Operation Sealion

I don't really see how that's relevant

also 70% of u-boats were built after 1941

It's relevant because the nazis were heavily naive in military strategy, and they paid they price. They had a lot of hubris in all plans they had, large scale plans such as this one wouldn't work out.

A wargame was conducted involving German WW2 veterans which suggested that a German invasion would have been a catastrophic defeat leading to the loss of multiple divisions.

Honestly if the battle had actually occurred with a resounding British victory, Britain might have gained a whole lot more respect from their efforts in WW2. As it stands most people see Britain as doing a bit of fighting in the desert and not much else. It's pretty unfair, really.

Holy shit you are a moron.

Yes, Germany was extremely coordinated and their troops were trained well. Is that the answer history doesn't reflect, that you wanted?

If Hitler had prepared for an invasion of England, he would have had a chance. They didn't have the materiel to physically do it in real life.

You randomly pulled out some completely unrelated stat about the submarine warfare then when you got called out babbled some shit about hubris. Now you are either literally having a stroke or you are using google translate. It's like watching a train wreck in progress.

If Hitler had prepared for an invasion of Britain, they wouldn't have won the Battle of France and would never have been in position to invade Britain in the first place.

>You randomly pulled out some completely unrelated stat about the submarine warfare then when you got called out babbled some shit about hubris.

I wasn't babbling. I'm saying they focused on the areas we historically see in the war, and they failed. Operation Sea Lion was even bolder, and at its most plausible, it still would have failed for a variety of reasons we can see in their naval and air strategy. Are you honestly suggesting that arrogance and naivety didn't cost the Germans heavily? They fucked up time after time during the war. An implausible plan by ready hands is probably going to lose though it might be a success, an impossible plan by unprepared hands is destined as loss.

All of Germany's military decisions were littered with pointless loss of life of its military due to the inability to plan well by military leadership.

>what is the invasion of france

A difference between land and sea.

Not likely the RAF wasn't just in the south of England there were several squadrons in reserve in the north and Scotland. Then there is the matter of the Royal Navy, as soon as the Brits knew the invasion fleet was underway the the RN would steam down from Scapa Flow and up from Plymouth and wreak havoc on the invasion fleet, the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe would have no chance of stopping them.

you said the nazis were naive in terms of military strategy and their large scale plans did not work

the incredible success of the invasion of france would seem to go against that assessment

A
Difference
Between
Land
And
Sea

The German Navy was fucking decimated, it would have been decimated in any other way, especially a foolish plan like Sealion.

Feasible in the sense that Germany could have launched it? Sure.

Feasible in the sense that it would have worked and the Germans got enough troops ashore to existentially threaten Britain? Fuck no.

What if they invaded across the N Sea from Norway and kept a reserve force to bottle France up along the Maginot Line?

you mean across far more miles of far more dangerous waters and in reach of even more airfields and with the navy even better suited to intervene?

Literally didn't have enough transports on land or sea to get enough men ashore in the first place, let alone enough men and supplies.

Long answer is long, short answer is no. Sealion had 0% chance of working.

but they have at least six years of production and preperation

Germans were pretty suprised how easy France fell. Are you buying into their propaganda that they were some genius strategists?

Yeah, they just have just build a railway tunnel across the Channel. Just before finishing it, land some parachute divisions on the prospected site of the English entrance

six years to catch up with the strongest navy in the world by far backed by a sizeable air force? one that is not sitting idly through those six years? remember what a massive undertaking overlord was?

I want to think this all through
>Germany hides enough transport ships/boats from RAF/RN
>Germany has enough logistics ships to supply the .. however many hundred thousand(s) needed
>Germany has the petrol to supply the ships
>Germany has the defenses against RN attacks
I don't really see British civilians putting up a strong resistance, but again when have they ever needed to defeat themselves from an amphibious assault?
Depending on how bad it is it could end the war quickly and possibly give Stalin a very easy time on the East.

Germany would have had to have prevented the Dunkirk Evacuation and defeated the RAF. Even then, they'd be relying on morale shock for victory like in France as logistics would have been terrible with the RN in the water

Feasible, yes.

Also, I wonder what would've happened if Germany had launched its own version of the 'Dieppe Raid'. I'd imagine the results would be similar to the actual Dieppe Raid except with less dead Canadians and more dead Germans.

>All of history's military decisions were littered with pointless loss of life of its military due to the inability to plan well by military leadership.
I fixed it for you.

Only if the Soviet Union had collapsed before onset of winter in 1941, and they had had a while to build up their navy and air forces.

So no.

If Germans would be able to defeat RN and RAF then sure.

They weren't. Especially RN, RN outnumbered them by margin so wide that any individual advantage of any Kriegsmarine vessel over their RN counterpart of your choice was worthless.

Once Germans started building Scharnhorst, France responded with Dunkerque, once they started making Bismack and Italians were building Vittoro Veneto, France started building Richelieu and Britain started building KGV. The quicker and more intensive German naval build-up would be, the bigger and more intense British and French response.

> Only if the Soviet Union had collapsed before onset of winter in 1941, and they had had a while to build up their navy and air forces.
Why would USSR attack?

Without taking France first, not only do they have to invade across a really long way, but they have no chance of subduing the RAF prior to the invasion as their fighters cannot reach even south of England. This also means they won't have air cover for the invasion.
6 years is not enough time to catch up to the largest navy in the world from zero. Germany didn't have the resources or the know-how or the dry-dock capacity for that.