What if Britain lost the 'Battle of Britain'? Would America still have declaired war?

[onetwothree]

I have often wondered, how things would have proceeded if the RAF had lost the air battle over southern England, I have heard it came pretty close at times.
Would Germany continue with an invasion plan? It was ill equipped to cross the channel and the Royal Navy would have been there too, working little differently to the Japanese did towards their last desperate days. Would the Americans have still committed themselves to the war in Europe? The US must have considered these possibility, designing B29 as a Europe bomber for this situation. But with Europe to themselves, the Germans would have had Nuclear weapons before America and would have begun installing them across Americas east coast not soon after.
To me it seems that luck and our greatest allay the German and Japanese dictators, that saved everyone from doom. Their incompetence, egos and lack of understanding of their enemies was the man reason we were saved.

[Station 22]

I have often wondered, how things would have proceeded if the RAF had lost the air battle over southern England, I have heard it came pretty close at times.
Would Germany continue with an invasion plan? It was ill equipped to cross the channel and the Royal Navy would have been there too, working little differently to the Japanese did towards their last desperate days.

That was the purpose of the BoB, to win air superiority or supremecy as a prerequisite for an invasion. However, translating that into a successfull naval assault would have been problematic at best. The Germans simply lacked the necessary transport fleet to move and support large enough landing effort to be successful. River bargers with one foot free-board would not have cut it. You are correct to assume the the Royal Navy would have had some say in preventing sea-borne troops from landing. Just look at what they did to the German navy supporting the Norway invasion.

Would the Americans have still committed themselves to the war in Europe? The US must have considered these possibility, designing B29 as a Europe bomber for this situation.

I would think that would depend on whether or not Hitler followed the actual timeline and declares war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

But with Europe to themselves, the Germans would have had Nuclear weapons before America and would have begun installing them across Americas east coast not soon after.

How do you figure that? They never even got close as it was. They went down the wrong track with development. A bomb was not in their immediate future.

To me it seems that luck and our greatest allay the German and Japanese dictators, that saved everyone from doom. Their incompetence, egos and lack of understanding of their enemies was the man reason we were saved.

[USSWisconsin]

I have often wondered, how things would have proceeded if the RAF had lost the air battle over southern England, I have heard it came pretty close at times.
Would Germany continue with an invasion plan? It was ill equipped to cross the channel and the Royal Navy would have been there too, working little differently to the Japanese did towards their last desperate days. Would the Americans have still committed themselves to the war in Europe? The US must have considered these possibility, designing B29 as a Europe bomber for this situation. But with Europe to themselves, the Germans would have had Nuclear weapons before America and would have begun installing them across Americas east coast not soon after.
To me it seems that luck and our greatest allay the German and Japanese dictators, that saved everyone from doom. Their incompetence, egos and lack of understanding of their enemies was the man reason we were saved.

I agree with Station 22. After the war, in Late 1945, the Allies placed the German nuclear scientists in a farmhouse and bugged their conversations. The German program did not consider reflectors or tampers, had they tested the devices they were considering, they would have fizzled and consumed their stockpile of U238, they were way behind in volume production of weapons grade material as well. What they might have developed, given a few more years, was a nuclear powered submarine - their compact reactor work was advanced.


The US was also developing the B36 as an intercontinental bomber in the early 40's, but it wasn't urgently needed because of available forward bases, and wasn't finished until after the war due to other priorities.

I would agree that Hitler was very helpful to the Allies due to his interference with his Generals and War planners.

[Stitch]

The US must have considered these possibility, designing B29 as a Europe bomber for this situation.

The B-29 didn't really have intercontinental range, that's what the B-36 was for. The original impetus behind the design and construction of the B-36 was the possibility that we would lose Britain as a base for our four-engined heavies, like the B-17 and the B-24. In the event, we didn't have to worry about it, as England held on, and the B-36 was put on the back burner until after the War. However, HAD Britain been lost in '40, I think we would've seen the B-36 flying from bases in the territorial US by 1943 or '44, at the latest.

[zraver]

I have often wondered, how things would have proceeded if the RAF had lost the air battle over southern England, I have heard it came pretty close at times.
Would Germany continue with an invasion plan?

maybe, it depends on how much the RAF was beaten down. The RN would have made sorties, likely at night and played hell with the Germans but this might not have saved Southern England.

