The discussion  so far

Many years ago I bought a bundle of Dad's Army and German forces in 15mm for playing Operation Sealion games. I painted some, but most have spent a lot of time unprimed and unpainted.

Having recently read a few books recently which have rekindled my interest in Operation Sealion. These have included Collaborator by Murray Davies which is set in a nazi occupied Britain and tells the story of a British soldier working for the occupying forces as a translator who then gets involved in the resistance...

Real history books which have also inspired included Berlin The Downfall 1945 by Antony Beevor, the author of Stalingrad and The Model Occupation: The Channel Islands Under German Rule, 1940-1945.

The Leader by Guy Walters though not an Operation Sealion alternative history also provided inspiration.

This picture shows one of my Dad's Army vehicles which I have repainted with some N Gauge scenery from the Lyddle End Hornby range.



The N Gauge models are out of scale, 1/148th compared to the 1/100th scale of 15mm World War Two, but I also want to use the buildings with Warmaster figures as well.
Posted by Warmaster Nice on Sep. 25 2005,16:30
Great stuff Jimbo. I agree Alternative history is a very interesting -if sometimes worrying - read.  
Nice AV too  

I've been drybrushing grey for absolute ages (well hours anyway) trying to get some seriouslwork done on my Cityfight terrain. Why the heck does it have to take so long to drybrush!  
Most of the buildings are done but I still need to add some walkways and stuf, painthe and varnish the channel and of course paint all sorts of detail.

Cheers!
Posted by primarch on Sep. 25 2005,21:57
Hi!

Alterative history is one of my recent favored pastimes. I find the speculation on the "what ifs" very thought provoking.

Given german air superiority, would have Sealion worked?

Primarch
Posted by Jimbo on Sep. 25 2005,22:52
Quote (primarch @ Sep. 25 2005,21:57)
Alterative history is one of my recent favored pastimes. I find the speculation on the "what ifs" very thought provoking.

Given german air superiority, would have Sealion worked?

From what I have read, the answer would still be no.

Even with total air superiority it is still highly unlikely that Sealion could have worked.

The major problem lies with the lack of German naval forces.

However this is not to say that the British under total air attack would not have tried to make peace or surrender.

Having said that I still like the concept of an Operation Sealion and will continue to plan and play games in this alternate history.
Posted by Legion 4 on Sep. 25 2005,23:59
Agree with Jimbo, the Germans did not have the Naval forces/techniques to do it ... regardless of the Luftwaffe. But alternate history is cool anyway !    Like me getting a hot date !   Oh wait ... that's Sci-fi !  
Posted by primarch on Sep. 26 2005,01:01
Quote (Jimbo @ Sep. 25 2005,17:52)
Quote (primarch @ Sep. 25 2005,21:57)
Alterative history is one of my recent favored pastimes. I find the speculation on the "what ifs" very thought provoking.

Given german air superiority, would have Sealion worked?

From what I have read, the answer would still be no.

Even with total air superiority it is still highly unlikely that Sealion could have worked.

The major problem lies with the lack of German naval forces.

However this is not to say that the British under total air attack would not have tried to make peace or surrender.

Having said that I still like the concept of an Operation Sealion and will continue to plan and play games in this alternate history.

Hi!

I have read similar comments from people, that air superiority wasnt enough.

But given what we know about how bad a navy without aircover is, is the british navy really of worth under such conditions?

The battle is won or lost on the basis of supply, like most battles. But how long would have a land battle lasted? From some documentaries and books I have read on the subject, comparing what we know of british defenses and what they were likely to face, doesnt paint a good picture for the defenders. I quickly see the land battle basically becoming how long the siege of london would be...

Let us remember that although Dunkirk was a "miracle", all heavy equipment was left there, the BEF wasn't in any shape near equal the veteran crack forces the german would throw at them.

Of course, the whole invasion would go in the crapper with but one bad storm in the english channel during the invasion....  

More speculation is welcome.

