I Think Hawaii was possible historically if the Carriers had been sunk at Pearl on Dec 7 1941. Without the carriers how would the US have stopped them?
Was Sea Lion possible?
- Thread starter Swinds
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I Think Hawaii was possible historically if the Carriers had been sunk at Pearl on Dec 7 1941. Without the carriers how would the US have stopped them?
Cheers for the insight as always, and apologies for my uninformed ramblings. In terms of those mines (which I totally forgot about, because I'm dopey), would they have had an impact on the capacity of Secret Master's hypothetical combined Axis taskforce, or the RN swinging in to have a go at the invasion force?
No. They were tethered at a depth so that surface ships could go over them. Only a submerged sub will hit them or snag the tether.
At least that's the theory
That said... Germany had a plan to mine both ends of the English Chanel in order to prevent the RN from intervening.
But I don't need to remind you just how many mine sweepers & other small ships equipped for sweeping Britain had along the south coast just for this eventuality.
Well, air supremacy is a given. Who invades across the English Channel without air supremacy?
Yeah.
My great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great Uncle Bill
- 1
most of you guys seems to forgot the Norway invasion battleplan capacity. And before D-Day battleplan, it was considered as a THE mastepiece, and German Staff Command was able to built a Sealion operation... BUT
This should have been built at least before the Fall of France like an extention of the "blitz", witch they were not even thinking of winning... and AH thought that Britain would had ask for peace...
This should have been built at least before the Fall of France like an extention of the "blitz", witch they were not even thinking of winning... and AH thought that Britain would had ask for peace...
I thought the German Navy lost a lot of ships in the Norway invasion so this hampered preparations for Sea Lion?
The other problem with mining the Channel... well, there's more than one, but I'll just go with two. Um, three.
1) It would take an awful lot of mines to seal the Channel, a really large number to actually do the job well. Germany didn't have them ready to hand in 1940-41, as far as I know, and wouldn't have time to make them. The North Sea barrage laid in WW1 required 80 million feet of wire cable and at least 8 dedicated ships to plant 70,000 mines. The Channel is narrower, but unlike laying the North Sea barrage, people will be shooting at you while you work.
2) First you have to sweep the Channel of British mines. Which takes minesweepers. Working while being shot at and strafed, and going back over and over because the stubborn British keep using their 42-knot minelayers to put more in the water. Damned ungracious of them.
3) How do you lay the mine barrages? Remember, we're talking something approximately 50 miles wide (as a wild guesstimate average - it runs from 20 miles to over 100). The North Sea mine barrage ran 230 miles long, 18 rows across spaced 300 feet apart for about 75,000 mines. Laying 55,000 of those required 10 dedicated ships converted for the job, and took five months. Let's assume we're covering 75 miles (37.5 * 2 for the two ends), 8 mines wide (pretty thin) spaced 300 feet apart. (75*5280*8)/300 = 11,000 mines (allowing for some duds and premature exploders and assuming the Brits are sporting enough not to sweep up any).
I'm not finding information on how many mines a U-boat could lay, but let's assume 30. That's about 370 U-boat sorties, assuming they don't have anything better to do.
By bomber? From Wiki: "From April to June 1940, the Luftwaffe laid 1,000 mines in British waters." That's 10% of what we need at minimum. "The Heinkel He 115 could carry two medium or one large mine while the Heinkel He 59, Dornier Do 18, Junkers Ju 88 and Heinkel He 111 could carry more." Assume 5 (?). That's 2200 aircraft sorties... assuming they don't have anything better to do. Laying them by surface ship? Please... Maybe the Kriegsmarine could train hippos to carry them into position?
And that's assuming the Royal Navy isn't busily trying to clear paths and lay mines while the Germans try to sweep mines and lay a barrage. The RN did have a couple of specialized, extremely-fast minelayers and a large number of pre-built minesweepers. Germany had... well, bupkis is what they had. Bupkis is what they had for every important naval asset needed for SeaLion.
Oh, and:
4) The Channel is not shallow. Most German mines, from what I can tell, were large and powerful but intended to work in relatively shallow water - the explosion causes a water-hammer that breaks the ship's keel. But... over most of its width - the Channel is not shallow, so you need a mine that can be tethered at a reasonable depth.
So... no. Just not happening. Unless Germany starts prepping for SeaLion from 1933-36 there's no way they have the assets. No landing craft, no amphib doctrine, no minesweepers and layers, no naval assets in any significant quantity. I (and other sensible people) keep saying: all you have to do to test the SeaLion hypothesis is to look at Overlord. Germany fails to have ANY of the factors deemed essential for Overlord - air cover, naval assets, landing craft and a developed amphib doctrine including combat loading of supplies, friendly scouts on the ground, follow-on troops, and logistics - logistics - logistics.
