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

See Bastogne or Korea for examples of THAT particular gaffe

I thought the Winter of 1941 in Russia was where this line originated, and repeated at Stalingrad.

Poor soldiers, instead of winter gear they got "Furher Parcels" with Christmas trees...
 
See Bastogne or Korea for examples of THAT particular gaffe
Hey, if there's only room on the train for bullets or coats, you send the bullets, I guess.

Who could possibly have anticipated that the Russian rail gauges were different and that it would be hard to send supplies so far into enemy territory? They obviously should have just improvised a little more logistics.

Honestly this is cartoonish to the point that even the person who suggested it has already backed off. I don't know what Glenn's interest in it is, but even in the unlikely event that the Germans somehow decide to invade Iceland and actually do so, I don't know how they could possibly hold the island.

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.

Yep, here we go.

Just because fewer people will die in pursuit of an unachievable objective doesn't make that objective worth pursuing if it's unachievable anyways.
 
Last edited:
image.jpg

Every time I pass this place I ponder the idea of this thread
 
See anywhere really where glaringly obvious facts were missed leading to massive SNAFUs.
I have to agree, and I know that they really didn't have the equipment to set up the invasion forces properly anyway, but I still feel for the poor SOB's that had to go ashore.

IIUC, you were a marine? What would you think about setting up an amphibious landing training base in the Aleutian islands? Probably the worst place to train beginners, but maybe the best place to train elite/special forces?
 

SsgtC

Banned
IIUC, you were a marine? What would you think about setting up an amphibious landing training base in the Aleutian islands? Probably the worst place to train beginners, but maybe the best place to train elite/special forces?
Yes, I'm a Marine. The Aleutiane wouldn't be my top choice. The weather there is nasty and you only have a small window each year where you can carry out productive training. The only way I can see them being useful for widespread use is if you're planning to invade northern Russia.
 
View attachment 369349
Every time I pass this place I ponder the idea of this thread

The fact that it's a sushi restaurant just adds another dimension.

I personally do wonder why Unternehmen Seelöwe is regarded as impossible on a forum where Hitler's winning Barbarossa is not considered impossible, but 運転封印 (that's Japanese for Operation Sealion, according to Google) is definitely something that requires a few caves full of ASBs.

"Should hostilities break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Fransisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House." -- Isoroku Yamamoto
 

SsgtC

Banned
I personally do wonder why Unternehmen Seelöwe is regarded as impossible on a forum where Hitler's winning Barbarossa is not considered impossible, but 運転封印 (that's Japanese for Operation Sealion, according to Google) is definitely something that requires a few caves full of ASBs.
It's because of the number of changes needed, honestly. And WHEN those changes are needed. For example, in AANW, the 3rd Reich wins at Stalingrad with more men, better preparation and Stalin catching the idiotball and purging STAVKA after his namesake city is lost. Believable considering his OTL actions, even if implausible.

But for Sealion, it requires a POD 20 years (give or take) before the war. Germany needs to develop a workable amphibious doctrine and the forces needed to carry out said doctrine with nobody noticing or reacting to it. You also need said POD to not affect anything else in the timeline and for WWII to go exactly the same way (with possibly capturing/destroying the BEF in France the only change) up until Sealion is launched. And on top of all that, you STILL need to make the entire Home Fleet disappear and the rest of the Royal Navy refuse to defend their shores.
 
Last edited:
Considering that US amphibious doctrine goes all the way back to Winfield Scott and his assault on Vera Cruz in the Mexican American war, are we even sure 20 years is enough for the Herr?
 
I personally do wonder why Unternehmen Seelöwe is regarded as impossible on a forum where Hitler's winning Barbarossa is not considered impossible, but 運転封印 (that's Japanese for Operation Sealion, according to Google) is definitely something that requires a few caves full of ASBs.

I can only speak for myself, but thinking about it historically, Barbarossa is at least rational to the extent that (a) you didn't have to be a Nazi ideologue to think it was possible at the time, and (b) the last time Germany invaded Russia, they both defeated Russia militarily and provoked the collapse of the regime. To that extent, it wasn't completely insane to think that if they tried again it would have a similar result.

