Operation Sealion - creative approach

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#31

Post by kalpazanin » 10 Dec 2006, 00:09

Polynikes wrote:Interesting read so far....

OK here's my thoughts. It took the allies DAYS to load the invasion force in 1944 - the German army would have even more trouble because of the inappropriate nature of their invasion ships.

Therefore the British will know something is up.
The loading of the equipment will take days. The loadinng of the troops will take hours.
Knowing something's 'up' gives them nothing. They must know what and when
Polynikes wrote: Secondly, these invasion ships are something of a fantasy - even if you could group 100 of them, no way will they take 2,000 men plus a company of tanks and a company of half-tracks.
Excuse me?
A Liberty ship could carry 440 tanks.
I'am talking of ships with comparable tonnage (1/3) carrying only 10 tanks. Where exactly is the problem??
Polynikes wrote: If you DID cram that much in, they'd take much longer to unload and you can forget any crazy ideas of detonating explosive charges INSIDE the ships to miraculously turn them into Ro-Ro ferries.
If you bother to read my posts you should notice that the controlled explosion is supposed to happen after the troops leave the ship.
Polynikes wrote: As for the exploding stabilisation rods to turn beached merchant ships into landing docks...sheer fantasy.

A beached merchant ship would be a hell of a place from which to get off alive at high tide. You would get a lot of drowned troops and a lot of lost equipment/supplies.
That may be true if the merchant hits a reef by chance.
When doing it in a planned manner the ship will be placed in carefully studied beaches with the right slope.
The effect would be not much different than placing the ship in dry dock.

If you disagree with my basic idea completely without providing any logical argument then there is nothing much I can discuss with you...

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#32

Post by kalpazanin » 10 Dec 2006, 00:12

redcoat wrote:After reading this thread, I can understand why the term 'creative' accounting is used to to describe any financial accounts that have no basis in truth.
Its pure schoolboy fantasy !
Dear redcoat,
the word creative can be used in many contexts.
Unless you have some valid argument, your name also can be used in many contexts...


User avatar
Lkefct
Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 23:15
Location: Frederick MD

#33

Post by Lkefct » 10 Dec 2006, 00:21

6th Army at Stalingrad essentially got no food delivered. This they had in ample supply when the siege started. Over time and not having any new supplies delivered, they ran out, as did the stockpiles they had in hand before the siege. Even though the luftwaffee did not need to keep 6th Army all the supplies it needed, they still failed to provide enough to prevent teh wastage from occuring very rapidly. This alone should suggest that Sea Lion is not a favorable undertaking.

As far as the air supply, I don't really see using bombers as transport planes. This was done in several operations in the east, and all the german bombers outside of the JU 87 & 88 started life as transports. Howver, in all those cases, they where sorely missed in supporting the ground operations. In this case, all of theose planes would be needed to prevent the British from ammasing a sufficient force to coutner attack. Small arms have a miniscule amount of the total firepower of a division. Without the artillery, the infantry have little hope of holding on to their defenses. Remember that many fo the stuborn defesive actions in WW2, the infantry themselves where killed, but as long as the artillery and tanks remained, divisions retain a useful amount of firepower to stop attacks. The Germans only hope is that the air attacks can prevent the British from amassing a sizeable infantry or combined arms force from launching a strong attack. Also, if there is no counter battery fire, the british 18 and 25 pounders can be used as infantry guns, and moved forward to support the attackers to neutralize the MG present.

The luftwaffee is going to need to devote a sizeable force to interdicting the RN too. The RN can make a high speed dash from Scapa flow to the channel in less then 24 hours. Unless the Luftwaffe can keep patrols up almost around the clock, a group of destroyers or capital ships can slip in under darkness, so the patrols will need to make sure that a they are far enough North and West of the landings to make sure the RN cannot sneak in at night. even if they do engage, it would take a sizeable number of sorties to completely destroy even a small task force. At this point, German planes do not carry torpedos, so it will be dedicated to dive bombers and formations of level bombers all dropping a pattern around a single target at low levels. Losses would be heavy and at least some of the force will not be availible to the land attack, as the window of oppurtunity for such attacks would be limited, and it would not be able to wait for units to return and rearm after another sortie. RAF would also provide a strong escort as well, making it that much tougher.

