The Luftwaffe was a purely tactical air force equipped and trained to support the German army. They had no plans to fight the Royal Navy, and thus didn't really put much effort into making preparations to do so.

[@senor4696]

*HOI4 British AI wants to know your location*

[@jessewhite2374]

Sealion was the equivalent of a fly planning to attack a spider while the spider was in it's web. You can't plan around the web...

[@bigbadjohn10]

The other thing you did not mention was the in depth defences put up in the southern England. Beaches were covered in all kinds of impedances to make the initial landing difficult and requiring effort to clear to allow a bridge head. The southern English coast is a mixture of sheer chalk cliffs and river valleys with extensive marshes, particularly at that time. There were many substantial barriers constructed across dry fields etc up to the roads. At the first hint of an invasion the roads would have been blocked and possessions taken up by troops to make the possible weak parts killing zones. One air field in Kent was planned to be abandoned with the hope that the Germans would land on it. It was mined across its whole area. The airfield is still there and is located next to the Kent show ground. The mines were only removed about 20 years ago! I understand that the British plan was only to put up a token defence to the landing and to wait for most of the men and equipment to be landed.

[@bigbadjohn10]

The Navy would then have cut off the supplies across the channel and the RAF attacked the ports in France where the stuff was being collected. The landed troops would be attacked from land, air and sea. They would not have got far.

[@tomhenry897]

With what Everything was left at dunkrik

[@Lazmanarus]

@@tomhenry897 There was a lot of mothballed WW1 equipment around Britain & the Germans had no way of bringing over any of their medium to heavy armour. The sea ports in the area were boobytrapped & would have been blown up, the Germans had no Mulberry harbours to allow them to land supplies in the quantities needed.

[@Groundsey]

Having read Leo McKinstrys book, I can tell you that any one invasion force would have been absolutely annihilated by the Royal Navy. If they had established a beach head, they would have been destroyed by flexible deployment forces and sea defences.

[@28ebdh3udnav]

Also take into account the hundreds of small craft that they could have used filled with explosives and sunk to creat a barrier. The U.S. was also supplying the British by the start of the war. Chances are that they were going to supply light weapons for defense like mortars and hundreds of possible rifles and machine guns.

[@bill0127]

Why does everyone think the Royal Navy would have stopped the invasion force? If the Navy did go in the Channel the Luftwaffe could have destroyed it with an effective fighter escort, and lure the RAF into a pitched fight. Essentially what the Luftwaffe tried to get the RAF to do when it was bombing shipping in the channel before Adler Tag.

[@Groundsey]

bill 012 Have you not just watched the video? The Krigesmarine were completely outmatched. The Luftwaffe weren’t as all powerful as the British beloved. Even if the Luftwaffe gain air superiority temporarily it doesn’t mean they could retain it.

[@chakatfirepaw]

@@bill0127 This would be the same Luftwaffe that had trouble hitting ships sitting in port?

[@piotrd.4850]

@@chakatfirepaw same Luftwaffe that had no trouble of hitting _tanks_ on Eastern Front.

[@davidlewis5312]

I think the fact the Germany navy thought this was madness is telling

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

I suspect that Erich Raeder hoped that Goering's boasting would come true, and Britain would come to terms. If so, any landing would be, at most, little more than ceremonial, akin to the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. In the meantime, preparations, such as the assembly and conversion of large numbers of (unsuitable) barges and motor boats, went ahead. Directive 16 commanded it, and disagreeing with the fuhrer was unhealthy.

[@tomhenry897]

Thought going to war was madness as wanted 2 more years to prepare

[@Brian-om2hh]

And it certainly would have been madness. The Royal Navy was at it's strongest in 1940.....

[@3baxcb]

And they didn't even know that the Enigma code machines were compromised. That and early radar systems would play a part in British defenses.

[@danishkfd]

I mean the German navy was the only department of Germany with at least minimal acceptance of reality and they actually knew their capabilities

[@lineboss58]

I saw a documentary many years ago in which surviving British and German high command staff, played a war game in the 1970s of operation sea lion and Germany lost. If i remember correctly 47,000 invading troops were left high and dry with no supplies and captured by British forces, the deciding factor in all this was the royal navies intervention two days later.

[@Dell-ol6hb]

To be fair any naval invasion is unbelievable costly and difficult, especially against an island empire with the largest navy on Earth, like Great Britain.

[@harleyokeefe5193]

Dell12 16 costly sure, but operation sea lion was impossible

[@albundy9597]

Sea lion was a bluff to force Churchills hand, neither Hitler nor Raeder took it seriously but once the charade had started it had to go on. German generals were world class and had shown throughout the war that they always did the unexpected. Hitler was the cross that the profesional generals had to bear.

[@harleyokeefe5193]

@@albundy9597 if your suggesting that they could have pulled it off don’t, British Generals where also world class and knew this was a bluff, and they also likely knew it was impossible for the Germans with or without Hitler in command. German weharboos like to blame everything on Hitler ignoring the fact that the German generals where not infallible

[@albundy9597]

@@harleyokeefe5193 Nobody is infallible but it does make one think that with virtually the whole world against them it still took the allies 6 years to defeat them. I doubt that any of the allies alone could have defeated them. I do think that without 'Barbarossa' German troops would have eventually been marching down Whitehall.

[@jdhill4]

@@harleyokeefe5193 I have no idea where I heard or read this many years ago, but I recall that Churchill had stated in private that he wanted the Germans to try it as he thought it would be a disaster for them. I haven't been able to substantiate that memory though.

[@Marcus51090]

There’s no way the British are going to sit and allow Germany to mine anything I really think Hitler grossly underestimated the brits stubbornness

[@1207rorupar]

Sealion: exists Royal Navy: I'm about to end this man's whole career

[@koboz9321]

Unfunny and overused 🖕🏻

[@GoranXII]

Also, the Luftwaffe couldn't have won air superiority, not over the whole theatre. At the most, they could have won air superiority over the counties of Kent and East Sussex, but that would just have meant No. 11 Group pulling out of those bases, it certainly wouldn't have done anything to affect their airfields further inland, or those of No. 10 and No. 12 groups. So in effect the Luftwaffe was being asked to: 1) Suppress the RAF (at least, Fighter, Bomber, Coastal and Training Commands) 2) Suppress the RN surface fleet 3) Provide fire-support to the army Yes, okay, Goering was far from the best possible leader the Luftwaffe could have had, but even Nick Fury couldn't have done the job.

