Operation Sea Lion (1974 Sandhurst Wargame)

How will the Germans do it with neither and well, no ships by the looks?

Here's a dirty little secret. It doesn't actually matter if the Germans had the ships, which they don't. There isn't enough harbor capacity in the area to unload enough supplies to keep more than 1/10 of the infantry divisions supplied. And that's assuming the ports are intact.

I wonder why was the RN not sending battleships to the channel for an invation like this?

The British are a cowardly and superstitious lot by nature. Thus when the Germans attack they will undoubtedly believe the invading barges to be some form of aquatic bat, and will run terrified at the first sight of it.

Or something.

Seriously, this is page 9. Its time to wrap up arguing at a brick wall.
 
The British are a cowardly and superstitious lot by nature. Thus when the Germans attack they will undoubtedly believe the invading barges to be some form of aquatic bat, and will run terrified at the first sight of it.

Or something.

Seriously, this is page 9. Its time to wrap up arguing at a brick wall.
Thank you for such a helpful answer. Now If any body could give me an actual answer that would be helpful
 
Thank you for such a helpful answer. Now If any body could give me an actual answer that would be helpful
Oh that’s easy. There isn’t an answer. Beyond “because if the British send battleships then it’s all over borderline instantly”. So if you’re working from the starting point that the invasion happens no battleships can show up.
 

nbcman

Donor
Thank you for such a helpful answer. Now If any body could give me an actual answer that would be helpful
Your question about RN not sending a battleship to the Channel was answered in post 30. There was one there. Please read the thread before making another iteration of a previously debunked unfounded claims on what the RN wouldn’t do.
 
Last edited:
So can we just accept that the Germans wouldn't make it accros in sufficient numbers to threaten the UK seriously and that the RN and RAF would gladly fight and die to make sure that it's a crippling military disaster for the Germans if they were to attempt this insanity?.
 

Deleted member 94680

So can we just accept that the Germans wouldn't make it accros in sufficient numbers to threaten the UK seriously and that the RN and RAF would gladly fight and die to make sure that it's a crippling military disaster for the Germans if they were to attempt this insanity?.

Never! It will never be accepted that a vastly superior - both qualitively and quantitively - military force with an overwhelming advantage in morale and training for exactly the posited situation under discussion will defeat an inferior force with ad-hoc formations, makeshift equipment and a complete lack of in-depth training for the scenario! Never I tell you! Never... *breaks down sobbing, thumping the desk*
 
People talk about the LW being able to protect against the RN and seem to forget the main RN strikes would be going in at Night, these barges even setting out at Dawn do not get to Kent etc till the next day. It is a literal slaughter with many German barges effectively sinking/disabling themselves ( tows lost, collisions , shooting other barges up etc ). Once formation has been lost, it will not be regained so protecting them is pretty impossible as they spread out over the channel and get picked off
 
I know the outcome of this kriegsspiel is considered sacrosanct by the British members of this board, but I have some questions raised by the Wikipedia article and other material and most of the links there have long since died.

The game was played as a time-accelerated real-time match, characteristic of kreigsspiel, with the Germans declining to launch their first echelon on the first two simulated days. However, British ground forces were able to use those days to immediately begin the movement of reinforcements to the South East, largely negating the Luftwaffe's destruction of the railroads in Kent and Sussex. The British therefore had a two-day head start rather than the two-day late start they might have had if they began the movement of forces upon confirmation of a German landing along the entire Kent/Sussex front rather than concentrated around Dover. Did this movement of British forces happen in OTL September 1940, or would it have occurred upon confirmation of German embarkation or landing? The German assault points would not have been immediately known, so reinforcing units would have had to have been routed via staging points, likely south of the Surrey Hills, before moving directly to confront advancing German forces.

It's well known that, in the game, the German second echelon was stopped by a British force of 17 cruisers and 57 destroyers. We also know that the Home Fleet would not have sent battleships into the Channel unless the Germans sent their own battleships in. Where did these cruisers and destroyers come from? Was it the equivalent of the Great War Harwich Force? I find it hard to believe that the Home Fleet would have left their battleships alone in Scapa Flow, especially if they were concerned about a possible attempt by German battleships and cruisers to break out into the Atlantic.

The limitations of the unpowered invasion barges are well known, although I have also seen claims that such barges can be used in up to Sea State 5. Apparently, there were different shipping plans discovered after the 1974 wargame that implied the use of more than four thousand ships, including many powered ships, rather than the approximately 1,500 river barges used in the wargame. Is there anywhere to find more information about that?

