Re: Real Sea Lion

[Liam]

If the Germans could've found a crossing, IF! There may have been a loss of Britian to Germany. Was that truely possible??? I think any real historian would say, the chances were weak. Not only that, there is no accountability for what England would do if TRUELY under threat. She would have recalled other warships working in other areas of the World. The South Africans, Australians, etc... and even the Americans would've immediately UPed their support knowing the inevitable. Like Russia recieves a backup from War in Siberia so would England recieve a back up. It wouldn't be an easy War for germany, yes she would have conquored England but at HUGE cost IMHO. Not on land warefare but in the MASSIVE undertaking that it would be, would have cost the Germans.. huge casaulties, not properly reflected in this game... How many other ships would pool to British Waters in the event of Sea Lion can we get a Proffessional conclusion? Ships don't take 6 months to get home. They would come in the event of a True Fear of invasion<within 8 weeks time> i.e. fall of the RAF

[JerseyJohn]

Earlier in the century Britain had large squadrons on call in several parts of Empire. With the end of the coal era and economically depleted from the First World War, Britain cut back on it's naval dominance. By 1939 the United States had already passed her total in naval size and Japan, with only the Pacific to worry about, had more ships in that ocean than either the United States or Britain could contend with.

When the war began nearly all Britain's capital ships were either in the Atlantic, North Sea or Mediteranean. Everywhere else they had modest cruiser and destroyer squadrons.

In late 1941 it was decided to that a strong squacron of capital ships should be sent to Sinapore. Originally it was intended to consist of two battleships and an aircraft carrier. Britains resources were stretched so thinly the battleships -- the new Battleship Prince of Wales and the old Battlecruiser Repulse -- were sent without the carrier. And promptly sunk by Japanese landbased bombers.

So, in the event of Sea Lion there was virtually no far flung fleet, other than the Mediteranean squadron, to be recalled for Britain's defense.

[Steve C]

In 1940, I think few countries had seriously planned for large-scale amphibious operations. Certainly this applies in particular to the Germans. I gather that Sea Lion was mostly a pipe dream when you look at the motley collection of river barges and scows which the Germans would have had to use, hardly seaworthy under the best of cirumstances, let alone having wasted much of the Kreigsmarine in Norway and with air supremacy hanging in the balance. But, if you look at the relative strength of the armies, if the Germans could have got over in force - they would have prevailed.

In SC terms, the generic transport capability adds to the "what if" attraction of the game, if not being precisely realistic. I have no issues with Sea Lion being quite feasible in the game, it's the potential Axis invasions of US and Canada which seem farfetched. Even supposing that by commandeering the shipping of the other European countries as well as England, that the Germans could have mounted such as trans-Atlantic invasion, the US Navy would have been steaming through the Panama canal to meet the threat. Oh well, it's only a game.

[Wachtmeister]

Suggest that the infinite and cheap sea lift capacity permitted in SC is a major reason that Sea Lion is easy in SC relative to actual WWII conditions.

A few weeks after the fall of France, the Germans had about 2000 vessels in various French ports. However many of these were "converted" river barges unsuited for any but the calmest of sea states.

Some insight into the thinking of Hitler, and various members of the High command, based upon post war interviews of senior Wehrmacht commanders, may be found here: Operation Sea Lion

It is interesting to note that the actual perceived risks mentioned within the source noted above, such as need for absolute air superiority, supply shortages, problems landing subsequent waves of troops, etc. seem to be fairly well simulated in SC.

[Liam]

Hitler would have never floated that boat across without utter and complete domination of the RAF and Royal British Navy. She had more ships abroad, and vs Farmilie B's<you can stick a few dozen troops on one> light Destroyers or Cruisers are a Death Nail. Like a bantom weight vs a heavy-weight. Regardless of what she would have lost to raiding whatever she could have called up would've been brought home. Hitler's hope would have been in something wreckless as other's have mentioned like converted cruiselinera to move his masses of German Armor and much more time outfit his units once they had created a beachhead and controlled ports. None of this is addressed here, In SC, it wasn't impossible but it was EXPENSIVE! You'd need to give Britian more Industrial wealth also, she is weaker than her sister France which is not accurate. She was an industrial Giant and had much of her own junk boats leftover... What about the old dreadnaughts and WW1 style throw aways? I'm certian that the converted British Merchant Marine alone. would've inflicted 30% casaulties refitted with Bofors,etc..