Would the Americans have still committed themselves to the war in Europe? The US must have considered these possibility, designing B29 as a Europe bomber for this situation. But with Europe to themselves, the Germans would have had Nuclear weapons before America and would have begun installing them across Americas east coast not soon after.

The US was working on the B-36 and sooner or later Berlin vanishes in a nuclear fireball regardless of anything else. The chance of a Nazi bomb was remote and that is being generous. Hitler's Germany was committed to a tactical doctrine and would still be facing a massive war in the East vs Stalin. The resources just are not there to beat the Soviets and get the bomb. One of the other has to be given up. Unless German commanders act out of character and do not pause before Leningrad the war in the East will be easier on Germany with no UK or North Africa, but its still a toss up.

To me it seems that luck and our greatest allay the German and Japanese dictators, that saved everyone from doom. Their incompetence, egos and lack of understanding of their enemies was the man reason we were saved.

No, it was American industry that saved us. Even with the complete loss of Europe by early 1945 the US Navy is so strong that after Japan's eventual fall it will have more combat aircraft than the entire Luftwaffe and few German submarine or surface assets to contend with since Germany will have likely rerouted the steel, men and fuel used in the Battle of the Atlantic to the Battle for the Soviet Union in an attempt to keep pressure off the German home front.

Assuming no a-bomb or a Germany not cowed by it. Step 1 the USN secures Iceland if it does not already control it. This puts England and Ireland within range of B-29's. Step 2 once the British Iseles are battered the USMC abd US Army with massive amphibious experience in the Pacific storm ashore under the guns of over 20 battleships and under the wings of over 3000 combat aircraft. German defenses will simply be swamped. Once the UK is free, its only a matter of time. Once the full weight of American air power is brought to bear no amount of heavy tanks can save Hitler. The only thing that would save him would be a massive increase in pilot training and we see no evidence of this in the actual historical record.

If we add the A-bomb to it, Germany is doomed even faster. Berlin, Frankfurt, Ruhr every vital economic center is a target. A target even more rich since there are no years of allied bombings forcing dispersion of assets. To the city targets are added any major field formation of mechanized troops. Just the threat of a nuclear strike on the panzer divisions will force dispersal and thus mitigate their more effective armament.

[Bigfella]

I have often wondered, how things would have proceeded if the RAF had lost the air battle over southern England, I have heard it came pretty close at times.
Would Germany continue with an invasion plan? It was ill equipped to cross the channel and the Royal Navy would have been there too, working little differently to the Japanese did towards their last desperate days. Would the Americans have still committed themselves to the war in Europe? The US must have considered these possibility, designing B29 as a Europe bomber for this situation. But with Europe to themselves, the Germans would have had Nuclear weapons before America and would have begun installing them across Americas east coast not soon after.
To me it seems that luck and our greatest allay the German and Japanese dictators, that saved everyone from doom. Their incompetence, egos and lack of understanding of their enemies was the man reason we were saved.

Others have dealt with this well, so I'm mostly an echo here.

Even if the RAF lost control of the skies over Sth England the German invasion (which I suspect would have gone ahead) would have been a disaster. I think there is a thread around here somewhere on sealion where I laid out the reasons in more detail. There was simply no way for the Germans to get past the RN, and the RAF would still have been able to contest the airspace over Sth England. It would have been the first great defeat for the Germans, the Luftwaffe would have been damaged & the remanants of the german navy destroyed. Lot of dead & captured troops too.

As for the A-bomb, as others pointed out, the Germans weren't even close, while the Allies would have had one on schedule.

I don't really have time to go into detail on your assessment of the role of 'dictators' in the result of the war, but you are way off track & give far too little credit to the Allies. You are also making the classic mistake of not allowing the impact of your presumptions to flow through ALL wartime decisions, not just the ones you are focussed on.

If Hitler doesn't have the influence he does then there is no war in 1939 & the Battle of France goes very differently, and probably not to Germany's benefit. If Japan's rulers don't gamble so much there is no war, but they also don't make such spectacular early progress or put the Allies on the defensive so successfully. These are just a few examples. I find most people who do 'what ifs' assume that what did happen is 'normal' & then make their changes. Start monkeying with important events & you might discover that things were already very differnt BEFORE the point at which you want to start the changes.

