Did RAF Prevent Operation Sealion?

[Jim O]

Or was it the Royal Navy?

From Times Online:

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to . . . the Navy

By Michael Evans

The theory that the RAF stopped Hitler from invading is under attack

THE extraordinary courage of “the Few”, the Battle of Britain fighter pilots who protected the country from the might of the Luftwaffe, and stopped a full-scale invasion by Germany, remains one of the great stories of the Second World War.

However, three military historians have claimed that it was not the gallant Spitfire and Hurricane fighter pilots who saved the country from Hitler’s invading forces in the autumn of 1940, but the Royal Navy.

It was not air power but sea power that dissuaded Hitler from invading Britain in an operation codenamed Sealion, the eminent lecturers at the Armed Forces Joint Services Command Staff College have told History Today magazine.

Operation Sealion would have attempted to land 160,000 soldiers along 40 miles of coastline in southeast England, using 2,000 barges. But the sea invasion was postponed to enable the Luftwaffe to try to destroy the RAF.

This led to the Battle of Britain and Churchill’s subsequent, famous tribute to the RAF pilots: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

After the RAF won the war of the skies, Hitler abandoned his invasion plans on October 12, 1940. However, four weeks before the 66th anniversary of Battle of Britain Day, Andrew Gordon, head of maritime history at the staff college, has given a different perspective on why Hitler changed his mind.

He told Brian James, author of the article, Pie in the Sky?: “I cheered like crazy at the film of the Battle of Britain [Reach for the Sky], like everyone else. But it really is time to put away this enduring myth. To claim that Germany failed to invade in 1940 because of what was done by the phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command is hogwash.”

He added: “The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The Navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet; destroyers’ speed alone would have swamped the barges by their wash.”

Christina Goulter, air warfare historian at the staff college, added: “While it would be wrong to deny the contribution of Fighter Command . . . it was the Navy that held the Germans from invading.”

Dr Goulter added: “The Battle of Britain was a formative experience for the RAF, like Waterloo for the Army [and] Trafalgar for the Navy, a sacrosanct event. This is why there is more than a modicum of hostility to any suggestion of re-examining this history. The single-seater fighter pilots of today see themselves as inheriting the mantle of the Few.”

Gary Sheffield, the staff college’s land warfare historian, agreed that the Navy was the main stumbling block to a successful German invasion.

Their views were criticised yesterday by one of the Battle of Britain pilots, Air Commodore Peter Brothers, who told The Times: “I’m afraid that the Royal Navy would have had a thin time if there had been no Battle of Britain. The German air force would have done what the Japanese did in Singapore. The Germans had Stuka dive-bombers that would have made mincemeat of the Navy.”

Air Commodore Brothers, chairman of the Battle of Britain Fighter Association, added: “The Battle of Britain dissuaded Hitler from invading. The battle was won by the people, firstly by radar, secondly by those who made the ammunition and aircraft, thirdly by the ground crews and fourthly by the pilots who flew them.”

Peter Furtado, editor of History Today, said: “There is absolutely no intention of denigrating the exceptional efforts of the Battle of Britain pilots. But all the historians are trying to do is to put their efforts into a wider context. Churchill created the myth of the Few for his own reasons.”

DEBRIEFING

• In 1939, Britain had the largest naval force in the world: 7 aircraft carriers, 15 large battleships, 15 heavy cruisers, 46 light cruisers, 181 destroyers and 59 submarines
  
• In August 1940, the RAF had 615 Hurricanes and 326 Spitfires
  
• “The Few” were 2,353 Britons and 574 pilots from overseas: 544 died during the Battle of Britain
  
• The battle lasted from July 10 to October 31, 1940
  
• Battle of Britain Day is September 15

Source Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to . . . the Navy

What do y'all think about this?

[Lancer44]

I don't think modern historians are right separating services and suggesting that Navy was "more important" in repelling possible German invasion.

The whole thing is childish... without air superiority Royal Navy would not be as dangerous for German invasion fleet as with RAF at full strength.

No one even a bit serious about history of WWII can raise such questions and topics.

It is equal to saying: "Soviets managed to capture Berlin not because of
their brave infantry but because T-34's.

For any member of military Forum like "WWII in Color" such statements are very unprofessional.

Another "sensation" for end of summer? Gunter Grass story died already?


Cheers,

Lancer44

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Lancer44

I don't think modern historians are right separating services and suggesting that Navy was "more important" in repelling possible German invasion.

