According to Wikipedia:
"Chalk is a soft, white, porous, sedimentary carbonate rock, a form of limestone composed of the mineral calcite." (Emphasis added)
Why are Sealion threads so hated on this site?
- Thread starter IntellectuallyHonestRhino
- Start date
According to Wikipedia:
"Chalk is a soft, white, porous, sedimentary carbonate rock, a form of limestone composed of the mineral calcite." (Emphasis added)
marathag
Banned
One wonders why no-one else ever discovered that you don't need to water horses for days on end in the Desert.
During WWI , the British had around 15% death rate for their Horses each year, and of that total, 75% were from disease or exhaustion.
You don't feed or water a horse for three days, their organs would have begun to shut down in two.You know that old saying, 'lead a Horse to water, but can't make them drink'?
Well, you don't water a horse enough while working hard, they lose electrolytes from sweating, you get stomach or intestinal impaction and they will hurt enough not to drink or eat.
Nowdays, you have surgery and IVs to take care of that. In WWI, they used a bullet.
You think Military Horses were different from other Horses in WWI?
Had Hitler not been such a genocidal maniac, and Barbarossa succeeded, and he could integrate the entire Europe’s resources against Britain (including Russia, with part of the Russian people at least half-heartedly supporting Hitler), then Sealion had a chance.
A slight one though, as Nappy achieved most of these after Tilsit.
On the other hand, without the last Jewish ring stolen in Minsk and last potato requisitioned in Kiev, which were justified by Nazi race doctrine, would the invincible Wehrmacht even last until 1942?
A slight one though, as Nappy achieved most of these after Tilsit.
On the other hand, without the last Jewish ring stolen in Minsk and last potato requisitioned in Kiev, which were justified by Nazi race doctrine, would the invincible Wehrmacht even last until 1942?
marathag
Banned
James F. Dunnigan, in "Dirty little secrets of WW II", estimated total horse losses of 2 million from 2.7M in service during the war, almost double German losses in WW I. That's where they mixed oats not fit for human consumption with sawdust to extend the supply
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
I too have a Geology degree.
Remind me; am I correct in believing that chalk is something like CaCO3, and clay is something like Al2SiO3? *
If so, then how does the poster whom you were responding to's assertion that blowing chalk up turns it into clay work, chemically, unless we assume that the explosives used are special Magical Sealion Explosives, not functioning with anything resembling regard for chemistry?
* Okay: I studied geology a while ago and I find it scary that I thought 'ah, Al2SiO3 for clay' - then double-checked and found that apparently correct.
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
Can anyone remember if we've had 'The Germans replace their horses with camels?' in one of these threads before? As a concept in the Sealion context, it seems vaguely familiar to me...
Pretty sure destroyers are designed to destroy littoral shipping.
37 destroyers sortie. Lets say 30 get to the German fleet (and I use fleet advisedly). They have 4-8 mostly 120mm QF guns. Lets say 6. 30*6=180. 180*10/12 shots a minute, so 1800 shots a minute. (Plus torpedoes, other guns etc)
I realise this is getting a bit theoretical, but what do you think that is going to do to your 4000 ships?
The barges are slow. They are easily swamped even by close shots. When they hit the British coast they will be stationary.
The Luftwaffe has to somehow
A) Defeat the RAF.
B) Destroy the RN.
C) Providing local fire support to counter-act the material advantage for the landed German forces versus British ones.
Given it couldn't manage A in OTL its really not clear how its going to manage anything else.
37 destroyers sortie. Lets say 30 get to the German fleet (and I use fleet advisedly). They have 4-8 mostly 120mm QF guns. Lets say 6. 30*6=180. 180*10/12 shots a minute, so 1800 shots a minute. (Plus torpedoes, other guns etc)
I realise this is getting a bit theoretical, but what do you think that is going to do to your 4000 ships?
The barges are slow. They are easily swamped even by close shots. When they hit the British coast they will be stationary.
The Luftwaffe has to somehow
A) Defeat the RAF.
B) Destroy the RN.
C) Providing local fire support to counter-act the material advantage for the landed German forces versus British ones.
Given it couldn't manage A in OTL its really not clear how its going to manage anything else.
