I wonder if the number of sorties x time on each side would be about the same final total?
If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain
- Thread starter DogFather
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I wonder if the number of sorties x time on each side would be about the same final total?
That's what I mean't, that the total number of flying hours were the same for each side.
In terms of the fighters the LW were almost always at long or maximum range, extra tanks were introduced for it. While some RAF sorties were quite long most were not. There were many ways in which the BoB was assymetric. Many pilots in the LW facing much fewer in the RAF 11 and 12 group.
Sinking ships is next to impossible in this era. Read on one forum that RN expended 5000 shells to sink one warship in the med.If you are interested read O'Hara volumes on the IJN VS USN + RN VS KM & RM
parsifal
Colonel
received a dislike from someone called "PSL" no explanation yet as to why.
Last edited:
A loaded canal barge is very easy to sink in the English Channel, the plan was to tow two behind a tug or other vessel at about 2 knots, they could be sunk just by bumping into them, also highly probable that many would sink in bad weather and most would sink in a storm. I have been on a ferry swept by the waves into Dover Harbour wall and loading on a Ro Ro ferry moored in Calais was delayed for 30 minutes due to the swell in the harbour, that is on todays modern ferries of 26,000 tonnes (GT).
Last edited:
I suspect a fat finger scrolling on a kindle.
parsifal
Colonel
At Dunkirk the Allies committed 861 warships and were for about 8 days the focus of LW attention. There also attacks by air and subsurface laid mines and DKM light forces operating in the channel .
In total the allies lost or had to withdraw due to damage 243 naval vessels of all sizes this gives clues on both the levels of damage the LW might be able to unleash onto the Allied surface forces, but also the determination the allies would prosecute an operation of this importance. there would be no question of "saving the forces for another day" These were overwhelmingly coastal forces, not forming part of the western approaches escort forces. they had been built and equipped for coastal protection, including anti invasion duties. There should be no question that these forces would continue to engage the invasion fleet until either DKM withdrew, or the anti invasion forces were destroyed.
In total the allies lost or had to withdraw due to damage 243 naval vessels of all sizes this gives clues on both the levels of damage the LW might be able to unleash onto the Allied surface forces, but also the determination the allies would prosecute an operation of this importance. there would be no question of "saving the forces for another day" These were overwhelmingly coastal forces, not forming part of the western approaches escort forces. they had been built and equipped for coastal protection, including anti invasion duties. There should be no question that these forces would continue to engage the invasion fleet until either DKM withdrew, or the anti invasion forces were destroyed.
parsifal
Colonel
It would be true what you say if the forces engaged were moving at any speed, the engagement ranges were long, and had large quantities of ammunition to fire. but the average fleet speed of the DKM assault force was just 2.5 knots. Sitting ducks. Moreover the barges themselves didn't need to be fired upon. RN DDs would more than likely just slice through them. MGs at close range would be used to disable the tow ships, boarded and captured, 18th century style. this was a force that was defenceless at sea. there is no need to engage at range, and no difficulties in hitting things due to speed. near misses are likely to sink or capsize the barges because of their stability issues.
The only true defences for the invasion fleet are the 100 or so escorts of various sizes. a few of these were proper blue water warships, most were not. most, like the m-35 class MSWs had a maximum speed of just 15 knots, typically these light forces had about enough ammunition to last about an hour in action, and then would have to return to port to refuel and rearm. It might take 2hours to return to port, say an hour to restock, and another 2 hours to get back to the invasion fleet. That's 5 hours down time and 1 hours engagement time. that whole time the RN is a threat, probably constantly engaging (and shuttling back and forth like the DKM, but with vastly more reserves), But the diffefence and advantage here rests with the RN, they are the attackers in this, they can choose their timing and concentrations for attack, wheras DKM is far more limited in their ability to do this
Just on that arithmetic alone you could probably expect the RN to attack in waves of 200-300 small ships with about 10-15 DDs with each wave, attacking a defending force on their gunline of about 20 ships, probably with something like 2 DDs and 3 large TBs. The germans just aren't going to have enough Kahoonas to stop the repeatedallied attacks on them, and don't forget the assault is an 11 day operation 9according to DKM)
You are wrong incidentally about the ability to hit targets at this time. The key is the target sped and target range. Reduce these and the ability to hit and sink stuff goes up exponentially ,
what 861 warships?