[@mcdrums87]

The best evidence against Sealion’s plausibility (IMO) is D-Day. Even WITH air superiority, naval control of the channel, and the right ships for the crossing (and a multi-nation coalition), the Allies suffered thousands of casualties. Sure, the invasion was ultimately successful, but the German army would be trying to do the equivalent with missing pieces. Perhaps it was understandable to plan around such an invasion, but anyone looking back after June 6, 1944 should see how impossible it would have been.

[@manilajohn0182]

This was a very good video, although with one caveat. The German invasion fleet suffered from two fundamental problems. The first, as the video states, was to supply the invading troops once they had landed. The far more serious problem- contrary to what the video states- was the difficulty in actually getting even the first wave of the invading fleet ashore. The invasion force consisted in large part of unpowered barges which had to be towed across the channel. Because of this, the speed of advance of the force was so low that when the tide shifted against it, the invading force would actually be pushed backwards toward the European continent. The result of this was that the invasion fleet would require the better part of two days to assemble and cross the channel. This more than enough time for British air and naval forces to converge on and pulverize the invasion force- and the barges of that force were vital to German inland river traffic. Overall however, the video presents an outstanding picture of magnitude of difficulty facing the Germans and is one of the best that I've seen.

[@taffwob]

The best single summation of the folly of Operation Sealion I've heard was that it treated an amphibious invasion like a river crossing.

[@gearldcline3615]

Another point not mentioned is that, in 1940, no nation on earth possessed the specialized equipment (landing craft) that would have made this kind of amphibious operation possible on the scale needed to accomplish its goals. The Americans were just starting to acquire Higgins boats, and the British military would develop an impressive amphibious capability over the next four years. But, in 194 the German military did not have the physical capability to land these large numbers of troops across an open channel. Sea Lion was a pipe dream from that standpoint alone.

[@lukeyeates8595]

No to mention the landing beaches they chose are mostly steep single to very tall cliffs. Even the best landing craft would struggle to get men ashore safely there in bad weather. The whole thing was a joke compared to D day and all the planning that went into that.

[@dougfowler1368]

In Alternate history circles, Alien Space Bat, a term for anyting literally in our world impossible, was first used specifically to describe a successful Sealion, as in "it would take the intervention of alien space bats to make it succeed." The cool thing is, I was on the usenet new group when a woman who was a real history buff first coined it.

[@NareshSinghOctagon]

Which type of "bats" we talkin' 'bout? Because I find both options to be equally hilarious.

[@MrPancake777]

Completely agrees with this video, invasion of Britain would have been disastrous for the Germans. Even the Invasion of France in 44’ was a monumental task for the allies, and they had complete control of the skies and seas. There was no way in hell the Germans could have accomplished Sealion without air or sea superiority.

[@robbiecotton6827]

Great vid. I'm actually doing a project at the moment about british defences during world war two (operation sealion especially) were there any good sources you found while making this video?

[@redskindan78]

As a quick dose of common sense: consider the effort that the Allies put into the Normandy invasion. Consider that the US and Royal Navies had absolute control of the Channel, that the Allies had spent two years learning how to win an amphibious assault. Consider the specialized landing craft that had been developed. Consider the planning that went into Normandy. Then compare all that to the German armies standing along the French coast as they hoped to make one crossing on some river barges pulled by tug boats. Sea Lion was a silly idea.

[@glazersout4272]

Very interesting thoughts and take on Operation Sealion. I wonder if Sealion had gone ahead, it would've further weakened the Nazis and maybe, ironically,shortened the war?

[@ilhamionur]

Hearts of Iron 4 left the chat.

[@JoeyY7]

Story for you Historigraph! Very relevant to your points about troops cut off in Sealion's theoretical landing. World War 2 Online, (2008? I forget) - Christmas Day. Developers had recently put in Ju-52s and Fallschirmjäger. While useless, we cram 50+ players into some Ju-52s and leave from somewhere around Brussels late evening. Flying over the English Channel with minimal escort, we somehow arrive over Whitstable without RAF interception. The plan: land Fallschirmjäger at a nearby factory, kill A.I. defenses, place satchel charges, blow it up...then evacuate to our nearby and landed Ju-52s. Except the plan didn't quite go that well... RAF arrived just after we jumped and shot down the Ju-52s as they loitered for landing. A late response from the RAF let us down but...there would be no going home. The rest of the plan went as intended. By now, the Allies had realized what was going on. Reserve troops were spawning in to hunt us down. The Fallschirmjäger at my and another officer's command, retreated to the >BRITISH< bunker at a nearby army base. We slipped past their reserve troops desperately hunting down every last German... and set up in the killholes on their own bunker. One British soldier died to us. Word got out. Soon more spawned in. They died as well. They were armed with rifles, we with automatic weapons. The fight would go on for 20+ minutes. The British laid siege to their own Bunker. We kept hold until ammunition ran dry...and soon were over ran and died. Fought to the last man. To this day, I hold this experience and memory close to my heart. One of the greatest experiences I've had in WW2 gaming.

[@huge7800]

Ah yes, that was how the Germans should have done it

[@FloatingOnAZephyr]

The strength of the Royal Navy in this era is fundamentally misunderstood by so many. The famous names of Bismarck and Tirpitz lead to a distortion about the Kriegsmarine's strength, I think. Sea Lion really does seem to be a fantasy that cooler heads ultimately prevailed on. It would have been a catastrophe, but maybe it would have ended the war a little earlier.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Especially since in September 1940 neither Bismarck nor Titpitz was operational, whilst Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were still repairing torpedo damage from the Norwegian campaign. The strongest ship in the German arsenal was a single heavy cruiser.

