Beating a Dead Sea Mammal: How can a non-ASB Operation Sea Lion thread be created?

Probably. They then promptly watch those couple thousand troops drown when the Royal Navy sinks their transport. And if, by some miracle, they reach Iceland intact, they then get to watch them starve/die in battle as they have absolutely no way to resupply or reinforce them.

Absolutely conceded.

Even if "a couple thousand" troops can conquer Iceland, I don't see how they could hold it.

And a large portion of the naval ships that assisted with the invasion of Norway won't be available for the attack on Iceland on account of being underwater and/or awaiting repairs.

Well, my notion was that they invade Iceland instead of Norway.

Ah, forget it. It's a dumb non-starter of an idea and not worth debating. I admit it. :)
 

SsgtC

Banned
Well, my notion was that they invade Iceland instead of Norway.
The problem with that idea, is that if Norway is still firmly in Allied hands, then the Germans are even more locked into the Baltic than IOTL. Subs can get out, but heavy surface ships are meat on the table
 
I've looked at it.

Reasons?

a. No sea based air power. (The KM needs Task Force 58. Not gonna happen.)
b. No sustainable two division size sea lift, nor trained marines. (Marines are what is missing at Omaha, hence that shambles.)
c. No survivable sea line of communications.
d. Not only the Royal Navy, but the USN. This Iceland invasion is an automatic tripwire for the Americans.
e. But most importantly, no through the surf and over the beach sustainable landing or supply transfer capability at all. NONE. Not even the pretense of one. LOGISTICS.

c and d are very important reasons why Iceland would fail. Also, you forgot (f), the lack of military grade airfields on Iceland, (or any airfields, for that matter), which was a crucial factor.

The rest of that list is padding - in decending order of fluffiness:

a (if "c" and "f" were not true, land based airpower could substitute for a lack of TF-58 if the airfields could be taken and supplied).
b (regular infantry can undertake the role of amphibious assault by receiving specialist training).
e. Over the beach logistics can also be improvised, especially when there are no defenses to speak of, (the analogy of Omaha Beach might be more appropriate if anything on Iceland even remotely resembled anything on Omaha Beach). However, "e" is a more serious factor than a or b because offloading logistics would be a serious handicap as the British (and even Americans) counterattacked.

Summary of Iceland is that it was too far, had no airfields, and could not possibly be held against a British counterattack. The potential was as a diversionary operation only.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely conceded.



Well, my notion was that they invade Iceland instead of Norway.

Ah, forget it. It's a dumb non-starter of an idea and not worth debating. I admit it. :)
As Germany, if I had to pick between Norway and Iceland...

Good idea though.
 
The original plans for many of the greatest military campaigns in history begin with this phrase.

There is a strong, almost superstitious instinct when armies contemplate sea operations, such that amphibious difficulties and potential for defeat on the beach tend to be wildly exaggerated in importance. The Soviets must have rolled their eyes in disgust every time their western allies claimed a lack of preparation for invading France in 1943. The Soviets were losing hundreds of thousands of men per battle, meanwhile the Anglo-Americans would not risk the twenty five thousand casualties of a repulsed invasion?
 
There is a strong, almost superstitious instinct when armies contemplate sea operations, such that amphibious difficulties and potential for defeat on the beach tend to be wildly exaggerated in importance. The Soviets must have rolled their eyes in disgust every time their western allies claimed a lack of preparation for invading France in 1943. The Soviets were losing hundreds of thousands of men per battle, meanwhile the Anglo-Americans would not risk the twenty five thousand casualties of a repulsed invasion?
Well, I'll give you this at least, dismissing the importance of logistics by pointing to the eastern front of World War II is gutsy.
 

Deleted member 94680

The same way they got their invasion force to Norway?

I'm not arguing for the general plausibility of an invasion of Iceland - I accept the arguments against it that have been put forth here - but the Germans didn't use Rhine barges to invade Norway. If they decide Iceland is the more important target than Norway for whatever insane reason, they do have the means to at least put a couple thousand troops into something seaworthy, no?

265_A32_BF-7_F14-48_FA-_AA23-_D61_C0891_C4_DC.png



8_B541_E2_E-9_E2_F-4738-_B466-010_D699_ABA05.png
 

SsgtC

Banned
Over the beach logistics can also be improvised,
Yeah, Glenn, as someone who uses to make his living preparing and perfecting the art of amphibious assault in the USMC, no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. An amphibious assault lives and dies on logistics. Any assualt does, really. But one launched from the sea is doubly so. Logistics is literally the first step in planning any amphibious assault.
 
