Jump to content

Soviet response to Sealion


Recommended Posts

Hi Hubert/Bill, I'm currently playing my first 1939 SOE campaign as the Axis side vs. AI. It's June 1941 and I've decided to launch an invasion of England. I land several units in England and establish a beachhead. Then, during the Allied turn, I'm informed my invasion has caused "alarm" in the Soviet Union -- which moves the Soviet leaning towards the Allies some 30 points, from about 65 to 97! The Soviets promptly declare war at the end of the Allied turn.

I was quite surprised at the jump in Soviet mobilization. Had I known it would be so high, I would definitely have reconsidered Sealion. My question is, what is the average percent change for the Soviets during a German invasion of England? What can be done (other than not invading) to prevent such a jump? And also, a suggestion -- perhaps a warning about this allegiance shift could be added to the 1939 player's guide, to give Axis players a heads up that the USSR's response to a Sealion can be rather extreme! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, indeed...I'm sure that if Sealion would have had such an effect, german High Command would have taken this into account when planning for Sealion in late 1940! Or maybe this was the reason they HAD to do it in 1940 or never - (well, at least before dealing with the Soviets!) in Spring 1941.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaLion is a good point where SC and reality differ a lot.

A successful SeaLion in 1940 or 1941 would take the western Allies out of the war. Fighting would be over in the west, No transfer to Egypt. The US would have stayed out of the war, and there wouldn`t have been any deliveries of supplies to the USSR.. no convoys via the north sea, no supplies via Iran... and almost no german garrisons in France necessary. Germany would haven been able to fully concentrate on the USSR after a successful sealion, and their chances would have been better. If you read how many supplies the UK and US have delivered to Russia, just imagine what Germany would have done with the poor Russians.. no Afrika Corps necessary, Rommel whacking Russians. Pretty sure the outcome would have been different. So in history, a SeaLion would have changed the path of the war dramatically.

For that reason, SC is set up in a different way. If you can pratically win the game by doing successful SeaLion, everyone would do it, and the game is over. So Hubert decided to create a disadvantage for the Axis player.. and that is Russia. Once Germany defeats the UK, Russia is in the war. Pretty sure in reality that would have been different... Stalin wouldn´t have attacked from one day to the other, and until he is prepared, the german troops would be back from England, and he would think twice to attack (just think of the situation on the western border of Germany in 1939).

In reality a successful SeaLion was a "game cracker" for Germany, in SC it is a non event.. when you do it as Axis, you win very few MPPs and have the Russians on your backdoor just in the moment where you don`t need them. Very well modeled by Hubert, but not historical... in reality a successful SeaLion would have meant "game over".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaLion is a good point where SC and reality differ a lot.

A successful SeaLion in 1940 or 1941 would take the western Allies out of the war. Fighting would be over in the west, No transfer to Egypt. The US would have stayed out of the war, and there wouldn`t have been any deliveries of supplies to the USSR.. no convoys via the north sea, no supplies via Iran... and almost no german garrisons in France necessary. Germany would haven been able to fully concentrate on the USSR after a successful sealion, and their chances would have been better. If you read how many supplies the UK and US have delivered to Russia, just imagine what Germany would have done with the poor Russians.. no Afrika Corps necessary, Rommel whacking Russians. Pretty sure the outcome would have been different. So in history, a SeaLion would have changed the path of the war dramatically.

For that reason, SC is set up in a different way. If you can pratically win the game by doing successful SeaLion, everyone would do it, and the game is over. So Hubert decided to create a disadvantage for the Axis player.. and that is Russia. Once Germany defeats the UK, Russia is in the war. Pretty sure in reality that would have been different... Stalin wouldn´t have attacked from one day to the other, and until he is prepared, the german troops would be back from England, and he would think twice to attack (just think of the situation on the western border of Germany in 1939).

In reality a successful SeaLion was a "game cracker" for Germany, in SC it is a non event.. when you do it as Axis, you win very few MPPs and have the Russians on your backdoor just in the moment where you don`t need them. Very well modeled by Hubert, but not historical... in reality a successful SeaLion would have meant "game over".

Do you have any proof for your assumption?

Personally i can't imagine a situation where the USA would have let Nazi Germany rise and grow strong enough to rule Europe, Afrika and Asia.

My guess is that the USA would have helped the Russians to fight the germans, UK or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it would've been much, much harder to operate to try to break through the Gustav Line in Italy and the Alps to get at Germany. Sure, they still could have knocked Italy out, but breaching the Alps is a whole another thing.

