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

Heilbronn.

That was the best they could do. It was not very good. The British and Canadians (The Canadians were very present and participated in it too, thank you very much!) encountered similar resistance; in this case from better led and equipped fellows. Again despite terrain and weather factors and other sundry defensive aids, the result was not very good.

There are no German casualties figures in your first wiki article, how do you even come to that conclusion without them (they may have only lost 10 men hypothetically)? Neither your second example. Let's see, Rüdiger Overman. Here are just two criticisms of Rüdiger Overman:

  • He does not give any explanation as to why they claim Eastern front versus Western front casualties, or any kind of justification for his figures for either of these (he only 'supports' how many died in total)
  • His claim about Volkssturm casualties doesn't match what we know of how many Volkssturm there even were. I have only seen an entire German army group have 80k at one time from one source, Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Vol. 10.1, p. 531-532., versus 40k in another army group at the battle of Berlin, Antony Beevor Berlin: The Downfall 1945. When your article says including Volkssturm men, who suffered more than 50 percent of the entire losses that equates to some 600k+ Volkssturm casualties.
 
two points
1) Germany suffered all the devastation by Strategic bombing possible without nuclear weapons, It did not surrender despite almost catastrophic damage
2) Japan was probably very close to substantial starvation from submarine blockade.
Germany was rules by a psychopath revered as a god
 
If Germany starts rebuilding its navy in the 1920s, then the British will match that production and more. I do not see how this helps Sea Lion.
in fact you do not need a navy, you need planes. As a bonus an effective naval bomber force would be able to wipe any surface combatant operating in the channel or even southern north sea. Having a strong navy is good, but not so much if you can't deny the channel to the enemy trying to invade yoy
 
in fact you do not need a navy, you need planes. As a bonus an effective naval bomber force would be able to wipe any surface combatant operating in the channel or even southern north sea. Having a strong navy is good, but not so much if you can't deny the channel to the enemy trying to invade yoy

A plane's on station time is measured in minutes. A ship's on station time is measured in days. Also the ship can service several dozen targets. A plane might be able to hit one or two. Ideally you have both present to complement and cover each other.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
I hate to interrupt a fascinating discussion of army personnel policy, but frankly, I think you're busying yourselves with secondary details.

There really are two central questions that have to be addressed in any Sea Lion discussion for an ATL, and if you can't answer these decisively, it cannot possibly matter whether the ratio of British defenders it takes to stop the German attackers is 1:1, or 5:1, or 20:1, or 50:1.

1.) What will you do to cross the channel and avoid the Royal Navy, which, unlike the army, is actually Britain's main line of defense?

2.) How will you prevent the British from easily countering whatever it is you propose to do to solve question #1?

The British have substantially more ships than the Germans and also substantially more shipbuilding capacity. "Germany should just start building landing ships," or now rocket missile ships (WTF????) apparently, presumes that the British will just observe these developments and do nothing. Why on earth would the world's largest navy allow unchallenged a potential rival to build a force capable of invading its homeland? This is absurdity. You can't just "go backwards" a few years to start the planning and assume that the British will spend those years doing nothing in response to an obviously mounting threat.

Previous threads have repeatedly demonstrated that the Sea Lion plans called, as they would have had to, for the German forces to begin assembling days prior to the actual landings. I seriously doubt there is a single historical precedent for a successful amphibious operation against a major power in the face of enemy naval superiority by said power and without the element of surprise, but perhaps someone can dredge up an example from God knows where. The almost certain reality is that upon realizing an invasion is genuinely underway the British will flood the channel with every armed ship they can find. This will result in serious losses from the Luftwaffe, but I'm guessing a few hundred military vessels can sink some barges faster than they can be sunk themselves by an air force that is still very new to the anti-shipping game.

In those threads, people speculated a number of potential ways to make the operation feasible. For instance, they have speculated that instead of invading England proper the Germans should have headed to the Isle of Wight. They have also suggested that the Germans mount anti-aircraft guns on the decks of their barges so that the barges can go toe-to-toe with Tribal-class destroyers. Want to go down that route again?

I don't want to sound too derisive here. People who ask "the Sea Lion question" have their heads in the right place for alternative history, usually anyways, but I just don't think this is the right place to spend their energy. Surely there are other important turning points in history that were much closer-run things and therefore much easier to push back and forth from an AH perspective.


Lean on Mussolini. Germany builds landing craft, big no no. Italy builds landing craft? Less so.

Italy did not function well on its own, but did have the maritime strength when coupled with Luftwaffe flights from France, and the KM to force a channel crossing.


And hell, see if you can't get the French fleet under German control. Say they make for Italy rather than their African ports.
 
Lean on Mussolini. Germany builds landing craft, big no no. Italy builds landing craft? Less so.

