# Landing Craft



## syscom3 (Oct 2, 2006)

Post your information for all the boats and vehicals used in WW2 for amphib warfare. For those of you that still think the Germans could have have invaded England, these are the craft they didnt have to be able to pull the invasion off.

I will start with his one. Perhaps one of the most important 'craft" developed in WW2. It revolutionized logistics as it could take the material directly from a larger ship inland. This advoided the time consuming and inefficent offloading on a beach and then reloading on terrestial trucks.

The DUKW (popularly pronounced DUCK) is a six-wheel-drive amphibious truck that was originally designed inside General Motors Corporation during World War II for transporting goods and troops over land and water and for use approaching and crossing beaches in amphibious attacks.

Its designation as a DUKW is not a military pun, the name comes from the terminology used for military vehicles in World War II; the D indicates a vehicle designed in 1942, the U meant "utility (amphibious)", the K indicated all-wheel drive and the W indicated two powered rear axles. The DUKW was built around a conventional six-wheel-drive military truck called the CCKW, with the addition of a watertight hull and a propeller. The vehicle was built by the GMC division of General Motors (called Yellow Truck and Coach at the beginning of the war). It was powered by a GMC Straight-6 engine of 270 in³ (4.4 L). The DUKW weighed 7.5 tons and operated at 6.4 mph (10 km/h) on water and 50 mph (80 km/h) on land. It was 31 feet (9.3 m) long, 8.25 feet (2.4 m) wide, and 8.8 feet (2.6 m) high with the folding-canvas top up. More than 21,000 were manufactured. Contrary to its outward appearance it was not an armored vehicle, being plated with sheet steel between 1/16" and 1/8" thick to keep the weight down. A high-capacity bilge pump system kept the DUKW afloat if the thin hull was breached by holes up to a couple inches in diameter.

The DUKW was the first vehicle to allow the driver to vary the tire pressure from inside the cab, an accomplishment of Speir's devise. The tires could be fully inflated for hard surfaces such as roads and less inflated for softer surfaces—especially beach sand. This added to the DUKW's great versatility as an amphibious vehicle. This feature is now standard on many military vehicles.

The DUKW was used in landings in the Pacific, in North Africa, and on the D-Day beaches of Normandy. With the enemy holding all available ports, *DUKWs carried 18 million tons of supplies ashore in the 90 days following the landing *

The DUKW's ability to board and debark without assistance via way of an LST's ramp enabled the ship to anchor offshore, thereby reducing reef and beach congestion and lessened the danger of enemy fire on ship and personnel. Furthermore, the hybrid's ability to cross coral reefs and sandy beaches and then proceed inland to wherever supplies were needed saved what would otherwise have been countless man-hours of handling supplies. The DUKW's versatility forestalled the necessity to bring heavy transport vehicles ashore during early stages of invasions, further reducing island and beach congestion. 

Rated capacity – 5000 lbs.
270 cid 6–cylinder GMC motor.
Weight 14,800–Lbs.
Rated at, governed, 6.4 mph water and 50 mph land.
21,000+ manufactured–WWII only.
$10,800.00 cost.
Marines–two man crew, driver and assistant driver.
Tire inflation/deflation by driver from inside cab.
First operational use in Pacific at Noumea, 1943, in Europe at Sicily, 1943.

D-Day info:
D Day Tanks and countdown to 60th anniversary of D-Day from the Tank Museum Bovington

USMC info:
MARINE DUKWS IN WWII


----------



## MacArther (Oct 2, 2006)

I know that rockets were tested as weapons for the DUKW's but was there any sort of "normal" weapon's fit for defense or suppression fire? Also, do you know what kind of personal weapons were usually carried by the crews of the DUKWs?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 2, 2006)

Ive seen specifications for the provisionng of a single .50 MG. Generally, they were not armed as they were not intended to be assaulting defended beaches.


----------



## Hunter368 (Oct 2, 2006)

Good thread idea syscom. Educational, keep it coming. Amphibious warfair 101 we can call it.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2006)

These are quite an interesting type of landing craft. In fact, they were indispensible in helping the allies to get tanks and heavy eqmt ashore quickly. Several types were made, but all did the same thing. As I keep saying, the Germans didnt have these types of boats to transport their heavy eqmt and tanks right up onto an unimproved beach. This is further proof that their planned invasion of England was not going to work. And its further evidence of the superior logistical system of the US and UK.

World War II LCTs
Landing craft tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the evacuation from Dunkirk it was seen that the only feasible way for the Allies to fight in Europe was by landing on its beaches. Churchill's suggestion for a boat capable of carrying one or more tanks led to a concerted approach to designs for "Combined Operations" craft. British constructors met in mid 1940 and drew up designs that led to one of them, Hawthorn Leslie, producing the first "Tank Landing Craft" in November 1940. This was the LCT Mk I also recorded as "LCT(1)".

