Landing Craft

[syscom3]

The RAF would not be playing that big a role if luftwaffe plans were on track - also driving away the royal navy lest they suffer the fate of PoW and Repulse. Under the protection of the Luftwaffe, german shipping could have delivered supplies as well - an adequate logistical base could very well have been established. Seized airfields would in turn become bases for the Germans on British soil. They were massing hundreds of barges and other craft for their makeshift invasion fleet. It would have been an ugly amphib invasion, just as the invasion of Norway was an abomination. However, this could likely have worked if eagle day and the ensuing battle went the germans way.

Even if the Germnas did attain daytime superiority, they would still be taking loss's at night time from both the RAF and RN (MTB's would play havoc on the landing barges).

And the German logistics were predicated on taking harbors intact, which was incredibly optimistic planning. All those barges they were building were going to have poor sortie rates which would compound the logistics.

Seizing airfields? Keep in mind what happened to the Germans at Crete. High loss's almost cost them the battle. If they were going to be parachuting onto British soil, they were going to be mauled to the point of not being able to control airfields. The endurance issue for the -109 was still going to rear its ugly head when the remaining Spits and Hurricanes would take off from bases outside of fighter range and slam into the transports when the fighters had to turn back.

Also keep in mind...
1 - the invasion army would not likely have been heavy in mech or armor units - at least not initially

In 1940 and 1941, there would have been few, if any landing craft capable of putting the tanks ashore on unimproved beaches.

2 - stukas would be augmenting german divisional arty, and as usual be relied upon heavily as mobile arty batteries.

Stuka's cant cover the battlefield 24/7, and are useless at night.

I have seen interviews of British soldiers saying the supply issue post dunkirk was pretty bad - there was training going on w/o weapons and such. You can't equip Bn after Bn overnight.

By Aug 1940, it looks like the BA had recovered enough to be a credible force to reckon with. By summer 1941, they had been completely rebuilt.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Didnt the Luftwaffe resupply of the surrounded units at Stalingrad not live up to promises? Not because of the scale of the supply that had to be done, but poorly planned loading manifests meant vital supplies were not being delivered and high attrition rates greatly reduced the sortie rates?

I dont even think the Allied resupply of the troops in Market-Garden were effective, and that was using lots of aircraft with air superiority.

It was not that supplies were not getting in, but rather that that the wrong supplies were being sent. As my Grandfather who was in Stalingrad told me he remember getting a package of boots and upon opening them saw that they were tropical issue.

 

[syscom3]

It was not that supplies were not getting in, but rather that that the wrong supplies were being sent. As my Grandfather who was in Stalingrad told me he remember getting a package of boots and upon opening them saw that they were tropical issue.

There was a great book written in the 70's about Stalingrad (I think it was Enemy at the Gates). It quoted a German soldier who got ahold of one of the canisters that was parachuted in...... and it contained condoms...... thousands of condoms

 

[mkloby]

sys - we can discuss the military aspect later - but there's much flawed logic in your post, probably based on that you don't fully grasp military tactics or planning. I don't have time to do it right now though.

 

[k9kiwi]

By Aug 1940, it looks like the BA had recovered enough to be a credible force to reckon with. By summer 1941, they had been completely rebuilt.

I'm sorry but that is utterly wrong.

Have a read through the biography about Monty one day, you will see how much BS that statement is.

 

[syscom3]

sys - we can discuss the military aspect later - but there's much flawed logic in your post, probably based on that you don't fully grasp military tactics or planning. I don't have time to do it right now though.

Theres a couple of threads here that discussed a German invasion of Britain.

I am repeating what Glider, Lanc and others pointed out (I think it Plan_D also chimed in on it).

Take your arguments to them as they are far more versed in it than me.

The facts are still clear. The Germans had no amphib capability to invade England with a good probability of success. All their planning was done assuming best case scenario's in every aspect of panning.

 

[syscom3]

I'm sorry but that is utterly wrong.

Have a read through the biography about Monty one day, you will see how much BS that statement is.