Perhaps this is illustrative:
Axis landing attempt, 21/22 May 1941 Crete
An Axis convoy of around 20 caïques, escorted by the Italian torpedo boat Lupo, tried to land German reinforcements near Maleme. Force D under Rear-Admiral Irvine Glennie, with three light cruisers and four destroyers, intercepted the convoy before midnight; the convoy turned back and despite being covered by Lupo, lost more than half of its ships. The attacking British force suffered only slight damage on cruiser HMS Orion caused by friendly fire. About 2⁄3 of the German force of over 2,000 men was saved by the Italian naval commander, Francesco Mimbelli, against an overwhelmingly superior Allied naval force. A total of 297 German soldiers, two Italian seamen and two British sailors on HMS Orion were killed. Only one caique and one cutter from the convoy reached Crete. The caique landed 3 officers and 110 German soldiers near Cape Spatha, while the cutter arrived safely in Akrotiri, where her crew was engaged by a British Army patrol and took heavy casualties. Of the German soldiers who landed at Akrotriri, only one managed to get through the British lines and join the German paratroopers already fighting for Chania.
Axis landing attempt, 21/22 May 1941 Crete
An Axis convoy of around 20 caïques, escorted by the Italian torpedo boat Lupo, tried to land German reinforcements near Maleme. Force D under Rear-Admiral Irvine Glennie, with three light cruisers and four destroyers, intercepted the convoy before midnight; the convoy turned back and despite being covered by Lupo, lost more than half of its ships. The attacking British force suffered only slight damage on cruiser HMS Orion caused by friendly fire. About 2⁄3 of the German force of over 2,000 men was saved by the Italian naval commander, Francesco Mimbelli, against an overwhelmingly superior Allied naval force. A total of 297 German soldiers, two Italian seamen and two British sailors on HMS Orion were killed. Only one caique and one cutter from the convoy reached Crete. The caique landed 3 officers and 110 German soldiers near Cape Spatha, while the cutter arrived safely in Akrotiri, where her crew was engaged by a British Army patrol and took heavy casualties. Of the German soldiers who landed at Akrotriri, only one managed to get through the British lines and join the German paratroopers already fighting for Chania.
I'm sure his reply will be "something something Guedrian something something handwavium, 9 Divisions something something!* This is also part of why Sealion posts are so hated. Because Certain people will basically go "I reject reality and replace it with my own!"
And no matter what folks say, and there's a LOT of very learned folks here on the forums, including many with real world experience in military operation (as was mentioned, we've someone here in this thread who helped PLAN amphib attacks and ops) or lots of historical knowledge and input, all of which combined together makes pretty solid arguments against. Certain folks will obstinately stick to one or two incredibly narrow points which in their mind point out that it COULD have happened and no matter the weight of evidence, proof, knowledge etc weighed against them, their belief in der ubermacht is unshakable.
And again it devolves into the vast majority going "Look it couldn't happen." and Some people going "Ahh but if they had X engine then yes it could!" "Okay..how!?" "Germany clearly." and we go full orborous loop and just chase our tails.
We're re-digging the old facts, the old truths and again, some people are just going "Nah i'm right, everyone else is wrong. Its the universe that is wrong!"
We bascailly know that Sealion was near enough impossible, and that the only way it could have actually succeeded is through a huge chain of horrifically unlikely events (up to and including the entire RN sinking for no apparent reason and the RAF deciding not to fly and instead run at the Germans making plane noises and going dakka dakka dakka instead of shooting).
The realities of the Germans sealift plan, such as it was, the 24 - 48 hour delay in getting the 2nd wave over, the horrific vulnerability of their barges, the general lack of escorts vs the huge overwhelming advantage in numbers the RN had, the reality that at the time, the Luftwaffe didn't really have good anti-ship weapons and so on and so on and so on.
These all clearly point out that Sealion would have almost certinally been a disaster barring some dark miracle for the Germans and this is despite the British material weaknesses on land.
But don't worry, I reject reality and replace it with my own trumps all of that and NOTHING said here will change that mind. And no Glenn's not trolling, he's made very good and informative, well researched and technically excellent posts in the past and clearly knows what he's talking about, but with Sealion he'll argue his points with the tenacity of a massive rules lawyer crossbread with a Honey Badger and won't be shifted from them. Wehraboo yes, troll no.
And no matter what folks say, and there's a LOT of very learned folks here on the forums, including many with real world experience in military operation (as was mentioned, we've someone here in this thread who helped PLAN amphib attacks and ops) or lots of historical knowledge and input, all of which combined together makes pretty solid arguments against. Certain folks will obstinately stick to one or two incredibly narrow points which in their mind point out that it COULD have happened and no matter the weight of evidence, proof, knowledge etc weighed against them, their belief in der ubermacht is unshakable.
And again it devolves into the vast majority going "Look it couldn't happen." and Some people going "Ahh but if they had X engine then yes it could!" "Okay..how!?" "Germany clearly." and we go full orborous loop and just chase our tails.
