Did the RN win the Battle of Britain?

Tony Williams said:

I think you meant to type 21 miles (not 12) as that's the minimum distance across the Channel.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Click to expand...

that's nothing, the maximum distance the germans wanted to take their troops in their barges was 85 miles... at the 3 knots these things were capable of they'd be at the mercy of the channel for well over a day!

as to whether shallow draft boats could move troops across the channel the only reason the Brits had a army left is because of small ships at Dunkirk if the stories are to be believed .

Click to expand...

the British used fishing vessels at dunquirqe, fishing vessels that are out in the channel all of their working lives and the fishermen knew the channel well... their invasion force was made up of Rhine barges mostly, baisically flat bottomed canal boats! anything more than sea state two and these things would go over... the wake from a small destroyer causes worse than that... the invasion force could be sunk without firing a shot! i very strongly suggest you read the link i posted before................

Jabberwocky said:

Erickson tends to disagree with you, as did the German Army in December 1940. At the start his history of the Great Patriotic War he goes into a 40+ page examination of the reforms that the Red Army was going through. Incompetence, particularly from the old guard, was being fairly ruthlessly weeded out. There was a powerful group of reformers in the Red Army: Zukhov, Pavlov and Yermenenko (amour, although Pavlov was a bit up and down), Karavchenko (aircraft), Smirnov and Meretskov (infantry). Erickson's general conclusion is that although there were definate steps in the right direction, it was too little, too late.

Similarly, German intelligence for 'Otto' (the pre-Barbarossa code name) conducted in Dec-1940 noted that the reorientation of the Red Army would not bring any substantial improvements before Spring 1941 i.e. that in the German view it was reforming and improving.

Click to expand...

Reforming, maybe, but Stalins ego would not let a reformer succeed to the point of being a possible threat. If anyone began to show promise and stood out, they would disappear. That is until the war, when Stalin knew he needed those men. After the war, Russia's greatest general, Zukhov, was banished to low level work and basically disappeared because he was becoming too famous. This would have prevented any real reformation. And beside, wasn't Russia always reforming to correct the problems of the previous reformation?

Didnt the Dutch,Belgians and French also have fishing boats that the Germans held sway over . If the Germans had desired they could've controlled a least a searoute to the south of England not the whole Channel with an aerial umbrella.

Fishing boats are fishing boats. Not transports you need to to bring troops over to a defended beachhead.

The only thing the Germans would have used the fishing boats for would be to "fish" the drowned soldiers out of the channel

syscom3 said:

Fishing boats are fishing boats. Not transports you need to to bring troops over to a defended beachhead.

The only thing the Germans would have used the fishing boats for would be to "fish" the drowned soldiers out of the channel

Click to expand...

I agree Syscom, the use of fishing and leisure boats at Dunkerque was an act of desperation, the use of river barges and small fishing boats to force a beach head would have been an act of lunacy.

I seem to remember from somewhere (not sure where) that the admirals of the Kreigsmarine were not happy with Hitler because they would have preferred at least 2 more years of peace to bring the navy up to a minimum war footing operational status.

As I have said previously in this thread, the RAF would only have needed to prevent the LW from achieving total air superiority. This in turn would allow the RN to achieve naval superiority.


As an aside, if an invasion of Britain had been done it is my opinion that Roosevelt would have pushed the USA to declare war on Germany towards the end of 1940.

The only thing the Germans would have used the fishing boats for would be to "fish" the drowned soldiers out of the channel

Click to expand...

oh very good

Well a boat is a boat there were very few transports or specialized landing ships at that time I think it would've have been close .The Brits had less then spectacular leaders in the ground arena if you put 10000 troops on the beach with the air support the Luftwaffe used to smash the French and BEF in France. I am sure you could reinforce and resupply using JU52's at night or fishing vessels. I dont think the majority of RN ships had radar at the time so I'm assuming the "fishing boats " would rome fairly unscathed at night .These troops using them as a judas goat to draw the RN into the channel to prevent resupply. The Raf would now find the shoe on the other foot as the RAF would be assigned the task of guarding the Senior Service from air attack putting them at the disadvantage of being tethered .