The reason the German general staff decided that an attack was impossible was the fact that they did not have the lift capacity once the ships unloaded. Even the most optimistic figures showed that could not unload the ships fast enough to keep supplies moving. Grounding a force of the transport ships would also sugest that in time that the force might not have the lift capacity either. Add into that the ports on the french side would be getting bombed at night would slow the loading and flow of supplies and reinforcements.

By the way the reason you need parachutes is that the containers you are suggesting will probably split open if they hit at full speed. Then they get wet and/or float out into the channel, and away from the landings.

User avatar
Auseklis
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 20 May 2005, 11:26
Location: Heart of the Ruhr-Valley

#34

Post by Auseklis » 10 Dec 2006, 00:39

Just to offer another idea.
I allways tended (in GDW's old Sealion) to land a major force just north of the themse mouth, to bring in the missing element of surprise. I think to approach the english coast on the shortest distance (and storming ashore right into stationary flamethrowers and other strange stuff) is more suicidal then taking a longer way over sea (covered by the Luftwaffe and the whole U-Boot fleet).

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#35

Post by kalpazanin » 10 Dec 2006, 00:51

Lkefct wrote:6th Army at Stalingrad essentially got no food delivered. This they had in ample supply when the siege started. Over time and not having any new supplies delivered, they ran out, as did the stockpiles they had in hand before the siege. Even though the luftwaffee did not need to keep 6th Army all the supplies it needed, they still failed to provide enough to prevent teh wastage from occuring very rapidly. This alone should suggest that Sea Lion is not a favorable undertaking.
As I previously pointed out numerous times the Stalingrad is example of German army surviving long enough (2 monts) against 90 russian fully equiped divisions (almost a milion troops) with supply line ten times smaller than what I suggest.
Lkefct wrote: As far as the air supply, I don't really see using bombers as transport planes.
Why not ? They could lift the required amount (2 tons) and drop them at low speed close to the water.
What's the problem?
Lkefct wrote: The luftwaffee is going to need to devote a sizeable force to interdicting the RN too.
The LW can attack RN if opportunities present themseles, but since there'll be no need of resupply by sea that can be done with the corresponding priority.
Lkefct wrote: The RN can make a high speed dash from Scapa flow to the channel in less then 24 hours. Unless the Luftwaffe can keep patrols up almost around the clock, a group of destroyers or capital ships can slip in under darkness, so the patrols will need to make sure that a they are far enough North and West of the landings to make sure the RN cannot sneak in at night. even if they do engage, it would take a sizeable number of sorties to completely destroy even a small task force. At this point, German planes do not carry torpedos, so it will be dedicated to dive bombers and formations of level bombers all dropping a pattern around a single target at low levels. Losses would be heavy and at least some of the force will not be availible to the land attack, as the window of oppurtunity for such attacks would be limited, and it would not be able to wait for units to return and rearm after another sortie. RAF would also provide a strong escort as well, making it that much tougher.
All this is great , but with my proposed changes to the Sealion the invasion fleet will be on the english shore long before the Home fleet arrives from Scapa Flow.
Lkefct wrote: The reason the German general staff decided that an attack was impossible was the fact that they did not have the lift capacity once the ships unloaded. Even the most optimistic figures showed that could not unload the ships fast enough to keep supplies moving. Grounding a force of the transport ships would also sugest that in time that the force might not have the lift capacity either. Add into that the ports on the french side would be getting bombed at night would slow the loading and flow of supplies and reinforcements.
You seem to be completely ignoring all my posts.
I do not argue that the original Sealion plan was very good. I argue that it could be done good with the proposed adjustments.
Lkefct wrote: By the way the reason you need parachutes is that the containers you are suggesting will probably split open if they hit at full speed. Then they get wet and/or float out into the channel, and away from the landings.
The containers will not split open - look at torpedo bombers - how is it that the torpedoes don't split open?

