Saturday, December 4, 2021

Recent Acquisitions...

 


In the last few months - since July - I have been adding to my war games library, the four pictured volumes in order from left to right.  It perhaps behoves me to say something about each of them - as resource books, all very different from each other, and all with something new and interesting to say to me.

John Curry(ed)  and Paddy Griffith, Paddy Griffith's Wargaming Operation Sealion: The Game that Launched Academic Wargaming, The History of Wargaming Project, (2021). 

'I could do with some light bed-time reading,' I remarked when I first heard tell of this volume.  Not light reading, I was told.  Although I have twice read it from cover to cover, and have given some thought how I might 'do' Operation Sealion as a solo campaign, I'm here to tell you that 'light reading' it ain't.

It is a pretty comprehensive war games campaign resource - all four volumes are - but this one is really an account of a multi-player game conducted in 1974 by the late renowned Paddy Griffith.  This was something of an experiment - The Game That Launched Academic Wargaming - to examine a 'what if' campaign, to wit, Operation Sealion, the proposed German invasion of England in the Autumn of 1940. 

Taken from this series of articles beginning
https://www.beastsofwar.com/battlegroup/operation-sea-lion-invading-england-part-one/


It seems that in researching, gathering the materials and developing the project, Mr Griffith concluded before the game was actually played, that the invasion really had very little chance of success.  Not to put too fine a point on it, it was doomed.  Novels that take Operation Sealion as the basis of an 'alternate history' come in for some criticism on account of their underlying assumptions.

Now, it happens that I have a copy of the memoirs of Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, commander of one of the Luftwaffe groups, Luftflotte 2, that were engaged in the bombing attacks on Great Britain during 1940-41.  He expressed the view that the thing might, given the right conditions and meticulous planning, have gone ahead to a successful conclusion.  At the time, the Luftwaffe overall were enthusiastic about the project; the Wehrmacht rather ambivalent; the Kriegsmarine didn't want a bar of it.  

Kesselring also expressed some surprise that the early planning hadn't begun back in 1939, as soon as the invasion of France was determined on.  This is possibly hindsight talking, but it seems not unreasonable to suppose that some such plan might have been begun, as a contingency upon France being overrun or forced to surrender (the value of a contingency plan - or the consequences of the lack of one - must have been brought home to the UK in recent years, with the Tory government permitting itself to become committed to Brexit with neither plan nor policy.  Amazing) .  The moment it was clear France was defeated, measures ought to have been set in motion.

Again, this may be hindsight, but Kesselring allowed that the moment the bombing switched to what he candidly called 'terror bombing' of cities, he knew Operation Sealion was 'off' the agenda.  Interestingly enough, Griffith allowed that in the context of the Operation itself, London, qua communications nexus, would have been a legitimate military target, to disrupt the transfer of reinforcements and supplies from north of the Thames.

Now, before the change of bombing policy, the Luftwaffe had engaged in an attritional battle against the RAF.  It appears that the German Army and Navy insisted upon total air domination as the sine qua non of the seaborne invasion.  This was of course an impossible demand, as Griffith and Kesselring would have agreed. About half of the UK was simply not reachable by the Luftwaffe; if the situation became sufficiently desperate, the RAF could have withdrawn north of the limit of Luftwaffe's range, and still been in a position to attack the beach landings and the Channel as well. 

As far as Kesselring was concerned, he thought air domination or even simple superiority were too much to ask for.  Rather he thought it sufficient for the success of the invasion that the Luftwaffe could contest the air above the invasion, and maintain that contestability until such time as airfields might be established on English soil.

I could bang on even further about this, but I found that the assumptions behind the war games project interesting in the light of Kesselring's own recollections.  But with one or two little tweaks (to give the invaders a fighting chance) Paddy Griffith's Operation Sealion is based upon conditions as they actually were.  To take just one small element, Admiral Raeder would not risk his capital ships in such an operation in such enclosed waters.  It has to be admitted, one battleship (Bismarck) and two battlecruisers (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) weren't a whole lot  to throw in against the numbers of major units the Royal Navy could show!  Perhaps had the navy been prepared to risk the entire fleet of major units down to light cruisers...?

Now, I haven't said all that much about the John Curry edited book!  I hope readers will infer from this, though, that I found it a fascinating read: I read it through twice, cover to cover, within a fortnight.  If you want to run such a campaign, it's all there, up to and including the tides at two locations where landings might have occurred, weather conditions, phases of the moon, availability of military forces - all arms - and, in the British side, their states of readiness.  It really is a major project; a project for professionals.

But the editor has included two other, much briefer sections to follow  the 1974 project run by Paddy Griffith (some of whose participants included persons who were involved in the 1940 operations, including the Luftwaffe ace, Adolf Galland).  One is a Wargame Developments game at COW 2008, designed by John Curry, among others.  If the Paddy Griffith operation was designed for something beyond the scope of a club project (though I think the resources offered could so be used), the COW version would be considerably more in a club's reach.  

The book concludes with an Appendix account of a 2009 Sealion game at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford.  These are Paddy Griffith's own 'debrief notes' of that event.  It's less than 5 pages long but an amusing read - an after dinner mint to round off a vast meal.