Now how are those fishing boats going to get the supplies and troops to the beach? Do you honestly believe that that any port will be left intact when an invasion warning is issued?

And the RN didnt need radar for a night battle in the channel. Just throw up some flares or use night binoculars and you could find plenty of targets.

In the Pacific, the USN PT boats were devestating against the Japanese barges and I would see no reason why the RN MTB's wouldnt have a field day with slowly moving barges and fishing trawlers.

Its all about logistics. And the Germans did not have it for a large amphibious assualt.

maybe the Germans realized something the allies didn't figure out til Dieppe that its hard to take a port intact . The British Army was pretty lame after France and in shock with not a lot of heavy weapons . I've read mostly in Canadian history books so there might be a bias that the only fully equpped unit was the 1st Canadian Division. The Brits were concerned enough that they moved most of liquid assets out of the country. The USMC performed a similar mission in Guadalcanal when they were left without any heavy equipment

if you put 10000 troops on the beach

Click to expand...

as i recall after several years planning not months "only" 11,000 troops were landed in normandy on the first day, and not all in the first wave, there was absolutely no way jerry was gonna land 10,000 troops on the first day with months of planning..............

I am sure you could reinforce and resupply using JU52's at night

Click to expand...

dropping troops at night is just about possible at this time, but not supplies, they have no controll over where they fall and as Jerry would only occupy a very thin strip of land on the coast if they did land most supplies would end up in the sea or in the hands of tommies, and 10,000 troops use up a whole heap of supplies...........

or fishing vessels

Click to expand...

you're planning to support an entire invasion force with fishing vessels? it might work for a night or two but, and evern the Germans knew this, any invasion needs a major port to get most of the supplies off and to the armythe two biggest ports in the area that the Germans were planning on landing in are Dover and Folkstone, not only would these be heavily defended but if things weren't going well they would be made useless to the point it would take several months to get working again, the allies knew full well this's what the germans would do when we invaded and our solution to there being a lack of ports? take our own of course

I dont think the majority of RN ships had radar at the time so I'm assuming the "fishing boats " would rome fairly unscathed at night

Click to expand...

haha, we're talking about the world's most senior and experienced navy... they know how to operate at night, especially in home waters, not only would the sheer density of our small ships fill the channel by night to the point where we'd just about be able to fill parts of the channel but remember, these fishing vessels would be heading only for a few beaches where we know their army would be, thus we already know exactily where they're heading and most of the route they'll take, don't you think that makes it a little easier for us? simply sitting of the beaches not only could we, with immunity, shell the forces on land but stop any of the poorly armed (if armed at all) fishing boats getting through?

The British Army was pretty lame

Click to expand...

not quite true... weaker than before we went to France yes but not lame, we were still a force several hundred thousand strong, well trained, many had experience from France and we still had mortars, light guns etc. etc. a force in their hundreds of thousands defending their home land will be able to repell an invasion force of 10,000 that the Germans weren't planning on re-inforcing in terms of troops for 10 days.........

with not a lot of heavy weapons . I've read mostly in Canadian history books so there might be a bias that the only fully equpped unit was the 1st Canadian Division

Click to expand...

well that's not a problem as the Germans wouldn't have any heavy eqiptment, the heaviest equiptment the Germans had accounted on sending in in the first wave was 4,000 horses

Hi PB, I don't think you appreciate the sheer scale of the planned invasion.

Hitler wanted to put 9 divisions to land across a 275 mile front.

There were only 170 cargo ships, just less than 1300 barges and just less than 500 tugs.

The tugs would tow the barges + improvised transports at an impresive 2-3 knots (think geriatric with a walking frame for speed comparison) assuming absolutely flat calm conditions. This gives a time of anything up to 30 hours just to cross the channel and does not take into account loading, unloading and forming convoy. The troops on the barges could be onboard for upto 40-48 hours. A high proportion of those troops would be seasick in even the calmest sea and sea sickness can incapacitate even the most hardened man.

