Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Does anybody really think the people of the UK would do less when national survival is at stake?
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.
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.
French soldiers held the perimeter against them
"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?
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
That seems unlikely ...Don't forget that Sea Lion was a long time dying. Hitler was still issuing orders regarding the operation in 1944.
In 1944? Germany's trying an amphibious invasion of the UK in 1944 would be war-winning move! For the Allies.
That seems unlikely ...
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.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.
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 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...
GThe Royal Navy's high angle control system didn't work very well but nobody's did with the possible exception of the USN.
The aim of naval AAA is not to hit the plane but to stop the plane hitting your ship
Are you aware that the RN never left the Channel during the Battle Of Britain.My guess would be that the RN would survive 2-3 days if it decided to stay in the Channel.Kris