Operation Sealion - intervention of Japanese or Italian navies.
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
Or course, taking Gibralter and getting the Italian and French Fleets in the Channel isn't going to ensure you a successful Sealion. What it will do though, is to delay Barbarossa by quite a while, which means that the USSR will have probably several more months of full-strength reinforcing behind them by the time you hit them, which is not going to be good for the Nazis.
Let's accept the somewhat absurd diplomatic handwaving.
Yeah, if the Germans can get artillery into position they can silence Gib. But we're likely talking at least a month (probably longer) to get the necessary units reorganized after the Battle of France and moved through Spain and into position to commence the bombardment, plus at least another month to actually silence the British gun batteries (and even longer to soften the rock up to the point you can capture it). That pushes the break out of the Italian fleet until at least September, probably October 1940.
What was the state of the Italian fleet during mid to late 1940? Two Battleships fully worked up after major rebuilds in the mid-1930s (both suriving Conte di Caviour class vessels); two Battleships in the process of returning to service after major rebuilds (Andrea Doria class, both recomissioned in October 1940) and two Battleships fresh off the slip and in the process of fitting out (the first two Littorio class, both declared operational in August 1940). Assuming Taranto isn't moved forwards by the british it's only realistic to assume four of those six ships will be available for the break-out. On top of that, with modern AP shells the British 15 inch 42 calibre gun could quite happily put a shell clean through the 10 inch belt armour of the Conte di Caviours and Andrea Dorias out to 28,000 yards...
Japan... well, even given American neutrality they're not going to want to send much of their fleet west. Given the logistical issues involved this is probably just as well. I'd expect you'd get maybe two of their capital ships a carrier and escorts (they had 10 BBs in service in 1940, send more than 2 and they start to become seriously outnumbered by the USN Pacific Fleet)... Add in that we're likely talking a month or more to plan the voyage and at least two months in transit, taking a late June 1940 PoD (when France is sufficiently on the ropes Japan has reason to stick it's neck out), we're talking at least early October 1940 before they reach the North Atlantic.
So, to summerise, even given the handwaving the axis would be pressed to get more than 6 capital ships in theater... in theory matching the British Home Fleet. In practise, the Poms are also able to pull their own ships back from other theaters, rapidly reestablishing their own numerical supperiority (with Gib gone Force H would be pulled back... with the Italians moving most of their fleet out of the Med the British can do likewise). Add in the relative weakness of at least two of the Italian ships...
Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect those ships to arrive prior to October 1940, by which point the RAF has already established a clear edge in the Battle of Britain and the Germans were talking of delaying any invasion until 1941 due to the expected winter weather.
In short, a good way to burn fuel and provide the RN with target practise. Not so helpful at actually getting the Germans ashore.
Yeah, if the Germans can get artillery into position they can silence Gib. But we're likely talking at least a month (probably longer) to get the necessary units reorganized after the Battle of France and moved through Spain and into position to commence the bombardment, plus at least another month to actually silence the British gun batteries (and even longer to soften the rock up to the point you can capture it). That pushes the break out of the Italian fleet until at least September, probably October 1940.
What was the state of the Italian fleet during mid to late 1940? Two Battleships fully worked up after major rebuilds in the mid-1930s (both suriving Conte di Caviour class vessels); two Battleships in the process of returning to service after major rebuilds (Andrea Doria class, both recomissioned in October 1940) and two Battleships fresh off the slip and in the process of fitting out (the first two Littorio class, both declared operational in August 1940). Assuming Taranto isn't moved forwards by the british it's only realistic to assume four of those six ships will be available for the break-out. On top of that, with modern AP shells the British 15 inch 42 calibre gun could quite happily put a shell clean through the 10 inch belt armour of the Conte di Caviours and Andrea Dorias out to 28,000 yards...
Japan... well, even given American neutrality they're not going to want to send much of their fleet west. Given the logistical issues involved this is probably just as well. I'd expect you'd get maybe two of their capital ships a carrier and escorts (they had 10 BBs in service in 1940, send more than 2 and they start to become seriously outnumbered by the USN Pacific Fleet)... Add in that we're likely talking a month or more to plan the voyage and at least two months in transit, taking a late June 1940 PoD (when France is sufficiently on the ropes Japan has reason to stick it's neck out), we're talking at least early October 1940 before they reach the North Atlantic.
