Talk:Operation Sea Lion (wargame)

Proposed Deletion of Page

There is no justifiable excuse for the deletion of this page. The wargame is regarded as a classic, it was umpired by leading figures in the German and British armed forces (including some who had actually commanded at the time), it is thought by many to perfectly explain the difficulties of each side at the time and the most likely outcome.
As it happens I think there has to be exceptional reasons for the delection of any page on Wikipadia, as far as I know Wikipedia isn`t short of room at the server..... The only acceptable reason for a page deletion (assuming it isn`t defamatory) would normally be if it`s inaccurate, which this page isn`t. The information in the article is from the reference work on this subject (Sea Lion by Richard Cox) and this is stated in the article so I`m at a loss to understand how anyone could state that the article is "unreferenced". Even if the page got a hardly any visitors I still don`t think it should be deleted, but as it happens it already gets about 20 per day.--JustinSmith (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is unreferenced because the only detailed description of the wargame is available on a web page. Neither "Operation Sealion" by Richard Cox nor "Sprawling Wargames" by Paddy Griffith give the detail shown in this article. Richard Cox's book is a dramatization of the wargame that gives no details of the wargame other than it's participants, organisers, who won, and why. "Sprawling Wargames" gives the same details plus the briefing that was to be given to each player. For this page to be allowed to stay, the original 1974 articles from the Daily Telegraph would have to be found (though they might be guilty of being primary sources).Sitalkes (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC) and it's not available online

Reference should be made to 'The Daily Telegraph Magazine' (No.497, May 17 1974) as at http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/paddygriffith/other.htm Paddy Griffiths says

"I wrote and ran a large-scale kriegsspiel for 'The Daily Telegraph Magazine'  (No.497, May 17 1974) based on the projected 1940 German invasion of Britain, including a computerised 'Battle of Britain' phase (the computer filled a whole large room...). A number of senior officers from both sides of the 1940 firing line took part, and some were inevitably a trifle, er, 'surprised' to find that we first allowed the Germans to cross the Channel, and then actually defeated them on land! Nevertheless, the results of the game were turned into a Futura novel - 'Sealion' (ISBN 0 8600 7077 8) - written by Richard Cox."  Sitalkes (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the page

I have no objection to renaming the page but feel the name should be "Operation Sea Lion (the Sandhurst wargame)". --JustinSmith (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What's your reasoning? The name of the wargame was "Operation Sea Lion", the "(wargame)" part is to distinguish it from the real Operation Sea Lion. "(the Sandhust wargame)" makes the title unnecessarily longer, it would only be necessary to specify it was the Sandhurst wargame if we had articles on other Operation Sea Lion wargames. As it stands, the title is descriptive and unique. Because the Sandhurst wargame is the most well-known Operation Sea Lion wargame, it is pretty clear that's what it's about. Another example: we have an article called Journey (band). It is necessary to add "(band)" to distinguish the title from other uses of Journey, but it is not necessary to add "(rock band)" because there are no equally notable bands called Journey which this one could be confused with. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the shorter the disambiguation, the better.

I can't speak for JustinSmith, but there are two possible concerns here;

First, War Game on Wikipedia has only three main definitions which use those words, and they relate to recreational games, video games, and computer hacking. This was not any of those three (as I understand it). The computer games industry has been using the promotional term "wargames" for some of their output since the 1980s, so a concern is that would be the first assumption from the current title.

Second, whether its having been at Sandhurst is a more significant distinction than its having been a wargame/military simulation. Maybe someday the junior officer training establishment in, say, Singapore, might run a wargaming event that includes a version of Sea Lion once every three years; but that particular event would not gain notability, whereas this one (we can assume) has, because it was the Sea Lion wargame and because it was held at Sandhurst. It will never be recreated in quite the same way.