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#36

Post by kalpazanin » 10 Dec 2006, 00:56

Auseklis wrote:Just to offer another idea.
I allways tended (in GDW's old Sealion) to land a major force just north of the themse mouth, to bring in the missing element of surprise. I think to approach the english coast on the shortest distance (and storming ashore right into stationary flamethrowers and other strange stuff) is more suicidal then taking a longer way over sea (covered by the Luftwaffe and the whole U-Boot fleet).
I thought about that too, and I saw somewhere such suggestion, but it seems to me that the supply of at such distance will be practically out of the question.
BTW the english coast was not very well defended. The english relied on the GHQ line to slow the invasion instead until the lack of supply starves it out.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#37

Post by LWD » 10 Dec 2006, 01:52

kalpazanin wrote:...
If given priority in the 84 days of Sealion ...
Ok when do you invision the planning for this to have started? Since you mention implimentation starting in July add 84 days to this and it looks like you are proposing an invasion in September. Is this correct?
The sealion invasion had 84 days for preparation.
Since we are talking about building a simple concrete structures and rude airstripes - low qualification work, it's not like taking resources and workforce from the tank or plane or ship building.

Given the amount of POW's available to the Germans such work in given timeframe, seems completely realistic to me.
Concrete doen'st grow on trees you have to get it and move it to where you want it. For transports planes you need more than rude airstrips. Indeed for an effort of this size you also need workshops and storage facilities or you very shortly won't have anything flying. You are suggesting a rather monumental effort here and using human labor as your main means of earth moving.
...
The dropping of the supply cylinder is not very different in it's physics from dropping of torpedo by torpedo bomber.
Torpedoes filling consisted of explosives and fuel as well as delicate mechanical parts, which as factual events show were not affected by the drop. (otherwise they wouldn't have worked)

The only difference in proposed idea would be that the cylinder would be dropped with slight angle to the horizon (~15 degrees) so when it hits the water it's horizontal kynetic energy will be partially transformed to lift, which will slow it's sinking speed until it's horizontal speed is neutralized.
Even if the cylinder ruptures for some reason, the supplies would not be damaged much by little water - otherwise no military operations could be possible during rainy days... :)

The only possible problem is if the pilot is such a complete idiot, that he drops it on the very beach - well, even then some of the cargo could be salvaged (food or bullets for instance)
My overall expectations are that after gaining some initial experience 95% of the said supplies could be retrieved during low tide.
95% are you serious? I suspect that you wouldn't get that high a percentage if you were shipping it by truck. OK torpedos didn't work if they landed from to high up or to high a speed. How are you going to drop them at 15 degrees by the way? If dropped from low level they will hit at a much flatter trajectory a higher level and they will be falling straight down. The pilot has to aim at an ivisible strip of water. Too shallow and it will impact the beach or shore. Small arms ammo might be ok but you are likely to loose fuel and arty ammor and spare parts may well be contaminated with sand and water. If they are too far out almost none of them will end up on the beach you want them to. If you hit the strip of water you are aiming for of those that float maybe half will float ashore many of those that don't float won't be easily recoverable. Then there is the problem of getting them to the people that need them. OK for 8mm but spare parts or even some arty ammo.