Wildly unrealistic, perhaps, especially if you took logistics seriously, but not insane.

The leap from there to accomplishing something that hadn't been done in centuries, and never by you, and that would require operating in a space where the enemy was objectively, exponentially superior ... Well, that's what makes Sea Lion foolish, in my view. And to their limited credit, that is the decision the German high command eventually arrived at, too.

Considering that US amphibious doctrine goes all the way back to Winfield Scott and his assault on Vera Cruz in the Mexican American war, are we even sure 20 years is enough for the Herr?

It might at least be enough to convince them that you can't improvise an amphibious fleet out of civilian barges, but in the end that was a lesson they didn't need to learn the hard way, seeing as how they didn't try.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Considering that US amphibious doctrine goes all the way back to Winfield Scott and his assault on Vera Cruz in the Mexican American war, are we even sure 20 years is enough for the Herr?
For a scratch team, crash course, yeah, they could do it. It wouldn't be very refined and it wouldn't have as high a chance of success as say, Normandie. But they could develop at least a useable doctrine and basic equipment. Probably "Jack-of-all-trades" vs the Allied specialized equipment, but it would at least be capable of getting men, equipment and supplies ashore.
 
And that's Day 1, and that's the problem. I don't think I have ever seen a situation where the Germans can't get men, equipment and supplies ashore on Day 1. It is Day 2, and 3, and so on where the problems begin. The defenders are able to sit on the invader's supply lines to enough of a degree that the ground troops can't maintain a successful offensive. The defending troops don't have to be supermen. They just need to get the invaders spending more bullets than they are receiving on the supply ships.
 
And that's Day 1, and that's the problem. I don't think I have ever seen a situation where the Germans can't get men, equipment and supplies ashore on Day 1. It is Day 2, and 3, and so on where the problems begin. The defenders are able to sit on the invader's supply lines to enough of a degree that the ground troops can't maintain a successful offensive. The defending troops don't have to be supermen. They just need to get the invaders spending more bullets than they are receiving on the supply ships.
To be fair, many people on this forum have speculated that if the Germans can't achieve surprise at least about the moment they set off from the French side of the Channel, it's debatable how much if any of Wave 1 arrives on time and in the right place.

Presumably this won't be a problem in a fanciful invasion of Iceland in the sense that Iceland doesn't have a military to defend itself. (On the other hand, if your cute little invasion convoy runs into the British picket ships in the North Sea, it's pretty much game over.) At that point, yes, you're absolutely correct that the decision to improvise the logistics -- a la Glenn -- is rapidly going to start biting you pretty hard.

I don't know why Glenn doesn't take this seriously, but I am quite sure that the Germans, having cut their teeth so to speak on invasions of small, neighbouring countries within a few days' brisk walking distance, had simply never had to worry about long-range logistics before. This is in contrast to the Americans, say, who can't fight wars without it. This is probably part of the reason why they failed to appreciate the extra layer of difficulty introduced by having to do this amphibiously. It is certainly why they failed to adequately appreciate the challenges involved on the eastern front.
 
Considering that US amphibious doctrine goes all the way back to Winfield Scott and his assault on Vera Cruz in the Mexican American war, are we even sure 20 years is enough for the Herr?
Is 1917 far enough back for you? Try Operation Albion
As a result of this operation, there were trials of landing craft (they used horse barges with ramps for the operation) and OKW was setup to co-ordinate the efforts of the different branches of the Wehrmacht but it was taken over by Hitler as his secretariat. So in a non-ASB world you would have OKW functioning as intended and some more vigorous work done on the landing craft development. The Kriegsmarine had a battalion of marines in 1940 that were used in the invasion of the Channel Islands, the Invasion of Poland, and the 1941 invasion of the Baltic islands. Perhaps they could be expanded to a regiment or a brigade without worrying anyone except the Heer (later in the war they had naval divisions so perhaps the army could be persuaded to let that happen earlier). The German marines were first formed in 1852, is that far back enough?
 

Deleted member 94680

Guys! Guys! I've got it!

