.

Im looking at doing a 1/35 scene, Im trying to do something on the beaches maybe a sturmboat with infantry charging ashore and a tank or two coming out of the water.

What about the Pz IV Ausf D diving tank. I know Tristar have a 35th model of that one.

the wikipedia listing for operation sealion is pretty informative.  have a read there.

They readied Pz III and Pz IV Tauchpanzers, swimming Pz IIs.  With the first waves, follow on Flammpanzer IIs, Lorraine and UE tractors, more Pz IIIs and StuG IIIs were planned.

If you read the article however, you see how suicidal such a venture would have been.  The scale of the German disaster would have made the Spanish Armada look like a resounding Spanish victory.  I laughed at this quote by Gen Halder: "From the army's point of view I regard it as complete suicide, I might just as well put the troops that have landed straight through the sausage machine."

If you read the article however, you see how suicidal such a venture would have been.  The scale of the German disaster would have made the Spanish Armada look like a resounding Spanish victory.

I don't know.  If OP Overlord had not been executed, it probably would have looked just as crazy on paper and equally doomed to fail.

I think theater air control was a major difference.

Yeah ive seen the tristar kits with the tauch panzers and have given them much thought

If anything this might end up being a sailing out of port or an excercize landing

Tankluver

Yeah ive seen the tristar kits with the tauch panzers and have given them much thought

I've got the kit and it looks nice. I plan on doing a similar scene, but with the tank coming out of the river Bug.

I think Ive seen that pic online somewhere of the tauch panzers emerging from the river

.

I agree, those are the reasons it did succeed.  Just think if the plan had been scrapped and not executed in favor of the "Soft Underbelly of Europe" plan (large-scale invasion through Italy) as preferred by the British. Or if Hitler had executed Sea Lion as opposed to invading Russia in 1940. It could have been successful then.  I'm sure that OP Overlord would have been seen the same way as OP Sea Lion is now. It is all a matter of historical perspective.

Interesting conversation. One other factor is that the British would have been fighting for their homeland- the Germans were not for theirs.

I don't believe any French troops landed at Normandy either.  I don't think it would have been a factor.

The (Free) French were at Normandy--there were ships in the gun line, and ground troops were landed, if mostly specialized units under UK control.

This comparison is some what apples to avocados, though.   Four very technological years separated the two, and the forces to be committed were very different.

As pointed out above, the Germans had no real sea supremacy to bring.  The Brits would have brought the North Sea and Channel Fleets against any landing force.  Even if we postulate an intact RKM, the Brits would not have hesitated to closely engage the German's heavies, and would have had sufficient "small stuff" to decimate the landing forces.  

Even postulating a 'defeated' RAF, those remaining forces would still have had the benefit of "full tank" attacks versus the "near bingo" Luftwaffe forces.

But, far more telling, German forces were still limited by their own technology.    The barges being built for the crossing were virtually Napoleonic in nature.  And they had to be--80% of German arty was still horse drawn; a significant portion of Wehrmacht forces were horse-mounted.

So, the landing would have been problematic, a Dieppe before Dieppe, if you will.  Which does not mean it would not make for a cracking dio.  Starting with, say, a 12 x 48" shelf board, a body could have a wrecked landing barge, perhaps wrecked upon  a shot-up swimmer tank, with Home Guard and regular troops contesting Germans under the cover of that wreckage.

Well IMO the whole Sea Lion thing was a posture. Hess was supposed to broker a peace.

I would agree that the exercise diorama on the German side is the better idea.

And Gino, yes I confused the argument, but really the Germans never would have advanced beyond Hadrian's Wall, and wee Scots would be heroes.

CapnMac82

The (Free) French were at Normandy--there were ships in the gun line, and ground troops were landed, if mostly specialized units under UK control.

This comparison is some what apples to avocados, though.   Four very technological years separated the two, and the forces to be committed were very different.

As pointed out above, the Germans had no real sea supremacy to bring.  The Brits would have brought the North Sea and Channel Fleets against any landing force.  Even if we postulate an intact RKM, the Brits would not have hesitated to closely engage the German's heavies, and would have had sufficient "small stuff" to decimate the landing forces.  

Even postulating a 'defeated' RAF, those remaining forces would still have had the benefit of "full tank" attacks versus the "near bingo" Luftwaffe forces.

