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

McPherson said:

Anzio and suicide speed boats.

Success... minimal. Mr. Machine Gun was not their friend.

Linse Boats = 1.8t , operator dives overboard "at the last moment"

(original) FL-Boat = unmanned, approx. 6t, carries the equivalent of sea mine

Much bigger target, far less maneuverable, same machine gun. Only difference, bigger water spout when it explodes short of target. The Japanese tried this idea with better "guidance" (Human pilot immune to radio jammers.) and it never worked out as a viable tactic. (Three sinkings in 300 attempts.). At least they used "guided" torpedoes, so machine gunning was not an option.
 

Deleted member 94680

Assuming a total loss at Dunkirk ...

The bigger question is what might happen politically in the event of the total loss. Maybe if that happens and France falls rapidly, you set up a political crisis in Britain that leads to a new government that opens peace talks with Germany. Before I get shouted down, I don't think that's the most likely outcome, but at least there's a plausible alternative pathway there. There isn't by September in our timeline.

I’ve been thinking about this (it’s often a ‘key point’ for the ‘Sealionistas’) and the likelyhood of a surrender or negotiation if Dunkirk fails/the USM goes ahead. Where I’m working has an old Daily Mail front page of the day after Churchill delivered his “Fight then on the beaches” speech. The latter section caught my eye:

“...we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.” (Copied from online source, emphasis my own.)

So, even on the 6th June, Churchill was covering his bases in case of (a real) disaster and laying out the Grand Plan. It would require a Coup (by people unsupported by the majority of the military or civilian populace - judging by the reaction to the speech) to lead a government that would even consider it.
 
As it happened, this worked probably better than the Germans had any right to expect, and France fell within weeks. I think you could make a pretty decent case that even a moderately better-run French army could have stopped this offensive in its tracks, at which point Germany is up the creek and any fancy plans you might have made for a follow-on invasion of England are out the window anyways.

But you couldn't have known all that was going to happen in 1937, or 1938, or even 1939, if you were a German planner. If you fully expect that France is going to be a tough, all-consuming slog, then you're going to focus on that and leave the England plan for another day, which is precisely what happened. In retrospect it looks like a horrendous lack of planning on the part of the Germans, but really what's happened in mid-1940 is that they've just succeeded beyond all measure and now they're stuck trying to figure out what to do next.

At that point -- and that is why most people here have concluded Sea Lion is simply not plausible -- you've got an army that has never really taken amphibious warfare seriously in a large-scale, sustained way trying to improvise, in a matter of weeks, the invasion by sea of a country that happens to have the world's largest navy. For what it's worth, the British similarly let their land defences languish in the run-up to the war, and when France fell, there was a mad scramble on the British side too.

It is an interesting PoD. The situation is never explained clearly, nor do many historians notice it, but the French were trying to reform during the "phony war" and some of the reforms they were in the middle of doing was starting to bear fruit. 6 months delay? Even Mannstein's plan might have failed. It might have been time enough for the new DCRs DCMs and DLMs to learn how to counterattack in a Mass de Maneuver.
 
I’ve been thinking about this (it’s often a ‘key point’ for the ‘Sealionistas’) and the likelyhood of a surrender or negotiation if Dunkirk fails/the USM goes ahead. Where I’m working has an old Daily Mail front page of the day after Churchill delivered his “Fight then on the beaches” speech. The latter section caught my eye:

“...we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.” (Copied from online source, emphasis my own.)

So, even on the 6th June, Churchill was covering his bases in case of (a real) disaster and laying out the Grand Plan. It would require a Coup (by people unsupported by the majority of the military or civilian populace - judging by the reaction to the speech) to lead a government that would even consider it.
That bolded bit is bollocks. I've always thought so. The idea that the Royal Navy, in the face of an invasion of the islands, would just... leave... Yeah, right.

Anyhow that speech was before the fall of France, although it was clear how things were headed, and I can't imagine Britain just up and leaving the war while France is still at least theoretically still fighting.

My personal view of history is that systems are a lot less stable than they look and can be pretty chaotic, so I can't dismiss the possibility that someone gives the right speech, which leads to the right editorials, which forces an idea into political consideration at the right/wrong moment, etc., and with the BEF gone and France gone, British politics would be briefly far more vulnerable than it was in our timeline. If something's going to happen, it would probably happen then.

It is an interesting PoD. The situation is never explained clearly, nor do many historians notice it, but the French were trying to reform during the "phony war" and some of the reforms they were in the middle of doing was starting to bear fruit. 6 months delay? Even Mannstein's plan might have failed. It might have been time enough for the new DCRs DCMs and DLMs to learn how to counterattack in a Mass de Maneuver.

