operation sea lion

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

At least now you're explaining yourself instead of simply presenting me with your statement and forcing me to blindly accept it.

I think you made several valid points which makes me agree with you. But note that I never said the Germans could get counterfire ready. That's a big disadvantage, I admit. And that's why I'm essentially asking them to dig in for two days, including their mortars and light artillery. Aren't mortars great for defensive operations like in Kursk? Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943
Russians used twice as many as the Germans (given the total size of the division).

Kris
 
Mkloby: read the comments of syscom and Glider and do not skip Hop´s thoughts...it is more than reasonable to assume they are permanently right as well -especially Hop-. You seem to be right too.

Seems like a debate is occurring. When discussing a what if, one can push ideas to the limits, limits which seem to set you off.

I can say something very similar regarding most views portraying a pro-British scenario in the event of an alleged German invasion of England: they are ridiculous.

If you read my comments within the thread you might notice i have not gotten that involved in discussing such detailed things like mortars and artillery, nothing wrong with that at all though.

The bulk of my ideas here were based on facts...people see some sort of mighty Royal Navy force that will definetly come to destroy a German invasion force launched across the Channel; how come?

The record does not seem to indicate such a thing could happen for sure: Channel Dash again but more importantly Great Britain losing a battle where naval assets played a major role: Norway.

Also there is Crete, a brutally sound case which has been ridiculously dismissed by pro-Brit discussers in here; the German paratroopers attacked with virtually ZERO artillery support and won. Save the details, i know Merkur like the palm of my hand, and if victory was attained on Crete, it could very well have been attained on England. (Thou shall not believe Churchill´s "estimates" regarding German losses on Crete). Period.

Civettone made a fine point when saying unorthodox plans can succeed. If Unternehmen Merkur had not really occurred as it did, the proposal of the same plan when discussing a what if would most likely prompt reactions like yours Mkloby: "you know nothing..." or "you have no experience".

But since Merkur did take place is that we see pro-Brit discussers whining about the "awful" equipment and overall situation of the defenders on the island; on the other hand -again- if Merkur had not occurred you would be telling me "Crete defenses were sufficient to regard any German intention of invading suicidal".

Well guess what? The overall situation of the British forces in England after Fall Gelb and Fall Rot including a good part of their equipment could reminescence Great Britain forces on Crete. Perfect.

Now a brief "what if": beg your pardon but England ain´t the Soviet Union, no western version of Stalingrad will occur, ever. If the Germans succeed in landing troops on one or two beaches, plus Fallschirmjäger landing and securing some positions, England seeks peace -promptly-.

Now reality, Germany did not intend to invade England.
 
Civettone said:
Aren't mortars great for defensive operations like in Kursk? Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943
Russians used twice as many as the Germans (given the total size of the division).
Kris
Click to expand...
Mortars do work very well in defensive positions. One of big advantages of this is that you positions are relatively static. This, in part, minimizes the problem associated with their short range. Ideally, you'd have your divisiona arty to reach out and touch the enemy while still beyond the range of your mortars. Infantry Bn's and Co's are able to use their organic mortars to support their operations - w/o having to go higher up, where divisional arty may be supporting a higher priority.

Udet said:
Mkloby: read the comments of syscom and Glider and do not skip Hop´s thoughts...it is more than reasonable to assume they are permanently right as well -especially Hop-. You seem to be right too.
Click to expand...
They were read, although not commented on.

Civ did make a good point. There is nothing wrong with an unorthodox plan. It wasn't the overall plan or scheme of maneuver that I had a problem with, it was the fire support plan - which was very problematic at best. I was getting frustrated. My apologies.
[/QUOTE]
 

Sorry Kris but you are talking bull here. As early as 1916 the British were using air pressure, wind speeds temperature etc in their artillery fire. Observers observe, the artillery battery fire and did the calculations to ensure that they hit the target.
Speed of response is about organisation. In the FSR (field Service Regulations) for the Army in WW2 but written in 1936 on Artillery fire and its use, the word control is used once. Its only mentioned once and that is to to explain that to control, is by definition limiting. The entire FSR conctrates on flexibility, and trust in the observer.
The German Army observers worked under differing rules and could sometimes get a faster responce as they tended to be directly linked to a battery normally of 4 guns. The British observer could get a similar responce from 24 guns. Both figures depend on the structure at the time and this varied through the war and by type of division. Here I am talking about 105/25pd guns.
Most importantly the British observer had access if required to more batteries or higher level batteries than a German observer could. The whole ethos from the top down was in this direction.