So, to summerise, even given the handwaving the axis would be pressed to get more than 6 capital ships in theater... in theory matching the British Home Fleet. In practise, the Poms are also able to pull their own ships back from other theaters, rapidly reestablishing their own numerical supperiority (with Gib gone Force H would be pulled back... with the Italians moving most of their fleet out of the Med the British can do likewise). Add in the relative weakness of at least two of the Italian ships...
Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect those ships to arrive prior to October 1940, by which point the RAF has already established a clear edge in the Battle of Britain and the Germans were talking of delaying any invasion until 1941 due to the expected winter weather.
In short, a good way to burn fuel and provide the RN with target practise. Not so helpful at actually getting the Germans ashore.
This, and the Japanese sending a fleet to Europe to support Germany would really piss the United States off, probably resulting in an earlier oil embargo, and the Two Ocean Act would be starting in full force in 1940. For more information on why that's very, very bad for Japan, see Calbear's Pacific War Redux.
Political bats, military butterflies
The debate in this thread keeps getting back to plausability, so a few notes on recent comments:
1. Subs - If we discount some isolated German succeses, in the first half of the war subs have little to show as "fleet stoppers" But even if they had, by mid 1940 the RN had pulled its submarine force from the pacifc and Indian Oceans, and would be unable to redeploy in time in the (admitedly absurd) strategic conditions givem in the (multiple) pods.
2. The political PODs are not plausible. Portugal, usally described as a "fascist" regime, is better described as a right wing authoritarian regime. It had nothing to do with Italian Fascism, wich Salazar probably regarded as childish and in poor taste, and much less with Nazism, wich the portugese regarded as dangerously imoral to their conservative catholic ethic. Franco was to cautious to risk his war ravaged country in a world war, so Portugal and Spain would not join the Axis. In fact Spain, with Portuguese support, warned Hitler it would fight any germans entering its country.
3. There are thecnical difficulties in getting four major japanese surface warships to Europe, but not of the impossible kind.
4. To get the French on the Axis, and to have the Italians win the Med with French help in the summer of 1940 requires massive changes to the political fabric of France and the military fabric of Italy
So why bother? Because it gives a chance to test how far from the "two power" standart the RN had fallen. The only thing preventing a combined German/Italian/French effort to be able to attemp a blockade of Britain in 1940 would be the lack of suitable carriers, the single Bearn being no match to Britain's remainning vessels. The IJN is here to provide a zero sum carrier battle (no pun intende, the type 0 was not in service yet), so that we can have fun sizing up the merits of the Axis vs Brit battlewagons and planning WW2 versions of Trafalgar or Dogger Bank.
If plausability is to be less streched, we can still keep the US neutral, keep the IJN in the Pacific, move everything to Summer 1941, and play (a lot) with building times so we can give the germans Graff Zepplin and the Italians Aquila.
This adds more BB to the game, for we can now force Bismarck and Tirpitz into the game, along with Richelieu, and have at least two KGV class vessels to (poorly)balance them. And this would show that Britain had lost the seapower to face a serious concentration of European fleets as early as the beggining of the decade.
The debate in this thread keeps getting back to plausability, so a few notes on recent comments:
1. Subs - If we discount some isolated German succeses, in the first half of the war subs have little to show as "fleet stoppers" But even if they had, by mid 1940 the RN had pulled its submarine force from the pacifc and Indian Oceans, and would be unable to redeploy in time in the (admitedly absurd) strategic conditions givem in the (multiple) pods.
2. The political PODs are not plausible. Portugal, usally described as a "fascist" regime, is better described as a right wing authoritarian regime. It had nothing to do with Italian Fascism, wich Salazar probably regarded as childish and in poor taste, and much less with Nazism, wich the portugese regarded as dangerously imoral to their conservative catholic ethic. Franco was to cautious to risk his war ravaged country in a world war, so Portugal and Spain would not join the Axis. In fact Spain, with Portuguese support, warned Hitler it would fight any germans entering its country.
