Operation Sealion

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by spidge, Dec 13, 2005.

  1. mattgibbs

    mattgibbs Senior Member

    The U Boat threat, although great against merchant vessels accounting for huge tonnage is interesting because it appears that at no time were there more than 15 U boats patrolling, out of their total of 25 during 1940. U 122 and U 102 were lost at sea possibly due to sinking by mines in the North Channel.

    By 20th June 1940, regarding the naval tallies post Norway, 17 out of 25 of the Germans destroyer sized vessels have been sunk. The Royal navy loses 2 cruisers, 7 destroyers and the Glorious by end June 1940. 340,000 BEF troops are evacuated from the operation Dunkirk. 215,000 are rescued in Operations Cycle from Le Harve and Aerial from Southern French ports. [much less is known about these than Dunkirk but thats almost another quarter of a million saved].

    Force H is assembled in Gibraltar so patrol the Atlantic and also re-inforce the Channel in the event of invasion. Vice-Admiral Sir James Somerville flies his flag in battlecruiser “Hood” and commands battleships “Resolution” and “Valiant”, carrier “Ark Royal” HMS Malaya, and a few cruisers and destroyers. Not sure how long this would have taken to steam up into Home Waters though.

    The Home Fleet was commanded by Admiral Sir Charles Forbes with 7 capital ships, 2 carriers and 16 cruisers based at Scapa Flow and Rosyth; Channel Force with 2 battleships, 2 carriers and 3 cruisers; Humber Force with 2 cruisers; and various destroyer flotillas.

    I'm still searching for exact numbers but these are 1940 figures.
     
  2. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Thnx Gubbins for those infos.

    I have searched a bit about the KM roster in the summer of 1940 and came with the following stuff:

    5 Battleships were in the Home Fleet at the end of the summer of 1940: HMS Repulse, Nelson, Rodney, Hood, Renown. I dont know though the exact figures for Cruisers (something about 10 of them I would say), or for Destroyers (too lazy I must confess to check then tens of those that were in the Home Fleet).

    Anyway, this was still more than enough to hold a weaker Kriegsmarine who had the following roster at the same period:

    2 Battleships/Schlachtschiff: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
    1 Pocket Battleships/Panzerschiff: Admiral Scheer
    1 Heavy cruisers/Schwere Kreuzer: Admiral Hipper
    4 Light cruisers/Leicht Kreuzer: Emden, Koln, Leipzig, Nurnberg
    7 auxiliary cruisers
    10 Destroyers

    Hardly a force that could threaten the Home Fleet (not to mention that several of those vessels had engines problems or were in fact not combat ready).
     
  3. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]And how the Luftwaffe is supposed to have been able to do that in 2-3 months. [/b]
    Once air supremacy was obtained, the combination of Fallshirmjagers and bombers (not to mention ground forces) would have complete neutralization of the coastal defenses and a land invasion would be relatively simple at that point. Again, you don’t need a huge invasion like in Normandy. Britain was in no way defended like that. They just are not comparable.

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]How about a bomb is hardly going to have the same hit rate on a moving ship than on a non-moving ship. [/b]
    Because the pattern bombing could be an area of 200 meters by 200 meters. The ship would just be hit by a different bomb depending on which direction it turned. A slow moving ship cannot get out of the range of bombers approaching at 250 mph correcting their coarse as they approach. It seems obvious to me but if you can’t envision it then draw out a scaled diagram of a square of that size and put an x mark every 20 meters across and down it (this is a matrix). Then draw a ship in the center and draw the distance it can travel in about 5 seconds (maximum time for course correction error of the bombers due to unexpected last second maneuvers). Remember that a ship cannot speed up or slow down as a part of its manuever it can only turn slowly. If it is going 29 knots, it can’t turn much at all. Ships don’t turn on a dime they are not as nimble as a tank which cant escape bombing either. Then superimpose the ship on a different position than it starts in whatever direction you choose (assuming it is a realistic maneuver). You will see, it is still well within the pattern of the bombs. There was a reason the RN ran from Narvik. Floating ships are much better than sunken ones.

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]So they didnt hit him period. [/b]
    No they missed by 20 yards. With twice the load it would have been much close if not dead on even with nine bombers flying in formations of three. Now imagine 200 bombers coming at the same target with pilots that were experienced and skilled in bombing in much more agile planes like the German medium bombers. The B-17 might have been a killer bomber but it was no good at low level pinpoint bombing because it was lumbering and not very maneuverable. Here is a link that shows the attack of the B-17s and the Hiryu. Take a gander at it and you will realize how close they came to losing that carrier just from 9 B-17s: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-forn...psh-h/hiryu.htm Notice that the bombs were dead on they horizontal axis and just slightly over shot by crews that had never targeted a ship. On bomb and that ship in the picture could have been sitting on the ocean floor.

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]So were going from a 0 it to a sinking result now. ? Seems to me they would have likely done no better even with full ammo. [/b]
    Exx, for a big lumbering bomber, that was dead close. The crew standing on the flight decks could have gotten splashed by the bombs hitting water beside the ship. The captain butt would have been puckered so tight he would have pulled a muscle. He would know exactly what it means to have a bomb come crashing down through his flight deck looking for fuel storage or to burn a large hole in the center of his carrier. I don’t think you realize what a near miss that was. It was the carrier Hiryu that “lucked” out. Probably 50 percent of the time that attack would met its mark especially with a full load and experienced pilots, much less if those planes had been more maneuverable like German bombers. I don’t know what the Japanese words for “Oh s***” are but I bet you could have heard it yelled from the ship even with a closed window on the lead bomber.

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]And it took 82 Japanese Betttys to do the job. Now lets talk about Germans and see how they failed to sink the Illustrious with more than 60 Ju-87s and HE-111s. [/b]
    Germany would have had waves of at least 500 of these things coming from France to attack when one or more ships enter the Channel. This is why I say it wouldn’t stand a chance and more than one ship would go down on each pass which could be repeated in an hour or two (reload and refuel in France). Ships are not capable of avoiding aircraft. This is why carriers were the prized ships to possess or attack. You could not care less about battleships and cruisers. You can take your time with them. With a carrier, you might lose 10% of your attacking squadron but that is still a terrific trade. Remember, the planes are not the only thing trying to sink these ships. Shore batteries, long range artillery, mines and subs would all be working overtime as well. German shore batteries would have consisted of 8.5 inch guns. This is more than sufficient to sink the largest battleship. As for subs, I know when the war started in 1939, they only had 50 subs, but by wars end 5 years later they must have produced over 800 because 743 were destroyed. This means that in a year (when the BofB started), they would probably have around 250 if you simply interpolate.