I have also heard complaints about the inability of the German side to use the Luftwaffe for close air support as had been done in France, the fact that German air attacks were concentrated on London, ostensibly in some sort of attempt to draw off RAF fighters, and the fact that the Germans either did not or were not allowed to use captured airstrips in the South East as bases or even as pseudo-FARPs.
While it's all well and good going over the same ground time and time again about the inability of the Germans to successfully conquer Britain I believe this thread is actually about the 1974 Wargame of Operation Sealion. It seems a lot of peoples perceptions of that wargame are based on a summary that is from an unknown source, produced at an unknown time and by an unknown author (unless someone knows differently??). It might be worth looking more closely at that summary to see what it actually is. Below is a copy of that summary with some notes added by myself.

Operation Sealion - summary of an exercise held at the Staff College, Sandhurst in 1974.

[My Notes: The above title is a little misleading as the following is actually a summary of the book 'Sealion' by Richard Cox, effectively a dramatized version of the wargame. It does not completely match the original article printed in the Daily Telegraph Magazine dated May 17th 1974 which gives a report on the proceedings of the game, or subsequent notes produced by the game designer, Paddy Griffiths, clarifying some of the points raised in the article.]

(The full text is in 'Sealion' by Richard Cox. The scenario is based on the known plans of each side, plus previously unpublished Admiralty weather records for September 1940.)

Each side (played by British and German officers respectively) was based in a command room, and the actual moves plotted on a scale model of SE England constructed at the School of Infantry. The panel of umpires included Adolf Galland, Admiral Friedrich Ruge, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, Rear Admiral Edward Gueritz, General Heinz Trettner and Major General Glyn Gilbert.

The main problem the Germans face is that are

a) the Luftwaffe has not yet won air supremacy;

b) the possible invasion dates are constrained by the weather and tides (for a high water attack) and

c) it has taken until late September to assemble the necessary shipping.

Glossary

FJ = Fallschirmjaeger (German paratroops)

MTB = Motor Torpedo Boat (German equivalent, E-Boat)

DD = Destroyer

CA = Heavy Cruiser

BB = Battleship

CV = Aircraft Carrier

[My Notes: There is no mention in the book summary of the initial period of the game which started (in game time) on 19th September. It was decided by the German players that the weather was not suitable to launch the invasion up until the night of 21st September. This gave the British players time to redeploy four divisions to East Anglia and the South East and bring the Home Guard under regular army control. As a result (possibly) of the inclusion of a map showing just a portion of the UK, something added by the Daily Telegraph and not sanctioned by the game designer, it became obvious that the German diversion attempts were not real and therefore the British players were able to ignore such diversions. They refused to despatch troops to Iceland for instance where the Germans had landed 10,000 men to act as a threat to Scotland and north eastern England because these portions of the UK were not on the game board.]

22nd September - morning


The first wave of a planned 330,000 men hit the beaches at dawn. Elements of 9 divisions landed between Folkestone and Rottingdean (near Brighton). In addition, 7th FJ Div landed at Lympne to take the airfield.

The invasion fleet suffered minor losses from MTBs during the night crossing, but the RN had already lost one CA and three DDs sunk, with one CA and two DDs damaged, whilst sinking three German DDs. Within hours of the landings which overwhelmed the beach defenders, reserve formations were despatched to Kent. Although there were 25 divisions in the UK, only 17 were fully equipped, and only three were based in Kent, however the defence plan relied on the use of mobile reserves and armoured and mechanised brigades were committed as soon as the main landings were identified.

[My Notes: 20 barges were sunk and a further 20 set adrift in the MTB attack. The original text says HMS Manchester and four escorting destroyers were sunk after they had set sail from Portsmouth and were ambushed by the KMs western flank force of nine destroyers.]

Meanwhile the air battle raged, the Luftwaffe flew 1200 fighter and 800 bomber sorties before 1200 hrs. The RAF even threw in training planes hastily armed with bombs, but the Luftwaffe were already having problems with their short ranged Me 109s despite cramming as many as possible into the Pas de Calais.

[My Notes: The original states that this was only an issue on the western flank where the 109s were based around Cherbourg and therefore had further to travel. Additionally, the original text reports “German minefields sink several British destroyers as they speed past Ramsgate to intercept the invasion fleet on the morning of September 22.” There is also no mention of further German naval losses.]