So maybe Operation Sealion (Sandhurst) would be better? Operation Sealion (military simulation) seems clumsy and also less specific. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many wargames, probably many recreating Operation Sea Lion. But I don`t think there are any as significant as the Sandhurst one. In fact some would say it can never be recreated because many of the particpants (who were actually in WWII) are dead. That`s what makes it so significant, so to refer to it just as a wargame down plays that significance. I feel very strongly the title should include "Sandhurst". Some would say it should include The Daily Telegraph Sandhurst wargame, so at just Sandhurst you`ve got off lightly !--JustinSmith (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the parenthetical disambiguation is not to show the topic's significance, but to distinguish this particular page from others. I decided to look through other Wikipedia pages on war games (of which there are frightfully few), and it seems there is not really a precedent for this--most scenario planners seem to have given their war games somewhat more original names. I think "war game" (in retrospect, it should probably have been spelled with the space, as seems to be more common in military usage) is an accurate term to use, but you are right that it could me ambiguous. WP:DISAMBIG recommends that a parenthetical disambiguation, in a case like this, should contain "the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic". "War game" is the class, and adding "Sandhurst" to it would seem to go against that recommendation. It also instructs: "If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler." Based on WP:DISAMBIG, then, and lacking precedence to the contrary, I think Operation Sea Lion (war game) is best. Knight of Truth (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say the exact grammatical terms are of far less importance than distinguishing the Sandhurst wargame from others of less significance. The question is how do you propose to do that ?--JustinSmith (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't. Because there are no other notable war games named "Operation Sea Lion" (or at least, no Wikipedia pages on them), there is no need to disambiguate. To return to my earlier example: Operation Sea Lion (war game) is just as clear as Journey (band)--it is not necessary to distinguish the page on the band Journey from all other bands that may be named Journey, because there is one that is clearly most notable and well-known. Similarly, the Sandhurst war game is most well-known, and in the absence of any other pages from which it needs to be distinguished, it is not necessary to make the title more complicated. Knight of Truth (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

An "Operation Sealion" wargame was published in 2005 https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20976/operation-sealion-1940 Sitalkes (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Decision Games published a Sealion wargame in early 2017 https://decisiongames.com/wpsite/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-SS-MagWW52.pdf Sitalkes (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

How about any criticism of the Sandhurst war game? It seems pretty far-fetched to assume that Hitler would actually deny the invasion critical air support by ordering the Luftwaffe to continue bombing London instead of defending the invasion from Royal Navy interference. This smells like a war game designed to produce a desired result, the notion that Britain is un-invadable, as a propaganda measurement during the height of The Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motstand1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

On the surface Hitler not assisting the beaches and continuing to attack London with bombers appears asinine. There is logic to it. German bombers could do little to help the beaches, but having them bomb London peels away British fighters that could be used over the beaches, where they would make a greater impact than any bombers. And they would also be bombing London. This would give the British the impression they had the resources to attack London and the beaches.90.198.218.245 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That would make a fine addition to the article, but it has to be criticism by a verifiable source--that is, it would be original research to invent our own criticism even though it may sound logical. If you can find a good source for criticism of the Sandhurst wargame, please add it. Knight of Truth (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you`ll find nearly all historians regarded Operation Sealion as a disaster waiting to happen, for the Germans that is. I doubt very much even if the Luftwaffe had diverted all of its bombers from London onto the Royal Navy it`d have made any appreciable difference to the inevitable outcome. Quite apart from anything else the Luftwaffe had already proved (in Norway and Dunkirk) they weren`t actually that efficient at hitting ships. Finally, the bombers that were hitting London were of the medium types, like the Heinkel He111, not the Stuka dive bombers which would have been (marginally) better at attacking ships. And let`s remember, the Stukas had all been withdrawn from the skies over England because so many were getting shot down......--JustinSmith (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is guilty of POV pushing. It does not mention that the Germans were delighted with their success, and that they were successful until the British navy arrived. On 23 Sep-- "The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters & 70 bombers), & the RN had suffered such heavy losses such that it was keeping its BBs & CVs back..." "The airfields of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and once more the threat of collapse, which had receded in early September, was looming." Even constrained by Goering's idiotic decisions, the Luftwaffe has still managed to virtually annihilate RAF Fighter Command. The wargame suffered from the following faults:

