Operation SeaLion:Effects

[nova2010]

Many people here claim that any German invasion would had lead to failure. Many present documents, statistics and the war game simulation that took place in 1970's. However few years prior to Faklands War a similar war simulation showed that if Argentina had managed to capture the islands it would had lead into defeat for Britain if they tried to take it back by force. Many tend to forget how close how the British forces came to defeat. If against all odds the Germans were so lucky as the Brits in 1982? In that case what about Ireland? What to the British Empire? How Britain would look like under Nazi boot?

[The Red]

The link in the Sig will attempt to explain.

But, in short, horrible.

[Just Leo]

I do not believe that Argentina's chances of taking Ireland are very good. I ran the simulation, and the logistics are unfavorable. Perhaps a South American coalition. Still a crap shoot.

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

There is simply no comparison between Britain in 1940 and the Falklands in 1982. In 1940, the Brits were fighting on their home turf, with a large network of airbases and warplanes. They had factories in the midlands from which plane losses could be made good. As to their naval resources they had scores of destroyers and hundreds of smaller armed craft (and would have had hundreds of warplanes even if the Luftwaffe had forced the RAF to retreat temporarily from southeast England) waiting to pounce on hundreds of unseaworthy and thinly guarded barges. The Falklands by comparison were thousands of miles from homebase and the Brits had sent only a relatively small armada that could not be easily replaced given that the Brit economy at the time was not geared for war.

Also the British victory in the Falklands was not "luck." It was the result of a highly professional military outclassing in technology, leadership, fighting spirit, military tradition, and equipment (plus having nuclear subs and Harrier jets) what was basically an amateur force of draftees led by officers whose only experience had been in capturing, torturing and dropping out of helicopters lightly armed guerrillas and large numbers of unarmed noncombatant leftist sympathizers, at least half of them women, during the "dirty war." Some army. Where were the Argentinians in WW II? Where were they in Korea and Vietnam in spite of their vaunted anti-communism?

[Mr Qwerty]

I read that the Germans had plans to deport the entire military-age male population (for labor). No way they could have done that, but an attempt would have been pretty awful.

[nova2010]

However in Crete the Germans they done it with more difficult odds

[mowque]

Originally Posted by Alien and Sedition Bat

whose only experience had been in capturing, torturing and dropping out of helicopters lightly armed guerrillas and large numbers of unarmed noncombatant leftist sympathizers, at least half of them women, during the "dirty war." Some army. Where were the Argentinians in WW II? Where were they in Korea and Vietnam in spite of their vaunted anti-communism?

Err, that was a bit aggressive, wouldn't you say?

[G.C Marshall]

Crete is not a good comparison. the RAF wasn't present in force, there was A LOT less depth, and the british army was not present in the same numbers. the RN also had to honor the threat of the Italian fleet, the germans had a smaller fleet deployed against stronger british resources.but the important point is that
Forbidden Sea Mammal was an idiotic plan. the germans never had the reascorces to land on a 200 mile front

[Don Lardo]

Originally Posted by nova2010

However in Crete the Germans they done it with more difficult odds

You're merely repeating the same mistakes you made in your earlier Falklands analogy. Like the Falklands, Crete isn't Britain. Nothing that matters is comparable between the two.

Please go to this post, read it, and educate yourself.

[Cook]

What the Crete campaign does show is that the Royal Navy was unable to operate in close waters when the Germans controlled the air. Which puts the Battle of Britain very much back in the centre of significant events; had the Germans won the battle, a crossing of the English Channel without major interference from the Royal Navy becomes a possiblility.

Something along the lines proposed by the German Navy, not the Army’s fantasy.

[mowque]

Originally Posted by Cook

Something along the lines proposed by the German Navy, not the Army’s fantasy.

It is more of a river crossing....


()

[nova2010]

A German song that I found about the Battle of Britain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6YkO...eature=related

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien and Sedition Bat
whose only experience had been in capturing, torturing and dropping out of helicopters lightly armed guerrillas and large numbers of unarmed noncombatant leftist sympathizers, at least half of them women, during the "dirty war." Some army. Where were the Argentinians in WW II? Where were they in Korea and Vietnam in spite of their vaunted anti-communism?


Err, that was a bit aggressive, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, probably editorialized a bit, but the point I was trying to make was about the incomparability of the Falklands War and the BoB/Sea Lion. The Germans (both officers and men) were brave bullies, while the Argentinian officers were just bullies (and their conscripts, just victims). The Brits druing the BoB were poorly armed in many respects (like the Argentinians on the Falklands) but brave, determined and with the likes of Alan Brooke and Hugh Dowding in command--and they were on their own turf defending their homes and families.

