If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain

[oldcrowcv63]

Does anybody really think the people of the UK would do less when national survival is at stake?

Astonishingly, some people evidently do think just that. Those people need to be forced to sit in a room and listen to country western music for a week.

The German military for all its well deserved reputation and acknowledged expertise didn't know squ*t about amphibious warfare in 1940 although the KM was smart enough to recognize the inadequacy. As a result of Sea Lion, the Germans began to think more seriously about the subject, although it is not clear to me their thinking was ever translated to a successful demonstration of the operational art. Perhaps the Nazis staged one successful, significant (larger than a division or corp in scale) amphibious operation (involving a shoreline invasion from open water to coastal beach. NOT a River crossing) in WW2. If so, I am not aware of it.

 

[Juha]

However the above Luftwaffe document from April 1940 makes clear that the Luftwaffe possessed both large, armor piercing and rocket assisted armor piercing bombs as of April 1940 suitable against ships, particularly the older ones. So G Till seems to be in error.



The Ju 87R was present in Norway IIRC or introduced at around the same time. The standard Ju 87B could carry an 1000 kger, I tend to believe it was more of a question of adding the suitable bombing rack, but the problem is moot since the rocket assisted PC 500 RS series were developed just to address the problem of anti shipping strikes from low altitude.

There was also the Ju 88 of course, which could carry large bombs and far away.



Certainly this logic is very flawed. what british intel speculation about german equipment (which was very often bordering phantasmagoria, see "fake smoke" devices speculated on aircraft) is quite irrelevant as to what the Germans actually had. The larger bombs, especially the AP ones were meant against specially hard targets, which did not turn up either at sea in 1940 (for a destroyer sized target, the standard high capacity 250 kgers were more optimal). I doubt the British fished out many unexploded German bombs from the Channel or from the Dunkerque beaches... they had the ability to inspect a number of unexploded ones dropped on the mainland, but those represented the ones believed to be optimal against prime mainland targets (airfields, light housing and brick buildings, shops, factories, docks, ie. overwhelmingly 50 and 250 kgers were to be used against building with less than three levels, ie. practically all british housing). IOW, why would the Luftwaffe, in 1940, drop one-and-a-half ton armor piercing bombs on airfields, brick houses or docks...?

Obviously there was very little chance that the British would be aware of the larger bombs early.

Did they use this wonder weapons during the Norwegian campaign? If not, why? LW surely guessed that they would have opportunities to bomb heavy RN ships during the campaign, if they had those bombs, they should have used them then.

Juha

 

[silence]

"Astonishingly, some people evidently do think just that. Those people need to be forced to sit in a room and listen to country western music for a week."

Isn't that against the Geneva Convention?

 

[silence]

The German military for all its well deserved reputation and acknowledged expertise didn't know squ*t about amphibious warfare in 1940 although the KM was smart enough to recognize the inadequacy. As a result of Sea Lion, the Germans began to think more seriously about the subject, although it is not clear to me their thinking was ever translated to a successful demonstration of the operational art. Perhaps the Nazis staged one successful, significant (larger than a division or corp in scale) amphibious operation (involving a shoreline invasion from open water to coastal beach. NOT a River crossing) in WW2. If so, I am not aware of it.

Offhand, I can't think of any time when they even had an opportunity or reason to do so.

 

[stona]

French soldiers held the perimeter against them

Dynamo would have been in serious trouble without the determined defence of several French units. They were not alone. The defenders of Lille so impressed the Germans that they were allowed to keep their weapons for the surrender parade.

Cheers

Steve

 

[oldcrowcv63]

"Astonishingly, some people evidently do think just that. Those people need to be forced to sit in a room and listen to country western music for a week."

Isn't that against the Geneva Convention?

It's not something that should be prohibited but encouraged! It girds the loins.


If a citizen of the commonwealth they will come out of the room ready to fight, if a potential adversary they will realize that to challenge the sons of Albion is pure madness. If neutral, they will simply retreat permanently to their happy place.

 

[stona]

Offhand, I can't think of any time when they even had an opportunity or reason to do so.

