Why is sealion such a sensitive issue on this forum?

[Zheng He]

I think a lot of the problems people have with any realistic non ASB scenario come down to the fact that it totally ignores Britain's ability to resist it

I often see scenarios where some how both the RAF and RN are defeated or degraded or fooled to the point that allows such an invasion to happen - when History shows us that this was so improbable as to be virtually Impossible.

Then assuming this highly improbable pair of situations have been achieved the relatively tiny German Navy and Merchant marine is going to deliver more troops than were landed on D-Day and win despite no operational or 'tribal' experience of amphibious ops and being grossly out numbered by the British Army (who despite shortages and losses due to Dunkirk would still have out gunned the relatively lightly equipped German assaulting units and have all the advantages of mobility and Supplies) when they did land.

What really gets my goat is that the British Army is often portrayed as a bunch of poorly armed Hobbits with little or no fighting ability despite evidence to the contrary.

For the record, as anybody has read Lord of the Rings knows, Hobbits are quite capable of fighting when the need arises...

 

[Glenn239]

Saphroneth, that is, without a doubt, the single greatest thing I've ever read.

You write very well for an individual who apparently must have just learned to read today.

 

[usertron2020]

It wasn't even carried out. If anything its hilariously ambitious. It was simply a plan and yet it brings up so many emotions on this site. Why is that?

Banned, for bringing up the Unmentionable Seamammal that was Sealion.

usertron2020 Banned. Same reason.

I think a lot of the problems people have with any realistic non ASB scenario come down to the fact that it totally ignores Britain's ability to resist it

I often see scenarios where some how both the RAF and RN are defeated or degraded or fooled to the point that allows such an invasion to happen - when History shows us that this was so improbable as to be virtually Impossible.

The defeat of the RAF was not impossible, if you define "defeat" as forcing 11 Group to redeploy to north of the Thames River, thereby giving the Luftwaffe a relative level of air superiority over the English Channel, and air parity over SW England south of the Thames. In terms of providable air support, this means a potential CAP over the invasion barges, and even the Stukas and Me-110s could be reintroduced for strikes against coastal defenses.

IMO the rock whereupon ALL Sealion threads wreck themselves is the Royal Navy. German minefields, E-Boats, and U-Boats are not going to stop the Home Fleet, otherwise what is it there for? And totally non-Churchillian caution (even rank timidity) regarding sending in the fleet to annihilate the invasion barges is not going to happen either.

Then assuming this highly improbable pair of situations have been achieved the relatively tiny German Navy and Merchant marine is going to deliver more troops than were landed on D-Day and win despite no operational or 'tribal' experience of amphibious ops and being grossly out numbered by the British Army (who despite shortages and losses due to Dunkirk would still have out gunned the relatively lightly equipped German assaulting units and have all the advantages of mobility and Supplies) when they did land.

The sense of an impending invasion promotes domestic unity.

What really gets my goat is that the British Army is often portrayed as a bunch of poorly armed Hobbits with little or no fighting ability despite evidence to the contrary.

This portrayal was for the contemporary need to show Britain to be on their last legs. If all they've got is pitchforks to fight with, then they will need more weapons (like the 800,000 Springfields delivered in October 1940 for the Home Guard) to "save themselves".

How Germans managed that with the RN still intact still boggles my mind.

Norwegian disunity and last minute fumfumerring didn't help either (and thank you Quisling)

Weather, basically - and luck. It's notable that despite all that luck, about half the Kriegsmarine was sunk or rendered combat ineffective for months.

The Germans DID have the advantage of a short jump into Oslo, facing defenses that mostly hadn't been updated since 1895! Even then, the Germans got slaughtered there and would have lost the battle were it not for the paratroopers seizing vital airfields to the north.

Winston as 1st Sea Lord sticking his oar where it wasn't wanted or needed didn't help things

Correction: He was First Lord of the Admiralty, not First Sea Lord

Hitler fully planned to invade Norway anyway, and the damage the Kriegsmarine took to its blue water navy it never truly recovered from. Not at least in terms of its light units.

Any other man would have been sent to Coventry and not trusted with a paper round after his interference with the operation

What did Lincoln say of a particular general when he lost a battle, or suffered a particularly bloody victory? "He fights" Ulysses S. Grant was a far better military commander than Winston Churchill, but...