[@Vuk3]

Britain had too many torpedo boats for any navy at the time to pull off invasion without getting their navy obliterated

[@brittgardner2923]

I am so glad that someone agrees with my own assessment of Sealion as an inevitable catastrophe. This "invasion" would have been such a botch and a joke that it's likely the war would have ended two or three years early on account of it. Multiply D-Day by 1,000 and you have the likely horror the Germans would have faced trying to storm the southern shores of England. The cliffs are higher, yet comparably fortified. They had far less planning; a couple of months as opposed to literally years. They did not have the specialized landing craft, amphibious vehicles, mobile harbors, etc. that made the Allies' cross-channel invasion of Fortress Europe possible. They had this theoretical scenario of landing such and such a number of men, but no real idea of how they were going to do it. Then there's the naval aspect. The Royal Navy had dozens of refitted WWI, treaty-era, and early-post-treaty battleships, cruisers, and destroyers on call to steam into the channel and rain hell on the beaches where the Germans were trying to establish a beachhead. Was the Kriegsmarine supposed to stop this with two battleships Hitler was afraid to deploy, three glorified battlecruisers, and no aircraft carriers whatsoever? The Royal Navy would have absolutely LOVED for that entire force to show up to the party so it could be sent to the bottom of the channel en masse. What's more, the Luftwaffe, even had it secured air superiority (Fat chance; you can just about build a Hawker Hurricane in your own garage with the right tooling and a set of blueprints.) would have lost so many pilots and aircraft that their ability to address the naval threat would be crippled to the point of comedy. Imagine one or two flights of Stukas in bad repair and with rookie pilots trying a bomb run on a battleship with determined anti-aircraft gunners -- that battleship, by the way, being escorted by two or three cruisers and even more destroyers full of still more incredibly angry young Brits with anti-aircraft weapons. It would be like watching a flock of ducks try to storm a blind full of rednecks with shotguns in the Florida Everglades. Lastly, and most importantly, an invasion of the UK, had the Germans somehow miraculously gotten enough men across the channel to effect it, would have looked like what America feared an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have looked like a few years later. Churchill had said that any lad who could throw a cricket ball could throw a grenade, for St. George's sake! You don't win that battle. No one does really, but at the end of it, you do not own the territory you came to take. For a contemporary example, see Putin's "ten-day special military operation" in Ukraine. And Sealion would have been worse. Its script was a farce so poorly written that nobody bothered with a production.

[@SabbaticusRex]

It was an idea - a bad idea - but one that had to be discussed of course . But people are all here acting as if they discovered some incredible secret or hold some rarified opinion on Sealion lol .. Nobody cares , nobody believes it could have worked and that is why it never happened . Why in the world do people waste so much time worrying or arguing over such things is beyond me . Believe what you want -- guess how much other peoples theories and opinions effect my life ..? Debate bros are weird . Internet master-debators are insufferable .

[@brittgardner2923]

@@SabbaticusRex Nothing in life more disingenuous that going out of your way to tell other people that you don't care what they think.

[@briaryos1]

It took the U.K. and U.S. 3-4 years of war to gain enough experience & materiel to venture across the Channel. The idea of Germany conducting an amphibious landing in 1940 -- the first for them, and against Britain itself -- was indeed preposterous.

[@MrEsMysteriesMagicks]

Back in 1974, a wargame was published by Simulations Publications Inc. for the wargame hobby entitled "Seelöwe: The German Invasion of Britain 1940." ("Seelöwe" is German for "sealion.") In the rules, designer John Young notes the following: "The two most striking characteristics of (the game) Seelöwe are the absence of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force." (He then discusses how the Germans might have defeated the RAF and the Brits pulled their air force into defensive positions in the north of the country.) He then goes on to say about the RN: "Everything which has survived to this day concerning the possible use of the Navy shows that the British government fully intended to, if necessary, sacrifice the British Navy in the Channel in order to stop the Germans from instituting an invasion." He goes on to say that for the sake of this alternate history game, an alternate history of the RN would have to be assumed such as the RN retiring to Canada or some other scenario. The bottom line is that Germany had no realistic hope of conquering England. They were just expending time and resources for no purpose.

[@kennethbracken2053]

Could you do a video on both the proposed British and German plans to invade Ireland?

[@calebdoyle3151]

B'féidir go dhéanfaidh sé é a chairde.

[@YARROWS9]

Why the F**k were you lot sitting on your arses doing F**k all. Were you waiting go see how things went before committing to the effort to Free Europe.

[@frogchip6484]

Hong Kong Phooey you’re very keen on shit talking a country’s people not wanting to die in a war in Europe, so I imagine you would’ve LOVED to go and fight and not be scared of dying like neutral countries that simply didn’t want to die. Go serve in a war zone and then complain about how people don’t wanna die.

[@YARROWS9]

@@frogchip6484 You are the kind of pacifist pussy that I never ever want to meet. As Churchill said, Some will keep on feeding the Crocodile hoping it will eat them last.

[@frogchip6484]

@@YARROWS9 Why would neutral countries that have nothing to do with this war have to go a send their own men to die? You're pretty fine with going to war so why don't you do it yourself, go fight in a warzone and try and tell me then that fighting in a war is the right idea for these countries.

[@RobertP2000]

Thanks for the video! It's so tiresome with "history buffs" claiming Barbarossa was this huge mistake, and that Germany could have won by invading Britain. Yeah, because it works in Hearts of Iron it must have been an option in the actual war...

[@hottestcheese7973]

RobertP2000 LOL ikr I’ve always found that a bit of a retarded view because people seem to forget Britain (at the time) was the second most powerful country and had the biggest navy with 30x more ships than Germany

[@huge7800]

Besides, Stalin had planned to attack Germany in 1943, and that would have destroyed the Germans completely.

[@chadthundercock4806]

@@huge7800 Yeah, people think "oh if Germany had just done x y and z, they would have won" no, it was Germany against 3 super powers and having to babysit Italy, its amazing how far they got.