Yeah, Glenn, as someone who uses to make his living preparing and perfecting the art of amphibious assault in the USMC, no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. An amphibious assault lives and dies on logistics. Any assualt does, really. But one launched from the sea is doubly so. Logistics is literally the first step in planning any amphibious assault.

I think we've been down this road before with Glenn only last time it was a British vet making the point you just made.

Next, he'll probably tell us that invading Iceland should have been tried because it was a better idea than Barbarossa.

Anyways, what do the Marines know about this kind of thing? I don't think you've ever tried to conduct an amphibious invasion using Rhine river barges as landing ships, so it's way outside your area of expertise!
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think we've been down this road before with Glenn only last time it was a British vet making the point you just made.

Next, he'll probably tell us that invading Iceland should have been tried because it was a better idea than Barbarossa.

Anyways, what do the Marines know about this kind of thing? I don't think you've ever tried to conduct an amphibious invasion using Rhine river barges as landing ships, so it's way outside your area of expertise!
Yeah, were have. And yes, I know I'm whistling in the wind with him.

And you're completely right, there is NO WAY the Marine Corps could possibly know more about conducting amphibious assaults than some guy ™ on his computer. Especially when you throw Rhine River barges into the mix. Now that's just genius tactical thinking! And strapping an 88 onto them?! Brilliant! They could sink an Iowa with that setup.
 
Yeah, Glenn, as someone who uses to make his living preparing and perfecting the art of amphibious assault in the USMC, no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Amphibious assaults, whether successful or failures, did not tend to generate the level of casualties that major land battles generate. Dieppe was the worst Allied amphibious defeat, (nearly the only one), with about 3,000 casualties. Total Soviet casualties in WW2 was about 13 million, or about 8,900 per day.
 
Yeah, Glenn, as someone who uses to make his living preparing and perfecting the art of amphibious assault in the USMC, no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

"Improvised" logistics was in the context of the proposed landing on undefended Iceland, not a defended beach such as Juno or Omaha.

Next, he'll probably tell us that invading Iceland should have been tried because it was a better idea than Barbarossa.

No possible invasion of Iceland could succeed due to the lack of airfields and the length of SLOC. MacPherson's point about US entry is also telling.
 

SsgtC

Banned
"Improvised" logistics was in the context of the proposed landing on undefended Iceland, not a defended beach such as Juno or Omaha.
Look, Glenn. I don't mean to sound offensive or anything so if it comes across that way, I apologise. But this statement right here really shows how little you actually understand logistics or amphibious assualts. You cannot, and I can not stress this enough, improvise logistics on an amphibious assualt. Even if it's an unopposed landing. You are garaunteed to fail if you try to. There is no calling up the quartermaster corps and saying, "hey, we just realised we need this, can you throw it on a truck please?" Everything is coming from a warehouse, to the dock, onto a ship, across an ocean, onto another dock (if you're luck, a beach if you're not), onto another truck and then finally reaching whoever needs the gear. You CAN'T improvise that.
 
Look, Glenn. I don't mean to sound offensive or anything so if it comes across that way, I apologise. But this statement right here really shows how little you actually understand logistics or amphibious assualts. You cannot, and I can not stress this enough, improvise logistics on an amphibious assualt. Even if it's an unopposed landing. You are garaunteed to fail if you try to. There is no calling up the quartermaster corps and saying, "hey, we just realised we need this, can you throw it on a truck please?" Everything is coming from a warehouse, to the dock, onto a ship, across an ocean, onto another dock (if you're luck, a beach if you're not), onto another truck and then finally reaching whoever needs the gear. You CAN'T improvise that.

"I thought you had the cold weather gear."
 

Deleted member 94680

Amphibious assaults, whether successful or failures, did not tend to generate the level of casualties that major land battles generate. Dieppe was the worst Allied amphibious defeat, (nearly the only one), with about 3,000 casualties. Total Soviet casualties in WW2 was about 13 million, or about 8,900 per day.

But those “about 3000” were from a force of 6000! 50% casualties, whichever way you cut it, is terrible.

Obviously the numbers will be smaller than the army-sized engagements on the Eastern Front, but that’s misleading. If the casualties are high enough, the invasion fails. I’m not sure why you’re using the EF as a comparison? Are you suggesting if the Germans put 100,000 men onto the beach they’ll succeed?
 
"Improvised" logistics was in the context of the proposed landing on undefended Iceland, not a defended beach such as Juno or Omaha.



No possible invasion of Iceland could succeed due to the lack of airfields and the length of SLOC. MacPherson's point about US entry is also telling.

The Germans tried that in Crete. Worked out well for them...
 
Top