Doesn't the same apply to lighter mortars? The only difference is the mortar itself. Ammo is also heavier but is shot at a slower RoF.
Click to expand...

Your the one saying that the 120mm batteries are mobile not me or anyone else.
The 3in to 81mm mortar were used by all armies in a flexible role there is nothing to prove, as they all did this successfully. No one but no one used a 120 in the manner your suggesting. You have to prove that it could.
The 81mm mortar is lighter and easier to carry. Re ammo it wasn't unheard of for para units to give every man one bomb to carry in the same way that every infantry man in the British army could carry ammo for the Bren gun even though one one team had a Bren. Are you going to give everyone a 120mm mortar bomb weighing what 35pds?
 
[/QUOTE]

Mkloby, hi.

My comment was not to say your arguments regarding the fire support plan are incorrect; i do not doubt your views on that particular matter can be valid, precise and correct. Rather, my idea was to illustrate you most posters believe their views are very correct here.
 
Theres nothing wrong with an unorthodox plan, as long as it isnt based on a bunch of unlikely events to occur.

regardless on your plans, it ultimatly mut be based on your capabilities and your enemies capabilities.
 
I think I was misunderstood. I see the 120mm mortar as a more mobile replacement of artillery. I still stand by that. I don't consider it as a man-packed weapon.

I disagree that the German army had the advantage of fast response. None was faster than the British; they were obsessed by speed. Accuracy came on the second place. In 1940 the British were unhappy with the accuracy of their guns in France. Perhaps they improved this later on? You were right on the weather aspect though. That was me guessing why they were less accurate.

MKloby, is it true that mortar fire is more difficult to counter fire?
Kris
 
Kris
Can I ask what AA you are going to take with you. The Army are on their own for 2-3 days and the RAF have around 30 squadrons of GA making life hell for them with the GAF of limited help as the CAP has been withdrawn or kept at minimal levels.
British Artillery will outrange your mortars and be able to operate with minimal distruption pounding your area and at night the Heavy Bombers will run free.

Some form of AA defence is a requirement and I don't see the normal army level of protection being nearly good enough
 

Udet
There are some good comments here but you are selective to a point. In particular Crete and Norway.
What turned these around was airpower pure and simple. The Germans had it, The British didn't and the result inevitable.
Even then, the German Naval Losses in Norway were dreadfull and German Parachute units in Crete very heavy. Neither Arm was able to function again in its traditional form against the Western Allies again, ever. The Navy did operate against the Russian Navy, that I grant but to compare The Russian Navy against the RN is chalk and cheese.

To pretend that the same situation would happen over Britain in May 42 is clearly unrealistic. The numbers quoted already prove that the forces in place in May 42 without any assumptions could almost match those proposed with major assumptions
To pretend that because the Channel Dash could take place with suprise would mean that a whole invasion could launch a suprise invasion is unrealistic
To pretend that the channel dash was a major success with the ships being undamaged when, at the end of the day all the major ships were damaged and most out of action for months is blinkered at best.
To then pretend that the British wouldn't take precautions against an impending invasion is equally unrealistic.

I commend Kris on some of his ideas in particular the landing craft, I believe these are huge risks but ones that original thinking can come up with.
 
Civettone said:
MKloby, is it true that mortar fire is more difficult to counter fire?
Kris
Click to expand...

It's taking 4 hours now for this post between the baby fussing and people calling...

I have a couple of thoughts on this. Keep in mind, I'm not an artillery officer, and an arty man could probably go into much more detail than I could, especially when it comes to counter-battery fire (which is out of my league).

Due to the short max effective range of mortars, it would be easier to narrow down where the fire came from... talking of a couple clicks rather than miles.

However, it is relatively easy for mortars to dig-in. All you'd need is a few hours, and you would have a nice basic fighting hole. Of course, that's not going to protect that position from a 155mm shell plunging directly on target, but it will offer decent protection with respect to splintering fragments. It will be much more difficult to prepare a defensive position for arty pieces weighing several tons.