The LCT was produced in several configurations, the two US ones were the Mark V and Mark VI. LCT Mk Vs had only a bow ramp while LCT Mk VIs had both bow and stern ramps. They were much smaller than the Landing ship, Tank (or LST), a larger amphibious assault ship for landing tanks which was capable of hauling and launching an LCT. They were unarmored and only lightly armed. LCT were not given names, only numbers. A large number were given through lend-lease to the UK and a small number to the USSR.

Besides being used to transport tanks, men or supplies, the LCT was a suitable platform for conversion and were modified for special duties for the invasion of Normandy in June 1944. To provide anti-aircraft protection for the convoys and during the assault itself several LCTs were converted into floating AA batteries, the LCT(4) conversions receiving the new designation LCF(4) "Landing Craft, Flak" and so forth. Some LCTs were fitted with guns or rockets (the later becoming Landing Craft, Tank (Rocket)) or as repair barges or minesweepers. Twenty-six of them had armor added, making them LCT(A), Landing Craft Tank (Armored) however, this reduced their load from 4 tanks to 3.

Production
US Production: A total of 1,435 of these craft were built, including 965 built during WWII. Most of the US LCT's were built at the Darby Steel Plant in the West Bottoms of Kansas City, Kansas. The ships were then floated more than 1,000 miles down the Missouri and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans, Louisiana prompting the ships to be nicknamed the "Prairie Ships."

UK production: 864 LCT(4)s were built. A British LCT, HM LCT (3) 7074 is owned by the Warship Preservation Trust and moored on the Wirral in England.

Note - I found the picture of the LCT being offloaded from the LST interesting, as my neighbor (who was an WW2 LST crewman) told me that their voyage from Pearl Harbor to the Philipines involved them carrying an LCT (or LCI) out there for the planned invasion of Japan. 

Note - MK4's were UK built. MK5's were US Built

LCT Mk IV specifications
Length: 185.5 ft long 
Draught: about 3 ft 
Capacity: 9 M4 Sherman or 9 Cromwell tanks or 6 Churchill tanks, or 300 tons of cargo. 
Armament: as the LCF(4): 8 20 mm Oerlikon cannon, 4 2pdr (40 mm) Pom-Pom (gun)s. 

LCT Mk V specifications
Displacement: 133 tons (135 t), 286 (291 t) tons (landing) 
Length: 117 ft (35.7 m) 
Beam: 32 ft (9.8 m) 
Draft: 2 ft 10 in (0.9 m) forward, 4 ft 2 in (1.3 m) aft (landing) 
Speed: 8 knots (15 km/h) 
Armament: 2 x 20 mm 
Complement: 1 officer, 12 enlisted 
Capacity: 5 x 30-ton (27 t) or 4 x 40-ton (36 t) or 3 x 50-ton (45 t) tanks; or 9 trucks; or 150 short tons (136 t) cargo 
3 Gray 225 hp (168 kW) diesels; triple screws


----------



## HealzDevo (Oct 8, 2006)

Don't forget that German Vehicle, the jeep like one with the propeller that can go in water. I have temporarily forgotten its name. But it counts as amphibious.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 8, 2006)

Schimmwagen.

VW-Schwimmwagen type 166 - The Schwimmwagen Registry
VW-Schwimmwagen type 166 - The Schwimmwagen Registry


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 8, 2006)

never seen that one before! hardly a landing craft though........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 8, 2006)

I hardly think that can be seriously considered as usefull in an amphib invasion.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 9, 2006)

Lemme refrase that question about the DUKW, I had seen it mentioned as having been used by the British with Rockets, flamethrowers, and other weapons later in the War in the European theatre. Any idea if there were actual designations for these fittings, or if they were field fits?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2006)

It was not meant for amphibious invasions but rather for crossing rivers during attacks.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 9, 2006)

MacArther said:


> Lemme refrase that question about the DUKW, I had seen it mentioned as having been used by the British with Rockets, flamethrowers, and other weapons later in the War in the European theatre. Any idea if there were actual designations for these fittings, or if they were field fits?


I've been interested in British armour since I was little, yet I've never come across any reference to the DUKW being fitted with rockets, or any other weapon, while in British service.


----------



## maxs75 (Oct 11, 2006)

> First operational use in Pacific at Noumea, 1943, in Europe at Sicily, 1943.



What kind of use in Noumea? It was in allied hand since 1942, a major Us navy port.

Max


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2006)

maxs75 said:


> What kind of use in Noumea? It was in allied hand since 1942, a major Us navy port.
> 
> Max



It meant they were first used in New Caledonia in 1943 to help offlaod allied shipping.

That statement didnt imply they were used in combat situations.


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 26, 2006)

What was the name of the British landing craft on D-day? It wasent the Higgins boats as the doors opend sidewards.


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 28, 2006)

Probably you are thinking of LANDING CRAFT, INFANTRY (LARGE)

Ladders were lowered from either side of the bow for the troops to offload.

Have a look at D-Day : Normandie 1944 - L'assaut sur OMAHA Beach

Gives the listing of every type and images used on D-Day.

