Stalin's an enigma, he's definitely alot of things. I think he was a cold and calculating person, but he was always thinking the West/capitalism is out to topple him (which it was after the war).
My 2 cents.....
My 2 cents.....
-
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 don't think there were any Soviet troops south of the 38th when the agreement was made to use it s a dividing line. I'm not sure there were even any Soviet troops south of the Yalu.
Soviet troops did not participate actively in the Korean war. In fact they allowed it to happen by walking out of the U.N. instead of vetoing the U.N. action (a mistake they never made again during the cold war.)
I tot so too
Anyway, IMHO, Sealowee may be possible if Luftwaffe obtains air superiority over the Channel, regardless of the RN. In Operation Cerberus, two RN destroyer flotillas attempted to intercept the Dash but were beaten back before getting within range. But have to agree that inspite of the Luftwaffe-vs-RN debate, the real clunker would be the invasion "barges" themselves....4 knots and low-freeboard attempting the crossing??
Sealion just like the planned invasion (no date) to land in New England was a complete dream.
The Nazis had too many dreamers, way too many dreamers. Dream weapons, dream ethnic groups, dream invasions, etc. If they only had a few people rooted in reality they may have been more successful.
The Nazis had too many dreamers, way too many dreamers. Dream weapons, dream ethnic groups, dream invasions, etc. If they only had a few people rooted in reality they may have been more successful.
Sealion couldn't possibly succed. Even if German troops managed to land in Britain, the Royal Army would know exactly when and where they would be.
Enigma, remember?
Enigma, remember?
Originally posted by Hamilcar
Sealion couldn't possibly succed. Even if German troops managed to land in Britain, the Royal Army would know exactly when and where they would be.
Enigma, remember?
If the German Panzers had encircled the BEF in May...Sealion could have been a great success...
But Hitler let the opportunity slip away because he was nervous..
The result was Dunkerque
Assuming the Germans had planned for the invasion beforehand, AND that the LW had fared much better against the RAF, the British couls have retreated Fighter Command just beyond effective Bf-109 range.
The day the Germans invade, Fighter Command covers the Home Fleet which proceeds to slaughter the invasion force.
Sure the RN would have suffered heavy losses, but given the atrocious seaworthiness of the commandeered Rhine river barges the Germans intended to use it would have been enough to sail a destroyer not too far away to sink them.
No more barges = no more troops can cross and no more supply can be brought to the beachheads and Rhineland economy is paralysed.
An amphibious assault requires
1) Naval superiority
2) lots and lots of shipping and specialized AW crafts.
the Germans had neither, nor were they even remotely close to have them in 1940.
case closed.
The day the Germans invade, Fighter Command covers the Home Fleet which proceeds to slaughter the invasion force.
Sure the RN would have suffered heavy losses, but given the atrocious seaworthiness of the commandeered Rhine river barges the Germans intended to use it would have been enough to sail a destroyer not too far away to sink them.
No more barges = no more troops can cross and no more supply can be brought to the beachheads and Rhineland economy is paralysed.
An amphibious assault requires
1) Naval superiority
2) lots and lots of shipping and specialized AW crafts.
the Germans had neither, nor were they even remotely close to have them in 1940.
case closed.
What happened on sealion:http://www.panzerworld.net/Dunkirk.htm
The notion of Dunkirk saving Britain also ignores, the Cherbourg evacuation.
The notion of Dunkirk saving Britain also ignores, the Cherbourg evacuation.
Hmm, not sure if we can give this webpage too much credence. I had been reading Len Deighton's war novels since teenage days and though good bedtime reads, they were mostly short on details. Then again, I may have the wrong Len Deighton.
But agree, losing BEF at Dunkirk does not translate into easy Channel crossing. The lose would only come into play AFTER a successful channel crossing.
And remember that they lost their heavy equipment. Guys with rifles aren't that great really. Think 80% of Americans' losses in Europe was due to artillery and mortar (something like 65 and 15, respectively).
US Army WWII casualties by cause:
Small arms: 32%
Shell fragments: 53%
Mines & booby traps: 3%
Other causes: 12%
(source: Dupuy, Attrition, p58)
Posted by Dralizaar in Rare Facts in WWII :
"vs germans of all USA infantry losses over 2/3rds <67%> were caused by german artillery, 17% by mortars, amd 6% by light machine guns...all other sources werre lower %"
vs. Germans is the key word here
..I've no idea where he got the figures though. Regardless, the trend is same. 32% of casualties by small arms strikes me as a bit high, but maybe it's just the Japanese and their Banzai-charges/suicidal defence.
Originally posted by Juis
Posted by Dralizaar in Rare Facts in WWII :
"vs germans of all USA infantry losses over 2/3rds <67%> were caused by german artillery, 17% by mortars, amd 6% by light machine guns...all other sources werre lower %"
vs. Germans is the key word here
75-80% losses from artillery is Dupuy's figure for WWI if you include gas shells.
Since WWII was rather less static than WWI and mustard gas wasn't used, it's logical that the proportion of artillery losses should be quite lower.
Furthermore, the Germans often suffered from arty ammo shortages on the Western front.
And I'd trust Dupuy and HERO on US Army stats over any unspecified source.
Without the bulk of it´s forces it could have been feasible to attempt an airborne operation..
Your'e suggesting it would take ten thousand men to subdue britain? (I'm being way too generous. I'd be surprised if the Germans had the capability to supply that many men by air for prolonged periods. Yes, there was stalingrad, but that, ah, failed).
Men who have no heavy weapons? Note that there was a Canadian armored division assembling in England proper.
Perhaps the greatest indication that sealionw as impossible was that the people who thought they could occupy moscow, leiningrad, and the ukraine in one campaign didn't try it.
Last edited: