If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain

The problem, understood by both the Germans and the British, was that even if the Luftwaffe could achieve local air superiority in daylight hours, it would not achieve the supremacy at sea required for an amphibious operation. I don't believe the RN could have been 'kept at bay' in daylight hours and it certainly couldn't be at night. The German planning called for 24 hour operations over many days. The invasion was an impossible undertaking for the Germans, and they knew it.

This is the crux of the myth of the Battle of Britain. Fighter Command did not save us from invasion, but it made a good story, particularly to a US audience, at the time.

"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."

Rubbish! I base my opinion and conjecture of what would have happened on those of the men on both sides who were involved in the planning of and opposition to the operation. It is quite clear that many senior officers in the KM and some in the Army felt that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Many senior British figures did not believe that an invasion was really possible, it's what allowed reinforcement of the Mediterranean at the height of invasion fever and Admirals arguing for the release of naval assets from anti-invasion duties for convoy protection duties..

You can find details of the German planning for Sealion and contrast that with later Allied amphibious operations and draw your own conclusions.

Furthermore, various scenarios (all of which make a special allowance for at least some German lodgements to be established on the English coast, otherwise there is not much to play out) have been gamed by officers from both sides, some of whom were originally involved, and the result is always the same. The operation fails. Are you better qualified to offer a better opinion than them?

Cheers

Steve

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.

Wrong. actually there are people in this place well qualified, either from an historical perspective, and or an operational experience perspective to comment on an operation such as sealion. which is why we can call out a dud and a fake when we see one. The operation I mean.

parsifal said:

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.

Wrong. actually there are people in this place well qualified, either from an historical perspective, and or an operational experience perspective to comment on an operation such as sealion. which is why we can call out a dud and a fake when we see one. The operation I mean.

Click to expand...

Others have just crossed the channel frequently in 27,000 ton ferries being thrown about or fog bound for hours fairly regularly.

I would note that trying to make comparisons of long range gun fire against fast moving ships vs close range gunfire vs slow/stopped ships is almost like comparing cheese and chalk.

In the interest of presenting Data.

British 6in shell from modern cruisers took 47.16 seconds to reach 20,000yds. A 30kt ship could cover just under 2400ft in that amount of time.
At 5,000yds the time of flight was 6.57 seconds and a 30 kt ship could only move 333ft. Angle of decent at 20,000yds in 39 degrees 52 minutes while the angle of decent at 5000yds is 3 degrees 0 minutes.
Figuring out exact course and exact speed of the target took some doing (even early radar didn't give good answers.) you had to plot the target ships movement and deduce course and speed from multiple sightings or taking the range/bearing.
Bigger guns have shorter times of flight to long ranges, smaller guns have longer time of flight,if they can reach 20,000yds at all.
Obviously using data from long range gun duals skews the number of rounds fired to get a hit.

For close range gunnery ( under a few thousand yds) things revert pretty much to WW 1 or before considerations.
You are no longer lobbing shells into the air at the expected future position of the target but firing directly at the target.(pretty much).

Assuming calm water and good visibility, (more on that later) you have very little movement of the target (a ship length for a destroyer at 5,000yds, 1/2 a ship length for a large cruiser or a ship doing only 15kts). What becomes important is danger space

Not quite what I was looking for but it helps.
At 3000yds a 6in gun with MV of 2600fps was rated as having a danger space of 313 yds vs a 25ft high target. At 8000 yds that dange space had shrunk to 60 yds. Source, for numbers, chart for Bethlehem Steel guns in 1914 naval annual.
Now two things show up here, short ranges give much greater danger spaces (and less target movement) but target size also matters. Much harder to hit craft that only sticks up out of the water 4-6ft vs one that is 20-30ft high.

Very few real battles took place in calm water with good visibility. If one started under such conditions one side (usually the weaker) would see the disparity in the size of the forces and try to escape.

Firing from a moving ship was much more difficult that firing from land (one reason Coastal Batteries used a lot fewer guns than ships, each gun was much more 'effective'.) as the gun was moving up and down in plane (pitch), was constantly changing elevation (roll) and was moving in the horizontal plane (yaw). Many really big ships had firing circuits that would fire the guns at the same point in the roll to help eliminate that error.

Gunnery from trawlers, sloops, tugs and old destroyers was much more basic. No (or very simple) gun directors. Trained gunners shot at a certain point in the roll as best they could (there were simulators for this) IF they could not follow the roll with the elevation gear.

Shooting in rain/snow squalls is going to affect accuracy, you can't hit what you can't see or see intermittently and/or indistinctly.
Shooting at night depends on either moonlight or flares/searchlights.