[@misterscienceguy]

@@huge7800 Citation needed. Historians like Glantz disagree with you.

[@kylephilipe8347]

@@misterscienceguy yea stalin would have just sat there while all of his ideological enemies (capitalists and fascists) wore eachother done and done nothing. You need to get out of your ideological echo chamber dumbfuck.

[@grahvis]

There is also the fact that the German army relied on horses for most of their transport, they and their fodder would have to be transported across the Channel. Battleships which did cut off the supply route, could also be used as heavy artillery to bombard enemy troops on shore.

[@fatmanbatman9374]

@John Fritz bbs typically have powerful aa defenses and the raf

[@grahvis]

@John Fritz That would have relied on air superiority, the Ju 87 was very vulnerable to fighters and also would have needed armour piercing bombs. Before they gained the necessary experience, most Luftwaffe successes against ships were mainly limited to slow cargo vessels or ships that were stationary.

[@Wombat1916]

@@grahvis During the withdrawal from Norway, the Luftwaffe subjected a cruiser (sorry, can't remember the name) to incessant bombing and never even hit it!

[@lucius1976]

As if it was no fodder for horses in UK. Not a convincing argument

[@grahvis]

@@lucius1976 There wouldn't have been enough fooder for a sudden influx of several thousand horses on a small part of the English coast, assuming they were successfully landed in the first place. Plus of course, it is usual practice to deny the enemy anything which would be useful to them, it doesn't take more than a couple of minutes to set fire to a haystack.

[@samj.s3132]

We all know the home guard would defeat any invasion force

[@Rolo_DS2]

Home guard could singally handly defeat the entire german reicn

[@historigraph]

Well, of course!

[@philipgregory8813]

Well they wouldn't panic that's for sure

[@hotcurry1322]

The Germans wouldn't like it up em!

[@solarfreak1107]

Wasnt the the Home Guard extremely inept? IIRC correctly in the Sandhurst wargames of 1974, only the British navy, air force and army was taken away then they could succeed lol. They left out the home guard and found that Germany could defeat it.

[@sandhopper99]

After WW2, Sandhurst ran a mock battle to mimic Sealion. It's a while since I read about it, but the result was an overwhelming loss for the Germans, and the British fleet was the decisive factor. Going into WW2, and at the end, Britain still had the largest navy in the world; but not for long thereafter,

[@dndboy13]

Bed-knobs and Broomstick was a really compelling hypothetical scenario of a failed german landing.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

😂🤣

[@jcgamer892]

When people talk about Operation Sealion, they almost always confuse possibility and success. With just a few factors, Operation Sealion would have been a possibility. However, would it succeed......that answer is a big fat No. Three factors play into that answer: 1.) Logistics, 2.) German Surface Fleet(or lack there of), and 3.) Air superiority (German fighters were limited to just the southern part of the british Isles due to fuel range) Edit: just want add that there was just too much to go wrong for operation sealion to even have a chance of success

[@patrikcath1025]

Now imagine having to fight British resistance

[@generaladvance5812]

Nearly every civilian you meet is actively hostile or at the very least uncooperative. Trapped on a foreign island, cut off from reinforcements where everybody wants to see you dead or have you thrown into the channel. I wouldn't want any part of that.

[@grey3247]

Also the Royal navy would probably be still be wreaking havoc for weaks, resupplying in Northern Ireland, the colonies or random islands that Germans couldn't get a hold of

[@glazersout4272]

The British had a whole range of nasty and downright insidious surprises waiting for the German army had they successfully landed on our shores...

[@glazersout4272]

I would love to see a movie about an attempted Operation Sealion, that would be a very interesting alternative history.

[@davidgillies620]

_Sealion_ was exhaustively wargamed in the 1970s and no matter what advantages were given the Germans it ended in catastrophe for them. Having said that, when I pointed this out to my mother, who lived in Worthing in 1940, she was less than impressed.

[@brentgranger7856]

When you take into account the complex nature of planning and timing the miracle of Operation: Overloard compared to Operation: Sealion, It's hard to imagine that any successful invasion of the UK was possible by the Axis forces, especially in 1940.

[@niuchajianfa6222]

no idea of crossing the strait is good when your enemy has 12 battleships and around 6 aircraft carriers when you have none

[@rayperkins6006]

The turning point of WW2 was battles of Narvik in April 1940. The Norwegian campaign was a disaster for the Kreigsmarine. Many of their capital ships were either sunk or put out of action, and they lost half of their entire fleet of destroyers in a few days. From that point, Sea lion was doomed and the war was lost.

[@deralte4527]

Theoretically operation babarossa could have succeeded then western allies wouldn't have landed in France.

[@eyeli160]

@@deralte4527 Operation Barbarossa lasted until December 1941, so it had already failed long before D-day. The battle of Stalingrad ended before the allied invasion of Sicily so you probably also not referring to Case Blue. And 2 weeks after D-day operation Bagration started which destroyed army group center. So what are you referring to?

[@ArcadeMusicTribute]

If you look at how much of an effort was put into the D-Day landing, how worried the Allied commanders were despite Germany being sufficiently weakened by that time, you can understand that German amphibious assault on Britain was pretty much impossible. Allies had secured the skies and were in control at sea yet they were still worried that the D-Day might have failed. Regarding the air superiority of the Luftwaffe. I believe that Britain was producing more aircraft than Germany which means they were able to replace losses faster than Germany, while Germany was loosing more planes. I do believe however that Germany had a stronger Ground Army at that time and would have possibly won a land war if they were somehow magically transported over the channel.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

That sums up the whole illogicality of the position taken by Sealion supporters. It took to two largest navies on earth, one of which had been undertaking combined operations for 200 years, around two years to produce operation Neptune/Overlord. Yet the Germans, with a tiny navy, no assault craft, and no previous experience, were expected to do the same in about eight weeks? ABSURD.