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]Seems you dont get the point here: I was talking about the complexity of both manoeuvers. Hence why Kamikazes were much favoured by the end of the war in Japan, since you didnt need trained/experience crews to do it. [/b]
    I think you have missed my point too. It is nothing to fly a plane into a ship. Just look at the inexperienced terrorists that flew the big lumbering air liners into the narrow WTC buildings. They went 3 for 3. Hitting an object is not the problem. Staying alive was the problem. The closer you come in to the ship the more likely you were to get hit by the batteries of AA. So if it is so easy why did many of them veer off into the water overshoot or fall short? That’s easy, because they were dead and could not make the necessary last second corrections. The massive barrages of AA from the Japanese fleet never touched 9 slow moving (relatively speaking) B-17 bombers.

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]Can you tell me how this contradicts my post about the Luftwaffe assets in Greece ? Obviously, I was saying that the RN was detected by the Germans. [/b]
    I didn’t say it contradicted it, I said it was irrelevant to the point I was making that ships are vulnerable to aircraft. I don’t know why the Germans didn’t go after the RN. I haven’t the foggiest. But what does the fact they didn’t go after them have to do with it being impossible to do so?

    (Exxley @ Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM) [post=43254]I dont see how the Luftwaffe would have been able to clear mines. And I dont see how it would have been able to both fight the RAF and "removed all of the defenses" in a span of 2-3 months.
    [/b]
    Who said the Luftwaffe would remove mines? You see, you are taking my statements and trying to apply them to things they shouldn’t be applied to. The premise of the discussion was no RAF, no Britain. The number of means by which the Germans could have exploited the British Isles, defenses, RN, etc are vast. The only thing that could prevent them was the RAF. Without the RAF, Germany could do to Britain what it did to France. I don’t think Sir Winston had exaggerated when he made his famous comments about the RAF, nor was he posturing. I think it was at the least, a moment of lucidity in regards to modern warfare. He might not have known anything else about warfare but he did get that and that’s the most important understanding to have.
     
  4. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Once air supremacy was obtained

    My question was: how would they be able to do that in 2-3 months.

    Again, you don’t need a huge invasion like in Normandy. Britain was in no way defended like that. They just are not comparable.


    And the German invasion force was hardly the equivalent of the Allied invasion force 4 years later. They hardly had the same number of planes, let alone the same number of ships.

    There was a reason the RN ran from Narvik. Floating ships are much better than sunken ones.


    And there was a reason why they stayed during the Crete campaign: the Luftwaffe wasnt able to prevent them from rescuing the British Forces.

    So they didnt hit him period.
    No they missed by 20 yards.

    I failed to see what is the difference here.


    This is why I say it wouldn’t stand a chance and more than one ship would go down on each pass which could be repeated in an hour or two (reload and refuel in France).

    That still makes a lot of passes and a lot of time to take down the entire Home Fleet. By that time, most German barges would have likely hit the bottom of the Channel and with that the German invasion force.

    As for subs, I know when the war started in 1939, they only had 50 subs, but by wars end 5 years later they must have produced over 800 because 743 were destroyed. This means that in a year (when the BofB started), they would probably have around 250 if you simply interpolate.

    Im not going to interpolate, Im going to the historical numbers: by 1940, the Germans had 60 operational subs.

    I think you have missed my point too. It is nothing to fly a plane into a ship. Just look at the inexperienced terrorists that flew the big lumbering air liners into the narrow WTC buildings. They went 3 for 3. Hitting an object is not the problem.

    Now how exactly does it differ from my own view ?

    Hence why Kamikazes were much favoured by the end of the war in Japan, since you didnt need trained/experience crews to do it.


    The closer you come in to the ship the more likely you were to get hit by the batteries of AA. So if it is so easy why did many of them veer off into the water overshoot or fall short?

    And how exactly does it differ from my own view ?

    And how many kamikazes exactly were shot compared to those that hit and did some damages ? I'll bet that the odd is really high.

    I didn’t say it contradicted it, I said it was irrelevant to the point I was making that ships are vulnerable to aircraft. I don’t know why the Germans didn’t go after the RN. I haven’t the foggiest. But what does the fact they didn’t go after them have to do with it being impossible to do so?


    Wrong again. The Germans did go after the RN. They sank many British ships. But they failed to prevent them from doing their job.

    Who said the Luftwaffe would remove mines?

    Prolly because of that previous claim (emphasis is mine):
    You are not going to put a ship into the Channel until the Luftwaffe had removed all of the defenses including shore batteries, tanks, artillery, and the RN, including subs.

    which was a direct answer to this:
    shore artillery ? mines ? The deal is about Sealion so the British would have the benefits of those, not the Germans.

    The premise of the discussion was no RAF, no Britain.

    No RAF and no RN certainly. But there is just no way the Luftwaffe and the KM would have been able to destroy both the entire RAF and the entire Home Fleet in a span of 2-3 months.
    Churchill's speech was definitively a great political and psychological move more than a real military evaluation.
     
  5. mattgibbs

    mattgibbs Senior Member

    German Batteries available in 1940 for artillery action against Allied Forces were as follows:
    For defence against the R.N. for "Seelöwe"
    there were at the Pas de Calais .
    Some big batteries could reach England

    M.K.B. Siegfried (later Todt) 4 x 38 cm SK C/34
    M.K.B. Grosser Kurfürst 4 x 28 cm SKL/50
    M.K.B. Friedrich August 3 x 30,5 cm SKL/50
    M.K.B. Prinz Heinrich 2 x 28 cm SKL/45
    M.K.B. Oldenburg 2 x 24 cm SKL/50
    M.K.B. Schleswig-Holstein ( in 1941 , later renamed Lindemann ) 3 x 40.6 cm SK C/34

    Heer

    II/84 5 x 24 cm
    I/84 6 x 24 Kz

    Railways guns

    E-Batterie 710 2 x 28 cm K 5
    E-Batterie 712 2 x 28 cm K 5
    E-Batterie 713 2 x 28 cm K 5
    E-Batterie 765 2 x 28 cm K 5
    E-Batterie 701 2 x 21 cm K 12
    E-Batterie 2/725 2 x 28 cm
    E-Batterie 1/725 3 x 28 cm

    Regarding the size and time required to reload these large calibre guns I am not sure about their ability to hit reasonably fast or manouverable targets. Especially the Railway Guns! This would depend on their range finding and gun laying capabilities. Info Kindly provided by a fellow member of another website.
    Kind regards
    MG
     
  6. egbert

    egbert Member

    Rubbish! Who says the Luftwaffe was not engaged in anti- mine ops? One example is the legendary Junkers
    Ju 52/3m g5e and Junkers Ju 52/3m g4e (MS):
    Version were converted for Mine-sweeping duties. For that reason they were fitted with a large Dural hoop braced beneath the wing and fuselage. This hoop was than energised by an additional motor that was installed in the fuselage. The magnetic field that was generated that way, triggered magnetically fused mines.
     