As opinion I would say that the barges are not easy targets, they are very small in height and not very wide. On the other hand they are near stationary (even 4 kts is just about 6 ft per second). However the towing vessels are somewhat taller, the steam powered tow vessels (the vast majority) have boilers that not only have their tops above the waterline, the boiler tops were often higher than the main deck making them very vulnerable to gun fire/shell fragments. Top of the cylinder heads of steam engines (very few turbine powered tugs) were also above the waterline and/or the main deck. A leak in the boiler or steam line could render the boiler/engine room uninhabitable. It might only take a few hours (maybe less?) to repair some leaks once the steam dissipates but until that time the tow vessels and barges are drifting at the full mercy of wind, waves and currents.

Barges are not easy targets but they don't even need a direct hit to sink them or seriously injure those in them.

Everything about the barges is a compromise or trade-off. The coal and ore haulers were mostly made of iron or steel plate (some wood ones?) and if riding low are small targets and are protected by the water from fragments from all but the closests misses. However if low riding they are more subject to water coming aboard from near misses, less margin for flooding before water enters from other points, and again, damage control was minimal.
If riding high they are bigger targets but take longer to fill with water to the point of sinking. The men are more exposed because more of their bodies are above the water line and are depending on hull thickness/material.

Shortround6 said:

Everything about the barges is a compromise or trade-off. The coal and ore haulers were mostly made of iron or steel plate (some wood ones?) and if riding low are small targets and are protected by the water from fragments from all but the closests misses. However if low riding they are more subject to water coming aboard from near misses, less margin for flooding before water enters from other points, and again, damage control was minimal.
If riding high they are bigger targets but take longer to fill with water to the point of sinking. The men are more exposed because more of their bodies are above the water line and are depending on hull thickness/material.

Click to expand...

True for a barge on the open sea, a different issue on a beach, the only way they will be missed by naval artillery while trying to unload is if the sea is so rough the barges wouldn't make it anyway.

Graeme said:

An alternate timeline...

View attachment 473821

Click to expand...

Oh. The time line were both my sisters' in-laws are all murdered. Thank you, but no.

I wonder how many of the members have been involved in exercises like "Tandem thrust" or the later "Talisman sabre". When I was in the service they were known as exercise "Kangaroo I, II and III". They are basically the US Pacific Fleets major bi-annual training exercises to test out many aspects of combined operations including a major focus on planning and implementation of amphibious operations.

These exercises are also Australia's major biennial training exercise with United States forces, As a rule the exercise in the in the Shoalwater Bay area in Queensland involve more than 12,000 Australian and 15,000 American personnel in the month long exercises.

The Australians represent all three forces and come from all parts of the country.

The Kangaroo exercises involved generally more that 60 warships and some 300 aircraft. Obviously the techniques and technologies have changed since 1940, but certain basic truths and principals remain constant for operations of this kind.


The exercises are designed to integrate Australian forces in working with the US marines and other allied forces in a war fighting environment, as well as develop the ADF's interoperability with US and other forces, and refine procedures for combined operations and test theory and practice in many different operations types, but including amphibious assault and the simple act of getting a large body of troops across the ocean to an insertion point.

In modern terms 'combined operations ' is used to indicate an operation conducted by forces of two or more nations acting together for the accomplishment of a single mission. 'Joint' activities, operations, organisations and the like refer to elements of more than one Service of the same nation participating together.

Highlights of the exercise have always been the amphibious landings in Shoalwater Bay and the sinking by warships and aircraft of decommissioned American and Australian naval vessel in deep waters off the Queensland coast (this happens less now with cost and environmental considerations) demonstrates in the clearest possible terms that hitting a stationary target at close range was not a difficult task. Sometimes these gunnery training exercises were done with 'open sights". That is, without the benefit of radar or other "modern" aids.

Under exercise tandem thrust in 2001, a scenario was devised where a friendly 'Blue Force', drawn from a combined Australian and American force, was to conduct an amphibious landing at Shoalwater Bay following an opposed sea passage. The US Commander Seventh Fleet, Vice Admiral James Metzger, USN commanded the 'Blue Force'. Little talked about but he suffered "catastrophic losses" in the approach from the orange force. It just served to underscore lessons already known, that in order to safely deliver an amphibious package on an opposed coast, you need decisive air superiority, and also decisive sea superiority. In sealion, the germans even under the most optimistic of assumptions cannot hope to achieve either state.

An enemy 'Orange Force' of Australian and American forces supported by an element of the Canadian Navy and commanded by the Commander of First Division, Major General Jim Molan opposed the attack

Commenting on the exercise MAJGEN Molan said that Tandem Thrust 2001 provided an excellent opportunity for the ADF and US forces to increase its own professional war fighting skills in a combined and joint environment, as well as further relations with Australia's major ally.

Recent history has taught us that Armed Forces may be called upon to embark on combined operations with very short warning,' he said. 'The Tandem Thrust series of exercises ensure that the ADF is ready to move at short notice and integrate quickly into larger operations if it is ever required to do so.'

'I am looking forward to a challenging exercise from which valuable lessons may be learned and implemented in any future contingency,' he said.