LOL and he was made Prime Minister!

...Prime Minister Churchill was far better at leading his country than Grant ever was. You play to your strengths.

Its a funny old world

In May of 1940, Britain's potential leadership bench was all but empty. Every other possible candidate was either covered in Appeasement shit, was still too young, was inexperienced, was a hoary old survivor from WWI, was a peer who could not lead from the House of Commons, or was a combination of any number of these factors.

Only Winston Churchill was clean as a newborn baby's behind. And if Norway proved how unprepared Britain was for modern warfare, just who do you think had been screaming for increased defense appropriations ever since Hitler came to power? So even with defeat in Norway, Winston found his national standing to actually be increased! One back-bencher, joining in the chorus (post-Norway) demanding Chamberlain's resignation, declared:

"This government is using the First Lord of the Admiralty as a bomb shelter to protect itself from the righteous wrath of this House, knowing full well that the Right Honourable member for Epping can in no way even remotely be held responsible for the disasters that have struck us in recent weeks!" [1]​

1] I confess due to failing memory that I am paraphrasing here, but the irony is that I DO recall that the back-bencher in question had been a bigtime appeaser himself

 

[Glenn239]

It wasn't even carried out. If anything its hilariously ambitious. It was simply a plan and yet it brings up so many emotions on this site. Why is that?

Because it's not really about Sealion, it's about whether the outcome of the war was deterministic or was subject to chance.

Sealion as an operation isn't that contraversial. Chances for success? Not much. Operational merit? Not much. So why is there contraversy, exactly? Because of what Sealion wasn't, not what it was. You see, whatever of Sealion's chances or lack of merit, it wasn't Barbarossa. And whatever the course of the war afterwards, there probably wouldn't be a Barbarossa.

In the deterministic school, Germany must march into Russia, because that is the path to an Allied victory. But does the universe work that way? Did a universe in which quantum science predicts can deliver an infinite sets of outcomes to an event really rule in 1939 that Germany would be defeated by Great Britain and not vice versa in all outcomes of an infinite set? Seems a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

If you picture it, there were two major paths in July 1940. The path into Russia leads straight to German defeat. Everything is fine. The path to Sealion leads straight into a dark forest - even assuming as given the spectacular failure of the operation, the outcome of the Anglo-German war remains unclear. Because Sealion wasn't Barbarossa.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

For the record, as anybody has read Lord of the Rings knows, Hobbits are quite capable of fighting when the need arises...

My point exactly - Extra virtual pie for you

 

[AussieHawker]

Only Winston Churchill was clean as a newborn baby's behind.[/CENTER]

Cough Gallipoli cough

 

[sitalkes]

Why do people get upset? I think there are two major reasons:
1. A large proportion of the people who reply to any Sealion thread are British (possibly a majority) . I think it may also be that a large proportion of the people writing on this board are British. British people are brought up to believe that they are morally superior and their island cannot be violated (e.g. "there has been no invasion since 1066"). A successful Sealion story implies that everything they have been told is wrong and also says that British people are weak and incompetent, so no wonder they get upset.

2. Another group get upset because the only type of alternative history they can allow to exist is a different form of allied victory (preferably a Britwank). They see the Nazis as being so evil they should not be allowed to win anything even in fiction. The consequences for Britain and the western world of a successful Sealion would have been very nasty. This group therefore do anything they can to disrupt any Sealion discussion and close it down. Some of this group are also part of group 1, which means they are even more anxious that no discussion occurs.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Why do people get upset? I think there are two major reasons:
1. A large proportion of the people who reply to any Sealion thread are British (possibly a majority) . I think it may also be that a large proportion of the people writing on this board are British. British people are brought up to believe that they are morally superior and their island cannot be violated (e.g. "there has been no invasion since 1066"). A successful Sealion story implies that everything they have been told is wrong and also says that British people are weak and incompetent, so no wonder they get upset.

2. Another group get upset because the only type of alternative history they can allow to exist is a different form of allied victory (preferably a Britwank). They see the Nazis as being so evil they should not be allowed to win anything even in fiction. The consequences for Britain and the western world of a successful Sealion would have been very nasty. This group therefore do anything they can to disrupt any Sealion discussion and close it down. Some of this group are also part of group 1, which means they are even more anxious that no discussion occurs.