22nd - 23rd September

The Germans had still not captured a major port, although they started driving for Folkestone. Shipping unloading on the beaches suffered heavy losses from RAF bombing raids and then further losses at their ports in France.

The U-Boats, Luftwaffe and few surface ships had lost contact with the RN, but then a cruiser squadron with supporting DDs entered the Channel narrows and had to run the gauntlet of long range coastal guns, E-Boats and 50 Stukas. Two CAs were sunk and one damaged. However a diversionary German naval sortie from Norway was completely destroyed and other sorties by MTBS and DDs inflicted losses on the shipping milling about in the Channel. German shipping losses on the first day amounted to over 25% of their invasion fleet, especially the barges, which proved desperately unseaworthy.

[My Notes: I can find no mention of any of the above in the original report, nothing about further British losses or that 25% of the invasion fleet was lost. The only mention of any note in the original text occurs on 23rd September “Meanwhile a second German diversionary attack, this time trying to block the docks at Hartlepool, is a failure”. Is it possible that the rest has been added to the book for dramatic effect?]

23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs.

The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and 70 bombers), and the navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back, but large forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a German buildup in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to the South West.

The German Navy were despondant about their losses, especially as the loss of barges was seriously dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for the transfer of the next echelon continued along with the air transport of 22nd Div, despite Luftwaffe losses of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides overestimated losses inflicted by 50%.

[My Notes: The original puts losses up to this stage at 133 RAF and 281 Luftwaffe not 237 and 333. It has been suggested several times that these losses appear unrealistically high but I have always assumed that such losses have included damaged aircraft that would not be immediately available to resume battle. If you use statistics from the Battle of Britain roughly 50% of RAF casualties were repairable meaning total losses in a single day of about 66; and the text does not specify that all losses were amongst fighters. On the German side total losses were typically about 2/3 of casualties which puts total losses at about 187 including at least 29 Ju52s. To me the Luftwaffe losses do seem high but probably not outside the range of possibility.]

The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although long range artillery fire directed by a stay-behind commando group interdicted the runways. The first British counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured brigade halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings. 7th Panzer Div was having difficulty with extensive anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed with sticky bombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken Newhaven (the only German port), however the New Zealand Div arrived at Folkestone only to be attacked in the rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on Dover having lost 35% casualties.

[My Notes: The attack on Folkestone was conducted by elements of 7th Fliegerdivision and a battalion of glider borne troops tasked first with capturing the airfield at Hawkinge then encircling and capturing the port. At Newhaven there is no mention of the town being re-captured only that the severity of counter attacks was making it impossible for the Germans to unload.]

Sep 23rd 1400 - 1900 hrs

Throughout the day the Luftwaffe put up a maximum effort, with 1500 fighter and 460 bomber sorties, but the RAF persisted in attacks on shipping and airfields. Much of this effort was directed for ground support and air resupply, despite Adm Raeders request for more aircover over the Channel. The Home Fleet had pulled out of air range however, leaving the fight in the hands of 57 DDs and 17 CAs plus MTBs. The Germans could put very little surface strength against this. Waves of DDs and Cas entered the Channel, and although two were sunk by U-Boats, they sank one U-Boat in return and did not stop. The German flotilla at Le Havre put to sea (3 DD, 14 E-Boats) and at dusk intercepted the British, but were wiped out, losing all their DDs and 7 E-Boats.

The Germans now had 10 divisions ashore, but in many cases these were incomplete and waiting for their second echelon to arrive that night. The weather was unsuitable for the barges however, and the decision to sail was referred up the chain of command.

23rd Sep 1900 - Sep 24th dawn

The Fuhrer Conference held at 1800 broke out into bitter inter-service rivalry - the Army wanted their second echelon sent, and the navy protesting that the weather was unsuitable, and the latest naval defeat rendered the Channel indefensible without air support. Goring countered this by saying it could only be done by stopped the terror bombing of London, which in turn Hitler vetoed. The fleet was ordered to stand by.

[My Notes: The original text says nothing about inter-service rivalry, in fact it states clearly that all three services were in total agreement that a withdrawal at this point was the only course of action. The umpire playing the role of Hitler flew into a rage and ordered an assassination attempt on Churchill which fails. By the next morning the second wave of troops still in French ports had disembarked and the barges and transports were being readied for a ‘Dunkirk in reverse’.]