What sort of ransoming with hostages did the Germans do with the nations they were at war with? I don't think they threatened to kill off the inhabitants of the occupied French cities unless France capitulated, don't know if they would have done that to force the Royal Navy to turn themselves over. If not, the US could have together with the RN still done lend-lease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof? How about the facts that after a year of war France was defeated and then Germany nearly won the air campaign over Britain and where were the Americans? There were too many distasteful memories of WWI's outcome that kept US politics in gridlock over support to GB and France when there was a good chance of stopping Germany after the fall of Poland. If one can imagine a successful Sealion with the resulting defeat of the Brits without triggering US intervention, then one is compelled to ask for proof that US involvement would ever take place. The fact remains that GB was not defeated and Germany nearly overran the Soviet army in the summer of 1941, yet no US intervention took place until an unrelated attack by Japan removed the political deadlock. HvS is correct to assume the US would have stood by and watched Germany occupy Soviet Europe. I might add that given a Brit defeat, the US would have likely occupied Brit possessions near America in the name of their safety from u-boat havens, and then upon defeat of the USSR, i'd further suppose the US gov't would seek an accommodation on spheres of influence In the Atlantic and Africa to avoid war with Germany while concentrating on starting a war with Japan to settle old scores in the Pacific. In short, a German victory in Europe BEFORE Pearl Harbor would likely have been more acceptable to the US Gov't in the shortterm rather than a Japanese victory over China BEFORE Pearl Harbor. I apologize for getting too deep into ahistorical discussion, but I find the topic very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, definitely.However, I don't think that a GB defeat would have been key to a Soviet defeat in 1941, all things being otherwise the same.

It would have been in the long run that the Soviets would have been defeated without outside help, and I don't see why they wouldn't have provided aid to the Soviets like they did when GB was in the war - if the RN was still operational, at least. Like I said, I don't know if the Germans would have held the brits hostage to get the RN to surrender instead of operating out of Canada / Soviet Union to facilitate lend / lease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof? How about the facts that after a year of war France was defeated and then Germany nearly won the air campaign over Britain and where were the Americans? There were too many distasteful memories of WWI's outcome that kept US politics in gridlock over support to GB and France when there was a good chance of stopping Germany after the fall of Poland. If one can imagine a successful Sealion with the resulting defeat of the Brits without triggering US intervention, then one is compelled to ask for proof that US involvement would ever take place. The fact remains that GB was not defeated and Germany nearly overran the Soviet army in the summer of 1941, yet no US intervention took place until an unrelated attack by Japan removed the political deadlock. HvS is correct to assume the US would have stood by and watched Germany occupy Soviet Europe. I might add that given a Brit defeat, the US would have likely occupied Brit possessions near America in the name of their safety from u-boat havens, and then upon defeat of the USSR, i'd further suppose the US gov't would seek an accommodation on spheres of influence In the Atlantic and Africa to avoid war with Germany while concentrating on starting a war with Japan to settle old scores in the Pacific. In short, a German victory in Europe BEFORE Pearl Harbor would likely have been more acceptable to the US Gov't in the shortterm rather than a Japanese victory over China BEFORE Pearl Harbor. I apologize for getting too deep into ahistorical discussion, but I find the topic very interesting.

4 answers:

a) the US cash and carry policy = the USA did help during 1940

B) after the depression the US needed orders badly and would have sold to everyone who was willing to pay AND to fight the germans (the classical win-win situation).

c) The USA needed time to build up armed forces and to equip them, needed time to produce weapons and supplies, while the French army was considered the biggest and best of the world before the 1940 France campaign. On the other Hand the germans gambled with their attack through the Ardennes. Could have easily ended very differently.

Maybe Hitler wouldn't even have survived a failed or prolonged war with France.

d) as long as the Royal Navy was arround, the UK was never in a real danger of a successful SeaLion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 4:Wasn't the whole idea that by attaining air supremacy over England, the RN would be a non-issue? With suitable escorts and dominance over the air, the RN would have had no business in the Channel. Maybe a heavy investment in subs would have helped, but too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 4:Wasn't the whole idea that by attaining air supremacy over England, the RN would be a non-issue? With suitable escorts and dominance over the air, the RN would have had no business in the Channel. Maybe a heavy investment in subs would have helped, but too late.

Nah, this air supremacy was for the Kriegsmarine always only a excuse to hide behind. They knew they wouldn't be able to conduct and protect a successful SeaLion. So they stated that if at all first they needed air supremacy.

But even with air supremacy SeaLion would have probably ended in a bloody desaster. The Kriegsmarine would still haven't been able to protect the invasion fleet or the landing beaches against the Royal Navy, and the Luftwaffe would still have had a very limited attack range, the landed soldiers would have had very bad supply.

Even the combined allied fleets of 1944 had massive problems with getting enough supplies to France, and they had Mulberry harbors, thousends of ships and total and complete air supremacy.

The germans wouldn't have had Mulberries, no harbors, and a very limited and only local air supremacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...