Should answer the quenstion.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 29, 2006)

the usmc has a new amtrac coming out, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle... it's been "coming out" since about 1994... pretty high speed but has lots of opponents. It's engine's almost twice as powerful as an abrams tank, has a 30mm gun, and can move over water at about 30knots i think.

Direct Reporting Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault


----------



## HealzDevo (Oct 30, 2006)

I would like to say that the DUKW would have been launched from a parent boat. The DUKW wouldn't have been in the water the whole time. My thoughts are that the Germans would have used swimmingwagens for those troops that needed to react with speed such as the advance guard. Then I imagine they would have had Kubelwagens as well. The Swimmingwagens would have been put ashore as an advance guard while the rest were unloading. I assume that the Germans would have been able to build transports for their tanks if they had the need. Although it was never clear on either side exactly what objections there were against the Germans being able to transport their tanks to another shore. We do know that there were German tanks in Japan at the close of WW2 from some photos.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I would like to say that the DUKW would have been launched from a parent boat. The DUKW wouldn't have been in the water the whole time. My thoughts are that the Germans would have used swimmingwagens for those troops that needed to react with speed such as the advance guard. Then I imagine they would have had Kubelwagens as well. The Swimmingwagens would have been put ashore as an advance guard while the rest were unloading. I assume that the Germans would have been able to build transports for their tanks if they had the need. Although it was never clear on either side exactly what objections there were against the Germans being able to transport their tanks to another shore. We do know that there were German tanks in Japan at the close of WW2 from some photos.



There is no indication or evidence that Germans had under development the many types of landing craft needed to support a major amphib invasion.

The DUKW alone ranks as an outstanding development for the allies.

Its all about logistics and the kubelwagon and Swimmingwagens could hardly have expected to provide a meaningfull contribution.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 1, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Probably you are thinking of LANDING CRAFT, INFANTRY (LARGE)
> 
> Ladders were lowered from either side of the bow for the troops to offload.
> 
> ...



No that isnt it. Ill look for a pic but if you've played Medal Of HONOR Frontline theres a clip with some British troops disenbarking from a Boat about the size of a Higgins boat, but the doors are opening sidewards


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 1, 2006)

LCA: Landing Craft Assault







Landing Craft Assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Twitch (Nov 1, 2006)

It all becomes quaite a moot point in that we have such stunning 20/20 hindsight.



In the mid 1930s no one had the slightest idea how anything would play out or what should or shouldn't be prioritized. 

Had wacky Adolph and his band of merry men focused on a few key items of contention in pre-war times it is completely silly to imagine that German industry under Speer could not create something Hitler set his mind to. If he had envisioned der Kampf including an invasion of GB he would have set in motion the procurement of the required materiel and vehicles.

Since the thrust of armchair hindsight always points its crooked, accusing finger at the Germans, lets look at the Brits on equal terms in 1940. After all, how many LCAs did GB have early on? Thay had nine LCAs and two LCMs which whisked away a grand total of 2,000 of the 300,000 men at Dunkirk. Whoop-dee-doo!

Simply because they didn't does not mean they couldn't.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2006)

The point of my thread is to show the many varied amphib craft that the allies possesed to make their invasions successfull.

It is also to show people that the Germans did not possess these types in 1940/1941, and thus could not have invaded the UK.

In the 1930's, the USN and USMC did foresee the need for specialized landing craft, and put into motion the designs and doctrine for their use. The Germans didnt.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 2, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> LCA: Landing Craft Assault
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO NO NO! the doors open _sidewards_


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 2, 2006)

They do, it splits in the middle and one goes to the left and the other to the right like normal double dorrs...


----------



## mkloby (Nov 2, 2006)

an amphibious invasion could still be possible even w/o the types of landing craft and amtracs that we used. It would be much more difficult, however - and would likely result in particular vulnerability establishing a beachead with mass casualties - even more so than w/ landing craft. They would have to have been very creative, however, in their overall strategy, and augmented their landings with heavy use of air transport. The losses in the nowweigan campaign were considerable, which is why they needed complete air superiority and the Royal Navy to not be in any position to contest the landings. The British Army was in rough shape at that time, seeing that they abandoned most of their heavy equipment and gear in the evac. I don't personally think that the plan would have been successful, but there's alwyas that chance... if they won the BoB... but the lack of landing craft wouldn't automatically negate any chance on a successful invasion.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2006)

> an amphibious invasion could still be possible even w/o the types of landing craft and amtracs that we used. It would be much more difficult, however - and would likely result in particular vulnerability establishing a beachead with mass casualties - even more so than w/ landing craft. They would have to have been very creative, however, in their overall strategy, and augmented their landings with heavy use of air transport. The losses in the nowweigan campaign were considerable, which is why they needed complete air superiority and the Royal Navy to not be in any position to contest the landings. The British Army was in rough shape at that time, seeing that they abandoned most of their heavy equipment and gear in the evac. I don't personally think that the plan would have been successful, but there's alwyas that chance... if they won the BoB... but the lack of landing craft wouldn't automatically negate any chance on a successful invasion.