The whole thing is childish... without air superiority Royal Navy would not be as dangerous for German invasion fleet as with RAF at full strength.

No one even a bit serious about history of WWII can raise such questions and topics.

It is equal to saying: "Soviets managed to capture Berlin not because of
their brave infantry but because T-34's.

For any member of military Forum like "WWII in Color" such statements are very unprofessional.

Another "sensation" for end of summer? Gunter Grass story died already?


Cheers,

Lancer44

I'd have to disagree with your characterization of the question as "childish" though not necessarily with your conclusion. I haven't taken a position on that.

From the text of the original article in History Today:

It is not mere revisionist history that puts this question, and indeed offers the suggestion that it would be at least equally fitting if, on this Battle of Britain Day, the Royal Navy were to send its ships in procession along our coasts – for it was the navy, not the RAF, that prevented a German invasion in 1940. This is the contention of three senior military historians at the Joint Services Command Staff College. Together they run the High Command course that teaches the past to the air marshals, generals and admirals of the future. What today’s senior officers learn of Britain’s military history they learn from this trio – and some of what they may be told goes against many popular beliefs.

Another comment made was:

We had a need for heroes in 1940, the process of myth-building was absolutely necessary – myths are facts which circumstances needed to create. At that time they enabled Britain to feel stronger than it was – producing the men who stopped the Nazis in their tracks. So who now wants to know that the Luftwaffe lost fewer men in fighter aircraft than did the RAF? If it was necessary in 1940 to believe in our military heroes, later it became doubly necessary as our colonies fell away.

The article goes on to point out that while Hitler blamed the cancellation of Sealion on the failure of the Luftwaffe to gain absolute air superiority, the idea that a convoy of barges would be a match for British destroyers is laughable, and that the whole assembly was designed to bring Churchill to the table to end the war. But most texts still argue that was due to RAF fighters' successes in the skies. So...to me it is a somewhat different argument than whether Soviet tanks or riflemen won the war in the east. The Soviet army won the war in the east, and having superior air power in the later years played a big role, as did US shipments of food, motor vehicles, and raw materials. But it was the soldiers on the ground who paid with their blood and stormed positions. Similarly, the RAF "won" the Battle of Britain. The question here is "Why was Sealion cancelled?", and I would add as a follow up, "Was Hitler really ever serious about Sealion in the first place?".

The full article from History Today is attached as a pdf.

[temujin77]

Simply put, WW2 was a war that was fought "triphibious"-ly, as described by Douglas MacArthur, combining the strengths of ground, naval, and air forces. That being said, we cannot simply say the RAF alone prevented Operation Sealion or the RN alone did so. It was a combined and coordinated effort that detered the attack.

Also, internal problems in Germany also prevented a successful execution of such an invasion. For one, Germany simply did not have an adequate transport fleet to ship over enough men for a forceful landing operation that could maintain a beach head for enough time for the fleet to go back and make a second shipping round. For Sealion planning, the Kriegsmarine even had to consider using river barges to cross the English Channel. This logistical problem probably was a bigger reason to prevent a landing on Britain.

Back on topic, though. RAF and RN both contributed to the prevention of a German attack. One couldn't have done it without the other. Though I am in the view that RAF probably was a bigger reason than RN, but that in no way discounts the contribution of the RN.

[Lancer44]

After 1992 when soviet archives were opened, there was a possibility for historians to confront records from Battle of Britain on both sides.
Result was a bit disappointing for RAF - it looks that figures of destroyed German aircrafts were "bettered" between 30 to 50%.

Translating it to common English - Germans were not able to produce fighters
and bombers faster than RAF destroyed them, but miraculously they were able to fight, when theoretically they would just cease to exist.

No wonder that historians were searching and crushing "myths".

All over, official figures were down at least 45 to 50%. Nothing to blame pilots, they reported "kills" and "probable" in good will.

I believe that this article about RAF contra Navy has got it's roots from "downplaying and reducing" of tryumphant RAF victories figures in 1940.

Anyway, good discussion point!

Cheers,

lancer44

[Jim O]

One thing is for certain, at least at that time, Hitler did not like to engage in battles that he did not believe that could he win. That leads me to conclude that he was never very serious about Sealion in the first place and that it was mostly a ploy to get Churchill out of the war. So the question is, if the Luftwaffe had secured overwhelming air superiority, would that have been enough to take the Royal Navy out of the equation, and allow a landing with river barges (another issue of course)? Here, the article goes on to say:

But weren’t ships lost at Dunkirk?

