when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#451

Post by T. A. Gardner » 14 Jan 2022, 03:36

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:24
Sealion might have been 1 month's casualties on the Eastern Front, assuming a fairly quick failure.
Well, if the Germans were willing to forego having a large army, and put their efforts into an air force and navy maybe by sometime in the early 50's they could successfully challenge Britain to a point where they might successfully invade and take the counrty. Of course, that assumes the US stays out of the war entirely...

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#452

Post by daveshoup2MD » 14 Jan 2022, 03:40

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:24
daveshoup2MD wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 22:03
At least the Italians could send supplies, ammunition, and replacement forward, and evacuate casualties away, from the Isonzo by land ... if they'd had to swim there, might have been challenging to mount numbers 2-11. ;)
Sealion might have been 1 month's casualties on the Eastern Front, assuming a fairly quick failure.
How does that relate to the Isonzo?


daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#453

Post by daveshoup2MD » 14 Jan 2022, 03:41

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:20
T. A. Gardner wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 20:24
And here I thought a sure sign of insanity was trying the same thing over and over again while failing... :roll:

Eventually Lincoln hit on Grant and Sherman and the strategy that had failed repeatedly eventually succeeded.
And the US strategic universe in 1861-65 relates to this how, exactly?

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#454

Post by daveshoup2MD » 14 Jan 2022, 03:45

T. A. Gardner wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:36
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:24
Sealion might have been 1 month's casualties on the Eastern Front, assuming a fairly quick failure.
Well, if the Germans were willing to forego having a large army, and put their efforts into an air force and navy maybe by sometime in the early 50's they could successfully challenge Britain to a point where they might successfully invade and take the county. Of course, that assumes the US stays out of the war entirely...
Or, even in that case (which seems ... doubtful?) there's the significant possibility a Lancaster drops a large object over Berlin sometime in the late 1940s and Berlin ceases to exist.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#455

Post by T. A. Gardner » 14 Jan 2022, 03:47

daveshoup2MD wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:45
T. A. Gardner wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:36
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:24
Sealion might have been 1 month's casualties on the Eastern Front, assuming a fairly quick failure.
Well, if the Germans were willing to forego having a large army, and put their efforts into an air force and navy maybe by sometime in the early 50's they could successfully challenge Britain to a point where they might successfully invade and take the county. Of course, that assumes the US stays out of the war entirely...
Or, even in that case (which seems ... doubtful?) there's the significant possibility a Lancaster drops a large object over Berlin sometime in the late 1940s and Berlin ceases to exist.
Actually, it would take a number of those to make that happen. Berlin is surprisingly large and spread out compared to Japanese cities. But I do get your point, and the Germans won't be able to retaliate for years because their own program in that area is so pathetic...

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#456

Post by daveshoup2MD » 14 Jan 2022, 03:59

T. A. Gardner wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:47
daveshoup2MD wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:45
T. A. Gardner wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:36
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:24
Sealion might have been 1 month's casualties on the Eastern Front, assuming a fairly quick failure.
Well, if the Germans were willing to forego having a large army, and put their efforts into an air force and navy maybe by sometime in the early 50's they could successfully challenge Britain to a point where they might successfully invade and take the county. Of course, that assumes the US stays out of the war entirely...
Or, even in that case (which seems ... doubtful?) there's the significant possibility a Lancaster drops a large object over Berlin sometime in the late 1940s and Berlin ceases to exist.
Actually, it would take a number of those to make that happen. Berlin is surprisingly large and spread out compared to Japanese cities. But I do get your point, and the Germans won't be able to retaliate for years because their own program in that area is so pathetic...
Depends on the object, of course.

Okay, "downtown" Berlin ceases to exist. I guess any who were still around and could speak could call Goering a "gross meyer."

Well, maybe they'll get the disintegrator rays working in time; seems about as likely as the Wehrmacht developing the ability to get an army group- sized expeditionary force and tactical air force (or two) across the Channel, sustain it in action, and fight a campaign to some sort of conclusion other than the Germans surrendering...

