Exactly.
For the Germans, the fundamental problem was that the British still retained command of the sea in Western Europe and no amount of planning, barge loading or Siebel innovations could overcome that.
Cheers
Steve
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
Exactly.
For the Germans, the fundamental problem was that the British still retained command of the sea in Western Europe and no amount of planning, barge loading or Siebel innovations could overcome that.
Cheers
Steve
Because that was what it was called for a short time, during the war ships from the Irish Republic had Eire on the side to denote a neutral vessel. I remember seeing it on maps at school in the sixties and seventies.
Éire - Wikipedia
parsifal
Colonel
The guy is not listening I'm afraid. every one of the nngagements he has quoted, some incorrectly or misleadingly have zero relevance to what we are looking at here.
The germans operated through most of the war at sea, for their surface forces, on the basis of avoiding combat on equal terms. inevitably these combats were carried out at high speed, at long range against targets that were free to manouver and with considerable defensive and offensive offensive capabilities. on those occasions when DKM was unable to run, they were lost. this occurred at Narvik, Oslo, and 2nd Denmark strait.
We have a similar situation in this hypothetical. Escorting an invasion convoy leaves DKM with no choice other than to fight it out. If you scatter the convoy, you will not be able to complete the Amphib operation. Your targets are severely restricted in speed and severely restricted in manouver. There are insufficient escorts to cover the perimeter. many of the defending escorts are too lightly armed to offer significant resistance except at ranges below 1-2000 yds. And then only for a very short period.
This would be a battle like no other that DKM ever fought. DKM was a sea denial force, a force designed and structured to fight short, sharp engagement where there was no need to control the ocean after the engagement. This would force DKM into a role for which it could not win and was not trained to do. sea control. DKM would have to stand their ground win the fight and drive the RN away from the convoy. this was never going to happen.
,
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
German troops beneficial? Beneficial to whom? Certainly not the Irish! Possibly a benefit to the nazis, but when -- and they would -- the Irish-Americans start hearing about German atrocities against the Irish -- and those would happen, too, as they had in every country Germany occupied -- the US would probably get more actively involved, sooner.
Fighting on after a significant part fell to the enemy could form a good basis for propaganda.
I'm sure the Irish would see that sort of unification, under nazi rule, to be worth even less than reunification would be under the British.
Irish Republican Army – Abwehr collaboration in World War II
Irish Republican Army – Abwehr collaboration in World War II - Wikipedia
Irish Republican Army – Abwehr collaboration in World War II - Wikipedia
buffnut453
Captain
Yes...beneficial to the Germans. The question was asked about the purpose of Germany landing troops in Ireland...so, clearly, the advantages are all to Germany.
The point I was trying to make is that, from a German perspective, occupation of Ireland would have some positive outcomes, particularly for the U-Boat campaign. However, the Irish Government would be decidedly against any such move. If Germany forced the issue, there might be some immediate tactical gains but it would not result in a sustainable positive change to strategic outcomes for Germany. As you point out, it likely would accelerate US involvement in the war.
I've just read through (over a few days, that is) the entire thread, all 28 pages. It hasn't moved on by much since it first began. There's been one guy (at a time) who doggedly believes the Germans could have gone ahead with Sealion and succeeded, whereas every other poster uses logic and a better understanding of the situation to prove that it wouldn't. Yet that one guy still refuses to accept it, after 28 pages of it! I don't know if PSL and Dogwalker are one and the same (or go to the same bierkellar/internet forums), but the latter was well antagonistic at times!
It is dangerous to conflate the IRA with the political leadership of the Republic in 1940. The British did to an extent. They saw Ireland as uncooperative, the recent loss of the treaty ports caused anger, compounded by the belief that Ireland was full of Nazi sympathisers, fifth columnists and the IRA, adhering to the traditional doctrine 'England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity'. It was a view of Ireland formed with the benefit of several hundred years of shared history and it was largely nonsense.
Most Irish people were not sympathetic to the Nazi cause, even in 1940. Since the mid 1930s the de Valera government had pursued a ruthless campaign against Republican extremists who were regarded as a dangerous threat to the new state. The IRA was banned and its members faced internment, military tribunals and even in a few cases, execution. Just what the organisation was supposed to achieve on behalf of the Germans in such a political climate is difficult to say, but not much.
Aside from all this, and British perceptions of de Valera, the Germans considered him sympathetic to 'England', something he himself acknowledged.