They had couple capital ships plus dozen cruisers and 76 DD/FF. Several times this number was available but strung out around the world. It would take week or two to return them to the UK.
Most counter invasion forces were 750 trawlers armed with either 12lb gun from WW-I plus AAMG or the ASW versions with ASDIC , DC racks & AAMG. At most 1/2 could be available to counter any invasion. There primary mission was coastal convoy escort work and in what ever clashes they were involved with they were a pain in the ass to sink . Admiralty wanted to use these trawler "warships"in Atlantic convoys , since the average convoy had only one escort...no wonder the Nazi had a field day with the convoys.
Historically most attacks on auxiliary vessels resulted in maybe one vessel sunk per attacking warship sortie.
parsifal
Colonel
The 861 vessels includes approximately 200 FFL ships, for which I don't have a lot of data. there were approximately 693 RN ships srawn mostly from dover,Harwich and nore commands, including the following
CLs -1
CLAs 2
DDs 59
Sloops and corvettes; 19
Large PCs; 9
Gunboats 12
MSWs; 56
Large TBs and ocean going ASW craft (eg the Hunts, Kingfishers) 33
Armed yachts 151
Small boarding vessels; 94
Ocean boarding vessels; 9
Minelayers; 7
Special service vessels: 16
Armed Tugs: 54
MTBs and MGBs: 46
Other armed Patrol craft; C 50
By the time the sealion operations loomed into view these forces had been substantially reinforced, to over 1000 warships, mostly coastal forces, spread from Harwich to brighton with about as many within another 8 hours sailing time.
Your right that these forces were strung out ant it would take time for a 'big wing" response to be mounted if the invasion fleet had gotten under way. The admiralty thought about a day at most, DKM estimated twice that. The defenders still had 9 days of attacks in which to decimate the invaders.
Most counter invasion forces were 750 trawlers armed with either 12lb gun from WW-I plus AAMG or the ASW versions with ASDIC , DC racks & AAMG. At most 1/2 could be available to counter any invasion. There primary mission was coastal convoy escort work and in what ever clashes they were involved with they were a pain in the ass to sink . Admiralty wanted to use these trawler "warships"in Atlantic convoys , since the average convoy had only one escort...no wonder the Nazi had a field day with the convoys.
in the event of an invasion alert the admiralty orders to these ships were basically to drop everything and proceed immediately to their assembly points, and from there to proceed to positions to repel the invaders. there would have been no holding back on this. these coastal forces were there principally in 1940 for the sole purpose of defeating the invasion. from the end of july all east coast convoy traffic had been halted or diverted. there weren't any "convoy distractions" except for 1 or two here and there undertaken for propaganda purposes mostly. Most of the larger ships were armed with 4.7 and 4in, also quad 2pdrs, the middle sized ships were armed with 4in guns and 0.5in HMGs, the smaller conversions had a rather disheartening array of old weapons, the same as was the case in the DKM conversions that made up the majority of their forces.
You cant compare what would have happed here with anything during the war. It was a quite unique situation. I agree that initially the germans and the allies might find themselves in a standaoff....until the Germans run out of ammunition, then what???? They have no choice but to withdraw to replenish. once this nibbling process is over, those transports are fully exposed and vulnerable, with no real defences. on the few occasions that i can think of where anything like this happened, usually in remote corners of the eastern front, massacres did take place. We have nothing like that in the western hemishere, but it would extremely wrong to claim that it would never happen. It never happened, because nobody not even hitler were dumb enough to risk a fleet so totally vulnerable to attacks like that.
