I guess I am a little marveled that there is so much faith put in ships in WWII. And I am marveled that there is so much faith put in the Anti-ships capacity of the Lufwaffe, when historically that wasnt the case, especially in the summer of 1940. All you need to do is deliver a three companies of tanks. Lol. Sure. 60 German tanks to seize the entire English coast. Well, thats not true. Germany had a lot of large gliders, some that took three bombers to pull them. Definitively not in the summer of 1940. And definitively not after the losses they suffered in the Benelux.
(spidge @ Dec 19 2005, 06:57 AM) [post=43351]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 [/b] Hi Spidge 1. The Germans gathered something like 2,000 hastily converted barges and coupled pontoons, as well as 500 other crafts to carry the Invasion force. To support the weight of the guns and tanks, concrete was pumped into the bottoms of the barge hulls and sections of the bows were cut away and given ramps and opening doors. To propel the motorless pontoons and slow-moving canal and river barges, aircraft engines were given additional marine engines coupled to complicated drive systems. (source :Osprey Fortress 020 - British Home Defenses 1940-1945) 2. Well the main problem for the Germans was the fact that they would need 15 hours at best to cross the Channel and they would need calm weather. Problem is that from September to April, the Channel is experiencing bad weather: cloudy, chilly, windy (force 8 and above winds are not unusual). With the kind of barges they had, that would have been a disaster to attempt a crossing. Not to mention that they didnt have enough crews for their barges, tugs and motorboats.
(jimbotosome @ Dec 19 2005, 02:09 AM) [post=43339] (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. [/b]The Germans couldn't use glide bombs in 1940 for the obvious reason that they hadn't invented them yet. The first glide bombs were not used until mid-43 ps HMS Egret wasn't a capital ship. She was a sloop, a type of small escort destroyer
(Exxley @ Dec 19 2005, 09:08 AM) [post=43355] All you need to do is deliver a three companies of tanks. Lol. Sure. 60 German tanks to seize the entire English coast. [/b] The day after Dunkirk, the British army in the UK had, 52 Armoured cars 395 light tanks 72 infantry tanks (mainly Matilda MkII) 33 cruiser tanks 420 Field guns 163 Medium and heavy guns, These figures would have been increased by 3 months of production, for the Sealow landings
The attached is where the supposed divisions would land, form and proceed. Looks good on paper, what was there to stop them arriving on the beaches? What was going to stop them getting off the beaches? What was going to stop them when/if they left the beaches? I have attached a JPEG image I made up of the plans of the supposed invasion. View attachment 1396
(spidge @ Dec 19 2005, 01:00 PM) [post=43366]what was there to stop them arriving on the beaches? What was going to stop them getting off the beaches? What was going to stop them when/if they left the beaches? [/b] The British. The British. The British. images/smilies/default/cool.gif
3 companies of tanks, ok, well even if the Brits have no tanks left because they have been dive bombed. You show me on a map where these tanks land, and I will show you all the bridges, dikes and fords I blow up so their operational area is minimised. This is a very interesting thread. Regards MG
I just had a thought, from the further range of the North and North east where a lot of the RAF Bomber bases were would they not have gone all out to bomb the launching ports once the first recconnaisance came in of the Germans amphibious assault? Just a thought. I appreciate that now I have carefully read some of these posts, the ideas here are dependant on the "assumption" that the RAF is neutralised. Is this thread therefore a "What If" because the obvious missing link in all these threads is first we need to know HOW the RAF would be neutralised after the fall of Norway and before the onset of winter. Regards MG
The premise was indeed no RAF. No invasion could take place (in my opinion) regardless of size until the RAF was eliminated. Using history of the RAF (specifically Fighter Command), though they won the battles, they would lose the war because of attrition. It was August 25, 1940 when they were reputed to be "3 weeks from eradication" and London was accidentally bombed by that HE-111 pilot that got off course. This would still give them a year and a half to invade Britain who was relatively depleted of arms. We know the history that Schicklegrubber got angry at Winnie's slap in his face by bombing Berlin, but had Sir Winston have not sent the sortie to Berlin or Hitler had not gone nutso and started bombing London (i.e. stay the course and get rid of those fighters!) then we would have the scenario that so many have expressed here as ridiculous. Therefore the interesting discussion is what would it take to invade the island without the aid of the RAF fighters? I think it would have been very easy. To start with, send a handful of tanks to cover paratroopers and then you can capture airfields and ports and move the rest in at your