We're re-digging the old facts, the old truths and again, some people are just going "Nah i'm right, everyone else is wrong. Its the universe that is wrong!"
We bascailly know that Sealion was near enough impossible, and that the only way it could have actually succeeded is through a huge chain of horrifically unlikely events (up to and including the entire RN sinking for no apparent reason and the RAF deciding not to fly and instead run at the Germans making plane noises and going dakka dakka dakka instead of shooting).
The realities of the Germans sealift plan, such as it was, the 24 - 48 hour delay in getting the 2nd wave over, the horrific vulnerability of their barges, the general lack of escorts vs the huge overwhelming advantage in numbers the RN had, the reality that at the time, the Luftwaffe didn't really have good anti-ship weapons and so on and so on and so on.
These all clearly point out that Sealion would have almost certinally been a disaster barring some dark miracle for the Germans and this is despite the British material weaknesses on land.
But don't worry, I reject reality and replace it with my own trumps all of that and NOTHING said here will change that mind. And no Glenn's not trolling, he's made very good and informative, well researched and technically excellent posts in the past and clearly knows what he's talking about, but with Sealion he'll argue his points with the tenacity of a massive rules lawyer crossbread with a Honey Badger and won't be shifted from them. Wehraboo yes, troll no.
Last edited:
In July 1940, Hitler had a choice. "Do I wash down my shit sandwich with Gin or Vodka?". He chose Vodka.
hipper
Banned
The picture show clalk cliffs. Not a lot of “rocks” is there? Note I said lower part, a natural gully, presloped. Use the natural topography, not fight it.
The Germans landed gliders with “nasty boom stuff” already. You can land back from the cliff
With the shortage of troops, and as said by others before, areas like this were not or less defended. There is a shortage of machine guns across the whole BA. Only half the home guardman had a weapon. A very few machine guns.
The real issue is the seaborne troops, not air assault.
There was no shortage of troops all the UK forces were overstrength, for some reason The Home Guard in the South East of England’s had priority for weapons.
Finally collapsing the cliffs is a nitwit idea
1), chalk cliffs are nothing like sand banks, seriously nothing like them (I can't believe I'm writing this sentence)
2). Even if your talking small cliffs (or rather opening up gullies at the low points in larger ones) you are talking about not just shifting thousands of tonnes of material but trying to precisely control it. In civil engineering this takes a lot of time and lot of material. trying to do this on the fly and complete within the time constraints of Sea lion forget it.
3). Pebbles and clay might make a great road base, but they make shit ramps, all you've done is extend the shingle withe spoil.
4). what clay?
And they did so with a lot of support* overland because being a cavalry regiment they knew the requirements of moving lots of horses around. We are not talking about comparable situations, instead you are talking about bringing a bunch of horses without supplies over the channel and then trying to supply them in hostile and likely contested ground.
if that were true why bring them? In reality those tows are probably not going to make it across let alone ashore, let alone up a shingle. (that's OK there won't be many guns to tow for the same reasons either) so what horses they bring will likely be their sole method of transport for supplies and themselves
*including local knowledge of water locations IIRC?
Last edited:
No shortage of troops, but shortage of weapons.
What is priority, when there is only 1 btw two. One for everybody down south and pitchforks for the rest.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Immediately following Dunkirk there was a full artillery complement for some 10-12 divisions and enough rifles for the entire regular Army (this being an actual surplus due to the fact that not every soldier need carry a rifle). The initial surplus of rifles after the Army had been equipped was between 70-80k and this grew with each month due to production and purchase abroad.
The reference to Egypt was that the IDF considered canal “impassable”. Army’s regularly get caught out when the unbreachable barrier is defeated. Wasn’t suggesting sand is the same.
The military uses this technique as a quick and dirty access to create lower slopes
Clay bonds the shingle together. Chalk been CaCO3, the same as coral used in the pacific by SeeBees.
Are you trying to suggest an army with 5,000 horses in each division has no idea of equine husbandry.
Last edited:
18 pdrs for half your divisions.
A modern section needed LMG and SMGs, not just rifles.
The British could equip 10 divisions after Dunkirk.
By October this had increased to about 25.
Pretty sure they are going to handle a few bedraggled German infantry divisions without artillery or armour, trapped on the beaches without supplies of any equipment.
RodentRevolution
Banned
An 18 pounder still fires a heavier shell than the FK 16 or the FK 18 75mm guns which were both regarded as modern field artillery by the German Heer.
As for LMGs there were 14,023 Bren guns in stock as of June 6