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#457

Post by glenn239 » 14 Jan 2022, 04:07

Penchanski wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 11:47
I've given my source for this, where are yours?
Here,

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/HB-6.html

German infantry in heavy defensive fighting required 25-50 lbs per man per day. Taking the high side 50lbs, that's 300 tons per day for 12,000 men.
And doesn't your scenario assume Sealion troops are a lot more effective than at Stalingrad? I've never heard of Stalingrad described as a stalemate.
They couldn't even maintain a defence never mind threaten the surrounding countryside.
Sorry, I thought you were following the discussion. The scenario being discussed is a stranded German pocket on the English side. It's surrounded by over a dozen British divisions, which are launching periodic heavy offensives. So, quite like Stalingrad.

You claimed the Luftwaffe would render every naval base between Sheerness and Felixstowe untenable. That's just nonsense.
I said 'increasingly untenable'. Curious how that happens, the dropping of key phrasing. Airpower can't interdict a port immediately, it degrades its capacity over the course of time. Weeks, months.

Have we established that X-Gerat would be effective against targets like Felixstowe port in this timeframe, and that for coastal targets such as Plymouth that even the Knickebein system would function because the approach to target is over water?
Point is you make the German sorties effective and the British ones useless.
Not at all. In air sea battles, as Stalin said quantity has a quality all its own. A trio of level bombers might have little chance of hitting a destroyer at sea, but the destroyer squadron still has to fire a barrage at it in order to make sure that its aim would be poor. That's 200 rounds (or whatever) that have been expended. And the next trio of level bombers would be along in a few minutes, and so on. In an all out battle, we're talking thousands of sorties if it's a daylight battle, and British controllers would be as likely to vector fighters onto a weak threat, (ie, DO-17) as a serious threat (ie, Stuka).

And should they want to bring over an extra 88 at some point, say as a replacement, at over 16000lb that's your 6lb supply for nearly 3000 men. A Panzer IV, at 27 tons, would be three times that.
I said 2,000 tons per day for 100,000 men. That's 40 lbs per man per day. The 6lbs figure was set by the German army at Stalingrad.
The question should be how long can the Germans hold off those British tanks by shouting bang.
No, the question is, if the German keep bloody well invading England and the US isn't entering the war because the Japanese are knee deep in Soviets, not Pearl Harbor, can the British defeat every one of those invasions, and win the Battle of the Atlantic, and hold Egypt?
Last edited by glenn239 on 14 Jan 2022, 04:11, edited 1 time in total.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#458

Post by glenn239 » 14 Jan 2022, 04:10

T. A. Gardner wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:36
Well, if the Germans were willing to forego having a large army, and put their efforts into an air force and navy maybe by sometime in the early 50's they could successfully challenge Britain to a point where they might successfully invade and take the counrty. Of course, that assumes the US stays out of the war entirely...
Now you're catching on. One Sealion will probably fail. But 10 of the bloody things, sooner or later, one might succeed. If the US enters the war before that, then that changes everything. OTOH, if the US enters the war, the German strategic position is far better than if they're mired in Russia. So, again, Sealion is better than the alternative.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#459

Post by glenn239 » 14 Jan 2022, 04:23

daveshoup2MD wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:45
Or, even in that case (which seems ... doubtful?) there's the significant possibility a Lancaster drops a large object over Berlin sometime in late 1952 and Berlin ceases to exist.
Fixed it for you.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#460

Post by daveshoup2MD » 14 Jan 2022, 04:33

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:23
daveshoup2MD wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:45
Or, even in that case (which seems ... doubtful?) there's the significant possibility a Lancaster drops a large object over Berlin sometime in late 1952 and Berlin ceases to exist.
Fixed it for you.
Not really.

Britain's options regarding atomic weapons in 1940-49 were not fixed in stone. The Allies, working (more or less) together in 1942-45, developed two different atomic weapon designs and put them into production, and - arguably - three different combat aircraft capable of carrying one or the other, all of which went into operational service.

A British-only effort, even concentrated on one design and beginning in 1940-41, is very unlikely to have beaten the Allies' historical record of weapons ready for delivery in 1945, but it is very likely that a British-only effort, beginning in 1940-41, could have beaten Britain's actual path to an independent nuclear force by several years - and long before the Axis.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#461

Post by daveshoup2MD » 14 Jan 2022, 04:38

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:10
One Sealion will probably fail. But 10 of the bloody things, sooner or later, one might succeed.
Interesting concept. So after throwing away enough of six motorized and 21 infantry divisions, and hundreds of vessels that the German war economy depends upon, and the entire KM surface fleet, and much of two tactical air forces, to get to the "bloody failure" point in the autumn of 1940, the Germans will come up with the equivalent to try again in the summer of 1941, apparently...