Primarch
Posted by Legion 4 on Sep. 26 2005,04:30
Yes, the forces of the U.K. would have had a hard time with what they had on hand and the Germans landed with enough forces and were able to support them.  The RN and RAF would be critical at stopping an invasion force, during all phases of the operations ...  The Germans would have to develope, organize and train a large landing force, of both amphibious and airborne/air landing units, maintain air superiority and neutralize the RN ... It truly is one of the more interesting alternate history campaigns ...

Posted by Mojarn Piett on Sep. 26 2005,07:12
The problem with Germans is that they'd HAVE to capture a port at the very beginning  in order to make their supply chain work. More or less intact. Otherwise they could never maintain large enough force to sustain offensive (ref. Stalingrad). that meas they'd have had to do an airborne operation on the scale of Crete but on a much smaller area making it easier for the British forces to contain them and to turn the battle into a slugging match (again, Stalingrad comes to mind).

Granted, the Germans did have some amphibious tanks but these were few and it would take time to get more and to train the crews. Also, no specialised landing crafts, meaning unloading those tanks was slow.

I don't know about the capacities of british ports in the southern coast but I guess (corrct me if I'm wrong) there were few ports big enough to support an army. As the British knew the laws of logistics at least as well as the Germans these would be the places defended most heavily.

As for fleets and air superiority, Royal Navy was big enough to sustain losses and continue operations for quite some time whereas Germans could ill afford to lose even a few ships. If the Battle of Britain were to turn against the British they'd just shift the fighters to airfields further north. This would mean the Germans could gain local air superiority over the southernmost part of the GB but they'd be unable to hurt the RAF bases anymore. Plus in situation like Sealion the priority of RAF would be to protect the Royal Navy.

Summa summarum: I think in situation like that Germans would most likely be able to land large airborne forces but not heavy equipment in significant quantities. Even when they captured airfields as there was at the time no glider large enough to transport tanks. This in turn would offset the lack of heavy equipment of the British forces. Everything would depend on how fast (and indeed if) the Germans could capture a port with sufficient facilities, in turn allowing the British to further concentrate their defences to these key points.
Posted by Warmaster Nice on Sep. 26 2005,08:58
It seems unlikely that a large scale D-day style invasion would have even been possible. However a series of pin point shock attacks at key positions combined with heavy bombardments might have proven extremely demoralizing.
Like Mojarn said it would have been necessary to capture a british port from early on. for any conventional attack to be successfull. However a "dirty war" where heads of state etc. deliberately are targetted for purposes of morale doesn't require as much logistics.

Cheers!
Posted by Legion 4 on Sep. 26 2005,15:41
I agree with M/J on all points ... and Hitler became obsessed with the invasion of the East.  To even have a chance of "Seelowe" occuring, the war in the East would have to be postponed or cancelled ... not to mention develope landing craft in large numbers and taking on the RN ...
Posted by primarch on Sep. 26 2005,18:39
Hi!

Interesting. I put less value on their naval forces, no matter the relative size. Without adequate air cover they are just targets. What little air cover they had left after the defeat in the air war can not possibly escort their naval assets in any effective manner.

Also, with the invasion of southern england a good part of England's radar net would be rendered useless. Thus giving the germans an edge.

Also, we assume they wouldnt try landing tanks at the get go. What if they did. Even a small tank force with limted petrol could be overwhelming if used correctly. Also, add resupply by captured airfields, thus obviating the need for the immediate capture of a port. Given air superiority, several captured airfields could fly in quite a bit of supplies, even petrol to fuel those few tanks that came in the assault waves.

Also, there is one point absent in this discussion. While we stress the logistic problems of the germans, we forget the problem of british logistics. Its an island, it was well known that several weeks without merchant shipping bringing in supplies would starve the british people. That's why the U-boat threat was so great. The germans only have to feed their invading troops. The british need to feed their military AND population.

Also this means the royal navy has two jobs, guarantee shipping coming into friendly ports AND fending of invasion all with unfriendly skies... and not to mention U-boats that could now navigate with impunity (no airplanes to sink them).

Also, even if the british moved air forces to the north, the germans could move theirs to southern england, thus getting the Whole british isle under bomber and fighter cover. Constantly bombing those ports where the RN was based and at its most vulnerable. The few planes the RAF could master, may defend some, but not all, and not against sustained attack.