So realistic, SC is taking it a bit far. and I can sit my entire amphibious landing force outside of Canada with no idea to the Allies, there were plenty of spies. There were more non Military ships than military and you don't have a clue, we had intelligence and in any coastal area for the most part usually knew if a big ship or transports were sitting there especially stalking for weeks on end like they do here... It wouldn't take but a few British Night bombers to inflict severe damage upon any attempt for Germans to sit there and just camp...As they do here... You shouldn't be able to sit your units, and the USA??? hahahha

The American National Guard would've defeated the Germans. We worried about Hitler gaining control of some of the French Vessels. Though everyone says how weak the Brit fleet was. I have heard figures that the British had 28 main heavy ships??? Am I right? Similarly the French were up there and we were even higher... The Germans however had barely any...

So it would've taken weeks, months, at least to actually subdue a British Navy and make Sea Lion possible.

If you want to make many possiblities. Why not make more concievable things possible!!! Believable..i.e. instead of altering the wealth that the Brits recieve<and other positive flows how about a Shipment of P40s from the United States..some junk cruisers/destroyers/dreadnaughts Much more accurate........including putting on the Map 3 or 4 more british cities. The brits would've never surrended after the fall of Manchester... Nor would the US would have surrendered after 1 corp landed on D.C.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

There was a possiblity of Sealion occuring if certain conditons had occurred. SC within its limitations does reflect the difficulty of doing a Sealion type operation.

You state that England should have a backup, like Russia does (ie Siberian reinforcements). Two different circumstances. Siberian reinforcements were convenional forces, some would argue the best of the Russian military, that was called from one theater of operation to another, within the same nation. England did not have anything like that. Yes, she does have conventional forces throughout the world, and there are the Commonwealth forces. But they had thier own national commitments, plus the UK had international commitments (not the least was the Japanese) to deal with. The UK would have mobilized the Territorial Army, yes. But should the Territorial Army be considered as cabable of fielding Corp or Army size units, with infrastructure those units imply? No. Just like your suggestion about the size of the Yugo military, which I tried to spin off into another topic. I've tried to cover some details there. And the issue of the ships has been covered already. Though I do want to note that the British Merchant navy was fully committed, and even if the ships in home waters were used, they would not have been enough outfitted in time to be a unit in SC (assuming there was a SC naval unit of lesser combat power than those we have now).

Wachmeister

Infinte and cheap sea lift capacity does present problems. Especially since they are all considered amphib. I've suggested in another thread that we should have a amphib option for a Corp, which is must more expensive than transports. And your normal transports can only unload in a port. Details on the why are in that thread.

Ability to "invade" US and Canada... agree it should not be allowed. Want to play "historical"? Then make a gentlemans agreement to not do it. But from the SC ladder thread, it seems some of us don't make the distinction between playing to win and playing to enjoy oneself.

Liam

American National Guard would have defeated the Germans? O my. Where did you get that from? Men with weapons are not the same as effective combat units. The US had no large scale combat units until '42 - '44 era. Notice I didn't say they were effective.

UK economic strenght has been addressed in some detail in the SC:Economic Analysis thread. Just read the post that refers to the UK itself.

Thanks,

Barry

[Liam]

Barry, what about the British Indian Expeditionary forces and the British could care less about Japanese expansion in the Far East when her direct Island was under threat. They could have mustered as much as the Yugoslavs or any other nations represented in SC. Really anything more than a corp on the capitol of most nations considering the level of mobilization is too much...

And making Yugo-Russian Partisands strength 5 corps? How could that be accurate, I fight more yugoslavs after the fall of the nation than I do during the taking of it.

