mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
I think He111s and 115s were equipped for torpedo ops by that time, definitely the 115
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks *** said:i think you're giving jerry a bit too much credit, the RAF wouldn't allow itself to be totally wiped out anywhere, if things got so bad they were about to be destroyed they would pull back a bit and bought in fighters from all over the country, the BoB wasn't just fought over Kent and there were plenty of other squadrons around, all of which could be used to defend the Navy, so do not be fooled into thinking the navy would've got no air cover, they would have at the very least a bare bones defensive cover..............
next quite how do you propose the Germans keep the Navy out of the channel, two of Britain's biggest naval dockyards Plymouth and Portsmouth are already in the channel!
There were known routes through the mine feilds and as demonstrated by Dunquirke (i think that's the French spelling ) they posed little problem once known, next to the issue of how jerry lays the mines? in the original article Dr. Gordon says they had only 4 minelaying vessels, and that the navy had 52 minesweepers! and there's only so many arial mines you can drop, but you cirtainly wont drop enough to completely block off the east end of the channel, and any ships coming from the north/east coast would be escorted by, amoung other vessels, minesweepers!
and as for the air power would i be correct in saying that at this point in the war the German's didn't have the ability to air drop torpedos? even if they could there's not much room in the channels to use them anyway,
and as for arial bombing crews had little or no training against ships and during dunquirke stukas only really managed to sink stationary ships,
furthermore the key to defeating the invasion would not be so much in the big capital ships but more with the smaller, faster vessels that're harder to hit from the air anyway..............
2) The Germans couldn't have it both ways. If you want to lay lots of mines to stop the RN by default you are going to significantly limit the ability of your U Boats to attack the RN.
3) Seeing that the night belongs to the RN we would be able to lay far more mines than the Germans, plus as has already been stated, we have more minesweepers.
I think you are mistaken. As has already been pointed out, only about half of Fighter Command was engaged in the BoB at any one time. And if the RAF's losses had become too severe, they would have withdrawn to bases outside the range of German fighters and marshalled their resources ready to repel the invasion.davparlr said:I think Britain was throwing all it had at the Germans during the BOB, and that, at times, pilot assets were dangerously low. It is reasonable to believe that, if Germany had succeeded in eliminating the RAF as an effective force in the BOB, all that would have been left of the RAF is a skeleton force.
While the RAF and RN were sitting around doing nothing?These ports would be bomb mercilessly. Any ships in Portsmouth would probably not be a factor. Aerial bombing, mines and blockading submarines should have severely hampered any sorties from these ports.
Unlike the (much slower, much more vulnerable) invasion fleet?And they would be enduring aerial attacks all the way.
They learned from the British attack on Taranto, and practice intensively for Pearl Harbor, in every detail, for many weeks.See note in a previous entry about German torpedo bombing. The Japanese had little problems with torpedoes in confines of Pearl Harbor.
Just how long did you expect it would take the invasion fleet to get across the Channel? More than two weeks????They would learn fast in a congested target rich environment. The Dunkirk evacuation only lasted a couple of weeks so little learning took place. Still, 243 vessels were sunk even with RAF cover! Imagine the toll if there was only token to none RAF presence.
Destroyers would find such attacks no more than irritations. Unlike the barges of the invasion fleet, packed with soldiers, which would be highly vulnerable to machine gun attacks.Smaller, faster vessels are more susceptible to the lighter caliber weapons of fighters an fighter bombers.
Mines were placed wherever they needed to be. And the further you get away from the Channel, the wider the North Sea becomes, the harder it woud be for U-boats to find their targets, and the easier it would be for anti-sub planes and escorts to operate without fear of air attack. U-boat attacks against warships travelling at 25+ knots (while they could only manage 7 knots submerged) were a totally different ball game to attacking 7-knot merchant convoys.Mines would be in the Channel, U Boats at the entrances like defensive fighter planes staying out of the Flak
I don't think you have any concept of the difficulties of locating anything in a body of water the size of the Channel, in which flares and searchlights are the merest glimmers.Germans would contest that with flares and searchlights. Nobody said it wouldn't be a hard fight.
