Britian lets Sealion happen

[Glenn239]

The total invasion force was 9 divisions. So that's about 40,000 tons a day. This is NOT "one freighter" unless the Bats have transported something very large through time for the Germans! It's more like a dozen.
.

Just to clarify on the supply issue. The US Army fought WW2 with the most heavily mechanized, oversupplied army in all of history to that point. It required 66lbs per man per day. Assuming a division is 16,000 men, a German army of 9 divisions is 144,000 men. If 144,000 men required "40,000 tons" per day, that translates to 555 pounds per man, which is 8.4 times the amount required by the US army.

A realistic figure would be 35 lbs per man per day. For 144,000 men, that's around 2,500 tons.

 

[Byzer Bob]

Really, Sealion is a complete no-brainer. The payoff was winning WW2. The potential cost was less than one major battle on the eastern front. I see no possible argument, even given the slight odds for success, other than that operation should have been attempted. The cost for failure was trivial and the potential payoff was massive.

Yes it was such a no brainer that it was attempted...... Oh no wait a minute... it wasn't tried so if Nazi Germany didn't try this easy win=win war lose=minor setback gamble (a set of gentlemen who thought the USSR would roll over after the door was kicked in they were that insanely optimistic) it may just make you think that Sealion is not the no-brainer you think it is.

On Supply earlier in thread

Supply 6th Army Stalingrad 210,000 men 800 tonnes per day requirement = 3.8 kgs per man per day
D-Day +24 570,000 tonnes supply landed, 850,000 men landed = 27kgs per man per day
Mind you only one of these operations ended in success

 

[teg]

Really, Sealion is a complete no-brainer. The payoff was winning WW2. The potential cost was less than one major battle on the eastern front. I see no possible argument, even given the slight odds for success, other than that operation should have been attempted. The cost for failure was trivial and the potential payoff was massive.

The problem was it had no serious chance of success, simply because the Royal Navy was too massive and the Germans didn't have the transports to ship a large army across. Now I'm not saying its impossible for Britain to be defeated by Sealion, crazy things happen in war, what I am saying is that it was very much Britain's fight to lose. The only way Sealion could succeed is a PoD far enough back that Germany builds up a cheap but usable fleet of amphibious landing craft with the accompanying anti-ship weaponry. This is not enough for Sealion to succeed however, that requires the British government to collapse like the French one did and quite frankly, Britain did not have a bad enough 1930s to make that likely.

Furthermore, Germany was far more likely to gain good results by just leaving the British mainland alone and instead using their advantage in the summer of 1940 to seize Malta and the Suez Canal. Being left to stew on their island plus a few more military defeats might have been enough to undermine Churchill's government and force a peace.

teg

 

[kalamona]

snip

My problems:

While the Royal Navy was massive, lets not forget, that just right about that time they were unable to stop the invasion of Norway. And later Crete. And later, in 43!!!, the Dodecanese. Of course, these or the thing, that in ww2 practically every invasion succeded (Dieppe was a raid) does not rule out a failed Seelöwe, but i think, should taken into consideration.

RN 2.0: while for the RN it would be a "victory or death" scenario, for the british empire it quickly could become a "victory over the german forces or our seelanes" or even a "victory or our empire". So, yes, this would be the battle the brits cannot afford to lose. In my opinion, if the germans could have secured a beachad, the brits would have asked for armisitce and would have initiated peace talks.

And the germans got the transport capacity for seelöwe -they got a quite larga merchant navy + the converted river barges (many of them were practically proto-LST-s, dont get decieved by the term "barges").


Big gamble.

 

[hairysamarian]

My problems:

While the Royal Navy was massive, lets not forget, that just right about that time they were unable to stop the invasion of Norway. And later Crete. And later, in 43!!!, the Dodecanese. Of course, these or the thing, that in ww2 practically every invasion succeded (Dieppe was a raid) does not rule out a failed Seelöwe, but i think, should taken into consideration.

The situations there were different. Norway, for example, lies much closer to German naval bases and farther from British ones. The British couldn't very well commit the whole strength of their fleet on a flank there or in the Eastern Mediterranean when a creditable threat existed right on their front door and along the crucial shipping lines across the North Atlantic.

You're right, the RN wasn't an unbeatable force of supermen, but it was superior to what the Germans had and was very ready for the direct threat.