  7. Glider

    Glider Senior Member

    I suspect that there is a lot of information on this thread that doesn't make any sense at all. Can i try to summerise the position

    1 German Air Supremacy
    This they would never have achieved. The very best that they could have done was force fighter command to base its aircraft out of reach of the 109's.
    Result the airspace over the landing grounds would have been fought over. probably with both sides being able to have control for short periods.

    2. Effectiveness of Level Bombers against moving warships.
    This was never effective in any theatre of war. The Italians failed in the Med, The USA failed against the Japs, The British failed against the Germans and the Germans failed against the British. Level bombing at Altitude does not work. If anyone would like to disagree with this, please give an example of any warship from any side that was sunk by level bombers of any nation at any time.

    3. How do planes sink ships
    Dive Bombers of course, Torpedo bombers (normally against large Capital Ships), Level bombers at very low altitude. Take these one at a a time

    Dive Bombers - Very specialised and dare not get caught by opposing fighters.
    Torpedo Bombers - Very difficult to hit with if the ship can manoever
    Low Altitude level Bombers - Effective but a very very dangerous method. Losses tended to be very high.

    Shore Batteries
    Very ineffective at long range. Your are talking about hitting a moving target at ranges of at least 15-20 miles without effective (if any) radar capable of being used to plot the fall of shot. If the British Batteries missed the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau plus Cruisers and detroyers later in the war, why should the Germans earlier in the war do any better?

    Submarines
    If people want to believe that German Subs can be used to sink British Naval vessels what is to stop British subs sinking the invasion fleet?

    Mines
    If mines can be used to stop the RN why cannot mines be used to stop the invasion?
     
  8. mattgibbs

    mattgibbs Senior Member

    Sonderkommando "Mausi" the special command for the Luftwaffe for aerial minesweeping did not come into operation until Septmeber 1940. They had an assortment of Blohm und Voss BV 138, Junkers 52 and Doenier Do23 planes fitted for Minesweeping duties. They were under command of 9th Fliegerkorps.
    Bv 138 MS were converted from the BV 138 BO prototype airframes, not sure how many there were, my reference book is on loan. The number of Ju 52's converted is not known at present. They can't have had many of the old Do23's!

    regards
    MG


    By the way, people do refer to Mausi meaning Little Mouse and wonder why they called it that, I beg to suggest that it is meant to be a shortening for M-aus-i or Minen-Auslöse-Induktor - thanks to the Luftwaffe abbreviations guide. Literally this means Mine Release Inductor.
    Regards
    MG
     
  9. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    My question was: how would they be able to do that in 2-3 months. Again, I think you misunderstood the conversation I had when saying that. I said ONCE air supremacy was obtained, it would take two months to have neutralized all coastal defenses in the Channel.


    And the German invasion force was hardly the equivalent of the Allied invasion force 4 years later. They hardly had the same number of planes, let alone the same number of ships. Just as the British coast was no where the equivalent to the Atlantic sea wall. For all intents and purposes the British had two assets of significance at the start of the war. The first was the RAF. In this scenario it is gone. The second is the RN. In this scenario where the RAF is gone, then logically so is the RN as far as being able to come into the channel and defend the island. That’s my assertion. Nothing else. Don’t make it in to anything else. That’s the only point I ever intended to make. If you want to debate that point, then be my guest, but don’t make it out to be another issue like I believe Britain should have fallen two months after Dunkirk. That’s a straw man argument and does not represent my position.


    And there was a reason why they stayed during the Crete campaign: the Luftwaffe wasnt able to prevent them from rescuing the British Forces. I don’t know what the Luftwaffe was planning. I don’t know anything about their plans, their desires, their objectives. I am commenting on the capabilities of air over ships. It has nothing to do with decisions made. It has nothing to do with whether or not a German general, Hitler, Rommel, or anyone else agreed with me. It’s my opinion of the two in a head to head match up.


    I failed to see what is the difference here. I can’t make you see the difference here but I can simply state my view of it. You take 9 heavy bombers with pilots that have never targeted ships and have little experience and send them after a heavily guarded fleet and specifically a carrier, and they are dead on except they over-shot the target by ½ second, I would say, not only did you get lucky with the miss, but you were lucky the bombers were not more experienced. As the captain of that carrier, you would well realize that had the lead bombardier have waited a half second more before pressing his button you would probably be at the bottom of the ocean. Take a look at that picture and look how close the bomb splashes are you would have gotten about ten of those bombs right down your flight deck. Had that have been a larger formation, say 30 planes, one of them would have been 20 yards behind the others. That’s bombing. That’s what destroys a huge factory end to end. Those planes took about four of five hours to reach the ships from Midway island. Imagine Luftwaffe bases that only need to go for 20 minutes to take a shot at you. The reason they took those pictures is to show you how close the Japanese carriers came to losing a carrier thwarting any future Midway island attacks before the US carriers even got into range to launch strikes. Naval bombers like the SBD could not have reached the carriers from Midway. They don’t have the range of land based bombers nor the speed.


    That still makes a lot of passes and a lot of time to take down the entire Home Fleet. By that time, most German barges would have likely hit the bottom of the Channel and with that the German invasion force. No Exx, I think you are mistaking the plan. Forget the mindset you have to rush to Britain. Why play to lose? If the RN is afraid of the channel (which they will be) then you can cut a path through the mines and get a tank company across. You will have paratroops waiting on them on the other side with the British coast guns captured. If you pick a spot in the channel that is say 50 miles across, it would take 10 hours to get there at the paltry speed that redcoat stated (frankly I bet boats could get that small a force across much quicker but let’s go with that). Now the Channel is 350 miles long. If you are at the midpoint of the channel then it would take 5 hours going flank speed at the fastest ship (31 knots). Not that's assuming you are not afraid of hitting mines on the way, can patch the deep holes in your hull from the shore batteries and submarines and put the fires out from the bombers that dropped into your weapons store below. Assuming you can get all of those things then you may catch them on the return path back to the German shore. This means you get the ten or so barges it took to move a tank company to the other side. Without air cover, the channel might as well freeze over.