3. Plenty of people here have at least a vague understanding of some of the basic difficulties of modern conflict, at least enough to understand the futility of a Sealion in 1940. Sealion was a trans-Channel invasion of a major industrial power. The closest analogue to Sealion, Overlord, took several years of build-up from two massive economies to prepare for, along with total superiority in the sea and sky and the defender to have no idea of the real landing point. Even then, it was difficult. Doing the same against an enemy with the worlds largest navy and a midern, intact airforce, using an overstrected and exhausted army, is a dead-on-arrival. Sure, five years of build-up following a successful Barbarossa would produce a very real threat, one that Britain very well could not defeat, but not what Germany had after the Fall of France. It's simply asking the German soldier to do stuff that can't be done, and the British soldier to make mistakes that won't be made.

 

[Remitonov]

Yeah, the British are always portrayed as this.

Fighting this.

Well, if any game designer tried to write a realistic Sealion, he'd be shot down by his director for crafting a one-mission scenario that simply amounts to a turkey shoot with a RN battleship or a Swordfish sim against loads of sitting ducks. Just isn't nearly as 'exciting' compared to a hopeless resistance against Nazi cyborg commandos with walking death mechs.

 

[Zheng He]

My point exactly - Extra virtual pie for you

Thanks, I like pie...

 

[Alex1guy]

Why do people get upset? I think there are two major reasons:
1. A large proportion of the people who reply to any Sealion thread are British (possibly a majority) . I think it may also be that a large proportion of the people writing on this board are British. British people are brought up to believe that they are morally superior and their island cannot be violated (e.g. "there has been no invasion since 1066"). A successful Sealion story implies that everything they have been told is wrong and also says that British people are weak and incompetent, so no wonder they get upset.

2. Another group get upset because the only type of alternative history they can allow to exist is a different form of allied victory (preferably a Britwank). They see the Nazis as being so evil they should not be allowed to win anything even in fiction. The consequences for Britain and the western world of a successful Sealion would have been very nasty. This group therefore do anything they can to disrupt any Sealion discussion and close it down. Some of this group are also part of group 1, which means they are even more anxious that no discussion occurs.

And because it's logistically impossible no matter how you argue it and we are so fucking sick of making this point. It's on par with USSR being able to successfully invade the USA, one side doesn't possess the capacity to do so without the other side acting brain damaged. People who makes arguments for it often accept it would take huge luck, the British to all take paint with their tea, or don't have any clue about warfare beyond what they've seen in video games.

 

[Zheng He]

Why do people get upset? I think there are two major reasons:
1. A large proportion of the people who reply to any Sealion thread are British (possibly a majority) . I think it may also be that a large proportion of the people writing on this board are British. British people are brought up to believe that they are morally superior and their island cannot be violated (e.g. "there has been no invasion since 1066"). A successful Sealion story implies that everything they have been told is wrong and also says that British people are weak and incompetent, so no wonder they get upset.

2. Another group get upset because the only type of alternative history they can allow to exist is a different form of allied victory (preferably a Britwank). They see the Nazis as being so evil they should not be allowed to win anything even in fiction. The consequences for Britain and the western world of a successful Sealion would have been very nasty. This group therefore do anything they can to disrupt any Sealion discussion and close it down. Some of this group are also part of group 1, which means they are even more anxious that no discussion occurs.

I don't think that is fair, particularly given just how problematic Sealion really is. Do we have a lot of Britwanks on this forum? Sure, I'm writing one myself and I am not even British -https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=305957.

The bigger problem is this - it is hard to come up with REALISTIC scenarios where the Axis does better beyond individual tactical scenarios like a Japanese victory at Coral Sea or the Bismarck making it back to France for example. Scenarios like that are fun but they don't alter the bigger picture mainly because outside of the Battle of Britain, until Germany started having serious problems in Russia, the war was pretty much a Germanywank. Same thing in the Pacific, up until Coral Sea, the war was pretty much a Japanwank. After that you start reaching the point where the massive industrial power and manpower of the Allies takes over.