The Germans had difficult obstacles to overcome.

1) Their lack of a capability for sustained logistical supply over unimproved beaches
2) The british would be fighting from short lines of supply on their own soil
3) The BA was getting stronger weekly since Dunkirk 
4) The RAF could still operate at night with impunity and hammer at the German beaches and ports.
5) The Germans had a very narrow window of opportunity in 1940 to get a beachhead established before the autumn weather set in.
6) For all practical purposes, there was no airlift possible by the Luftwaffe to supply the ground forces.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

While I agree that the invasion was not possible without proper landing craft which they had and even if they had conducted a landing the logistics would ahve been to difficult to overcome, the part that I do not agree with is the lack of airlift capability.

The Germans had plenty of Ju-52s, more than eneogh to conduct airlift to supply there forces.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While I agree that the invasion was not possible without proper landing craft which they had and even if they had conducted a landing the logistics would ahve been to difficult to overcome, the part that I do not agree with is the lack of airlift capability.
> 
> The Germans had plenty of Ju-52s, more than eneogh to conduct airlift to supply there forces.



I dont think they had enough airlift to provide the POL's that the mechanized units would need. That is bulky and heavy, and used quickly.

Same for the ammo for the artillery


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

They had 1000s of Ju-52 and then there were plenty of other aircraft that could carry heavy equipment as well. The Ju-52 alone could carry 10,000lb of cargo.

Oh and syscom using your logic from the How Safe is your city thread, since you dont have a degree in anything aeronautical, marine or military or combat experience, you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Please stop...

By the way syscom, I am basically just echoeing you here. Do you realize how childish you come across when you say the things you did in that thread.

Probably not, the ego is in the way...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

While we are still on this topic.

The Me-323 first flew in 1941. It could have been pressed into service quicker than 1942 if needed for larger cargo operations.

Same thing with the Ar-232 and the Ju-252, Me-321,


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 3, 2006)

LMFAO


Syscom I think you pissed Chris off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

No I am just playing his childish game.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 3, 2006)

i'm with syscom on this one, the RAF wouldn't exactily be willing to let jerry be re-supplied from the air, the LW would have been even more stretched by having to defend the transports, the germans would hold a long thin foothold some some supplies would've ended up in the channel, others in the hands of the British, what's more the germans had no real means of distributing the supplies they have, they would be using up ammo at a massive rate!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2006)

> They had 1000s of Ju-52 and then there were plenty of other aircraft that could carry heavy equipment as well. The Ju-52 alone could carry 10,000lb of cargo.



Rounding off some numbers, that means the -52 would only be able to supply approx 1200 gallons per sortie. Since mechanized units use the fuel up a prodigious rate, that means lots of -52's would have had to be pressed into service just suppling the trucks and tanks.

Now consider the ammunition loads that the German artillery would expend every day, that alone would require lots of air transport.

Its possible the -52's would have been able to "add" to the logistics equation, but I dont think they could provide substantial help.




> Oh and syscom using your logic from the How Safe is your city thread, since you dont have a degree in anything aeronautical, marine or military or combat experience, you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Please stop...



I'm just doing some basic math here, and analyzing the inputs of others to form an educated opinion. Lanc (or was it Glider?) for example pointed out the RAF would move outside of the Luftwaffe fighter range and then attack the German invasion forces at opportune times. I factored that into the Germans having an attritional factor that would weigh heavily on them. Plus the BA was pointed out as being recovering from the Dunkirk retreat and was re-equiping at a good rate. That means the German invasion would be contested and not a walk over. Lots of things to factor into this.

It looks like a German invasion of England in 1940 or 1941 was going to fail completely on the lack of staying power once ashore. Just like an allied invasion in 1942 or 1943 was going to be defeated.



> By the way syscom, I am basically just echoeing you here. Do you realize how childish you come across when you say the things you did in that thread.
> 
> Probably not, the ego is in the way...



Echo if you must. 

It doesnt bother me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> i'm with syscom on this one, the RAF wouldn't exactily be willing to let jerry be re-supplied from the air, the LW would have been even more stretched by having to defend the transports, the germans would hold a long thin foothold some some supplies would've ended up in the channel, others in the hands of the British, what's more the germans had no real means of distributing the supplies they have, they would be using up ammo at a massive rate!



Oh dont take me wrong. As I stated I dont think the Germans logistically could have done it. I am just saying that air resupply would have been the least of there problems if and I repeat if they had air supperiority.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> It looks like a German invasion of England in 1940 or 1941 was going to fail completely on the lack of staying power once ashore. Just like an allied invasion in 1942 or 1943 was going to be defeated.



And I agreed to that. I said logistically it was not going to happen.





syscom3 said:


> Echo if you must.
> 
> It doesnt bother me.



Sure it does, dont lie. It bruises your ego...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2006)

> Oh dont take me wrong. As I stated I dont think the Germans logistically could have done it. I am just saying that air resupply would have been the least of there problems if and I repeat if they had air supperiority.