Cheers
Steve
Most Irish people were not sympathetic to the Nazi cause, even in 1940. Since the mid 1930s the de Valera government had pursued a ruthless campaign against Republican extremists who were regarded as a dangerous threat to the new state. The IRA was banned and its members faced internment, military tribunals and even in a few cases, execution. Just what the organisation was supposed to achieve on behalf of the Germans in such a political climate is difficult to say, but not much.
Aside from all this, and British perceptions of de Valera, the Germans considered him sympathetic to 'England', something he himself acknowledged.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
While the theoretical advantages are many the practical advantages are few and this is for the Germans. For the Irish the theoretical advantages are few and the practical advantages are close to zero. Aside from "sticking it to the British" there is really nothing in it for the Irish and an awful lot to loose. Aside from the Irish who joined the British military how many thousands (or tens of thousands) of Irish worked for the British in one way or another, even if just selling Irish grown food to the British? Irish economy really tanks even if the British don't counter attack the German/Irish bases.
Without a science fiction transporter the Germans have no practical way of setting up or supplying a significant presence in Ireland.
Air supply is out of the question. Hundreds of Ju 52s trying to Overfly England or take-off from Brest and fly to Cork? (300 miles) the direct route puts you in sight of Lands End on a clear day so add a good dog leg and then remember that unless you bring it with you there won't be any av-gas in Ireland for the return trip.
Submarines?
Highspeed dash by destroyers? There won't be any ammo for restocking the magazines in Ireland. And how many times could they pull this one off.
Not to mention that the British just might (as in probably) violate Irish neutrality under the doctrine of hot pursuit to go after any German ship in an Irish port/harbour.
Whatever the political considerations the practical one of getting more than a few platoons to Ireland and keeping them supplied seems out of the question.
Without a science fiction transporter the Germans have no practical way of setting up or supplying a significant presence in Ireland.
Air supply is out of the question. Hundreds of Ju 52s trying to Overfly England or take-off from Brest and fly to Cork? (300 miles) the direct route puts you in sight of Lands End on a clear day so add a good dog leg and then remember that unless you bring it with you there won't be any av-gas in Ireland for the return trip.
Submarines?
Highspeed dash by destroyers? There won't be any ammo for restocking the magazines in Ireland. And how many times could they pull this one off.
Not to mention that the British just might (as in probably) violate Irish neutrality under the doctrine of hot pursuit to go after any German ship in an Irish port/harbour.
Whatever the political considerations the practical one of getting more than a few platoons to Ireland and keeping them supplied seems out of the question.
What destroyers?
Not might or probably, but would.
There was already an agreement in place for Britain to respond to a German invasion of Ireland (at which point Ireland's neutrality was irrelevant). See Plan W.
The Royal Navy would declare a 'sink on sight' zone in the western approaches and off the South and West coasts of Ireland. All other shipping was to clear Irish ports and head for various British ports, or be sunk.
The British were not f#cking about. The Germans had the same problem for the invasion of Ireland as they did for an invasion of Britain, just magnified. It was the British, not the Germans who controlled the seas around the British Isles.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
The same 7-10 that were going to hold off the Royal Navy during Sea Lion
Of course they had to get them from Germany to Brest for this to work, trying to run North west from Cuxhaven up around Scotland and then south to Ireland wasn't likely to work
Shortround6
Major General
Being somewhat more serious I would say that the Barges probably had more freeboard than they are given credit for. Being built to carry coal or ore (iron, others) means that even loaded with men, horses or even a truck they are running light.
I don't know if the hold sides are added to freeboard or not but the hold covers should keep out the majority of the spray/splash. Which is a good thing as I have mentioned before,any pumps on these craft are manual pumps.
However even this additional freeboard may not be enough.
Tug looks good (built 1915) but
And this is in a Dutch waterway several miles from the open sea.
I don't know if the hold sides are added to freeboard or not but the hold covers should keep out the majority of the spray/splash. Which is a good thing as I have mentioned before,any pumps on these craft are manual pumps.
However even this additional freeboard may not be enough.
Tug looks good (built 1915) but
And this is in a Dutch waterway several miles from the open sea.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Problem with a flat bottom Barge is in any sort of wind or current they need to be ballasted deep or they become completely uncontrollable. The Barges used for an invasion would have to have been well ballasted possibly with concrete.
