Single Ship TF Dispersion of Large Vulnerable TFs in danger

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking


Forget what he said for a second. You said a 5% chance was a good enough chance of success given the circumstances (according to your own post, circumstances being the chance to knock out a world power, etc.) I'm going to disagree with you there. A 95% chance of failure means you don't go, unless your back is against the wall and you have no other options anyway. You could play out the invasion twenty times and succeed only once. Those are horrible odds by any standard. In other words, so unlikely to succeed it might as well be considered impossible.

So Sealion goes ahead, and fails with heavy losses to the Germans. Barges sunk, Kreigsmarine swept away. The Luftwaffe and RAF have beat each other bloody in the process.

However, the Royal Navy has just lost a whole bunch of capital ships in the Channel in the process of stomping the invasion. What side will feel the loss more?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If that was the case, why did the Germans even bother planning such an operation?

As Leandros has pointed out, it wasn't "practically impossible". The Germans had a practical plan to invade the UK. It wasn't a strong plan, but one that might have worked given the right circumstances.

Why did the Germans bother planning such an operation? Because that's what military planning staffs do-they plan for all manner of contingencies that likely will never come to pass. Witness our Plan Orange for the Pacific War. God forbid that we should have executed our War Plan Red against the United Kingdom. Just because one draws up plans doesn't mean that they will be carried out or even have a chance for success.

The Germans didn't have a 'practical' plan for invading the UK. That's not my choice of words for the plan or its likelihood of success. Better words to describe something would have been 'far-fetched', 'vainglorious' or 'long-shot'. "Practical" wouldn't be in my top-10 list of adjectives to describe this planning / goal.

warspite1

Quite so - you would have been annihilated.

And I suppose mind_messing is now going to bring up me and rose coloured spectacles?



[:D][:)]

[8|]

Let's just hope the War of 1812 isn't anything to go by.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If that was the case, why did the Germans even bother planning such an operation?

As Leandros has pointed out, it wasn't "practically impossible". The Germans had a practical plan to invade the UK. It wasn't a strong plan, but one that might have worked given the right circumstances.

The Germans didn't have a 'practical' plan for invading the UK. That's not my choice of words for the plan or its likelihood of success. Better words to describe something would have been 'far-fetched', 'vainglorious' or 'long-shot'. "Practical" wouldn't be in my top-10 list of adjectives to describe this planning / goal.

"Practical" in the sense that the plan details the method for getting troops from Point A to Point B, not for it's chances of success.

In all fairness to the Sealion planners, it seems about as good a plan as you'd get considering the circumstances.

[WriterNotViking]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
So Sealion goes ahead, and fails with heavy losses to the Germans. Barges sunk, Kreigsmarine swept away. The Luftwaffe and RAF have beat each other bloody in the process.

However, the Royal Navy has just lost a whole bunch of capital ships in the Channel in the process of stomping the invasion. What side will feel the loss more?

Irrelevant to this discussion. The invasion has failed; the consequences of how it played out are another topic. Unless you mean to argue it was part of the Germans' plans to fail.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking


Forget what he said for a second. You said a 5% chance was a good enough chance of success given the circumstances (according to your own post, circumstances being the chance to knock out a world power, etc.) I'm going to disagree with you there. A 95% chance of failure means you don't go, unless your back is against the wall and you have no other options anyway. You could play out the invasion twenty times and succeed only once. Those are horrible odds by any standard. In other words, so unlikely to succeed it might as well be considered impossible.

So Sealion goes ahead, and fails with heavy losses to the Germans. Barges sunk, Kreigsmarine swept away. The Luftwaffe and RAF have beat each other bloody in the process.

However, the Royal Navy has just lost a whole bunch of capital ships in the Channel in the process of stomping the invasion. What side will feel the loss more?

In that hypothetical, would the Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht losses have stemmed Barbarossa or allowed for greater Soviet buildup? That was Hitler's first priority-attacking the Soviet Union.

Would Barbarossa have been possible or "practical" in, say, 1943 or would that window have snapped shut?

In that case, I'd say that 'settling' for removing the British at the expense of foregoing your top priority would make the Germans 'feel' the loss more in the big scheme of things.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness to the Sealion planners, it seems about as good a plan as you'd get considering the circumstances.

I agree.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If that was the case, why did the Germans even bother planning such an operation?

As Leandros has pointed out, it wasn't "practically impossible". The Germans had a practical plan to invade the UK. It wasn't a strong plan, but one that might have worked given the right circumstances.

Why did the Germans bother planning such an operation? Because that's what military planning staffs do-they plan for all manner of contingencies that likely will never come to pass. Witness our Plan Orange for the Pacific War. God forbid that we should have executed our War Plan Red against the United Kingdom. Just because one draws up plans doesn't mean that they will be carried out or even have a chance for success.

The Germans didn't have a 'practical' plan for invading the UK. That's not my choice of words for the plan or its likelihood of success. Better words to describe something would have been 'far-fetched', 'vainglorious' or 'long-shot'. "Practical" wouldn't be in my top-10 list of adjectives to describe this planning / goal.

warspite1

Quite so - you would have been annihilated.

Obviously you miss the fact that we pulled it off quietly - with blue jeans and cold beer! [:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Why did the Germans bother planning such an operation? Because that's what military planning staffs do-they plan for all manner of contingencies that likely will never come to pass. Witness our Plan Orange for the Pacific War. God forbid that we should have executed our War Plan Red against the United Kingdom. Just because one draws up plans doesn't mean that they will be carried out or even have a chance for success.

