Operation Sea Lion (1974 Sandhurst Wargame)

[Deleted member 2186]

You know, i know about a a novel called Third Reich Victorious edited by Peter G. Tsouras with ten self-contained scenarios in which Germany ends up winning against the Allies, one of them is called the "The Little Admiral" and is about Hitler joining the High Seas Fleet during World War I, as a result of naval training and discipline, Hitler becomes a well-versed naval tactician who puts a heavy emphasis on the Kriegsmarine once he comes to power and where the Germans do mange to have a successful Sea Lion in the end.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I cannot imagine the British ever "enticing" the Germans to pull SEALION. Yes, absent space bats its not going to succeed in he sense of conquering England or ending the war on German terms, but we all know about what happens to plans when bullets fly. The cost to the UK could be out of proportion to the cost to the Germans if they roll all 6s - and remember the Japanese did pretty much that.

So, Sealion has no chance of success, unless the British entice the Germans into trying it (which means they are fully prepared for the invasion to occur as part of their plan and have a fully developed idea of how to take advantage of that) and then there’s a chance it will be successful?

Not sure I follow your thinking there, chief.

You know, i know about a a novel called Third Reich Victorious edited by Peter G. Tsouras with ten self-contained scenarios in which Germany ends up winning against the Allies, one of them is called the "The Little Admiral" and is about Hitler joining the High Seas Fleet during World War I, as a result of naval training and discipline, Hitler becomes a well-versed naval tactician who puts a heavy emphasis on the Kriegsmarine once he comes to power and where the Germans do mange to have a successful Sea Lion in the end.

A Nazi-Kreigsmarine Germany wouldn’t be able to have a successful Sealion as if they built the vessels required they wouldn’t be able to build the tanks they need. Or the British would “Copenhagen” their fleet as a preventative measure. Or the Soviets would steamroller them in the East when their backs were turned.

 

[DaveBC]

So, Sealion has no chance of success, unless the British entice the Germans into trying it (which means they are fully prepared for the invasion to occur as part of their plan and have a fully developed idea of how to take advantage of that) and then there’s a chance it will be successful?

Not sure I follow your thinking there, chief.



A Nazi-Kreigsmarine Germany wouldn’t be able to have a successful Sealion as if they built the vessels required they wouldn’t be able to build the tanks they need. Or the British would “Copenhagen” their fleet as a preventative measure. Or the Soviets would steamroller them in the East when their backs were turned.

I can't speak for sloreck obviously but I think, and this was the point I was trying to make too, that even if we can look back in retrospect and see that Sea Lion was a fool's errand, no sane leader is going to deliberately entice a foreign power to invade his country just because he's reasonably confident he can defeat them. Maybe sucker them into invading some colony somewhere, but a the home islands? This would be grossly irresponsible, and if word of the motives leaked, probably the end of the career and quite possibly the neck of any statesman.

As for a "sea Hitler," yeah, I agree, that's not on. Fallacy #1 of Sea Lion is that the Germans just change course radically and the British sit there and do nothing in response. Since Britain can build more battleships at a time than Germany and build them faster than Germany, I do not see how Germany can "win" a naval race against Britain no matter who is in charge. If your enemy is faster than you and has a head start already, it's time to pick a different race.

Edit: I'm having a hard time finding a source to support that last statement even though I'm sure it is true. Perhaps someone can tell me whether I'm right or wrong -- I'd like to know either way. However I do note that Wikipedia says only four German shipyards could build battleships, and I am pretty sure that the British built all of the KGV-class ships simultaneously, so that's at least a 5:4 ratio.

 

[sloreck]

@Stenz : My point was not that SEALION would have a chance of success, I specifically said it would not, could not conquer Britain or cause the UK to quit. The point was that even in the case of British enticing the Germans in to an "ambush", once bullets start to fly things go sideways easily. Absent Skippy the ASB interfering the Germans will fail, however if they roll sixes the British may lose more assets than they expect, the Germans may do well enough to be embarassing, etc. As I said, the Japanese succeeded beyond all expectation by rolling sixes at the same time the US and UK rolled ones for a variety of reasons (hint: don't let Percival and MacArthur shoot dice).

 

[hipper]

I can't speak for sloreck obviously but I think, and this was the point I was trying to make too, that even if we can look back in retrospect and see that Sea Lion was a fool's errand, no sane leader is going to deliberately entice a foreign power to invade his country just because he's reasonably confident he can defeat them. Maybe sucker them into invading some colony somewhere, but a the home islands? This would be grossly irresponsible, and if word of the motives leaked, probably the end of the career and quite possibly the neck of any statesman.

As for a "sea Hitler," yeah, I agree, that's not on. Fallacy #1 of Sea Lion is that the Germans just change course radically and the British sit there and do nothing in response. Since Britain can build more battleships at a time than Germany and build them faster than Germany, I do not see how Germany can "win" a naval race against Britain no matter who is in charge. If your enemy is faster than you and has a head start already, it's time to pick a different race.

Edit: I'm having a hard time finding a source to support that last statement even though I'm sure it is true. Perhaps someone can tell me whether I'm right or wrong -- I'd like to know either way. However I do note that Wikipedia says only four German shipyards could build battleships, and I am pretty sure that the British built all of the KGV-class ships simultaneously, so that's at least a 5:4 ratio.

the Germans had to build up their capacity for naval guns - there's a reason S & G had 11" guns

the UK laid down 9 capital ships in 1937 5 battleships and four carriers. that's the important ratio

 

[DaveBC]

the Germans had to build up their capacity for naval guns - there's a reason S & G had 11" guns

the UK laid down 9 capital ships in 1937 5 battleships and four carriers. that's the important ratio

Oh yeah. I forgot about the carriers. Thanks!

So the British laid down in one year considerably more capital ships than Nazi Germany built, period.

 

[Antiochus V]

I’d like to see (as in think it would be interesting) a TL where Germany tries Sealion and is massacred à la popular thought on this board.

What would the impact of the loses and casualties be? The loss of naval transports? The effect on the industrial base of the Reich?

Of course Halder, Oster and Goerdeler are waiting in the wings...

I had been thinking about writing one, but I felt people would feel it was a mass death scenario.

 

[Athelstane]

As much of a cinch as it sounds, I can't imagine anyone actually advocating that Britain try to let Germany invade somehow so as to sucker them into defeat.

Especially since while *we* have a remarkably complete picture of German capabilities and intentions in the summer of 1940, British leadership did not.