I wont get into the impact of some help from the Irish, but it would have been interesting to see their reaction on having germans on English soil.... (the enemy of my enemy....)

Also, let us remember that at this juncture the german troops were of veteran quality, victors in many battles up to this point. The quality and morale of the british troops at this stage was not great. The home guard was in many cases old and undertrained.

I think in a real sense the battle of britian was truely won (or in our alternate scenario, lost) by the air war. Knowing what we know of the importance of air dominance (fact which won the allies the eurpopean war), it gave the germans real options of supply by any route, while being able to deny supply to the british (sink merchant shipping via submarines and air dominance).

The greatest threat in my view to german success, would be the unpredicatability of the weather. Nasty storms can and do happen in the channel. A bad one could have devastating effects. But given decent channel conditions, air dominance and the viability of resupply via air, and the poor disposition, training and equipment of the british at the time, I give the germans a "better than average" chance to win.

Fun topic.  

Primarch
Posted by Dwarf Supreme on Sep. 26 2005,20:06
Quote (Legion 4 @ Sep. 26 2005,15:41)
Hitler became obsessed with the invasion of the East.  To even have a chance of "Seelowe" occuring, the war in the East would have to be postponed or cancelled ... not to mention develope landing craft in large numbers and taking on the RN ...

Let's not forget that Hitler was actually an Anglophile. He really had no desire to invade England and hoped the English would sue for peace, removing the fear of a two-front war.
Posted by Jimbo on Sep. 26 2005,23:07
Quote (primarch @ Sep. 26 2005,18:39)
Also, we assume they wouldnt try landing tanks at the get go. What if they did. Even a small tank force with limted petrol could be overwhelming if used correctly. Also, add resupply by captured airfields, thus obviating the need for the immediate capture of a port. Given air superiority, several captured airfields could fly in quite a bit of supplies, even petrol to fuel those few tanks that came in the assault waves.

The problem arises that large airlift capacity at this time did not exist in the Luftwaffe (as was demonstrated a few years later at Stalingrad).

It would be highly unlikely that a german invasion force could be supplied by air, even with airfields.
Quote
The germans only have to feed their invading troops. The british need to feed their military AND population.

The Germans would have to feed the population in occupied terrority under the rules of war...
Quote
I wont get into the impact of some help from the Irish, but it would have been interesting to see their reaction on having germans on English soil.... (the enemy of my enemy....)

A lot of Irish troops fought against the Germans, the Irish army was not exactly *huge* and probably the only thing they *may* have done is take over the north.
Quote
Also, let us remember that at this juncture the german troops were of veteran quality, victors in many battles up to this point. The quality and morale of the british troops at this stage was not great. The home guard was in many cases old and undertrained.

I don't think that this is in dispute, however without adequate supplies it doesn't matter how good your troops are you need supplies and to get supplies you need decent logistics, the only way the Germans could do this is by capturing a port.

The weapon which won the war in the end was not the tank but the truck.
Quote
But given decent channel conditions, air dominance and the viability of resupply via air, and the poor disposition, training and equipment of the british at the time, I give the germans a "better than average" chance to win.

The other *factor* is the removal of Hitler and his obsession with detail and the east.

I would agree that if they could get across they may win, but they need to get across the channel and keep that supply line going and with virtually no specialist assault or landing craft, no port, they had no chance.

Add in that the British would more than likely have used chemical weapons, things would have been tough.
Posted by Legion 4 on Sep. 27 2005,05:18
All good points, and great discussion.  That's what makes it such a great alternate history campaign !

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...

Jimbo aqlready addressed some of the points made by primarch, like the limited airlift capacity of Luftwaffe, as was demonstrated later in Stalingrad.

As for the few tanks, the British army had a SHORTAGE of AT- weapons but it was not WITHOUT them. In fact, their situation was better than that of Finns in the Winter War. If the Germans could have landed a couple of dozen tanks it would not have made much of a difference, especially in a cityfight to capture a port.

Luftwaffe would most likely have inflicted heavy casualties on Royal Navy, but like said before RN could afford some casualties and still continue operations. And let's not forget the British submarines. I don't think the ASW capability of Kriegsmarine was any better than that of the RN.