1) It would take an awful lot of mines to seal the Channel, a really large number to actually do the job well. Germany didn't have them ready to hand in 1940-41, as far as I know, and wouldn't have time to make them. The North Sea barrage laid in WW1 required 80 million feet of wire cable and at least 8 dedicated ships to plant 70,000 mines. The Channel is narrower, but unlike laying the North Sea barrage, people will be shooting at you while you work.
2) First you have to sweep the Channel of British mines. Which takes minesweepers. Working while being shot at and strafed, and going back over and over because the stubborn British keep using their 42-knot minelayers to put more in the water. Damned ungracious of them.
3) How do you lay the mine barrages? Remember, we're talking something approximately 50 miles wide (as a wild guesstimate average - it runs from 20 miles to over 100). The North Sea mine barrage ran 230 miles long, 18 rows across spaced 300 feet apart for about 75,000 mines. Laying 55,000 of those required 10 dedicated ships converted for the job, and took five months. Let's assume we're covering 75 miles (37.5 * 2 for the two ends), 8 mines wide (pretty thin) spaced 300 feet apart. (75*5280*8)/300 = 11,000 mines (allowing for some duds and premature exploders and assuming the Brits are sporting enough not to sweep up any).
I'm not finding information on how many mines a U-boat could lay, but let's assume 30. That's about 370 U-boat sorties, assuming they don't have anything better to do.
By bomber? From Wiki: "From April to June 1940, the Luftwaffe laid 1,000 mines in British waters." That's 10% of what we need at minimum. "The Heinkel He 115 could carry two medium or one large mine while the Heinkel He 59, Dornier Do 18, Junkers Ju 88 and Heinkel He 111 could carry more." Assume 5 (?). That's 2200 aircraft sorties... assuming they don't have anything better to do. Laying them by surface ship? Please... Maybe the Kriegsmarine could train hippos to carry them into position?
And that's assuming the Royal Navy isn't busily trying to clear paths and lay mines while the Germans try to sweep mines and lay a barrage. The RN did have a couple of specialized, extremely-fast minelayers and a large number of pre-built minesweepers. Germany had... well, bupkis is what they had. Bupkis is what they had for every important naval asset needed for SeaLion.
Oh, and:
4) The Channel is not shallow. Most German mines, from what I can tell, were large and powerful but intended to work in relatively shallow water - the explosion causes a water-hammer that breaks the ship's keel. But... over most of its width - the Channel is not shallow, so you need a mine that can be tethered at a reasonable depth.
So... no. Just not happening. Unless Germany starts prepping for SeaLion from 1933-36 there's no way they have the assets. No landing craft, no amphib doctrine, no minesweepers and layers, no naval assets in any significant quantity. I (and other sensible people) keep saying: all you have to do to test the SeaLion hypothesis is to look at Overlord. Germany fails to have ANY of the factors deemed essential for Overlord - air cover, naval assets, landing craft and a developed amphib doctrine including combat loading of supplies, friendly scouts on the ground, follow-on troops, and logistics - logistics - logistics.
- 5
- 2
- 1
Agrees with your assessment. The Channel favors the smaller ships and torpedo attacks. Imagine what Taffy 3 could have done if the action had happened near Dover.
Although in fairness to the IJN, they thought there were more substantial forces present. If Yamato and her fellow ships pressed the advantage, there would have been 13 sunk ships and a screwed invasion force. (With who knows how many Japanese losses.)
The IJN would have been completely wiped out - it's that simple. The Japanese had succeeded in decoying away the US carrier fleet but had the Japanese surface fleet persisted in their attack they would have found themselves surrounded in Leyte Gulf with no chance of escape as the carrier fleet returned.
Of course, since the IJN was eventually destroyed anyway it might arguably have been better for them to go out in a blaze of glory.
Ah yes, I forgot about Russian landings in the Crimea. IN the sheer size of the Eastern Front, its is one of those instances that is easy for one to overlook.
- 1
In fairness to my posts, I'm postulating a scenario where the Germans start a better naval build up from 1936. So, give me Bismark ready to fight in 1940. (I also said I'm in fan-boy wank fest territory already, so this isn't the most serious plan to attack Britain.)
But your point about the air base is a good one. I thought you meant the sea planes were going to sink the invasion. But using it as an RAF fighter base would be a great idea.
True, but Taffy 3 would have been wiped out to the last ship. And who knows what damage could have been done to the invasion.
And let's be honest, losing Yamato at Leyte while fighting enemy warships and hurting the invasion would have been a far better use of her than Ten-Go.
- 2
Indeed, Taffy-3 would have been destroyed and terrible damage would have been done to the invasion fleet before the CVs came to the rescue.
From the point of view of the Japanese military, wiping out the transport ships & landing craft of the US invasion fleet at Leyte would have meant that it would be at least two years, maybe three, before the US could have replaced enough of those losses to launch an invasion of the home islands.