All the anti-sub forces had to do was keep the U-boats submerged below periscope depth, in which state they could see nothing and only move at a crawl.I think anti-submarine warfare was not up to stopping subs at that time of WWII.
However, in order to be successful, the Germans would have had to have a well thought out plan and proper preparation. This would include mines and minelayers, torpedoes and torpedo planes, coastal artillery, and it would also have required landing training. Just look at the D Day preparations and training (true, France was better defended than Britain but still). I do not think Germany would have executed the proper preparation due to lack of sea invasion experience. But even without proper preparation, without air power, the Brits would have sustained massive losses to it fleet. That is why Yamamoto did not press home his attack!
blockading submarines should have severely hampered any sorties from these ports.
Subs would not need to be in the Channel just the entrances.
Mines would be in the Channel
Germans would contest that with flares and searchlights
Tony Williams said:Destroyers would find such attacks no more than irritations. Unlike the barges of the invasion fleet, packed with soldiers, which would be highly vulnerable to machine gun attacks.
Tony Williams said:Mines were placed wherever they needed to be. And the further you get away from the Channel, the wider the North Sea becomes, the harder it woud be for U-boats to find their targets, and the easier it would be for anti-sub planes and escorts to operate without fear of air attack. U-boat attacks against warships travelling at 25+ knots (while they could only manage 7 knots submerged) were a totally different ball game to attacking 7-knot merchant convoys.
Tony Williams said:All the anti-sub forces had to do was keep the U-boats submerged below periscope depth, in which state they could see nothing and only move at a crawl.
Fighter-bombers could carry bombs, but they were very inaccurate in dropping them. In 1944 RAF Typhoons, which specialised in ground attack, were assessed by Operational Research to have an average miss distance of 110m when dropping bombs. LW fighters did not have as much practice. And especially not by night.Soren said:Yes Tony, but what makes you believe that the LW fighters and fighter-bombers would attack the Destroyers only with machinegun and small caliber cannon fire ?? Fighter's could carry bombs, bombs big enough to sink a Destroyer in one go. Besides the Stuka was very much available at this point as it had earlier been suspended from flying over Britain because of its losses to RAF fighters, and it would have been more than good enough to carry out anti-ship duties - being capable of carrying large torpedoes and bombs and delivering them VERY accurately.
All the U-boats had to do was wait for the warships to come to them, once that was achieved the warships were pretty much sitting ducks for the 45 knot torps. Anti-submarine measures were by then not very sophisticated and a carefully handled sub could easily sneak up on a Destroyer un-noticed.
Standard operating procedure for a U-boat spotting an aircraft was to submerge. if it didn't, it was risking not only being bombed, but also the aircraft calling in an anti-sub ship. Once submerged, a U-boat had a very poor view through a periscope. And it would have to travel very slowly, because although a periscope was difficult to see, the plume of water it threw up when the boat was moving was not. And (depending on the weather) it was possible to spot U-boats travelling just underwater from the air, even if they didn't have their periscopes up.All they had to do ?! That would've been all but impossible for the British at that point ! As long as the U-boat is submerged it can't be seen, and that includes periscope depth. And no, a periscope was NOT easy to spot at all !
Remember the assumption is that the RN had been defeated. What this implies is that the Germans, flying at the limit of their range, was able to inflict damage on the RAF over its home airspace to the point that it could not maintain a force. Now you are telling me that the same defeated RAF force, flying at the limit of their range, could turn that around over German home base airspace, which the Channel crossing would have been! This is difficult to accept.
While the RAF and RN were sitting around doing nothing?
See above about the RAF. I don't know what the RN would do except try to maneuver and use AAA.
Unlike the (much slower, much more vulnerable) invasion fleet?
See above about the RAF.
They learned from the British attack on Taranto, and practice intensively for Pearl Harbor, in every detail, for many weeks
True, but to say that the Channel is too small for torpedoes is not correct.
I really doubt that the German pilots were less capable than the Japanese, Americans, or British (remember the Bismarck). Also remember that not much later the Germans were able to sink three cruisers and six destroyers and damage three battleships, one carrier, six cruisers, and seven destroyers at the battle of Crete. And, I am sure most of their force was getting ready for Barbarossa. I think you are underestimating German capability.Just how long did you expect it would take the invasion fleet to get across the Channel? More than two weeks????