    Im not going to interpolate, Im going to the historical numbers: by 1940, the Germans had 60 operational subs. Exx, there is no such historical number. Subs are produced and launched all year long. That number would be dynamic and increasing. They wouldn’t just stop producing subs. There were 50 in 1939 (which is historical) there would be far more than 60 by the end of the year when in 5 years they produce almost 800. Since you don’t have a day by day inventory you have no choice but to interpolate. They didn’t say “well we have our 60, see us next year and we will produce more!”


    Now how exactly does it differ from my own view ? You insisted that it was easy to hit a ship as a kamikaze. If that was true then every ship at Okinawa would have been sunk.


    Hence why Kamikazes were much favoured by the end of the war in Japan, since you didnt need trained/experience crews to do it.
    We have gotten off on a tangent here. Kamikazes were not very effective. That’s a terrible way to use a plane and pilot. Sure Japanese planes were obsolete and pilots were all inexperienced kids, and with that kind of desperation that might at least be making a statement. But the Luftwaffe would not be that wasteful nor would they need to be. The concept of a reusable plane and pilot is much more appealing.


    And how many kamikazes exactly were shot compared to those that hit and did some damages ? I'll bet that the odd is really high. There were almost 3000 kamikazes and they managed to sink 81 ships throughout the war.


    Wrong again. The Germans did go after the RN. They sank many British ships. But they failed to prevent them from doing their job. Friend, you keep losing your place and context. You said that with Crete the Germans didn’t go after the British fleet because they were afraid. Now you are arguing against yourself.


    Prolly because of that previous claim (emphasis is mine):
    You are not going to put a ship into the Channel until the Luftwaffe had removed all of the defenses including shore batteries, tanks, artillery, and the RN, including subs. I think it is implied that the Luftwaffe will remove targets that could be bombed, strafed or done by paratroopers, and any other “like mines” would be removed by the appropriate forces. That should go without saying. Surely you realize I believe that. Are you just being argumentative?


    No RAF and no RN certainly. But there is just no way the Luftwaffe and the KM would have been able to destroy both the entire RAF and the entire Home Fleet in a span of 2-3 months.
    Churchill's speech was definitively a great political and psychological move more than a real military evaluation.
    I never said they would get them both in two months. That was simply your misunderstanding of my claim to redcoat. The rest of this is a straw man argument built off of this misunderstanding something I have been trying to point out for several posts. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. This is simply a place to debate ideas.


    (egbert @ Dec 17 2005, 05:32 PM) [post=43286]Rubbish! Who says the Luftwaffe was not engaged in anti- mine ops? One example is the legendary Junkers
    Ju 52/3m g5e and Junkers Ju 52/3m g4e (MS):
    Version were converted for Mine-sweeping duties. For that reason they were fitted with a large Dural hoop braced beneath the wing and fuselage. This hoop was than energised by an additional motor that was installed in the fuselage. The magnetic field that was generated that way, triggered magnetically fused mines.
    [/b]
    This is an example of what I was stating that we have sold the Germans short. They are extremely innovative just as the allies were. Higgans boat, boats capable of exceeding 5 mph were not something too hard to realize for the Germans. They didn't have them because they simply didn't have a need for them. Even if you think German engineers could have never have dreamed of a lofty concept do you really think for a second they couldn't have simply copied the Allied concept of the Higgens boats?
     
  10. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Glider @ Dec 17 2005, 06:05 PM) [post=43287]1 German Air Supremacy
    This they would never have achieved. The very best that they could have done was force fighter command to base its aircraft out of reach of the 109's.
    Result the airspace over the landing grounds would have been fought over. probably with both sides being able to have control for short periods.[/b]
    As long as they are away from the fight the Germans could not care less. The RAF would be losing airbases as the paratroopers came and possessed them. Once armor is on the ground in Britain then Germany can open up all the ports it wants.

    (Glider @ Dec 17 2005, 06:05 PM) [post=43287]2. Effectiveness of Level Bombers against moving warships.
    This was never effective in any theatre of war. The Italians failed in the Med, The USA failed against the Japs, The British failed against the Germans and the Germans failed against the British. Level bombing at Altitude does not work. If anyone would like to disagree with this, please give an example of any warship from any side that was sunk by level bombers of any nation at any time. [/b]
    Well Stukas are not level bombers. But you can take a look at Warsaw and see what formation bombing would do to a vast array of objects below the bombers. Many of these bombs will find their mark. Eventually there would be no RN left and you could waltz across the channel.

    (Glider @ Dec 17 2005, 06:05 PM) [post=43287]3. How do planes sink ships
    Dive Bombers of course, Torpedo bombers (normally against large Capital Ships), Level bombers at very low altitude. Take these one at a a time

    Dive Bombers - Very specialised and dare not get caught by opposing fighters.
    Torpedo Bombers - Very difficult to hit with if the ship can manoever
    Low Altitude level Bombers - Effective but a very very dangerous method. Losses tended to be very high.

    [/b]
    Planes sink ships by dropping bombs on them period. It matters not what kind of plane drops it. Magnesium burns until it runs out of fuel and will burn through the thickest armor plates. Don't mistake that ships stayed out of range of land based bombers except an occasional mistake where they at least faced groups that were not experenced with such a tactic. A formation of bombers can drop a bomb in about every square meter of area below the formation. This is a saturation that a moving ship can avoid no better than a ship at rest. It will sink just as fast a stationary ship will. The magnesium does not care if the ship is manuevering.


    (Glider @ Dec 17 2005, 06:05 PM) [post=43287]Shore Batteries
    Very ineffective at long range. Your are talking about hitting a moving target at ranges of at least 15-20 miles without effective (if any) radar capable of being used to plot the fall of shot. If the British Batteries missed the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau plus Cruisers and detroyers later in the war, why should the Germans earlier in the war do any better? [/b]
    You only need one good hit and you have batteries throwing rounds at a pretty quick pace. Statistically some of the rounds are going to find their mark.

    (Glider @ Dec 17 2005, 06:05 PM) [post=43287]Submarines
    If people want to believe that German Subs can be used to sink British Naval vessels what is to stop British subs sinking the invasion fleet? [/b]
    The invasion fleet is about 10 LCTs carrying a Panzer company to the shore. The men and supplies are already there. You don't need a large force. It is simply not needed. We don't need an OVERLORD. 10 small boats in the night, you wouldn't even know they came.

