It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Operation Sealion closer than we thought?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
A while back I saw a documentary surrounding 'operation sealion', in otherwords the invasion of the UK by the Nazis. The plan was to invade Britain with around 9 divisions, compared to D-Days 5.

According to the programme, shortly before the war Germans moved into the South of England and bought land- supposidly turning them into barns and farms, each one painted red. If the plan went ahead each of the barns was to be used as a safe haven for Nazi troops who were intent on slowly infiltrating Britain. I have searched and searched the net trying to dig up information on the matter but to no avail, I am hoping someone can help me shed light on the matter?

The programme seemed to be truthful, and not a spoof, but the lack of information seems to indicate the latter.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I think it was teh same documentary that I saw.

It was strange with the barns, they where bought by German companies (pre war), painted the most conspicous red possible to stand out from long distances, and then they removed all the field boundaries and levelled the fields to sizes that would make perfect runways.

Possibly one of the least known episodes of WW2, the Germasn where making palnes for yrs before they invavded anywhere, so its quite believable.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I saw the same documentary, the Red barns idea caught my idea, they think they may have been used as landing targets for planes in the nearby fields.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
A shame then that the Kreigsmarine and the Wehrmacht had totally different ideas of the best way to carry out the landings. Nine divisions was the dream, but that hit the ugly reality of getting them over. They stockpiled barges that were totally inadequate for the task of getting men over the Channel. River barges cannot take rough seas, plus the Royal Navy would have had a field day with them. And parachuting the troops in would have been equally bad.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
They might have done it provided the RAF was out of the way. In fact when Hitler went over to terror bombing, Goerings Luftwaffe was dangerously close to defeating the RAF...Sealion might have actually occurred. Hitler ruins it for his generals again. Good thing actually.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Yes i do believe that operation sealion would have been launched, if/when Barbarossa completed with succes.. and i do think that Luftwaffes intense bombing of major english cities , was the first "wave" of the attack..


The story regarding the Barn project is interesting, where they describing the barns like depots and safe heavens for spies or even speciel forces?

Or would they be used to house large ammounts of troops prior to an assault?

[edit on 11-7-2006 by WindWalker]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The documentary showed around 10- 15+ barns, so presumably big enough for a wave of soldiers to perhaps land, regroup and slowly infiltrate England from within and make the first initial attacks for spec ops perhaps? As a guesstimate I would say around 100 soldiers to each barn give or take.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Sounds like the shelter was planned for commandos? perhaps the "first wave" was a combination of sabotage and assaults from inside Britain to confuse the even more?

But a massive german build up at the french coast, would have been discovered eventually..

So what was the objective for the soldiers? High value targets?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by WindWalker]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Can anyone remembre what channel it was on (certain I saw it on either BBC 2 or channel 4
) and possibly the name ?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by WindWalker
Sounds like the shelter was planned for commandos? perhaps the "first wave" was a combination of sabotage and assaults from inside Britain to confuse the even more?

But a massive german build up at the french coast, would have been discovered eventually..

So what was the objective for the soldiers? High value targets?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by WindWalker]


No, a massive German buildup on the French coast would have been spotted instantly. British bombers were hitting the docks of the French ports opposite Dover every night for weeks, going after the barges. Ultra was providing regular snippets of troop movements and orders. And given the military build-up near the coast (not to mention the paranoia of many officers and men in the Homes Guard) any initial wave would have been spotted pretty soon and shot to pieces.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
YEAH DAWGS

I have never hear anything so dammed preposterous in my life , See Lowe was only ever feasible in the addled brains of Hitler and his sycophants

Barges/landing craft

The use of Rhine barges were the dumbest part of the sealion fiasco , flat bottomed and un powered they were unsea worthy , slow . and critically there were never enough to land a force sufficient to do anything but die pointlessly .

and their conversion to troop carriers , and assembly at channel and north sea ports simply put them in the bombsights if RAF strikes and more vitally , deprived German commerce of a vital logistics recourse .

nor did the Luftwaffe ever have enough transports for any meaningful airborne assault [ even ignoring the RAF defences and AAA , they simply could not perform a heavy enough lift ]

The royal navy

The “ plans “ for sea lion never addressed the issue of how to prevent the RN turning their invasion fleet to fish food . Towed Rhine barges were the worst possible “ solution “ to the problem of how to leap the channel . One proposed RN tactic was simply perform “ drive bys “ @ 30kt with RN destroyers , Ramming , swamping and capsizing the hapless barges with their wash – aswell as running over the tow cables .

