Operation Sea Lion (1974 Sandhurst Wargame)

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Two things. First, once the objective was taken, they landed the replacements, not parachuted them. So, in Tunisia, if (for sake of argument) 50,000 troops were sent in by air, probably next to none of them parachuted in. So, when I say, 60,000 troops, that assumes maybe 10,000 parachuted in and the rest not parachuting in. Second, if 75 JU-52's were to average 4 training sorties a day with 15 paratroop trainees for 3 weeks, that's over 90,000 practice drops, correct?

I don't see many JU-52s surviving for three weeks. Tunisia the Axis held airfields - proper airfields, Glenn, not grass strips on hillsides you think would suffice - so flying in reinforcements was nowhere near the level of difficulty the LW would have over the IOW.

I don't know what shows you up more - your flatpack flotilla of barges with nailed down artillery, or this dross about the IOW.

 

[hipper]

DZrdzrdzyjhxx

Two things. First, once the objective was taken, they landed the replacements, not parachuted them. So, in Tunisia, if (for sake of argument) 50,000 troops were sent in by air, probably next to none of them parachuted in. So, when I say, 60,000 troops, that assumes maybe 10,000 parachuted in and the rest not parachuting in. Second, if 75 JU-52's were to average 4 training sorties a day with 15 paratroop trainees for 3 weeks, that's over 90,000 practice drops, correct?

In Tunisia the Germans had air superiority
In the IOW their Airfields are in artillery range You’ve read. lol on Dien Ben Phu perhaps?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

In order for Sealion to actually achieve the end of the war, the terms had to be mutually acceptable, not in any way a surrender. With Barbarossa, it was inevitably a total war. With Sealion, it was still possible to do a limited war.

There may have been a few British politicians who believed the UK could trust Hitler and thus be prepared to " look for mutually acceptable terms ". Lloyd George might be one of them but few other senior figures come to mind. Halifax and Butler are possibles for at least considering any firm proposals put forward by Germany. However, it's just as likely they were thinking of at most a Truce (like Amiens in the Napoleonic Wars) in which the UK rebuilt its strength. Hoping Hitler would invade the USSR ( as seems inevitable ) and give the UK a route back into the war. As Hitler would suspect such a ruse (rightly or wrongly), could we expect him to oblige with a soft peace Deal?

I'm sure in a Grand Strategy war game the UK seeking peace in July 1940 makes sense. In the light of how the politicians and people thought at the time, it doesn't.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

You wouldn't have needed to, the third regiment was in the final stages of training in May 1940 so by July there would have been at least two full regiments of paras.

So instead of the assault on the Isle of Wight, which would be a dead end ( literally for most of the paras), could they have been used to seize the Isle of Thanet? Traditional invasion start point after all.

IF there's a small port (Richborough was used in WWI), there's scope for a sneaky landing of a Panzer regiment overnight by fast (and lucky ) transports. (Chatham is a bit too close for comfort but fortune favours the brave.) And an airfield to bring in an Airlanding Division. Or maybe a Light Infantry one (Mountain troops?) if the specialist division used in the Netherlands is still not combat ready again.

Definitely a bold move, possibly even courageous. ( is that the right Yes PM order of risky decisions?)

These troops are much closer to London than in the IOW open prison and so more dangerous. IF they can be supplied, not a given.

Dover (or another Channel port) plus Manston airbase would be another possibility but are likely to be too obvious and too well defended

It's about the only threat I can think of that even might trigger the UK being panicked into seeking a ceasefire and Armistice in place. Even then, it could well decide to fight on after a month building up its forces.

The sooner the better for such an Operation - how early could the Paras be ready,?

 

[Glenn239]

So Glenn, because you continue to misunderstand me, let me ask this one more time. How are the Germans, who are supplied and inserted entirely via air, as there are NO suitable ports in the South of the IoW, going to prevent a British landing to retake the Isle? It doesn't matter how big the initial garrison is. The question is how a bunch of light infantry with no mines, no armor, no artillery heavier then 37mm or so, and contested air superority AT BEST are going to prevent the British from taking back the Isle?

It never occurred to me that the British would risk losing the war by stripping their reserves to try a counterattack at Isle of Wight. How big a counterattack would they risk, and how long to prepare it?