Furthermore the USA being attacked by what? Where would the Germans refuel resupply when the Americans mobilized even slightly, She could call her foreign naval forces to work. She had something in the harbors abroad. Not much worth a damned, mostly she sold her equipment to the Allies though she was under no threat until after Sea Lion was accomplished and by then would've outproduced Germany still in Military Might. Perhaps not quality. Germany would've had to built a surface fleet and two cruisers and 3 subs represented in this game if survived wouldn't win a decisive naval war against the US. The US would not let their Capitol fall to a corps! It's a ridicilious thought, an invisible corps just washes up on shore out of nowhere to suprisingly take out a Capitol and end a nations entire Military and Political Indentity. I'm certian of that. It's a very Ahistorical aspect of the game and you know it, that's like playing Command HQs in the the 80s. Most nations don't surrender at the fall of their capitol, even the nations under the Nazis though officially surrendered still fought on like hell against their opressors. It would've taken a much more massive Mobilization of German forces/Naval forces/Carriers<advanced units> and aid from neighbors adjacent to our territory in order to conquor the USA. The country would merely move it's Goverment West...

As the Brits move it to Manchester and the Russians move it all over the bloody place.

Subs were all the Germans ever got into American waters and a several spies that were promptly picked up on land....

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

Lets assume the British have "lost" the Battle of Britain. Only then would they have attempted to recall any colonial forces. How long for the Indian forces to reach Britain? Lets say they abadoned the Pacific to the Japanese... again, how long would they take to get back home? Or, would the US have said something like, keep your people where they are, we'll help you? Netherlands had three (3) divisions in the East Indies. That was 25% of thier total military. What about them?

The Partisan issue was talked about on another thread. Basically, without adding additonal units or adding new code to handle it in an abstract way, those understrength units were the best way to represent the effect they had, of cutting supply lines.

I agree with you that none of the Axis powers had the ability to invade the US. Also agree that Canada and the US should not be allowed to be invaded in SC. And yes, if the US was ever invaded, and lost Washington, they would simply move the capital.

[Liam]

Shaka, the Brits weren't fools. Nor were the Russians that's why they recalled Siberian Reinforcement during the Winter they knew they needed them. While leaving the Far East Yakut more vulnerable.

India would came 2nd, you can steam through the suez in a matter of weeks, aircraft days or hours. Netherlands didn't expect to be in a War. Nor did the Yugoslavians. So that's why they were unprepared when Blitzkrieg suddenly like a can of whooparse was unleashed upon them. Perhaps they would have be a bit more prepared to Surrender or conspire with the Allies and go all out against their foes...

I doubt the Dutch or Belgium would've done much, they basically put their hands up. Many countries stayed neutral trying to escape War, including the US. Had they joined early, perhaps the Germans could've been slowed but they were looking out for themselves...selfish

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

The thing is, even under ideal conditions -- and they were far from that -- how long would it have taken for these colonial troops to reach Britain? Once the Germans were entrenched in the southern half of the country they'd have had airfields and resources at their dispossal while the British would have had proportionately less of those things at their's.

Beyond that, as Shaka is saying, would the independant and semi-independant (India) parts of the U. K. have consented to send large portions of their own native armies around the world with Japan posturing in Asia? Aside from which, did they even have the available naval transport throughout the commonwealth to accomplish this?

As I've posted earlier, British sea power was no longer global. Just hunting for the Graf Spee and Deustchland pocket battleships in 1939 tied up most of the Royal Navy. Their resources in WW II were not what is commonly believed; the First World War and the later World Wide Depression did much to weaken Britain as a world power and to vastly reduce her once awsome global power.

But let's arrive at a ballpark figure. Let's say the home island could have been reinforced by 100,000 men within 3-6 months. Does that sound reasonably and would it have saved them from a German onslaught once it had a chance to establish itself and begin building with regular reinforcements?

Interesting topic. At first I didn't think much of it but now it's starting to form into something. Liam, you've done it again!

