Which invasion was more unlikely to succeed: Sealion or Barbarossa?

File: IMG_1597.jpg (150KB, 1000x556px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1000x556px

>>33754197
Sealion easily, in order for it to remotely have been feasible to succeed the raf needed to be completely destroyed and the Germans would have needed their 41 preparations done before the summer of 40

Even then I don't think Germany would have knocked Britain out of the war

>>33754197
Sealion. I doubt they could ever control the sea or air well enough for an invasion.

>>33754278
>>33754284
What if Barbarossa never happened, and Hitler decided, to the advice of Raeder, stick with just the UK? Meaning, instead of building troops and tanks on the eastern boarder, Germany instead builds Capital ships, landing craft, paratrooper divisions, and more fighters/bombers

>>33754447
Germs built up at French coast before saying fuck it and transferring troops east. By the time they got a somewhat acceptable landing craft figured out the brits were almost back to pre Dunkirk strength. The Germans lost to many ships in Norway as well. It was never going to happen.

Sealion likely would have succeeded especially if it had occurred in 1940, the UK had no heavy equipment for its army, so it would not have been much of a fight.

The RAF did not need to be destroyed like armchair generals love to claim, as it was they could barely defend themselves against constant bombing of airfields. If the Germans had made landings on the southern coast it would have removed the home field advantage and radar so they would've been even worse off.

As for the RN there would actually be little it could do, the Battleships would've lasted all of 10 minutes in the English channel just like Prince of Wales and Repulse did against aircraft. The Germans could have easily conducted night landings even with the RN in control of the Channel, not to mention aerial landings like Crete.

Overall when people look back on Sea Lion they think the Germans would have had to bring overwhelming force like the Allies did at Normandy, but that is simply not the case since the British Army had lost most of its equipment. The British troops of the time even said so, I remember reading interviews of British soldiers making mock positions to fool the German recon planes saying that if only the Germans had known how weak they were the Germans would have attacked

>>33754197
Sealion. There was no possible way Sealion could have succeeded. Germany couldn't gain control of the air or the seas, which are prerequisites for making a naval invasion. Even if they did, they didn't have the landing craft to make such an invasion.

>>33755818
I'm going to disagree with you. The RAF would remain intact enough to hit extremely vulnerable German shipping as well as stockpiles on the beaches, so to speak, on BOTH sides of the Channel. If the Channel was somehow made too dangerous for the British to be there, which I doubt as the Germans had insufficient specialized equipment to stop the British from being there. No, even armor piercing bombs will not do much to a modern battleship, and Germany had fuck all aerial torpedoes until 1942. But even presuming that the aerial threat is too much during the day, British ships would sortie at night, causing havoc among the invasion shipping and the rear lines of the invading forces themselves. The Germans would not have solid supply lines, and they don't have the ships to start trying to recreate what the Japs did at Guadalcanal. So yes, while the Brits had fuck all, the Germans would be quickly starved of both food and ammunition, even providing they COULD land heavy equipment, which they couldn't. It'd be an infantry fight, with the British actually ending up with heavier equipment than the Germans. This is a real feat, considering how little the British had.

If they can join up with the Italian Airforce and Navy to solve transport problems.

>>33755818
No, Dunkirk proved that the Luftwaffe was shit awful at antiship opperations. Track records in Norway agree. The Luftwaffe could not keep the RN from cutting the invasions supply lines. Furthermore the Germans did not have a single effective landing craft ready or in the vicinity of the English Channel in 40, much less one that could land tanks on the shore. The fist waves would have no armor in 40 until they could capture an intact harbor or repair a sabotaged harbor to ship tanks in from container ships. In the start of 40 the British could not fight the Germans but the Germans could not reach the British. By the time this changed the brits had shat out 17 and 6 pounders through the countryside and recruited thousands of soldiers making up for France and then some.

File: Bart-with-whacking-stick.jpg (29KB, 625x461px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 625x461px

>>33757524
>container ships

Barbarossa

Sealion was a physical impossibility on a fundamental level. The Germans would never have a larger air force than the RAF or a larger navy than the Royal Navy.

File: IMG_1705.jpg (64KB, 1000x398px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1000x398px

>>33757532
Whatever delusional weraboo

>>33757539
Container ships didn't exist in the 1940s champ.

>>33755818
Pretty much everything here is bullshit with a shocking lack of even basic history

>>33757541
Neither did German capacity to launch an amphibious invasion or win an air war

>>33755818
There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start

The Germans had negligible effect on RAF airfields.

The Germans had almost no anti-ship capability in their air forces once the Stukas couldn't operate near the UK.

The Germans had no way to land forces from the sea or air en-masse.

The Germans had no way to resupply an invasion force