Haha :) So the RAF would have to do several large sweeps with fighters over the channel??
That alone would lead to RAF forces being decimated - remember that the RAF won BoB only by rebasing it's fighters further inland and carefully preparing interceptions as close to it's bases as possible.
The moment you force them to start such bold patrols it's like you've given up their only acceptable strategy.
By the time you want to launch the invasion the RAF has won the BOB. It's position relative to the LW has been improving consistently (check the BOB thread). Further more large fighter sweeps lets them gain numerical superiority over the LW who can only comit a fraction of their force at any one time. These sweeps can be in the vacinity of the beacheads which will lower the recover rate of British pilots a bit but won't improve that of the Germans much. I see this as a signigicant improvement is strategic posture for the British.
...Thinking 'something is up' and knowing exactly what is 'up' are veeery different things.
Look at operation Cerberus for instance - the british though 'something is up', but that just didn't cut it..
But this is taking place in an area from which they can get intelligence much more readily and since it concerns the survival of Britain they are going to have more assets devoted to it. The barges were certainly one indicator but so were the transports, the army positions, the BOB, where the KM was and what it was doing, etc. You've thrown out one red herring. They might think the invasion was still on or that it was aimed at Ireland or some of the smaller British Isles. Their still going to be wathcing like hawks and prepaired to pounce.
English subs were inferior to the u-boats and took quite a beating during the norwegian campain.
British could in no way could have used them for prolonged blockade - they would just be sunk one by one in the first week and then brits would call the rest off.
In some ways. But if they are being used for observation off the coast a bit I don't see them even being detected much less sunk. When German ships start flushing from the French harbors they call home and then attack or maybe guide in British bombers first.

