Earlier and better RAF Attack on the German Navy at Wilhelmshaven, 1939

[muskeg13]

I'm not sure of the 18 December 1939 mission profile for the Wilhelmshaven raid, but Bomber Command had a bad habit of not massing aircraft in the early years of the war. Aircraft allocated for a certain mission were given very general target attack instructions, were allowed to plot individual courses and altitudes, taking off and attacking individually to comply with certain timeframes, but there was no massed time-on-target (or time over the target area when multiple targets in the same vicinity were to be engaged). German ADA was often able to pick off attacking aircraft one-by-one, and were fully alert by the time the last few meandered over the target.

 

[EwenS]

There are two problems with this discussion so far that have been completely ignored (except for a comment "Neutrals have themselves to blame") and which are interlinked - geography and politics.

During the "Phoney War" period from 3 Sept 1939 until 10 May 1940 Belgium and the Netherlands were neutral and prohibited combatants of both sides using their airspace. Denmark & Norway were also neutral until 9 April 1940.

Bomber Command bases were in eastern England roughly in the area from East Yorkshire to Suffolk on the map below. A spread of roughly 200 miles.

So to attack into the heart of Germany Bomber Command had either to go round the top of the Netherlands or via France. Of course the ideal would have been to base Bomber Command squadrons in France, but the bases to support them didn't exist, at least initially, and the French didn't want them on their soil. And presumably they didn't want Bomber Command flying over their territory either. Do you really want to annoy your biggest Ally? Only after the Italian declaration of war on 10 June 1940 did the French soften their attitude and allow the deployment of some squadrons to the South of France to attack Italy.

Haddock Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for the attitude of "Neutrals have themselves to blame", just take a moment to consider the consequences. Does that push those countries into the German camp? That would immediately have extended the front line along the Belgian border to the English Channel before the BEF had ever arrived in France and the French were fully mobilised. Shades of 1914? As for the Netherlands, remember that they had colonies in both East and West Indies from which Britain was obtaining oil (something like 45% of Britain's oil was coming from Venezuela, Mexico & the Caribbean in 1939). A Netherlands at war with Britain might push the DEI closer to Japan, who would no doubt appreciate a new source of oil come 1941. At that point there were concerns about the continued supply of oil from the USA due to their Neutrality Laws (approx 15% of Britain's supplies). Do you risk losing those supplies?

The opening post makes it sound that Bomber Command did nothing (or nothing but leaflet raids) until Dec 1939. The raid on 18th Dec was in fact the culmination of a whole series of attempts to strike the German Fleet. The Wiki article gives a good summary of the activity and the problems encountered, including the tactics used.

Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note that there was a difference between Bomber Command tactics by day and night. By day formations of aircraft were used. By night each aircraft flew individually to its target. Imagine, formation flying at night in European weather? Not something for the faint hearted! And their ability to find the target let alone bomb it accurately was a major problem. See the Butt Report from 1941. The bomber stream tactic wasn't developed until 1942, and then its main purpose was to swamp the German radar defences. But even that did not involve formation flying.

Butt Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wilhelmshaven might be a bit easier to find, being on the coast, but ship targets, even battleships, are a relatively small target. Then add the complication that they were not always tied up alongside the harbour wall, but anchored somewhere offshore.

As for British bomb development there are a series of articles here that might be of interest to some. Journal 45 attached.

There are some comments here in articles on the role of Coastal Command in the early days of WW2. Journal 33 attached


As for a carrier strike in the early days of the war, it is worth remembering that they were deployed in the NW and SW Approaches as a temporary measure while the convoy system became fully operational to protect merchant shipping. That need was principally because RAF Coastal Command were largely deployed at stations down the East Coast of Britain with relatively short ranged aircraft and couldn't perform that vital function. From the start of Oct the next priority was hunting Graf Spee (sunk Dec 1940) and Deutschland (arrived back in the Baltic to refit mid-Nov. But when did Britain become aware of this?) and Hermes, Ark Royal, Eagle and Glorious joined various hunting groups, something which occupied them into Spring 1940.