The German troops were veteran quality, true, but so was the BEF, a large part of which was evacuated from Dunkirk.

Also, if the Germans concentrated on capturing airfields it would sap their efforts to capture a port, as they would have to capture enough ground that the field(s) would be outside of artillery range.

If the British used chemical weapons, however, things would turn ugly as Germans would retaliate. They had large stocks of sarin and Mustard Gas.

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.

Hi Guys,

It would have been a hard fought battle IF it had ever happened.

I think that in order for the Germans to have had a chance they would have had to win the Battle of Britain and establish air superiority.

Maybe with air superiority and some of the fancy X-research anti-shipping weapons, they could have minimized or removed British naval superiority and the home court advantage of being the defenders of an island.

At any rare I'm glad that the Germans lost because those Nazi Cads did horrible things to my people. And I say that with no animus towards Germans today or even for many Germans from the near past, but with my animus and disapproval directed towards the fanatics within their midst. On the same note, I hope the world can consistently and effectively deal with today's fanatics.

Oh...

And I wish they'd give Jervis and his "Fanatics" a break. JJ and the Specialists have been taking far too many hits the last few years. GW should let them sit back and enjoy a spot of tea.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

_________________
6mm Sci-fi:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/6mm ... nWarGames/
My Personal Blog:
http://6mm-minis.blogspot.com/

The Germans would have had to land a lot of AFVs and Airborne/Air Landing troops.  Plus control the skys and Channel, to have any chance of making it work and sustain a well supplied campaign ...  Not to mention, drop in Michael Caine dressed as a Falschmirmjager (sp.?) Col., to have any chance of victory !  

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Hi!

As with many things regarding the germans, if you eliminated Hitler, their chances of winning skyrocket.

So there's another "what if". What if Hitler was a competent leader trusting of his generals and their abilities?

What then?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Considering how massive the assault at Normandy was, I just don't see the Germans as being capable of putting enough troops (and vehicles) ashore to have a real effect (that is, last more than 12 hours on British soil).

Then again, the European theater of operations isn't my strong suit in WW2 history.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Both good points, Boyz ... I remember an old S&T in my "library", has an article on "Seelowe" ... may have to check it out !  Also after the Invasion of Poland, some German Generals thought of "doing away with Adolf" ... No Adolf ... no invasions of France, the Low Countries, etc., etc. ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Quote (Legion 4 @ Sep. 28 2005,04:29)

Both good points, Boyz ... I remember an old S&T in my "library", has an article on "Seelowe" ... may have to check it out !  Also after the Invasion of Poland, some German Generals thought of "doing away with Adolf" ... No Adolf ... no invasions of France, the Low Countries, etc., etc. ...

After Poland the conflict with France and Britain was quite inevitable, given the guarantees to Poland. Also, ol' Adolf wasn't personally resposible for nearly every German military setback despite of what the generals say in their memoirs.

It would be interesting to toy with the idea of Adolf being bagged after Poland.

Let's see:
1) At the time he was still at the height of his popularity; the German people considered him to be a hero. And this included many of the troops and junior officers of the Wehrmacht.

2) Adolf is not the same as the Nazi party. There were people like Heydrich, G?ring (who at the time was, I believe, a deputy F?hrer), Himmler and many others. They wouldn't just have folded and meekly given the power to others.

Given 1), anybody shooting Hitler would have been regarded as a traitor of the worst kind. 2) means there would definitely be a power struggle to determine his successor. If some Wehrmacht clique had decided to bump Adolf, I think the result could well have been a German civil war. A civil war ol' Stalin at least would have been quick to take advantage of. But I don't think he would have been the only one. The end result could  be
1) a divided Germany and a cold war much earlier but with less damage to Europe overall.
2) a Soviet dominated Europe.

In any case, Stalin would probably try to finish off Finland if he thought he could get away with it.

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.

Quote (Lion in the Stars @ Sep. 28 2005,00:07)

Considering how massive the assault at Normandy was, I just don't see the Germans as being capable of putting enough troops (and vehicles) ashore to have a real effect (that is, last more than 12 hours on British soil).