Didnt the Luftwaffe resupply of the surrounded units at Stalingrad not live up to promises? Not because of the scale of the supply that had to be done, but poorly planned loading manifests meant vital supplies were not being delivered and high attrition rates greatly reduced the sortie rates?

I dont even think the Allied resupply of the troops in Market-Garden were effective, and that was using lots of aircraft with air superiority.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 5, 2006)

I would just like to say that the Germans did actually have a drawing board Tank Transporter. I found it on a website called something awful where they were talking about German Prototypes. I don't know when it was designed, but it seemed to be fairly similar to the Allied Transports. The only problem I can see for German tanks is for the heavy tanks such as the King Tiger. Also it would need to be fairly quick as Hitler would worry about the Soviet Bear gathering strength and rumbling down in a huge wave. I don't think Hitler or Stalin were under any illusions that the pact that they had signed would last if either side weakened... I think Stalin would have roared down and taken a lot of territory while Hitler was engaging the British.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Rounding off some numbers, that means the -52 would only be able to supply approx 1200 gallons per sortie. Since mechanized units use the fuel up a prodigious rate, that means lots of -52's would have had to be pressed into service just suppling the trucks and tanks.
> 
> Now consider the ammunition loads that the German artillery would expend every day, that alone would require lots of air transport.
> 
> ...



Syscom - it's not cut and dry...
Remember - the prerequisite for the invasion was the elimination of the RAF - obviously didn't happen, and the sea lion didn't either. The RAF would not be playing that big a role if luftwaffe plans were on track - also driving away the royal navy lest they suffer the fate of PoW and Repulse. Under the protection of the Luftwaffe, german shipping could have delivered supplies as well - an adequate logistical base could very well have been established. Seized airfields would in turn become bases for the Germans on British soil. They were massing hundreds of barges and other craft for their makeshift invasion fleet. It would have been an ugly amphib invasion, just as the invasion of Norway was an abomination. However, this could likely have worked if eagle day and the ensuing battle went the germans way.

Also keep in mind...
1 - the invasion army would not likely have been heavy in mech or armor units - at least not initially
2 - stukas would be augmenting german divisional arty, and as usual be relied upon heavily as mobile arty batteries.

I have seen interviews of British soldiers saying the supply issue post dunkirk was pretty bad - there was training going on w/o weapons and such. You can't equip Bn after Bn overnight.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

> The RAF would not be playing that big a role if luftwaffe plans were on track - also driving away the royal navy lest they suffer the fate of PoW and Repulse. Under the protection of the Luftwaffe, german shipping could have delivered supplies as well - an adequate logistical base could very well have been established. Seized airfields would in turn become bases for the Germans on British soil. They were massing hundreds of barges and other craft for their makeshift invasion fleet. It would have been an ugly amphib invasion, just as the invasion of Norway was an abomination. However, this could likely have worked if eagle day and the ensuing battle went the germans way.



Even if the Germnas did attain daytime superiority, they would still be taking loss's at night time from both the RAF and RN (MTB's would play havoc on the landing barges).

And the German logistics were predicated on taking harbors intact, which was incredibly optimistic planning. All those barges they were building were going to have poor sortie rates which would compound the logistics.

Seizing airfields? Keep in mind what happened to the Germans at Crete. High loss's almost cost them the battle. If they were going to be parachuting onto British soil, they were going to be mauled to the point of not being able to control airfields. The endurance issue for the -109 was still going to rear its ugly head when the remaining Spits and Hurricanes would take off from bases outside of fighter range and slam into the transports when the fighters had to turn back.



> Also keep in mind...
> 1 - the invasion army would not likely have been heavy in mech or armor units - at least not initially



In 1940 and 1941, there would have been few, if any landing craft capable of putting the tanks ashore on unimproved beaches.



> 2 - stukas would be augmenting german divisional arty, and as usual be relied upon heavily as mobile arty batteries.



Stuka's cant cover the battlefield 24/7, and are useless at night.



> I have seen interviews of British soldiers saying the supply issue post dunkirk was pretty bad - there was training going on w/o weapons and such. You can't equip Bn after Bn overnight.



By Aug 1940, it looks like the BA had recovered enough to be a credible force to reckon with. By summer 1941, they had been completely rebuilt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Didnt the Luftwaffe resupply of the surrounded units at Stalingrad not live up to promises? Not because of the scale of the supply that had to be done, but poorly planned loading manifests meant vital supplies were not being delivered and high attrition rates greatly reduced the sortie rates?
> 
> I dont even think the Allied resupply of the troops in Market-Garden were effective, and that was using lots of aircraft with air superiority.



It was not that supplies were not getting in, but rather that that the wrong supplies were being sent. As my Grandfather who was in Stalingrad told me he remember getting a package of boots and upon opening them saw that they were tropical issue.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It was not that supplies were not getting in, but rather that that the wrong supplies were being sent. As my Grandfather who was in Stalingrad told me he remember getting a package of boots and upon opening them saw that they were tropical issue.




