Sealion successful?

Started by sebigboss79, 05 January 2013, 07:40:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Steve J

I'm not sure how much input Adolf Galland et al had on the wargame parameters  etc. Would be interesting to find out though.

sebigboss79

Quote from: Steve J on 08 January 2013, 01:58:00 PM
Some very interesting documents  from a year or so after the threat of invasion. Well worth a look.

http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc/jscsc-library/archives/operation-sealion

VERY GOOD LINK!!!!!!

Let us go through the points made on page 4.

a) - c) cannot really be contested. The forces were available, gathered and sufficiently equipped. Ongoing supply is a different matter!

d) What is meant by this? My idea is to land and unload while enemy interference is kept to minimum.
e) RUBBISH. Total control of the air is mandatory in order to be able to support the landing. Without such support via air (against defenses and RN!) any invasion attempt is an empty threat.

f) Any doubt about that?

sebigboss79

Read through it. Very concise. Only point I dispute is German Morale and the production figures of air assets. Germany had no lack of planes (BF109s) but lacked pilots.

Steve J

Will probably print these out for future reference and so that I can read them at leisure.

Last Hussar

I think its in the Deighton book 'Fighter' there is a quote by a fighter pilot (Spit or Hurricane).  He carefully nurses his shot up kite back to the airfield, only to be berated by the Senior member of his ground crew - "Why did you not bail out?  I could have a new plane here tomorrow.  I've got to fix this one now".  The problem the RAF were having were pilots.

The problem the Germans had was logistics - No Mulberry Harbours, no PLUTO, no planning.
I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

GNU PTerry

Sunray

Quote from: Last Hussar on 22 January 2013, 11:25:19 PM


The problem the Germans had was logistics - No Mulberry Harbours, no PLUTO, no planning.


This is the key point.  A sucessful German invasion would have depended in capturing  south coast harbours intact.  (I did a study may years ago on how long it took to get Cherburg operational after capture). Without Mulberry D Day would have stalled. There is a limit on what you can resupply by air and by invasion barge. 

Like many European military thinkers, the German command tended to view the channel as a very wide river. Even Cold War Warsaw Pact thinking was a bit muddy regarding UK invasion). Hither was an opportunist.  If he could have invaded Britain and Ireland in 1940 he would have done so. The opportunity passed with the failure to win the air war, and he reverted back to the real objectives in the east.


Sunray out

Rabbit 3

Quote from: Steve J on 08 January 2013, 02:38:51 PM
I'm not sure how much input Adolf Galland et al had on the wargame parameters  etc. Would be interesting to find out though.
From what I remember in the Sandhurst game he was running the Luftwaffe.
So its safe to say he had a LOT of input.