    (Glider @ Dec 17 2005, 06:05 PM) [post=43287]Mines
    If mines can be used to stop the RN why cannot mines be used to stop the invasion?
    [/b]
    There purpose of mines is not to "stop" things no matter what kind of mind we are talking about or where it is used. Mines are designed to buy time. The Germans have all night every night. They need only to cut a path about a half mile wide to get their LCTs through.
     
  11. egbert

    egbert Member

    Pretty professional overview, no stuttering just facts:

    click here
     
  12. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Dec 18 2005, 01:32 AM) [post=43292] Again, I think you misunderstood the conversation I had when saying that. I said ONCE air supremacy was obtained, it would take two months to have neutralized all coastal defenses in the Channel. [/b]
    You dont get my point again. If it would take 2 months to neutralize all coastal defenses in the Channel, how long will it take to destroy the RAF before ? Seems you dont know how is the weather over the Channel once you get past september.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Just as the British coast was no where the equivalent to the Atlantic sea wall. For all intents and purposes the British had two assets of significance at the start of the war. The first was the RAF. In this scenario it is gone. The second is the RN. In this scenario where the RAF is gone, then logically so is the RN as far as being able to come into the channel and defend the island. That’s my assertion. Nothing else. Don’t make it in to anything else. That’s the only point I ever intended to make. If you want to debate that point, then be my guest, but don’t make it out to be another issue like I believe Britain should have fallen two months after Dunkirk. That’s a straw man argument and does not represent my position. [/b]
    Like I said above, if they cant invade in 2-3 months, then its over. They have to wait till next spring/summer.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    I don’t know what the Luftwaffe was planning. I don’t know anything about their plans, their desires, their objectives. I am commenting on the capabilities of air over ships. It has nothing to do with decisions made. It has nothing to do with whether or not a German general, Hitler, Rommel, or anyone else agreed with me. It’s my opinion of the two in a head to head match up. [/b]
    And the fact that the Luftwaffe proved to be hardly effective during the Crete campaign is supposed to have nothing to do with the capabilities of air over ships ?

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    I can’t make you see the difference here [/b]

    Perhaps because there is hardly any difference in English AFAIK between they dont hit and they miss.


    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    No Exx, I think you are mistaking the plan. Forget the mindset you have to rush to Britain. Why play to lose? If the RN is afraid of the channel (which they will be) [/b]
    The RN headed straight into Crete while knowing that they had no air cover. They suffered drastic losses but yet they still went there. Admiral Cunningham had that famous word: It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition.
    Seems obvious the RN would have likely done all they could to overthrow the Germans and defend British soil.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Exx, there is no such historical number. Subs are produced and launched all year long. That number would be dynamic and increasing. They wouldn’t just stop producing subs. There were 50 in 1939 (which is historical) there would be far more than 60 by the end of the year when in 5 years they produce almost 800. Since you don’t have a day by day inventory you have no choice but to interpolate. They didn’t say “well we have our 60, see us next year and we will produce more!”[/b]
    They had 60 available subs by 1940, 75 by 1941. The 250 figure was incorrect to say the least.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    You insisted that it was easy to hit a ship as a kamikaze. If that was true then every ship at Okinawa would have been sunk. [/b]

    And of course you failed to see my point that you separated in 2 parts : I was saying that because of the less complexity of the manoeuver, it was easier to recruit Kamikazes than to properly train bomber/torpedo crews.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    We have gotten off on a tangent here. Kamikazes were not very effective. That’s a terrible way to use a plane and pilot. Sure Japanese planes were obsolete and pilots were all inexperienced kids, and with that kind of desperation that might at least be making a statement. But the Luftwaffe would not be that wasteful nor would they need to be. The concept of a reusable plane and pilot is much more appealing.[/b]
    And where did I say that it was very effective ?

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    I never said they would get them both in two months. That was simply your misunderstanding of my claim to redcoat. The rest of this is a straw man argument built off of this misunderstanding something I have been trying to point out for several posts. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. This is simply a place to debate ideas. [/b]

    Once again, if they dont do that in that 2-3 months span, they wont have again the opportunity.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Friend, you keep losing your place and context. You said that with Crete the Germans didn’t go after the British fleet because they were afraid. Now you are arguing against yourself [/b]

    And can you quote me saying that the Germans didnt go after the British fleet in Crete because they were afraid ?
     
  13. Glider

    Glider Senior Member

    Jimbo
    Taking your points one at a time.
    The RAF wouldn't have been out of the fight. They wqouldn't have had 24 hr control of the sky but they could have gained the advantage for a priod of time. In that time tey would have been able to launch heavy bombing raids and be back in safe air well before the German support would have stgruck. The only defence the Germans would be able to use is whatever they had as standing air control.

    Level Bombers.
    Obviously I know what a Stuka is. However what you assume is simply not the case. Level bombers NEVER did any significant damage to any warship of any nation at any time. Your assumption that carpet bombing would yield significant damage is not the case. Let me explain why. To penetrate heavy armour you need an AP bomb and these weigh at least 1000ib most of them weighed in at around 1500-1750 lb. So your average B17 could carry maybe 4 of these, a German He111 2-3 bombs. Doesnt' sound like a carpet bombing raid to me. How many planes are you talking about?
    Also remember that it takes a bomb about 1 minute to fall from 12,000 ft. In that time a modern BB would travel 1/2 a mile and in that time it can make a good size turn. Thats a lot of space to cover with your 2-3 bombs.

    Your statement that planes sink ships by dropping bombs again isn't true. Name one capital ship of any side sunk by bombs only, it didn't happen.

    You state that Magnesium burns until it runs out of fuel and will burn through the thickest armour, I have a simple question, WHEN did this happen?

    Shore Batteries
    Again you are way off the mark. A shore battery with the range of 15-20 miles would be lucky to achieve a rof of 2 rounds a minute. In that time the target has gone 1/2 a mile and you don't even know if your rounds are on target, short, long in fact anything. Your chances of hitting the target are Zero and 2 rds a minute hardly counts as 'chucking rounds out at a pretty quick rate'.

    Invasion Fleet
    This I had to read twice. Your invasion fleet consists of 10LCT? The supplies are already there HOW? Even if they did get there what are they supposed to do on their own and without support? They arrive before we know it, Have you heard of Enigma? have you heard of Radar?

    Mines
    Mines are designed to buy time and to distrupt things. From your responce you seem to be banking on coming at night which would be suicide. At night you
    a) lose any advantage of control of the air
    images/smilies/default/cool.gif Night is the time when the RN are likely to come down the Channel
    c) have a huge potential of losing your way, getting confused and landing on the wrong beaches.
    d) The RN had a lot of MTB vessels armed with torpedo's operated by people who used to be peace time sailors. These would know the Channel like the back of their hands. They would have difficulty operating in Daylight but the night would belong to them.
    Summary, Please come at night.
     