leisure. What could the British have done at that point? They could take most airfields in hours (especially if there is no fighter cover) set up their many 20 mm cannons which would kill everything except a tank, and use the combination of tanks and Stukas to eradicate the few remaining British tanks just as they had done a bit earlier in France. Without your air force, without armor, without artillery Britain would have been able to defend herself with small arms held by citizens. The US could not come to her aid because they couldn’t launch strikes having no airfields in range. I think in order to evaluate this counterfactual you have to consider what would happen in a slow methodical way. You don’t need an OVERLORD type invasion nor even one that they had planned at the beginning. When air is gone (remember air is everything) then the Germans would have realized how vulnerable the island was and made a more reasonable invasion. Again, what choices would Britain have had? Had the RAF been eliminated, Hitler would have (or should have) delayed his attack on Russia to keep his forces together for each campaign. (redcoat @ Dec 19 2005, 06:18 AM) [post=43361]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'> ps HMS Egret wasn't a capital ship. She was a sloop, a type of small escort destroyer [/b] The objection to bombing is that they couldn't hit a large maneuvering ship. The sloop could maneuver faster than a big ship and would be much harder to hit. I don't care if it was easier to sink, just that it was harder to hit and it was argued that ships couldn't be hit by level bombers which is absolutely ridiculous.
(jimbotosome @ Dec 19 2005, 07:50 PM) [post=43389]The US could not come to her aid because they couldn’t launch strikes having no airfields in range. I think in order to evaluate this counterfactual you have to consider what would happen in a slow methodical way. You don’t need an OVERLORD type invasion nor even one that they had planned at the beginning. When air is gone (remember air is everything) then the Germans would have realized how vulnerable the island was and made a more reasonable invasion. Again, what choices would Britain have had? Had the RAF been eliminated, Hitler would have (or should have) delayed his attack on Russia to keep his forces together for each campaign. [/b] How about the fact that the USA were not at war with Germany to start with ? Air is everything ? yeah, well that's indeed a terrific way to debate history. Keeping posting the same mantra wont make it true. </div><div class='quotemain'>I think it would have been very easy. To start with, send a handful of tanks to cover paratroopers and then you can capture airfields and ports and move the rest in at your leisure. What could the British have done at that point? They could take most airfields in hours (especially if there is no fighter cover) set up their many 20 mm cannons which would kill everything except a tank, and use the combination of tanks and Stukas to eradicate the few remaining British tanks just as they had done a bit earlier in France. Without your air force, without armor, without artillery Britain would have been able to defend herself with small arms held by citizens. [/b] And we're supposed to think the RN would have sat on their hands all the time ? Same goes for the British Army ? Do you really want to seriously debate or it this just the written expression of some hidden lunacies ?
</div><div class='quotemain'> (redcoat @ Dec 19 2005, 06:18 AM) [post=43361]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'> ps HMS Egret wasn't a capital ship. She was a sloop, a type of small escort destroyer [/b] The objection to bombing is that they couldn't hit a large maneuvering ship. The sloop could maneuver faster than a big ship and would be much harder to hit. I don't care if it was easier to sink, just that it was harder to hit and it was argued that ships couldn't be hit by level bombers which is absolutely ridiculous. [/b]The point is... She was sunk by a weapon that didn't exist in 1940
I found this post by the American poster T.A. Gardner on the MilitaryHistoryOnline site. Its a good account of the actual Sealow plan </div><div class='quotemain'>Assuming that the German invasion forces arrive materially intact (a really big stretch) off England in September (the earliest invasion date possible) the line up would have looked something like this: Three landing beaches were to be used: Folkestone - St. Leonards Bexhill - Eastbourne Beachy Head - Brighton These were not mutually supporting so the Germans would be landing at three seperate locations and the British would have to respond likewise. For these three beaches the following troops would be landing: Folkestone: 1 regiment each from 4 divisions of 16th Army for a total of 26, 800 troops. Support would be limited to a battery of artillery per regiment and a single battalion of tanks. Bexhill: 1 regiment each from 2 divisions of 9th Army totalling 13,400 troops. Support as above. Beachy Head: 1 regiment each from 3 divisions of 9th Army totalling 20,100 men with similar support to the above. The estimated landing time of this force once assembled off the beaches