[@grey3247]

Taking into account the Germans didn't even have specialized landing craft, the converted civilian transport ships transporting the invasion would've been great target practice for the boys in Royal navy

[@youraveragescotsman7119]

Or just someone inland with a properly ranged Mortar.

[@crumpetcommandos779]

yep loads of people in the comments saying the british home guard would be no match for the infinite panzer divisions that could totally get across the channel in the millions of landing crafts for them lol

[@Richardparent879]

Thank you so much for mentioning right at the beginning that the German Navy losses taking Norway, over 30% of the German warships sunk or damaged meant Germany was unable to do any future naval operations outside of the Baltic Sea! In effect Nazis Germany had no offensive capabilities that involved/dependant on the German Navy!

[@matthewkuchinski1769]

Very good video! I always appreciate a new perspective on World War II, especially one concerned with the Battle of Britain and the realities of that campaign. I think it is also interesting that the Luftwaffe had more fighters than the RAF, but the RAF was arguably of higher quality than ones which the Germans relied upon throughout the entire war.

[@deralte4527]

Any Sources for that?

[@glazersout4272]

The Me 109 was superior to the Hurricane and a match for the Spitfire, so I wouldn't entirely agree with that, but you're completely mistaken in one aspect and that's the armament. Yes, eight guns sounds like a lot of firepower, but they relied on the tiny .303 rounds, whereas the German fighters had 20mm cannons as well as machine guns

[@willhovell9019]

Always better to overestimate the enemy strength. The Royal Navy was amongst the largest in the world, and whatever the admiral said , the Royal Navy with RAF Bomber support from North Britain & Northern Ireland, would have anhilated any attempted crossings and supply support attempted by Nazi and Italian forces. Furthermore the inferior slow Stukkas were easy targets for AA and coastal and Fighter Command . In the event the Stukkas provided a duck shoot for the Hurricaines & Spitfires .Well done- good analysis

[@gdspathe1130]

was it such a bad idea? Canadian farms could always use more field hands after all

[@paganphil100]

GDS Pathe: Yes, many German POWs were sent to Canada.

[@bamse7116]

I love your videos! The way the terrain looks and the way you show the borders and the divisions is awesome, keep it up man!

[@TimsPracticalPrepping]

Sea lion was a very bad idea, but so was Barbarossa, but it didn’t stop them trying it.

[@Wanderer628]

I wish you'd brought up the Wehraboo delusions that U-Boats were capable of taking on entire fleets or that paratroopers were somehow capable of fighting without supply and dropping with zero air superioty.

[@weik-2936]

@@doesthisneedfurtherexplana5862 I always find that funny, by all accounts Britain had the power to beat Germany on its own, it would have taken time, maybe a second war but Britain had what it took

[@11Survivor]

@@tombstone3echo which is not a bad strategy in my opinion. The allies won because of US supplies, Soviet men, and British naval and aerial power.

[@tombstone3echo]

@@11Survivor well of course it was a very good strategy, and they did good, but saying britain could defeat them on their own is just bullshit.

[@lukemale2010]

UnknownKeepo tbf I’m a case of total war with no time limit eventually Britain would win but it would take so so so long neither side would want to bother fighting anymore as it would just be Britain spending years building up a force from across the empire while starving Germany it would be a war that would take till like the 50s probably at least just for all the pieces to fall in place the USA massively pushed the boat along as did the soviet union

[@nickbell4984]

@@tombstone3echo but I don't think anyone would have been able to do it on their own. The US is fundamentally too far away to take on both Japan and Germany at the same time and without the British empire for stationing troops wouldn't have been able to do anything. The Soviet Union was massively supplied by the US and UK who also gave the Germans another two fronts to worry about (they wiped it out of their history books tho) and also wouldn't have defeated Japan.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

Based on this information, Germany basically lost the war when the troops came back from Dunkirk, which meant that Britain did not sue for peace. And since Hitler was always going to invade the Soviet Union, that meant a two front war and the eventual end on Nazi Germany.

[@deezboyeed6764]

Sorta the troops were halted because they were massivly over atretched

[@crumpetcommandos779]

@@deezboyeed6764 battle of arras had them spooked as well

[@ashleyrosser9979]

No, they lost the moment they picked on the French; don't they know that's the English job.

[@RamdomView]

9:35 And much more important than the troops, the barges. The Rhine barges that kept the industries of the Ruhr valley humming along. The loss of those barges would have disrupted the German war machine much more than the loss of a few divisions. I also imagine that the majority of barge losses would be due to the sea rather than RN activity. The Rhine is a very calm river, therefore the barges have very low freeboard and flat bottoms. The English Channel is highly turbulent, even modern passenger ships with advanced balancing systems still result in sea sick passengers.

[@williamashbless7904]

Hitler was writing checks the Kreigsmarine was unable to cash. Germany lacked the industrial power to make landing craft. Relying on river barges being towed across the channel was a pipe dream.

[@jakebrowncollection1772]

Finally someone does a proper researched video on sealion and doesn't follow the false trend of the German always win narrative that is so common in today's popular culture

[@alittlebitofhistory]

I know right, I saw a video a couple of years ago that claimed Britain would of surrendered the moment any Germans troops landed, this incused all would be resistance fighters and that all of the public would capitulate without incident.

[@Nurhaal]

Today's popular culture? The trend that 'if we didnt stop the Jerries, we'd all be speaking German right now!' was brought up by the older generations and it makes sense as to why. As the well researched video explained, the population directly affected by the War literally thought that Germany was an unstoppable juggernaut. Post War, it was generally frowned upon to explain that WW2 was a lost cause for Hitler from the very beginning because it can be considered an Offense to those who died. It's like saying 'well of Germany really was not so bad, why did Papa have to die fighting them then?'. It's been 70 years now - we've had time to sprawl over the facts and realize that A- WW2 was a losing war for Germany since 1939, they needed to of waited til at least 1945 before they committed to their crusade and beyond that, their first strategic target should have been the middle east. B- Hitler was not a maniacal genius, he was in fact a village idiot who lucked into Supreme power by accident and C - next time a megalomaniac applies to an Art School, for the love of Christ just let the dude paint and give him a participation award. It stops World Wars.