[Liam]

Why thankyou John, your arguments towards what the Brits truely had available overseas is true. Much of went away to India and Singapore was dispatched after the German Naval threat was accessed as weak at best.

I know for my GrandFather served as an Anti-Aircraft and Mind Trauler in Burma/Indonesia/etc... Although you have to admit though Australians/South Africans/New Zealanders/Canadians and even many Americans wouldn't be quick to jump the gun to aid Britian. Such a reinforcement could be done with any # of the merchant marine availabe from the Brit's Allies at which the time 1939 the Japs didn't want to pee off as they recieved a mass of their Raw Resources from the USA... it is more than likely that the US would've been instrumental in providing some sort of equipment. I'm thinking more along the lines that the minute The Battle of Britian was Lost in the Skies. Desperate measures would be taken at that point, to call all foreign fighting men to home. To beg and plead with all nations she had close ties with for assistance. Americans would've probably did as much as she could do and may have entered the War! I think that more than actual manpower to offer, actual firepower...

200k men? Were there not as many men serving in Singapore, India, Burma that were full British citizens? A complete and utter withdrawl from all of her colonies, she had to have men their to mantain the peace for all those nations were unstable. You've got free french units, you'd naturally have free brit and free American units. The option for the Russians is more difficult being a land based power, she would not be able to recruit men after a fall of her major Eastern Cities. I'll bet Churchill had to think over these things! There is no sort of bonus either when Germany assualts the mainland of Britian. Russia/Germany/France/Britian and Japan would've been extremely nationilistic. There would have been no end to their resistance. As is historical...

[JerseyJohn]

Early in the war Britain organized her overaged WW I veterans into the Homeguard. They've generally been made light of because most newsreels show them drilling with shovels and broomsticks and, like the Americans, shooting with wooden bazookas at vans with a large TANK painted on the side. Still, after Dunkirk they did represent a useful addition to the decimated B. E. F. arriving back home. In experimental scenarios I gave Britain very understength corps in Manchester and Edinbugh to help represent them. But all in all, the question is, how long would these troops have taken to arrive and how many of them would there have been?

Roosevelt stretched his ability to covertly aid Britain pretty much to the limit. I doubt he could have done more without a declaration of war and he would most assuredly not have gotten one! The U. S. had to be attacked before congress would have gone that far and I'm afraid that's as close it gets to an historical fact regarding something that didn't actually happen.

WachtMeister

Great entry on SeaLion in that URL -- meant to say so earlier but got caught in the maze. Anyone who hasn't read it who is interested in the subject should definitely click on that thing and treat themselves.

[nonsuch]

I sometimes wonder exactly what the "true fear of invasion" was in the UK in the summer of 1940. Churchill, fpr all his qualities did some very strange things during the war but none more so than in July 1940. Having extricated the troops from Dunkirk it seems inconceivable that they would be sent back to France but that is precisely what happened. The 2nd corps of the BEF was landed in Cherbourg and deployed at Le Mans before beating a hasty retreat and escaping for a second time!

I have no idea what Churchil was thinking. The commander, General Brooke thought it was madness. Presumably this was some attempt to bolster the French morale but France was to all intends and purposes lost by then. I wonder whether Sea Lion might have been given more serious thought (by both sides)if this gambit had resulted in the disaster that it so nearly did!

[JerseyJohn]

Nonsuch

A terrific point and an almost untouched subject even in history books. The British landed but were careful not to be deployed. Other units that had been in France prior to Dunkirk were quietly pulled back to England. Meanwhile, the Free Poles were also left to face the Germans and, after the lines broke those near the coast were ordered to try and make their way to England. those near the Swiss border interned themselves.

To me there's only one of two possibilities. The first was that Churchill, while knowing he could do nothing to actually aid the French, wished to bolster their morale even knowing they'd eventually break under a German offensive. But, as you've said the troops would be seen arriving and also departing, so how much of a morale booster would that be -- just smoke and mirrors!

Despite the scarcity of troops in Britain temporarily detaching a single corps wouldn't have been considered risky while France was still intact. Aside from which the troops were making a quick return trip.