I once took a 32 foot x 7 foot x 2 foot Canal Narrowboat onto the tidal River Douglas and cruised down to the River_Ribble and then up to Preston docks. The whole experience of taking a flat bottomed not particulary powerful Canal boat into a tidal way was nerve wracking especially the point where we were heading towards the Irish Sea at about 2 knots whilst sideways with full throttle and the tiller hard left. Fortunately after a minute of panicking I remembered what I had to do run with the current, throttle back then use the speed to turn into the current if I had tried to turn with full throttle we would have been walking homehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ribble
I once took a 32 foot x 7 foot x 2 foot Canal Narrowboat onto the tidal River Douglas and cruised down to the River_Ribble and then up to Preston docks. The whole experience of taking a flat bottomed not particulary powerful Canal boat into a tidal way was nerve wracking especially the point where we were heading towards the Irish Sea at about 2 knots whilst sideways with full throttle and the tiller hard left. Fortunately after a minute of panicking I remembered what I had to do run with the current, throttle back then use the speed to turn into the current if I had tried to turn with full throttle we would have been walking homehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ribble
parsifal
Colonel
You are absolutely right, and offer a steadying hand to the frustration that is slowly building in me with this guys obstinance and outright lies.
I'm going through my notes and checking on the battles he has quoted, and most of them are misrepresented
take 1st battle of narvik for example. His account is misleading in the extreme. The generally accepted account of what happened that day goes more like this...
FIRST BATTLE OF NARVIK
Early on the 10th, DKM DD DIETHER VON ROEDER was supposed to be on patrol across the mouth of Ofotfjord, but the approaches were unguarded. ROEDER was supposed to remain on patrol until relieved by HANS LUDEMANN, but in ROEDER's diary there was the entry "Am relieving SCHMIDT from 0300 as ASW patrol until dawn." ROEDER left her patrol area across Ofotofjord and turned towards Narvik with the RN DesFlot 2 less than a mile astern in heavy snow and mist. ROEDER anchored at Narvik at 0420. German refuelling was far behind schedule. While tkr JAN WELLEM (11,776grt) had arrived on schedule, the second tanker, KATTEGAT (6031grt) was sunk late on the 9th before reaching Narvik. LUDEMANN and HERMANN KUNNE were alongside the converted whaler JAN WELLEM when the British attack began at 0430.
DD HARDY went in first into the harbour and fired 7 torps. 1 exploded in the aft magazine of DD WILHELM HEIDKAMP (DKM 2411 grt) blowing off her stern; 81 crew including Cmdore Bonte were killed. Finally, on the 11th at 0600, as a result of culminating damage, HEIDKAMP capsized and sank.
Other torps from HARDY were aimed at the merchant ships in the harbour which the Germans had seized. These torps generally hit their intended targets striking these MVs in the harbour. As DD HARDY withdrew, DDs HUNTER and HAVOCK entered the harbour firing torps. Torps from HAVOCK struck DD ANTON SCHMITT (DKM 2411 grt), seriously damaging her. DD KUNNE (she rolled over in fact), getting underway from alongside the tkr, was near SCHMITT when the torps hit and sustained damage to her engines from the concussion. SCHMITT, rolling over, settled onto KUNNE immobilising her for 40 minutes. 63 crew were killed on DD SCHMITT. DKM DD LUDEMAN had a gun knocked out from shellfire and a fire which necessitated flooding of her after magazine. 2 crew were killed.
Steamers SAPHIR ( 4306 grt) and ELDRID ( 1712 grt) were sunk in the harbour , but not paid off until later. , steamers STRASSA (SD 5602 grt) and BODEN (SD 4265 grt) ; Steamers FRIELINGHAUS (Ger 4339 grt), HEIN HOYER (Ger 5836 grt), NEUENFELS (Ger 8096 grt), MARTHA HEINDRIK FISSER (Ger 4879 grt), AACHEN (Ger 6388 grt), ALTONA (5398grt) were lost to hardy's torpedoes
DDs HOSTILE and HOTSPUR had been detailed to neutralize nonexistent coastal btys on the nth shore of Narvik. Upon finding no btys, the DDs entered the harbour fight. DD HOTSPUR fired torps at numerous merchant ships in the harbour and HOSTILE went into a gun action with DKM DD ROEDER damaging her so severely that the order to abandon ship was given by the German skipper.