was expected to be 72 hours. Behing the Folkestowe beachhead portions of 7th Fallschirmjäger division would be dropped. Each beachhead would have about 1000 to 1500 paratroops supporting it. These troops would have landed with nothing larger than small arms. This initial drop (the Germans lack sufficent aircraft to lift the entire division in one drop) would be followed by at least 2 others bringing the entire complement of the division over about 2 days. Supporting the beachheads from the sea would be nothing larger than motor coasters and small combatant craft with nothing larger than a 37mm gun. The KM specifically indicated that they could provide no artillery fire support from the sea. The primary weakness of this plan, aside from the inevidible disorganization accompanying the landings, was simply its slow rate of build-up. In all likelihood the British would have had as much as a week or more to counter the initial landing wave. First, the British would have had as much as 96 hours warning of the invasion fleet being underway (expected crossing times per German estimates). Then, the fleet would have to assemble off shore before landing. The alternative is the Germans land as they arrive. If the Germans choose the later option they are landing by companies and platoons over a 3 to 5 day period to get just the first wave ashore. On the British side: The British had in September 26 divisions available in the whole of England. Of these, about a third were actually fully combat capable. Backing these up were the usual smaller units that fill out an army. In addition, there were about 1 million men registered with the Home Guard. These, of course, are of uncertain quality and equipage but, they still represent a sizable force for the Germans to deal with. Equipment of the later in particular is always interesting if not completely useful. Some of the various improvisations and weapons issued included: The Blacker Bombard, Smith gun, Northover projector and, Beaverette armored car. Some Home Guard built catapults and the like from local materials. Others did things like referbish the odd WW I tank from some war memorial or such. The British did have it right more or less where the landings would have occured. Thus, the Germans coming ashore faced obstacles, barbed wire and, mines on the beaches they were to land on. Additionally, the British would have initially opposed the landings with 2 fully equipped divisions and a nealy fully equipped armored brigade. Unlike the Germans, the British would have had good artillery and anti-aircraft support. So, the Germans would have faced an opposed landing at each beachhead. Nothing on the scale of Normandy but, likely sufficent to prevent the Germans doing much more than trying to secure the beachhead in the first couple of days. After that, if the Germans are ashore in sufficent strength, they might have been able to hold the beachhead while a second wave is brought over. This requires holding out without substancial reinforcement or supply for about 7 to 10 days (the vessels have to sail back to the continent, load and, then return....3 days back, 1 or 2 to load, 3 days to return minimum). [/b]
Jimbo Your premise seems to be based on Level Bombers Which never badly damaged a single capital ship of any side using gravity bombs. You then base the attack on Glider bombs that didn't exist. By the way the Egret had a top speed of 19 knots, there are better examples of the Glider bomb if you want to use them, but I will let you find them. While I am on this, you called my statement ridiculous may I ask you to withdraw that comment of give an example. Just to make it clear a Capital ship is BB or BC and the reason is that they are designed to take hits from shells that weigh a ton and a half carrying large amounts of explosive. A 500lb bomb is going to do nothing you need a large bomb. As it happens I also believe that you will find it difficult to find many examples of smaller ships such as DD's that were hit by level bombers at altitude. Or you base them on types of bombs that either a) didn't exist or images/smilies/default/cool.gif were never used with any success. Dive Bombers Which could work I will give you that since you have left out the RAF Fighter bombers a) the bombs were too small against capital ships. images/smilies/default/cool.gif they would be to valuble to throw away Shore Batteries That never hit anything in the entire war at any distance. PS even the Bismark Hood battle started at 15 miles, not the 20-30 you are talking about. The only long range daylight battleship battle was between the Warspite and Vittorio Vento, Andria Doria and Cesare. All the vessels were either Brand New or had been updated with the very latest fire control equipment far in excess of that fitted to a land battery. All the ships fought for approx 3 hours firing off the majority of their ammunition. The Italians missed completely and the Warspite hit the Italians once. Shore batteries will hit nothing at that range. Remember that BB's are designed to take these hits. It would hurt, but unless you are unlucky it takes a lot more than one to sink or stop a ship of this type. Gliders The only German