WI/AHC Sealion feared for longer?

[deathscompanion1]

In OTL the British public was kept in fear of a German invasion as late as 1943 for propaganda purposes but the military and government while taking longer than they should and at much cost did figure out that it wasn't going to happen much earlier.

What if with a different naval build up or a better battle of Britain the Germans keep the British fearing an invasion for longer than OTL. Assuming most events go as OTL just an invasion seems plausible for longer. The Germans still invade the USSR but perhaps do even better or are perceived to better so that the British believe that they will be alone once more in the fight soon enough.

Would this have an even greater effect on North Africa and the far east with even more vital formations and equipment kept in Britain?
Apologies for the vagueness as I don't really have the knowledge to be more precise.

 

[Generaloberst]

You could have more successes in the East and North Africa which could be spun in the Ministry of Information as a 'First, our boys in Libya and Egypt, then, our friends in Russia! Will the Hun set foot on Dover next?' etc.

 

[Garrison]

In OTL the British public was kept in fear of a German invasion as late as 1943 for propaganda purposes but the military and government while taking longer than they should and at much cost did figure out that it wasn't going to happen much earlier.

What if with a different naval build up or a better battle of Britain the Germans keep the British fearing an invasion for longer than OTL.

Except the invasion fear really ends after Barbarossa bogs down and the US enters the war, so yet another near ASB Sealion idea. A differtent naval build comes back the same question of why are the Nazis' spending more resources on Britain, whom they don't want to fight, and less on the Soviets, who they definitely did want to fight.

As to the BoB the Nazi's probably did as well as they were going to. Switching to terror bombing was largely a result of the recognition their current plan wasn't working.

 

[sharlin]

if they had a plan to begin with. The germans had a rough idea but not quite sure on how to impliment it so they flip-flopped. The terror campaign surely could not have come around because the Germans bombed London by mistake and we bombed Berlin as retaliation causing Hitler to go FFFFFFF...

And ye are right Garrison, if there was a naval build up, thats going to take a LOT of resources and even if the Germans devoted years of economic work to naval preparation to invade the UK it would not be enough because the Germans would still lack the strength to face the RN. And if the Germans did build up their naval forces, at what other armed forces cost would that be? Folks forget that the German armed forces fought a veritable royal rumble with Chainsaws for material allocation and there was intense rivalry between the army, navy and airforce.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Except the invasion fear really ends after Barbarossa bogs down and the US enters the war, so yet another near ASB Sealion idea. A differtent naval build comes back the same question of why are the Nazis' spending more resources on Britain, whom they don't want to fight, and less on the Soviets, who they definitely did want to fight.

As to the BoB the Nazi's probably did as well as they were going to. Switching to terror bombing was largely a result of the recognition their current plan wasn't working.

Yet the Brits themselves did fully expect an invasion in the wake of the fall of France.

It doesn't have to be capable of beating the Royal Navy and the Battle of Britain just has to be closer than OTL. It just has to keep the British government and military reasonably concerned about an invasion in the not too distant future so they keep the first rate forces behind for longer than OTL.
I was thinking that the Kriegsmarine could be more focussed on lighter ships and transports with a real amphibious force that while more or less useless could cause the Brits to fear invasion as a real possibility. Or maybe pre war either the German intelligence service gets better or the British one worse so that there is some confusion about German intentions and dispositions.

Basically the changes have to be in British perceptions about what the Germans are capable of doing. Maybe Dunkirk goes worse so that British are weaker or perceive themselves to be so and are nervous for longer. I mean there have been plenty of invasion scares in British history that have been taken seriously by the government even if they are completely imaginary.

I'm not expecting there to be massive changes maybe a few months added to the war at most, was just curious about what it would take to scare the allies into making a mistake.

 

[sharlin]

The only one I can think of as being rational is Dunkirk going terribly wrong. That would scare the bejesus out of us. instead of giving a shot of morale.

 

[deathscompanion1]

The only one I can think of as being rational is Dunkirk going terribly wrong. That would scare the bejesus out of us. instead of giving a shot of morale.

That seems workable.

Perhaps the Germans go all in and take much higher casualties than OTL but all but shatter the BEF with ragged survivors booted off the continent instead of defeated but not beaten soldiers as was the image OTL.
So in a way the Germans do better by doing worse as the British have a bloody defeat instead of a seemingly miraculous escape?

 

[sharlin]

That makes the most sense. Assume the forces attacking the Beaches get chewed up by British defences and Naval gunfire but cause far higher casualties and as you say its a bloody defeat instead of a very lucky escape.

 

[deathscompanion1]

That makes the most sense. Assume the forces attacking the Beaches get chewed up by British defences and Naval gunfire but cause far higher casualties and as you say its a bloody defeat instead of a very lucky escape.