3. There are thecnical difficulties in getting four major japanese surface warships to Europe, but not of the impossible kind.
4. To get the French on the Axis, and to have the Italians win the Med with French help in the summer of 1940 requires massive changes to the political fabric of France and the military fabric of Italy
So why bother? Because it gives a chance to test how far from the "two power" standart the RN had fallen. The only thing preventing a combined German/Italian/French effort to be able to attemp a blockade of Britain in 1940 would be the lack of suitable carriers, the single Bearn being no match to Britain's remainning vessels. The IJN is here to provide a zero sum carrier battle (no pun intende, the type 0 was not in service yet), so that we can have fun sizing up the merits of the Axis vs Brit battlewagons and planning WW2 versions of Trafalgar or Dogger Bank.
If plausability is to be less streched, we can still keep the US neutral, keep the IJN in the Pacific, move everything to Summer 1941, and play (a lot) with building times so we can give the germans Graff Zepplin and the Italians Aquila.
This adds more BB to the game, for we can now force Bismarck and Tirpitz into the game, along with Richelieu, and have at least two KGV class vessels to (poorly)balance them. And this would show that Britain had lost the seapower to face a serious concentration of European fleets as early as the beggining of the decade.
With bats this big, who needs cockroaches
You're clearly refering to the famous "single drop of nitro" operation in wich Rudolf Hess was trying to insert an alchemistically modified drop of ultra mega nitro that would, in a one month mutation cycle, contaminate all fuel in Britain to explode exactly at noon, obliterationg the RAF the RN and most of the Army (a few horse units avoided the explosions). When Hess "peace offer" cover story failed he still managed to drop the drop (pun intended) on a water suply tube, were in contact with the Thames water it mutated into a strange virus that turned the whole British ruling class so subserviente to the US that it ruined the empire.
Why you choose to rate such a well known and logicaly planed operation as an example of implausability just baffles me...
Now more to the point, if you take the capital A out of AH you're just left with History. I can and have done History, but the bigger the bats, the bigger the fun. Or we could just refight the same battles over and over again.
I never said this should't be moved to ASB, since CallBear convinced me of the merits of that particular forum. I just like BB slugging it out, and would like to talk about a large scale battle envolving some of the major BB classes in Europe.
And strange things happen. A lot. If you told the Americans in 1989 they would be invading Afheganistam in 12 years you would have been (AS)Batted out of the room...
You're clearly refering to the famous "single drop of nitro" operation in wich Rudolf Hess was trying to insert an alchemistically modified drop of ultra mega nitro that would, in a one month mutation cycle, contaminate all fuel in Britain to explode exactly at noon, obliterationg the RAF the RN and most of the Army (a few horse units avoided the explosions). When Hess "peace offer" cover story failed he still managed to drop the drop (pun intended) on a water suply tube, were in contact with the Thames water it mutated into a strange virus that turned the whole British ruling class so subserviente to the US that it ruined the empire.
Why you choose to rate such a well known and logicaly planed operation as an example of implausability just baffles me...
Now more to the point, if you take the capital A out of AH you're just left with History. I can and have done History, but the bigger the bats, the bigger the fun. Or we could just refight the same battles over and over again.
I never said this should't be moved to ASB, since CallBear convinced me of the merits of that particular forum. I just like BB slugging it out, and would like to talk about a large scale battle envolving some of the major BB classes in Europe.
And strange things happen. A lot. If you told the Americans in 1989 they would be invading Afheganistam in 12 years you would have been (AS)Batted out of the room...