The exercises are generally conducted as "free play" exercises designed to give planners, tactical warfare offices and other senior commanders the opportunity to test procedures and plans under the most realistic battlefield conditions possible, without actually shooting at each other

I participated in three of these exercises. I have training in PWO (principal warfare officer). Ive served on gun armed ships that are the direct descendants of some of the DD types that were present or available for this hypothetical. No, I have never been in open combat, but yes ive provided training and instruction to others enrolled in similar trainng courses over the years. My university major whilst in the service was "strategic studies". I was studying and learning the art of soldiering for over 10 years.

People with service experience are about as close as you can get to being qualified to comment IMO.

psl said:

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.

Click to expand...

You really haven't been paying attention, or have no clue as to who really visits this board do you?

I suggest you get to know who posts here by going through some older or even current threads. Check you ego at the door and learn a bit before making statements like the one I bold faced in your post. There is A LOT to learn from the gents that frequent this asylum, sometimes it's best to close the mouth and open the ears so to speak.

I say this hoping you'll avail yourself of the knowledge here and become a contributing member, good luck.

Wasn't Sealion done by Sandhurst and came to the conclusion that it would have been a disaster for the Germans. Some might say there was bias since it was Sandhurst tho.

Milosh said:

Wasn't Sealion done by Sandhurst and came to the conclusion that it would have been a disaster for the Germans. Some might say there was bias since it was Sandhurst tho.

Click to expand...

ah yes. here is the summary I found about how it progressed.

To make the landings work, it was found necessary to pull the bulk of the RN forces away from the east and south coasts of Britain.

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

parsifal said:

ah yes. here is the summary I found about how it progressed.

To make the landings work, it was found necessary to pull the bulk of the RN forces away from the east and south coasts of Britain.

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

Click to expand...

I didn't realise the plan was to tow barges at night! A recipe for chaos.

parsifal said:

To make the landings work, it was found necessary to pull the bulk of the RN forces away from the east and south coasts of Britain.

Click to expand...

This is what I was referring to when I said that some German lodgements had to be allowed, or there was nothing to game

In the real world I very much doubt that any German troops would have landed in anything approaching good order.


Cheers

Steve

pbehn said:

I didn't realise the plan was to tow barges at night! A recipe for chaos.

Click to expand...

Not just tow across the Channel. Some of the manoeuvres which were to be coordinated (largely without any wireless communications) both for assembly and prior to the final approach to the beaches were also to be carried out in darkness. Only at first light would signal flags rather than lamps be used.

As I said before, the more you read the details of the German plan the less feasible it seems.

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

Not just tow across the Channel. Some of the manoeuvres which were to be coordinated (largely without any wireless communications) both for assembly and prior to the final approach to the beaches were also to be carried out in darkness. Only at first light would signal flags rather than lamps be used.

As I said before, the more you read the details of the German plan the less feasible it seems.

Click to expand...

Steve, what difference would wireless communications make unless you have lights on Where are you? I am here, where are you?

psl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bias against what? The fact that the Germans themselves didn't carry it out because it was going to fail? You are in no position to make such a presumption regarding what members of this forum know and don't know. Regarding the establishment of certainty, are you kidding? All the evidence there points to a German defeat, but you cannot even acknowledge that even the Germans theselves thought it was a bad idea and that it wouldn't succeed. I call BS on your summation, simply because it was and still is extraordinarily obvious that Sealion would have failed.

You can't see it because you refuse to see it. You have not provided a shred of evidence to back up your claim, psl; you deliberately debate and dispute everything people write, that is backed up by sources, yet you provide none yourself, just mouthing off at others and their claims and sources. If you are so convinced of German victory, prove it. I bet you have never even been across the English Channel on a boat. I have, a bloody great ferry and people were still seasick - and it was summer.

psl said:

Simplify and inform.

Click to expand...

What, imitating Donald Trump's twitter feed now? SAD.

And again we have the strange situation were the best weather conditions for the attackers are also the best weather conditions for the defenders.

Pretty much a typical armed trawler of the time. In a less that flat calm she would be a lively gun platform and the gun crew working hard as the ship pitched and rolled.
However in a less that flat calm the German towed barges are also in trouble just from the waves.
The Trawler has no radar and the gunner/s have to depend on seeing the target but the Germans are controlling their fleet/barge strings with signal lamps or signal flags so they need good visibility or the whole thing falls apart. Rain squalls, fog , sea mist would reduce the German "formations" to shambles so they need the same visibility and sea conditions that would favor the armed trawlers gunnery the most.

What were the actual weather conditions when the invasion was supposed to happen? That is a great photo SR but it doesn't look like the Channel in Autumn.

The thing is, the weather in the Channel (and over the North Sea) changes very quickly and suddenly. I remember on one particular trip on a walking tour of the heavy gun emplacements overlooking Dover, the day started with good clear weather, but in less than an hour it had greyed up and started raining. Visibility dropped rapidy. After a couple of hours the fog had rolled in. We left Dover and headed to Capel, and by the time we reached the BoB memorial it was sunny and clear (but very windy).