As the DDs withdrew, DDs HOSTILE and HOTSPUR laid a smoke screen and HOSTILE fired her torpedoes against merchant ships in the harbour. DesFlot 2 thus far had fought an excellent fight, in the finest RN Destroyer traditions, at this point the flotilla began its withdrawal out of the fjord. During this battle,
DKM DDs WOLFGANG ZENKER , ERICH GIESE , and ERICH KOELLNER in Herjans fjord, waiting to refuel, got the alarm of the RN intrusion at 0515 and got underway at 0530. They chased the RN ships up the fjord as they were on the verge of escaping as the German destroyers did not have fuel to continue the chase further. However, DKM DDs GEORG THIELE and BERND VON ARNIM, getting underway from Ballengen fjord at 0540, contacted the RN DDs and attacked. In the ensuing fray, THIELE had two guns knocked out, a magazine flooded, was set afire and ARNIM was hit 5 times and had a boiler room flooded. DDs ZENKER, KOELLNER and GIESE expended more than half of their ammunition. 15 crew were killed and 23 wounded on DD THIELE. 2 crew was killed on DD ARNIM.
In the exchange, DD HARDY (RN 1456 grt) was badly damaged and then lost Cptn Warburton-Lee (flotilla leader) and 18 others were killed, and 12 wounded (1 died 3 months later). DD HUNTER (RN 1370 grt) was also badly damaged and then lost after a collision with DD HOTSPUR. DD HOTSPUR was badly damaged by German gunfire. 101 crew were lost on the HUNTER. 46 survivors were picked up by DKM DDs. Stuart-Menteth and 37 ratings were later able to escape to Sweden. 9 crew remained pows for the duration. The remaining survivors died from their wounds and exposure.
DDs HOSTILE and HAVOCK escaped without serious damage, but HOTSPUR suffered 14 fatalities, with 3 other ratings dying of wounds, 11 other crew were wounded. Retiring from the Fjord, DDs HOTSPUR, HAVOCK, HOSTILE encountered the AK RAUENFELS (Ger 8460 grt) carrying the Narvik force's ammunition supplies. DDs HAVOCK and HOSTILE hit RAUENFELS several times with gunfire and a fire was started that soon detonated the ammunition and destroyed RAUENFELS. DD HAVOCK picked up the Captain and 18 crew from one boat from the German steamer. The two other boats rowed ashore and were captured by Norwegian forces. DD HAVOCK sustained some hull damage from the concussion, but the German forces at Narvik now had no reserve ammunition which was sorely needed.
Doesn't read much like the account being fed to us by the other side does it. Doesn't support the notion that merchant shipping in near stationary condition could not be easily hit either.
HMS Hotspur was my fathers ship for a while, though after Narvik. My mother still has a fading picture on her living room wall.
Course It doesn't , its meant to dissolve the clash down to basic elements, the DATA. Your attempt is embellishment the narrative that only clouds any judgment.
Such battles are ALWAYS misrepresented the more embellishment is heaped on one side- instead of the other. This is called bias and if left unchecked , removes any value from the comment.
The only way to give equal treatment in a battle , is to religiously avoid any bias and dissolve every thing down to as simple as possible -neutral statistics.
Pretty much most posters on this thread are unashamedly biased posters commenting on this theoretical clash , which NEVER HAPPENED!. No one here is remotely qualified to offer anything other than a passing opinion. Therefor you will never be able to establish with any certainty what may or may not happen.
Simplify and inform.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The two naval battles at Narvik showed the real Nelson touch.
Quite the opposite in my experience, especially the main posters on this thread. As far as I am concerned the situation is this. If the RAF were completely defeated with no loss to the LW, AND the Royal Navy withdrew to Scapa Flow AND the tides and currents stopped in the Channel then the invasion may have stood a chance however some units of the Home Guard and Dover dockers may have had to give a helping hand.
parsifal
Colonel
But your post was innaccurate, and designed to misinform so you are not informing. And simplify does not mean selective editing of the facts. You did not describe the full extent of losses, the targets being aimed for, those that were hit or the ability to hit targets that are stationary (or near stationary, at close range and and lightly or unarmed). Your contention was that it was not possible to inflict serious damage on an enemy with surface naval forces at this time. You failed to take into account the ranges, the speeds of the targets. you misreported the losses. You have not reported that as a sea denial force, DKM usually looked to withdraw from heavy combat, something it cannot do in a sea control operation like sealion (or narvik, though at narvik there were supply issues and political interference to consider as well).
You are doing anything BUT presenting an unbiased informed case on this issue. Its typical and predictable in these sorts of debates that a favourite tactic in the debate is to turn around and claim bias from anybody that opposes people like yourself's point of view. Try presenting a case that is balanced, does not attempt to hide data that might not accord to your misguided preconceptions for a change and you might actually learn something.
