The Sealion Problem

[The Great Santini]

I am curious. Would it be possible to mod the Fall Weiss scenario to create Great Britain, Canada and Egypt as a single major power country (United Kingdom Commonwealth). If London falls during Sealion the capital reverts to Ottawa (a la Moscow to Stalingrad). The Allied player can then save the English fleet, operate surviving air units to Canada and transport surviving land units to Canada. He can continue to use the Canadian resources. Is this feasible?

[Retributar]

Sound's like a 'Great-Idea!' " The Great Santini ", look's workable... to me!.

Let's see what 'The' Game-Designer or Game Designer's have to say on this matter!.

Perhap's this Coalition can be renamed, 'The British Commonwealth'???...or something of that nature!.

[BioWizard]

This would be a great change! I see no reason why the central English governement would move to Egypt. People in Egypt are of arabic origins and mostly muslims. Also, egyptians fought the English out of their country after retaking the Suez canal some time after WW2. Finally, most people in Canada are of english descent and are christians. Moreover, even to this day, canadians who want to do certain jobs such as being in the military, have to swear an oath of fealthy to the English royalty.

Finally, the game designers probably chose Egypt as an alternative capital to give English a strong foothold on the main continent for game purposes, but we really have to realise that this has no historic/realism basis.

[Guest Mike]

the problem is that Sealion is far to easy to launch, and has far too much chance of success.

[jon_j_rambo]

Why would anybody want to live in Egypt. It's been down & out ever since Joseph stopped running the show. British people like Florida better.

[Blashy]

Sealion is near impossible since v1.03. As it was historically.

Anyone who gets caught be a Sealion now really needs to refine his gameplay.

[Guest Mike]

I must have missed something then - which change did this????

[Liam]

Actually, Blashy is half right now. Sea Lion is near impossible IF, the British use their fleet to protect the Isles. Also if the British invest in enough corps, it will be painful for the Axis to take it. Though tanks, armies, and HQs with superior airpower will crush England completely. Also the Threat alone drives the English into any sort of frenzy frontal defense the Germans will then attack with aircraft and decimate the British Navy.. bit by bit... You have to remeber the English have no home defense force aside from ships, their airfleets are worthless as you have a bomber and a fighter without an HQ... They're pretty worthless altogether. If the Allies are attempting a defense of another piece of Real Estate England is very takeable. A vast majority of UK's resources must be devoted to the defense to prevent the value of it. An easy Take Down...

Of course I will not say I'm a Sea Lion Expert it's just a fact you can read in the game engine. The Amphib range should severely limited for USSR - Germany. The Italians as well, they had a Navy but not a great Amphibious Fleet... Remeber we could only hit Calais-Normandy from England. We could hit Sicily from Tunisia. We could only hit Yugoslavia or Southern France from Sicily-Southern Italy. What does that tell you about the Allied Amphibious Power, EXTREMELY limited.. USSR had practically no Amphibious capabilities, and minors should not have "any." This is not for just ahistorical reasons, 1 million Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians shouldn't be floating around the North Sea it's just something that NEVER could, would or should happen. That is what tweaks me more...

Granted, if the Island does fall now you also have Egypt to fall back on which though Ahistorical could represent something else. The Hubb of the Commonwealth with the access to the most resources. Do not forget The Pacific Possessions of the british Empire 90% of her Wealth likely from The Suez it represents this.

[Guest Mike]

The USSR managed some 1500 amphibious operations in the course of the war - including putting almost 200,000 troops onto the Kerch peninsular in 1942 and an amphibious assault just south of Novorossisk in the Black Sea that was never over-run.