Case in point. A French wargame in 1938 revealed the catastrophic weakness in the Ardennes sector, and instead they just papered it over, but I have to think that gap would be horrifically easy to plug -- yes, hindsight is perfect, but speaking theoretically here -- and, well, that's the ballgame for the Manstein Plan, isn't it.
 
Much bigger target, far less maneuverable, same machine gun. Only difference, bigger water spout when it explodes short of target. The Japanese tried this idea with better "guidance" (Human pilot immune to radio jammers.) and it never worked out as a viable tactic. (Three sinkings in 300 attempts.). At least they used "guided" torpedoes, so machine gunning was not an option.

WWI-era FL-Boats were wire-guided and was speculating on the same for WWII version, also a considerably smaller and faster ship. again NOT to replace torpedo batteries and, of course, aircraft.
 

Deleted member 94680

That bolded bit is bollocks. I've always thought so. The idea that the Royal Navy, in the face of an invasion of the islands, would just... leave... Yeah, right.

Wow, you know more than the OTL Prime Minister of Britain, impressive. Also, that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying if the invasion was successful i.e. the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force had fought the invasion and failed to prevent it. They would leave to prevent their capture after the strategic scenario had altered to the point of their usefulness diminishing. To come back with a liberating force.

Anyhow that speech was before the fall of France, although it was clear how things were headed, and I can't imagine Britain just up and leaving the war while France is still at least theoretically still fighting.

Once again, not what he’s saying, but nice try. I included the date for that very resason. He’s saying the exact opposite - Britain will keep fighting, no matter what. The idea was to show, before France fell and the invasion scare was building, plans were fermenting as to the course of the British effort.

My personal view of history is that systems are a lot less stable than they look and can be pretty chaotic, so I can't dismiss the possibility that someone gives the right speech, which leads to the right editorials, which forces an idea into political consideration at the right/wrong moment, etc., and with the BEF gone and France gone, British politics would be briefly far more vulnerable than it was in our timeline. If something's going to happen, it would probably happen then.

Fair enough, but who? Who in British politics would give ‘the right speech’ to completely turn around British foreign policy in the space, of what, days?
 
WWI-era FL-Boats were wire-guided and was speculating on the same for WWII version, also a considerably smaller and faster ship. again NOT to replace torpedo batteries and, of course, aircraft.

Wire guidance is even worse. The state of German wire guidance tech in WW II was not too good. Ever hear of Goliath?
 
McPherson said:

It is an interesting PoD. The situation is never explained clearly, nor do many historians notice it, but the French were trying to reform during the "phony war" and some of the reforms they were in the middle of doing was starting to bear fruit. 6 months delay? Even Mannstein's plan might have failed. It might have been time enough for the new DCRs DCMs and DLMs to learn how to counterattack in a Mass de Maneuver.

Case in point. A French wargame in 1938 revealed the catastrophic weakness in the Ardennes sector, and instead they just papered it over, but I have to think that gap would be horrifically easy to plug -- yes, hindsight is perfect, but speaking theoretically here -- and, well, that's the ballgame for the Manstein Plan, isn't it.

Yeah. it carries us away from the DSM topic, but it is an interesting speculation as to how a better French defense affects the run up to the mythical operation. It is my considered opinion, that Gamelin and crew would have to be sacked and that Eduard Daladier would have to be "removed". Then there are technical problems with French armaments, and a tactical disconnect between air force and army, a logistics nightmare to unsnarl and a massive signals snafu to rectify before the French can pull anything off like a Patton counterstroke.
 
Wow, you know more than the OTL Prime Minister of Britain, impressive. Also, that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying if the invasion was successful i.e. the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force had fought the invasion and failed to prevent it. They would leave to prevent their capture after the strategic scenario had altered to the point of their usefulness diminishing. To come back with a liberating force.



Once again, not what he’s saying, but nice try. I included the date for that very resason. He’s saying the exact opposite - Britain will keep fighting, no matter what. The idea was to show, before France fell and the invasion scare was building, plans were fermenting as to the course of the British effort.



Fair enough, but who? Who in British politics would give ‘the right speech’ to completely turn around British foreign policy in the space, of what, days?

Not so much that I know more than him as that I simply don't believe him on that particular point. I also don't know more than the president of the United States, but throughout my life I've made a habit of not believing him all the time either, whoever he may be. Of course if there is an order somewhere that contains this evacuation provision for the RN, I will have to eat crow here, but I kind of thing he's just confabulating to reassure what he imagines to be a frightened public.

On the surrender point, right. I'm not saying Churchill was going to surrender. My only observation was that if the BEF was lost at Dunkirk and France fell quickly, that would presumably be Britain's lowest hour. I'm skeptical Britain would leave the war under any other circumstances -- obviously not just the second because, well, that's our timeline, and probably not just the first because it wouldn't make much sense to surrender while France was still fighting.