As I posted previously the equipment would be loaded to the ships, but the troops themselves would board at the last moment. If executed with planned precision this could take no more than a couple of hours.
In the month previous to the actual invasion the germans could do several such massive drills with the barges instead of the ships in order to create an illusion of 'bluffing' in the english side.
It's going to take more than a couple of hours to move them from their bases to the port. The drills you mention above might take some of the edge off the warning but it still going to raise alertness flags.
LWD wrote: So you have small groups either unescored or with 1 KM warship sailing? Even an MTB or two will likely cause problems in that case.
While the MTB boats would be a threat to the barges, the Merchants armed with several big guns and AA on deck would be capable of fending off such attacks.
The probability of a jury rigged Merchant hitting an MTB traveling at attack speed are almost nil. Especially at night. Note how many US TP boats were lost at Surigao and that was against warships.
[...
You seem to contradict yourself - if the LW is unable to see the british ships then how are the british bombers seeing german ships??
Likewise the opposite. You cannot claim that by some magic only RAF pilots see and LW are blind..
I believe at this point in time at least some of the RN pilots were trained at night attacks vs ships. On the otherhand the bombers don't have to hit the transports to disrupt their formations, cost them time, throw them off course, etc.
LWD wrote: But it's at night remember? and they are also intercepting the RN. They may get some mines where they will cause problems but they also may end up mining the invasion beaches as well. Night bombing (minng is just another form of bombing) was not very accurate at this point in time.
The mining from planes is just dropping the mines in the approximate area - they don't need to hit targets with precision.
As to the mining of the invasion beaches - you take the LW bomber pilots for a complete idiots...
You seam to think that night time navigation during WWII was much more advanced than it was. A minor cross wind and you can be off miles and there is little to tell you that. The invasion beaches ae also close to the ports. If not how are the largly leg mobile infantry going to capture them quickly? Since the British had defencive mine fields off most of the ports all they have to do is sweep the clear channel. Of course if they think the port might actually fall they may just add a few mines of their own.
LWD wrote:t;]
Probably not. Even without zig zaging there will be currents and winds that will cut your effective speed. The if a RN ship gets close or the ships are subject to a bombing attack there will be additional time due to maneuvering and confusion.
Before the RN starts intercepting the invasion fleet it will have to :
a) Find it.
Finding it will be little problem. There are both ships and planes patroling the area on a routine bases. When word gets out that something is up patrols will likely be increased.
b) Group it's available forces in the imediate area of the channel.
The patroling ships can do significant damage especially since they will be encountering mostly merchant ships with an occasional KM vessel escorting. When the word gets out that it is mostly small groups everything at sea will likely be ordered to attack at will.
c) Clear the ports of mines so warships not on patrol can embark.
In some cases in others the ports won't be mined before the word gets there or the act of mining them combined with the alert situation will mean the clearing gets a head start. In critical cases extrodinary measures can be taken such as sending an empty tanker or cargo ship up the channel followed closely by the warships.
d) Intercept the fleet.
Certainly the whole RN won't reach the invasion fleet before some of it reaches the beaches. But then it is much easier to intercept, no? And it's going to take time to get the supplies and vehicles off even if the troops get ashore quickly. If you have a force package in each ship that means there is a substantial amount of artillery ammo on board which makes things real interseting when you start takeing large caliber HE rounds.
Finding it will be little problem. There are both ships and planes patroling the area on a routine bases. When word gets out that something is up patrols will likely be increased.
...
Even when they intercept, they will not be in full force and the KM+LW will be able to deal with it.
At this point in time the KM had no hope at all of standing up to even a portion of the home fleet. The LW also had not proved to be all that successful at attacking warships under power and able to defend themselves.
LWD wrote: The topology of the British beaches may well not be known. Even if it is know it can change rather quickly (one major storm can do it). ...
The germans were constantly photographing the english coastal areas from the air.
Since during low spring tides all the beaches are uncovered from water, the knowledge can be quite precise.
You are talking about beach lines. I'm talking about from the low water mark to deep water. This can be a critical element. It was the cause of a lot of problems at Tarawa. The unexpected hydrology at Omaha also caused a lot of problems and the allies had been studing them for months.
The flooding of the ship is no problem - it allready sits firmly on the ground so it can't sink.
...
Absolutely nothing. The ship will get floaded with water up to the waterline. Since it will lay on the bottom it's keel will be in full contact with the ground all the time.
All the supplies, which are water sensitive will be on the upper deck. The rest probably wouldn't be damaged by 6 hours in the water.
How do you know ground will be level where the ship beaches. In general it's not in some cases it can be quite a slope. If there is a bar you may end up with the stern and bow supported and the midship not which can lead to a broken spine. Oh and getting supplies out of a dark, flooded, cold ship is not going to be fast or fun. And as for supplies that might not be damaged by water you are looking at small arms ammo and tinned food. The Germans might have a use for the former rather quicly. Also forget the 6 hours. The Germans are not going be able to clear the ship that fast. The original plan called for taking 3 days to offload. Some things in this plan may speed it up but others won't.
LWD wrote:The Home Fleet wouldn't have to enter the ports so the mining isn't going to slow them at all. ....
Not enter, but exit. Only part of the fleet was on constant patrols - the rest was in ports.
But the home fleet is at Scapa. How are they going to mine it?
As to the purely marine combat look at the numbers:
RN (english channel immediate fleet) :3 Light cruisers 17 destroyers + MTB boats
KM 10 destroyers + 25 u-boats + 18 s-boats
Considering the Norway campain, the quality of the german naval forces was as good as the British.
Providing the support of LW in the chanel I wonder if they may even win the first battle...
If the KM is to have a chance vs the CL's they'll have to mass their DDs leaving many of the transports unprotected. If they find small groups of British DDs they may win but you are looking at 3 to 1 in tonnage with more British ships entering the fray all the time. Also consider that if the British find the transports the KM has to be very careful about where they launch torpedos. The transports are also likely to turn away from any British warships encountered at the very least this messes up the time table.
LWD wrote: Are you talking about tanks and field guns duelling DDs? ...
I'm talking of 100 mm and 155 mm caliber guns as well as 88 mm caliber guns shooting from merchan't decks
In case of the Kormoran those sunk a light cruiser!
The Kormaran wasn't exactly a standard merchant either was she? Standard merchants don't have much in the way of fire control or decks reinforced to fire from. In this case the CLs aren't likely to slow down or stop and engage in a friendly conversation either.
LWD wrote: By the way have you even looked at the time lines for this. Looks to me like you have proposed enough modifications and constrution so that this invasion couldn't happen until after September at best. If that's the case it's clearly a no go.
The start should be sometimes in middle of september. That should be sufficient for all the improvisations.
When did the planning start?