The Dieppe Raid of 1942 is a prime example of how not to do an amphibious operation.

It really showed the allies that an attempt to capture a port would not work, which is why the d-day landings took place on the beaches of Normandy and the Mulberries meant the allies brought their own ports along rather than trying to capture one.

IIRC it was some months before a major port was captured which could be used by the allies.

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...

Quote (Jimbo @ Sep. 28 2005,07:55)

IIRC it was some months before a major port was captured which could be used by the allies.

Antwerp, IIRC. Cherbourg was captured earlier but the harbour facilities had been thoroughly demolished. That's why the allies constructed the "mulberry" artificial harbours.

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.

I have so many comments to add...

Has to wait until I have time to do it justice though - tomorrow hopefully

_________________
Tas
My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/
My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/
My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/

Yes, let there be no doubt, Hitler's Cult of Personality and strong following would have made his death and the aftermath, very "dicey". ?M/J's points again are quite valid. ? Many historians believe without Dieppe, Normandy wouldn't have gone the way it did ... And yes, Cherbourg was "totalled" and took months before it was usable and held out for sometime before surrendering to the Allies. ?Antwerp was eventually seized, but the Estuary had to be cleared to make the port useful. ?The Mulberrys were critical. ?And as Jimbo pointed out "Trucks" ie. Logistics, made all the difference. ?A force has to be supplied and maintained to function. ?When on Bn and Bde staff, I was assigned as a Logistics and Maint. Officer ... with out fuel, beans & bullets as well as spare parts and troops to fix the stuff, combat units can't do much ... ?As an Air Assault Rifle Plt Ldr and later a Mech Co. Cdr ... I know both sides of the equation ... ? ? ? So could the Luftwaffe and KM defeat or at least nullify the RN and RAF ? ? Could the Germans land and sustain a large enough force ? ?Could the UK forces on the British Isles stop and repel the landings ? ?IIRC, S&T made a game also about Seelowe, too ... ?

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

First, a funny story about a logistics SNAFU of major proportions.

Was going over some documents referring to the Soviet 'Liberation' of Afghanistan, quit few years ago, and came across this tidbit about the early stages of the invasion.

It seems the Soviet Brass Hats that planned the operation decided to use the Soviet 'standard war' plan for the logisitical support of the troops going in. That plan is based on a Soviet Division/Regiment suffering a base percentage of losses in men and equipment for each day it is action, and as those formations will be in action until they are withdrawn, it becomes a sliding scale with a finite end point.Thus by the end of the first week the Division's logistical tail is feeding a formation down 30 to 40 percent men and equipment, also it is based on the assumption that priority goes to Ammo as #1, Fuel as #2, and food being last.

Now this might have been all fine and dandy had those Divisions/Regiments gone into action in Europe facing heavy resistance, however they had invaded Afghanistan and were basically facing no initial resistance worth the name. By the end of the first week the Soviet troops in country were weighed down with loads of fuel and ammo piled up all over the place, and practically no food.

The same applies to "Operation Sealion", the Germans were barning together barges to move troops (and some of the photos are pretty funny). 'If' the Luftwaffe could have cleared the RAF off, and the KM could control the channel, the Germans didn't have anywhere near the lift capacity in basic ships (forget barges) to move the supplies needed to support an army in the UK.

In time (A very long time in years not months) they probably could have put together what was needed, a fact Hitler and the OKH/OKW was very aware of, making Sealion more of a bluff then a real threat. Hitler wanted a treaty or surrender from the UK without an actual invasion.

Jaldon

_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.

That is an interesting story about the Russkies in Afghanistan !  Well obviously they didn't end up doing very well !  And again, I have to agree with you on all points !  Now I've got to find that old S&T in my library !

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

That's still better than what happened during the first Russian invasion of Chechenya. There was an article about it in the Finnish "Panssari" (armor) magazine a few years ago. I'll have to dig it up.

I do remember one of the gems: the tanks for the operation had been in storage for quite some time. When they were taken out it was discovered that someone had stolen most of the coolant...

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.