BlairWitch749
Banned
time to spell out a truth:
the conditions for sealion (ie air control over southern UK and ability to actually escort invading forces and fight back against the RN)
make sealion not necessary anyway; as you could starve the British into submission without bothering with the invasion anyway
Japan having a role is basically zero; the best way they could contribute would be to aggessively take on the RN in the Pacific and draw ships there and away from home
Italy could certainly have her fleet involved; have spain join the axis and capture Gibraltar with German help; and have a rapidly successful north african campaign that drives the RN out of the med
The 6 Italian battle wagons with their attendant light forces combined with the KM (the twins, Hipper and Eugene, Bismark (assuming she was witheld for the purpose), Tirpitz, Scheer and Lutzow) would make quite a powerful task force for the enterprise.... especially if Italy sends a lot of their subs to join the U-boats on interdiction/convoy raiding missions before hand
however by spring 41 Britain has rearmed some and could put up a fairly vigorous defense against anything smaller than a panzer army
the conditions for sealion (ie air control over southern UK and ability to actually escort invading forces and fight back against the RN)
make sealion not necessary anyway; as you could starve the British into submission without bothering with the invasion anyway
Japan having a role is basically zero; the best way they could contribute would be to aggessively take on the RN in the Pacific and draw ships there and away from home
Italy could certainly have her fleet involved; have spain join the axis and capture Gibraltar with German help; and have a rapidly successful north african campaign that drives the RN out of the med
The 6 Italian battle wagons with their attendant light forces combined with the KM (the twins, Hipper and Eugene, Bismark (assuming she was witheld for the purpose), Tirpitz, Scheer and Lutzow) would make quite a powerful task force for the enterprise.... especially if Italy sends a lot of their subs to join the U-boats on interdiction/convoy raiding missions before hand
however by spring 41 Britain has rearmed some and could put up a fairly vigorous defense against anything smaller than a panzer army
OK I don't know if this is necroing a dead thread, but I have a question:
What were the quality of the Schwimmpanzers and U-panzers? Could they have actually of made it across the channel? And if so, would they have been useful against ground fortifications?
Or if we take some luck (ASB intervention) into it the equation, could a HE round from a Schwimmpanzer (panzer II platform) punch a large enough hole in the side of a UK ship to sink it?
What were the quality of the Schwimmpanzers and U-panzers? Could they have actually of made it across the channel? And if so, would they have been useful against ground fortifications?
Or if we take some luck (ASB intervention) into it the equation, could a HE round from a Schwimmpanzer (panzer II platform) punch a large enough hole in the side of a UK ship to sink it?
Swimming Panzers
The various experimental swimming Panzers were only meant to make it from the Landing craft to the beach. They could also cross rivers, if the river bed was flat and solid enough. The system is very similar to the one used on Russian tanks of the 50s/60s, with general sealing of the hull, a snorkel for the engine air and an exaust valve. The German and french Leo I and AMX30 used much bigger "snorkels" that doubled as an escape tube.
You can't fire a tank's main gun from underwater. The idea of tanks sneaking up from under a ship and firing their guns underwater is too crazy even for ASB. The russians designed some rifles in the 80s that could fire a burst of small caliber flechettes underwater for combat divers to use but thats about as far as it goes...(And I'm not sure they worked)
The various experimental swimming Panzers were only meant to make it from the Landing craft to the beach. They could also cross rivers, if the river bed was flat and solid enough. The system is very similar to the one used on Russian tanks of the 50s/60s, with general sealing of the hull, a snorkel for the engine air and an exaust valve. The German and french Leo I and AMX30 used much bigger "snorkels" that doubled as an escape tube.
You can't fire a tank's main gun from underwater. The idea of tanks sneaking up from under a ship and firing their guns underwater is too crazy even for ASB. The russians designed some rifles in the 80s that could fire a burst of small caliber flechettes underwater for combat divers to use but thats about as far as it goes...(And I'm not sure they worked)
Last edited:
BlairWitch749
Banned
poor russians... so many dead ends, they would have been better just buying glocks
the wading panzer 3 could theorettically fire it's turret machine gun whilst swimming i guess... id be terrified as hell to draw attention to myself whilst swimming though; i believe the cannon had some sort of protective cap/sheething over it during swimming to prevent sea water from getting into it during the voyage
BlairWitch749
Banned
their longest field use was about 800 meters in real life crossing the bug river
They will be too busy sinking every Italian merchant ship bigger than a row boat (which is why the Italians will never sent their fleet out of the Med
The Panzer II had a 20mm gun, so the chances of it sinking any vessel larger than a rowing boat is nil.