As to what could happen, I really have no idea. That's the point. As I said, it doesn't seem very likely, but who knows what unlikely person might get some political traction in a moment of crisis? I know we're not supposed to point to current events for examples of unlikely people who mostly by chance manage to say the right thing at the right time to become something politically in the midst of political crisis, but we could find examples through history, including the rise of Hitler himself. If there were a point even halfway close to our own timeline where Britain was in political crisis where a wild card could emerge from the deck, though, surely it would be that scenario. There aren't any other points where Britain is as politically vulnerable, and as you correctly point out, Churchill certainly isn't going to be leading any surrender talks.
 
Last edited:
About a million and a half men
sounds like more than enough, once you get them equipped....
as another 'thought experiment'... if we get the scenario where the BEF is destroyed at Dunkirk and there is a general consensus that Germany is really capable of invading England... what is the US likely to do? In OTL, Roosevelt had to struggle for every scrap of aid and funds we sent to the UK... might Congress unbend a lot more if it looks like there is a real threat of Operation Sealion?
 

Deleted member 94680

Not so much that I know more than him as that I simply don't believe him on that particular point. I also don't know more than the president of the United States, but throughout my life I've made a habit of not believing him all the time either, whoever he may be. Of course if there is an order somewhere that contains this evacuation provision for the RN, I will have to eat crow here, but I kind of thing he's just confabulating to reassure what he imagines to be a frightened public.

You don’t believe him on the point that Britain would keep fighting if the British Isles was successfully invaded? Because that’s the point he’s making.

“we shall never surrender,” See, he’s saying here Britain will not surrender.

“and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving,”
Here he’s saying “even if” as in “in the worst case scenario” which he’s not sure at all will happen - the “which I do not for a moment believe” bit alludes to his scepticism. The “this island” bit refers to Britain. The “subjugated” part refers to the possible (but unlikely) invasion. The “or a large part” even allows for a significant part being occupied whilst other parts remain free. The “starving” bit is window dressing to illustrate possible hard times lie ahead and to signify the struggle may be difficult.

“then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle,”
Now this bit refers to British territory and Dominions (Winston was very much an imperialist) abroad, which wouldn’t have been invaded. The “British Fleet” refers to the Navy abroad and any part that have left/escaped (allowing for a worst case) after the invasion. Remember the whole Royal Navy wasn’t sat in the Channel waiting, there were units all over the globe. The “would carry on” line alludes to the future, i.e. after an invasion has happened.

I hope this clears it up for you.
 
The only problem I have with Sealion as a bluff meant to get the British to negotiate, is that the bluff only works in the immediate aftermath of the fall of France. When panic was at its highest. If the Germans DON'T actually launch the invasion, within a few weeks, it gets seen for what it is, a bluff.
Good point, though whether the Nazi's would have grasped that is debatable. Still I'm probably trying too hard to provide a workable rationale for Sealion. ;)
 
Wow, you know more than the OTL Prime Minister of Britain, impressive.

Your debate style is full of fallacies, like when you turned this

German E-boat development was nothing to laugh at at least. Massing large swarms of these using anti-ship missiles (albeit the German ones were still very primitive at this point so as to probably preclude this) is exactly the kind of asymmetric thinking that could have potentially allowed the German navy to actually defeat the RN.

into this

You were suggesting fleets of OTL-nonexistent attack boats armed with OTL-nonexistent weaponry was a reasonable solution to the vast superiority in materiel that the Royal Navy enjoyed. Anti-ship missiles (in the form of the Hs 293) were introduced in ‘43 and required a bomber to deliver them. Somehow, whilst fighting OTL WWII, the Germans are meant to develop something akin to the 1959 Shaddock (but smaller, to be usable from S-boots?) and in sufficient quantities to decimate the Royal Navy? I apologise for any offence caused, but it’s so outlandishly ASB I found it funny. It also reminded me of the “artillery strapped to barges” argument from a previous USM thread.

just fyi
 
On the surrender point, right. I'm not saying Churchill was going to surrender. My only observation was that if the BEF was lost at Dunkirk and France fell quickly, that would presumably be Britain's lowest hour. I'm skeptical Britain would leave the war under any other circumstances -- obviously not just the second because, well, that's our timeline, and probably not just the first because it wouldn't make much sense to surrender while France was still fighting

Churchill told his daughter that if the invasion came he expected her to use a knife to take a German with her. He wasn't f*cking round. Rightly or wrongly, so long as he had any power we were fighting to the death.
 
Well we can conclusively say the dreaded sea mammal is ASB. While it may be possible, it would require so many PoDs that it might as well be ASB.