The RAF meanwhile had lost 97 more fighters leaving only 440. The airfields of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and once more the threat of collapse, which had receded in early September, was looming. The Luftwaffe had lost another 71 fighters and 142 bombers. Again both sides overestimated losses inflicted, even after allowing for inflated figures.

On the ground the Germans made good progress towards Dover and towards Canterbury, however they suffered reverses around Newhaven when the 45th Div and Australians attacked. At 2150 Hitler decided to launch the second wave, but only the short crossing from Calais and Dunkirk. By the time the order reached the ports, the second wave could not possibly arrive before dawn. The 6th and 8th divisions at Newhaven, supplied from Le Havre, would not be reinforced at all.

Sep 24th dawn - Sep 28th

The German fleet set sail, the weather calmed, and U-Boats, E-Boats and fighters covered them. However at daylight 5th destroyer flotilla found the barges still 10 miles off the coast and tore them to shreds. The Luftwaffe in turn committed all its remaining bombers, and the RAF responded with 19 squadrons of fighters. The Germans disabled two CAs and four DDs, but 65% of the barges were sunk. The faster steamers broke away and headed for Folkestone, but the port had been so badly damaged that they could only unload two at a time.

The failure on the crossing meant that the German situation became desperate. The divisions had sufficient ammunition for 2 to 7 days more fighting, but without extra men and equipment could not extend the bridgehead. Hitler ordered the deployment on reserve units to Poland and the Germans began preparations for an evacuation as further British arracks hemmed them in tighter. Fast steamers and car ferries were assembled for evacuation via Rye and Folkestone. Of 90,000 troops who landed on 22nd september, only 15,400 returned to France, the rest were killed or captured.

[My Notes: The above appears to be mostly fiction as attempts to withdraw troops began on 24th September rather than attempts to reinforce and resupply those already in England. The text states that only 60,000 troops were landed by sea and 8000 by air on 22nd September with reinforcements bringing the total up to 90,000 by the time of the withdrawal. Of those, 9,400 were evacuated from Folkestone and a further 6,600 (16,000 in total) from other locations over the next 48 hours. Fighting continued in pockets up to 28th September but eventually 32,000 Germans were captured and presumably the remaining 42,000 were killed. From the original text “…the umpires' final summing up concluded that the verdict was broadly correct. 'Without air superiority such operations are impossible,' asserted Trettner.”]
 
What armed invasion fleet (see above) armed doesn't just mean has guns, are they usable guns, are they usable when you rolling on seas you not designed for at 2-4knts and firing at actual warships travelling at 15-20knts.

The guns of the invasion fleet are completely useless in a sea battle, except for two things - (1) they force the attacking warships to stay at a longer range than otherwise would be the case; (2), they can degrade the effect of air attack.

Also what escorts, what heavy air support. or rather you seem to have forgotten the if there is the LW around then there is likely the RAF around as well, similarly if you now talking about the KM running escort than well so will the RN larger ships.

The RAF in September 1940 can stop the LW from flying thousands of bombing sorties into the Channel against RN warships, can it? Not a chance.

In terms of escorts, Sealion had few warships but dozens or hundreds of auxiliary types - minesweepers, sloops, gunplatforms. These were completely ineffective as warships to win sea battles - so no need for you to beat that dead horse again - but for convoy escort they would absorb the attention (and time) of the attacking forces.

Also you forgetting or ignoring that you talking a bout a flotilla travelling 2-4knts, this impacts on everything, an actual KM warship trying to escort this will either be travelling at 2-4km itself (and thus a sitting duck) or will have to be running loops around the flotilla at higher speed. Similarly the LW will have to escort the same slow moving fleet which means they will have to loiter over the channel for 2 days (or rather they will in fact stagger themselves to provide continuous cover thus diluting thier force and as per the ships above will be sitting ducks)

No one is "forgetting" anything. The Sandhurst result against the 2nd wave was that 75 RN warships go into the Channel in daylight and sink something like 1,500 barges and in the process don't lose a single warship to air attack or in naval actions. Is that attritional result to the naval battle realistic, or did the umpires just pull it out of their ass?


case 1. Barques are a lot faster and generally more seaworthy than river barges....<philibuster snip>….