Some of the warships mentioned were capable of use in the western approaches, but were not attached to that command and had not since the beginning of the war. the majority of the coast forces were just that....coastal forced, not capable of ocean service. The Uboats were having a field day and continued to do so until the following March. but these coastal forces that you are so scornful of had in fact succeded in driving the uboats away from the UK coastal waters and out to the open sea. Had france not fallen, there would have been a reprive to a degree from the uboats, but the new uboat bases along the French Atlantic coast had given the uboats an extension of range that very nearly brought Britain to her knees. moreso than some half baked crackpot invasion. .
Shortround6
Major General
Just so we can see what we are talking about.
The barges appear to running light. This is a bit of controversy. you can find pictures of european river barges running with their gunnels almost awash bu they are carrying cargos of coal or scrap iron. Men are a lot less heavy. Ane the Germans would have to load them so they trimmed by the stern, light load in the bow so that it would draw less water and they could get the bow closer to the beach.
Different waterways in Europe had different allowable dimensions of the barges/boats that could use them. Usually the size restrictions were due to locks than moved the barges/boats to different levels in the canal systems.
Many of the barges were heavily built (if your going to carry coal for decades you don't do it in a light boat) but unlike warships there are no watertight compartments. One hole anywhere in the hull and the whole hull fills with water. With no engine the pumps are are going to hand pumps (or leg/back pumps) for getting out minor leakage/rainwater.
Even running light you are not likely to pick up more than a couple of feet of freeboard. And running too light makes them harder to tow in a cross wind.
The barges appear to running light. This is a bit of controversy. you can find pictures of european river barges running with their gunnels almost awash bu they are carrying cargos of coal or scrap iron. Men are a lot less heavy. Ane the Germans would have to load them so they trimmed by the stern, light load in the bow so that it would draw less water and they could get the bow closer to the beach.
Different waterways in Europe had different allowable dimensions of the barges/boats that could use them. Usually the size restrictions were due to locks than moved the barges/boats to different levels in the canal systems.
Many of the barges were heavily built (if your going to carry coal for decades you don't do it in a light boat) but unlike warships there are no watertight compartments. One hole anywhere in the hull and the whole hull fills with water. With no engine the pumps are are going to hand pumps (or leg/back pumps) for getting out minor leakage/rainwater.
Even running light you are not likely to pick up more than a couple of feet of freeboard. And running too light makes them harder to tow in a cross wind.
I find it a bit difficult to understand what the scenario means. It seems in some parts of the discussion that the RAF being defeated means that it never actually existed. That is the LW had its pre BoB strength while the RAF has no aircraft at all either fighters or bombers.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
The nazis had a field day before the convoys; the convoys worked because the U-boats couldn't find a convoy of a hundred ships any more easily than one ship, and that those hundred individual ships gave a hundred chances to be found. A convoy of one hundred ships gave one.
Shortround6
Major General
Or reconnaissance
The German destroyers and large steam torpedo boats were in Germany over the summer. The British probably knew where they were 9at least every few days) and while they could have been moved closer before the invasion at night and staying close to the Dutch shore unless the RAF is totally wiped out they would probably be spotted within a few days of arriving and steps/plans made in British plans on how to deal with them.
The British certainly had lots of pictures of the barge build up.
The final plan was for each tow, behind a tug or other vessel, to comprise two unpowered barges, one powered barge and two 'pusher boats' which would be used to beach the unpowered barges.
It was ridiculous and may well have ended in disaster, even without any British intervention
Cheers
Steve
If the weather was anything like Seaton seafront last weekend it would have been a disaster. Even having a harbour wouldn't solve much, I have been on a ferry swept onto Dover harbour entrance.The final plan was for each tow, behind a tug or other vessel, to comprise two unpowered barges, one powered barge and two 'pusher boats' which would be used to beach the unpowered barges.
It was ridiculous and may well have ended in disaster, even without any British intervention
Cheers
Steve
you were in seaton, hope you were lost and passing through ?
No worries, I am multi lingual and can speak fluent "sea coaler", I used to work there (Hartlepool steelworks) and frequently had a beer in the "Golden Flats" after work. Its a great beach to walk a dog.