I saw a study a few months ago that speculated the Germans could have defeated Britain's navy in the channel if they had help from Spain, Vichy France, and Italy. This would have had to take place AFTER Germany had control of the Mediterranean, though whether a subsequent invasion would have succeeded would have been another story. As for the Japanese, they would have to engage the British Navy in the Pacific and NOT try to bring the U.S. into the war at this point.
Admittedly I haven't read this entire thread & my points have probably already been made by others, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
Mussolini said-- I think it was in '39 or early '40-- that the Italian Navy would never engage in combat ops beyond Gibraltar. Besides which, all the ships that Germany & Italy combined could have brought to bear would have been blown out of the water by the vast numerical superiority of the RN. Even in OTL the Italian Navy did very poorly vs the RN.
A successful Sealion has to get around the superiority of the RN by not confronting it. Tough to do, but not impossible.
That's a good one.
1st the Japs didn't need German help to acquire Brit. colonies. They could do that all by themselves.
2d how would the Germans help anyway?
3d you want the Japs to send their fleet 11,000 freaking miles to help somebody else??? That's 22,000 miles round trip. That's like almost a complete circumnavigation of the Earth. At 20 kts each passage would take 23 days, & to do any good they'd have to be there for at least 10-20 days. So the fleet's gone for 60-70 days, except that the damaged ships won't be back for longer than that.
4th, this will require refueling. You can either negotiate agreements to refuel in neutral ports, which blows secrecy; or you can send tankers, which slows the fleet down. Or I guess you could send the tankers on ahead & arrange to rendezvous with 'em along the way, but even that blows secrecy. By 1940 the Brits. have ships in every sea-- everywhere. Sending a fleet will not pass unnoticed. And they're obviously going somewhere specific to fight someone. I wonder who that would be?
5th, the RN in those days was the biggest, most experienced navy on Earth, so you can't send just a token force. Even just sending your 4 'Kongo'-class battleships is just likely to get 'em sunk, because the Brits will know they're coming a long way off & will have plenty of time to gather their own fleet at a place of their choosing-- like within reach of land-based air. I'd say you've either gotta send all 10 Jap BBs with at least 1 carrier, or a smaller force of 4-6 BBs with 2-4 carriers, plus in either case a screen of escorts. And even that doesn't guarantee an Axis victory-- it's just enough force to make a fight out of it.
...so the Japs are gonna risk losing between half of their fleet & all of it-- for what? To help the Germans who've never done anything for Japan? I've got my doubts.
...and BTW, the small stuff the Brits have left over-- their extra destroyers, smaller inshore support vessels, & so forth-- will be enough to defend the Channel coastline in a conventional engagement. There are ways to get around Brit naval superiority & make Sealion work, but this ain't it.
I've written some stuff that even I regard as a little bit far-fetched, but you've got me beat by a country mile, my friend.
--Thegn.
I don't see either of this changes as being really decisive.
The real issue is achieving air supremacy over the Channel and keeping it long enough to get an expeditionary force ashore with enough supplies to effectively conduct military operations. if the RAF has control over the Channel airspace, they are going to do formidable damage to any fleet confined within the Channel.
Either the Italian or Japanese fleet would be operating a quite a distance from its home bases with issues of basic resupply being serious. Fuel is one time...ammunition, spare-parts, extra aircraft for the Japanese fleet carriers is quite another.
The only way I see Sealion as working is if the Dunkirk rescue does not go off - the Germans kill or capture the entire force on the beachs, thus eliminating a quarter million plus trained soldiers from England's defenses - and the German's immediately attack across the Channel. That last is verging on ASB....but if they get Panzer units ashore and can supply them....my understanding is that were wasn't a heck of lot left in England to oppose them. Most of the British Army's heavy weaponry was in France.
A small armored force would have an effect out of proportion for its size. I'm not sure it would have been enough to capture England...but it would have put pressure on during a very vulnerable time.
Tim