As Zraver pointed out, US industry was a war winner. To that I would add the industrial strength & resources of the USSR & the British Empire & especially the manpower of the USSR. All of those would have conspired to defeat better led versions of Japan, Germany & Italy.

[zraver]

As Zraver pointed out, US industry was a war winner. To that I would add the industrial strength & resources of the USSR & the British Empire & especially the manpower of the USSR. All of those would have conspired to defeat better led versions of Japan, Germany & Italy.

Without the British Isles, the industrial power of the Uk and her allies is almost totally removed. Canada and Austrailia are still industrializing during WWII. While those two countries made great strides, being able to overcome Germany's lead if she had not only her own and occupied Europe's factories, but also British Industry is nigh well impossible.

This leaves the USSR, if there is no lend lease (LL), can the Soviets win? We know that LL added about half the total amount of ammuntion stocks, almost all of the 4x4 and 4x6 trucks and about 1/5 of her combat aircraft and even more of her transport aircraft, SPAM, leather and radios also played important LL roles. Soviet industry could make up these shortages, but it would be at the expence of T-34's and artillery systems and men. So the question is do the Soviets have enough excess in men and material to allow a complete re-orginzation of her war time industry and still allow a drive on Berlin.

Complicating the question is how much more combat power Germany would have had to throw in the fight. With the Luftwaffe not distracted in the West, an increase in production due to no dispersion, and no secondary fronts like North Africa, Italy or France the Germans have a lot more in the way of everything. While German supplies efforts deep in Russia preclude much in the way of combat power that far out. As Soviet advances get closer to Poland, German combat power goes up. Also, German ability to absorb Soviet hammer without collpsing blows is increased by the number of formations used in the West.

All in all, a Soviet Union fighting Germany alone is in deep trouble. Even if she wins Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, there is little chance for the lopsided battle of material from 1943 onward. Soviet operational arts were first class, but without a massive lead in material German tactical is a very effective offset. Honestly, I think a pure Nazi vs Bolshevik WWII ends up with Germany in control of much of the Ukraine (including the Crimea), all of Belorussia and big parts of European Russia. What Stalin is left with is a mostly Asian country that is short on growing areas and manpower.

[zraver]

Another question that must be asked in relation to my essay is how fast would Japan fall facing an undivided America and her ANZAC and British Empire allies. I think the answer is not much faster than in real history. it is going to take until 1943 for the USN to really begin to swell to its enormous 1945 size. The lack of a massive navy and the lack of a truly long ranged heavy bomber until the B-29 is going to limit American offensive action past a certain point. These two deficiencies combined with vastly more tactical hardware and manpower might even force a change of allied strategy. We might well see a drive up through New Guinea and then into Indonesia rather than island hopping. This would make the most effective use of planes like the B-17 and B-24. Its also likely that Burma will be retaken sooner and China then becoming a major battleground. it won't be until the USN can risk going toe to toe with the IJN in battle after battle that the real advance on Japan begins. An advance that will likely end with the atomic bombings of two Japanese cities.

If by then America has avoided war with Germany, Truman must now act. Once the cat is out of the bag so to speak it can only be concluded that Germany is not far behind with its own bomb efforts, or won't be far behind for long.

Now how do the forces stack up?

The US after a single minded war in the pacific has a huge navy, 20+ battleships, 100 carriers, a small but highly experienced core of amphibious assault units. The bulk of her potential army has likely not seen combat but bene training for a war with Germany but is trapped stateside and can only be moved in bits and pieces. She likely controls Iceland and from her can use her massive USAAF assets to dominate the skies over England and Ireland. The Pacific War even more than the war in Europe would have driven the need for long range fighters and bombers, although fighters built to fight at lower altitudes.

Against this stands Nazi Germany victor of Europe. German emphasis on the army is highly unlikely to have changed due to war with the Soviets. Hitler likely has 225+ divisions tying up huge amounts of manpower. These troops have wonderful tanks and machine guns but some large portion of them still relies on horses rather than trucks for transport. At least half of these divisions can likely be used in the West. In any invasion of Fortress Europe, Hitler likely believes that the Tigers and Panthers can prevail. He has not been educated in just how devastatingly effective massed Jabos can be on the tactical level. Germany's great weakness is the Luftwaffe. excellent pilots and planes aside it is a small force. German pilot production was never very high by American standards. A Luftwaffe of 3500 combat aircraft likely seems massive to Hitler, he likely won't understand that the USN alone has almost as many war planes and the USAAF 4x that.