The problem is with any sea mammal adventure is that you have a force with zero experience in amphibious warfare. You also have a highly determined home guard, which even with the surrender of most of the BEF would be decent and not a pushover, as they will be full of battle-hardened vets from World War 1. This assumes our man Churchill rallies the nation to fight on, saying it is better to go down with a fight rather than give up.

Hitler had expected the British to request an armistice after the fall of France, and Churchill's refusal meant that the Sea Mammal was drafted as a last resort.

Even if the Germans wargamed the dreaded sea mammal and possessed good landing craft, they still have to contend with the Home Fleet. Even if the Kriegsmarine wasn't heavily damaged in the invasion of Norway it would still be inadequate. Even if Spain joined, Gibraltar fell, and the Germans could count on the Regia Marina for Sea Mammal adventures it still might not be adequate. Even if the BEF was destroyed on the beaches of Dunkirk there still was an army, not just of old men and boys, to contend with the Wehrmacht that opts for Sea Mammal adventures.
 

hipper

Banned
sounds like more than enough, once you get them equipped....
as another 'thought experiment'... if we get the scenario where the BEF is destroyed at Dunkirk and there is a general consensus that Germany is really capable of invading England... what is the US likely to do? In OTL, Roosevelt had to struggle for every scrap of aid and funds we sent to the UK... might Congress unbend a lot more if it looks like there is a real threat of Operation Sealion?

Perhaps not one of 5he fears was that the equipment sent would end up in German hands. Besides there was a real threat of operation Sealion.
 
You don’t believe him on the point that Britain would keep fighting if the British Isles was successfully invaded? Because that’s the point he’s making.

“we shall never surrender,” See, he’s saying here Britain will not surrender.

“and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving,”
Here he’s saying “even if” as in “in the worst case scenario” which he’s not sure at all will happen - the “which I do not for a moment believe” bit alludes to his scepticism. The “this island” bit refers to Britain. The “subjugated” part refers to the possible (but unlikely) invasion. The “or a large part” even allows for a significant part being occupied whilst other parts remain free. The “starving” bit is window dressing to illustrate possible hard times lie ahead and to signify the struggle may be difficult.

“then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle,”
Now this bit refers to British territory and Dominions (Winston was very much an imperialist) abroad, which wouldn’t have been invaded. The “British Fleet” refers to the Navy abroad and any part that have left/escaped (allowing for a worst case) after the invasion. Remember the whole Royal Navy wasn’t sat in the Channel waiting, there were units all over the globe. The “would carry on” line alludes to the future, i.e. after an invasion has happened.

I hope this clears it up for you.

Indeed, politicians say a lot of things. I think the notion that with the British Isles subjugated the Dominions and the remnants of the Royal Navy would simply carry on the struggle from across the seas in the name of the Empire is rather fanciful and not very credible. Some kind of representative of some kind of civil government in occupied Britain would eventually have to surrender and get on with life under occupation. Maybe it won't be Churchill, but the great thing about living in a Westminster-style system and not an American-style system is that heads of government are always disposable. Churchill could be removed and a complete 180 on policy achieved in a matter of hours, if necessary.

However we are both agreed, I think, that this scenario could not have arisen anyways.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Indeed, politicians say a lot of things. I think the notion that with the British Isles subjugated the Dominions and the remnants of the Royal Navy would simply carry on the struggle from across the seas in the name of the Empire is rather fanciful and not very credible.

We can agree to disagree on this issue then. I believe that by 1940 the Dominions, with their own governments post-Westminster, entered the War 'voluntarily' and the capture of Britain would be a challenge to be met, as opposed to an opportunity to exit the conflict. The mission to 'recapture the Mother Island' would be a rallying call to the Dominions (maybe not Ireland or South Africa) and the War for the British Empire would be dedicated to recovering Britain pretty much above all else.

Some kind of representative of some kind of civil government in occupied Britain would eventually have to surrender and get on with life under occupation. Maybe it won't be Churchill, but the great thing about living in a Westminster-style system and not an American-style system is that heads of government are always disposable. Churchill could be removed and a complete 180 on policy achieved in a matter of hours, if necessary.

There would definitely be some form of 'civil government' in Occupied Britain - Nazi racial theory would pretty much demand a friendly Anglo-Saxon Britain - but I doubt any 'front line' British politician would lead it. It would also transparently be a 'quisling' government - again, making it obvious that Britain was Occupied as opposed to allied. The surrender of an Occupied Britain would be viewed as a surrender of the British Isles as opposed to the Empire by pretty much everyone outside of the Nazi regime and whatever London quisling there was. Look at the example of the French.

This is my take on it, obviously.

However we are both agreed, I think, that this scenario could not have arisen anyways.

Agreed. I just think with any POD post-1930, the USM is ASB.
 
Top