• The wargame assumed there were 25 divisions in the UK, of which only 17 were fully equipped, and only three were based in Kent." Actually there were only four fully equipped divisions in the UK at that time, and they were all in the GHQ reserve north-west of London. Even those divisions were short of some types of transport.
• The only type of craft in the invasion fleet were river barges, which is totally incorrect." invasion barges proved desperately unseaworthy" - the invasion barges could stay afloat in sea states up to 6 and you can watch 5 videos of identical barges crossing the channel without trouble on YouTube
• The Home Fleet sails from Scarpa Flow, which it would not have done, as an attempted break-out into the Atlantic was expected, and there was a great fear of air attack on the major surface units in the relatively narrow waters of the Channel, and anyway there was no need for them as there were so many light cruisers and destroyers available in ports closer to the landing beaches. 57 DDs and 17 CAs is too many, it should be more like 40 DDs.
• The Germans were going to land at Brighton. That part of the plan was scrapped, and the farthest west was to be Rottingdean. There was also provision to scrap beach "E" (the landings west of Eastbourne) altogether and land the beach "E" forces at beach "D" if the opposition got too hot on "E".
• The panzer divisions were landed in the first wave, when in fact they would not have been available for at least another week, though it was planned to include the equivalent of a panzer division amongst the assault troops. Having them included may have initially worked to the German advantage in the game but in the end they caused supply problems and they were not supposed to land until ports had been captured to enable supplies to be landed for them. Probably the port capacities were also reduced sufficiently to make a German victory impossible, or at least the amount of supply possible across the beaches was ignored.
• British MTB's figure prominently but there were relatively few available (and even fewer near to the invasion beaches) and only the Fairmile A gunboats had been built. Later war experience showed that torpedos fired by MTB's would go straight under a German invasion barge without hitting it, as they couldn't set the depth high enough. Most of the volunteer coastal patrol boats were only armed with a signal rocket, although there was a large number of armed trawlers and drifters available. The latter were no better and in many cases worse than to the close escort ships of the invasion force.
• "Australian division" gets a prominent role in the counter-attack. Although here were were two Aussie brigades there was no Australian division. The AIF formed the incomplete 9th division in October. The AIF would have been on the western flank of the invasion, not in Canterbury.
• "Stay behind commando teams with artillery". Commandos and auxiliaries weren't equipped with artillery, though they did have explosives.
• The barrier minefields and channel guns, a major part of German strategy, seem to have no effect and are not even mentioned.

• The wargame ended on 28 Dec in a decisive German defeat, based mainly on the absence of supply. But that's because the rules prevented the Germans from establishing air superiority, would not allow them to stop bombing London, prevented them from downsizing their invasion force to a more manageable level, prevented them from adding more paratroop & airlanding units, prevented them from diverting the Home Fleet by a ruse (or because the Home Fleet wasn't coming anyway), prevented them from using the short invasion route from Calais to Dover, forcing them to use the longer route to Brighton instead... In fact prevented them from exercising good common sense, forcing them to use the rules devised by the Brit umpires of the Sandhurst War College instead.

Sitalkes (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Re- Runs of the Game

In "Sprawling Wargames" 9page 27) Paddy Griffith says that the game was re-run in 2009 at IWM Duxford. He says that in that game, the German player opted for the most risky strategy, a landing in Essex followed by an attempt to take London by a coup de main. This strategy, as might be expected, failed as the German player was unable to land insufficient troops and get them to London quickly enough.

13 June 2015 there was a Megagames re-run of the game in London, and again in July 2017 in Manchester. http://www.megagame-makers.org.uk/megagame-dp.htm In the Manchester game the British player decided that the Germans were going to land in the West Country and not only poorly defended Dover but left the port undamaged. As a result the Germans were able to land in force on the south-east coast, according to their plan, and place only a blocking force near Brighton while the rest of their troops ran for London. The game ended without a result but the British player made no real effort to stop the German advance and a few more games would have seen the Germans winning the game. https://spprojectblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/dont-panic-too-an-operation-sealion-megagame/

There is a photograph of the 1974 participants here: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/paddygriffith/other.htm. The details of the original game were published in 'The Daily Telegraph Magazine' (No.497, May 17 1974).