Another thing that comes to my mind is that your light (60mm+ mortars) and medium mortars (80mm+) can be easily broken down and manpacked. You available options for choosing your fire support position are not as restrictive as arty, in the sense that you can hump them over rough terrain, across unimproved terrain, across streams and such. Divisional arty, towed by trucks/halftracks, is obviously going to be more restricted in it's choice of firing position.

Also, keep in mind about various methods used for detecting enemy firing positions. Forward observers, recon patrols, aviation recon will all have a more difficult time picking up a mortar position vice massive arty pieces. Not to mention that mortars can move their position in a matter of minutes. This can mitigate the risks posed via counter-bat fire, but can also vastly diminish the effectiveness of your own fire. It can prove advantageous if you position is spotted by, say, a patrol.

I believe in WWII they were able to use radar to identify mortars while in flight, but I am not sure how effective this method truly was in identifying a probable firing position.

In some aspects, mortars are more vulnerable to counter-bat fire, but they also have several advantages as well... Perhaps someone that has served in arty can expand on this.
 
Kris,

While believing your idea is bizarre, at best, I have maintained a certain respect for your "out of the box" thoughts. There is too much certainty and reliance upon what the Germans could do without actually considering what the British could do. I maintain my position on the basis that it would be more likely, given the strength of the Royal Navy, RAF and British Army that the invasion would fail - that's not to say I'm one-hundred percent sure it would.

I have to ask, are you aware how close Germany came to defeat in Norway? It was only luck and bad weather that prevented the German invasion fleet heading for Norway being bombed and destroyed on April 3rd - 8th when the Hipper, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst finally reached a zone out of 2 Group range, along with the supply and invasion flotilla.

I make that point because on all those days it was weather that turned the Blenheims back; for an invasion on the beaches it needs to be a reasonable day (at least), and on these days the RAF would fly. I don't think the tune of Norway would be sung for Germany had the weather permitted 2 Group to do its duty. I'm not saying 2 Group would sink all the ships, but I think the German invasion would suffer a big blow.

The same goes for the Kriegsmarine, as the Admiral Scheer was attacked on September 4th, 1939, and was hit with three bombs that bounced overboard because of 11 second delays. Imagine if, on that day, the RAF used torpedo bombers - the tune in Berlin would be "...we made a mistake." If, of course, the bombers made the run and hit the target - (in real life, the Luftwaffe made no appearance and the AA only opened up after bombs had been dropped.)

I also have quote here from someone who acquired more in-depth knowledge of the German Wehrmacht and War Machine, its workings and capability than anyone on this forum could ever dream of...

"...for only the capture of the British Expeditionary Force could have influenced the English towards making peace with Hitler or could created the conditions necessary for a successful German invasion of Great Britain." - Heinz Guderian
 
Hey Plan_D, thank you for the kind words. I'm not certain the German invasion would succeed either. I also never said I was. But I do see it's possible. That you see it more likely that it would fail than succeed, is quite understandable and you may very well be right.

About Norway, I disagree with your view on the invasion. First, I think the KM got beaten quite badly in Norway and this was a result of bad planning which could have been avoided just the same. I'm thinking of those German destroyers lost, I'm thinking of the plan with KM positions falling in the hands of the British but I'm especially thinking of what happened to Blücher, what a stupid way to lose a heavy cruiser! I can see the KM doing better just the same as I can see the Royal Navy doing better.
Second, I don't think the examples you gave would have resulted in a failure to invade Norway. As the south was in German hands, the rest of the country would fall sooner or later as neither the British nor the French could have continued the fight in Norway for much longer. The French dropped out and the British needed every soldier to defend Britain.

Kris
 
I believe that if the weather was right for those five days, then 2 Group Blenheims and Coastal Command Hudsons would have put a large dent in the German invasion, and quite possibly a massive dent in the Kriegsmarine surface fleet.

Even with the success of the Kriegsmarine during World War II, I don't think it was large enough to over-whelm any large attempt by the Royal Navy to engage. And during an invasion of Britain, unlike Crete and Norway, the Royal Navy would have the RAF for support.
 
Hop said:
As Kurfurst is fairly new to this forum, just a word of warning about how he distorts things.
Click to expand...

I will not bother to address Hop's usual lies point by point - suffice to say evereything he tries to sell as my position is wanton lies on his part - I know him for 6 years now, he can't show me anything new.
 
Kurfurst and Hop I have told you guys before in another thread to quit you bitching to one another. I closed that thread because of it, do you want me to close this one as well?!