  14. redcoat

    redcoat Senior Member

    (Exxley @ Dec 17 2005, 03:39 PM) [post=43264]Anyway, this was still more than enough to hold a weaker Kriegsmarine who had the following roster at the same period:

    2 Battleships/Schlachtschiff: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
    1 Pocket Battleships/Panzerschiff: Admiral Scheer
    1 Heavy cruisers/Schwere Kreuzer: Admiral Hipper
    4 Light cruisers/Leicht Kreuzer: Emden, Koln, Leipzig, Nurnberg
    7 auxiliary cruisers
    10 Destroyers

    Hardly a force that could threaten the Home Fleet (not to mention that several of those vessels had engines problems or were in fact not combat ready).
    [/b]
    Its worse.
    The Battleships Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper had all suffered damage during the Norwegian Campaign, and none were repairable before the end of September. The only heavy unit available to the Kriegsmarine for Sealow was the Admiral Scheer.
     
  15. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Exx, I think you are ignoring what I have stated because this is the third and last time I have stated it. The whole discussion was a hypothetical as to what would happen AFTER the RAF is gone. Please don’t tell me to add time to my premise to remove the RAF because that has nothing to do with the original hypothetical discussion between redcoat and myself. If you want to start another discussion on how the RAF could or could not be conquered, then start another thread, but don’t intermix it into this discussion. Trying to argue it in the middle of this one where it is assumed for the sake of the discussion that the RAF was already eliminated simply makes us chase our tails.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Like I said above, if they cant invade in 2-3 months, then its over. They have to wait till next spring/summer.[/b]
    Why do they need to wait until spring? This is not Stalingrad. You can float a tank company across the channel any time of year you wish. The other supplies, infantry, and small artillery would be dropped by plane. Once you get a tank company on the island, it just needs to protect the paratroops against what is left of the British army, you can then take a port, take airfield, and systematically capture every coastal defense position. Then mine both ends of the channel and move entire armies across at your leisure, summer, winter, spring or fall. Once the tanks hit the shore, it is a done deal. Britain has no way to resist that kind of military power. There is no doubt that the period between 1940 and most of 1941 was Britain’s most vulnerable period.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    And the fact that the Luftwaffe proved to be hardly effective during the Crete campaign is supposed to have nothing to do with the capabilities of air over ships ?[/b]
    I think it has absolutely nothing to do with vulnerabilities. Situations, historical anecdotes, etc, do not change the laws of physics. As the saying goes, “there ain’t been a ship that can’t be sunk”.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Perhaps because there is hardly any difference in English AFAIK between they dont hit and they miss.[/b]
    Don’t know what an AFAIK is. But just because 9 untrained bombers missed sinking you and killing most of your men by a hair, doesn’t mean every bomber sent from this day forward will also miss. No captain would sleep well the night after seeing that.


    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    The RN headed straight into Crete while knowing that they had no air cover. They suffered drastic losses but yet they still went there. Admiral Cunningham had that famous word: It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition.
    Seems obvious the RN would have likely done all they could to overthrow the Germans and defend British soil. [/b]
    I have no doubt the RN would have done its best. Only an idiot or someone that knew nothing about British resolve would argue against that. Sometime one’s best is just not good enough. Britain cannot sustain losses to the RN. If they brought the Royal Navy into the Channel, they would rapidly lose it. Ships restricted to a narrow passageway cannot use the ship’s only defense from air, the ability to hide in the open waters. This is why ships stay away from land based bombers. They have nothing to gain by putting themselves in eminent danger. It is no pride to a captain to say “I moved my ships within range of land bombers and was attacked but they missed!”.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    They had 60 available subs by 1940, 75 by 1941. The 250 figure was incorrect to say the least. [/b]
    Ok, I can live with that. They didn’t produce 200 per year until 1942. They produced 1150 throughout the entire war, but I see they only produced 50 in 1941.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    And can you quote me saying that the Germans didnt go after the British fleet in Crete because they were afraid ?
    [/b]
    Were you inferring they could have sunk the RN at Crete but merely had no interest in doing so?
     
  16. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Why do they need to wait until spring? This is not Stalingrad. You can float a tank company across the channel any time of year you wish.

    Like I pointed above, you obviously have no idea about the kind of weather the Channel is experiencing between october and april.

    I think it has absolutely nothing to do with vulnerabilities. Situations, historical anecdotes, etc, do not change the laws of physics. As the saying goes, “there ain’t been a ship that can’t be sunk”.
    And laws of physics wont change the fact that the Luftwaffe was hardly an effective antiship force.

    Don’t know what an AFAIK is. But just because 9 untrained bombers missed sinking you and killing most of your men by a hair, doesn’t mean every bomber sent from this day forward will also miss. No captain would sleep well the night after seeing that.

    And where did I claim that "every bomber sent from this day forward will also miss". I was merely stating that dont hit and miss have the same meaning.

    Britain cannot sustain losses to the RN. If they brought the Royal Navy into the Channel, they would rapidly lose it.
    And what would have been the purpose of the RN once the Isles are invaded ? Once again, its obvious they would have sacrificed a lot more ships than you think to destroy the German invasion force. And so far, its also obvious the Germans had no way to prevent this.

    Ok, I can live with that. They didn’t produce 200 per year until 1942. They produced 1150 throughout the entire war, but I see they only produced 50 in 1941.
    Because before 1942-1943, the German industry wasnt fully devoted to the war effort.


    And can you quote me saying that the Germans didnt go after the British fleet in Crete because they were afraid ?
    Were you inferring they could have sunk the RN at Crete but merely had no interest in doing so?


    So you cant quote me saying it. Now, where did I infer that they could have sunk the RN at Crete but merely had no interest in doing so ?
     
  17. Glider

    Glider Senior Member

    Exxley I agree with your points. Jimbo, even with the RAF conveniently out of the way your argument doesn't stand up. The Channel is not a river, its 25 plus miles wide with currents, tides and bad weather.

    It should also be remembered that German Paratroops only had light weapons. No guns, no antitank guns, no mortars, no spare ammunition, no transport. It would have been a debacle.

    I forgot to add that you are putting a lot of faith in the fact that the Hiryu was near missed by 9 B17's. You should also remember that after the Hiryu was badly hit by the USN divebombers she was barely making headway, with serious fires and her flight deck smashed, she was attacked again by B17's. Even in this condition, they missed her again.
     