As has already been pointed out, only a handful of destroyers were sunk, and only when stationary. The vast majority of vessels sunk were small boats - not unlike the invasion fleet would have been.
I don't think you have any concept of the difficulties of locating anything in a body of water the size of the Channel, in which flares and searchlights are the merest glimmers.
You are probably right.
The British would have had air power, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
I think you are overestimating what the RAF could do. It would be the reverse of the BOB with the Spits and Hurricanes now working with only a few minutes of fighting time and the Me109s flying only a few miles from their fields. And remember, the Germans did win the BOB, so here, the RAF would be in dire straits to start.
For the Germans to launch a successful invasion, they would have had to do everything right, and been very lucky, the British would have had to do everything wrong, and been very unlucky. War isn't like that.
You mean like the Americans at the battle of Midway?
[Glider=QUOTE]
Flares and searchlights would be next to useless. Coastal Artillery wouldn't hit a thing, lacking range, ROF and those that existed tended to be ex WW1 weapons.
As for the bombers remember that the Germans at the time were unable to stop very slow convoys of Colliers sailing into the Thames so what make you think they would be able to hit fast moving destroyers
German armour in the blitzkrieg rolled over Mainland Europe.. this just wouldn't work in the home counties...
Just how many German infantry would we be talking about on the beachhead ?... opposed by how many British infantry..
Airsupremacy was just the initial requirement of the Germans for an invasion it was by no means everything...
A successfull siege would have given greater results.Good comments
[The lancaster kicks ***=QUOTE]
you've contradicted yourself within one post
It appears to me that Plymouth is barely in the Channel and likely not to have the tidal conditions that would have existed around the invasion fleet (but then, I don't know anything about tidal patterns). Portsmouth could be more troublesome for subs but better for bombers.
because they used highly modified torpedos which were considdered the best in the world with, as has been said, much training, and there is of course the factor that all the ships in pearl harbour were stationary
They were only modified to prevent them from going too deep and striking the bottom (one of which did and is recorded on a Japanese photo where you can see the water churning. The recovered torpedo is on display at the Arizona memorial) which would not be a problem in the Channel. The statement, which I addressed, was not about hitting a moving ship, but whether torpedoes could be used in the Channel. However, the Japanese, Americans and British (Bismarck) were able to hit moving ships with torpedoes. And you are right about the Japanese torpedoes being among the best. They were certainly effective and, they worked! I am not sure of the quality of torpedoes the Germans had at this time, but they certainly were sinking ships with them.
RAF force, flying at the limit of their range, could turn that around over German home base airspace, which the Channel crossing would have been!
I don't know what the RN would do except try to maneuver and use AAA.
I think you are underestimating German capability
Coastal artillery would work fine in protecting the departure points
I am not sure why this [the blitzkrieg] would be different than the Low Countries, France or Poland. Britain lost a lot of heavy equipment at Dunkirk.
It appears to me that Plymouth is barely in the Channel and likely not to have the tidal conditions that would have existed around the invasion fleet (but then, I don't know anything about tidal patterns).
the lancaster kicks *** said:you seem to think that the channel is closer to France than it is to England, well it's in betweenfighters from both sides would have about equal time over target, but they would've been able to get over target so i don't see how fighter range has much of an impact here, and our fighters only need to be up when the invasion's coming and our ships are out in the channel.........
think on it, why did we loose a lot of heavy equiptment? because it was hard to get across, why wouldn't Blitzkrieg work in Britain? because you'd never get enough tanks across the channel before we destroyed any tiny foothold you may've got, no tanks, no Blitzkreig, welcome to conventional warfare against an entire nation looking to stop the invasion, unlike Normandy where the locals weren't German, the locals in Britain all wanted to see any german invasion fail.............
all you need to know about the tide in HMNB Devonport (Plymouth) is that the tide is always high enough for capital ships, even today the RN secure HMS Ocean out in the River Tamar with no problems, it's the first port of call for any ships in the Atlantic and is a major port without tide problems, although i don't know as much about Portsmouth's tides...........