So while Argus, Furious, Courageous, Hermes and Ark Royal were in UK waters the first pair were in use as training carriers on 3 Sept 1939. Argus was sent to the Med in Sept to continue that vital work. Furious only received two squadrons of Swordfish in Oct (one had only formed at the end of Aug and had been in Ark Royal for a month in Sept and the other was formed aboard from training aircraft). Courageous had only completed a refit at the end of July and her air group had been reduced to two Swordfish squadrons as her other squadrons had had to go to second line duties when control of the FAA passed back to the RN in May 1939. Hermes had only recommissioned at the end of Aug 1939 having been operating for the previous year as a training ship with a reduced complement (her squadron had been operating off Ark Royal and only joined on 1 Sept and only had 9 aircraft). Only Ark Royal could be considered anywhere near fully worked up and / or with anything like a full air group on 3 Sept 1939 (42 Swordfish and 18 Skua per Admiralty records). The squadrons she lost to Hermes in Sept and Furious in Oct were replaced.

Before anyone asks, Glorious was on her pre-war station in the Med and Eagle had only completed a refit at Singapore on 31 Aug and was in the Indian Ocean.

In Sept 1939 you won't find Bismarck at Wilhelmshaven. She was fitting out in Hamburg, 70+ miles away. Blucher & Prinz Eugen were still building at Kiel about 100 miles away along with the carrier Graf Zeppelin. Graf Spee and Deutschland had already sailed from Wilhelmshaven for the Atlantic in great secrecy on 21 and 24 Aug 1939. The only major warships present on 3 Sept 1939 were Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Admiral Sheer & Hipper plus of course Tirpitz fitting out.

 

[yulzari]

What might France have to offer in a joint operation?

 

[buffnut453]

What might France have to offer in a joint operation?

Provide targets like this to distract the German fighter force (or make the Germans crash because they're laughing too hard):

 

[muskeg13]

As for the attitude of "Neutrals have themselves to blame", just take a moment to consider the consequences. Does that push those countries into the German camp? That would immediately have extended the front line along the Belgian border to the English Channel before the BEF had ever arrived in France and the French were fully mobilised. Shades of 1914? As for the Netherlands, remember that they had colonies in both East and West Indies from which Britain was obtaining oil (something like 45% of Britain's oil was coming from Venezuela, Mexico & the Caribbean in 1939). A Netherlands at war with Britain might push the DEI closer to Japan, who would no doubt appreciate a new source of oil come 1941. At that point there were concerns about the continued supply of oil from the USA due to their Neutrality Laws (approx 15% of Britain's supplies). Do you risk losing those supplies?

The Neutrals DID have themselves to blame when they were overrun so quickly by the Nazis. By placing their faith in their declared neutrality and their membership in an utterly useless international diplomatic organization, rather than lift a finger or spend the kroner or guilders necessary to bolster their own defenses, they had surrendered their sovereignty long before the first German set foot on their sacred neutral soil. Heads in the sand is not a credible defense.

Norway lasted a month, and had done nothing worse than send strongly worded diplomatic objections when the UK executed the Altmark Incident and laid mines (the day before Germany invaded). Belgium surrendered in 18 days. The Netherlands fought for 4 whole days before giving up, and the Danes called quits in just over 3 hours!

None of these neutrals would have gone into the Nazi camp or declared war on Great Britain, particularly as the war progressed and Germany became a stronger threat to their continued freedom. As for U.S. neutrality, there had been one-sided carve-outs in favor of the UK since the creation of the Neutrality Patrol on 4 September 1939, followed by Lend-Lease and then the USN taking an active role in convoying British and neutral shipping much of the way across the Atlantic. By December 1941, the US was already strongly militarily allied with the UK and in a de facto and sometimes shooting war with Germany, lacking only the formal declaration.

If the UK had decided that operational necessity required overflights overriding neutrality claims, like to enable carrying useful bombloads, they could have done so with little consequence. None of the weak neutrals were in a position to do anything other than fire off strongly worded diplomatic objections and complain in their home nation presses (until the Nazis marched in and seized these).