But, far more telling, German forces were still limited by their own technology.    The barges being built for the crossing were virtually Napoleonic in nature.  And they had to be--80% of German arty was still horse drawn; a significant portion of Wehrmacht forces were horse-mounted.

So, the landing would have been problematic, a Dieppe before Dieppe, if you will.  Which does not mean it would not make for a cracking dio.  Starting with, say, a 12 x 48" shelf board, a body could have a wrecked landing barge, perhaps wrecked upon  a shot-up swimmer tank, with Home Guard and regular troops contesting Germans under the cover of that wreckage.

Yeah, just seems to me even if the Germans were able to secure a beach-head how on earth did they think they could keep their supply lines open across the Channel in the face of the Royal Navy? Cut off without fuel or ammo I can't imagine them making much headway.   

In the book Invasion, they talk about the Luftwaffee being able to resupply if they captured air bases

Hey Tankluver I'm just grousing...I think most here will agree if you want to build a Sea Lion diorama just go ahead and do it 

Tankluver

In the book Invasion, they talk about the Luftwaffee being able to resupply if they captured air bases

In theory it should work, but in reality it didnt, unfortunately the Goering exaggerated numbers. So far in the book the outline of the plan was parachute in fallschirmjager take the beach head, capture a few airfields and the landing forces would come to reinforce, but if the convoys got cut off they could fly in equipment. Remember they had the Giganto ME 323 I think that was the designation. All this would have to be done with a strong Luftwaffee and no RAF in the vicinity. They also talk about mining the Chanel to keep the convoys secure, and the railway and heavy coastal artillery in calais would keep heavy warship from entering, i believe, from the east, sorry directions are messed up if im wrong.  

TL, GMorrison was being sarcastic about the airlift supplying of Stalingrad....

I know that, but this is before stalingrad and a depleted Luftwaffe!

What the Germans really needed is an air craft carrier, or external drop tanks on the ME-109 im not sure if they had these but I believe I read somewhere that they didnt have them or that the fuel tank was smaller than it should have beeb

Yeah, considering what a disaster the Luftwaffe was at supplying the 6th Army at Stalingrad I can't really see any way that would work. Recently I was reading about the landing at Tarawa and the Japanese sending over a hundred Kamikaze aircraft into the invasion force as opposed to two Luftwaffe fighters showing up to strafe the beach-head at Normandy. Anything other than total air superiority is going to be a mess.  I just can't see anything here but the RAF cutting the Germans to shreds in the air while the RN smashes the invasion force.

As I said before though Tankluver if you want to do the diorama just do it, sometimes you just have to go for a little artistic license!  

Thats very true, It would have been a sight to see a German invading force. I think in Mansteins book he sys something about sea lion, saying they should of had a plan that as soon as they get done with France they should of went straight across in one sweep and cross the channel. If you think about it the beaches and the defences of England were home guard the RAF and the RN. minefields can be cleared, but there is argument that UBOATs in the channel could of sank some fo the capital ships of the RN. IF the Germans had a carrier maybe than the landings could of been succesful because direct air support would have been on hand.

TL: a German aircraft carrier does WHAT compared to airfields in France if you're invading southern England?  You know at the closest points, the Germans fired artillery onto English soil right?   Read about how effective the LW was against shipping (it was terrible).   British small boats (patrol craft, MTBs) would have ravaged slow moving German barges.   read the articles -- doomed from the start -- no German Admiral, General or Air commander had any confidence in it.  Likely, only a feint to pressure the UK.

My only comment on the German Aircraft carrier debacle is this:

They didn't have any.

Two were still under construction in June 1942 , by which time the British had lost six fleet carriers, the US four of the same, the Japanese four, and numerous smaller carriers. How the Germans planned to win the war with two boggles me.

Admiral Mitscher said that the ideal fast carrier task force would have four carriers. Any less and air cover was inadequate. Any more and the sky got too crowded. As for screening vessels, a minimum of twenty four destroyers and ideally forty eight.

What did the Germans do after the airborne invasion of Crete? In terms of bringing armor ashore?

Well what I was thinking is, if the Germans had a carrier the fighter and dive bomber support would be more proficient in the beginning stages of a landing, rather than only having 10 minutes over England they would have more time. And no i havent herd much about coastal artillery and its effectiveness in the channel, but im assuming a railway gun would have a hard time hitting a ship unless it had pre determined ranges to fire.