We lost six destroyers and had a cruiser damaged. But they were virtually stationary, picking up troops. A better example is Norway – where despite constant air attack the navy suffered no significant loss. There was damage from shock, from splinters. Nothing more. Because ships were free to move and fight back.

People forget that no capital ship had ever been sunk by aircraft at this time. The US air force staged a 1920s bomber demonstration. Against old German warships moored, unmanned, with no anti-aircraft guns, no damage control. Even so it took three waves of bombers to sink these sitting ducks. Tackling the big ships of the RN in 1940 would have been a very different task. Especially as the Germans could no more than dent our capital ships – they had no armour-piercing bombs. They’d had no reason for such weapons.

The conclusion the authors draw, or at least what I interpret as their conclusion, is that even without effective air support, against an invasion force supported by German fighters, the Royal Navy would have been an effective fighting force.

This again really brings up the question of whether Hitler was ever all that serious about invading Britain. My guess is that he was not because he did not have the naval capacity to do so. He might have considered an airborne assault at a later date, but by a year later, after the Battle of Crete, he had sworn off on another such action, and was looking eastward anyway.

As is well known, his real hope was for a peace settlement with Britain, or barring that a stalemate. He believed he had such a stalemate in 1941 and that's why he felt free to launch Barbarossa. The rest, as they say, is history.

Nothing I say here is meant to minimize the contributions of the RAF, or the bravery of its pilots and crews, or of its importance in winning the war. As we all know, at that point in time air cover for ground troops and armor could and did turn battles, and strategic bombing (another slightly taboo topic and one which provokes emotions) by both the RAF and US aircraft was an essential ingredient in the overall victory by Allied forces in Western Europe.

[Klaus]

As some people metioned before. You can't sperate RAF, RN and Groundtroops. Without the other the remaining forces would have had a tough time beating the enemy.

As for Operation "Seelöwe": I think the RN played a bigger part. Germany didn't have enough naval capacity to cover a landing.

On the other hand "Seelöwe" was planned, in my humble opinion, halfheartedly.

[Lancer44]

Originally Posted by Jim O

One thing is for certain, at least at that time, Hitler did not like to engage in battles that he did not believe that could he win.

That leads me to conclude that he was never very serious about Sealion in the first place and that it was mostly a ploy to get Churchill out of the war. ]

OFF TOPIC:

Jim, this line from your post almost hit me in my head... I think this is worth starting another thread. Look at this - in late 1940 Hitler shows really that he can think and postponed Sea Lion.

As you said he launched Barbarossa 8 month later counting end of BofB till 22 of June 1941. Was he the same men?
Looking at figures only, Barbarossa was more crazy in long run then Sea Lion...

What nearly all historians want us to believe is that Germany had no intelligence, that Abwehr was totally blind, that Hitler launched Barbarossa without clearly defined objectives...

Something doesn't fit here...

See ya in next thread!

Cheers,

Lancer44

[Klaus]

Have a look at this:

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/direct16.html

Perhaps the German point of view helps.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Lancer44

OFF TOPIC:

Jim, this line from your post almost hit me in my head... I think this is worth starting another thread. Look at this - in late 1940 Hitler shows really that he can think and postponed Sea Lion.

As you said he launched Barbarossa 8 month later counting end of BofB till 22 of June 1941. Was he the same men?
Looking at figures only, Barbarossa was more crazy in long run then Sea Lion...

What nearly all historians want us to believe is that Germany had no intelligence, that Abwehr was totally blind, that Hitler launched Barbarossa without clearly defined objectives...

Something doesn't fit here...

See ya in next thread!

Cheers,

Lancer44

Sounds good. Your idea...run with it.

Originally Posted by Klaus

Have a look at this:

DIRECTIVE No. 16

Perhaps the German point of view helps.

Klaus,

I read that document just now. Some of it was pure fantasy. As if the British would have left their home undefended by ships because of the Italian Navy! And the idea of laying mines is also not realistic given the information presented in the article that I originally posted, that is "The British in 1940 had fifty-two minesweepers, plus sixteen minesweeping trawlers in home waters. The Germans had just four minelayers with their western fleet." Hitler had to know the latter fact, and his intelligence must have had at least some idea of the former. So again, it leads me to conclude it was never a serious idea in the first place.