The second is he was trying to assure the French that Britain would be back as soon as they recovered from their own losses. A new B. E. F. by Spring. Provided, of course, that France could hold out that long.

For their part the French went on without hope, then collapsed completely after a bitter fight and followed the path to Vichy. The Third Republic doesn't seem to have been functioning during these final weeks. It did nothing to institute a unified strategy and withdrew to Bordeaux when the Germans broke through. A couple of days later Weygand declared the military situation hopeless and resigned.

But even before that they felt they'd be defeated. Most of their best troops had been cut off in Belgium and there was no longer a British Expeditionary Force, regardless of size, to help out.

Common sense would say this was the time to seek a peace treaty. Yet, I know of no such effort. They'd agreed earlier not to negotiate a seperate peace and now they obviously felt stuck with that decision. Yet, in only a few weeks, they'd grasp at any peace terms they could get, even ceding Paris to the invaders.

A very strange situation. Maybe Germany would have negotiated with them before the final offensive, I don't know. One of History's what ifs that nobody speculates about.

Getting back to the original topic of Britain sending, then withdrawing those troops. I honestly believe the British thought France would hold out, somehow, till the winter made further offensives unfeasable. In all likelihood they still thought it would settle into another World War One style Western Front, only with more of France in German hands. They might have speculated that, given some time to rebuild, to create a larger airforce, etc., the war would actually turn to their favor.

This would also explain Churchill's fevered efforts prior to Dunkirk to keep Italy from entering the War. Feeble though her contribution turned out to be, her addition might have proven too much for a weak and demoralized France once again bleeding to death in lines of trenches.

[ February 07, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[nonsuch]

The plot thickens. I first read of this some time ago but Jersey John's observations made me go back and check the source (Field Marshall Allanbroke's war diaries)

I quote (Weygand to Brooke at le mans) "the french army has ceased to be able to offer organised support.Paris has been given up and there were no reserves left. The Iner-Allied council had decided to hold a position covering Brittany in front of Rennes"

What we make of this is anybodies guess. Close to 100,000 British troops were in place with the Canadians due for embarkatio when Weygand and Brooke decided that the position was untenable.

Brooke spoke to Churchill for the first time in the war to advise him of the decision to withdraw and it took half an hour for Churchill to be persuaded.

Brooke was appointed Chief of the imperial general staff later that year and spent much of his time arguing with Churchill. He was offered command of the 8th army after Auckinleck and declined (because he was worried whether anyone else would stand up to Churchill i his place)

It strikes me that Churchill was essentially another politician who mistakenly believed that he was a grand strategist (gallipoli, norway, greece) but unlike hitler and stalin he could be persuaded that some of his enterprises amounted to folly.

Brooke may be one of the unsung heroes of this war

[JerseyJohn]

Glad you clarified the military situation. I remember somewhere in there Churchill also suggested to the outgoing French politicians that they consent to an Anglo/French merging! The French declined; probably they didn't understand his propossal and no doubt they were concerned about whether he meant a permanent merging or only for the duration of the war, which they might have felt was already lost.

In the old World at War interviews the surviving British politicians who had held power at the time always had a sort of chuckle whenever they'd discuss Churchill. One of them, discussing the Norway debacle, said "Just like Galipolli, Winston was always having these perfectly wonderful ideas that never worked!"

He's one of my favorite historical figures but, like Lincoln, who I also admire, I don't think much of many of Churchill's wartime decisions. Only Churchill would have rebuked the captain of Prince of Wales for breaking off the action against Bismarck with his aft-turret out, his ship battered and Hood having just been sunk. As ... Wales would have been if she'd continued the fight.

Allanbroke took the correct path in remaining by Churchill's side. He was right about nobody else being able to stand up to the man.

Among other episodes there was Winston's Spring '44 brainchild for avoiding the Atlantic Wall. Land in Portugal where "Britain's Traditional Allies" would welcome them with open arms. Dash through Spain -- Franco wouldn't object -- and leap across the Pyranees into another soft underbelly of Europe. Allanbroke offered his immediate resignation and the idea was dropped!