In terms of sea supply, insufficient information on the island in question. I think the KM should be able to do a couple hundred tons over the beach per day. Not sure about the viability of Bemerton - insufficient information on water depth and such. The best port is Cowes, of course, but being on the north shore means that more information is required.

Because Unlike the Germans, the British DO have everything they need to launch a successful invasion of the Isle, and they actually ARE within 20 miles of their major naval base in the south, which even intensive bombardment was unable to drive the RN out.

The LW did not intensively bomb Portsmouth during 1940. Some raids, but not of the scale required to neutralize the port.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

So Glenn, let me get this right...

Having sacrificed the FJ on the IOW - I'm not counting those untrained infantrymen who are tossed out of burning JU-52s - what are you going to use to get behind the beach defences when your flat-pack fleet turns up weeks later off Kent & Sussex after 48 hours at sea? And your idea of supplying the Sea Lion beachhead from the air - are we talking zombie Aunt Tu's and HE111s?

 

[Ian Hathaway]

So instead of the assault on the Isle of Wight, which would be a dead end ( literally for most of the paras), could they have been used to seize the Isle of Thanet? Traditional invasion start point after all.

IF there's a small port (Richborough was used in WWI), there's scope for a sneaky landing of a Panzer regiment overnight by fast (and lucky ) transports. (Chatham is a bit too close for comfort but fortune favours the brave.) And an airfield to bring in an Airlanding Division. Or maybe a Light Infantry one (Mountain troops?) if the specialist division used in the Netherlands is still not combat ready again.

Definitely a bold move, possibly even courageous. ( is that the right Yes PM order of risky decisions?)

These troops are much closer to London than in the IOW open prison and so more dangerous. IF they can be supplied, not a given.

Dover (or another Channel port) plus Manston airbase would be another possibility but are likely to be too obvious and too well defended

It's about the only threat I can think of that even might trigger the UK being panicked into seeking a ceasefire and Armistice in place. Even then, it could well decide to fight on after a month building up its forces.

The sooner the better for such an Operation - how early could the Paras be ready,?

The biggest concern the UK government had apart from an invasion of the mainland was a landing in Ireland... it caused quite some tension between both governments. As far as I can tell from the war cabinet minutes there's no mention of the Isle of Wight.

 

[Paradox-less]

Frankly, I didn't think the British would gas their own civilians - how many do you think would be killed or injured, given that about 95,000 were on the island? Do you think Churchill might fall in the resulting scandal?

Glenn, practically everyone who has told you the British would attack their own population if need be to keep the Germans out has also told you that they'd keep it secret for decades(until the 1970s most likely), so why do you even ask the second one?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

The biggest concern the UK government had apart from an invasion of the mainland was a landing in Ireland... it caused quite some tension between both governments. As far as I can tell from the war cabinet minutes there's no mention of the Isle of Wight.

Thanks.

So, the Isle of Wight option would at least surprise the Brits. Would the Isle of Thanet plan be similarly a shock?

Perhaps we should ask Glen to plan the German invasion of Ireland for August 1940?

 

[Post]

It never occurred to me that the British would risk losing the war by stripping their reserves to try a counterattack at Isle of Wight. How big a counterattack would they risk, and how long to prepare it?

How are they gonna lose the war over a counterattack at Wight? It doesn't need to be a fullscale invasion a la Overlord, or even Dieppe. Unless the germans totally overrun the island within a day, which is very unikely. The british will hold the port at the northern part of the island and will be able to reinforce.

 

[edgeworthy]

Off the top of my head I can think of the following worse blunders:

• Japan's attack of the US and Western Allies while they were unable to defeat China in WW2.
• Santa Anna's siesta at San Jacinto.
  
• The designer of the Vasa.
  
• Valen's decision to attack at Adrianople.
• Varius' decision to take a stroll in the Teutoburg forest.

I think we may have an idea for an exiting new thread on "The Worst Idea in Military History" here?

I might also suggest ...