  18. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 08:23 AM) [post=43318]Jimbo
    Taking your points one at a time.
    The RAF wouldn't have been out of the fight. They wqouldn't have had 24 hr control of the sky but they could have gained the advantage for a priod of time. In that time tey would have been able to launch heavy bombing raids and be back in safe air well before the German support would have stgruck. The only defence the Germans would be able to use is whatever they had as standing air control. [/b]
    The premise of the original discussion was that what if the RAF was gone, could the RN protect Britain from invasion. I like to address things logically and one at a time (just as you seem to do as well) so we can start another thread on the German’s attempt to eliminate the RAF. I won’t cover it here because it confuses the statements I have made up to this point.

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 08:23 AM) [post=43318]Level Bombers.
    Obviously I know what a Stuka is. However what you assume is simply not the case. Level bombers NEVER did any significant damage to any warship of any nation at any time. Your assumption that carpet bombing would yield significant damage is not the case. Let me explain why. To penetrate heavy armour you need an AP bomb and these weigh at least 1000ib most of them weighed in at around 1500-1750 lb. So your average B17 could carry maybe 4 of these, a German He111 2-3 bombs. Doesnt' sound like a carpet bombing raid to me. How many planes are you talking about?
    Also remember that it takes a bomb about 1 minute to fall from 12,000 ft. In that time a modern BB would travel 1/2 a mile and in that time it can make a good size turn. Thats a lot of space to cover with your 2-3 bombs. [/b]

    You have made several statements in the lines above so let me take them one at a time.

    Level bombers never did any significant damage. I have answered this several times already. But what you have to consider is that ships must consider where they go. They cannot go anywhere they please. They must stay clear of situations where they are vulnerable. But as far as being vulnerable to land based bombers, there were four types of bombs that can be used by level bombers exploit physics to cut through thick armor.

    1) Magnesium bombs - Once ignited, it would have to burn out before it would go out. It burns with intense heat it instantly liquefies the metal it touches. The weight of the magnesium makes it sink through the molten metal like a hot knife through butter. This is why it was preferred for factories. I remember reading that the American bomber pilots in England were so cold they burned all of their furniture I a metal stove. When they ran out, one of them got the “brilliant” idea to go and get some magnesium from the bombs and empty a little of it into the stove and light it. It immediately burned through the bottom of stove and down through the floor as though they had dropped it in water. Luckily they only used a tiny bit but it had destroyed their stove.
    2) Gravity bombs - Uses the simple force equation Force = mass X acceleration to penetrate and explode with a delayed fuse. Of course you can decrease the diameter of the bomb and reduce the weight proportionality and get the same exact penetration but you do give up some of the detonation material. These require a high angle to penetrate. These were the most common aerial bomb for general bombing and each one in a near miss are capable of blowing an 80 ton tank 20 feet into the air dropping it on its top. Imagine its effect on a ships’ magazine.
    3) Shaped charge bombs - These explode by creating a jet effect penetrating a small area to open into a bigger area. The depth of steel it can penetrate is a function of the diameter of the charge’s tip multiplied by about 7 times. A two inch charge could penetrate approximately 14 inches of armor.
    4) Glide bombs – The Germans had these early on for the expressed purpose of sinking ships. They were called the Fritz-X bombs. The tested accuracy on these by trained German bombers dropped at 26000 feet is 90% in a 98 foot radius and 50% accuracy in a 49 foot radius. Examples of ships sunk by these bombs dropped by “level bombers” was the Italian battleship Roma, the British Cruiser HMS Spartan.


    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 08:23 AM) [post=43318]Your statement that planes sink ships by dropping bombs again isn't true. Name one capital ship of any side sunk by bombs only, it didn't happen. [/b]
    Well there are a lot of examples. I listed two in the description of the glide bombs above. There was also the HMS Egret which was sunk by one, along with her escort destroyer which was not sunk but damaged. Something to consider. When a ship is hit (of which many were and had to be towed) it is disabled and then may be sunk on additional sorties. Rarely do they get a chance because. When a ship came within range of land based bombers, they almost always got ships damaged to where they had to be towed. An example of what we will call “effective sinking” is the example by the least-lethal of all seaplanes, the British Swordfish, that put a torp into the rudder of the Bismarck. This massive battleship was for all intents and purposes sunk because she was disabled to where she could not escape the RN who were able to “take their time” to finish her off. This is why captains will not go into the Channel except in extreme circumstances. It is a death trap. They can get court-martialed for losing their ship. But more than that, I thought that the demonstrations by Billy Mitchell in the 1920s should have made the point at the rapid obsolescence of conventional warships to war.

    How many planes are you talking about? I would think you would keep the formations small and quick forming. I would say you wouldn’t need to seen more than 100 at a time. Stukas, a lot less.

    Also remember that it takes a bomb about 1 minute to fall from 12,000 ft. In that time a modern BB would travel 1/2 a mile and in that time it can make a good size turn. Well, rather than debating maneuvers and altitudes, go look at the picture of the Hiryu that was bombed by the 9 - B-17s at Midway. Those pilots were in experienced so they had little experience at hitting moving targets. Their load was half the normal load (because they had to add additional fuel tanks to reach the fleet). They were at 12000 feet. As you can see the ship has made a pretty radical maneuver. They still only missed by about 20 yards. Man that’s close. Drop it down to 10000 feet and they would have sunk that carrier. If the bomber had released a half second earlier they would have sunk it.

    Now it’s true they missed it. It is also true that the barrage of AA missed them completely. Therefore you could say the can repeat the mission with impunity other than the fact they will not be able to find the ship. The ships are constantly moving in an open sea. Like I said, that’s their #1 defense. They can’t hide in the Channel. You could spot them in a 30 minute recon patrol with two planes, or minutes if you use more than 2 no matter where the ships moved to. You could calculate the bombing pattern needed for a battleship by the altitude you plan to use. Then no matter where it maneuvers, it cannot get out of the pattern of bombs in the time they fall. In addition, you will lead the ship.

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 08:23 AM) [post=43318]You state that Magnesium burns until it runs out of fuel and will burn through the thickest armour, I have a simple question, WHEN did this happen?
    Whether the steel be a deck plate of a ship or a bridge, or a large steel factory beam, it can do the same thing. Magnesium bombs were preferred for factories because of all the steel construction factories had.