Well, they did develop what are recognisably landing craft later. They also developed so called landing bridges which are lightweight version of a floating dock. Both Krupp and Dortmunder Union built prototypes, in 1941.
Don't forget that Sea Lion was a long time dying. Hitler was still issuing orders regarding the operation in 1944. It wasn't viable in 1940 and certainly wasn't in 1944, despite the development of some amphibious forces and capabilities.
Cheers
Steve

 

[swampyankee]

Well, they did develop what are recognisably landing craft later. They also developed so called landing bridges which are lightweight version of a floating dock. Both Krupp and Dortmunder Union built prototypes, in 1941.
Don't forget that Sea Lion was a long time dying. Hitler was still issuing orders regarding the operation in 1944. It wasn't viable in 1940 and certainly wasn't in 1944, despite the development of some amphibious forces and capabilities.
Cheers
Steve

In 1944? Germany's trying an amphibious invasion of the UK in 1944 would be war-winning move! For the Allies.

 

[Civettone]

Don't forget that Sea Lion was a long time dying. Hitler was still issuing orders regarding the operation in 1944.

That seems unlikely ...


Kris

 

[silence]

In 1944? Germany's trying an amphibious invasion of the UK in 1944 would be war-winning move! For the Allies.

Heh. Imagine the Wehrmacht stepping onto the beach and finding the Big Red One and the Desert Rats looking at them like a cat looks at a mouse!

 

[Shortround6]

That seems unlikely ...

Hitler may have been issuing orders........wither anyone was paying any attention (more than lip service) is another story.

Hitler " And manufacture 1000 more landing barges for the Invasion of England to be ready once the V-1 has brought them to their knees"

General taking notes " Certainly Mein Heer." Thinks to himself 'sure, right after we gold plate the porto-potties for use outside the Kremlin.'

 

[Civettone]

Something else to consider is the amount of AA fire the British may be able to put up. Off Crete and Mediterranean convoys the ships were at sea and in combat zones for several days and hundreds of miles from supply points.

I remember reading that in 1940, the AA on RN vessels was unable to fire at a 90 degree angle. That was only rectified later, no doubt because of the Stuka dive bombers.

Around Crete, dive bombers sank three cruisers, six destroyers and damaged many more. LW losses were very low, I think a dozen or so were shot down by Naval AA fire. Given the distances involved, relatively few sorties were flown. One can expect the bombers to fly several sorties a day in the Channel.

My guess would be that the RN would survive 2-3 days if it decided to stay in the Channel. Its only hope after that would be to interrupt the landing at night. But of course, no German invasion would survive 2-3 days...

Kris

 

[swampyankee]

Heh. Imagine the Wehrmacht stepping onto the beach and finding the Big Red One and the Desert Rats looking at them like a cat looks at a mouse!

I was thinking more on the lines of largely undisturbed target practice by all just about everything the Allies could get into the neighborhood, like every dive bomber and torpedo bomber the FAA, RAF, and USN had in the Eastern Atlantic and North Sea. The few soldiers who got to the beach could have been rounded up by a few military police.

 

[Juha]

I remember reading that in 1940, the AA on RN vessels was unable to fire at a 90 degree angle. That was only rectified later, no doubt because of the Stuka dive bombers.

No, but 4.5" and 4" HA mounts could at +80deg, which was enough even against Ju-87s. That was not the problem The problem was that RN DDs didn't have DP or HA guns other than their AAA guns at that time, their main armament max elevation was +40deg.

Around Crete, dive bombers sank three cruisers, six destroyers and damaged many more. LW losses were very low, I think a dozen or so were shot down by Naval AA fire. Given the distances involved, relatively few sorties were flown. One can expect the bombers to fly several sorties a day in the Channel...

Also LW had learned by Crete. At least some Stuka pilots were surprised off Dunkerque how difficult it was to hit manoeuvering warships and when Fliegerkorps X was sent to Sicily its Stuka pilots had got special anti-shipping training. Of course Between early June 40 and say mid-Sept 40 LW would have time to honey its anti-warship tactics.