Adding to Hitler's problems is the lack of a battle of the Atlantic. Sure he still has the Bismark and Tirpitz, but there has been no pressure to build mass numbers of u-boats. Germany effectively has no navy. These facts give the US the intiative, able to land where and when she wants under friendly skies and the covering fire of the worlds biggest battleship fleet. Any coast in Europe to a depth of 15 miles is under American guns.

It is likely that the US will invade Ireland, and then Great Britain to further reduce the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe. Hitler might rush troops to England once war begins, but- given the sheer size of the US naval and air forces- this only means that the UK will become the worlds biggest pocket of surrounded troops.

Once the UK falls, we either have an invasion of France, or a nuking of Berlin. The worlds greatest army cannot stop atomic fire.

[Officer of Engineers]

I always have serious doubt that the British Isles would have fallen. There were 2 fresh Canadian divisions with all her gear that were never sent to Dunkirk. That alone would have made any German landing suicidal. STUKHAS did great against tanks but crap all against machine gun nests.

Plus, it was the Canadians who won the Battle of the Atlantic, so none of that would have changed.

Had the Germans attempted SEALION, it would have been a disaster, and most certainly, Hitler would not have dared BARBAROSA after that.

[Mihais]

I remember reading about a series of simulations carried at Sandhurst(??) .Brits always won.No idea how.
However,Stukas did ok in Crete.The 2 Cad Divs+Monty's 3d Inf(IIRC the only combat ready Brit Div at the time) are still a shallow force.Assuming the German para's manage to land and get an airfield the Commonwealth on the shores have 3 airmobile divisions in the rear with 4-5 assaulting from the sea,with the entire Luftwaffe bomber force on CAS and interdiction.Even if the first German wave suffers heavy losses,they must only get a beachhead.Once the first Panzer regiment is on shore,the game is over for any defense on the coast.Then it becomes a game of protecting the LOC's for the Germans and trying to cut them for the Brits.RN+RAF vs Kriegsmarine+ME 109's+all Stukas fighting in range of the German fighters.My bet on that one is 2/3 on the Germans.

IMO,Sealion was as risky as could be.Assuming the services were convinced to actually work together instead of each coming with a plan that ignored the others it was however feasible.The strategic benefits were bigger then the drawbacks so it should have been carried out.

[S2]

Mihais Reply

"...The strategic benefits were bigger then the drawbacks so it should have been carried out."

Concur. It was a potential war-winner.

[Bigfella]

I remember reading about a series of simulations carried at Sandhurst(??) .Brits always won.No idea how.

Because the wargamers involved had a detailed understanding of the balance of forces available at the time

However,Stukas did ok in Crete.

Stukas were a disaster in the BoB. I think they had to be withdrawn in the end. Wouldn't have changed the outcome.

The 2 Cad Divs+Monty's 3d Inf(IIRC the only combat ready Brit Div at the time) are still a shallow force.

Not as shallow as what the germans were capable of landing.

Assuming the German para's manage to land and get an airfield the Commonwealth on the shores have 3 airmobile divisions in the rear with 4-5 assaulting from the sea,with the entire Luftwaffe bomber force on CAS and interdiction.Even if the first German wave suffers heavy losses,they must only get a beachhead.Once the first Panzer regiment is on shore,the game is over for any defense on the coast.Then it becomes a game of protecting the LOC's for the Germans and trying to cut them for the Brits.RN+RAF vs Kriegsmarine+ME 109's+all Stukas fighting in range of the German fighters.My bet on that one is 2/3 on the Germans.

You'd lose that bet comfortably.

IMO,Sealion was as risky as could be.Assuming the services were convinced to actually work together instead of each coming with a plan that ignored the others it was however feasible.The strategic benefits were bigger then the drawbacks so it should have been carried out.

The risk was only worth taking if there was a chance of it working. There wasn't. In the end it was sunk because the Navy actually knew how impossible it was.

The post below was written some time ago on a diffent forum, but it neatly summarizes the issues here. Sealion is one of those operations that looks more & more impossible the deeper you dig.