They'd probably feel the sky has fallen. Their best formations shattered, their main ally occupied and possibly an RAF and RN navy more mauled than OTL due to being engaged for a longer period.In a way this could actually go better if they feel too conservative to risk sending any aid to Greece. Of course there is always the chance that they latch onto it as a hope of buying time.

The problem is I don't know the mind sets of the British leadership well enough to figure out how they would react to events. Holding back forces seems logical but what about the forces already elsewhere? Would they be more aggressive in desperation or more conservative?

 

[sharlin]

The thing is in reality the OTL BEF Evacuation wasn't really that useful. There was many Divisions forming up in the UK and there was far more troops at home than in the BEF as well as Empire forces on the way (ANZAC's ANZAC's everywhere). Dunkirk saved a large number of troops and it was a huge morale success but even if the BEF had been mauled and suffered far higher losses, we'd already made those losses good. From a publicity standpoint it would have been a disaster but I don't think Churchill and co would have contemplated surrender, even if it ended out with Churchill in the ruins of Parliment with a tommygun firing at a distant German platoon.

 

[deathscompanion1]

The thing is in reality the OTL BEF Evacuation wasn't really that useful. There was many Divisions forming up in the UK and there was far more troops at home than in the BEF as well as Empire forces on the way (ANZAC's ANZAC's everywhere). Dunkirk saved a large number of troops and it was a huge morale success but even if the BEF had been mauled and suffered far higher losses, we'd already made those losses good. From a publicity standpoint it would have been a disaster but I don't think Churchill and co would have contemplated surrender, even if it ended out with Churchill in the ruins of Parliment with a tommygun firing at a distant German platoon.

I wouldn't expect them to, I mean it would be rough but manageable enough I was thinking more in terms of a rather brusied psyche so they are more concerned about any possibility of an invasion.

Perhaps a bit of paint licking is necessary and that Churchill goes through with the plan to send forces to France? Perhaps the Germans pause to recover from the Dunkirk battle long enough for the French to get some semblance of order so that the British think that if they can throw whatever they have into France they can buy time?

I'm not sure what I'm aiming for except for the British to be more scared than OTL and how that would change things later on but it's hard for things to go much worse than they did OTL without getting into Screw/Wank territory. Churchill didn't seem the type to go into a blind panic and although he had plenty of schemes that would have been total disasters his generals were pretty good at stopping him from going through with the worse ones.

 

[Magniac]

There was many Divisions forming up in the UK and there was far more troops at home than in the BEF as well as Empire forces on the way (ANZAC's ANZAC's everywhere).

Odd post-Dunkirk fact involving the Oz Imperial Force--the original cadre of the 9th AIF (Wiki says two brigades) was stationed in England during 1940, and along with the Canadian division, IIRC, was the only well organised infantry unit above battalion level standing guard against invasion.

 

[sonofpegasus]

In May/June 1940, Britain was a very divided country, if Dunkirk had been a complete disaster and the Navy and RAF had takem proportinetly larger losses trying to evacuate the BEF, then there is a distict possibility that Churchill could be ousted as Prime Minister and the appeasers seek an armicetise at any cost.

 

[deathscompanion1]

In May/June 1940, Britain was a very divided country, if Dunkirk had been a complete disaster and the Navy and RAF had takem proportinetly larger losses trying to evacuate the BEF, then there is a distict possibility that Churchill could be ousted as Prime Minister and the appeasers seek an armicetise at any cost.

I doubt it. Even the peace faction only wanted a negotiated settlement and even then they weren't that close to power.

 

[MattII]

In May/June 1940, Britain was a very divided country, if Dunkirk had been a complete disaster and the Navy and RAF had takem proportinetly larger losses trying to evacuate the BEF, then there is a distict possibility that Churchill could be ousted as Prime Minister and the appeasers seek an armicetise at any cost.

Except that Churchill can legitimately claim that he had nothing to do with the disaster, because it was Chamberlain who controlled the situation up to the start of the German advance, and during a war, it's the responsibility of military officers - not politicians - to guide the forces at a tactical level.

 

[Garrison]

In May/June 1940, Britain was a very divided country, if Dunkirk had been a complete disaster and the Navy and RAF had takem proportinetly larger losses trying to evacuate the BEF, then there is a distict possibility that Churchill could be ousted as Prime Minister and the appeasers seek an armicetise at any cost.

Yeah problem is that no one had high expectations for Operation Dynamo; original estimates were that they might rescue 50000 troops. it's failure wouldn't have been a big shock.

Also as has been pointed out the peace faction wasn't that strong and faced one major obstacle; that Hitler had proven himself willing to break any agreement as soon as it suited him.