You didn't answer the question, which is very straightforward:

Case 1. A DD vs. 10 barques in daylight and none of the barques are armed.
Case 2. A DD vs. 10 ships in daylight armed with: 6 x 20mm, 4x40mm, 4x50mm, 4x75mm.

Question - what is the optimal engagement range for the destroyer in Case 1? What is the optimal engagement range for the DD in Case 2?

Just answer the question by saying

Case 1: X yards.
Case 2: Y yards.
 
So can we just accept that the Germans wouldn't make it accros in sufficient numbers to threaten the UK seriously and that the RN and RAF would gladly fight and die to make sure that it's a crippling military disaster for the Germans if they were to attempt this insanity?.

That's four different things. Let's break it out.

1. The Germans wouldn't make it across in sufficient numbers. (Add, the German invasion formations would also be too badly dispersed, they would lose cohesion and hence be too confused to deliver sufficient 'punch').
2. The RN and RAF would gladly fight and die.
3. The Germans would suffer a crippling military disaster.
4. The attempt would be insanity.

Answers -

1. - you are quite likely correct in the case of Sealion, a 4kt barge invasion, that the result would be failure.
2. - The RN and RAF would fight hard to stop an invasion, but in the end, the responsibility to thwart it was the British army's.
3. - The Germans would not suffer a crippling military disaster regardless of the result.
4. - Given the threat of Anglo-American strategic air attack, and the rank stupidity of the only other military option (invasion of Russia), it was not at all insane to have actively tested the Sealion premise.

In 1915 the British army in France commenced with its strategy of offensives against the German positions. From 1915 to 1917, every attempt by the British ended in failure with massive casualties. Yet, they persisted. From Loos in 1915 all the way through to Cambrai in 1917, the BEF continued to attack, take Sealion level casualties, fail in its objective, then try again. So the BEF can take 450,000 casualties at the Somme, but the Germans can't take 75,000 failing at Sealion? A bit absurd, the idea that Sealion cannot be attempted, when put that way, no? Haig can suffer 450,000 casualties on the Somme without missing a beat in just one campaign, but the German army somehow can't risk 75,000?

My conclusion is that in 1940, regardless of the well understood operational difficulties in a naval campaign, the overall strategic situation for Germany said Sealion, and if Sealion failed, then Sealion II, and if that failed, then Sealion III, repeat again and again, until success (ie, the British agree to end the war), or the US enters the war. Just like for the BEF in France how the strategic situation also said attack, attack, attack.
 
Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, why is the invasion of Russia such rank stupidity? The Germans had after all defeated the Russians in the previous war (yes I know there was a change of government in Russia) and had just defeated France in six weeks, something they couldn't do in four years in the previous war. Given that they had just easily defeated a country they couldn't defeat in 1914-1918, why wouldn't they assume they could then turn their attention to Russia and at a minimum get a result similar to the one they obtained three decades earlier?

Again, nobody gets to travel back in time and give Hitler and his generals any books about OTL WW2.
 
Last edited:
Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, why is the invasion of Russia such rank stupidity?

It isn't stupid, this is just Glenn's opinion, to be filed along side Operation Wightlowe.

Attacking the USSR was in fact the only correct strategy once Hitler realised that he could not win the war against Britain before the US industrial mobilisation was complete. If it sounds like a desperate strategy, it's because Germany's strategic situation after the failure of the BoB was nothing short of catastrophic.
 
My conclusion is that in 1940, regardless of the well understood operational difficulties in a naval campaign, the overall strategic situation for Germany said Sealion, and if Sealion failed, then Sealion II, and if that failed, then Sealion III, repeat again and again, until success (ie, the British agree to end the war), or the US enters the war.

When you say things like this, do you intend them to be taken seriously?

How can Germany possibly launch a second Sealion (let alone a third) when the means with which to do so are on the bottom of the Channel?
 
In 1915 the British army in France commenced with its strategy of offensives against the German positions. From 1915 to 1917, every attempt by the British ended in failure with massive casualties. Yet, they persisted. From Loos in 1915 all the way through to Cambrai in 1917, the BEF continued to attack, take Sealion level casualties, fail in its objective, then try again. So the BEF can take 450,000 casualties at the Somme, but the Germans can't take 75,000 failing at Sealion? A bit absurd, the idea that Sealion cannot be attempted, when put that way, no? Haig can suffer 450,000 casualties on the Somme without missing a beat in just one campaign, but the German army somehow can't risk 75,000?