 

[Shortround6]

The Neutrals DID have themselves to blame when they were overrun so quickly by the Nazis. By placing their faith in their declared neutrality and their membership in an utterly useless international diplomatic organization, rather than lift a finger or spend the kroner or guilders necessary to bolster their own defenses, they had surrendered their sovereignty long before the first German set foot on their sacred neutral soil. Heads in the sand is not a credible defense.

How about a little sympathy.

Population of Germany (not including Austria, the Sudetenland, etc) ...............................70 million
Population of Belgium...............................................................................................................................8 million
Population of Denmark............................................................................................................................3.8 million
Population of Holland...............................................................................................................................8.8 million

I haven't bothered to look up Denmark and Holland but Belgium had 22 divisions. They may have been small and not equipped very well but the BEF was only 10 divisions and it wasn't equipped all that well in 1939-40 either. It also took until the spring of 1940 to get all 10 divisions there. The Belgian army was about 4 times the size of the BEF but that included fortress troops, and supply support troops and probably a fair number of older reservists.

The Belgians had purchased about 250 AVFs in the mid to late 30s and left all of their WW I FT 17s in depot.

Now if somebody wants to go into relative industrialization of some of these minor countries and/or economic factors go ahead.

If you are a small country blocking the road between two big countries you are going to get run over.

The French on the other had, actually forbade the British to stage bombing raids out of French air fields and were responsible for most of the air raids during the phony war being leaflet raids. The French did not want to "provoke" the Germans into bombing French cities.
The French even stopped some of the British bombers trying to bomb Italy after Italy declared war on France. The Wellingtons didn't have the Range of the Whitley's and had to be staged through French air fields. French base commander parked trucks across the runway preventing take-off.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Neutrals DID have themselves to blame when they were overrun so quickly by the Nazis.

Seriously???

So, France, Poland and Russia are also to blame for being invaded by the Nazis, all those countries invaded by the Japanese are to blame for being invaded by the Japanese, then... Mate, step away from the keyboard...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Seriously???

So, France, Poland and Russia are also to blame for being invaded by the Nazis, all those countries invaded by the Japanese are to blame for being invaded by the Japanese, then... Mate, step away from the keyboard...

It's not that they are to blame for being invaded, but rather that their trust in Hitler's respect for their neutrality was obviously misplaced.

I don't think he's trying to absolve Hitler et al of their guilt, but rather to point out that by 1939 you had to be a fool to take Nazi Germany at its word about respecting your borders. Both Belgium and Holland, being direct neighbors, should have especially been aware.

You mention Poland. After Germany invaded Poland -- what neighboring country should have trusted the Germans? Or better yet, after promising only that they wanted to "liberate" Sudetenland in 1938, devour the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 -- who should trust the word of the German government?

Would you trust Putin if he called for a truce in Ukraine?

National credibility is a thing. Hitler squandered his country's well before 1940, but the Low Countries didn't seem to take much notice. I don't absolve Germans of responsibility, but I do think muskeg13 is fair to point out the fecklessness of countries who even in 1940 took Hitler at his word -- even after plans for invading France through Belgium were captured in the winter of 1940. At that point, all the neutrals hip to the find (Belgium at the very least!) should have reconsidered trusting Germany's word ... and that at a very late moment indeed.

So no, you cannot blame them for being invaded -- that belongs to the Germans alone -- but you can and should certainly question their misplaced trust.

In that sense Muskeg is absolutely right, imo.

 

[Shortround6]

It also took time.

I have been trying to look up some of this stuff but trying to look up 3-5 countries takes time. So I have only looked at a few articles on Belgium.
Belgium did decide to beef up their defenses in 1939, when in 1939 I don't know.
But much like France and Britain and others you need to place orders and wait for deliver. You sometimes need to build the factories to place the orders with because with a number of nations all trying to re-arm at once the existing factories were over stretched.
Belgium did have a domestic company that could build artillery, John Cockerill but it was not a large company (they also built things like locomotives).

Considering the performance of France blaming these small countries for not being able to stand up to Germany seems harsh.