Juha

 

[stona]

Gentlemen there were orders issued regarding Sea Lion in 1944. It was postponed, not abandoned in 1940. Issuing fanciful orders about an operation and issuing orders for an operation are not the same thing.

As Juha says RN main armament had a maximum elevation of 40 degrees. Naval anti aircraft guns of medium calibre were classified as 3" to 5.25" firing explosive shells with timed fuses, typically timed to 1,500 yards. The Royal Navy's high angle control system didn't work very well but nobody's did with the possible exception of the USN. Some old cruisers had their 6" guns replaced with 4" guns for use as stop gap AA ships until the "Dido" class came along. The most vulnerable ships were the destroyers which mostly had WW1 vintage gun mounts unable to elevate above 40 degrees, probably due to Admiralty fears about the Low Angle Control for ship to ship engagements. A few Hunt class destroyers did have 4" guns capable of high elevation. Most ships had a suite of various armament from rifle calibre (.303) machine guns to 40 mm for close defence. In 1940 there was a shortage of the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm guns. In the late 1930s the Admiralty backed a Vickers gun against the Bofors and it didn't really work. "Trials had proved most unsatisfactory" read the report. It was Chamberlain of all people who argued in that the effects of ordering a foreign weapon were not "necessarily over riding the essential need of obtaining a satisfactory weapon." 100 Bofors guns were in fact ordered. The saga of Vickers and the Admiralty is worthy of a book in itself!
Essentially, in 1940, Royal Navy anti aircraft guns and gunnery were far from satisfactory. Despite this the "Tactical Summary of Bombing Aircraft on HM Ships and Shipping from September 1939 to February 1941" makes it clear that, despite the opinion of some above, the Royal Navy itself was not unduly concerned about the potential of air attacks on its ships. The only method of attack it considered potentially dangerous was the dive bomber, and the Ju 87 comprised only a fraction of the Luftwaffe's bomber strength in Europe.
Cheers
Steve

 

[parsifal]

It might alsobe worthwhile to note that aircrew not trained in anti-shipping strikes dont do that wel as a rule. In 1940, the LW had two wing sized anti-shipping units, this was being expanded, but we are talking September 1940 are we not?

 

[fastmongrel]

GThe Royal Navy's high angle control system didn't work very well but nobody's did with the possible exception of the USN.

Not even the USN HA control system worked very well in 1940. The Mk33 directors were ok against level flying bombers that didnt manouver much (Just like HACS) because if the plane manouvered it could take up to 40 seconds to form a new firing solution. They were useless against dive bombers as the officer in charge had to put a pair of binocular sights on the target and keep the target centred for several seconds for the director to be able to start a solution, by the time the computer had made the solution it was too late so the USN relied on barrage firing just like the RN. Even in 1945 with radar directed Mk37 directors and VT fuses it was the close range Mk51 directors that did the best shooting against close in aircraft. Luckily some bright spark realised the Mk51 Bofors directors could provide the 5" guns with a solution against a diving manouvering attacker.

I was told by someone who knew what they were talking about that shooting at a plane is like trying to hit a man on a fast running Horse. Doing it at sea is like trying to hit a man on a running horse whilst being on a running horse yourself.

The aim of naval AAA is not to hit the plane but to stop the plane hitting your ship.

 

[parsifal]

The aim of naval AAA is not to hit the plane but to stop the plane hitting your ship

Absolutely. And the role of the carrier based fighter is not primarily concerned with shooting enemy aircraft down, its disrupting enemy attacks so as to protect th vital assets of the Task Group. Its why just a few carrier aircraft can achieve great things defensively,, even when massively outgunned or outnumbered

 

[redcoat]

My guess would be that the RN would survive 2-3 days if it decided to stay in the Channel.Kris

Are you aware that the RN never left the Channel during the Battle Of Britain.

ps: It is often claimed that the RN would never risk a battleship in the Channel if the German's invaded, this somehow ignores the fact that the battleship HMS Revenge was based in the Channel from August 1940 for anti-invasion duties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Revenge_(06)

 

[RCAFson]

The the story behind HMS Gurka's loss:

HMS Gurkha (i), destroyer