Whats the deal with most mainstream historians claiming that Operation Sea Lion would end in a German failure?

Whats the deal with most mainstream historians claiming that Operation Sea Lion would end in a German failure?
Do they forget all the other times England and Britain got steam rolled once the enemy got on their island?
>A bunch of times by the Romans
>A few times by some Scandinavians high on drugs
>And one time by a Norman duke

Other urls found in this thread:

cgsc2.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/nafziger/940BIEA.pdf),
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Whats the deal with most mainstream historians claiming that Operation Sea Lion would end in a German failure?

Facts. Logic.

Germans needed air supremacy, to be able to keep the Royal Navy out the Channel until England surrendered.

Churchill would have kept fighting until he was pinned up in scotland and running out of weapons.

>bringing up Romans when arguing for Sea Lion

Sea Lion was just the name of the actual physical invasion process not the subsequent "once the enemy got on their island" land campaign

So when people talk about the failure they're talking about Germany's inability to stage effective landings in the UK, not its inability to beat the UK if it could teleport to London

>Facts. Logic.
Like what?
The British navy at the time was pathetic and they nearly botched their attempt at running away after Dunkirk.
>Bringing up something that successfully invaded the British isles is not related to something else related to invading the British isles

>Like what?

Like the inability of the Luftwaffe to even establish air superiority over southern Enlgand, let alone complete air supremacy that they were asking for. The total lack of sealift on the part of the Germans, or any experience mounting amphibious invasions. The fact that D-Day, a huge, huge operation with over 4,000 specially constructed landing craft, could only manage to cart about 6 divisions across (The British had 28 divisions on hand to defend withcgsc2.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/nafziger/940BIEA.pdf), and the Germans don't even have the ability to move that much, let alone safely, as their "plans" involved towing river barges.

>The British navy at the time was pathetic and they nearly botched their attempt at running away after Dunkirk.

And the German navy was less than 1/5th the size and had even less experience, and was attempting an enormously more complicated task.

Not to mention that they've actually done projections on it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

And it makes some fairly unrealistic projections, like "The landing is not effectively opposed from air or water), or that 80,000 land troops could be dispatched as a first wave (again, about half of what D-Day landed with, on far, far, far less transport). They still got crushed.

First two the island wasn't united yet and the third happened after England already saw off Norway

>The 11th and 20th century are pretty similar in terms of military strategy, right?

>Whats the deal with most mainstream historians claiming that Operation Sea Lion would end in a German failure?
The part where German and British ww2 generals got together in the 70s and did a wargame with all their information and both concluded that the operation would have failed.

>A bunch of times by the Romans
>A few times by some Scandinavians high on drugs
Both of these happened when England didn't even exist
>And one time by a Norman duke
Yeah after he forced marched back from York after fighting off another invasion

Is OP the guy who screams about overepresentation of the British in Battlefield 1?

I think so

/int/posters btfo

>Whats the deal with most mainstream historians claiming that Operation Sea Lion would end in a German failure?
because the germans possessed none of the perquisites for a successful invasion.
they lacked air superiority.
they lacked naval superiority
they lacked trained amphibious troops or amphibious equipment and had no real experience of opposed landings.
they didnt have any landing ships only poorly converted barges.
they didnt have enough sealift.

so they could get a division or two at most across assuming the RN didnt notice and intervene, that small force would then be trying to make a landing against determined resistance against a enemy with air superiority and significant available reserves and with little hope of resupply.

sea lion would have been dieppe x20

>the argument for why operation sealion should succeed is based off of operations from 2,000-800 years previously
if I said that Ceasar's invasion of Gaul is an example of why Italy should have been able to invade France then what would be the response?

The German air force lacked sufficiently in anti-shipping capacity to really close off the channel
Even a few RN destroyers among the transport ships would cause uncountable damage

It's almost like one of the best military training academies in the world carried out war games with the same orders of battle, weather conditions and where possible actual officers who would have been involved and people are basing their descriptions from their findings.

posts like these are so satisfying

It's almost as if Britain changed between 1066 and 1940

Seriously, what is up with the flood of retarded stormfags here recently?

so 900 years ago, a powerful Norman duke with papal support and mercenaries from all over Christendom defeats an exhausted anglo army which has just defeated hadradas scandi army and the whole thing is close which of-course means the third reich would have been able to easily annex the United Kingdom, then - though greatly reduced, still the largest Empire in the world.

OK lad. I get that Veeky Forums hates Britain but have you sat down and considered that professional consensus might be more on the money than your delusions.

>Lists three invasive episodes in British history to legitimize the claim Germans could invade Britain.
>Doesn't bring up GERMANIC invasions establishing themselves in southern England.

>Lists three invasive episodes in British history to legitimize the claim Germans could invade Britain.
>Doesn't bring up the time germans invaded, establishing themselves in southern England.

It's not as though it's a big deal though lad, I don't think the Anglos and Saxons lasted long in the UK.

>an exhausted anglo

Daily reminder that the fyrd was completely different at Hastings than it was at Stratford Bridge, and in any case, none of the contemporary sources mention exhaustion as a partial cause of Harald's defeat.

Stamford Bridge. I have no idea why I said Stratford

>even thinking they had a chance of a successful invasion

*lights the sea on fire with oil*
*gasses you*
*laughs at you*
*gasses you again*