gliders at the time carried 8 people and no cargo. So you have no guns bulk supplies, 20mm or heavy weapons. Airborne Forces Without support of any meaningful nature. I don't know if you have ever been in a Ju52 but they are no Dakota. Their small, narrow and tight for space, pretty useless for cargo. Crossing the Channel In perfect weather, on boats not designed for the job or on tank Landing craft that didn't exist in Germany. On the Channel stopping the RN from taking evasive action The channel is wide enought for evasive action. Its only narrow at one point and even there you have around 10 miles width to operate in. On U Boats That never operated in the Channel because its shallow, has strong Currents and large tides. (sound familiar). If they did then our A/s forces were the best in the world so it wouldn't be a walk over for them. On the German Navy That was toothless at this time On German E Boats That were small in number operating against well equipped RN forces who are fighting on their own neck of the woods. We had about 90 MTBs in the area waiting for the Germans and they would have been deadly at night. The Germans had far less and its much easier to attack at night than defend. On Flares at night!! All flares at night do is sillouette your ships for the enemy. We tried a similar tactic against U Boats it was called snowflake and it was a positive boon for the U Boats. It was quickly stopped. Enigma This wasn't just used for long range communications, It was used to communicate to all naval vessels, Airforce units and army units. It would have helped us significantly. Radar You didn't mention this but you seem to assume that it isn't working. A company of tanks Who will grind to a halt without support, maintanence, spare parts large amounts of Ammo and Fuel, Thats ignoring the defences and accidents that happen in these situations such as getting bogged down on a beach, bridges failing etc. I have tried to debate your points with examples of the real world and/or similar/relevant situations that had a bearing on the point in question. Can you supply similar real examples to support your views?
(Max (UK) @ Dec 20 2005, 02:57 AM) [post=43374](spidge @ Dec 19 2005, 01:00 PM) [post=43366]what was there to stop them arriving on the beaches? What was going to stop them getting off the beaches? What was going to stop them when/if they left the beaches? [/b] The British. The British. The British. images/smilies/default/cool.gif [/b] Very succinct Max however you should not forget your allies. New Zealand Nearly 20,000 men embarked for overseas service in 2 NZEF. The First and Third Echelons landed in Egypt but the Second Echelon, on the high seas when Germany invaded France, was diverted to the United Kingdom and landed in Scotland on 16 June 1940. Australia The 25th Brigade was created in England in June 1940 from extra troops attached to 18th Brigade which was also in England. Various corps and army troops began to form after this division was raised. Canadian 56,000 in Aldershot. 1st Canadian Infantry Division arrived in Aldershot in December 1939 2nd Canadian Infantry Division started arriving in July-August 1940 French 140,000 troops extricated from Dunkirk Also a collection of other European and Commonwealth forces which I do not have the figures on. (anybody?) 25th June 1940....The Allied evacuation of France ends with a further 215,000 servicemen and civilians saved, but Operations 'Aerial' and 'Cycle' never capture the public's imagination like the 'miracle' of Dunkirk. Some troops were sent back to fight for French ports where most were killed or captured.
(Tonym @ Dec 14 2005, 02:25 AM) [post=43086]The impression that I get from the original questioners comments is that we were all quivering with fear at the prospect of a German invasion after Dunkirk. Far from it, concerned proberbly, but the British character was, and hopefully still is, a bit more resourceful than the precise German Military Machine. After all who brought all those troops back from the beaches of Dunkirk, a fair number of militarily untrained civilians had a bit of a hand in it and a few thousand other civilians did not buckle under the bombings of London, Coventry, Liverpool, etc.. He might have gained a foothold but life would not have been easy for him I am convinced that the British Resistance would have prevailed. The Romans gave up only the Normans succeeded but then we are their descendents. Keep in mind also that Hitler was looking over his shoulder towards the Russians at his rear. Sorry, but I am still convinced that we may have struggled for a bit but still would have won. I was there and knew how my colleagues felt. Tonym [/b] Hi TonyM, Wrong impression totally. The British heirarchy was a little more than concerned with good cause because they knew the state of affairs and knew that Britain was as vulnerable as it had ever been since 1066. The question is a hyperthetical pure and simple based on something that did not happen, not something that may have altered an outcome. With air supremacy, could the Sealion invasion have succeeded? Besides the tenacity of the "British Bulldog" what plans were in place to disrupt those intentions.
