The German invasion of Britain did it really have any chance of success?

I have often thought that had an invasion been attempted immediately following the evacuation of Dunkirk it would have had a very good chance of success however I have just got through reading a study carried out at Sandhurst in 1974 that came to the conclusion the Germans would have been able to land and establish a beachhead, but then found themselves cut off by the Royal Navy. Inevitably they would eventually run out of supplies and have no choice but to surrender.

Essentially I think the problems facing the Germans were predominantly:
1) Supply.

2) The overwhelming superiority of the Royal Navy over the Kriegsmarine.

3) The idea of using barges was flawed (it was anticipated that it would take upwards of 23 hours to get the first wave fully ashore)

4) The Luftwaffe would have been overstretched trying to keep the RAF at bay, provide support to ground forces, preventing British reinforcements moving up and holding off the Royal Navy.

5) The invasion force would have lacked heavy equipment for quite sometime after the initial landings as there was simply no way to land significant amounts of heavy vehicles or artillery until a port had been secured and made operational.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

For Sealion to be successfull,the following conditions had to be accomplished,if ONE was not,SL had NO chance
1)Air superiority above south -east England :this was not accomplished
2)Elimination of BC:this was not accomplished
3)Availability of a transport fleet :there was no transport fleet
4)Availability of a war fleet to protect the transport fleet :the KM was negligible
5)The capture,on the first day,of an intact port to discharge tanks,artillery,trucks,ammunition.....:this was impossible
6)the weather:the Germans would need several WEEKS of good weather for the build up:this was impossible in september .
as NONE of these conditions were possible,the chances for SL were nihil

Sea Lion probably could not have been attained in late 1940 or 1941 for that matter. The two greatest obstacles were the R.A.F and the R.N. And these two obstacles weren't lost on the Nazi high command or the Fuhrer for that matter.
There is actually much evidence which points to Sealion being nothing but a bluff or at least a threat mentioned in an angry tirade most common in Hitler's speeches. But what is known for sure is Hitler wasn't really interested in invading Great Britain by September 1940. His reason's could have been his desire to have Britain as a potential partner in carving up the world. The man certainly did live in a cloud coo coo land at times.
Hitler's weakest asset was his lack of understanding Grand Strategy. He could have starved Great Britain out by putting the full weight of the Wehrmacht into North Africa. By defeating the British in North Africa, capturing the Suez Canal and Malta and making the Mediteranean an Axis lake, the starvation of Great Britain would begin. Of course a much greater portion of the Kriegsmarine would need to be put into the Atlantic and U-boat production would need to be trebled.
Britains life lines would be cut off.
Germany would have an unending supply of oil and petrol.
Britain would probably sue for peace by late 1941.
There would be no need to declare war against the U.S.A. not that there was a need to do so in the first place.
With Britain out of north Africa, Turkey would more than likely join the Axis.
With Britain truly out of the war, Roosevelt an Anglophile would see reason and would not sign Lend-Lease.
Germany waits a full year before even contemplating an attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin still believes he has nothing to fear from Germany. He is more interested in attacking British India, now that Britain is truly on the ropes.
The Soviet Union finally does attack India. German observers see the T-34 tank for the first and suddenly have saucers for eyes.
A whole new approach to the panzer and armored warfare developes quickly in the Reich.
OK I'm getting ahead of myself and probably a little silly but you get the point.

IF Germany had managed to get through the RAF and RN and managed to land in any numbers and finally managed to capture London, forcing some sort of surrender or peace deal, I don't think that would have been the end of the matter.

The French showed that a mere ½ % of the population actively resisting, proved a nightmare for the occupation forces, tying up troops that could be put to better use elsewhere.

As someone once said, "Invading a country is the easy part, holding it is another thing altogether."

There are so ,many Ifs in all of this. Had the German Air Force ruled the skies in southern England then a German Airborne raid on some where like Manston then they could shuttled in a large number of troops by air [J52] where they could have fanned out and taken a port. With the port they could have brought in their heavier equipment. The RN would have sailed into a line of U Boats that would have taken its toll on the ships then there would be minefields and air raids to deal with.
The Army bless it left most of its equipment in France and there was not a lot of heavy stuff to repulse a landing.
By late September there had been a great build programme of defence lines in Southern England and the whole set up had changed with the imported weapons from the US.
Had Germany invaded right after the fall of France it would have been a close run thing as Wellington used to say