[nova2010]

And the Argentinians were determined and brave to take back to take back the land that as they claim the "bloody Grinnos" stollen from them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGOzS1zp42o

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Alien and Sedition Bat

The Brits were poorly armed in many respects (like the Argentinians on the Falklands)

The Argentines infantry were better equipped than the British.

And it is still totally irrelevant.

[krull1m]

[QUOTE=nova2010;3594591]However few years prior to Faklands War a similar war simulation showed that if Argentina had managed to capture the islands it would had lead into defeat for Britain if they tried to take it back by force. QUOTE]

I haven't come across this simulation before, do you have a link to it? Am interested to see exactly who did it and what information etc they used...


There is also a big difference between a simulation done before a fight where you must of course assume a worst case scenario (such as it would have been with this Falklands sim) and a simulation done AFTER the war is over when the people running the sim know exactly what resources were available to both sides.

You are bound to make big mistakes with the first as its impossible to have 100% accurate information on your opponents capabilities. Lets not forget that back in 1940 the consensus in the UK was that an invasion was possible, because they didnt have access to the same information that we do now.

[cbr]

Are you seriously comparing the Faklands with Sealion? What part of that is in anyway the same expect for the fact that both Faklands and Britain are islands?

And by the way, Britain wasn't lucky in the sense you're talking about, just because at the time they thought the risk of invasion of real because faulty or incomplete intelligence. We now know what resources both sides had at the time, which is why we say Sealion was a fantasy on the german part and the fact that it wasn't implemented wasn't some lucky break for the british, but for the germans, because if they actually tried it all it would have done is cost them several divisions, lots of equipment and tons of supplies that they were in short supply anyway.

[von Adler]

Originally Posted by Cook

What the Crete campaign does show is that the Royal Navy was unable to operate in close waters when the Germans controlled the air. Which puts the Battle of Britain very much back in the centre of significant events; had the Germans won the battle, a crossing of the English Channel without major interference from the Royal Navy becomes a possiblility.

Something along the lines proposed by the German Navy, not the Army’s fantasy.

What? What part of none of the sea-borne invasion forces arriving and most of the commonwealth troops being evacuated by sea means that the Royal Navy was unable to operate?

Yes, they had to be more careful. Yes, they mostly did night action, yes, they suffered high losses. But they operated just fine against the Germans around Crete, just like they would operate just fine in the Channel 1940.

But this is a moot point since the Germans cannot achieve air superiority in Autumn 1940. Anytime fighter command is too hard-pressed, they can retreat north and the back in action once the invasion happens.

[fastmongrel]

Awesome I have never seen anyone link the Falklands battle with Sealion. Argentina only managed to invade the Falklands in the first place because they were effectively undefended. The defence consisted of a platoon of Royal Marines whose heaviest weapon was a squad machine gun and an unarmed patrol ship. If the Falklands had been defended by a Commando of Marines with a squadron of say Phantoms, with some Early Warning Radar then the Argentinian invasion force might still have got ashore but would have suffered horrendous casualties.

As for Crete the Royal Navy was operating with no air cover and still the Luftwaffe with total air superiority and trained anti ship squadrons which they didnt have in 1940 only managed to sink 2 light cruisers and 6 destroyers. Even then the vessels were only sunk in some cases after they had been under constant air attack for days and had shot off all there AA ammunition. HMS Kipling whilst rescuing survivors from HMS Kashmir was attacked by 24 Stukas and survived 69 near misses. Still under those circumstances the RN got approx 12,000 men off Crete.

[Grimm Reaper]

The odds were hardly so harsh for the Germans at Crete.

The RAF was quite literally out of the picture, having evacuated the last 4(!) fighters from Crete before the invasion began.

A large majority of the British forces on Crete were troops evacuated from Greece, lacking in all but the most basic equipment, if they were even that well equipped, and whose morale was certainly less than desired. The German forces, particularly the airborne, saw themselves as the elite of the elite and their morale could hardly have been better.

I have never seen anything remotely resembling a figure of 10,000 Greek soldiers and the major Greek presence on the island, less than a fifth that number, consisted of gendarmes, which was a police force.

The British supply situation was exacerbated by the fact that all of the ports of use were on the north coast of Crete, meaning any ships had to sale around the island to arrive, unload, then make a second trip the other war, Luftwaffe permitting. In addition to the Luftwaffe smashing quite thoroughly most of Crete's port facilities before the invasion.

Despite all this the invasion proved extremely close.



In Great Britain September 1940 the RAF had a force of slightly below 1500 fighters and bombers, hundreds of tanks and artillery(even though well below the intended figures), hundreds of thousands of regulars and the RN starting with nine capital ships to back them up.



As for the Falklands, the quality difference between the British expedition and the Argentine garrison is painful to consider. Ironically Argentina pulled out the units which first landed, leaving units described as a typical Third World police army which had no business impersonating a professional military force.