As Les said if you want to act like Children then do it in PMs okay.
 
Well maybe you guys should have done something about it before - you had days to edit the post that started the pissing contest, before I replied to it - why nothing happened?

If you edit the reply, edit the post that got around the question itself and started ad hominem attacks as well.
 
Kurfurst we are not here 24/7. I have not been online since Friday so dont start questioning my motives okay! I just read the posts and I am telling you both to quit this childishness!
 

I think Sealion was more hope, bluff and bluster than anything else. It could be that Hitler thought that by assembling a few barges in channel ports he could "frighten" the British into taking him seriously. Fat chance. A lion fighting on its own territory with nowhere to go is unlikely to start swimming the Atlantic and is far more likely to stiffen its back and extend its claws. It has nothing to lose at that point.
But it bears pointing out that Germany had neither the air force to ensure any sort of strategic advantage, nor any sort of navy that could seriously challenge the Home Fleet. Moreover, even the fine fighter aircarft that Germany possessed didn't have the range or staying power to fight decisive battles in the air over England. They didn't have the fuel and had to turn back only minutes after they arrived. Add to that the fact that German pilots who were shot down over England became prisoners; British pilots shot down over England were still active duty pilots. German bombers were pathetically weak sisters compared to English 4-engine strategic bombers and didn't compare favorably to the DeHavilland Mosquitoes which could fly to Berlin and Back and pin the label "Meyer" on Goering's ample chest.
Let's see: no strategic air force; no navy capable of holding a corridor and commanding a beach head, and nothing in the way of naval assault vessels - sounds like a recipe for precisely nothing to me.
Hitler really wanted the British to "just capitulate" and there was a contingent of frightened titles that wanted to do just that, but by then, they had been surpassed in their own country.
The Battle of Britain was the first time in WWII that the German air force came up against an opposite air force that was morally equipped to fight it, backed up by being materially equipped to fight it on even or better terms, with a radar system and fighter command and control system in depth. Before this, the Germans had been fighting enemy air forces that were like so many ducks in a barrel. The German reputation of invincibility was characterized by a series of swift victories over ill-prepared enemies flying antiquated equipment with no command and control systems and whose airfields were quickly overrun on the ground. None of this applied to Great Britain.

So consider that the very first time the Germans encountered a real enemy in the sky, they could hurt him, maul him and bleed him, but never really had a chance to beat him, and that should have given the thick-headed Germans a clue that things would never be the same again.
 

Yes. ULTRA wasn't perfect; Mongomery, it is know, din't like ULTRA, but one suspects this might have had more to do with losing his own 'omniscience' (read, ego); nor, in the beginning, was it particularly fast or efficient. All these thingscame with time.

With regard to the so-called operation Sea Lion, it seems even more clear in retrospect than it did at the time to the fearful Admirals of the German navy, that opening even a tiny corridor and holding it for weeks was simply another term for Suicide of the German Navy. And, the Germans would have had to move with great speed as the British were even then deploying pipelines to the seacoast with a view to setting the landing beaches on fire.

It is undisputably true that the British Army was a weak sister following Dunkirk, but the British were making huge strides in rearming and re-armoring their battered divisions. I find it interesting and fascinating that throughout WWII, the British were always more mechanized than their German counterparts which relied very heavily on horse-drawn transport. The excellent German armor that made up the spearpoint of the German army was backed up by miles of plodding horse-drawn supply trains.

The Army may have been weakened (but recovering), but there was nothing weak about the RAF, or the Navy which I firmly believe would have cut a German invasion force to shreds under a strong RAF umbrella. When you fight the ultimate battle, everyhting, including the kitchen sink is thrown into the cauldron.

But, having failed to gain control of the air with an air force wholly unsuitable for strategic bombing and a fighter force that had great planes and pilots but no stamina over England- all this was a recipe for failure. Five or ten minutes over England doesn't cut it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Are Japanese Army Sentai operation records on JACAR?
Replies
12
Views
1K
CHen10
T
Sea Plane bases for He 115
Replies
5
Views
930
woodhaven
Operation Chastise
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Marcel
Questions about B-29 operational range, VVS, VVS intercept capability if Operation Unthinkable happen.
17 18 19
Replies
367
Views
12K
EwenS
E
A
Was Operation Ironclad necessary?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register