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

#38

Post by Kingfish » 10 Dec 2006, 02:09

My general idea was to drop cylinders of the same size and weight as torpedoes dropped from torpedo bombers.
The calculations for these are widely available.
The only difference would be of dropping them slightly angled to the horizon, so that their horizontal energy gets partially transformed to lift until they slow down and sink.
You do realize that the torpedo arm is a specialized branch of each nation's armed forces, and one that requires months of training and (more importantly) specialized aircraft.

BTW, sink? Now you want to sink the supply cannister?

Just curious, have you ever been to the coast of England? How much beach is uncovered when the tide goes out? If I am reading this website correctly:

http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tides/?port=0008

Then it appears that there is a +/- 3 meter difference between the high and low tides for the Portsmouth area. What that translates into actual beach being uncovered I can't say, but suffice to say it isn't a lot.

Here is a nice pic of somewhere in England during low tide:

http://www.steephill.tv/galleries/2005/ ... 325d36.jpg

How deep do you think that water is at high tide? Here's a clue - take a look at the seawall in the distance. 6ft? Maybe 10ft? Now imagine an airplane dropping a 2-ton cylinder into that little channel during high tide. Any guess as to what it will do? Of course, they can drop it into deeper water to prevent it from burying itself into the mud, but there goes any chance of retrieving it when the tide goes out.
I provided you with a valid example of an army fighting much stronger enemy and receiving tenfold less supply than I propose and still holding for 2 months. Can't you make the extrapolation alone?
The army was sitting in static defensive positions and slowly starving to death. How is that a vaild example of an air resupply campaign that worked?

While those would be obviously a problem they cannot sink the ships - becouse the ships are allready lying on the ground.
So the damage will be as much as that on the landed troops - it's a war after all - nobody said it's a walk in the park.
Forget about the troops, what about the supplies? Remember, you have to go out into the mud of low tide and retrieve the contents of several hundred 2-ton cylinders before the tide rises again. What would this little choreographed number look like when the British decide to drop 6" rounds on the beach? You want a good example of how much fun it is to unload beached transports under fire? Look at what happened to the 4 Japanese transports that were beached at Guadacanal on November 14th, 1942.

Image

Bet those guys had a lot of fun unloading. I know the Americans did.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Operation Sea Lion - (The Game Design Workshop Approach)

#39

Post by Robert Rojas » 10 Dec 2006, 03:45

Greetings to both citizen Auseklis and the community as a whole. Well sir, in reference to your notation of Saturday - December 09, 2006 - 11:39pm, old Uncle Bob was happily surprised to see another old fashioned board war gamer out here in the good old Axis History Forum. And yes, like yourself, I have also war gamed the Game Design Workshop's incarnation of Operation Sea Lion and no matter how many times I have mounted a concerted an air-land-sea "assault" across the Strait of Dover, my efforts have come to naught. I have either been unceremoniously driven back into the English Channel or my tenuous bridgehead usually becomes little more than a self-administering prisoner-of-war camp. Whether anyone likes it or not, the German Army of 1940 is NOT the United States Marine Corps and the German Navy of 1940 is not up to the herculean task of securing the logistical lifeline from Calais to Dover. Even with nominal German Air Force superiority over the Strait of Dover, a concerted kamikaze attack by the Royal Navy usually defeats Operation Sea Lion in detail. From my perspective on this matter, Operation Sea Lion ought to be rechristened as Operation Crapshoot! Well, that's my latest two cents, pence or pfennigs worth on this bizarre topic of interest - for now anyway. In anycase, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in the industrial forge of the Fatherland. Auf Wiedersehen!