All of the above should be added to the page Sitalkes (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree. The subject of the page is the Sandhurst recreation, not Semi-regular re-enactments to examine the potential success of Operation Sea Lion. If you believe a page on that subject is merited, feel free to start one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

These are re-runs of the Sandhurst wargame, not re-enactments of Sealion. the 2009 one was run by Paddy Griffiths who ran the Sandhurst game. The others are run by his associates and use the same rules and methods (though up to 60 people can participate in the latest game. Thus a new page is not required, it would be stupid to have a whole page devoted to "re-runs of the Sandhurst Sealion Wargame" when there is already a page devoted to the Sandhurst Sealion Wargame Sitalkes (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you deliberately missing the point? None of your cited examples were run at Sandhurst. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So if the FA cup final were held somewhere other than Wembly, it would require a different Wiki page? It's been held at something like 14 different locations but they don't each have their own Wiki pages. The Tour de France has a different route every year but there isn't a wiki page for every year it was held. There are many competitions that are held in different locations each time they are run but they don't have separate wiki pages. A separate wiki page for something so unimportant, and for which so little is known, is not justified.Sitalkes (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Neither of them is named for the organization that originally held them, so, no. If USAC held a semi-regular 500mi event at, say, Talledega, it wouldn't be called the Indianapolis 500, now would it?

"A separate wiki page for something so unimportant, and for which so little is known, is not justified" That kinda undermines your whole position for inclusion on this page, now doesn't it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You can re-enact something independent of its location. There have been cases of races like the Indianapolis 500 being held in a different location under the same name, so yes they would be called the same thing as it helps sell the event. If you look above you will see that I have argued that there is no justification for this page unless the original Telegraph Magazine article can be found, as the only reference that gives the full account is from a web page (that is more of a text file really.) the account given there states that it is a summary but doesn't say who wrote it - it would be nice it is the text from the magazine article but it doesn't say that. Even if that article were found it might be classed as a primary source and disallowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitalkes (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"races like the Indianapolis 500 being held in a different location under the same name, so yes they would be called the same thing as it helps sell the event." Uh, no. That's the whole problem: you think anything connected to Sea Lion re-enactment must (somehow) be connected to the Sandhurst exercise. Races "like the Indianapolis 500", "held in a different location", would (fairly obviously) not be "under the same name", because they aren't held in Indianapolis. The NASCAR event which is held there isn't called "the Indianapolis 400", either, because it's not held by the same organization. And your willful blindness does you no favors. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not wilful blindness. In my country if an overseas organisation that runs a race wants to run their race here they call it the same name otherwise nobody would turn up (the population of Australia which is the same size as the mainland USA would fit into Cairo so promoters have to try hard). I'm not a sports fan so I can't be bothered watching them but there's a race held on the Gold Coast in Queensland that is one of those. The Indianapolis 500 is just a boring race that goes around and around a circular and banked track and can be held anywhere else under the same conditions and rules if such a track existed. In Australia it would be called "The Indianapolis 500 comes to Australia" or some such thing and everybody here who likes that sort of thing would be happy that it was being re-enacted on home ground. Here's the Edinburgh Tattoo being held in Melbourne: https://www.edintattoo.co.uk/news/the-tattoo-marches-into-melbourne/ The difficulty is having the exact same track, not the name or the location. I guess you would say that anybody who calls himself a World War 2 re-enactor is not allowed to call himself that because it's not World War 2 at the moment?Sitalkes (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC) There isn't a separate page for the Edinburgh Tattoo held in Australia and New Zealand, instead on the Edinburgh Tattoo wiki page it says "It has been announced that the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo will be heading to Melbourne[7] and Wellington, New Zealand in February 2016, the first time in 16 years since it was last held there.[8]"