[Liam]

With what? Tug Boats, fishing boats? Did they ever launch an amphibious invasion of Germany or any Minor throughout WW2 that on the level of 100-200 thousand men and would it have accomplished anything or cost the entire Operation? What you're speaking is in the Crimea, lordy... that is more of a transportation than an invasion by sea or ocean

Russians had troubles making suitable aircraft until well into 1942, in numbers. You're telling me they had a Modern Amphibious Fleet that could knock out Sweden? Sweden or Norway or Finland or any other Baltic Nation would've probably had intelligence, dropped a few thousand mines in the Baltic and sunk half the ships before they arrived.. Then called the Kriegsmarine up, and they'd of shot out of the sea the other tugboats and wood steamers

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

The USSR managed some 1500 amphibious operations in the course of the war - including putting almost 200,000 troops onto the Kerch peninsular in 1942 and an amphibious assault just south of Novorossisk in the Black Sea that was never over-run.

[Guest Mike]

Of coure not - but you said they had no amphibious capability - I "merely" pointed out that this was not so.

Their amphib technology was right up ther with that used at Gallipoli.

Kerch involved an invasion over the Black sea - not just poping across the straights - the cruisers and destroyers supporting it were based at Novorossisk, which is where most of the transport also came from.

the distance is somewhat more than that across the Pas de Calais.

[Liam]

Yes, I'm certian Black Sea weather is much more calm than that of Channel weather.. Facing formidable Obstacles like the Atlantic Wall, which was an illusion as a deterent I doubt that WW1 Amphibious Assualts would've prevailed much better than Galipoli, which by the way was a disaster and why D-Day was delayed to Summer of '44

Russians never operated across Cold Baltic Waters en mass to conquor a nation.. and likely wouldn't have had the capabilities as I stated.. The fact is, make an amphib range of 1 or 2, with Wooden Pixel Boats and 50-85% casualty rates when they land and I am all for letting Germany and USSR perform Amphib Ops

That's realism friend

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Of coure not - but you said they had no amphibious capability - I "merely" pointed out that this was not so.

Their amphib technology was right up ther with that used at Gallipoli.

Kerch involved an invasion over the Black sea - not just poping across the straights - the cruisers and destroyers supporting it were based at Novorossisk, which is where most of the transport also came from.

the distance is somewhat more than that across the Pas de Calais.

[Fartknock3r]

Good idea. I'd like to see something like the Capital at London, and then when its overun, the british move to Alexandria. Then, if that's captured, they move to St. Johns, but St. John isnt needed to be captured to win. Only one thing im wondering, do the british get canadian and egyptian mpp's automatically? Doesnt seem like convoys can go from a UK med area to the home isles when under direct control for the UK.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Liam:

Yes, I'm certian Black Sea weather is much more calm than that of Channel weather.. Facing formidable Obstacles like the Atlantic Wall, which was an illusion as a deterent I doubt that WW1 Amphibious Assualts would've prevailed much better than Galipoli, which by the way was a disaster and why D-Day was delayed to Summer of '44

Russians never operated across Cold Baltic Waters en mass to conquor a nation.. and likely wouldn't have had the capabilities as I stated.. The fact is, make an amphib range of 1 or 2, with Wooden Pixel Boats and 50-85% casualty rates when they land and I am all for letting Germany and USSR perform Amphib Ops

That's realism friend

The Soviet Union carried out amphibious operations in all seas they fought next to, including the Baltic, the Arctic and the Pacific as well as the Black sea.

the Amphibious landings at Gallipoli were about as successful as those on D-Day - in a few places they were opposed and suffered heavy casualties, but for teh most part they weer relative "walks in eth park".

Suvla bay a few months later was even easier.

Had there been a requirement to invade a nation by sea I have little doubt that eth Soviet Union could have rustled up a large ad-hoc amphibious force in a manner similar to the one the Germans proposed using for Sealion.

In the absence of effective opposition there is no reason to expect it would not have been successful - soviet Airpower would have overwhelmed any defence on the Baltic, and none of the Baltic nations had major surface units to match the soviet fleet - even though that fleet was seriously bottled up by Axis possession of both shores of the Gulf of Finland for most of the war.

The Soviets actually had amphibious doctrine, and one of the roles of their airborne units in 1941 was to aid amphibious landings by capturing coastal areas, and had a brigade of Naval Infantry in 1941.