You're right, his mistakes in Greece, Crete, Singapore, Tobruk, etc., would have been enough to knock many another war leader out of office. Yet, somehow, he embodied the British war effort and I doubt any other leader would have continued the war after the Fall of France.

When it was all over he wrote somewhere [unfortunately I don't remember where and would have to search for it] that the war had been the Empire's ruination and, looking back, he wondered if it had been in Britain's best interest to have fought it.

Ironically, Neville Chamberlain and his cronies had those same concerns before Munich; that another World War, regardless of the outcome, would cost Britain her Empire.

What I find especially interesting these days are Churchill's pre-war writings. Especially his account of the late 19th century Sudan campaign, The River War.

No matter what I think about his decisions I'll always feel some strange reverence for the man. Probably, along with Teddy Roosevelt, he was the last of a vanished breed of adventurer statesman, with the added attribute of being a scholar.

[ February 08, 2003, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Kind of Britian's dying gift to her American Children you think? Also to the rest of the World from Axis tyranny? Giving back a little? Perhaps that's why the Brits have a CommonWealth now instead of nothing at all. Most of the other Colonizers have little or relation to their home<well of any vast importance> Whilst Britian is quite close to us. I think that we would almost allow any British Citizen entrance. A very prized thing indeed.

[JerseyJohn]

Nicely put Liam. Like a large dying star going supernova and providing the material for new stars to form out of!

I think Churchill would have been happier living his life half a century earlier, but it's probably better that he was around later.

[ February 08, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[nonsuch]

[No matter what I think about his decisions I'll always feel some strange reverence for the man. Probably, along with Teddy Roosevelt, he was the last of a vanished breed of adventurer statesman, with the added attribute of being a scholar. [/QB]

You make some excellent points paricularly with regard to Churchill. He was undoubtably an adventurer as you say and much more besides. Having just fininished the latest bigraphy I am still left perplexed. We recently had a poll on TV over here for the greatest Britain who ever lived and Churchill won by a huge margin (I voted for Thomas Paine). Unlike Lincoln I think Churcill's motives may have been suspect. The reason he had been in the cold for so long was his refusal to accept the Britai should relinquish control of India and whilst his distaste for Nazisim was there from the beginning his primary motivation in the war was the preservation of the empire rather than the defeat of fascim. This may seem a bit harsh and I may be a less than impartial judge having never voted for his political party in my life but I will saty one thing. His stubborn pig headedness meant that we had someone to oppose Hitler and all he stood for when most politicians of whatever persuasion would have capitulated. For that I salute him.

By the way - Charles Darwin came runner up in the poll. Votes were eligible from the UK only which is probably just as well or the residents of Tenessee might have had something to say about that. I wonder who the top five in the US would have been? My guess is that Lincoln would win.

[JerseyJohn]

Nonsuch

I don't think your assessment is harsh at all and apparently neither did your countrymen, who voted Churchill out of office even before the end of the war. For his part Mr Churchill went immediately to Northern Italy supposedly to paint, but more cyincal souls said it was to find his old correspondence with Mussolini!

Glad you told us about the UK poll. In the U. S. I also think Lincoln might have won, and I think Thomas Edison, Babe Ruth, Franklin Roosevelt and a wildcard entertainment figure would have followed. The top ten might include Martin Luther King and possibly Jackie Robinson. A centruy ago George Washington would have been a shoe-in but these days the colonial era figures are largely lumped together and forgotten. But Americans, on the whole, aren't very history oriented and might list Michael Jackson or Madonna as the number one choice!

Part of my fascination with Churchill is tied in to his flaws. He was comparatively honest about his shortcomings.

You make a great point about his being a near political exile during the twenties and thirties. It's usually glossed over as the Gallipoli fiasco. But it wasn't, of course. It was his unshakable stand on preserving The Empire. He began making speeches about that in 1945 as a postwar agenda and, as mentioned earlier, he was promptly voted out.

[ February 09, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]