It's willful blindness. The Indy 500, held somewhere else, by someone else, isn't the Indy 500. It's not like the Australian Grand Prix, where the organizers decide year to year (or periodically) to change where it's held, but keep the same name. So, too, the Sandhurst exercise: it's a specific instance, held at a specific place, whence its name. And I'm really beginning to wonder why I'm debating this.... 01:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you're the one who is willfully blind, I just gave you an example of an event being held in a different location with the same name (Edinburgh Tattoo held in three locations in Australia and New Zealand without a change in name) . You will now only accept something to do with the Indy race, well in fact there is a "Gold_Coast Indy 300". The point of creating a web page for the Sandhurst wargame is presumably to enshrine it's place in Sealion historiography as the final proof that the Germans could not have succeeded if they had attempted to invade England. Well for an experiment to be valid, it has to be repeatable but doesn't have to be done in the same location at the same time. The experiment has been repeated by the same organiser using the same rules (but at a different time and place) and people who read this page would want to know the results of those experiments and expect to see them here. Yes, there's no point in arguing, just delete the page as it doesn't conform to the rules of referencing.Sitalkes (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"there is a 'Gold_Coast Indy 300'" Notice: not the Indy 500. Notice, also, run by a rulesmaker, in the same fashion as the Oz GP. You undermine your own position with your very arguments, & can't see it. So why do I bother...? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If RS do not call them re-runs neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

New section needed - Game preparation and Methodology

Paddy Griffiths says that there was "a computerised 'Battle of Britain' phase (the computer filled a whole large room...)" prior to the start of the game, and this should be added. This is mentioned in "Sprawling Wargames" and on his web page, quoted above. You could also add a description of the game methodology, outlined in Sprawling Wargames, in which umpires were allowed to make decisions based on their own intuition and not in the way wargames are usually played. Preparation involved giving each player a written brief telling them what was known, what was expected of them and how they should behave in the game.Sitalkes (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Since a web page is the only reference being used for this wiki page, Some of these comments could also be included, from https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=178886&start=465

"Read the magazine article. The whole thing was sponsored by the Daily Telegraph, and took place over a 16 hour period.

Paddy himself had a first class honours degree from Oxford, and spent a year doing post-grad work at Lancaster University, where he organised a wargame based on a Napoleonic landing near Blackpool, supported by a rising by the Scots. A mate of mine, one Andy Holborn, was at Lancaster University, studying Politics with Strategic Studies & International Relations at the same time (whilst I was at Manchester, studying the rather more prosaic Modern HIstory), and was a member of the university's Jomini group, named after Antoine-Henri Jomini, sometimes called 'the father of modern strategy.'

My mate had the misfortune to command a unit of Scots irregulars in the game, and didn't do much more than build a defensive position on the River Lune, but he got to know Paddy quite well, and kept in touch with him until Paddy's death in 2010. Many of the rules later used in the Sealion game, according to Andy, were originally introduced in the Lancaster game. Paddy's doctorate was entitled 'Military Thought in the French Army, 1815 -1851' and he was a military, rather than naval, historian. He was, however, a major figure in the wargaming fraternity of the period.

Andy & Paddy talked from time to time about the Sandhurst event, Andy, like me,having an interest in Sealion, and the report in the Telegraph magazine is a correct account of what happened. Actually, the Hitler meeting ends with Adolf ordering the assassination of Churchill, which fails.

Subsequent accounts of the game, including Richard Cox's book, are interesting but inaccurate, and I understand that Paddy in later years was more than a little surprised that the whole exercise gained a degree of notoriety which it really did not deserve. Paddy was always quite open about the fact that he had altered the historical situation to bring the landings about, and was apparently perplexed that in some quarters the game seemed to have taken on the status of Holy Writ.

In short, it was an entertaining early wargame in which a few liberties with the facts had been taken, and nothing more than that.

As I said - The Telegraph sponsored the whole thing, so read their account in the magazine, which could no doubt be obtained by request at a decent library."

