Well, that is why the FORD class CVNs are going to have wooden decks...
Operation Sea Lion (1974 Sandhurst Wargame)
- Thread starter Not James Stockdale
- Start date
Well, that is why the FORD class CVNs are going to have wooden decks...
I'm sensing the latest evolution of Glenn239:
Yes, Sea Lion probably would have failed, but it should have been attempted anyway as an amphibious extension of the Battle of the Atlantic!
When somebody in the thread has presented evidence that the Nazis didn't actually have enough mines (or mine layers) to lay the minefield they themselves said was necessary, and nobody has presented evidence to the contrary? It seems like readers might be able to wave away the minefields. Took longer than page one of course, but we're all used to your hyperbole and squiffy numbers by now.
No it doesn't, barbarossa could have gone either way at the beginning given a few not to amazing things going differently. Sealion would require Moses' parting the sea act of god level of miracle. As I said earlier anything x 0 = 0, so all Germany does here is throw stuff away while GB gains. Regrading comprtive losses maybe but Barbarrossa is inherently larger undertaking with more at stake and it still took 4 years for Barbarrossa to come to fruition
A failed sea-lion strengthens Britain's position nationally and internationally, and does the opposite for Germany. This isn't just about material losses (although those will hurt Gremany esp the losses of the barges and what's left of the KM), but perception of success vs. failure. 1940 is still early days in WW2, but early WW2 is "invincible Germany".
No, again your linking these with no justification.
Then you're not discussing real life or real life factors I mean we've known that for a while. But again remember you are talking about a plan Hitler himself thought too risky!
The destroyer has guns as well yes? I love your idea that MG on barge is going to take out a destroyer bridge at 100 yards it might not even being to target the bridge depending on how its mounted. But all those guns on the destroyer in elevated firing positions won't be able to do the same back. The swamping etc is just a side effect of the destroyer being there not the sole tactic.
And anything much less than 88's is pretty much going to tickle a 2000t destroyer
But again you are ignoring the fact that the barge already an unstable firing platform using adhoc fixed mounts (unsuitable for firing in combat) will be trying to fire in seas that it not suite for due to shallow draft basically not being seaworthy due to being designed for rather more placid rivers so will be less stable again. And on top of that they will be being rocked by the stern waves caused by high speed destroyer manoeuvring further destabilising them as firing platform.
These things are going to bobbing around like corks (and remember a lot will be tied together in daisy chains making this even worse), and crew on deck set to man guns will likely be struggling to stay aboard the boat let alone manning the guns, let alone targeting the gun, let along hitting anything.
You still need supplies unless you think the Germans are going to win with bare fists or by bounding in mighty leaps everywhere (let lone eat and drink). The point being having landed piecemeal and without supplies and support the mighty blitzkrieg-ing German army of the battle of France just becomes some poorly equipped, isolated and cut off infantry.
No as I said having learned the lessons of the BoB the Brits put in place a rescue service. Were also not likely to need to stop big ships and do this not when there a hundreds of auxiliary craft much better tasked for that. But look you want to waste coastal batteries against them go for it.
Also unless they went down within a couple of miles of the French coast those batteries will be irrelevant s even if they have the theoretical range top hit further they have to spot and track their target.
Last edited:
Another interesting dimension to this quandary is what will happen to the Germans when, having landed in England at the far end of this junket, they've used up most of their ammunition scaring off the Royal Navy.
Or perhaps Glenn would have us believe that this is a problem only experienced by the navy and not by the army.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Exactly! While on the water, the German troops take from the naval supplies, but revert to the untouched army supplies once on land. I can "cheese" Valkyria Chronicles with scouts, so we just apply the same idea to reality!
Better yet, they press the Polish into service as Germans start wearing Polish uniforms to trick the British that several divisions have fought their way through Germany and France, only to be late for the Miracle at Dunkirk. The Royal Navy goes on it's way to risk everything just to transport divisions that had more equipment than the actual Polish divisions. By the time the German divisions are transported into Great Britain, they switch their uniforms and surprise everyone through a new deception. That is how Germany plays the game if military intelligence.
Heh I think that's rather telling you seem to think Blitzkrieg doesn't require tactics, or logistics
Blitzkrieg is not some magic word that make Germans win
You've explained it but you've consistently ignored the replies:
1). Such armament does not meaningfully act as a deterrent because it is ineffective,
2). Even if it could in theory meaningfully hurt a destroyer the RN is not going to care much when were talking about the RN preventing an invasion of Britain.
So therefore this armament will not meaningfully increase the survivability of the flotilla certainly not be enough to matter in terms of them getting the invasion force across and landed
Last edited:
[QUOTE="TDM, post: 18829453, member:
No as I said having learned the lessons of the BoB the Brits put in place a rescue service. [/QUOTE]
Not until long after .....
And not that it cost the UK BoB
“However, during the Second World Warthe MCS found itself ill-prepared for war. During the Battle of Britain even with the help of civilian vessels and the Royal Navy, aircrew who baled out or ditched in the North Sea and English Channel had only a 20 percent chance of being returned to their squadrons, with over 200 pilots and aircrew being lost to the sea during the battle.[3]
In light of this, in 1941, an emergency meeting was convened by Air Marshal Sir Arthur Bomber Harris. The Royal Navy offered to take over in its entirety the at sea rescue role, the RAF declined and subsequently created the Directorate of Air Sea Rescue on 6 February 1941, which adopted the motto "The sea shall not have them". Operationally it was to become known as Air Sea Rescue Services (ASRS), which later became the RAF Search and Rescue Force.[4] The headquarters of the ASRS was co-located with that of Coastal Command with which it was to operate closely.