My conclusion is that in 1940, regardless of the well understood operational difficulties in a naval campaign, the overall strategic situation for Germany said Sealion, and if Sealion failed, then Sealion II, and if that failed, then Sealion III, repeat again and again, until success (ie, the British agree to end the war), or the US enters the war. Just like for the BEF in France how the strategic situation also said attack, attack, attack.

In World War 1 the UK was constantly attempting new ideas to try and break through the German lines - you can see the evolution of equipment from the early days in 1915 through the introduction of helmets, tanks, gas warfare and other things to the war winning army of 1918. You can also see the changes in tactics with things like the change from long artillery barrages to creeping barrages, improvements in artillery recce lessening the requirements for pre-registration, the development of armoured tactics into Blitzkreig style spearheads breaking through to allow exploitation by follow up forces, close air support etc etc. The Germans are literally worse equipped to attempt an invasion of the UK than the Spanish were in 1588 and don't have the luxury of time to develop new ideas as the British had in 1915 - 18.

There's also the small point that the British in WW1 weren't planning to follow up victory over Germany with invading Russia/the Soviet Union whereas Germany in 1940 were planning on doing just that meaning that the heavy losses in experienced men, equipment, aircraft etc are going to severely degrade their abilities to attack the USSR.

There would never be a Sealion II. They would likely lose literally their entire navy in Sealion I, cripple their industry, destroy their air force as a fighting force, kill a very large majority of Europe's experienced sailors and destroy military and civil morale. Any idea that they could ever rebuild and make a second attempt is utter fantasy. Germany will be bankrupt and defeated long, long before they can ever make a second attempt at invading the UK after their first humiliation.
 
Last edited:
I wonder why was the RN not sending battleships to the channel for an invation like this?

There was the battleship at Plymouth. I don't think the RN would want to, or need to, send a battleship into the channel itself. Not unless the Germans somehow have their own battleship (but not a pre-dreadnaught) in the Channel, or things are desperate for the British. There are bombers, subs, torpedo boats, and mines, all looking for a big juicy target. Not to mention the stray torpedoes and mines on both sides. Cruisers are just as good, if not better, for battling in the Channel, than battleships. Think of Guadalcanal and the Slot, where battleships were only sent out of shear necessity and desperation.
 
When you say things like this, do you intend them to be taken seriously?

How can Germany possibly launch a second Sealion (let alone a third) when the means with which to do so are on the bottom of the Channel?

Glenn has repeatedly shown the delusion that amphibious assets do not, in fact, take years and years to replace.

Attacking the USSR was in fact the only correct strategy once Hitler realised that he could not win the war against Britain before the US industrial mobilisation was complete.

Well, that's without hindsight. With hindsight, we know that there was no real correct strategy since the USSR wasn't the rotten structure Hitler and company thought it was. To be sure, engaging Britain in a long-war with America backing it up also didn't offer a realistic prospect for victory but then that's because Germany's strategic situation was, as you said, terrible.
 
Kick
You didn't answer the question, which is very straightforward:

Case 1. A DD vs. 10 barques in daylight and none of the barques are armed.
Case 2. A DD vs. 10 ships in daylight armed with: 6 x 20mm, 4x40mm, 4x50mm, 4x75mm.

Question - what is the optimal engagement range for the destroyer in Case 1? What is the optimal engagement range for the DD in Case 2?

Just answer the question by saying

Case 1: X yards.
Case 2: Y yards.

No no ducky, you're the one trying to make the point whilst dreaming about Rommels ass in tight lederhosen, so its your job to try and prove it. Also please let us know about the fire control systems and the training that these german gunners underwent on these barges and how good a gun platform they are. Also please let us know how much training they have had in hitting a 34 - 36 knot moving target from a platform like a barge, at night, with no fire control direction and you can tell us their hit rates and averages.

Also these engagements would be at night. because the RN wasn't stupid.
 
Glenn has repeatedly shown the delusion that amphibious assets do not, in fact, take years and years to replace.

To be fair, if the "amphibious" assets are just a bunch of barges they probably don't. Just cut down some trees and lash the logs together. Heck, they've got the whole Black Forest at their disposal.

With hindsight, we know that there was no real correct strategy since the USSR wasn't the rotten structure Hitler and company thought it was.

And in all seriousness to be fair to the Nazis, they weren't the only one who thought that.
 
Last edited:
Top