There was a great book written in the 70's about Stalingrad (I think it was Enemy at the Gates). It quoted a German soldier who got ahold of one of the canisters that was parachuted in...... and it contained condoms...... thousands of condoms


----------



## mkloby (Nov 6, 2006)

sys - we can discuss the military aspect later - but there's much flawed logic in your post, probably based on that you don't fully grasp military tactics or planning. I don't have time to do it right now though.


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 6, 2006)

> By Aug 1940, it looks like the BA had recovered enough to be a credible force to reckon with. By summer 1941, they had been completely rebuilt.



I'm sorry but that is utterly wrong.

Have a read through the biography about Monty one day, you will see how much BS that statement is.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

mkloby said:


> sys - we can discuss the military aspect later - but there's much flawed logic in your post, probably based on that you don't fully grasp military tactics or planning. I don't have time to do it right now though.



Theres a couple of threads here that discussed a German invasion of Britain.

I am repeating what Glider, Lanc and others pointed out (I think it Plan_D also chimed in on it).

Take your arguments to them as they are far more versed in it than me.

The facts are still clear. The Germans had no amphib capability to invade England with a good probability of success. All their planning was done assuming best case scenario's in every aspect of panning.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> I'm sorry but that is utterly wrong.
> 
> Have a read through the biography about Monty one day, you will see how much BS that statement is.



For a narrow ammount of time, the BA was in horrible shape. In the following weeks, more and more units were requipped and the BA started improving. Its not like the factories stopped producing.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 6, 2006)

Syscom - before you talk about the military in the way you do... join it! You can't re-equip div after div overnight! Cripes - they abandoned massive amounts of equipment. I've read accounts that there was not proper equipment for the reserve type units - maybe Home Guard maybe it was?

Due to the Wehrmacht's limited amphib capability - it rested fully upon clearing the RAF out of the skies. Didn't happen. However, if it did, then the Germans would have had a fighting chance to invade britain. It would have faced many difficulties - but the point is that you blanketly dismissed the german capability to invade based upon their lack of amtracs, amphibs, and other landing craft - which is just an erroneous assumption to make. Norway should have failed too, by your reasoning - it was ugly as hell, but succeeded.

You earlier said an allied invasion in 42/43 would have failed for logo reasons - yet what about sicily, italy, N African campaigns, in addition to the numerous pacific ops?


----------



## Twitch (Nov 6, 2006)

After the Battle of France the English were in pretty sorry shape equipment-wise and were depending on convoys from the States for a lot of stuff. Britain's manufacturing certainly didn't pump up and replace it all in short order. With the U-boat ring that surrounded the Isles not much was getting through. You don't abandon weapons, ammo, vehicles, supplies, and other equipment for 300,000 men and not miss it or replace it easily.

Hitler never planned to invade England, hence no emphasis on developing vehicles to do it. His whole plan was that England would sue for peace without violence. This is the truth of the matter be it a flawed Hitler fantasy or not. 

Let's not forget paratoopers from Ju-52s either. All they'd have had to do is take a couple RAF fields and the Luftwaffe would no longer be at a disadvantage with the 109. The RAF would be no better able to defend at night than the Luftwaffe could attack at night either.

The simple fact that Hitler intervened and changed the Luftwaffe's thrust from attacking the RAF on the ground along with radar facilities is what saved them. Switching to civilian targets gave the RAF the breathing room it needed. Had he left things alone RAF fields and facilities would have continued to be pummeled. It's is pure speculation if continued it would have ultimately given air superiority to Germany. But they were originally on the right track.

Any semblence of aerial advantage if not complete superiority would have proved very beneficial to an invading German force.

The Japanese were the only combatants in the conflict that had long-range plans which included the specific use of landing craft going back to the mid 1930s. They fortified their islands and conquests over many years with the express idea of defending them to invaders and developed naval specialty craft to expidite amphibious landings long before anyone else. The coastline of GB was in no way similar to the sophisticated labyrinth of defenses that Japanese islands were.

If the German mentality was on par with the Japanese they could have done it had they so chosen. Logistics and geography simply downplayed the need for German craft like the Japanese had. Why invest in a major military and industrial development when there was no foreseeable use?

Since this whole scenerio is another "what if" there is no reason not to imagine if Hitler had put out the word in 1937, that German technology and manufacturing could not have come up with the proper vehicles and equipment by 1940.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

> Syscom - before you talk about the military in the way you do... join it! You can't re-equip div after div overnight! Cripes - they abandoned massive amounts of equipment. I've read accounts that there was not proper equipment for the reserve type units - maybe Home Guard maybe it was?



You can start reequipping for light inf divisions immediatly. Just the bone bare essentials. And as more resources become available they can be reequipped right to their TOA's dictate. Over night ? Nope. Over a few months, yes. Not all divisions, but more than a few.