The Germans didn't have a 'practical' plan for invading the UK. That's not my choice of words for the plan or its likelihood of success. Better words to describe something would have been 'far-fetched', 'vainglorious' or 'long-shot'. "Practical" wouldn't be in my top-10 list of adjectives to describe this planning / goal.

warspite1

Quite so - you would have been annihilated.

Obviously you miss the fact that we pulled it off quietly - with blue jeans and cold beer! [:D]

Shhh! You'll give away our ongoing plans for NFL expansion if you're not more careful!

[witpqs]

And the whole 'timely and orderly' thing of moving those particular invasion forces in those circumstances is simply impossib...impossi...imposs... exceptionally unlikely in the most extreme sense!

[witpqs]

So how many tanks would the Wehrmacht have gotten ashore in the event?

[WriterNotViking]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

And the whole 'timely and orderly' thing of moving those particular invasion forces in those circumstances is simply impossib...impossi...imposs... exceptionally unlikely in the most extreme sense!

[:D]

[Malagant]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Shhh! You'll give away our ongoing plans for NFL expansion if you're not more careful!

I think they're using our own plan against us!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_FC

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking


Forget what he said for a second. You said a 5% chance was a good enough chance of success given the circumstances (according to your own post, circumstances being the chance to knock out a world power, etc.) I'm going to disagree with you there. A 95% chance of failure means you don't go, unless your back is against the wall and you have no other options anyway. You could play out the invasion twenty times and succeed only once. Those are horrible odds by any standard. In other words, so unlikely to succeed it might as well be considered impossible.

So Sealion goes ahead, and fails with heavy losses to the Germans. Barges sunk, Kreigsmarine swept away. The Luftwaffe and RAF have beat each other bloody in the process.

However, the Royal Navy has just lost a whole bunch of capital ships in the Channel in the process of stomping the invasion. What side will feel the loss more?

warspite1

Impossible to answer for certain as that would depend on a range of factors.

First and foremost is what exactly has been lost and by whom?

- How badly has the Luftwaffe and army been mauled?
- How many frontline troops are either at the bottom of the Channel or in PoW camps?
- What effect will these losses have on the u-boat build?
- Resources are limited - where does priority in production go to?
- Is this sufficient to postpone Barbarossa?
- If so do Germany try all out for a Mediterranean strategy - which arguably would have been the better bet for continuing the war after the fall of France in any case?
- What does this defeat do to Hitler's position?
- If the above losses are high, how does the Soviet Union react?
- How exactly has the RN been weakened? The loss of numerous Destroyers and potential escorts or larger ships?
- How does the USA react to a weakened RN?
- How does the USA react to a weakened Germany?
- Will Supermarina now give its Admirals the go ahead to go on the offensive against the RN?

So many questions - so many possibilities...

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
- How does the USA react to a weakened RN?

It's time for War Plan Red then, baby!

[Cap Mandrake]

Consider this. You are towing a barge. You are a direct descendant of St Christopher and you somehow make it across the Channel. Now, sometime before the sun comes up, in blackout conditions, all the tugs have to cast off the tow line, get behind the drifting barges and PUSH them ashore. In many cases, it seems to me, you would need at least 2 tugs for a large vessel. Now, under fire from shore batteries with unfamiliar currents, you have to beach the business end of the barge so that vehicles may disembark, assuming they don't drive off into 6 feet of
water. And what happens to the second wave? Who is minding the barges?

Neither are the defending infantry and AT guns going to run away. Many would literally be fighting in their home villages. You would need a very large force ashore with heavy weapons and mountains of ammunition. You take over an RAF field they just move further North. Seems like a good way to lose the war to me.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
- How does the USA react to a weakened RN?

It's time for War Plan Red then, baby!

warspite1

Oh great - kick a man when he's down [:D]

[Cap Mandrake]

Not to mention at this dire stage the US would have been giving away P-40's, flying them off a carrier somewhere off Scotland. Every B-17 we could spare would have been sent to be flown by British crews.

[witpqs]

Seems like a good way to lose the war to me.

But then again, you haven't read the manual! [:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
- How does the USA react to a weakened RN?

It's time for War Plan Red then, baby!

Getting waylaid on the web reading up on War Plan colors. The reading for WPR is interesting. I learned that we just can't trust the Canadians either! [;)]

Canadian counterpart

Defence Scheme No. 1

Canadian military officer Lieutenant Colonel James "Buster" Sutherland Brown developed an earlier counterpart to War Plan Red called Defence Scheme No. 1 on April 12, 1921. Maintaining that the best defense was a good offense, "Buster" Brown planned for rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Great Falls, Minneapolis, and Albany. With no hope of holding these objectives, the idea was to divert American troops to the flanks and away from Canada, hopefully long enough for Imperial allies to arrive with reinforcements. Defence Scheme No. 1 was terminated by Chief of the General Staff Andrew McNaughton in 1928, two years prior to the approval of War Plan Red.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Malagant

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Shhh! You'll give away our ongoing plans for NFL expansion if you're not more careful!

I think they're using our own plan against us!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_FC

warspite1

Oh yes - welcome to the beautiful game* [:)]



* Except as played by teams from the UK - we're crap at it.