(I don't have access to a British library and have been unable to find the magazine on the internet so far)Sitalkes (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What the article about the game actually said

I found the actual article is included, at the back,pages 203-211 of "Sprawling Wargames" by Paddy Griffith. "Published in The Daily Telegraph Magazine No.497, May 17 1974, pp. 14-21. Reproduced here with kind permission of 'The Daily Telegraph'. I think that the "summary" that the Wiki page is based on is not from the 1974 game but from one of the replays. They were done differently as the way the Battle of Britain was handled was different. Paddy Griffiths says on page 211

"Note that in real life the Luftwaffe had switched to blitzing London on 7 September 1940, thereby giving the RAF a fortnight's respite from direct attack before 22 September - which is when my 'invasion' in the 1974 game was launched. But in that game the Blitz did not take place, so the RAF was 'hammered' through all those two weeks. By contrast in my 2009 Duxford game the London Blitz did take place historically but I launched the invasion just three days later, on 10 September. These timings left the RAF with only three days' respite from heavy bombing but at least it wasn't being 'hammered' during that time. Thus in 2009 my RAF was actually considerably stronger on 'Sealion Day' than it had been in 1974!" While he says on page 27 that "The computeerised Battle of Britain preliminaries (Programmed by Ivan Collier) lasted several days before the main event - although regrettably it was never mentioned in the press at all."

Your article says "The invasion fleet suffered only minor losses to Motor Torpedo Boats, however the Germans lost about 25% of their unseaworthy barges." No, the real article says "Accordingly, at dusk the first wave of the invasion fleet forms up laboriously off Ostend, Calais, Dieppe, and Boulogne. Some 700 barges, towed in pairs by tugs, will carry the first 90, 000 men,.. a determined attack by fast motor torpedo boats on the eastern flank of the invasion fleet is counted as more successful. 'Twenty barges sunk and 20 left helpless when their tow ropes are cut’, announced Paddy Griffith." 40 barges out of 700 is not 25% and I'm not allowed by Wikipedia rules to say what the actual percentage is (WPCalc)

There are many errors in the Wikipedia article, so many that I have scanned the real article and put it here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_JIBYcrqYoOdEVBS0dOWldlQ00 Sitalkes (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC) What does it say about loses in the first 24 hours?Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "By these methods the umpires conclude. that only half the invasion fleet will land at the right time in the right place. But one of the strongpoints of German planning was that officers took command of whoever they found in their area. General Trettner, spruce, businesslike, explains. ‘Every group had a special point to attain. We didn't give a battalion an objective.’ The landings of the first wave are counted a success, with most of the 90 000 ashore and fighting, somewhere." Sitalkes (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For your information, WP:CALC does in fact allow mathematical calculations, not the opposite. --Joshualouie711^talk 14:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No doubt if I put the correct percentage in, that would be counted as "original research"Sitalkes (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Again what does it say about the first 24 hours?Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The game started on September 19, but the weather wasn't good enough for a crossing until the night of 21/22 September. The first 24 hours were taken up with army movements and air battles. "The German divisions move to their embarkation points at the French Channel ports, while the Luftwaffe bombs Britain's south coast and aircraft lay mines in the Harwich, Humber and Thames estuary waters.Churchill, ebulliently played by Brigadier Page, Assistant Commandant of the RMA Sandhurst, responds by ordering more troops south. By September 21, four more divisions are en route to Saffron Walden, Newbury, Crowborough and Tunbridge Wells to bolster the nine already in East Anglia, Kent and Sussex. The half-million men of the Home Guard are brought under Regular Army command. Most significantly, Churchill categorically refuses to detach men to Iceland where Germans have landed to create the Herbestreise diversion." This was a problem caused by the map, which Griffith didn't know about until he saw it. It only included south-east England so the British team knew instantly where the invasion was going to land, and reacted accordingly. Paddy had hoped to persuade the British team to believe (like the real British commanders did), that the invasion would come in East Anglia or at any rate anywhere but the south coast. The British team couldn't be fooled, and was given a two day head start on moving its divisions south. The game should have started on 21 September (i.e. with the invasion) so that couldn't happen.Sitalkes (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me for being stupid, but don't The Daily Telegraph (and Magazine) archive all their issues at the British Library? Nuttyskin (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)That's fine if you live there, otherwise its 20 pounds minimum.Sitalkes (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Actually the Daily Telegraph is not part of the British Newspaper Archive and it's not available on-line through the British Library.Sitalkes (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)