Originally Posted by papasha408

Sea Lion probably could not have been attained in late 1940 or 1941 for that matter. The two greatest obstacles were the R.A.F and the R.N. And these two obstacles weren't lost on the Nazi high command or the Fuhrer for that matter.
There is actually much evidence which points to Sealion being nothing but a bluff or at least a threat mentioned in an angry tirade most common in Hitler's speeches. But what is known for sure is Hitler wasn't really interested in invading Great Britain by September 1940. His reason's could have been his desire to have Britain as a potential partner in carving up the world. The man certainly did live in a cloud coo coo land at times.
Hitler's weakest asset was his lack of understanding Grand Strategy. He could have starved Great Britain out by putting the full weight of the Wehrmacht into North Africa. By defeating the British in North Africa, capturing the Suez Canal and Malta and making the Mediteranean an Axis lake, the starvation of Great Britain would begin. Of course a much greater portion of the Kriegsmarine would need to be put into the Atlantic and U-boat production would need to be trebled.
Britains life lines would be cut off.
Germany would have an unending supply of oil and petrol.
Britain would probably sue for peace by late 1941.
There would be no need to declare war against the U.S.A. not that there was a need to do so in the first place.
With Britain out of north Africa, Turkey would more than likely join the Axis.
With Britain truly out of the war, Roosevelt an Anglophile would see reason and would not sign Lend-Lease.
Germany waits a full year before even contemplating an attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin still believes he has nothing to fear from Germany. He is more interested in attacking British India, now that Britain is truly on the ropes.
The Soviet Union finally does attack India. German observers see the T-34 tank for the first and suddenly have saucers for eyes.
A whole new approach to the panzer and armored warfare developes quickly in the Reich.
OK I'm getting ahead of myself and probably a little silly but you get the point.

These only are old myths :the fact is that the importance of the Mediterranean,of North Africa,of the Middle East ,was NEGLIGIBLE .
There was NOTHING in the ME the Germans could use :they never could go to the oil fields,never could exploit the oil fields,never could transport the oil to Germany ,and,in 1940,there was no shortage on oil .
Britain :did NOT use the ME oil in WWII,it used the oil of the US and Central America .

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

The French showed that a mere ½ % of the population actively resisting, proved a nightmare for the occupation forces, tying up troops that could be put to better use elsewhere.

. "

The french resistance was a joke, the french people got "brave" only when allies were hours ahead or if they faced unarmed Germans.

France by and large collaborated with Germany so much as to earn the title of a true ally, french murdered Jews and complied peacefully with all the things Germans did, some blown tracks and a joke uprising in Paris do not count.

The only place where french resistance is accounted for seriously is history channel and such since it would be embarassing to tell the truth, France supported Nazi Germany and did not put any noteworthy fight, in 1940 or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

The french resistance was a joke, the french people got "brave" only when allies were hours ahead or if they faced unarmed Germans.

I suggest that you do a bit more research before making such a broad statement.

Andrée Peel, a highly decorated French resistance figure who helped save dozens of American and British airmen shot down over France during World War II, died on March 5 in the English village of Long Ashton, outside Bristol. She was 105.

Her death was announced by the Lampton House nursing home, where she had been living, The Associated Press said.

When France fell to Germany in the spring of 1940, Andrée Virot, the daughter of a civil engineer and a native of Brittany, was running a beauty salon in the Breton port of Brest.

She joined the resistance movement when German troops occupied Brest, and she began circulating an underground newspaper. Code-named Agent Rose, she soon became a key resistance figure in Brittany. She fed information to the Allies on German shipping and troop movements and on the results of Allied bombing in the region. She also guided British planes carrying intelligence agents to nighttime landings at secret airstrips marked by torchlight.

She was best remembered for playing an important role in the rescue of 102 Allied airmen, by her account, in a network that set up safe houses for fliers on the run from the Germans and then took the men to isolated sections of the Brest beaches, where they boarded boats transporting them to England.
When the Germans learned of her resistance work she fled to Paris, but she was arrested by the Gestapo shortly after the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944.

She was beaten and tortured, then imprisoned at the Ravensbrück and Buchenwald concentration camps. She was about to be killed by a firing squad at Buchenwald when it was liberated by American troops in April 1945.
“I saved 102 pilots before being arrested, interrogated and tortured,”*the BBC quoted her as once having said. “I suffer still from that. I still have the pain.”
Returning to Paris after the war, she fulfilled a vow to make a pilgrimage to the Sacré-Coeur Basilica in Montmartre to give thanks for having survived, the British newspaperThe Telegraph reported.

She managed a restaurant in Paris and met her future husband, an English student named John Peel. They settled in the Bristol area, where Mrs. Peel practiced nonmedical healing techniques and provided nutritional advice. Her husband died in 2003. They had no children.

Mrs. Peel received many decorations from the French government for her resistance work, and she was awarded the Medal of Freedom by the United States and the King’s Commendation for Brave Conduct by Britain. During the war she received a personal letter of appreciation from Prime Minister*Winston Churchill.