Germany used the advantages of modern warfare (like airpower) to defeat some of these countries in detail ahead of dealing with the French.
Some of these countries also absorbed quite of bit of German material and men. Like hundreds of Ju 52 transports that crippled the Luftwaffe transport capabilities for the entire war.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Considering the performance of France blaming these small countries for not being able to stand up to Germany seems harsh.

It's not blaming them for being weak, but it is pointing out that, being smaller countries in a rough neighborhood, their faith might have been misplaced, especially after 1938. That's a political and not a military issue, no? Or were they simply trying to buy time that had already run out?

There's a couple of different ways to look at it.

 

[nuuumannn]

It's not that they are to blame for being invaded, but rather that their trust in Hitler's respect for their neutrality was obviously misplaced.

Yup, I understand your point, Thump, but that's not what the guy said. He said the neutrals DID have themselves to blame when they were overrun so quickly by the Nazis, which even if they could have, a less neutral, more militaristic stance would have done nothing to prevent that outcome.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yup, I understand your point, Thump, but that's not what the guy said. He said the neutrals DID have themselves to blame when they were overrun so quickly by the Nazis, which even if they could have, a less neutral, more militaristic stance would have done nothing to prevent that outcome.

Agreed, the conclusion was foregone no matter the military readiness. I'll read closer next time.

 

[nuuumannn]

Agreed, the conclusion was foregone no matter the military readiness. I'll read closer next time.

It's okay, I was mildly disappointed that the other poster insinuated that somehow it was these small countries' fault that they were invaded because they were neutral, is all. That beggars belief.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's okay, I was mildly disappointed that the other poster insinuated that somehow it was these small countries' fault that they were invaded because they were neutral, is all. That beggars belief.

Right, and even if you forget to lock your car that is no excuse for a car-thief. I get what you're saying, I think I just read his post differently than did you. I didn't read the blame being passed so directly; but as I said, I'll read closer next time.

 

[Shortround6]

Was another 50-100 aircraft in either country really going to change the outcome/s?
Another 20-50 tanks?
Another 50-100 field guns?

Again look at the populations and the fact that Germany was most heavily industrialized country in Europe( a lot was agriculture but that is not point, nobody else outside of Britain in Europe had the industry per 1 million people to build modern armies on a large scale). And everybody else was playing catch up.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Was another 50-100 aircraft in either country really going to change the outcome/s?
Another 20-50 tanks?
Another 50-100 field guns?

Again look at the populations and the fact that Germany was most heavily industrialized country in Europe( a lot was agriculture but that is not point, nobody else outside of Britain in Europe had the industry per 1 million people to build modern armies on a large scale). And everybody else was playing catch up.

Once Hitler decided upon conquest, a number of smaller countries going under was a foregone conclusion. I think the Low Countries should have abandoned neutrality earlier, for all the good it did them, but that's just my little opinion.

 

[Shortround6]

Well, Neutrality had worked for the Dutch since 1830.
WW I was no picnic with food shortages (and riots) and lost planes from both sides bombing the Dutch on occasion and other problems.

The Germans invaded Denmark and Norway on April 9th.

The Invasion of Holland, Belgium and France started on May 10th.

This allowed the Germans to concentrate their airpower instead of spreading it out.

The bombing of Rotterdam was major change in warfare, at least in scale.

The small countries might have done better, but holding out for another 2-3 days wasn't going the change things in a 5 year war.

 

[muskeg13]

The Neutrals DID have themselves to blame when they were overrun so quickly by the Nazis.

Don't misunderstand my meaning. The neutrals weren't responsible for the Germans deciding to invade. Focus on the last half of this opening statement, the so quickly overrun part. Once seriously challenged, none of the neutrals displayed any great will to defend their own homelands against invasion, with maybe the possible exception of Norway, and I'll address Norway's case later. Both the Netherlands and Denmark gave up almost immediately. Perhaps a few "honor" shots were exchanged, but in both cases almost without a fight. I'm not faulting any of these countries for not being able to ultimately stop the Germans on their own after a serious attempt at mounting a defense, but they really weren't on their own, and they really didn't attempt to defend themselves in a meaningful way.