Had Germany been able to deploy & support its land forces in Britain then, yes, Britain would have fallen. As others have pointed out, however, this was simply impossible. Even if Germany had 'won' the Battle of Britain the RAF would simply have withdrawn to airfields out of range of escorted German bombers. These were plenty close enough to the south to contest Luftwaffe control over the invasion beaches.

The Luftwaffe had 3 tasks 1) establish air superiority over the Channel & invasion beaches 2) provide close air support to ground forces lacking heavy weapons or effective naval support 3) attack Royal Navy forces & keep them away from the invasion force. Now, keep in mind that the part invasion force was coming from as far away as Holland & Belgium (betcha didn't know that).This would have meant that many aircraft assigned to covering the fleet could not simply have been turned around & assigned to one of the other missions. At best the Luftwaffe MIGHT have accomplished 1. in part, 2. in very small part & 3. virtually not at all (most of the aircraft needed for 1. were also needed for 2. - can't do both). In the process it would have severely damaged itself & killed off a large number of experience aircrew.

As for the rest, the handful of ships that constituted the Kriegsmarine would have been swept aside by the Royal Navy. Without counting the Home Fleet based at Scapa Flow (itself enough to destroy its opponent without breaking sweat) there were hundreds of destroyers & smaller coastal craft based in the South of England (plus a few cruisers). These alone would have been capable of slowing & damaging any invasion fleet. The converted barges the Germans were going to tow across the Channel were so unseaworthy that they could barely turn & could be swamped by the wake of a passing destroyer. When an attempt was made to simulate landings with them in France under near perfect conditions something like 30% didn't even make it to shore.

The first wave of the invasion was to take many days. Indeed, so slow were the barges that some of them would have taken 3 days at sea just to reach the English coast. Even at the peak of German power over the English Channel, the Royal Navy owned the night. RN units up to cruiser size regularly raided French ports during the buildup to SEALION, some even entering the harbour at Calais (I think) to shell the port. Imagine what would have happened to a slow moving fleet of barges being towed by tugboats (as was planned) during the night - no air cover, minimal support from surface forces. And just in case you were planning to throw up submarines, in the shallow & narrow waters of English Channel, crowded with ships, submarines would have been a target, not a weapon. Now, keep in mind that the British knew that if the Germans invaded successfully they were lost - The Home Fleet would probably have fought to the last in order to keep that invasion from happening. It would not have had to do so, however.

And just in case you were imagining that german paratroops would descend from the skies to swamp the invasion zone & sow confusion, forget about it. The invasion of the Low Countries in particular had not only devastated numbers, it had also wrecked most of the air transport capability required to rapidly reinforce airdrops. Only a few thousand paratroops were on hand. Ironically, given the status of the battle at sea, they might have been among the few German troops to actually land in Britain. Those coming by sea would mostly have perished at sea.

As others have pointed out, British defensive capabilities were far better than is generally accepted. Keep in mind that the invasion was slated for September. Britain's low point was July 1940. By September units were being re-formed & re-armed after the disaster in France. Fresh Canadian troops were arriving. There were armoured forces available in the South. There were large numbers of well trained & sometimes experienced troops. The role of the Home Guard was to aid in local defence either until regular units arrived, or as a adjunct to regular units. Britain was NOT relying on them to turn back a German invasion force.

This invasion was seriously wargamed at Sandhurst back in the 1970s (i think). Even under relatively favourable conditions to the Germans (they assumed that the German first wave gets ashore in decent shape) the invasion force was isolated in days & defeated in something like a week. The reality would probably have been worse. I won't bore you further with all the details, but trust me when I say that the more detail you examine about this proposed invasion the clearer it is that the Germans had no idea what they were doing & it had zero chance of success (did I mention the many thousands of horses they planned to transport in the invasion fleet - yes, horses!!, Oh, and tanks were going to drop off the front of barges, completely submerge & drive ashore with compressed air being pumped in by hose!! ).

Personally I wish Hitler had tried. He would have humiliated himself, destroyed his Navy, severely damaged his airforce & lost tens of thousands of his best troops (& probably a few good generals) for absolutely no real gain. Such damage as was done to the RAF & RN would have benefited him little.