• The Athenian Expedition to Syracuse
• The Charge of the Light Brigade (Okay a little too obvious!)
• The Popovkas
• St Clairs's Defeat
• Operation Eagle Claw

 

[DaveBC]

There may have been a few British politicians who believed the UK could trust Hitler and thus be prepared to " look for mutually acceptable terms ". Lloyd George might be one of them but few other senior figures come to mind. Halifax and Butler are possibles for at least considering any firm proposals put forward by Germany. However, it's just as likely they were thinking of at most a Truce (like Amiens in the Napoleonic Wars) in which the UK rebuilt its strength. Hoping Hitler would invade the USSR ( as seems inevitable ) and give the UK a route back into the war. As Hitler would suspect such a ruse (rightly or wrongly), could we expect him to oblige with a soft peace Deal?

I'm sure in a Grand Strategy war game the UK seeking peace in July 1940 makes sense. In the light of how the politicians and people thought at the time, it doesn't.

In past threads I've suggested the obvious exit strategy for Germany in 1940 is to declare a unilateral ceasefire and wait for the British to come to their senses.

But having said that, your speculation here illustrates precisely the problem. If there are negotiations, they will drag on. I don't see what terms both sides could find acceptable. The more time goes on, the more the British -- no matter who is in charge -- are likely to be thinking rationally instead of in a panic over Germany's continental gains. The more they are thinking rationally instead of in a panic, the more they are going to lead themselves straight into the hard consensus on this board, which is that Germany can't invade Britain anyways, so there is no particular reason for Britain to rush into a deal. If there is no particular reason to rush into a deal, then Britain should take the time to figure out what assurances from Germany they would find acceptable. These terms would have to be stringent enough to give some assurance not just to the government but to the public that this time Hitler really would keep his word. I am not sure that the Nazis would find any such assurances palatable.

Once you strip away the drama and the emotions and the sense of crisis, the reality is that in summer to fall 1940 there is a strategic stalemate. Nobody is in a position to be extracting concessions from anyone.

If the Nazis were capable of the sort of subtle diplomatic strategizing that could succeed in that kind of situation, I'm not sure they would be Nazis in the first place.

 

[Lucarionape]

In order for Sealion to actually achieve the end of the war, the terms had to be mutually acceptable, not in any way a surrender. With Barbarossa, it was inevitably a total war. With Sealion, it was still possible to do a limited war.

No, it was total war with Britain after Poland was invaded, France just made them even more angry. You seem to forget that the experience the allies had with Hitler was him ignoring treaties and trying to create the literal antithesis of what Britain has practiced in foreign policy since it was in a position of naval power.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

@DaveBC

Yes, I think you sum up the Nazis dilemma well. I've supported the notion of a Unilateral Declaration of Peace, or at least a ceasefire.

However, even if the British acknowledge the ceasefire, they will most likely simply use the time to rebuild the army, repair ships and complete new ones, shift forces to Egypt etc. Plus they will be free to use shipping through the Mediterranean and, without the Battle of the Atlantic, will not be so dependent on US supplied. Arms and ammunition yes, but not raw materials, fuel or food. So scarce USD conserved.

As you say, once the military and civil service have analysed the situation, they will simply allow the ceasefire to end. Having improved their position substantially.

And if they don't acknowledge the ceasefire but carry on bombing raids on Germany, how long can Hitler turn the other cheek? About 48 hours?

In which case, back to the dilemma.

 

[Glenn239]

As I have said before, other than Somerton, every possible landing field was over looked by high ground, all of which would have to be captured and held before the landing fields could be utilized.
Also modern pictures are quite misleading as even during my life time the fields on the Isle of Wight have been joined up by grubbing out hedges to facilitate the use of machinery. As others have said all the obvious landing fields had been obstructed.

We discussed the matter of modern pictures and googling being possibly misleading. In terms of hedge rows, it depends on what it's made of as to how long it would take to clear the width necessary.

If Even the Nazi's accepted that a cross channel invasion was impossible in 1940 then surely even a bunch of 21st century couch bound fantasists should accept their judgement and that of history, ALT or OTL.

The Germans considered the attack risky, not impossible.

This is the Terrain of the South West of the Isle of Wight!

(Actually its quite a nice beach if you can get down to it ... by what amounts to a Goat-Path, and there's just the one!)

... and that's the Military Road. The BEST road on the Island in 1940.

This is Newclose Cricket Ground, near the exact geographical centre of the Isle of Wight ...

Note the abundance of Trees and Hills.

