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

Exercise Tiger.

Now that happened in the face of absolute naval and air superiority. Imagine it going the other way with large unwieldy barge trains towed by tugs and the same lack of close escort forces?
 
Napoleon had some good ideas...

chunnel_invasion.jpg

Fulton had some good ones. Napoleon oddly enough turned him down. Just saying...
 
Exercise Tiger.

Now that happened in the face of absolute naval and air superiority. Imagine it going the other way with large unwieldy barge trains towed by tugs and the same lack of close escort forces?
Yes, but the German military was professional and fearless, whereas if the barges had anti-tank guns on them, it probably would have frightened off the RN.

Honestly, as usual, after a few pages this thread has gone much the same as a Sea Lion thread usually does: increasing certainty that there are no good alternatives for the Germans, punctuated by the occasional fanciful and on second look obviously unworkable idea from the never-give-up brigade.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Yes, but the German military was professional and fearless, whereas if the barges had anti-tank guns on them, it probably would have frightened off the RN.

Honestly, as usual, after a few pages this thread has gone much the same as a Sea Lion thread usually does: increasing certainty that there are no good alternatives for the Germans, punctuated by the occasional fanciful and on second look obviously unworkable idea from the never-give-up brigade.

Are you serious? Germany and Italy had quite friendly relations in the 30's.

Italy had industrial shortcomings, but no restrictions on arms development, and Germany the opposite.

And Italy on her own would benefit from a greater logistical capacity.



Now clearly this doesn't translate to the RN being swept from the seas, but it does mean there was the potential for them to be only a few bad turns away from losing their grip on the seas for a few years.
 

Ian_W

Banned
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.

Those of us who arent perennial bullshit artists immediately note the RN would notice Germany building "a well equipped amphibious assault fleet", and would pull out a map and consider which power Germany could be aiming it at. /clue/ Germany has land borders with France and Russia, and a sea border with the UK /endclue/.
 
Those of us who arent perennial bullshit artists immediately note the RN would notice Germany building "a well equipped amphibious assault fleet", and would pull out a map and consider which power Germany could be aiming it at. /clue/ Germany has land borders with France and Russia, and a sea border with the UK /endclue/.
Ah yes, but the new wrinkle in this thread is that Italy will be building the landing craft, not Germany, and since the Royal Navy can't see over the Alps, they won't notice what's happening until it's too late.
 
There are German casualties in the last cite. From a German source. Rudiger. And about Rudiger.

Rudiger Overman, YMMV> I happen to apply the 1 in 2 rule myself. Even so, (cut his claims in half for HeilBronn) that is still a hefty and appalling casualty rate among VS units and is in line with American estimates of casualties inflicted in THAT operation.

This quote is from Endkampf: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Death of the Third Reich by Stephen G. Fritz, it is referring to battles for Aschaffenburg, Crailsheim, Heilbron, Nuremberg, etc. because it is talking about the region 'bounded by the Main and Neckar Rivers'. A source btw that in consecutive paragraphs starts speculating as to how many German army deaths there were at Nuremberg (note the word 'likely' is used to describe this denoting they are making it up). Anyways it says nothing about casualties for Heilbron, specifically.

And if this is the part of the article you are referring to in the last link

Its men had killed or disabled at least as many Germans—undoubtedly, many more—and taken 1,800 prisoners.

Seems clear to me that the author has no clue what they are talking about and are just speculating because they cannot even decide if it is as many as US losses or 'many more'.

Roberto Muehlenkamp seems to contrive figures for German and US army losses.
 

Philip

Donor
and since the Royal Navy can't see over the Alps, they won't notice what's happening until it's too late.

Let's pretend that none of the RN ships in the Med miss all this. How does this invasion fleet sneak by Gibraltar on its way to pick up the Germans? What's to stop the RN from intercepting it?
 
This quote is from Endkampf: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Death of the Third Reich by Stephen G. Fritz, it is referring to battles for Aschaffenburg, Crailsheim, Heilbron, Nuremberg, etc. because it is talking about the region 'bounded by the Main and Neckar Rivers'. A source btw that in consecutive paragraphs starts speculating as to how many German army deaths there were at Nuremberg (note the word 'likely' is used to describe this denoting they are making it up). Anyways it says nothing about casualties for Heilbron, specifically.

And if this is the part of the article you are referring to in the last link



Seems clear to me that the author has no clue what they are talking about and are just speculating because they cannot even decide if it is as many as US losses or 'many more'.

Roberto Muehlenkamp seems to contrive figures for German and US army losses.

The Historian doesn't know what he is talking about? Interesting. Edward Longacre is his name.

