Operation Sea Lion (1974 Sandhurst Wargame)

hipper

Banned
I would like to expand on this how exactly are 15" less accurate than 6" ........?

15-inch (38.1 cm) Mark I v 6"/50 (15.2 cm) BL Mark XXIII

The 15" is also,
"This was quite possibly the best large-caliber naval gun ever developed by Britain and it was certainly one of the longest-lived of any nation, with the first ship-board firing taking place in 1915 and the last in 1954."
"July 1940 HMS Warspite made one of the longest hits ever scored by a naval gun on an enemy ship when she struck the Italian battleship Guilio Cesare at approximately 26,000 yards (23,770 m)"

all from the above page.

We are talking a much heavier shell 1,917 lbs. (869.5 kg) v 112 lbs. (50.8 kg) fired by a weapon designed to fight at longer range 20.0 degrees 28,732 yards (26,273 m) v 45.0 degrees 25,480 yards (23,300 m)......


Battleship caliber guns fired a heavier shell which was slowed down less by atmospheric friction thus could shoot further without elevating their guns maximising the danger space compared to lower caliber naval guns.
 
Battleship caliber guns fired a heavier shell which was slowed down less by atmospheric friction thus could shoot further without elevating their guns maximising the danger space compared to lower caliber naval guns.
Agreed but how does that make them,
but more inaccurate on the main guns
They have better everything and far more mass, what makes them worse (apart from cost/weight) I genuinely interested in what Glen will come up with?
 

Ian_W

Banned
As to laying the mines it seems more than reasonable to assume that they would be layed prior to the actual crossing so the ships would be available for other duties.

Regrettably, while they are laying said mines they are vulnerable to attack by RN light units.

This is part of why the KM planned to lay the protective minefields 7-10 days before the assault (ref the CIA Sealion document).

Note this would be one of several factors destroying tactical surprise.
 
@soothsayer : I am an MD, retired surgeon with trauma/combat surgery time, retired naval officer with lots of USMC medical time including general staff. PhD candidate in retirement (history/military history/history of military medicine). Yes, I know folks have had to go on very little water, and there is some adaptation - however I don't care if it is 1640, 1940, or 2019 the physiologic needs of the human body for water are set within relatively narrow limits. The hotter it is, the more physically active you are in the heat etc the more water you need. If you become sufficiently dehydrated, WHICH CAN OCCUR EVEN IF IN THE ARCTIC, very bad things will happen to you. BTW soldiers coming from France where they pretty much had all the water they wanted won't be "adapted" and if they got seasick and vomited on the trip will arrive already significantly dehydrated. Yes soldiers will arrive at the aid station in their poncho in many cases, although this does not doe major fracture cases any favors. However, as you point out, surgery will be on the stretcher on supports, you can't operate lying on the ground. Putting postoperative patients on the ground, rather than on a stretcher is not good for the patient and makes any sort of nursing care almost impossible. You'd really like to make some sort of effort to clean the operating surface (stretcher, table, door off the hinges) between cases infection you know, and do you really want me to describe what fluids can be on that surface? We can debate plasma, but IV fluids (saline etc) were certainly there for volume expansion. The "tea and a fag" is not ideal, but the reality is EVERY trauma case is treated as if they have a full stomach, not the eight hours nothing by mouth for elective surgery.

Trust me, I have made do with field expedients that would freak out the staff of a normal hospital. There is a limit to how far you can go with this. This is true whether you are talking about the American military in 2019, the German military in 1940, the Confederate military in 1862, or the 2nd/3rd century Roman military, all of which and more have been objects of my personal scholarly studies. Absent some basic level of supplies the medical staff is quickly reduced to caring for relatively minor wounds and anyone with serious injuries is going to die. Absent "x" numbers of calories a day or "y" liters of water a day, depending on local conditions and activity, sooner or later (much sooner for water) you will see deleterious effects of dehydration or starvation.

Sir, I am not questioning physiology or your qualifications. What I am trying to highlight is a very different standard of care.

The Nazis has removed all Jews form the health system. Pre war there were 1 in 8 doctors were Jewish. Much higher ratio in specialty and academics. A huge distruption and lost of knowledge base. Nursing, especially midwifery wasn’t far behind these numbers.

Water is plentiful, through Northern Europe and Uk. Most towns and cities are built on Rivers, for the very reason of water access. It is not the gross water of the Soviet Union, they made many Germans sick. It is not the pacific or desert, with high water needs and no fresh water

In an pre antibot era, bowel wounds are nearly unsalvagable. No vascular grafts, not many options for limb salvage. No crystalline IV or plasma for Germany. So many are expectant, amputation.

Most patients didn’t get surgery for hours, they were effectively fasted. The tea was probably the only fluids pre-op.
No nurses below CCS and very minimal care by conscript medics before a Field Hopital.

That said I would be very interested to see your publised work. I am interested in the development of “shock” plts in British forward units.

BTW
I have cleaned up enough exploding by-pass pumps and cell savers in my time. Ruptured AAAs even better. Guess my job?
 

Ian_W

Banned
Water is plentiful, through Northern Europe and Uk. Most towns and cities are built on Rivers, for the very reason of water access. It is not the gross water of the Soviet Union, they made many Germans sick. It is not the pacific or desert, with high water needs and no fresh water

None of this is important, if the landing beach doesn't have a nearby river and the troops are trapped there for more than a day.

Just transporting and distributing water is going to be a huge pain.

In fact, water for an invasion force is one of those traps that hit people who haven't done this before.

There's an interesting note here https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USCG/X-Sicily-Italy/USCG-X-2.html talking about the Salerno landings.