At that particular location, sure. Looked to me that at different places there were viable potential landing strips, but we don't have the photos from 1940.

 

[Glenn239]

Having flown paragliders all over the IOW, I think I can say that I know the landing terrain well! The available sites to get a glider into are limited and well known to the locals. The wind is more often than not strong enough to cause a German style parachute landings to be a recipe for injury. The Back of the Wight is easily isolated and over looked. Try a night landing Here with 190's technology and all I can say ids that IMVHO the home side will be doing rescue and clear up rather than fighting.

What are the wind conditions like at night?

 

[Mike D]

Frankly, I didn't think the British would gas their own civilians - how many do you think would be killed or injured, given that about 95,000 were on the island?

Given that any German force worth gassing has to arrive by sea (we'll suspend the disbelief on the German ability to actually achieve that for a second) meaning that the British civilians on the islands probably have better NBC protection than the German troops by virtue of having actual working gas masks, why not take that risk to destroy a large German force?

 

[Mike D]

It never occurred to me that the British would risk losing the war by stripping their reserves to try a counterattack at Isle of Wight. How big a counterattack would they risk, and how long to prepare it?

The Germans have absolutely no way to reliably supply any force that they manage to land on the Isle of Wight. I mean, they're not going to land a force on the Isle of Wight anyway because the idea is one of the stupidest things I've ever read, but even if they did manage to land a few Paras in some kind of vague organisation on the island then after a week or so a couple of troops of Boy Scouts should be enough to accept the surrender of the shell shocked, starving, dehydrated survivors.

 

[Aber]

At that particular location, sure. Looked to me that at different places there were viable potential landing strips, but we don't have the photos from 1940.

Oh yes we do...

 

[Glenn239]

Well, most of the things you post are stupid because they are incredible, unlikely, implausible and unrealistic. But even when you post such hogwash, at least that has the extenuating circumstance that what other members post in reply, while being credible, likely, plausible and realistic, is still a hypothesis - alternate history means no certainty.
But in this case you managed to break even that limitation to stupidity. The Royal Navy did attack a French port in 1940. It's a historical fact. And guess what port the Royal Navy bombarded? The closest to the Isle of Wight.

Minefields and coastal artillery will be factors in the defense of invasion transport close to shore on the French side of the Channel.

Nor is the Royal Navy only that came at the Germans in their bases, remember? Bomber Command and Coastal Command, dedicating but a fraction of their efforts to the ports where the barge flotillas were being assembled, sank or destroyed 12% of the tonnage. Can you imagine the score if there actually is a mad operation going on, and those bomber forces apply all of their power to any beachhead in England and to the supply ports?

In terms of capacity attrition, the RN would be the most serious threat.

And that was mostly due to night bombing. Unescorted bombers, even if they were the best the British had, i.e. Blenheims, had a difficult time surviving over the French coast. Does that mean they were not sent in? Heck no. They faced heavy losses and they attacked the ports, preferably with the help of partial cloud cover. They did not push too hard, exactly because these attacks were too costly - but they did launch them, at a time when there was not actually one German soldier on England soil. Do you reckon they would not accept heavier casualties for attacking the resupply port of a beleaguered paratroop battalion cornered in a spot on the Isle of Wight?

The RAF scored its successes in ports choked with invasion transport.

---

All that said, you also commit the usual stupid mistake of the Sealion delusionist. "Hey! German-occupied coastline! Coastal batteries! Air cover! Mines! The Royal Navy can't dare come close!". Think hard about this. Think long. Think goose and gander.

Coastal artillery cannot hit a fast moving destroyer at 15,000 yards. At 5,000 yards, different story.

Sorry if I waste no more time with the rest. I did like your idea about throwing hapless infantrymen with a parachute strapped to them out of Ju 52s; the Germans would surely have enough poor infantrymen, though not enough Ju 52 or, for that matter, parachutes. Or, once the ground is hit, enough operational poor infantrymen.
I also enjoyed the suggestion that the German parachute regiment go to the Isle of Wight in order to milk cows and tend to kitchen gardens.
Nice laughs for the idea that having the Luftwaffe slaughtered with this operation should in some way help later operations.
But all good things come to an end, and I won't be posting to this thread any more.

Bye.