[@jamesmcgarry8886]

Nurhaal, While im not saying Hitlers plan for ww2 would have worked, but if he waited until 1945 the Soviet (land) war machine would've unbeatable. Most likely resulting in a Soviet offensive and the end of Germany.

[@Nurhaal]

@@RomanHistoryFan476AD his ideas were not really all that 'clever' in hindsight. They were 'opportunistic' and often made in reactive decisions. 'Lebensraum' was an goal yes but it's method of execution was entirely reactive and hell, even the goal was a reactive decision. The whole idea of the agenda was to annex Germanic speaking lands for more labor and tax revenues because Hitler had three different economic advisors all warn him that he was spending Germany into another depression if he kept course. The one thing Hitler really had going for him was ambition. He had the trait that separates the CEO from the common floor worker. You don't need supreme intelligence to rule a kingdom, just some balls, good charisma and the ability to embrace your sociopathic tendencies and distance yourself from sympathetic thought. That which he did. When the Weimar literally handed him full emergency powers on a silver platter, he didn't even blink. His military prowess was below average at best. There's very clear evidence to show that Hitler was not 'dumb' when it came to understanding military tactics and knowledge. He was just an idiot about it - thought his ideas were ground breaking and magically better because - ego reasons. He had all the right knowledge to be a logical tactician and strategist but with him, logic was out the window. Most of his military implements are just him measuring his dick. Super heavy tanks with poor logistics. Massive BBs like project 41 and 44 despite the effectiveness of Subs and the fact that the British navy is far larger. Unwillingness to push for actual advances in Technology like Jets until it was too late and he began panicking for 'wunderwaffe'. He has all the hallmarks of an extreme right individual. Dude was even anti-science. Looking back, it's of course a good thing that Hitler was pretty idiotic because yes, had of been a calculated malicious genius - the world would have become a very different place and probably not one I'd and I'm sure most of us, would stand for. The fact remains that Hitler DID have a chance to be a real true 'End of the World' force, but we were fortunate that he was just barely stupid enough to squander that opportunity. Thank the heavens for that.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@Nurhaal I never said the man was a genius, i just just that some people really go overboard with how dumb he was. he must have had some competence to have risen to power in Germany during a very shaky time.

[@jmrodas9]

The plan was doomed from the start. The RAF was not neutralized, and the German Army had to cross the English Channel, which is not a river. The British had already proven to be superior in fleet action in Norway, so the result would probably have been a lot of German soldiers drowned in the Channel.

[@cadian9432]

To put it all into perspective: Operation Overlord, made Operation Sealion, look like the work of amateurs.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

What always fascinates me is how the two greatest navies on earth, one of which had been planning and executing assault landings for around 200 years, took two years to plan Neptune/Overlord, yet the Sealion enthusiasts would have us believe that the clever Germans could do the same in just over two months. Mind you, I suppose not having a navy rather speeded up the German planning process!

[@davidpryle3935]

I suppose the fact that the Wehrmacht was being destroyed in the east by the Red Army, probably helped too.

[@RichardPhillips10]

Good vid. One point - the vulnerability of the river barges to bad weather is *often* over stated. Although they would role terribly and be horrible to be aboard, they could take quite a bit of weather before actualy sinking. I brought a Dutch barge with it's original 1924 engine over the channel in a force 5 - very unpleasent but not unsafe. Very heavily loaded barges would however be lower in the water and risk taking water over the sides - but most would survive. Above force 6 I think losses might mount, but anything less than force 5 and I suspect that 90% would make it across..... but for the fact that the RN would have cut them to shreds. Also, the actual sealion plan had some bonkers ideas about towing barges into shallow waters and waiting for the tide to go out before disembarking. That would have gone badly as they would be sitting ducks.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Good points. Indeed, however well the barges might have withstood anything up to Force 5, I doubt they would have fared quite so well against 6 inch, 4.7 inch and 4 inch high explosive shells.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

> Good vid. One point - the vulnerability of the river barges to bad weather is often over stated. No. You're making assumptions based on a different barge with a different loading. The Germans lost several hundred lives in an exercise in good weather when a barge was swamped by the wake of one their own destroyers. "Barge" covers a lot of territory.

[@shawngilliland243]

Particularly after the experience of the German navy in Norway, Sealion WAS a pipe dream.

[@luc-zq7ku]

I'm french, so my grammar is probably really bad, sorry I think that for succed, sealion need to do everythings in the first wave . Make a solid beach head, or even puch into land with enought man and supply to last at least a month (and the sheer quantity would be extremely hard to provide in one go) and take crucial airfield of the south to reduce the raf presence over the chanel and opening air supply line . But as the map of defnse show it, pushing to london in one go woukd be difficult, even imposible withouth the help of the panzer (not enought could be transport in the first wave since they require to many supply) . In the end, I think that to be sccesful, this plan would need to be put in action just after dunkerk, to use the trauma and the unstopable image of the german . To help with that, dunkerk need to be even more desastrous for the allies, the german should not stop and totally crush the 400.000 mens of the pocket . It could even give an negociation adventage to the german (surender and we give them back kinda) . But even if everything go well for the german, chance of succes stay low

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

Well if Germany had made one more mistake in France, the day could have been won for the allies. Germany in WW2 relied to much on luck i say, far to much.

[@monteb6276]

Very good vid lots of the people who I call gaming historian's only think about raw numbers and vehicle stats but forget to think about things like terrain resupply logistics etc

[@Lazmanarus]

Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics.

[@52flyingbicycles]

But… but… in Civ 4’s WW2 mod I can destroy the entire british military in 6 turns of bombing, land a single paratrooper to take London, then airlift an army in from there! What do you mean that is “a complete fantasy” and “entirely unworkable”?

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

Computer games do indeed seem to be the basis of many commenters opinions of the strategies employed during WW2.

[@grey3247]

Who would've guessed, trying to navaly invade the world's greatest seapower is not a good idea.