Jimbo Your premise seems to be based on Level Bombers Which never badly damaged a single capital ship of any side using gravity bombs. You then base the attack on Glider bombs that didn't exist. By the way the Egret had a top speed of 19 knots, there are better examples of the Glider bomb if you want to use them, but I will let you find them. While I am on this, you called my statement ridiculous may I ask you to withdraw that comment of give an example. Just to make it clear a Capital ship is BB or BC and the reason is that they are designed to take hits from shells that weigh a ton and a half carrying large amounts of explosive. A 500lb bomb is going to do nothing you need a large bomb. As it happens I also believe that you will find it difficult to find many examples of smaller ships such as DD's that were hit by level bombers at altitude. I called the idea that level bombers could not sink ships ridiculous, because that’s what it is. A level bomber can carry anything a dive bomber can internally and externally. Why don’t you bomber-scoffers understand that? Bombs don’t need to be dropped in a vertical dive to hit vertically. It’s absurd to think that a large plane cannot drop what a small plane can. You can fit any type of bomb rack you need and you can load a weapon with more weight or charge to get the desired penetration and secondary explosion you need. There are major cases of ships bigger than the English capital ships being sunk by a single bomb from a level bomber. You might have heard of it. You can go to GoogleEarth and see it still in the water. It’s called the USS Arizona (31,400 tons). So can we please quit arguing about whether level bombers can hit large battleships and sink them too? The Japanese and US Navies would greatly disagree with the idea that level bombers possess some kind of weakness that precludes them from dropping as heavy or heavier ordinance than dive bombers. I thought Billy Mitchell pretty much proved that planes have obsoleted ships back in the 1920s by his demostration that level bombers (all they had back then) could sink heavy warships. Seems like there is a belief here (though you are not the only one to believe it) that bombers didn’t sink ships because they couldn’t. The reality is that ships rarely if ever came in range of land bombers. As a captain you can’t afford to be bombed. This is a fact. Don’t forget, at night, the Germans could drop a slew of magnetic mines all around any ship in the channel so even near misses will find their marks and punch big holes in the sides. The manifold existant options and the fact that the Germans were cleaver at adapting weapons tell me that the ships simply better stay out of the Channel. Dive Bombers Which could work I will give you that since you have left out the RAF That was the premise. Germany had many dive bombers. Fighter bombers a) the bombs were too small against capital ships. images/smilies/default/cool.gif they would be to valuble to throw away I don’t know the useful load of the Jabos (ME-109 Fighter/bombers) but I know that the Allied fighter bombers could carry as much as 3500 lbs. That’s more than any dive bomber could carry. One bomb is all you need. Put it on one of the magazines, the boilers, or the fuel supply and you can take the largest ships down to the bottom. Gliders The only German gliders at the time carried 8 people and no cargo. So you have no guns bulk supplies, 20mm or heavy weapons. No actually this is not true. They also had the ME 321 Gigant and the motorized version the ME 323 which could carry a medium tank or an 88 and its hauler or 120 men. I think you would want to use the 323 as long as you had the element of surprise and night and the towed gliders in the day. This should be able to get some Pzkpfw IVs across pretty quick. Once armor is on the island its pretty much finished. Airborne Forces Without support of any meaningful nature. I don't know if you have ever been in a Ju52 but they are no Dakota. Their small, narrow and tight for space, pretty useless for cargo. I figure they would do what the US did and use bombers for transport of supplies dropping them from canisters. But you don’t need a lot, as you start to take the towns you can get just about everything you need. Crossing the Channel In perfect weather, on boats not designed for the job or on tank Landing craft that didn't exist in Germany. They could have gotten them from the Italians. We know they had plenty. But if you capture a port it does not matter what kind of ship you use. On the Channel stopping the RN from taking evasive action The channel is wide enought for evasive action. Its only narrow at one point and even there you have around 10 miles width to operate in. The issue was not maneuverability it was the ability to hide. That’s a ships only defense from air. On U Boats That never operated in the Channel because its shallow, has strong Currents and large tides. (sound familiar). If they did then our A/s forces were the best in the world so it wouldn't be a walk over for them. The channel was at least 100 feet deep all the way down it. On the German Navy That was toothless