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#462

Post by Richard Anderson » 14 Jan 2022, 09:03

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
I said 'increasingly untenable'. Curious how that happens, the dropping of key phrasing. Airpower can't interdict a port immediately, it degrades its capacity over the course of time. Weeks, months.
Pot, meet kettle.
Have we established that X-Gerat would be effective against targets like Felixstowe port in this timeframe, and that for coastal targets such as Plymouth that even the Knickebein system would function because the approach to target is over water?
X-Gerät required the specialized crews and aircraft of KGr 100, operating out of Vannes with He 111H-1/3...all of seven of them operational by 7 September.

The Knickebein system did not require an over-water approach to function, it required the confidence of the crew. The problem with it was the crews got it into their heads that the RAF was going to use the beams to guide night fighters at them, so they refused to use the system.
Not at all. In air sea battles, as Stalin said quantity has a quality all its own. A trio of level bombers might have little chance of hitting a destroyer at sea, but the destroyer squadron still has to fire a barrage at it in order to make sure that its aim would be poor. That's 200 rounds (or whatever) that have been expended. And the next trio of level bombers would be along in a few minutes, and so on. In an all out battle, we're talking thousands of sorties if it's a daylight battle, and British controllers would be as likely to vector fighters onto a weak threat, (ie, DO-17) as a serious threat (ie, Stuka).
Given that at this time most British destroyers had a single 4" gun for long-range AA, I'm not sure how any of them could fire a "barrage"? Of course, given the rate of fire was only 10 to 20 rounds-per-minute depending on Mark, I am uncertain why any ship would waste 10 to 20 minutes firing at a "trio of level bombers" to ensure their "aim would be poor"? OTOH the AA cruisers could and did.
No, the question is, if the German keep bloody well invading England and the US isn't entering the war because the Japanese are knee deep in Soviets, not Pearl Harbor, can the British defeat every one of those invasions, and win the Battle of the Atlantic, and hold Egypt?
So the Germans will simply keep giving it the old college try over and over again because...they would be trying to use up their diminishing resources even faster? They were masochists? They were stupid?

BTW, why would the Soviets attack the Japanese if the Germans kept up an idiotic campaign to invade Britain?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#463

Post by Peter89 » 14 Jan 2022, 09:43

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 03:33
Peter89 wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 09:41
Stalingrad and Demyansk are bad examples. As I said, supply requirement is somewhat a fictional number. One can argue that resistance in Stalingrad did not collapse immediately even after the airlift stopped, and definately didn't stop when the calculated supply requirement wasn't met.
Stalingrad was dug in infantry in static defenses facing an army far better equipped and more numerous than what the British had in 1940. 6lbs per man per day was obviously too little for anything but a temporary measure, but that's the supply goal they set.
1. The Stalingrad pocket got annihilated
2. That supply goal was never reached
3. In the airlift process, the better part of the air transport fleet got destroyed

Yet, there were differences:
1. the air space over the supply route was over water
2. the British had an integrated defense system ie an airlift convoy of the size of those between Sicily and Tunisia (80-100 planes) was impossible to reach Britain without detection
3. the supplied forces were not in a ruined city which they were familiar with, ie they could not reach the same level of entrenchment as the Stalingrad forces

If they were able to get 2,000 tons per day ashore, given the state of the British army in September 1940, a hedgehog might have been viable for some time.
Airlift could provide only a tiny friction of that, about one tenth or one fifth tops.
Tunisia showed that sinking the type of small ships we're talking of was not that easy.
In Tunisia, the Allies had to attack on a perpendicular axis and both ends of the supply route were controlled by the Germans. The Germans could not establish and hold a bridgehead in Tunisia either.