 

[Glenn239]

Yes it was such a no brainer that it was attempted...... Oh no wait a minute... it wasn't tried so if Nazi Germany didn't try this easy win=win war lose=minor setback gamble .

The inherent dynamics to the cost-benefiet of Sealion, the fact that the "pot odds" were to strongly Germany's favour, this does not change according to whether the "call" was made.

 

[Glenn239]

The problem was it had no serious chance of success, simply because the Royal Navy was too massive and the Germans didn't have the transports to ship a large army across.

No serious chance was still being worth the 'call'. You don't fold a $1000 pot for the sake of a $25 call, even though only one card in the deck helps you.

Now I'm not saying its impossible for Britain to be defeated by Sealion, crazy things happen in war, what I am saying is that it was very much Britain's fight to lose. The only way Sealion could succeed is a PoD far enough back that Germany builds up a cheap but usable fleet of amphibious landing craft with the accompanying anti-ship weaponry.

Now Germany must build a different force structure in order for the British to display the same rank incomptence that it operated by for the first yeras of the war on numerous fronts?

This is not enough for Sealion to succeed however, that requires the British government to collapse like the French one did and quite frankly, Britain did not have a bad enough 1930s to make that likely.

Sealion succeeds the moment the British government panics and offers terms. The British government was capable of panicking prematurely, or on the basis of false assumptions.

Again, I ask, what provision did the Sandhurst game make for this?

 

[Lawnchair Captain]

No serious chance Sealion succeeds the moment the British government panics and offers terms. The British government was capable of panicking prematurely, or on the basis of false assumptions.

Again, I ask, what provision did the Sandhurst game make for this?

And what provisions have you made to suppose that the British government would panic when something that they had expected to happen actually happened?

I am a bit confused at this point. The panic would happen when the invasion, that the British would allow to happen, happened? In which case I find things a bit absurd. Or the panic would happen in otl if the Germans had attempted Sea Lion?

I have to apologize for having posted here but I have to admit that I wanted to post something in Sea Mammal Thread.

 

[Byzer Bob]

The inherent dynamics to the cost-benefiet of Sealion, the fact that the "pot odds" were to strongly Germany's favour, this does not change according to whether the "call" was made.

Hmm there's only one type of pot on show in this thread

 

[teg]

No serious chance was still being worth the 'call'. You don't fold a $1000 pot for the sake of a $25 call, even though only one card in the deck helps you.



Now Germany must build a different force structure in order for the British to display the same rank incomptence that it operated by for the first yeras of the war on numerous fronts?



Sealion succeeds the moment the British government panics and offers terms. The British government was capable of panicking prematurely, or on the basis of false assumptions.

Again, I ask, what provision did the Sandhurst game make for this?

I don't understand what you are arguing here. Are you saying that Germany would possibly launch operation Sealion and it might have been worth doing so? If so then, sure, at the time it would have seemed like a long shot but not that much of a long shot. If you arguing that Sealion had a reasonable chance of succeeding, then I'm afraid I can't agree with you.

Because the forces they had available to conduct amphibious operations were not good enough to do the job. As people have already repeatedly pointed out, the barges they were planning to use would have taken two days to cross the Channel and they could sink very easily. To supply an invasion long enough to gain a significant beachhead, the Germans would have needed to build proper sea-going vessels. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe was not suited to anti-ship operations, which would have severely negated the amount of damage it could do to the Royal Navy before it reached the Channel.

Why would the British government panic? By the time the Germans land, Churchill is firmly in charge, if anything a German invasion is likely to make him more in-stringent than in OTL. They know that the Germans are going to have worsening supply problems and the RAF is most likely not damaged enough to prevent it contesting the skies over the Channel. The Sandhurst game did not need to make a provision for a British government collapse, because a barring a point of divergence in the early 1930s, then you are going to have a relatively solid British government in September 1940. [That is another thing actually, sooner or later the autumn storms are going to hit and those river barges are going to really get hammered by that]

teg

 

[Grimm Reaper]

If we respect the games at Sandhurst then the operation is well on the way to collapse after the first wave which would appear to preclude a chance of the British government collapsing...

 

[Glenn239]

I am a bit confused at this point. The panic would happen when the invasion, that the British would allow to happen, happened?