I do have one complaint, though: the thing could have stood a lot more editing than it got.  There is something definitely not right about the September 1940 tables on page 54, which had me looking up current tide times to get a better bearing on what they ought to have been.  There are other typos and glitches scattered throughout - always an irritant to me.

This ...erm ... review having taken up more space than I anticipated, I have added the other three volumes by way of foreshadowing future postings about each in turn. 

Andrew Rolph, Kharkov, May 1942: The Last Disaster, Self published? (2021).

Graham Evans (aka "Trebian"), Taiping Era: Tabletop Wargame Rules for land conflict in mid-19th Century China, Wargaming for Grownups Publications, (2020).

Bob Cordery, The Balkan League: A Matrix Game campaign including the Portable Balkan Wars Wargame rules, Eglinton Books, London (2021).

12 comments:

  1. There seems to have been a lot of interest in the Paddy Griffirths Seelowe project recently....in fact, it came up in discussion at our 15mmm early WWII game today! It's one of the very first "projects" I remember trying to do as an 11 or 12 year old circa 1974, based on some articles in Airfix Magazine....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a vague notion that Terry Wise ran an Operation Sealion game way back when. The whole project is an intriguing notion, but I strongly incline to Paddy Griffith's view: as conditions prevailed in September 1940, the thing was a no-goer. Personally, I doubt that Hitler was ever seriously committed to such an invasion, and Battle of Britain was carried on as it were 'through inertia'. One thing I didn't mention, and I suspect that in 1974 Paddy Griffith might not have been aware of it, and that is 'Ultra'. That resource must have made problematical the chances of getting the invasion fleet across the Channel at all.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  2. A good mix of books there and I have the Sealion book but have only glanced at it so far. Another thing to ponder is that, IIRC, in Len Deighton's 'Fighter' book on the Battle of Britain, the RAF were about two days away from lack of pilots/aircraft to be able to effectively combat the Luftwaffe. Fortunately the Germans switched to bombing London and the rest as they say, is history. When I do get to read the book I will dig out Deighton's book too to try and find the relevant section.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Steve -
      The switch away from attacking the RAF directly in Kesselring's view at once put paid to any serious notions of invading the UK. He thought the 'terror bombing' of cities pointless, and although he carried out the instructions received, he allowed he thought the policy wrongheaded.
      Cheers,
      Archduke Piccolo

      Delete
  3. I've got a copy of the novel Sealion which dramatised the course of the 1974 game. All very interesting.

    I also played a couple of Sealion games at COW, Bob Cordery organised one and Jim Wallman the other. Both focused on the landings and iirc were largely based on the situation in September.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Martin -
      Tell you what, the thing would be fun to get involved in - even if the chances are problematical of the Germans achieving anything more than a tenuous and temporary lodgment. From a solo perspective, I wonder if something can't be done on my little table...?
      Regards,
      Archduke Piccolo

      Delete
  4. Hi... Interesting analysis of "Sealion". I have always understood that the possibility of a successful invasion disappeared with the move to bombing of the cities. I too understood that the RAF were only days away from collapse when this change took place. It is interesting to speculate on the results if the destruction of the RAF had remained the priority AND the Germans had used their capital ships ruthlessly, after all the German navy achieved little during the war other than with the U-boat fleet. I suspect a landing would have succeeded. However I agree the "will" was not present and that was the ultimate factor. Regards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The impression I get from the book is that the RAF was OK for machines, but pilot attrition, and certainly exhaustion, was becoming a problem. But the RAF always had the option of pulling back north of the Thames, still in range of the southern counties, but out of the range of the Luftwaffe based in France.

      The upshot of the campaigns I've read about has been a successful landing, and even some early progress, but in effect the invasion has been choked off by successful interdiction of the cross-channel communications. In the 1974 project, the invasion lasted barely a week before it had to be called off (and then would have remained the problem of getting the troops back).
      Cheers,
      Archduke Piccolo

      Delete
  5. I have been disappointed by the editing in all of the John Curry reprints I have seen, especially the layout of tables. I now make it a point to find the original books second-hand in preference to what feels like a sloppy cash-in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have seen one other publication: a friend got hold of the John Curry edited Lionel Tarr 'Modern Wargaming Rules' - effectively his 'Barbarossa' campaign. I agree, that had annoying little glitches as well. Now, in his book 'War Games' (one of the 5 classics in my view), Don Featherstone, productes a 'Firing' table with HE and AP ranges for various calibres of fiend and tank guns. For some reason, half way down the list the table switches the order of AP and HE. Possibly this was in accordance with the primary purpose of a given weapon, but it seems to me 'tidier' to keep the order the same for the whole table. I notice that the form of the table was exactly duplicated in the book John Curry.

      These little things I find irritating, and quite spoil what would otherwise be very enjoyable and useful volumes.
      Cheers,
      Archduke Piccolo

      Delete
  6. You've certainly sold me on this one - I saw the "academic" part of the title previously and had been put off, thinking there was not much for the tabletop gamer. Sounds like it's quite a treasure trove though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's pretty meaty, John Y, no error. But if ever you want a crack at Operation Sealion as a project, group or solo, you need go no further than this book. Except maybe the tide charts ... Grrr... >:-(

      Delete