Any troops that did make it to shore – faced a boom of flaming petrol – and planned barrage of mustard gass pumped through pre placed pipes . That’s before he encountered the British army


Luftwaffe capabilities

The Luftwaffe lacked armour piercing bombs , without which any credible attack on RN capital ships would have been futile

More critically they lacked any experience and training in anti ship bombing , or torpedo bombing .

Nor for that matter did they have strike aircraft suited to maritime attack available in anything like the numbers required .

air superiority/the RAF

Despite many reams written claiming that they were , The Luftwaffe was not “ close “ to defeating the RAF .

11 group was taking a hammering , but at the same time 12 and 13 groups were growing in strength . We [ British ] always had reserves in hand , and should an invasion ACTUALLY have occurred – these would have been thrown forward .

Additionally , Aircraft production [ British ] was increasing at a faster rate than losses

The RAF – LOST 1065 aircraft during the BoB , compared to 1922 lost by the Luftwaffe . for the same period . In comparison RAF serviceable strength rose , allbe it slightly – where as Luftwaffe numbers fell in all areas . [ measured from march 1940 to December 1940 ] . Luftflotte 2 & 3 had losses < 50% operational aircraft available

On only 5 days between July and October did RAF loses exceed those of the Luftwaffe

Lastly , bomber command was growing in strength daily – and performing search and destroy raids targeting suspected supply dumps , ports and barge flotillas

Also bomber command had plans in hand to attack both a seaborne invasion fleet , and the beachheads , should an invasion materialize

spies/infiltration

The Nazis spectacularly failed to infiltrate their trained agents destined for their spy rings based in England , But you want to believe that they could hide 100 combat troops in a barn

What possesses people to conclude that infiltration in company strength would some how succeed ????

In allied experience , EVEN single agent , and small squad infiltration only worked in occupied countries : such as the Benelux countries , Norway , France , Czechoslovakia etc etc

Why?? , because the indigenous populations had significant pro active allied elements , and a bigger percentage would would simply turn a blind eye to anti Nazi activity

Germany was a totalitarian state where enemy agents were unwelcome – and thus only a handful of CRITICAL missions were even attempted . most notably the recce missions for the plots to assassinate Hitler .

Likewise , The UK – though still headed by a democratically elected government – has enacted such measures as the WAR POWERS ACT [ 1940 ] and Most important , had a universally hostile population , German airmen and POWs who managed to abscond from their camps Found no aid or succor in England .

land use/rationing

The useage of EVERY acre of land in the UK was subject to review by various bodies , most notably the ministry of production .

The UK was at war , an obvious point – but one which needs stating . Vigilance was the watch word , ARPs , home guard etc were expected to know their area – and report ANYTHING out of the ordinary to the authorities . A barn capable of being used as a barracks for 100 could not be “ hidden in plain sight “ As for being painted bright red – ROFLMAO . we had black outs , ripped up road signs , to camouflage and deception measures at every level to foil our enemies . And you want to posit that a network of bright red barns was just ignored ???

This reply to such a silly notion is getting far too wordy , so I will end here .

In conclusion :

Most teevee “ historical documentaries “ are pure sensationalist garbage

Deny ignorance

Read books : by - Foot , Chirchill , Keegan , Clarke, Hastings . to name but a few

I challenge anyone who cares to research it , to cite a credible reference for this “ red barns “ nonsense . any takes ?

APE OUT .



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
It is my understanding that Hitler postponed and eventually called-off ‘Sealion’ (the invasion of Britain) because of a lack of naval confidence, the fear of the RAF’s destructive ability and the Russian campaign.

Initially he chose to raid RAF airfield’s etc. in preparation and eventually abandoned the invasion and chose successive night bombings as one way of forcing Britain’s submission. Nothing really came of the invasion operation, just branch bickering, planning and some massing of equipment.


mg



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
YEAH DAWGS

I have never hear anything so dammed preposterous in my life , See Lowe was only ever feasible in the addled brains of Hitler and his sycophants

Barges/landing craft

The use of Rhine barges were the dumbest part of the sealion fiasco , flat bottomed and un powered they were unsea worthy , slow . and critically there were never enough to land a force sufficient to do anything but die pointlessly .

and their conversion to troop carriers , and assembly at channel and north sea ports simply put them in the bombsights if RAF strikes and more vitally , deprived German commerce of a vital logistics recourse .

nor did the Luftwaffe ever have enough transports for any meaningful airborne assault [ even ignoring the RAF defences and AAA , they simply could not perform a heavy enough lift ]

The royal navy

The “ plans “ for sea lion never addressed the issue of how to prevent the RN turning their invasion fleet to fish food . Towed Rhine barges were the worst possible “ solution “ to the problem of how to leap the channel . One proposed RN tactic was simply perform “ drive bys “ @ 30kt with RN destroyers , Ramming , swamping and capsizing the hapless barges with their wash – aswell as running over the tow cables .