[@deliezer]

It is my understanding that the RN possessed some 800 small motor torpedo boats. These would be extremely hard to hit from the air, and would be too many in number for the small number of German destroyers to deal with. They could easily evade the minefields, even if the mines remained in place with the British minesweeper fleet. They could then infiltrate among the riverboat convoy attempting the Channel crossing, launch their torpedos, rake the riverboats with machine gun fire, and attempt to capsize them with their wake.

[@Fruzhin5483]

Up until watching ur video i thought that the germans had some way of supplying their troops in England be it by air or the sea. I congratulate u on being able to change my mind by presenting well researched arguments. Great video!!!

[@Scaleyback317]

There is only one flaw I see in the presentation here. The casualties amongst RN ships. It mentions the Germans had little in the way of armour piercing weaponry to fatally damage the ships. The situation was worse than that they had practically none. The RN would have had local fighter and probably even air superiority as one group of fighters handed over air cover to another as it sailed south. By September 1940 much of the British field artillery lost at Dunkirk had been replaced, in some cases with better weaponry. British heavy and medium artillery would have made life impossible for German naval units - they would have been left with the stark choice of heading for a safe port of going to the bottom under the combined land sea and air bombardments - the German Navy could all but be ignored. The RN destroyers may not even had to open fire on the German fleet (other than the sea going vessels employed) the barges would have overturned with loss of many and maybe all on board as a RN destroyer turned close to them. Thus the logistical and heavy reinforcement of any beach head would again be negligible. In the summer of 1940 Britain had taken delivery of huge numbers of weapons from Canada and the US and still had a reserve of several hundred thousand Lee Enfields. Add to this the shotguns users at this point being issued with solid shot and the German light/para forces would, even by willing amateurs (and many of the Home Guard were tried and tested infanteers of WW1 vintage itching to have a second pop at, the Hun) had a hard time surviving with dwindling munitions/food/water/manpower/medical/fuel/vehicular assistance. 48 hours and the first would be falling foul of the above within four days there would be few left unwounded/dead/surrendered capable of putting up anything more than token resistance once found in an ever shrinking ring. I believe by mid summer the Home Guard had swelled to almost half a million men in the south of England and as each week went by eqpt was being found for them. A shame really the Germans did not give it a go, it would have been a huge morale boost at a time when Britain needed it most. Tens of thousands of German prisoners of war paraded for the world press to see - what a rallying call that would have been.

[@tomhenry897]

Called eating British food

[@bread8176]

Subtitle suggestion: "How the royal navy won WW2 by existing" 😁

[@CC-tl3zs]

How the Royal Navy saved England by drinking tea

[@costakeith9048]

I have long maintained that Germany lost WWII as soon as the Royal Navy moved to its blockade station in Scapa Flow in September of 1939, from that point on it was merely a question of whether Britain's allies came through and the war could be won in 4 years like WWI or whether it would take 20+ years of wearing down the continent as in the Napoleonic Wars.

[@CC-tl3zs]

@@costakeith9048 Good for you

[@costakeith9048]

@@CC-tl3zs Actually, good for Britain and the supremacy of the seas over the land.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yes. In the German's defense - no one, especially the Germans had ever thought that France and Britain would be defeated as fast as they were. So - it is understandable that they were not in the least bit prepared to conquer Britain. The Luftwaffe was designed to be a Tactical Air Force and had done a very good job of supporting the German Army in Poland, Belgium and France. It was not however in any sense a Strategic Air Force. It had no four engine bombers ... It's fighters had to short a range. And it did not have enough aircraft to take on the RAF. One thing that is not often mentioned when discussing the numbers of the RAF & Luftwaffe - is the number of British Bombers. The tendency is to compare RAF Fighters to Luftwaffe Fighters and Bombers. Well the RAF had a large bomber force and Bomber Command, busily bombing the ports associated with Sea Lion - actually took more casualties in that time period than Fighter Command did. Again - in the Germans defense - no one had ever done anything like that before - so no one actually knew what it would take. Thus - they can be forgiven for thinking they might be able to do it - but they never stood a chance of achieving Air Superiority over the Channel. The British can also certainly be forgiven for being concerned about what might happen in the wake of the Germans prior success - but - all the drama of the switch in targets from air fields to London - is over blown. The Air Fields were the better target, although the Luftwaffe thought that by attacking London and other British cities they could get the British to commit their aircraft to be destroyed by bombing those cities. But - short of monumental stupidity on the part of the British - the Luftwaffe had been assigned a task beyond it's ability. As to the German Navy - yes they could put minefields to block the channel but the British had mine sweepers so - that's no guarantee. And the very idea that the Germans could think of trying to use River Barges to take troops across the Channel - is an indication of just how ludicrous their plans were. The only thing about Sea Lion that makes sense - was if it were a giant bluff to try and get the British to come to terms. THAT would make sense - but as to actually invading Britain that way - no - never. There were other things the Germans could have done but - what they did do in the late summer of 1940 - was just a waste of men and machines - though as I said - no one had done that before so they couldn't know just what it was they were actually trying to pull off. Based on what they had achieved so far - they thought they could do it. They were wrong. .

[@iangill8984]

Just come across this. I saw an analysis by one the best war game models. There are a crucial couple of points. Whatever the Germans did the air force could move a bit north and still be there, the navy controlled the channel and could move and come back. They would not be able to sustainably cross the channel. This is my aside, with 'total' German dominance the Dunkirk evacuation still took place. If they couldn't stop so many leaving the beaches how on earth could they invade?

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

One of the dominant characteristics of Sealion enthusiasts is that, the less they know about the actual military situation in 1940, and in particular about the naval situation, the more certain they are about how successful Sealion 'would have' been.

[@DrSmallarms]

Not to mention that Britain still had Canada sending troops, food, ammunition and general goods

[@peterfeltham5612]

Speaking as an englishman I have never understood why Canadians have recieved such scant recognition for their tremendous exertions in both world wars.They were remarkable,and together with the British Army with Montgomery at the helm their campaign through Belgium,Holland and Germany was crucial to the capitulation of the Nazis.