[Parihaka]

To the above post I'll just add that the Luftwaffe fighters were only capable of attacking the south-east and east coast of England, they didn't have drop-tanks for longer range operations.
At the worst point for the RAF, 11 Group was loosing pilots at slightly above replacement level and just keeping pace in airframe replacement. That was the worst that it got. If 11 Group continued to deteriorate they considered ceding the southern airfields and operating 11 Group from the midlands.
12 Group, stronger in both airframes with more Spitfires and pilot numbers was completely intact. If it hadn't been for Leigh-Mallory and his bastard child flying wing ideas 11 Group wouldn't have been nearly as damaged as it was.
On top of that was 10 Group, trained and equipped for anti-shipping, plus the pilots of 13 Group to provide replacements during high attrition.

During an actual invasion the Luftwaffe would have faced a an airforce more than twice the size that they had so far, more than twice the size the Luftwaffe believed existed.
Then of course there was bomber command......

[Station 22]

Against this stands Nazi Germany victor of Europe. German emphasis on the army is highly unlikely to have changed due to war with the Soviets. Hitler likely has 225+ divisions tying up huge amounts of manpower. These troops have wonderful tanks and machine guns but some large portion of them still relies on horses rather than trucks for transport. At least half of these divisions can likely be used in the West. In any invasion of Fortress Europe, Hitler likely believes that the Tigers and Panthers can prevail. He has not been educated in just how devastatingly effective massed Jabos can be on the tactical level. Germany's great weakness is the Luftwaffe. excellent pilots and planes aside it is a small force. German pilot production was never very high by American standards. A Luftwaffe of 3500 combat aircraft likely seems massive to Hitler, he likely won't understand that the USN alone has almost as many war planes and the USAAF 4x that.

There is still the problem for petroleum for the Germans. While with establishing larger forces, oil produciton would still lag, even the absence of any kind of air bombardment. The oil stocks were still unavailable to them. Ploesti was their major source, but even then, that constituted single digits of the world production at the time. Capturing Soviet oil productions would little remedy the problem, as shown what occured in the actual war. The wells and production sites were put out of use until well after the war.

I remember reading about a series of simulations carried at Sandhurst(??) .Brits always won.No idea how.
However,Stukas did ok in Crete.The 2 Cad Divs+Monty's 3d Inf(IIRC the only combat ready Brit Div at the time) are still a shallow force.Assuming the German para's manage to land and get an airfield the Commonwealth on the shores have 3 airmobile divisions in the rear with 4-5 assaulting from the sea,with the entire Luftwaffe bomber force on CAS and interdiction.Even if the first German wave suffers heavy losses,they must only get a beachhead.Once the first Panzer regiment is on shore,the game is over for any defense on the coast.Then it becomes a game of protecting the LOC's for the Germans and trying to cut them for the Brits.RN+RAF vs Kriegsmarine+ME 109's+all Stukas fighting in range of the German fighters.My bet on that one is 2/3 on the Germans.

IMO,Sealion was as risky as could be.Assuming the services were convinced to actually work together instead of each coming with a plan that ignored the others it was however feasible.The strategic benefits were bigger then the drawbacks so it should have been carried out.

Not as shallow as what the germans were capable of landing.



You'd lose that bet comfortably.



The risk was only worth taking if there was a chance of it working. There wasn't. In the end it was sunk because the Navy actually knew how impossible it was.

The post below was written some time ago on a diffent forum, but it neatly summarizes the issues here. Sealion is one of those operations that looks more & more impossible the deeper you dig.

Had Germany been able to deploy & support its land forces in Britain then, yes, Britain would have fallen. As others have pointed out, however, this was simply impossible. Even if Germany had 'won' the Battle of Britain the RAF would simply have withdrawn to airfields out of range of escorted German bombers. These were plenty close enough to the south to contest Luftwaffe control over the invasion beaches.

The Luftwaffe had 3 tasks 1) establish air superiority over the Channel & invasion beaches 2) provide close air support to ground forces lacking heavy weapons or effective naval support 3) attack Royal Navy forces & keep them away from the invasion force. Now, keep in mind that the part invasion force was coming from as far away as Holland & Belgium (betcha didn't know that).This would have meant that many aircraft assigned to covering the fleet could not simply have been turned around & assigned to one of the other missions. At best the Luftwaffe MIGHT have accomplished 1. in part, 2. in very small part & 3. virtually not at all (most of the aircraft needed for 1. were also needed for 2. - can't do both). In the process it would have severely damaged itself & killed off a large number of experience aircrew.