Any troops that did make it to shore – faced a boom of flaming petrol – and planned barrage of mustard gass pumped through pre placed pipes . That’s before he encountered the British army



Your sources are British and thus suspect since they only can cover their own history. Without a german source the whole case is suspect. I was directed to a translated german work "Invasion of England 1940" by a Peter Schenk. Its a detailed exploration of the plans and details involved in the Sealion operation. The german plan for Sealion differs greatly with the british version of events. The best source for one country is their sources, while the best source for the other side is that sides sources. It should never be a case of who you believe is more real , since this becomes an exercise in enthicity. Its not until you can cross reference both that you can gain a clearer picture of what was and what was not possible.

So here are the german versions of some of your above points.

The converted barges were very seaworth, able to withstand and survive gale force winds and waves encountered in the channel. Thus the notion that RN sweeps could just swamp barges in bypasses, would have failed to sink much and would have exposed such sweeps to damage by hundreds of shells per minuted return fire from the armed escorts. Most such warships had so little armor that the German 4" guns and 88mm guns on these auxiliary escorts were more than sufficent to fill them full of holes at under 5km range.

Aproximatly 2400 barges were assembled most of which were converted and 1/4 of which were powered. In one month experiments were drawn up on how to converted these and 1500 completed by September. ~1000 motor yachts and vessels were employed as leaderboats and to insert commandos ahead of the assault in order to secure ports and disable gun emplacements. Given their success in France, they will likely succeed. This armada was to be escorted by 320 auxiliary vessels and supported by 150 merchant ships ; 35 tankers plus 75 fuel barges.

The first wave only employed 1400 barges of which 1/2 were powered and the rest towed by > 400 tugs . This armada was lead by 70 minesweepers and 50 gun ships, while the flanks were escorted by 100 armed trawlers and hundreds of fishing vessels. Follow on waves only needed 600 barges & 100 transport sortie per week, to keep the troops & logistics flowing.

Coastal survailance was so poor,the Admiralty and Churchill agreed they could not prevent the first wave from landing on UK shores. The anti invasion fleet built its hopes on 1000 armed fishingboats and minesweepers to cover 3000km Uk coast line. Backing this up were 100 RN destroyers and cruiser ready to counter attack German fleets. The Admiralty refused to allow deploy its battleships to counter any invasion ,since it would bring it within range of the Luftwaffe and was being held back to defeat the expected threat from the German battleships 'Bismarck' , 'Gueisenau' & 'Scharnhorst' .

Given the need for contious rotation, only 300 RN patrol vessels could be at sea at any time armed with machine guns and in some cases guns ranging from 2lb to 4" guns. These had to operate in groups of 3-4 vessels and at most 60% were assigned to cover the 1100km south coast. Thats one group every 20km which means in bad weather /night they could only cover 1/4 of the coast/time. Given the invasion corriodor was only about 100km wide, at most 40-60 such vessels could interdict the invasion armada, which should be easly turned away by the esorting 'Vboot'.

Like the patrol boats, 1/3 of the RN cruisers and destroyers, were always in drydock for long term overhaul. Further only 2/3 of what was left were positioned to cover the south coast leaving ~ 66 destroyers and cruisers to sweep through the south coast.The Germans Surged their fleet , so 40 cruisers, destroyers and torpedoboot could oppose these sweeps. Given their historical success this should be enough to defeat the RN sweeps. Between 1939 and 1942 a dozen clashes occured between German and British flotillas that didn't include battleships/battlecruiser on either side .

In these encounters 6 german cruisers and 39 torpedoboot/destroyers clashed with 9 Rn Cruisers and 46 DD/DE. However these flotillas were roughly equal in armament. The germans had 1/3 more torpedos while the RN had 1/3 more gunpower.The Germans sank 3 british warships and damaged another 35 , while the RN also sunk 3 german warships ,damaging 25 more. So despite the fact that they were out numbered the Germans inflicted more damage on the RN than they recieved.

The British hinged their entire strategy on the assumption that the RN and RAF could interdict the supply lines enough to starve the Germans into surrender. Given that this strategy failed in Norway and the Mediterrainan, its neither likely to have succeeded in the Channel against a more determined and prepared foe.

Sealion was cancelled for political reasons,not military reasons. Hitler never wanted war with the UK. He believed they could be bombed into neutrality , giving him a free hand in Europ

[edit on 3-12-2006 by psteel]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join