The absurd premise of this thread, that the British would "allow" an invasion that may destroy its empire, does not represent what the British government would have actually done. The British government would fight, with all its power, to prevent an invasion. Therefore, if an invasion did gain a bridgehead, and given the poor state of the British army and the tendency to exaggerate the strength of the Luftwaffe, the potential for panick, IMO, existed

 

[Glenn239]

If we respect the games at Sandhurst then the operation is well on the way to collapse after the first wave which would appear to preclude a chance of the British government collapsing...

Sure, if the real Sealion were a wargame conducted over tea in the drawing rome in which all the participants look at the board seeing what is going on in real time while casually chatting away. Heck, if real life were that way, then Nagumo would have wiped the floor with Fletcher out at Midway, right?

Why would the British government panic? By the time the Germans land, Churchill is firmly in charge, if anything a German invasion is likely to make him more in-stringent than in OTL.

The British government may panic at the prospect of a bridgehead because its army was demonstrably incompetent, underequipped and undertrained. It was habitually exaggerating its estimate of the Luftwaffe by a large margin, and if the Germans got ashore this may cause them to believe that the Royal Navy had failed as well. If Churchill survives then they will not panic. If Churchill falls, then the war is over with the Germans still on the beachhead. Then, afterwards, British historians can determine to their hearts content whether London ‘blinked’.

 

[highwayhoss]

The absurd premise of this thread, that the British would "allow" an invasion that may destroy its empire, does not represent what the British government would have actually done. The British government would fight, with all its power, to prevent an invasion. Therefore, if an invasion did gain a bridgehead, and given the poor state of the British army and the tendency to exaggerate the strength of the Luftwaffe, the potential for panick, IMO, existed

Exactly; the fundamental point here is morale. If the Germans were to land troops in England and establish any kind of a bridgehead, it would play holy hell with morale on the home front.....and if it came out the British Government allowed such an invasion to happen in hopes of destroying part of the German Army? Churchill would be a "dead man walking" politically. He and his party would be thrown out on their ears.
The simple fact is that it is far easier to prevent an invasion rather than to count on destroying an invader's bridgehead.

 

[Glenn239]

I don't understand what you are arguing here. Are you saying that Germany would possibly launch operation Sealion and it might have been worth doing so?

I'm saying that dismissing Sealion because of its low chance of success is not only faulty logic, but faulty strategy.

“Pot odds” is a poker concept, but it is applicable here. It’s a comparison between the size of a pot at stake and the size of the call, and the chances that you will win the pot if you call. Let’s say the pot is $1000. Let’s say you have to make a call of $100 in order to stay in. $100 is 10% of $1000. Pot odds say that if your chances of winning the pot are greater than 10%, you should make the call, because over the long haul you’ll make money by doing so. If your odds are less than 10%, you should fold.

If so then, sure, at the time it would have seemed like a long shot but not that much of a long shot. If you arguing that Sealion had a reasonable chance of succeeding, then I'm afraid I can't agree with you.

No, it has nothing to do with the chances of success for Sealion being big or small. It’s comparing the chances for failure relative to losing WW2.
Let’s identify the ‘call’ for Germany in Sealion, arbitrarily, as being in terms of expected KIA’s. Let’s say that’s 50,000 KIA. Now, lets say the number of KIA’s (civilian and military) Germany took in WW2 was 6 million. The pot odds for Sealion in this case are 50,000 / 6,000,000 = .008. So, if the odds of success are better than 1 in 120, Germany should make the ‘call’.

Now, let’s say the actual chance of success for Sealion was really 5%. 5%/.008% = 600%. Over the course of many Sealions, notwithstanding the 95% chance that any given Sealion shall fail, Germany returns a net 600% advantage in casualties, meaning that the attack should have been made even given its 95% chance of failure.

 

[Lawnchair Captain]

Now, let’s say the actual chance of success for Sealion was really 5%. 5%/.008% = 600%. Over the course of many Sealions, notwithstanding the 95% chance that any given Sealion shall fail, Germany returns a net 600% advantage in casualties, meaning that the attack should have been made even given its 95% chance of failure.[/QUOTE]

I suppose that now you are talking about an otl situation not about the thread topic in which the British government could have allowed Sealion to happen.

The problem here is that you are taking into account losses that the German High command most likely didn't know that would happen. In this case the losses caused by otl WW2. Perhaps they did not expect this at all because had they expected this why did the try to invade the Soviet Union if they knew the casualties?