Picture the scene... Rommel does exceedingly well in N. Africa - by improvising his logistics - and drags far more troops into a meat grinder in the Libyan Desert. Picture a perfected Verdun Redux (with sand)... The British, for reasons, send more and more troops to Africa in a desperate attempt to save the Suez Canal. They loose them all. Emboldened by the German success, the Japanese advance further and faster in Asia. The British send troops to Singapore to try and save their Empire in the East and lose them all as well. Picture a perfected Verdun (with jungles). Devastated by the loses, Churchill and the Royal Family (being British and therefore inherently cowards at heart) flee to Canada after Unconditionally Surrendering the British Empire. Hitler is triumphant. The Reich stands atop Western Civilisation, a colossus ready to crush Bolshevism and Gangsterism.

But, suddenly, disaster! The treacherous Labour Party of the British Isles - with scattered support of other Parties - declares Britain to be independent of the Empire and resisting German domination.

The Nazis need to invade the British Isles and subdue these traitor's to the Fuhrer's Peace.

Having impounded the Royal Navy in it's entirety as part of the Peace of Berlin (before the Atlee Declaration) Seelowe is put back into action. With the vessels of the RN impressed into KM service, Seelowe is a cake walk....
 
In hindsight I think it was a bit much mentioning missiles in the context of Sealion, but air and submarines (etc.) are still perfectly viable for anti-access/area denial strategy in modern times, can someone please explain why wouldn't the Germans be able to shut down the channel doing this, with aircraft for example (especially their rudimentary jet aircraft)? What constraints are there?
 
Last edited:
No.

Is 1917 far enough back for you? Try Operation Albion
As a result of this operation, there were trials of landing craft (they used horse barges with ramps for the operation) and OKW was setup to co-ordinate the efforts of the different branches of the Wehrmacht but it was taken over by Hitler as his secretariat. So in a non-ASB world you would have OKW functioning as intended and some more vigorous work done on the landing craft development. The Kriegsmarine had a battalion of marines in 1940 that were used in the invasion of the Channel Islands, the Invasion of Poland, and the 1941 invasion of the Baltic islands. Perhaps they could be expanded to a regiment or a brigade without worrying anyone except the Heer (later in the war they had naval divisions so perhaps the army could be persuaded to let that happen earlier). The German marines were first formed in 1852, is that far back enough?

You're kidding about this?

Operation_Albion_Map.jpg


That failed twice against a disorganized mob in the middle of a civil war. Third time was the charm. Short ranged operation, heavily supported from the landward side. Call it Germany's Anzio.

As opposed to THIS:

BB-MAP-1-(invasion).gif


Scott not only had to land from the sea starting from New Orleans which is about 1400 kilometers in two stages.

And do this:

Siege_of_Veracruz_Map.PNG


he also had to, before he ever attempted the landings; (something the Americans had never done before.):

: personally design the barge lighters for the horses and siege guns.
; arrange the provision of a naval method for unloading of supplies continuously over the beach, across 1400 kilometers of the Caribbean, which if you know anything about the weather in that sea, or the local surf conditions, is not easy or simple. (Crane barges and a pontoon pier that antedates Mulberry by 100 years. Simply remarkable!)
; fight in a known area of severe terrain difficulty, weather problems of its own and infested with disease (malaria for example).
; eventually conduct an overland campaign supplied entirely from the sea, a distance of 250 miles (405 km) against an enemy who knew the mountainous and jungle infested country rising into desert plateau, was acclimated to it, had numerical superiority and was technologically and (on paper) his tactical peer.

That was the American achievement. Operation Albion to be comparable would have to be Sea Lion successfully planned and executed against England.

Now I grant you that Santa Anna, the Napoleon of the Western Hemisphere, had all the charm and military competency of a certain unnamed 1940's maniac, but the rest of the Mexican army were not as imbecilic or inept as he, personally, was.

Professional militaries of the time were shocked at the achievement. For a comparable feat of arms, how about the Crimean War? That would be Great Britain and France, another remarkable campaign, despite the mistakes they made. (Never been attempted successfully against a near peer European enemy across so long a SLOC since Roman times; unless one counts Wellington in the Peninsula, but then he had Spanish and Portuguese help to get ashore.)
 
Top