No as I said having learned the lessons of the BoB the Brits put in place a rescue service. [/QUOTE]
Not until long after .....
And not that it cost the UK BoB
“However, during the Second World Warthe MCS found itself ill-prepared for war. During the Battle of Britain even with the help of civilian vessels and the Royal Navy, aircrew who baled out or ditched in the North Sea and English Channel had only a 20 percent chance of being returned to their squadrons, with over 200 pilots and aircrew being lost to the sea during the battle.[3]
In light of this, in 1941, an emergency meeting was convened by Air Marshal Sir Arthur Bomber Harris. The Royal Navy offered to take over in its entirety the at sea rescue role, the RAF declined and subsequently created the Directorate of Air Sea Rescue on 6 February 1941, which adopted the motto "The sea shall not have them". Operationally it was to become known as Air Sea Rescue Services (ASRS), which later became the RAF Search and Rescue Force.[4] The headquarters of the ASRS was co-located with that of Coastal Command with which it was to operate closely.
nbcman
Donor
Those two items that Glenn239 was referring to are Avalon Hill Board Wargames from the 1950s / 1960s:
Blitzkrieg
/pic143611.jpg)
/pic340136.jpg)
Depends on what else is going on,
Again you need to read up on Anzio, they took the port on the first day they were kept supplied and they deliberately built up the beach head as opposed to moving inland as a conscious decision (a contentious one at the time). Remember there is already heavy fighting going in Italy here as well.
But you want the few infantry wash shore to hold out from Sep 40 to what March 41, with no supply!!!???
Against what? Some under equipped and out of supply infantry? You dont need the Panzer Lehr or SS panzer divisions! (again just being German isn't enough)
But you want tanks Britain's got tank divisions that they can bring down. Now you might think these tanks weren't the best not being SS Panzer division, but it doesn't matter when they're not having to face any armour or anti armour but instead just trying ti dislodge some out of supply infantry.
On top of that they lots of Artillery in Britain let's bring that down and just blast them off the beaches.
No they didn't they used actual landing craft , the closest you got to barges were Barques as transport and land, but those are actually boats designed for the waters in question. (The East med is not the English channel)
One huge difference here is in Leros & Kos we're talking about German numbers of 3-4k each, it's somewhat easier to move and land those numbers than 90k.
On the actual wider comparison I won't even bother but needless to say the list of difference between Leros & Kos and Sealion are as many and varied as chasing Italian destroyers is to blowing up Rhine barges.
Last edited:
Those two items that Glenn239 was referring to are Avalon Hill Board Wargames from the 1950s / 1960s:
Blitzkrieg
Tactics
No I know, it was a joke
Right but if we're talking about an intensified conflict into Sep over teh Channel and not the OTL BoB (Glen's Sealion is going off during the original tailing off period after all) and we're talking about it taking place over a much more concentrated area that then the earlier stages of the BoB I think it's not too unlikely that rescue effort will be become more organised than they initially were during the initial stages of the BoB / Dunkirk. (even if they're not under the ASRS)
Plus as I said simply by dint of what's going on (seaborne invasion) there's got to be a lot more friendlies available to pick up ditched air crew fighting overhead anyway.
While I agree that she would probably not be there, it has absolutely nothing to do with the risk from weapons on the barges which would not have discouraged attacks by Destroyers or smaller vessels, as these weapons would lack either adequate (or any) fire-control or a stable gunnery platform; she would not have been there because the government and military intended to continue the fight from the Dominions in the event that Britain fell and a battleship takes a lot longer than a destroyer to replace. Plus she would also almost certainly have been based too far away from the Channel to interfere in the initial crossing.
Also for a hypothetical bombardment of the hypothetical beachhead an "R" class would have been used as they were considered to be more expendable.
This passage shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference in difficulty of hitting a barge carrying weapons unable to hurt you travelling at seven knots at most compared to hitting a ship carrying weapons that can hurt you travelling at 25 knots plus.
Or the understanding that many of the barges were in pairs being towed by tugs which actually improves your odds of impeding the invasion dramatically - hit and disable either the tug or the first of the two barges in the chain and all three of them are delayed temporarily to permanently.
Nor does it show an understanding of the effect of the Norwegian losses on the Kriegsmarine's capacity to support the invasion, or the relative availability of British Destroyers and other escorts compared to Kriegsmarine numbers.
Your numbers also sound like WWI numbers based on Dogger Bank and Jutland - fire control and shell quality had improved immensely since then. Can you point me at your source, please?
Had Warspite got into range of an invasion flotilla that flotilla would have been severely damaged and broken up or sunk.
I think you should take a look at the Luftwaffe's success against surface ships in the period 1939-41, and how long it took them to form and train up the specialised formations they needed for the task. While the Luftwaffe had the required anti-ship capability late in 1941 and 1942 in the Mediterranean they did not have this capability in 1940 - not for a lack of aircraft but for a lack of training and doctrine.
The situation off Dunkirk in 1940 is not replicable to the Channel as a whole.
Regarding the food situation, Britain always imported a large proportion of her food and rationing had barely got started by the time a 1940 Sealion could be launched; there was still a lot of slack in the food supply compared to actual minimum need.
As for defeating the Germans? The Germans lack a significant quantity of armour and mechanised transport so no "Blitzkrieg" and thus no cascading civilian panic. And after 48 hours at most resupply becomes problematic to impossible; at which point fighting the British army, whatever it's quality, becomes impossible.
I really think this phrase best applies to yourself.
I take comfort in knowing that my posts are still not the most implausible thing that has been said in a Sealion thread.
Deleted member 94680
Why thank you, kind Sir. I’m up against some strong competition on this one.