For a narrow ammount of time, the BA was in horrible shape. In the following weeks, more and more units were requipped and the BA started improving. Its not like the factories stopped producing.

 

[mkloby]

Syscom - before you talk about the military in the way you do... join it! You can't re-equip div after div overnight! Cripes - they abandoned massive amounts of equipment. I've read accounts that there was not proper equipment for the reserve type units - maybe Home Guard maybe it was?

Due to the Wehrmacht's limited amphib capability - it rested fully upon clearing the RAF out of the skies. Didn't happen. However, if it did, then the Germans would have had a fighting chance to invade britain. It would have faced many difficulties - but the point is that you blanketly dismissed the german capability to invade based upon their lack of amtracs, amphibs, and other landing craft - which is just an erroneous assumption to make. Norway should have failed too, by your reasoning - it was ugly as hell, but succeeded.

You earlier said an allied invasion in 42/43 would have failed for logo reasons - yet what about sicily, italy, N African campaigns, in addition to the numerous pacific ops?

 

[Twitch]

After the Battle of France the English were in pretty sorry shape equipment-wise and were depending on convoys from the States for a lot of stuff. Britain's manufacturing certainly didn't pump up and replace it all in short order. With the U-boat ring that surrounded the Isles not much was getting through. You don't abandon weapons, ammo, vehicles, supplies, and other equipment for 300,000 men and not miss it or replace it easily.

Hitler never planned to invade England, hence no emphasis on developing vehicles to do it. His whole plan was that England would sue for peace without violence. This is the truth of the matter be it a flawed Hitler fantasy or not.

Let's not forget paratoopers from Ju-52s either. All they'd have had to do is take a couple RAF fields and the Luftwaffe would no longer be at a disadvantage with the 109. The RAF would be no better able to defend at night than the Luftwaffe could attack at night either.

The simple fact that Hitler intervened and changed the Luftwaffe's thrust from attacking the RAF on the ground along with radar facilities is what saved them. Switching to civilian targets gave the RAF the breathing room it needed. Had he left things alone RAF fields and facilities would have continued to be pummeled. It's is pure speculation if continued it would have ultimately given air superiority to Germany. But they were originally on the right track.

Any semblence of aerial advantage if not complete superiority would have proved very beneficial to an invading German force.

The Japanese were the only combatants in the conflict that had long-range plans which included the specific use of landing craft going back to the mid 1930s. They fortified their islands and conquests over many years with the express idea of defending them to invaders and developed naval specialty craft to expidite amphibious landings long before anyone else. The coastline of GB was in no way similar to the sophisticated labyrinth of defenses that Japanese islands were.

If the German mentality was on par with the Japanese they could have done it had they so chosen. Logistics and geography simply downplayed the need for German craft like the Japanese had. Why invest in a major military and industrial development when there was no foreseeable use?

Since this whole scenerio is another "what if" there is no reason not to imagine if Hitler had put out the word in 1937, that German technology and manufacturing could not have come up with the proper vehicles and equipment by 1940.

 

[syscom3]

Syscom - before you talk about the military in the way you do... join it! You can't re-equip div after div overnight! Cripes - they abandoned massive amounts of equipment. I've read accounts that there was not proper equipment for the reserve type units - maybe Home Guard maybe it was?

You can start reequipping for light inf divisions immediatly. Just the bone bare essentials. And as more resources become available they can be reequipped right to their TOA's dictate. Over night ? Nope. Over a few months, yes. Not all divisions, but more than a few.

Due to the Wehrmacht's limited amphib capability - it rested fully upon clearing the RAF out of the skies. Didn't happen. However, if it did, then the Germans would have had a fighting chance to invade britain.

I think it was Lanc that pointed out the RAF could have moved out of range of the Luftwaffe, regroup and then go back into the fray when the invasion begun. I will agree that the Germans might have had a chance to invade, but the question of staying power is the main issue.

And of course the Germns must also have maritime superiority too.