So that's a win.
From the point of view of the Kaiser & Cornfield Shipyards, it might have been four months.
So it's a sacrifice that's expensive in terms of US personel, but only a setback, not a disaster.
Are we talking about the russian landings, where they had the only naval assets in the area?
Or...
The single infantry brigade landed by the 902nd Assault Boats?
Transporting a single brigade across 600m of open water is more like crossing a river than crossing the English chanel.
Those assault boats were certainly more seaworthy than the river barges adapted for Sealion, but they were much more lightly built and vulnerable to machingun fire.
- 2
In my opinion, Sea Lion would only have been marginally possible if Germany had planned and prepared for it years in advance, and even then it would have been an uphill struggle in need of several lucky breaks, or major errors by the Allies. That would have required a combination of suitable high-speed transport/landing craft, more aircraft, better anti-ship capability and training, and a number of other changes, all of which would have been at the expense of what Germany needed for its land wars. When France fell unexpectedly soon, Germany was in no position to capitalize on its success with a rapid strike against the British Isles, and there was no time to improve that position.
- 2
A surprise that takes over a day for the first troops to hit the beaches, on barges that were precarious just crossing the channel without enemy fire, while the entire British armed forces sit around and allow it to happen? Seems somewhat unlikely, but sure we'll work on your assumption that the British fail to notice a major amphibious assault that they were constantly looking for
The Demyansk pocked took up an entire Luftflottes transport capabilities and also much of the bomber capability, which you've already assigned to the failing objective of eliminating the RAF. It took totally unsustainable losses against second rate aerial opposition, just to supply six divisions in a defensive stance, with only a small armoured contingent, while the Russians were also busy fighting the Germans across the entire Eastern Front. Supplying overseas armour on the offensive is way beyond the capabilities of the Luftwaffe in 1940.
Except Germany was losing planes/pilots faster than it could replace them and the RAF was not, even if the RAF was forced to redeploy much of it's strength to bases beyond the reach of German aircraft the Luftwaffe could not afford a continued attrition battle.
So now the RN and RAF are oblivious to the slowest amphibious assault in history, but also major engineering works occuring on the South Coast of England? This is beyond fantasy now
- 6
- 2
We are talking about Soviet landings, where they had the only naval assets in the area that were not used in the landing as per the orders of STAVKA. Black Sea fleet played no role in it. The last time in that part of the war that the fleet did anything was in Sevastopol where ships were used as artillery, but as soon as Germans got close, the fleet retreated and stayed in port except the subs that attacked chromium convoys from Turkey most of the time.
And landing were not across the Kerch straights. The main force came at Feodosia, 100km across the water.
The naval element was constructed around coastal patrol boats, no big ships (from the destroyer and upwards) were used.
Initial assault of 90-100.000 men wold have been a success, the war game points it out and the other operations in the similar circumstance. A surprise attack on the poorly defended coast with a large force will always succeed. You can argue that after that the RN would prevent any surface ships to go over the straights, and yes, that would be true.
But as pointed out, you do not need any more surface ships transporting things. Luftwaffe alone could supply 100.000 men, and for anything more Germany could have used the subs as they did before. One sub could carry more supplies than a division needed for a day of heavy fighting and as Germany had between 20 and 40 of them at the sea at all the times, you could just as easy supply 20 divisions if you maintain the underwater convoy. RN would not attack those simply because they would not know about them. They did not patrol the channel but only came in if the surface fleet is detected. Subs would not be detected from the bases far away where RN destroyer were stationed and the only danger for them (and the air supply) is from the RAF fighters.
Transports subs were used in the Great War and Japan used them in the WWII. And if sub dives to around 30 meters it is invisible even to a patrol aircraft. At night even more so. So there is actually no problem in transport or supply by the subs. And should we mention that German troops were thought to use as much as they can of the land they took? In Africa they had a huge logistic problems, yet Rommel used British supplies to a great extent.
So it all boils down to a question of winning the air battle.
If you win the air battle, you have the logistics to supply from 100.000 (air alone) to 300.000 (air and sub) men (enough for the task at hand) and the initial landings would be a success as proven by war game and other operations. A further push in the war game was only prevented by the lack of supplies and heavy weapons (problem already solved).
The only thing that is problematic is air supremacy. And if that is the part you want to discuss, sure, we can do it. But the naval aspect no. The very fact that Germany could supply 100.000 strong army with the Luftwaffe alone points out that any talk about Germany not being able to send surface ships across the channel after the initial assault is rendered mute.
- 6
Over a day? In what universe? And assaults like that usually take place in the night so good luck noticing something before it is too late anyway. I have seen some wild assumptions that it would take 24-28 hours to cross the channel. Yeah, no, you can swim over it faster than that. Someone, somewhere fucked up the math. Sorry.