Then there are 4000 horses to take across - but no heavy (essential) equipment. (mind you, plenty of food in the way of horse steaks)

Resupply by Ju52's - didn't work at Stalingrad, wouldn't work for Britain.
Resupply by fishing boats? - majority of fishing boats at the time where less than 50ft LOA and would be pushed to carry 10 tons - not really an option

LW providing total air superiority + bomber escort + barge escort + artillery + saturation bombing of London, Portsmouth etc - And where exactly would the RAF be taking their summer holidays?

The answer, in my opinion, to the original question "Did the Royal Navy win the Battle of Britain?" is no. The term Battle of Britain refers to the aerial battle between the RAF and Luftwaffe, be it the RAF interceptors vs. Luftwaffe bombers, or the RAF bombers attacking the German airfields.
The Royal Navy was the greatest force opposing the German invasion, however. Germany could not hope to achieve success without complete, and total, aerial and naval superiority over the Channel and surrounding seas. The Luftwaffe was not a capable anti-ship airforce, they relied on Stuka dive-bombers which generally only achieved success (in 1939-1940) against stationary targets. The ships attacking the German invasion 'fleet' would not stand still for long.

That brings me on to the current discussion about German's possible invasion, was it going to be a success? No.

Operation Neptune, the Allied invasion of Normandy, was in planning from 1942 'til the day of invasion. The Allies laid down the plans at the Casablanca Conference and COSSAC made the plans a reality.

In June 1944, the Allies had total air superiority and naval superiority. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine had a presence but it had no hope of defeating the combined air and naval offensive.

"I am very uneasy about the whole operation. At the best it fall so very very far short of the expectations of the bulk of the people, namely those who know nothing of its difficulties. At the worst it may well be the ghastly disaster of the whole war. I wish to God it were safely over."

Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, 5 June 1944.

The Allies planned to land three air divisions (101st and 82nd US Airborne, and 6th Airborne). Utah Beach would be assaulted with U.S 4th Infantry Division, three companies of the 2nd Ranger Battalion at Pointe Du Hoc, U.S 1st Infantry Division on Omaha Beach, British 50th Division on Gold Beach, Canadian 3rd Division on Juno Beach and British 3rd Division on Sword Beach.

That's an assault of eight divisions, three by air and five by sea. For five divisions landing, the Allies had 1,213 Naval Combat Vessels, 4,126 Landing Ships and Craft, 736 Ancillary Ships and Craft and 864 Merchant Ships for a total of :

6,939 ships.

This was supported by RAF Bomber Command, 2nd TAF, 8th and 9th U.S Air forces in full.

It cost the Allies in sea landed troops, 5,365 WIA, KIA and MIA.

A total of 133,000 men were landed by sea on Normandy. And several times, especially Omaha, the threat of defeat was very real. The Allies supplied themselves with Mulberry ports that landed 231,315 men, 45,181vehicles , 628,000 tonnes of stores from 12 June - 28 November 1944. Also throughout June until Pluto became operational, the Allies received theoretically 8,000 tonnes of fuel a day via Tombola, a series of buoyed pipelines.

The Germans had NONE of this. They hoped to achieve a landing of one extra division with 1,970 "vessels" which mostly were barely, if at all, seaworthy. They had no ports. No fuel line. No air superiority. No naval superiority. They had a few months planning.

How can anyone seriously believe that Germany could maintain that kind of operation, with a third of planes and ships than the Allies had. And without the total superiority of air and sea the Allies maintained. AND without the heavy equipment the Allies landed, i.e TANKS!

You're comparing the 1940-41 British army with the 1944 German army ??

The landing craft necessary to carry tanks over could be built shortly, it wasn't a major problem.

I'll be back later...

Soren said:

The landing craft necessary to carry tanks over could be built shortly, it wasn't a major problem.

Click to expand...

You are of course having a laugh.

building landing craft to carry tanks would have been a massive problem .. you would need at least 200 vessels strong enough to carry either 1 or 2 Panzer 3s at 22 tons each. They would need to have a range of approx 250 miles as they would not have been supported by landing support vessels.

It is my understanding that there were just over 80 days from the start of planning to the preferred 'D-Day' so just over 2 boats a day would need to be completed.