The argument of the invincibility of the German military versus Country X, population comparisons, GDP, etc...holds much less weight when you realize that German military was spread all over Europe from Greece and the Balkans to Poland to France and Belgium, and then they decided to invade Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, finish off France, intimidate the UK into a negotiated peace, and oh, by the way, also invade the Soviet Union. The combined strengths of the UK, France and the neutrals were considerable. The Germans were only able to mount attacks of the neutrals with relatively limited forces, but they correctly judged these would be adequate against a perceived lack of a will to fight, self-imposed isolation, unpreparedness, indecision and disorganization: weakness. They were able to pick them off cheaply one-by-one. If the neutrals had decided to fight with the weapons and forces they had on hand (including reservists) until they just couldn't fight anymore, and if they joined in with the Brits and French once forced into the war, the outcome probably would have been different and not have ended so favorably for Germany.

The Belgians began to fight along with, but not in close coordination with, the BEF and France, but they capitulated in less than 3 weeks without any warning to the UK or France. This left the BEF and French forces in a very bad position that greatly contributed to the Fall of France and the near destruction and capture of the BEF. While the French weren't neutrals, they should be faulted for their abysmal performance and premature capitulation (mostly due to very poor top-level military and civil leadership). Holland gave up after only four days when several key forts were captured by lightly armed glider troops and the terror bombing of Rotterdam achieved the goal of victory through intimidation without any major ground actions having to take place. When German motorized forces ran border checkpoints shortly before dawn, the Danes just decided they'd had enough and called it quits before lunch. This was key to the success of the Norwegian Invasion, for without being able to use Danish airfields to quickly reinforce Norwegian bridgeheads, the German plan to capture Norway would have failed.

And then there was Norway, whose successive Governments had severely neglected its military for decades. Materiel was lacking and outdated, training had lapsed, the High Command was formed of an elderly "retired on active duty" officer cadre incapable of grasping modern warfare concepts or the ability to make rapid decisions, and they had an avowed pacifist Minister of Defense. Still, of all the neutrals, Norway had the best chance of stopping the Nazi's Northern European advance. Norway had sizeable reserve forces who could use the restrictive terrain and waterways to favor the defense. There were well placed coastal forts covering all major harbors whose guns, while mostly old, could still adequately provide close range defense when coupled with the pre-planned minefields (and a few secret underwater torpedo batteries).

The keys to stopping the German invasion would have been to prevent the Germans from establishing the initial sea and air port bridgeheads, prevent German reinforcements from landing and organizing and finally, to call on and fight with British and French assistance to expel the invaders. This was within Norwegian capability with the forces and materiel they had available in April 1940, but it didn't happen due to non-existent civilian and military national leadership lacking a steadfast will to fight. The key moment in the recent Norwegian film, "The King's No!, The King's Choice in English" was the scene where the lily-livered Cabinet was pressuring King Haakon to surrender and accept the German terms, like his brother the King of Denmark had done several hours before. The King's refusal was the beginning of top-level Norwegian resolve to resist the invasion, but it came too late to save the country.

Warnings of an impending German invasion from several credible sources were ignored. Multiple pleas for a mobilization were rebuffed by the Cabinet and National Command Staff in the weeks before the invasion. Sea mines remained unplanted in depot storage, but there was an order to begin laying the Oslo fjord minefields the week after the Germans invaded. There was only limited or no heavy caliber coastal artillery ready ammunition stored near the guns. Coastal batteries were mostly only manned by caretaker or skeleton crews insufficient for operation. Army reserve units were mandated to store their small arms, bolts and ammunition in separate depot locations. Early in the evening on the night before the invasion, the Command Staff and Cabinet began receiving reports of unidentified darkened ships closing on several key harbors, including a multi-ship convoy steaming up the fjord leading to Oslo. There were later reports of gunfire, possible sinking of Norwegian guard vessels, and even that German was being spoken on the unidentified vessels. Still, the Cabinet and High Command failed to issue orders to coastal defenders, but finally did agree to initiate a reserves mobilization by mail that could take two weeks, as to not unduly alarm anyone.