And the Luftwaffe loses at Demyansk are simply false. Germany lost 265 aircraft (of those only 20 bombers) and Soviet Union lost 408 aircraft. That sound to you like a second hand aerial opposition?
About those losing of aircraft - yup, that did happen. So what you are saying that by doing EXACTLY THE SAME stupid things Germans did in fighting the Battle of Britain, Germany would lose? No kidding, we know how history ended up. We are talking about ajustting tactics for the invasion, not terror bombing of civilians. And no, it is not the point of eliminating the RAF or making more planes than them, it is about denying the airports to RAF, and that is not the same.
And those "major engineering works" in the South Coast would take ONE DAY, the time required for Krupp constructed jetty to be assembled.
- 1
So how are the Germans getting this flotilla of barges across the channel in any sort of significant numbers, quicker than the RAF and RN can respond?
They lost over 100 Ju-52 transports. And yes the Red Airforce in the Spring of 1942 wasn't exactly in the best condition. A better equipped and organised air force focusing on just Southern England would have decimated the transport fleet, which would be forced to run supplies to the same areas day after day.
Additionally the Demyansk pocket required functioning airfields within the pocket to unload supplies at and to load casualties. Airfields that your Luftwaffe has allegedly rendered totally inoperable in this fantasy Sea Lion.
No I'm saying that whether they bombed airfields or cities is irrelevant, the Luftwaffe was running out of pilots and planes rapidly and could not sustain operations of serious intensity for much longer.
As far as I'm aware there's no overwhelming evidence the focus on airfields was effective anyway. It certainly degraded the RAFs capabilities, but most stations were back in action within hours of attacks and there's little lasting damage
And the RAF/Royal Navy sit around for a whole day while this port is constructed? This port that as far as I can tell wasn't built until 1941
I mean, yeah I guess I'd concede that Sealion was possible if we assume the RAF and the Royal Navy do the square root of fuck all for the entire campaign, the Germans land several divisions totally unopposed and then launch a successful offensive while outnumbered 3:1 supplied entirely by air.
Last edited:
Yep.
Although on that kind of time scale, we get to see what Japan looks like after another three years of blockade.
Also, yes. But better than no sacrifice at all and Yamato still sinking.
- 1
German navy had some of the worst aa technology I can think of, maybe Italy had worse but that is about it. That would hurt their ability to perform any type of operation in areas aircrafts could reach such as an invasion of UK.
Their army aa was also terrible.
Their army aa was also terrible.
If germany drafts Jesus or Moses....
Otherwise yeah not happening 1940
Otherwise yeah not happening 1940
- 1
I mean, yeah I guess I'd concede that Sealion was possible if we assume the RAF and the Royal Navy do the square root of fuck all for the entire campaign, the Germans land several divisions totally unopposed and then launch a successful offensive while outnumbered 3:1 supplied entirely by air.
Well, for some reason you think that the RAF has to be destroyed or completely prevented from operating. That is not the case. It only has to be prevented from operating for a few months in one region of the country - and that is not the same. For that, Germany could suffer with its Luftwaffe. Yes, they would not be able to go to war with Soviet Union the next year but that is not the point. The question was - was it possible after the fall of France. Yes, and it would cost Germany the war because the Soviets would crush them way before 1945 and the Europe would a communist continent.
And why the river barges? What do you think, how many assault crafts can a tank factory construct in 3-4 months? And how many factories were there in Germany? A simple 15 knots assault craft (that the Allies used) used half of the resources a tank is made of and Germany constructed more than 1800 tanks in 1940. And for that kind of craft you do not need a dry dock or any ship buliding docks.
Yes, the factories could construct tanks, and yes Luftwaffe could be stupid, and yes, Hitler would not plan the invasion, and yes to all to the things that DID happen so the Sea Lion never went on. And no one would argue - we have history books that tell us who won the war. It is not a mystery.
The question was, could it be done, had Germany put its mind to it (and that meant forgetting the East until 1942). And to that, you answer with what did happen in the war? Thank you, if I want a history lesson I would open a book. We are discussing another situation here where things DID NOT go as they did. And even with the resources that were available historically to Germany, war game of 1974 concluded that it WAS possible to land a force of 90.000 men - yet for you even that it not an option because for that "RAF and RN would have to do the square root of fuck all".
As I said in the first post, Sea Lion is a Holy Grail of NO when it comes to discussion here. For it to succeed an army, that went from Berlin to Moscow in 6 months, must have no opposition at all. Well if that is the case, what are we talking about here and was all that fighting 70+ years ago?
The capabilities of the German and Soviet armies are grossly underestimated on this forum while Allied forces are greatly overestimated. So there is no point in talking with highly bias crowd about some things. Once again, a Holy Grail of NO if any discussion of Allied loss in just about anything is considered.
- 5
- 3