***

"WELL DONE" FROM CTF AT COMPLETION Cargo unloaded consisted of 88 vehicles, all combat loaded, including thirteen 2 1/2-ton trucks and four half tracks; 251 tons of mixed ammunition plus two tons of pyrotechnics; 44 tons of gasoline and oil; and 125 tons of general cargo (water, rations, and engineers' supplies). Total trips made by Chase LCVP's were 35 for personnel, 172 for cargo, 15 miscellaneous; by Chase LCM, 17 with vehicles and personnel gear; by Andromeda LCVP's, 2 personnel and 5 cargo; and two LCT trips, one with vehicles and one with general cargo. CTF 81's message, replying to Chase's report of completion of unloading was "Well done."

***
 
i would be surprised if there wasn t a bunch of dead cows upstream of any river/creek that ran into the german lines.Basically just the other side of the british lines.
 

Ian_W

Banned
i would be surprised if there wasn t a bunch of dead cows upstream of any river/creek that ran into the german lines.Basically just the other side of the british lines.

That will inevitably happen if both sides are throwing around artillery and air support.

On a battlefield, stuff dies.
 
i would be surprised if there wasn t a bunch of dead cows upstream of any river/creek that ran into the german lines.Basically just the other side of the british lines.

With the Thames, that would probably be an improvement!

The choice for authority is turn off the water, and civilians clog roads or let the Germans access??
 
Yes, really

Paraslasher1.jpg

And we should not forget Thunderbird 6
latest

Does this mean we have forgotten to include the contribution of International Rescue to British preparations for Sealion?

Edit: On a more serious note, has anyone else read anything about the Practical Study done by the IDF on water consumption in desert conditions. They gave the men 8 litres of water a day, basically all they could drink, and they marched across Negev without issue.
(Apparently they we in such good condition that some wanted to keep going)
 

Ian_W

Banned
With the Thames, that would probably be an improvement!

The choice for authority is turn off the water, and civilians clog roads or let the Germans access??

We arent talking about rivers here.

If the Germans forget to bring water - and your thinking is they would - we're talking about minor creeks and streams. It won't be an active decision, it will be Farmer Brown's cows being dead from mortar fire.
 
We arent talking about rivers here.

If the Germans forget to bring water - and your thinking is they would - we're talking about minor creeks and streams. It won't be an active decision, it will be Farmer Brown's cows being dead from mortar fire.

Never said they would “forget”, your words!

Yes, I sure someone will enter a mortar kill zone, and drag 200kg of beef down to the local creek.

Remember it was the Germans that invented to 20l jerry can for transporting water and fuel.

The piece on Sicily, ...
125t of rations, water and eng stores.
That is one barge.
 
Last edited:
Agreed but how does that make them,


They have better everything and far more mass, what makes them worse (apart from cost/weight) I genuinely interested in what Glen will come up with?
I am not sure where Glenn was going but if you want to hit a small, agile target, you probably would sacrifice mass and explosive power for rate of fire and the speed at which you can move the guns into new positions.

Smaller batteries would be good for that.

Having said that it is pretty much an irrelevance because (a) the main targets of this barrage wouldn't be agile and (b) the Royal Navy is a proper navy, so unlike some navies we could mention, it never does something stupid like send in a battleship without numerous support ships with smaller, faster gun systems to swat at pesky flies and torpedo boats.

I mean it's almost as if a competent navy combines multiple ship classes together to form a task force that is better than the sum of its parts or something, but now we're back to the boring details that plainly don't matter.
 
That study of 8 liters a day in desert is about right. You don't need dead cows...the Germans are bringing along lots of horses, which produce ~35lbs or 16kg of manure a day, and ~2.5 gal or 11-12 liters of urine a day. The defecate/urinate frequently and are not fussy about when and where they do so. Streams will become contaminated from that source pretty readily, and I expect more than a few dead bodies will end up in water sources. Untreated water will rapidly be poison, and even if the worst that happens to any soldier is severe diarrhea, that is as incapacitating as a bullet wound. Filtering any turbid water followed by chemical treatment (chlorine bleach works) or boiling is going to be necessary for ANY water used for consumption. Difficult, not really but takes organization, discipline, the ability to move water to disinfection points and then distribute it, and also the fuel to boil or chemicals to clean.

BTW if you don't clean your hands and then eat your rations, well didn't your mom tell you to wash your hands after you used the bathroom?? Sadly for the germans those handy-dandy little bottles of hand sanitizer aren't there so the lyster bag and soap are needed...
 
I still don't understand what this means.

I presume it means that the dispersion was within normal bounds (eg not wildly short or long) but with so few guns firing, at a low rate-of-fire, this didn't put enough shells in the air to blanket the target area.
 

Ian_W

Banned
The piece on Sicily, ...
125t of rations, water and eng stores.
That is one barge.

Uhuh. And just what is the plan for unloading a barge on an English beach, and then getting those supplies to where they are needed ?

Note they - being competent at this stuff - were using purpose built landing craft, and the driving combat-loaded vehicles off them before the landing craft went back for another load.

Logistics. It's hard.
 

hipper

Banned
Agreed but how does that make them,


They have better everything and far more mass, what makes them worse (apart from cost/weight) I genuinely interested in what Glen will come up with?


bigger guns are more accurate than smaller guns, smaller guns fire at a higher rate.
 
So... not accurate, then?

Clearly some professional jargon at work here just sailed over my head.
I've a feeling accurate implies a little too close for comfort and requiring the British to withdraw and take evasive action during the withdrawal... possible shells falling in the sea around and between the British ships.
 
Top