 

[TFSmith121]

Clapity clap clap

Because I want to use this where possible, the long-form of my sig:




From the Book of Revisionisms, the section on the Four Horsemen of the Wehrpocalypse:


And I saw, and behold a white Schwalbe: and he that sat on it had a V2, and an Enigma was given unto him: and he went forth wundering, and to wunderwaffe.
And there went out another vehicle that was red, and a tank; and power was given to him that sat thereon to outthink the Allies at all turns, and by all means, that they should be encircled and destroyed; and there was given unto him immunity from logistical concerns;
And I heard the third vehicle cough, with a sound of "exact analysis". And I beheld, and lo a black barge; and he that sat on him had a calculator in his hand.
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four vehicles say, "an 88mm is better than a 17-pdr, and a Panther is three times better than a Sherman, and don't forget the comparable historical battles."
And I looked, and beheld a pale Carrier: and his name that sat on it was Wank, and Screw followed with him. And power was given unto them over the mental capacity of the Allied Powers, to derp with paint, and with alcohol, and with blindness, and with the carriers of the Kriegsmarine.




And that's why. All four turn up - the German superweapons and the idea the Germans have the bestest weapons (despite the fact that, navally, they're SOL as of Sealion), the idea that the Germans are tactically superior to the Allies on all levels and in all situations, comparing completely irrelevant situations (outflanked, out of supply British troops in France in May 1940, or British ships being torpedoed by Japanese long range torpedo bombers in December 1941, to the ready and waiting British armed forces in Sealion) and of course the complete mind-boink that the Allies get in any successful Sealion.

You need to be doing this in an Orson Welles voice, with the Ritt der Walküren playing low in the background...

Best,

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Wrong Forum?

It wasn't even carried out. If anything its hilariously ambitious. It was simply a plan and yet it brings up so many emotions on this site. Why is that?

Shouldn't this have been posted in one of the chat forums, since it's asking about the reactions of posters?

 

[TFSmith121]

M1917s, actually...

usertron2020 - This portrayal was for the contemporary need to show Britain to be on their last legs. If all they've got is pitchforks to fight with, then they will need more weapons (like the 800,000 Springfields delivered in October 1940 for the Home Guard) to "save themselves".

M1917 rifles, actually, not M1903s, but still - quite true. Plus thousands of MGs and hundreds of 75s...and lots of ammo. Plus 50 destroyers and ten sloops, all of them operational...and various and sundry "surplus" aircraft, etc.

The Germans DID have the advantage of a short jump into Oslo, facing defenses that mostly hadn't been updated since 1895! Even then, the Germans got slaughtered there and would have lost the battle were it not for the paratroopers seizing vital airfields to the north.

Don't forget, the commander of the battery that sank Blucher was a retiree ... and the commander of the fortress was a reservist, IIRC. Makes the Wehrmacht's luck against the British coastal defenses in 1940 look somewhat chancy, doesn't it?

Best,

 

[marathag]

It wasn't even carried out. If anything its hilariously ambitious. It was simply a plan and yet it brings up so many emotions on this site. Why is that?

Not just here.

The SeaLion has been a bane to WI groups since Usenet days

 

[TFSmith121]

Fixed that for you

In the Hitler as dictator school, Germany must march into Russia, because that is the path to a German victory.[/QUOTE]

Fixed that for you.

Best,

 

[CalBear]

You write very well for an individual who apparently must have just learned to read today.

...and just like that you lose the argument and get a week off.

Kicked for a week for an utterly pointless insult.

 

[CalBear]

Just as a general note: You argue points here. You do not insult other who disagree with you.

I don't care if they are RAF fanboys, RN fanboys, UK fanboys, Red Armyu fanboys, Reich Fanboys, USA fanboys or any other flavor of fanboy, debate the points or walk away. Insults have gotten out of hand in these threads.

It has reached the point that I can tell when a WW II in Europe thread has been started by who posts the first report about Member XXXX posting a (insert country here) wank.

Follow Board policy.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

Why do people get upset? I think there are two major reasons:
1. A large proportion of the people who reply to any Sealion thread are British (possibly a majority) . I think it may also be that a large proportion of the people writing on this board are British. British people are brought up to believe that they are morally superior and their island cannot be violated (e.g. "there has been no invasion since 1066"). A successful Sealion story implies that everything they have been told is wrong and also says that British people are weak and incompetent, so no wonder they get upset.

.

The French successfully invaded in 1797
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fishguard

They landed an impressive force of over a 1000 men and fought their way through southern England. Despite the presence of the royal navy, the French commander was still able to sail back to France though his troops surrendered.