> Due to the Wehrmacht's limited amphib capability - it rested fully upon clearing the RAF out of the skies. Didn't happen. However, if it did, then the Germans would have had a fighting chance to invade britain.



I think it was Lanc that pointed out the RAF could have moved out of range of the Luftwaffe, regroup and then go back into the fray when the invasion begun. I will agree that the Germans might have had a chance to invade, but the question of staying power is the main issue.

And of course the Germns must also have maritime superiority too.



> It would have faced many difficulties - but the point is that you blanketly dismissed the german capability to invade based upon their lack of amtracs, amphibs, and other landing craft - which is just an erroneous assumption to make. Norway should have failed too, by your reasoning - it was ugly as hell, but succeeded.



Theres more to an invasion than just putting men on the beach. Its also having experience and a doctrine in place, having the surplus of sealift to provide for the troops and the specialized landing craft to provide the supplies if there are no intact.ports to be taken.

Germany didnt have any of that in place. Norway was far away from Britain and the RN and RAF only had limited resources to stop them. A landing in England would be hottly contested with Britain having the shorter and interior supply lines.



> You earlier said an allied invasion in 42/43 would have failed for logo reasons - yet what about sicily, italy, N African campaigns, in addition to the numerous pacific ops?



I was reffering to an allied landing in France in 1942 and 43. The invasions of Africa and Sciliy was the result of overwhelmingly superior allied shipping and logistics. Plus In Operation Torch, the US attacked area's that were minimally defended or not at all. They were not contested.

The PTO was totally different. That deserves its own thread on the difference between US and Japanese operations.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

Twitch said:


> After the Battle of France the English were in pretty sorry shape equipment-wise and were depending on convoys from the States for a lot of stuff. Britain's manufacturing certainly didn't pump up and replace it all in short order. With the U-boat ring that surrounded the Isles not much was getting through. You don't abandon weapons, ammo, vehicles, supplies, and other equipment for 300,000 men and not miss it or replace it easily.



The convoys still got in though. And the BA was rearming continuously. Each week that went by meant there was one more week of production to provide to the troops. 



> Let's not forget paratoopers from Ju-52s either. All they'd have had to do is take a couple RAF fields and the Luftwaffe would no longer be at a disadvantage with the 109. The RAF would be no better able to defend at night than the Luftwaffe could attack at night either.



The German paratroopers at Crete were mauled trying to do that. Doing that in Britain would have been just as bad if not worse. then theres the nasty issue of resupply.



> The simple fact that Hitler intervened and changed the Luftwaffe's thrust from attacking the RAF on the ground along with radar facilities is what saved them. Switching to civilian targets gave the RAF the breathing room it needed. Had he left things alone RAF fields and facilities would have continued to be pummeled. It's is pure speculation if continued it would have ultimately given air superiority to Germany. But they were originally on the right track.



I do think the RAF would have mooved out of range of the german fighter coverage and then husband resources for a defense against the invasion.



> Any semblence of aerial advantage if not complete superiority would have proved very beneficial to an invading German force.



Agree, but what happens at night? What happens in bad weather?



> The Japanese were the only combatants in the conflict that had long-range plans which included the specific use of landing craft going back to the mid 1930s. They fortified their islands and conquests over many years with the express idea of defending them to invaders and developed naval specialty craft to expidite amphibious landings long before anyone else. The coastline of GB was in no way similar to the sophisticated labyrinth of defenses that Japanese islands were.



Defending the Islands of the Pacific was a far easier undertaking as they were tiny. There is also no evidence the Japanese developed anything like the specialized landing craft like the USN/USMC developed. In fact, the only two amphib landings in WW2 that failed were by the Japanese at Wake Island (1941) and at Subic bay (1942)... Excepting Dieppe of course, as that was more like a raid than an actual invasion.



> If the German mentality was on par with the Japanese they could have done it had they so chosen. Logistics and geography simply downplayed the need for German craft like the Japanese had. Why invest in a major military and industrial development when there was no foreseeable use?



Thats why a german invasion in 1940 and 1941 would have failed.



> Since this whole scenerio is another "what if" there is no reason not to imagine if Hitler had put out the word in 1937, that German technology and manufacturing could not have come up with the proper vehicles and equipment by 1940.



We can only use the "what if" scenario so far. The issue is, could the Germans have successfully invaded Britain after Dunkirk. And the answer is no.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 6, 2006)

Twitch - that porker bouncing around on the couch is hilarious. 

The initial jap landings at wake incurred heavy losses - but what did they expect - Marines are too dumb to give up easily. The chinese learned that too when 1st Mar Div rendered 10 chinese divisions combat ineffective at chosin res. However, due to overwhelming superiority the wake attack succeeded.