Italy did not function well on its own, but did have the maritime strength when coupled with Luftwaffe flights from France, and the KM to force a channel crossing.

Makes sense. After all, the motto of Italian fascism was, "We move Germans." I'm sure they'd be happy to convert their industrial production over to churning out support ships for a foreign power.

While you're at it, maybe if they ask nicely the Japanese will send their fleet to the party too.
 
Good points you all have!

What was so wrong about any Sea Mammal TL is that the Germans thought that by defeating France, the British will throw in the towel and ask for an armistice. Sea Lion was a plan of last resort and mostly a bluff.

Now here is a possibility: The Germans wargame Sea Lion well before World War 2 and determine to invade the UK they need specialized Landing Craft and a fleet around carriers. So they start building them and by the time of 1940 they possess a well equipped amphibious assault fleet and 2 Graf Zeppelin aircraft carriers. This, along with previous factors, which include Operation Dynamo failing, may force Britain to an armistice without having to set foot on the isles.
 
A couple of other factors may be necessary:
1. Spain joins the Axis and takes Gibraltar. This allows the Regia Marina go into the atlantic to buff the KM. And the RM is a very formidable force
Why do they need aircraft carriers for a cross channel assault?
Maybe to help compete against a numerically superior British Navy?
 

nbcman

Donor
Good points you all have!

What was so wrong about any Sea Mammal TL is that the Germans thought that by defeating France, the British will throw in the towel and ask for an armistice. Sea Lion was a plan of last resort and mostly a bluff.

Now here is a possibility: The Germans wargame Sea Lion well before World War 2 and determine to invade the UK they need specialized Landing Craft and a fleet around carriers. So they start building them and by the time of 1940 they possess a well equipped amphibious assault fleet and 2 Graf Zeppelin aircraft carriers. This, along with previous factors, which include Operation Dynamo failing, may force Britain to an armistice without having to set foot on the isles.

What will the Germans not be building ITTL to have to lamentably bad GZ carriers and amphibious assault vessels (not to mention they have no real experience in building and equipping either vessel type)? Less tanks? Less aircraft? Thiswill result in a stronger KM which won't be needed for invading England since the German Army and Airforce failed to win the Battle of France.
 
Good points you all have!

What was so wrong about any Sea Mammal TL is that the Germans thought that by defeating France, the British will throw in the towel and ask for an armistice. Sea Lion was a plan of last resort and mostly a bluff.

Now here is a possibility: The Germans wargame Sea Lion well before World War 2 and determine to invade the UK they need specialized Landing Craft and a fleet around carriers. So they start building them and by the time of 1940 they possess a well equipped amphibious assault fleet and 2 Graf Zeppelin aircraft carriers. This, along with previous factors, which include Operation Dynamo failing, may force Britain to an armistice without having to set foot on the isles.
Germany had no experience in building and operating a carrier, and there is no way they can get it on time, even starting in 1935
The graf zeppelin would have been a terrible carrier, and German planes were not suited for carrier operations: the Bf-109 had too light a landing gear, and giving it an heavier one would have further reduce its range.
You would need a purposedly-built version of the Fw-190 and maybe (maybe) you can give it a try.but the Fw-190 cake too late, and there is no way you can convince Goering to order more of them erlier just because the navy say so. He was di fond of his useless Bf-110s...
 
Germany had no experience in building and operating a carrier, and there is no way they can get it on time, even starting in 1935
The graf zeppelin would have been a terrible carrier, and German planes were not suited for carrier operations: the Bf-109 had too light a landing gear, and giving it an heavier one would have further reduce its range.
You would need a purposedly-built version of the Fw-190 and maybe (maybe) you can give it a try.but the Fw-190 cake too late, and there is no way you can convince Goering to order more of them erlier just because the navy say so. He was di fond of his useless Bf-110s...

Thanks for the information. Let's omit the GZs.
 
A couple of other factors may be necessary:
1. Spain joins the Axis and takes Gibraltar. This allows the Regia Marina go into the atlantic to buff the KM. And the RM is a very formidable force

Maybe to help compete against a numerically superior British Navy?

That is not logical. The British will mass their land based air and dedeck the flattops reducing them to floating bonfires. I would also think HMS Glorious might be cautionary.

Spain taking Gibraltar would also force the British to sail around the Horn of Africa to reinforce Africa, which allows the KM to inflict further losses.

How is that going to happen? Seem to remember the guy in Berlin tried to con Franco into that trick and the Caudillo told that maniac; "Jamás, nunca."
 
What if we further stipulate that France turns fascist in the 1930s with a POD of various reasons and then Britain is surprise attacked by a united continental Europe?

I mean, if Italy's going to be mass-producing Germany's navy for it and Spain's going to take Gibraltar and Germany's going to move from gun-based destroyers to guided missile destroyers, why not just commit to the bit here?
 
Last edited:
Top