at this time Oh, I don’t know. The Bismarck could do some damage. She was highly sought after. Seems the RN feared her. The Schnellboats could launch torpedoes that could take ships down. Once you disable one, you can take your time. On German E Boats That were small in number operating against well equipped RN forces who are fighting on their own neck of the woods. We had about 90 MTBs in the area waiting for the Germans and they would have been deadly at night. The Germans had far less and its much easier to attack at night than defend. I believe the Germans had the best and fastest torp boats in the war. But you have to remember that the Germans have the advantage of attack. Any E-boats escorting ships could be easily sunk by fighters. All small supply ships that the large ships need for survival would be taken out quickly. On Flares at night!! All flares at night do is sillouette your ships for the enemy. We tried a similar tactic against U Boats it was called snowflake and it was a positive boon for the U Boats. It was quickly stopped. Yes, the Germans had them too. They would have helped bombers and the schellboats launch torpedoes, but subs can usually see silhouettes at night just using moonlight. But remember, if you claim they can’t see you then you must claim you can’t see the invasion force until it is too late. Enigma This wasn't just used for long range communications, It was used to communicate to all naval vessels, Airforce units and army units. It would have helped us significantly. I don’t think it matters how you use it. You can broadcast out in the open. Not like the British could react without the RAF. Radar You didn't mention this but you seem to assume that it isn't working. With the RAF gone, what good is radar going to do. The biggest problem you will have is tanks moving in on another airbase or seaport or taking control of major cities. A company of tanks Who will grind to a halt without support, maintanence, spare parts large amounts of Ammo and Fuel, Thats ignoring the defences and accidents that happen in these situations such as getting bogged down on a beach, bridges failing etc. The purpose of the tanks is to protect the airborne troops opening the ports. Once a port is open for business you can bring in anything and everything you need. But the massive amounts of transport planes and gliders would all your to bring over most things. I have tried to debate your points with examples of the real world and/or similar/relevant situations that had a bearing on the point in question. Can you supply similar real examples to support your views? Will those do?
The Gigant wasn't around in 1940, the prototype only flew in the middle of 1941 so the Germans would have had no large capacity glider avaliable for Sealion. Jim read the quote about port capacities even with the ports opened there would not have been nearly enough supplies for the Germans to sustain the invasion. The tanks would have ground to a halt had the ports taken longer than anticipated to open and remember the Germans still had no anti-tank gun that could take out the Matilda II ("The Queen of the Desert") as the '88' hadn't been used in that role yet. As a result get a few Matildas close to the beachheads and you have a situation similar to that with the Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers could have had in Normandy. The British would have done everything they could to stop the invasion succeeding and with the initial plan for the invasion even with no RAF, their chances of repelling the invasion if they organised correctly were very high.
Gnomey is right, the Gigant did not get delivered operationally until May 1942. Here is a link ot info about the transport : http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me323.html
No actually this is not true. They also had the ME 321 Gigant and the motorized version the ME 323 which could carry a medium tank or an 88 and its hauler or 120 men. I think you would want to use the 323 as long as you had the element of surprise and night and the towed gliders in the day. This should be able to get some Pzkpfw IVs across pretty quick. Once armor is on the island its pretty much finished. Both were not available until 1941. They could have gotten them from the Italians. We know they had plenty. But if you capture a port it does not matter what kind of ship you use. Ever heard of some place called Gibraltar ? The issue was not maneuverability it was the ability to hide. That’s a ships only defense from air. Lol. Oh, I don’t know. The Bismarck could do some damage. She was highly sought after. Seems the RN feared her. She was not combat ready until 1941. I have tried to debate your points with examples of the real world and/or similar/relevant situations that had a bearing on the point in question. Can you supply similar real examples to support your views? Will those do? And where are the real examples, especially those involving the anti-ships capability of the Luftwaffe and the expertise of Germans on conducting amphibious operations ? All we have is the proof that some people do live in a different timeline/World.