Not only would they need to be built, they would need to be designed and tested. If the designers spent approx 20 days this leaves 60 days, so therefore the boat builders would need to complete just over 3 boats a day. Once the plants are fully tooled up this figure and producing the production figure would need to go up to 5-6 boats a day. U-boat construction and refit/repair would be affected as the U-boat dockyards would be the most logical place to build them.

The crews would need to be found and trained, I'd think about 3 crew per boat at a minimum, plus gunners if they were armed.

It is the very shortage of landing craft that forced the Kreigmarine into scrounging up river barges.

I have compared the transport and supply of each situation, Soren, not the armies that opposed them. The Germans wanted to carry one extra division over the Channel with a third of the transport vessels that the Allies had. Surely logic will prevail, it wasn't going to happen.

And even if those barges were built, how were they going to work if there were no port facilities available? Run up on the beach like an LST, but in this case, get stuck till high tide to leave the beach?(if the hull wasnt damaged).

Pontoons you say?....... that takes specialized eqmt that works for high water states, not like a river.

Again and again, the Germans did not have the capacity to invade in numbers, expand the beachhead and resupply.

If they couldnt do it in 1940, they sure werent going to do it in 1941 or 1942.

I have to agree with you guys. Germany did not have the capability of it. I think Hitler was truely expecting England to stay out of it at first and then want a truce after Dunkirk. I dont think Hitler ever really had the vision of invading England.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I have to agree with you guys. Germany did not have the capability of it. I think Hitler was truely expecting England to stay out of it at first and then want a truce after Dunkirk. I dont think Hitler ever really had the vision of invading England.

Click to expand...

I think you're correct Eagle, the entire thrust of Hitlers war was to expand to the East and to expand the German empire by invading Russia

daishi12 said:

You are of course having a laugh.

building landing craft to carry tanks would have been a massive problem .. you would need at least 200 vessels strong enough to carry either 1 or 2 Panzer 3s at 22 tons each. They would need to have a range of approx 250 miles as they would not have been supported by landing support vessels.

It is my understanding that there were just over 80 days from the start of planning to the preferred 'D-Day' so just over 2 boats a day would need to be completed.

Not only would they need to be built, they would need to be designed and tested. If the designers spent approx 20 days this leaves 60 days, so therefore the boat builders would need to complete just over 3 boats a day. Once the plants are fully tooled up this figure and producing the production figure would need to go up to 5-6 boats a day. U-boat construction and refit/repair would be affected as the U-boat dockyards would be the most logical place to build them.

The crews would need to be found and trained, I'd think about 3 crew per boat at a minimum, plus gunners if they were armed.

It is the very shortage of landing craft that forced the Kreigmarine into scrounging up river barges.

Click to expand...

Well I was talking a period of 364 - 728 days, so there lies the difference. (Remember I'm not talking about Op. Sea Lion here, the deadline would be different...)

The landing craft could be VERY quickly designed, and with approx. a year to build them I'd say there was time enough. And with no war against Russia the German army would only grow stronger, so with atleast 3.3 million men at their disposal finding men to train wasn't going to pose a problem.

Since the Germans came so close to defeating the massive USSR, why shouldn't they be capable of defeating the no way near as massive British army ??

How well were the British shores defended ? How many troops did they have ? How many tanks ? How good were the defences compared to those of the maginot-line which was taken out by German paratroopers ?

In a very short space of time the Germans took France, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Denmark and Norway - Would you have thought this possible if it had never happened ??

[QUOTE="DerAdlerIstGelandet]I dont think Hitler ever really had the vision of invading England.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, he chose the Soviet Union instead.

plan_D said:

I have compared the transport and supply of each situation, Soren, not the armies that opposed them. The Germans wanted to carry one extra division over the Channel with a third of the transport vessels that the Allies had. Surely logic will prevail, it wasn't going to happen.

Click to expand...

Well German air-superiority, which was a necessity if an invasion was ever going to be possible, certainly wasn't un-achievable. And could the KM with the help of the LW have cut off the channel, halting the RN trying to get in and pound the invasion fleet, I believe an invasion was possible.

Building the vessels needed to cross the channel wasn't the largest obstical, and could certainly have been done within a years time.