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-)

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#40

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 10 Dec 2006, 07:26

Creative Approach, Here's one :)

After Dunkirk conduct no offensive operations against the British Isles. Only engage British forces in defense or in 3rd party territory. Instead of dropping bombs on England , drop flowers, nice cards and gifts. Eventually( a year or two) this form of "psycological warfare" might well convince enough of the common Englishmen to question why they are still fighting and peace could be archieved. Then the Germans could " invade" England simply by buying alot of channel ferry tickets.

Chris

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Operation Sea Lion - (An Appeal To "Reason")

#41

Post by Robert Rojas » 10 Dec 2006, 09:34

Greetings to both brother Christopher Perrien and the community as a whole. Howdy Chris! Well sir, in reference to your notation of Sunday - December 10, 2006 - 6:26am, I believe citizen Polynikes broached your very idea of a unilateral suspension of German offensive operations against the British Isles shortly after the conclusion of the Battle of Britain in October of 1940. Citizen Polynikes thread is aptly entitled as GERMANY ENDS THE WAR WITH BRITAIN UNILATERALLY. The thread is also located within the WHAT IF section of the forum and its creation date is Friday - October 28, 2005 - 7:54pm. I believe you'll be rather surprised by the frank responses generated by the membership of the forum's disparate British Commonwealth constituency. ENJOY! Well, that's my latest two cents, pence of pfennigs worth on this bizarre topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in the Magnolia State.

Best Regards From The Peoples Republic of Eugene,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-)

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#42

Post by kalpazanin » 10 Dec 2006, 11:46

Here is example of ship during low tide:
Attachments
Ship_on_lowtide.JPG
Notice the small figures around the ship?
Ship_on_lowtide.JPG (27.26 KiB) Viewed 1177 times

User avatar
Auseklis
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 20 May 2005, 11:26
Location: Heart of the Ruhr-Valley

Re: RE: Operation Sea Lion - (The Game Design Workshop Appro

#43

Post by Auseklis » 10 Dec 2006, 12:16

Robert Rojas wrote: Uncle Bob was happily surprised to see another old fashioned board war gamer out here in the good old Axis History Forum. And yes, like yourself, I have also war gamed the Game Design Workshop's incarnation of Operation Sea Lion and no matter how many times I have mounted a concerted an air-land-sea "assault" across the Strait of Dover, my efforts have come to naught.
Well, yes... I think I should mention that I played Sealion combined with Fall of France. In France one of my main objectivs was to prevent the allied forces to flee to britain.

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#44

Post by kalpazanin » 10 Dec 2006, 15:32

Here is a sketch of the ship's proposed unloading based on real WWII ship diagram:
Attachments
unloading_ship.JPG
The distribution of tanks/ vehicles should be different..
unloading_ship.JPG (66.28 KiB) Viewed 1181 times

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

#45

Post by Kingfish » 10 Dec 2006, 17:12

kalpazanin wrote: Rule of thumb is not enough - for such claim there should be verifiable info!
I totally agree. Lets start here:

At what altitude should the Junkers be flying when they unload their supply cannisters?

What airspeed?

How deep will the water have to be in order to prevent the cannisters from nosing into the mud?

How far should the tide recede in order to retrieve the cannisters?

How do you get the actual supplies to shore? Human chain?

Where will the Junkers fleet receive its training for this method of air resupply?

Who will teach them?

BTW, Germany's air-launched torpedo of WW2 was the the F5 and F5B, which weighed in at ~1700 lbs, or about a 1/3 of the weight of your proposed cannisters. Italian torpedoes were a bit heavier at ~2100 lbs, still well short of your design.

So, again I ask, who will teach the Junkers pilots how to drop a cylinder that weighs twice as much as the biggest torpedo available to the Axis?

Lets get past these preliminary questions first before we proceed to the really hard ones.

Locked

Return to “What if”