Mrs. Peel told of her exploits in a 1999 memoir, “Miracles Do Happen!”
On Feb. 3 she celebrated her 105th birthday at her nursing home. Wearing 11 decorations for valor on her blouse, she was presented with a cake decorated with the French flag and sang the French national anthem.
“You don’t know what freedom is if you have never lost it,”*Mrs. Peel once told The Bristol Evening Post. “The only fear we had was of being tortured and of speaking under torture,” she added. “I rarely thought of my personal safety. I just acted and did what I believed was the right thing.”

Would you be prepared to suffer what she did? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

France by and large collaborated with Germany so much as to earn the title of a true ally, french murdered Jews and complied peacefully with all the things Germans did, some blown tracks and a joke uprising in Paris do not count.

What part of ½ % of the population don't you understand? When I went to school 100% minus ½ % which means 99 ½ % is left over. Ergo 99 ½% of the population didn't join the resistance, and yes many did collaborate with the Germans.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

The only place where french resistance is accounted for seriously is history channel and such since it would be embarassing to tell the truth, France supported Nazi Germany and did not put any noteworthy fight, in 1940 or otherwise.

I have an idea that in your town or city is a large building that contains things called books, its called a library, it should also include such things as books called "memoirs" by various people who took part in WW2, you can also cross reference with other memoirs. It might be an idea to visit the "library" it could help you do a bit of research.

I'm not a fan of the French, but I give credit where its due. Maybe you need to do the same.

1)the role of the French resistance is much overestimated (as the role of all resistance movements)
2)In France,as in most occupied countries,a tiny minoritu belonged to the resistance,an other tiny minority belonged to the collaboration,and,the overwhelming majority took the only sensible attitude :remaining outside of the fighting(what not means that they were collaborating)
3) The hatred of Panzercracker against the French is making him to dishonour the sacrifice of the French in 1940 :100000 French soldiers died in may/june 1940
4)For Panzercracker,every one who does not belong to the resistance is a coward/traitor,as to be expected from some one who never had the misfortune to have lived in an occupied country .

Originally Posted by lljadw

1)the role of the French resistance is much overestimated (as the role of all resistance movements)
2)In France,as in most occupied countries,a tiny minoritu belonged to the resistance,an other tiny minority belonged to the collaboration,and,the overwhelming majority took the only sensible attitude :remaining outside of the fighting(what not means that they were collaborating)
3) The hatred of Panzercracker against the French is making him to dishonour the sacrifice of the French in 1940 :100000 French soldiers died in may/june 1940
4)For Panzercracker,every one who does not belong to the resistance is a coward/traitor,as to be expected from some one who never had the misfortune to have lived in an occupied country .

I agree with most of your comments, except the first. Many operations were carried out by SOE and the US OSS in occupied France, Britain supplied weapons (the French favourite's was the Sten as it could be broken down into small pieces and the Lee Enfield with its 10 round magazine), explosives and other items. Lets not forget the price some villages paid because of resistance activity, where whole villages were destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered by the SS. I cannot even imagine living under those conditions and the fear.

Resistance groups in Russia and Yugoslavia kept a huge amount of German troops tied up.

The French did however come into their own after D Day assisting the Allies, by destroying rail networks, communications and delaying German reinforcements.

Both the SOE and the OSS trained various groups. Quite a few Allied aircrew and escaped POW's owe their very lives to a mere handful of people. Andrée Peel mentioned in my previous post was only one person who risked death time and time again.

My father was in France well after D Day taking part in supply convoys. He was driving a truck through some French backwater when he saw a French farmer beating the crap out of an obviously starving horse, pulling an overloaded cart. My dad stopped and took the whip out of his hand, and asked "How would you like it if I beat the crap out of you." To which the farmer spat and said, "The Germans never interfered so why should you?"

I have visited and drove through France quite a few times and found the French in the north very anti British, while in the south they were friendly. While in the French Alps many many years ago, one chap slapped me on the back and asked how I liked the South of France. I answered in my school boy French that it is very beautiful, much to his amusment.

Many years ago in UK I was in a small bar I frequented wearing a sweat shirt with my regimental badge (RCT) over the left breast. An older Dutch chap who was with his wife came over to me and introduced himself saying he recognised my regimental badge. We began chatting and he stated he as a matter of fact, was a member of the Dutch resistance in the area of the Phillips Factory in Eindoven, he introduced his wife who played a small part in the resistance.

We chatted for hours. Both he and his wife stated that their biggest fear was being caught by the Gestapo and tortured, the fear they felt while waiting for an airdrop at night. While the Dutch resistance were not as well organised as the French, again a tiny handful of people fought back in anyway they could. I said (and meant it) "It is an honour to meet two extremely brave people." They laughed and suggested that I and others would do the same. I'm not so sure I have the kind of guts they have.

I get extremely annoyed when armchair generals try to degrade and undermine the courage and tenacity of people who put their lives on the line so others may live