50% casualties is ridiculous in that circumstance.

[TaoJah]

The UK is not that far from France or Flanders, you know. You don't need state-of-the art ships to get from continental Europe to the UK.

Some people do it SWIMMING, so...

For correctness, a Sealion should be as easy as it is now.

But for game-balance, it probably should be made harder. Once you got the UK mainland, you shut the door for D-Day and you can focus 100% on Russia.

[Scook]

I am pretty sure the Americans were happy to have state of the art landing craft at Omaha Beach. Swimming ashore was tried (unintentionally) in the Pacific (Tarawa and the tides), and we discovered that's not so hot.

[Liam]

No offense to these other two fellows but I do not feel Scook they have ever watched a Documentary of D-Day landings or Pacific Landing forces, where the Enemy approaches the beach, gets hammered by Subs, Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Coastal Batteries, etc...

Amphibious Landing Craft? Look up the topic and you'll see why... They're specialized and not to say the Russians didn't possess some, but a large quantity, they didn't need them! They had the best tanks, tankbusters, infantry weapons, and the most so so fighter aircraft in the field during the War. The germans argue perhaps their armor was better but it was not, because they picked tanks you couldn't produce many of like Shermanlike tanks that the Russians and Americans.. Being that the Russians had great Armies and Airforces, why bother with a real amphibious force, who were they going to invade?

The reason you do not hear much of that aspect of their war. They could get to any Baltic Nation by stomping on it's neighbor much easier...

Now could Russians of landed in Sweden? Perhaps... It's probably true the Swedes were completely unprepared for such an event, but COULD do the Russians land 50 miles from Berlin? LOL Run the scenario in 1941-'42 and see how many Russians survive it in a wargame. The Coastal Batteries, mines, subs alone would've killed 90% of the Russians the minute German intel picked up what was going on and believe me the Kriegsmarine was not outdated 1918 unit, they were top of the line, newly rebuilt and were not pushed into harbor, they dominated the Baltic until nearing the last days of the War..

and by the way what Soviet fighter could fly to Stockholm and back in 1941? So lone Amphibious craft without Finland woudl've been vulnerable and any amphibious assualt would've been with a land assault. If the Russians had weak tugs and old rusty transports to toss at any nation, it would be a very weak one. And even then Defeat the Swedish Army on land in Winter? LOL 200 thousand men by Boat would've not been sufficient without their heavier equipment, they'd of been beat back the minute the Swedes knew the event was going on and taken prisoner

Originally posted by Scook:

I am pretty sure the Americans were happy to have state of the art landing craft at Omaha Beach. Swimming ashore was tried (unintentionally) in the Pacific (Tarawa and the tides), and we discovered that's not so hot.

[Scook]

Both you, Liam, and Stalanist's Organist make very valid points for amphibious landings. The Soviets had tons of river barges that were fairly sea-worthy craft. Continually throughout the war they landed troops on the coastline of the Black Sea to keep the Germans on their toes. They did some landings in the Baltic, but not very many as mines, u-boats, etc. made the idea prohibitive in cost.

I would have to believe the Soviets could make landings into Sweden, and even close to Germany, but to sustain supply to said landings once resistance was provided would make them only a sideshow, and not a sustainable threat. In the Black Sea, and any rivers attached, the Soviets could drop off 50,000 men almost at will. The Luftwaffe was too busy to hit everything, and the Germans liked to use their air to support ground troops.

As for Germans and Sea Lion, there were not enough transports to land more than a few divisions at a time, and they were trying to get any usable craft shipped across land to the Atlantic for Sealion. Only country that truly had good landing craft (LST) is the USA, and could you imagine the US capturing the Azores so they could have a base to hit Africa?

I would think truly Germany, France, USSR, and Italy (if you want reality) have a range of 2 for amphibs, Britain either 3-4 because of their logistics and sheer number of ships, and USA...well, the best used has a range of 700 miles, so is that 14 squares at Amphib tech 5?