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 08:23 AM) [post=43318]Shore Batteries
    Again you are way off the mark. A shore battery with the range of 15-20 miles would be lucky to achieve a rof of 2 rounds a minute. In that time the target has gone 1/2 a mile and you don't even know if your rounds are on target, short, long in fact anything. Your chances of hitting the target are Zero and 2 rds a minute hardly counts as 'chucking rounds out at a pretty quick rate'.
    Way off the mark? Was that a pun? Seriously, if of all that was true, surely the Germans would have not built so many. The shore batteries would serve as a cover for wolf pack subs that could stay just outside of their range and pick off ships and when destroyers pursued then get back into the range of those guns. A gun on the shore was as good as a gun on a ship any day and they seem to find their mark. Some guns could shoot across the channel. The rail guns certainly could. But the mines demand the ships wait for clearing of them because if they send a clearing force ahead, they Germans would simply drop new ones right in front of the ships as they pursue the invasions forces. This would have kept them in range.

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 08:23 AM) [post=43318]Invasion Fleet
    This I had to read twice. Your invasion fleet consists of 10LCT? The supplies are already there HOW? Even if they did get there what are they supposed to do on their own and without support? They arrive before we know it, Have you heard of Enigma? have you heard of Radar? [/b]
    The enigma was for long range communications. It was mainly for communicating from subs to relays. The point of the 10 LCTs is just to get a few tank companies across. Everything would already be waiting for them when they hit the beach. The Germans would have dropped airborne (of which Wehrmacht and SS could also participate), gliders and simple canister drops. Supply is no problem. They are not going to run in to much resistance then. There is some question as to whether the paras could take the air fields and then bring in everything later. I think it would be a better plan to send a few tanks in a tiny invasion force of 10 LCTs. This ought to do. Once you took an air field, you could bring in the big transports that could deliver the 88s, etc.

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 08:23 AM) [post=43318]Mines
    Mines are designed to buy time and to distrupt things. From your responce you seem to be banking on coming at night which would be suicide. At night you
    a) lose any advantage of control of the air
    images/smilies/default/cool.gif Night is the time when the RN are likely to come down the Channel
    c) have a huge potential of losing your way, getting confused and landing on the wrong beaches.
    d) The RN had a lot of MTB vessels armed with torpedo's operated by people who used to be peace time sailors. These would know the Channel like the back of their hands. They would have difficulty operating in Daylight but the night would belong to them.
    Summary, Please come at night.
    [/b]
    Well, I think I would. The Germans did and so did the British. Only the Americans bombed in the daylight. The dropping of parachute flares buys you a minute each one so if you drop them from a fighter in 45 second intervals, you could keep the area lit up like GE. Losing any advantage of the air would not be true because this is how the Brits bombed by dropping flares over the target by “path finders” and then the rest simply zeroed in on visible targets. As far as the RN coming at night, that’s the worse time to run mine fields in a ship. But I know that’s when the subs prefer to attack war ships. But you can patrol the channel at night just as good as you can in the day when there is moonlight of a quarter moon or better. Remember, if I can’t see the huge ships of the RN, you can’t see the tiny little LCTs taking my tanks to the waiting beaches. You don’t even know what beach I am going for. For all you know I am going to put the tanks ashore on the south east side of Britain. You’ll have to read about it in the papers or here it the next day on the “beeb”. It is much easier to attack than to defend. That’s a tough row to hoe.

    I guess I am a little marveled that there is so much faith put in ships in WWII. The Royal Navy had few equals but it doesn’t change the fact that it had become relatively obsolete. There are certain roles ships could be used, mostly regulating shipping on the open sea. The Channel is a very narrow passageway that would restrict the movement of ships and make them highly vulnerable to all kinds of attacks. A ships only defense is to avoid being shot at. This is what the open sea brings it. Not so in a Channel. I can think of few other places a ship captain would rather not operate. Maybe the Suez or Panama canals. There are so many ways to make them vulnerable. Take out the support ships. Oilers, supply ships, repair ships, destroyers, minelayers, minesweepers, they would be easy kills and you have plenty of time to cripple the RN before putting it out of action. Then you would be left with Cruisers and Battleships highly vulnerable to subs, mines, etc not able to go anywhere, and constantly have to return to port for everything. I really do think the Channel would become a shooting gallery to air.
     
  19. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 06:30 PM) [post=43337]Exxley I agree with your points. Jimbo, even with the RAF conveniently out of the way your argument doesn't stand up. The Channel is not a river, its 25 plus miles wide with currents, tides and bad weather. [/b]
    All you need to do is deliver a three companies of tanks. The issue of the Channel is not can a ship manuever, it is can a ship hide once spotted. This is the problem of the Channel. Ships don't like you know where they are for good reason.

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 06:30 PM) [post=43337]It should also be remembered that German Paratroops only had light weapons. No guns, no antitank guns, no mortars, no spare ammunition, no transport. It would have been a debacle. [/b]
    Well, thats not true. Germany had a lot of large gliders, some that took three bombers to pull them. You could take those along with many other medium sized weapons on the schellboats. Look at what the allied paratroopers did in Normandy on D-Day. Once you take a port or an airfield you have everything in any quantities you desire. Plus evenutally you can get what you need in the British towns.

    (Glider @ Dec 18 2005, 06:30 PM) [post=43337]I forgot to add that you are putting a lot of faith in the fact that the Hiryu was near missed by 9 B17's. You should also remember that after the Hiryu was badly hit by the USN divebombers she was barely making headway, with serious fires and her flight deck smashed, she was attacked again by B17's. Even in this condition, they missed her again.
    [/b]
    This was before that. The sortie I was referring to was when they first saw it. Two days later they sent 16 to attack and they missed. That must have been the one you are speaking of. The one in that picture was under full speed. But, do you realize that the ME-109s were the first place they were called "Jabos"? They could be fitted with aerial bombs and hit moving tanks. But, you are putting faith in a ship that does not turn fast. It was fighter cover that kept the first attacks in Midway from succeeding. Once the fighter cover was pulled down three of the carriers were sunk by the next wave. Those are the same bombs bombers will drop. The delivery mechanism, be it Stuka, HE-111, JU-88 or ME-109 are going to sink them too. Without fighter cover, a ship has little defense.
     
  20. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    There is quite alot of interesting discussion here members. Some facts and figures I was looking for have come to light.

    My original post which I have not seen for a couple of days, was in hindsight, not as clear as I would have liked. It was common knowledge to me that Hitler would not have launched Sealion until Goerring could grant him Air Superiority as apart from total Air Supremacy.

    This was the criteria I was looking for and I apologise for not being explicit.

    The discussion if the above was achieved, could he?............

    1. How would he get the invasion forces to land?

    2. Could he defeat the less than 30 miles of the channel from mid September onwards.

    Cheers


    Geoff
     

Share This Page