On the other hand, attempting a high risk operation that was most surely doomed to fail and that would cause, according to your calculations, 50 000 casualties would seem a waste of resources. More than this, it would seem the perfect way to raise your enemies' morale: it would show to the world that the Third Reich had suffered a great defeat. Not the type of message you want the people that you are occupying in Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland and France to get when the BBC announces it.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

I am not sure that poker analysis works in war in general and particularly here. People seldom play poker with the mortgage money. If the $100 is the mortgage or utility payment it is a different calculation since the risk of loss is infinitely greater than the risk of losing incremental money. Certainly for Britain this was a bet the house proposition so I cannot see any way they let them land. For Germany it is not quite the same thing but still a failed invasion costs them prestige and the aura of invincibility. Either way its not a straight economic calculation.

If you want to speculate about how the British might deceive the Germans you need look no further than the turned German agents in Britain. I have read that by the end of the war MI5 had turned over 100 German spies. This certainly would be an avenue to pass along disinformation,

 

[BlondieBC]

And what provisions have you made to suppose that the British government would panic when something that they had expected to happen actually happened?

I am a bit confused at this point. The panic would happen when the invasion, that the British would allow to happen, happened? In which case I find things a bit absurd. Or the panic would happen in otl if the Germans had attempted Sea Lion?

I have to apologize for having posted here but I have to admit that I wanted to post something in Sea Mammal Thread.

History has lots of odds turns, but her is the most likely way a panic breaks out. The RN surface admirals never panic. They know if needed they can simply use the whole fleet to stop the invasion. They will be concerned about too heavy a ship losses, but losing a few BB and a dozen cruisers can be managed. It would be some bad development on land such as German units taking London would be likely to panic. Likewise, the RAF had a lot of confidence. It will take overwhelming actual losses to make them panic.

Now to who can panic. The most likely is the public. For over 50 years, the UK public had been fed a steady diet of stories on how various powers could conquer England. My personal favorite is the Russian Navy of 1895 decisively defeating the entire RN then landing 200,000 troops in the midlands. IMO, a lot of this was to get bigger budgets for RN. This came back to haunt them in WW1 and WW2.

And the second group who morale can fail is the British Army. IF the public panic AND there are unexpected setbacks (say German Division in Southern London), then there is a risk of a morale break. If things go bad enough on the land, the job of the RN admirals can become impossible.

 

[teg]

History has lots of odds turns, but her is the most likely way a panic breaks out. The RN surface admirals never panic. They know if needed they can simply use the whole fleet to stop the invasion. They will be concerned about too heavy a ship losses, but losing a few BB and a dozen cruisers can be managed. It would be some bad development on land such as German units taking London would be likely to panic. Likewise, the RAF had a lot of confidence. It will take overwhelming actual losses to make them panic.

Now to who can panic. The most likely is the public. For over 50 years, the UK public had been fed a steady diet of stories on how various powers could conquer England. My personal favorite is the Russian Navy of 1895 decisively defeating the entire RN then landing 200,000 troops in the midlands. IMO, a lot of this was to get bigger budgets for RN. This came back to haunt them in WW1 and WW2.

And the second group who morale can fail is the British Army. IF the public panic AND there are unexpected setbacks (say German Division in Southern London), then there is a risk of a morale break. If things go bad enough on the land, the job of the RN admirals can become impossible.

I think this actually more in the line of films like Red Dawn and video games like Modern Warfare II; people liked invasion literature because it allows them to experience war in a familiar setting but not actually suffering because of it.

Apart from that, I think your basically right. The Wehrmacht needs to win some decisive victories in order to spook the public and army into panicking. Again this does mean that the Germans need to have a PoD back in the early 1930s which leads to Hitler deciding Britain must be defeated yet also ensuring they don't waste huge amounts of capital and manpower building ships. [I think someone looked at the cheap options for a German invasion of Britain that would not too badly affect their land forces, can't remember where it happened]

teg

 

[ivanotter]

... also remember the opposition to the Channel tunnel in the 1800's? The fear of one morning the tunnel is cramped with French troops who will quickly conquer Britain.

Letting Germany have a go at it, when the only superior weapon, RN, is not utilised? can't see that.

Combatting crime by letting your front door open during the night? no way!

I had a comment on the British generals. who would have been able to stand up to Germany? the one's who got kicked off the continent? utterly defeated?

Sorry,

Ivan