Some local commanders engaged the invaders on their own initiative and achieved initial success, but for the most part, the invaders landed unopposed, established their bridgeheads and began receiving reinforcements flown in from Denmark. My wife's father recalled Army reservists not waiting for the recall notice to arrive in the mail. They just showed up at their mobilization centers when they heard on the radio that the Germans had landed, but they were sent back home by the confused reserve cadre with instructions to come back in a day or two after the Army Staff had time to sort things out.

By the time the Army Staff had sorted things out it was too late. The Germans were firmly established, well organized and were gaining strength every day to the point they couldn't be stopped.

 

[Shortround6]

.holds much less weight when you realize that German military was spread all over Europe from Greece and the Balkans to Poland to France and Belgium, and then they decided to invade Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, finish off France, intimidate the UK into a negotiated peace, and oh, by the way, also invade the Soviet Union.

The time line seems a little out of whack here.
Bulgaria was neutral until March 1st 1941. Elements in Bulgaria favored the Germans and about 65% of Bulgaria's trade was with Germany but German forces (except a few trainers?) were not in Bulgaria until March of 1941
Romania joined the Axis powers in Nov 1940.
Yugoslavia and Greece are not an area of interest for the Germans (no troops) until the Spring of 1941.

The combined strengths of the UK, France and the neutrals were considerable. The Germans were only able to mount attacks of the neutrals with relatively limited forces, but they correctly judged these would be adequate against a perceived lack of a will to fight, self-imposed isolation, unpreparedness, indecision and disorganization: weakness.

Yes the combined strength of the UK, France and the neutrals was considerable. But then they wouldn't be neutrals. They would be allies.
And German plans might have changed accordingly.

They were able to pick them off cheaply one-by-one. If the neutrals had decided to fight with the weapons and forces they had on hand (including reservists) until they just couldn't fight anymore,

Dying to the last man sounds heroic but doesn't usually accomplish much. Japanese tried it a number of times. American aircraft were sometimes flying from airfields while Japanese hold outs were only a few miles away.
If you have AFV they need fuel. Artillery needs ammo at the gun sites. Not in warehouses/depots. A lot of infantry were only given 60-80 rounds of ammo for their rifles and depended on resupply. Many armies used reservists as supply troops.

And air power screwed up a lot of prewar tactics and ideas of how wars would be fought.

One reason the Germans did well in Poland was that the Germans used some of their limited motor vehicles for supply, specifically artillery supply. A 1st line German infantry division had about twice the tonnage of artillery ammo that a Polish division did. Some, not all moved on trucks and some was horse drawn. Now against Holland, Belgium and Northern France the distances were short. The Germans had time to stockpile ammunition. Germans had control of the air and could extend their firepower well beyond normal artillery ranges.
If you are doing one of those last man scenarios, you have little artillery and you can't figure out where to aim it (unless your spotter is in a tall building and tall buildings had a been a target in WW I).

The bombing of Rotterdam showed that rivers, which were considered very strong defensive positions, were not the obstacle they had been in WW I. A large Air Force (and this was not large compared to later numbers) could do substantial damage in just a few hours.

If you want a modern, effective army in 1940 you also needed more radios, you needed field phones (lots of them) The French (the premier Army of the 1930s until it was shown to be otherwise) wasn't even up to 1918 standards of communications. Expecting to coordinate with other countries is not realistic.

and if they joined in with the Brits and French once forced into the war, the outcome probably would have been different and not have ended so favorably for Germany.

Well, if the French and British had done things a bit differently (not sat on their hands and waited for the Germans to take the initiative) things might have gone a bit better for the allies too.
Blaming the neutral countries while the UK and France did very little (active combat) between Oct 1939 and April 1st 1940 when Poland had been a treaty member is asking a lot.
What would France and UK do for Holland and Belgium if push came to shove?
Trusting Germany was foolish, but trusting the UK and France was only slightly better. The Alliance didn't help Poland and France had done darn little to punish Germany or do much of anything except make speeches.

 

[SaparotRob]

Provide targets like this to distract the German fighter force (or make the Germans crash because they're laughing too hard):

View attachment 681381

Didn't these guys carry out the first daylight bombing raid of Berlin by the Allies?