Syscom - I believe you're right that a German invasion would have failed - probably even if they succeeded in smashing fighter command in the BoB and secured air superiority (which would have threatened the RN with severe losses for operating w/o air cover).
However - there was a possibility for it to work after Dunkirk providing the Luftwaffe cleared out the RAF in the 4 weeks they stated. The British Army would still be in rugged shape, and they would have had a fair chance at making another Norway style invasion work. After the BoB though, not a chance. The whole kicker is that it absolutely required German control of the air.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

> However - there was a possibility for it to work after Dunkirk providing the Luftwaffe cleared out the RAF in the 4 weeks they stated. The British Army would still be in rugged shape, and they would have had a fair chance at making another Norway style invasion work. After the BoB though, not a chance. The whole kicker is that it absolutely required German control of the air.



I dont think the Germans in their wildest dreams expected to defeat the French and British so completely and so quickly. In the few weeks after dunkirk, there was a window of opportunity and if the Germans had proper plans and preperations to follow the retreating forces, then perhaps they could have pulled it off.

But I keep thinking that the RN had other plans and would have deployed the fleet right into the invading forces due to the extreme emergency of stopping the them ASAP.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 6, 2006)

Well Syscom - I think we can agree on that. The RN, with the richest of naval traditions, would likely have attacked any invasion attempt - the cost of which may very well have been the bulk of the home fleet. Luckily, the Brits bloodied the germans' nose in the BoB. Speaking of the BoB - good book is Eagle Day: Battle of Britain by robert collier. Follows operational squadrons on both sides throughout the opening of the engagement.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

For the newcomers.....This thread was started as a look at all the landing craft in WW2.

It looks like we kind of got off topic here, so any remarks about a projected invasion on England, go to this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/did-rn-win-battle-britain-5122.html?highlight=royal+navy

Any remarks about landing craft, please continue to contribute.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2006)

dupe


----------



## mkloby (Nov 6, 2006)

Here you guys go - this should be of interest - lots of good info.

HyperWar: USMC Staff Officer's Field Manual for Amphibious Operations [Chapter 3]


----------



## Twitch (Nov 7, 2006)

As noted the Germans had no way to invade. They never planned on it. Their concept was always that GB would sue for peace. When we go "what if" I still maintain that German ingenuity and fabrication facilities could have manufactured the required craft IF Hitler had so instructed in 1937-38. Certainly a well planned and equipped invasion force was not beyond the German means IF they had set their minds to it.

As for aquatic landing and support I like the Japanese stuff. They had an island empire and were way ahead of everyone. Their vehicles were superb and were used to disembark troops onto all their little isles acrosss the Pacific. Christ their Diahatsus were copied by the US as the Higgens. Plus they had scads more types of all displacements for many roles too numerous to list.

Daihatsu Landing Craft

The 46 ft type 

Dimensions: 47 3/4 X 11 X 2 1/2 ft 
Machinery: Type A; 1-60 H.P. Army Diesel = 7 knots 
Type AB; 1-60 H.P. high speed diesel = 7 1/2 knots 
Type B; 1 -80 H.P. Navy petrol motor = 8 knots 
Type C; 2-Automobile 40 H.P. petrol motors = 8 knots 
Type D; 1 -60 H.P. high speed diesel = 8 knots 
Type E; 1 - 150 H.P. diesel = 8 1/2 knots 

Armament 2 - 7.7 mm, or 2 - 25 mm A.A. (1 X 2) or 3 - 25mm A.A. (1 X 3) 

Cargo: 1 tank or 70 men or 10 tons of cargo 

Number Built: 3229 

Japanese Amphibious Vehicles

And a little about them in combat- HyperWar: US Army in WWII: Fall of the Philippines [Chapter 8]

Until America got into manufacturing the Japanese had the widest variation of craft applicable to every conceiveable use and role.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2006)

That was interesting.

Great info!


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 9, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> They do, it splits in the middle and one goes to the left and the other to the right like normal double dorrs...



oh...right..ermmm...well...thanks anyway


Silly me


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Okay, interesting. What amphibious vehicles did the British use at or around this time? Were their amphibious vehicles US ones or local ones or what?


----------



## tasdev (Oct 27, 2007)

Hi Everyone
I am doing my Family history and my father was a Royal Marine in the British Royal Navy.
He was at Normandy serving on Landing Craft Flak.
I am looking for a photo of one, would be great if it was No 19.
Fingers Crossed
Tasdev


----------



## ccheese (Oct 28, 2007)

tasdev:

Found this for you, one is a LCF Mark 3 the other a LCF Mark 4

Landing Craft Flak
The Landing Craft Flak (LCF) was a conversion of the LCT intended to give anti-aircraft support to the landing. They were first used in the Dieppe Raid early in 1942. The ramp was welded shut, and a deck built on top of the Tank deck. They were equipped with several light anti-aircraft guns—a typical fitting was eight 20 mm Oerlikons and four QF 2 pdr "pom-poms" and had a crew of 60. Royal Navy examples had mixed crews, with the operation of the craft being the responsibility of RN crew and the manning of the guns being done by Royal Marines. They carried two naval officers and two marine officers.


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2007)

LCF19 was a mark 4 with the 4 x 2pd and 8 x 20mm as per the previous message. I have a photo of the type but the ones before are better than mine.


----------