HERE.

and


I would suggest he knows a hell of a lot more than you or I do on the subject.
 
Think we have hit the final issue with Sealion threads , getting to the point that the POD's are so big that it might as well be ASB. A POD that gets Italy to send its fleet out of the Med, requires the British Med Fleet to be sunk , Gibraltar and Malta neutralized and the RN not to realize whats happening and so not reinforce the Home fleet.
A POD that gives Germany a proper amphibious fleet in time requires it to occur far enough back that it , unless both the French and British are drinking lead paint, either causes WW2 to start in 1938 ( no backing down on Czechoslovakia due to Germany telegraphing its non peaceful intent) or needs Germany not to lose WW1 ( white peace ).
 
The Historian doesn't know what he is talking about? Interesting. Edward Longacre is his name.

HERE.

and


I would suggest he knows a hell of a lot more than you or I do on the subject.

Not about German casualties at Heilbron, either because the information isn't there, incomplete, he didn't find it, whatever. I did a search of his book for casualties figures and didn't find anything for German casualties. American, yes, not German. There is an off chance he talks about it in his lecture you linked, but I doubt it because you haven't pointed it out.
 
Think we have hit the final issue with Sealion threads , getting to the point that the POD's are so big that it might as well be ASB. A POD that gets Italy to send its fleet out of the Med, requires the British Med Fleet to be sunk , Gibraltar and Malta neutralized and the RN not to realize whats happening and so not reinforce the Home fleet.
A POD that gives Germany a proper amphibious fleet in time requires it to occur far enough back that it , unless both the French and British are drinking lead paint, either causes WW2 to start in 1938 ( no backing down on Czechoslovakia due to Germany telegraphing its non peaceful intent) or needs Germany not to lose WW1 ( white peace ).
I take it my very reasonable proposal that Germany try to cut destroyer construction time down to three days and start pumping destroyers out of new shipyards along the Rhine?

If so, perhaps the time has arrived in this thread's evolution to suggest that if the Germans occupy the Isle of Wight it would scare Britain into surrendering.
 
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.

for crying out loud, my intention was never to get on the side advocating for a successful sealion. I just thought I'd make mention that there exists asymmetric styles of naval war that would flip the British approach to naval war on its head. But what you all seem to misunderstand is that in that very post I dismissed at as ASB in so many words because it would take a not insignificant leap in weapons tech (yes, I looked up the German antiship missiles on wikipedia and was not impressed). I don't think you really know what you are talking about when you say that there is something the British could do to counter such a thing, but I am not going to argue it because I already said, obvious to anyone that can read, that it was beyond the means of the day in terms of weapons tech.
 
Not about German casualties at Heilbron, either because the information isn't there, incomplete, he didn't find it, whatever. I did a search of his book for casualties figures and didn't find anything for German casualties. American, yes, not German. There is an off chance he talks about it in his lecture you linked, but I doubt it because you haven't pointed it out.

You did a search of his book? And yet you questioned his article on Heilbronn where he does give the casualties?

I hope you read the LAST PARAGRAPH of that article.

US: 60 killed, 215 wounded, 112 missing.

Germans: same again with 1500 prisoners out of a regimental sized action.

IOW... He does give numbers.

And he also does so in his book "War in the Ruins"
 
for crying out loud, my intention was never to get on the side advocating for a successful sealion. I just thought I'd make mention that there exists asymmetric styles of naval war that would flip the British approach to naval war on its head. But what you all seem to misunderstand is that in that very post I dismissed at as ASB in so many words because it would take a not insignificant leap in weapons tech (yes, I looked up the German antiship missiles on wikipedia and was not impressed). I don't think you really know what you are talking about when you say that there is something the British could do to counter such a thing, but I am not going to argue it because I already said, obvious to anyone that can read, that it was beyond the means of the day in terms of weapons tech.
That is precisely my point: it's a little bit unsporting to give the Germans some technological edge they couldn't plausibly ever get to and deny the British a similar opportunity. Anyway, since we aren't really in fundamental disagreement, I won't press this.

We might as well ask whether Sea Lion's chances go up or down if the British have tactical nuclear weapons.
 

nbcman

Donor
They stay about the same.
Looks like quote is broke. The statement about tac nukes is from DaveBC:
That is precisely my point: it's a little bit unsporting to give the Germans some technological edge they couldn't plausibly ever get to and deny the British a similar opportunity. Anyway, since we aren't really in fundamental disagreement, I won't press this.

We might as well ask whether Sea Lion's chances go up or down if the British have tactical nuclear weapons.
 
Top