But even if the Germans could establish and hold a beachhead in Britain, I don't see how is that good for them. The naval forces would shrink to nothing and with the air war lost, the pocket in Britain would be a POW camp with extra steps.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Penchanski
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 03 Dec 2021, 18:15
Location: Germany

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#464

Post by Penchanski » 14 Jan 2022, 11:44

glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
Penchanski wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 11:47
I've given my source for this, where are yours?
Here,

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/HB-6.html

German infantry in heavy defensive fighting required 25-50 lbs per man per day. Taking the high side 50lbs, that's 300 tons per day for 12,000 men.
You missed the description of the chart that you 're taking that from - "Under present conditions the average total supply requirements per German soldier are estimated to vary as follows". Present means 1945, when it was published. My figures, from the same publication, specifically referred to 1941. I'll stick with them. An average expenditure of 1100lbs for a 1941 German infantry division in heavy combat. Presumably sometimes they actually used even more than that. It's an average not an upper limit nor a minimum requirement. But to me it's a reasonable figure for what they need to be effective over any decent length of time, and your guess of 250 seems too low.
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
Penchanski wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 11:47
And doesn't your scenario assume Sealion troops are a lot more effective than at Stalingrad? I've never heard of Stalingrad described as a stalemate.
They couldn't even maintain a defence never mind threaten the surrounding countryside.
Sorry, I thought you were following the discussion. The scenario being discussed is a stranded German pocket on the English side. It's surrounded by over a dozen British divisions, which are launching periodic heavy offensives. So, quite like Stalingrad.
No, Stalingrad was a bunch of "scarecrows" waiting to be rescued with no hope of independent action. Von Mannstein is coming. Von Mannstein is coming. Von Mannstein is .. oh, better surrender then.

Not a stalemate. Not a threat that could have influenced any diplomacy and changed the outcome of the war, which I thought was your argument.

Also, the German estimate of their minimum requirement at Stalingrad is not instructive. They never got it. Had they got it would things have been different? Who knows.

Whisper it ... [tiny text] sometimes German estimates were wrong [/tiny text]
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
Penchanski wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 11:47
You claimed the Luftwaffe would render every naval base between Sheerness and Felixstowe untenable. That's just nonsense.
I said 'increasingly untenable'. Curious how that happens, the dropping of key phrasing. Airpower can't interdict a port immediately, it degrades its capacity over the course of time. Weeks, months.
The implication is that the Germans landed on British soil could survive "interdiction" better and longer than every sea and air port in the South of England.

Like I said, nonsense.
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
Penchanski wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 11:47
Point is you make the German sorties effective and the British ones useless.
Not at all. In air sea battles, as Stalin said quantity has a quality all its own.
Unless it's the Royal Navy. Or RAF. Or RA. Or shitty British tanks.
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
A trio of level bombers might have little chance of hitting a destroyer at sea, but the destroyer squadron still has to fire a barrage at it in order to make sure that its aim would be poor. That's 200 rounds (or whatever) that have been expended.
As I said, only the British need to count their ammo.
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
I said 2,000 tons per day for 100,000 men. That's 40 lbs per man per day. The 6lbs figure was set by the German army at Stalingrad.
So now it's not like Stalingrad? And above you use 50lbs. That's three different amounts in one post. Is it any wonder if people can't follow the discussion?
glenn239 wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 04:07
No, the question is, if the German keep bloody well invading England and the US isn't entering the war because the Japanese are knee deep in Soviets, not Pearl Harbor, can the British defeat every one of those invasions, and win the Battle of the Atlantic, and hold Egypt?
OK, that's a completely different question to the idea that Sealion could establish a permanent beachhead. It's not a question I care to waste time thinking about as there are umpty different counter-factuals to imagine.

I think it's off-topic to be honest. That's not Sealion.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: when was it too late for sealion if they got ashore

#465

Post by Peter89 » 14 Jan 2022, 11:58

Penchanski wrote:
14 Jan 2022, 11:44
Also, the German estimate of their minimum requirement at Stalingrad is not instructive. They never got it. Had they got it would things have been different? Who knows.
I know. 750 tons per day delivery could not be maintained via air. That is 500 sorties of Ju 52s with 1.5t load or 375 sorties with standard 2t load. I know they employed other types as well but a few more weeks of Stalingrad could cripple the Luftwaffe.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”