As for the rest, the handful of ships that constituted the Kriegsmarine would have been swept aside by the Royal Navy. Without counting the Home Fleet based at Scapa Flow (itself enough to destroy its opponent without breaking sweat) there were hundreds of destroyers & smaller coastal craft based in the South of England (plus a few cruisers). These alone would have been capable of slowing & damaging any invasion fleet. The converted barges the Germans were going to tow across the Channel were so unseaworthy that they could barely turn & could be swamped by the wake of a passing destroyer. When an attempt was made to simulate landings with them in France under near perfect conditions something like 30% didn't even make it to shore.

The first wave of the invasion was to take many days. Indeed, so slow were the barges that some of them would have taken 3 days at sea just to reach the English coast. Even at the peak of German power over the English Channel, the Royal Navy owned the night. RN units up to cruiser size regularly raided French ports during the buildup to SEALION, some even entering the harbour at Calais (I think) to shell the port. Imagine what would have happened to a slow moving fleet of barges being towed by tugboats (as was planned) during the night - no air cover, minimal support from surface forces. And just in case you were planning to throw up submarines, in the shallow & narrow waters of English Channel, crowded with ships, submarines would have been a target, not a weapon. Now, keep in mind that the British knew that if the Germans invaded successfully they were lost - The Home Fleet would probably have fought to the last in order to keep that invasion from happening. It would not have had to do so, however.

And just in case you were imagining that german paratroops would descend from the skies to swamp the invasion zone & sow confusion, forget about it. The invasion of the Low Countries in particular had not only devastated numbers, it had also wrecked most of the air transport capability required to rapidly reinforce airdrops. Only a few thousand paratroops were on hand. Ironically, given the status of the battle at sea, they might have been among the few German troops to actually land in Britain. Those coming by sea would mostly have perished at sea.

As others have pointed out, British defensive capabilities were far better than is generally accepted. Keep in mind that the invasion was slated for September. Britain's low point was July 1940. By September units were being re-formed & re-armed after the disaster in France. Fresh Canadian troops were arriving. There were armoured forces available in the South. There were large numbers of well trained & sometimes experienced troops. The role of the Home Guard was to aid in local defence either until regular units arrived, or as a adjunct to regular units. Britain was NOT relying on them to turn back a German invasion force.

This invasion was seriously wargamed at Sandhurst back in the 1970s (i think). Even under relatively favourable conditions to the Germans (they assumed that the German first wave gets ashore in decent shape) the invasion force was isolated in days & defeated in something like a week. The reality would probably have been worse. I won't bore you further with all the details, but trust me when I say that the more detail you examine about this proposed invasion the clearer it is that the Germans had no idea what they were doing & it had zero chance of success (did I mention the many thousands of horses they planned to transport in the invasion fleet - yes, horses!!, Oh, and tanks were going to drop off the front of barges, completely submerge & drive ashore with compressed air being pumped in by hose!! ).

Personally I wish Hitler had tried. He would have humiliated himself, destroyed his Navy, severely damaged his airforce & lost tens of thousands of his best troops (& probably a few good generals) for absolutely no real gain. Such damage as was done to the RAF & RN would have benefited him little.

You are correct. The German would have never been able to land troops on a scale that the Western Allies did and certainly not a scale to provide a sufficient mass of force to be effective.

Three days to cross the Channel does not bode well for the men on the barges. How do the move heavy guns & armor? Do they use those same (surviving) barges to transport troops or resupply? What about POL to power these tanks they somehow get across? Germany did not have the ability or idea of PLUTO.

It was going to be a bloodbath and Germans knew it. Hitler went with what he thought were better odds, the rotten structure to the east.

[Mihais]

That may be a reasonable assesment.However the point is moot since the Germans weren't serious about Sealion,starting with Adolf himself.There was no joint staff to plan for anything.Isolated projects and conflicting plans don't count as serious planning.
So the answer for the initial question about the losing of BoB is another question:So what?Unless some political change in Britain happens(with hindsight 0 chances;at the time the chances were next to nil) then nothing comes out of BoB.

Sealion or not,the war in the East was coming.

What would be interesting to simulate would be an aero-naval battle in the N Sea in close range of the LW.The RN wasn't the god of the sea.PoW and Repulse as well as Hood showed that it had limitations.Think of operation Cerberus(granted,a British failure of leadership) .
:fight: (heh,I had to try one of the new ones)