[markpoll]

Why does amphib tech effect the movement range of the transported troops, instead of (what seems more obvious to me) the number of troops that can be transported? Eg, if you have amphib tech 2, you can have say 2 units loaded on transports at any one time. That way, if you want to do an invasion, you need to prepare.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

For correctness, a Sealion should be as easy as it is now.

Like hell! :mad:

Sealion could not have succeeded any more than the LW could never have "destroyed" the RAF.

At hte time no-one knew it about either, but since then it is a fairly simple matter to research.

Unfortunately a lot of people stick to the myths that come from the time - as I said above no-one knew the real picture at hte time, and the British had a very real fear of being invaded, and that has permeated the sub-conscious of most of het English speaking world.

But it is a myth.

Sealion could NOT have succeeded given the facts of the time - even given the most generous interpretation of the facts.

Put simply the RN would have masssacred the German invasion fleet - period. added to that hte British land forces were not nearly as badly outnumbered or equipped as people assume, the RAF was never seriously threatened, and the loss of commercial shipping to the economy of Europe would ahve been a significant blow to German production.

[Blashy]

Well in 1.04 Sealion is impossible vs. any decent player.

[anoldman]

Hmm... ack. This is the second time I have heard Blashy say that Sealion is impossible vs. any decent player.

I disagree. I consider myself a decent player and have the initial landings of a Sealion on my allied shore that I believe will ultimately be successful. I did not bring the UK Med Navy up to UK I left them in Med, perhaps no decent player would do this?

It may in the end cost my axis opponent far more than he gains, but that doesn't mean he can't take the isles.

After France, use the german fighters (3) based on the north shore of France in combination with two (maybe 3) subs, and three cruisers. Launch initial flights of infantry corps as amphibs from all three French ports.

If Britain comes down to attack amphibs, you begin blasting with the two subs and three cruisers and three aircraft. You are going to win that naval battle over a few turns and U.K. does not have the cash to repair.

The risk of the amphib corps means that UK must garrison all 3 UK cities. German corps land and force UK bomber and air to retreat to the north. With losses due to air intercepts and then a corps attack, the UK air is likely pummeled.

Next turn (or two) use the 3x air and ground attacks to cut off London, land German HQ's, take London begin to press north...

I am not saying it can be done fast, but I believe that it can be done and done against a 'decent' player.

Remember that as UK you are also dealing with the Med (Italians) and Spain. You can get stretched to thin with UK resources and caught short.

I think it now forces the UK to spend additional monies up front for homeland defense instead of R&D, or Diplo (US). Even then, I think unless UK begins the game bolstering home defenses at the expense of other actions, it will be vulnerable.

Finally, I did not say this Sealion was a good decision on behalf of Axis, but I think they *can* take England main after France if they really want to.

I would be interested to know how this is impossible. I admit I am not a grognard of WWII or wargames, but if the goal of axis is simply to take the English isles I think they can?

Did you mean instead that it is 'impossible' because it will ultimately spell an axis loss against a decent player? I agree with that. But the idea that it is simply impossible I think is incorrect.

I could drain all resources for England defense, but then where would that leave me ala Spain or the Med?

I agree it may be a long term axis mistake, but I don't think I will be able to stop him from taking England in the short run.

--AOM

--Definitely not a Grognard, and maybe not a 'decent' player... dang, I thought I was at least decent...

[Edwin P.]

I see Sealion as a strategy to be used on occassion. If the British player has sent his naval fleet to the Mediterranean to face the Italian fleet that leaves the British isles wide open. If they don't send the UK Atlantic Fleet into the Med, then I can take Egypt easily and / or send my subs forth to engage in a battle for the Atlantic.

[SeaMonkey]

I believe that's the key, AOM, either The Isles or Egypt, not both, and it must be a full commitment.

[Guest Mike]

Whereas in fact the Italian fleet was rather easily botteld up by the RN without having to commit the home fleet........