[@peterfeltham5612]

Yes,Canada played a vital role,and one that has never recieved sufficient recognition.A gratefull Englishman.

[@borninjordan7448]

Thank you. Also, don't forget contributions from Africa, India and the rest of the Empire and Commonwealth. - An Anglo-Canadian

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

Let's be honest here if the Germans had landed in Britain, the Canadians Mounties would have rode across the sea to help save the UK.

[@lolloblue9646]

@@borninjordan7448 The Australian madlads in Tobruk absolutely messing with Axis supply lines in the North African campaign

[@alexius23]

Sea Lion would have been a disaster. It took the Allies years & a lot of bitterly painful lessons to learn how to make successful invasions. The Wehrmacht had no “muscle memory” to run a invasion from the sea. The Germans had no specialized landing ships. To keep their troops supplied would have been a logistical nightmare. The Allies had over a year to plan the nuances for D-Day. It would a hard fought battle but it would have ended up being worse than Gallipoli for Germany.

[@spyrojyro7202]

Definitely an overlooked subject. Great video.

[@historigraph]

Thank you!

[@spyrojyro7202]

Your video on Narvik was also really informative. Can’t wait for your next video! 👍

[@karlhiscock92]

3:50 Fun fact some rivers are infact tidal including the Thames itself.

[@timerover4633]

Several comments. First, in order for the Germans to land any tanks or artillery, they planned to blow the sides out of the barges carrying them so as to land. That meant that those barges would make a one-way trip, and not be available for any follow-up transports or supply efforts. Then they also planned to sink some barges which mounted anti-aircraft guns on the British side of the Channel to supply anti-aircraft protection. See previous sentence as to how that would work. Then you have the fact that the Channel widens significantly south of the Straits of Dover. This means that either the invasion fleet leaves in stages, with the forces having the longest distance to go leaving a day or two earlier than the ones near the Straits of Dover, thereby giving the whole plan away, two days early, or all of the invasion forces leave port at the same time, which means that the forces with the longer distances to travel are out there in the Channel playing sitting ducks. The Luftwaffe really did not have any good anti-ship weapons in 1940. They finally resorted to buying aerial torpedoes from Italy, which actually were pretty good, but that was not until 1941, and required the Germans to swallow a lot of their pride. Churchill also retained as an anti-invasion force 30 destroyers desperately needed for escort duties in the Atlantic to counter any landing attempt. As those ships were deployed in Portsmouth and further west, the Luftwaffe would have been very hard pressed to counter them and still maintain aerial control over the Straits of Dover. Then there is the matter of supply. When it came to logistics, the German High Command were amateurs. If you think that is harsh, read about the logistic planning for Barbarossa, Then, if you read the Halder Diaries, during the time when the German High Command should have been feverishly planning for Sea Lion, Halder was taking in the sights of France. Not a good take for the lower echelons to see. Lastly, rather than compare Sea Lion to Operation Overlord, take a look at what happened during Operation Torch, the first large scale Allied Landing in the Atlantic. There were major problems getting the boat waves organized, currents carrying the landing craft to different beaches than planned, initial boat losses complicating getting supplies ashore, major problems with getting supplies cleared off the beach so that more could be landed (combat troops did not think that moving supplies were their job, consider the German Army for this behavior), and unexpected surf conditions. Then apply all of those to a greater degree to Sea Lion. The British would not have had to work too hard in making this a major catastrophe.

[@11Survivor]

When even the Nazis say it is a bad idea... IT'S BAD IDEA.

[@davidburkett486]

This video sums up literally every point I’ve been trying to tell people about Sea lion

[@joshuarosen465]

All you have to do is look at what it took for D Day. We had over 4000 purpose built landing craft, over 6000 ships, the mulberry harbors and even a cross channel oil pipeline. We had also spent two years carrying out amphibious landings in North Africa, Sicily and of course in the Pacific. The Germans didn't have any landing craft, they had a tiny navy and zero experience doing opposed amphibious lamdings. How could they have possibly moved enough men across let alone supply them.

[@randomname5083]

Don't have to say that twice

[@Mankorra_Gomorrah]

Sealion was a bad idea, I don’t think anyone who knows anything about WW2 doubt that. But I think that pantomiming an invasion was crucial in trying to get the British to come to the negotiating table and it being a bad idea does not preclude German activation since Barbarossa was a terrible idea and it very much happened. Nazi high command really enjoyed creating grand, master plans that were realistically impossible.

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

While the Kriegsmarine knew how unworkable the plan was due to their lack of strength, the German army and air force were not of the same opinion. The Kriegsmarine dutifully did what was asked of them in assembling the paltry maritime forces available to put the flawed plan into operation, the German army eagerly practiced and prepared with 30 divisions including 4 panzer divs assembled in north east France and Belgium, and the vast majority of the Luftwaffe directed at the UK. As you say luckily for the Germans the first phase of their plan fell flat on its face, and brought the whole process to a grinding halt. But don't forget, a under resourced, poorly planned, hamfisted attempt is STILL an attempt.

[@binaway]

The planned date for Sealion was sometime in September. D- day was the 6th of June due to weather conditions that usually deteriorate after June making such an operation impossible. If delayed until September 1944 it would not have been impossible. Also there are not a lot of places an invasion force can land and and the placed were it would be possible the defense fortification built during the Napoleonic Wars and before, still exist.

[@distantkilljoy]

Everyone should listen to Operation Sealion by Leo McKinstry on Audible, Fantastic book Goes into detail about the plan and the many plans the Brits had to stop it, including pumping petrol into area's of the English Channel and setting it on fire Also, Notification squad

[@historigraph]

The narrator is really good as well

[@distantkilljoy]

@@historigraph He really is, Bad narrators can easily ruin books for me but with this one i blasted through the book Need to find more like that

[@Saeronor]

Dumping large amounts of petrol and setting it on fire would have additional effect of giving Hitler and half of OKH a heart attack after watching so much fuel being wasted.