It would have faced many difficulties - but the point is that you blanketly dismissed the german capability to invade based upon their lack of amtracs, amphibs, and other landing craft - which is just an erroneous assumption to make. Norway should have failed too, by your reasoning - it was ugly as hell, but succeeded.

Theres more to an invasion than just putting men on the beach. Its also having experience and a doctrine in place, having the surplus of sealift to provide for the troops and the specialized landing craft to provide the supplies if there are no intact.ports to be taken.

Germany didnt have any of that in place. Norway was far away from Britain and the RN and RAF only had limited resources to stop them. A landing in England would be hottly contested with Britain having the shorter and interior supply lines.

You earlier said an allied invasion in 42/43 would have failed for logo reasons - yet what about sicily, italy, N African campaigns, in addition to the numerous pacific ops?

I was reffering to an allied landing in France in 1942 and 43. The invasions of Africa and Sciliy was the result of overwhelmingly superior allied shipping and logistics. Plus In Operation Torch, the US attacked area's that were minimally defended or not at all. They were not contested.

The PTO was totally different. That deserves its own thread on the difference between US and Japanese operations.

 

[syscom3]

After the Battle of France the English were in pretty sorry shape equipment-wise and were depending on convoys from the States for a lot of stuff. Britain's manufacturing certainly didn't pump up and replace it all in short order. With the U-boat ring that surrounded the Isles not much was getting through. You don't abandon weapons, ammo, vehicles, supplies, and other equipment for 300,000 men and not miss it or replace it easily.

The convoys still got in though. And the BA was rearming continuously. Each week that went by meant there was one more week of production to provide to the troops.

Let's not forget paratoopers from Ju-52s either. All they'd have had to do is take a couple RAF fields and the Luftwaffe would no longer be at a disadvantage with the 109. The RAF would be no better able to defend at night than the Luftwaffe could attack at night either.

The German paratroopers at Crete were mauled trying to do that. Doing that in Britain would have been just as bad if not worse. then theres the nasty issue of resupply.

The simple fact that Hitler intervened and changed the Luftwaffe's thrust from attacking the RAF on the ground along with radar facilities is what saved them. Switching to civilian targets gave the RAF the breathing room it needed. Had he left things alone RAF fields and facilities would have continued to be pummeled. It's is pure speculation if continued it would have ultimately given air superiority to Germany. But they were originally on the right track.

I do think the RAF would have mooved out of range of the german fighter coverage and then husband resources for a defense against the invasion.

Any semblence of aerial advantage if not complete superiority would have proved very beneficial to an invading German force.

Agree, but what happens at night? What happens in bad weather?

The Japanese were the only combatants in the conflict that had long-range plans which included the specific use of landing craft going back to the mid 1930s. They fortified their islands and conquests over many years with the express idea of defending them to invaders and developed naval specialty craft to expidite amphibious landings long before anyone else. The coastline of GB was in no way similar to the sophisticated labyrinth of defenses that Japanese islands were.

Defending the Islands of the Pacific was a far easier undertaking as they were tiny. There is also no evidence the Japanese developed anything like the specialized landing craft like the USN/USMC developed. In fact, the only two amphib landings in WW2 that failed were by the Japanese at Wake Island (1941) and at Subic bay (1942)... Excepting Dieppe of course, as that was more like a raid than an actual invasion.

If the German mentality was on par with the Japanese they could have done it had they so chosen. Logistics and geography simply downplayed the need for German craft like the Japanese had. Why invest in a major military and industrial development when there was no foreseeable use?

Thats why a german invasion in 1940 and 1941 would have failed.

Since this whole scenerio is another "what if" there is no reason not to imagine if Hitler had put out the word in 1937, that German technology and manufacturing could not have come up with the proper vehicles and equipment by 1940.

We can only use the "what if" scenario so far. The issue is, could the Germans have successfully invaded Britain after Dunkirk. And the answer is no.

 

[mkloby]

Twitch - that porker bouncing around on the couch is hilarious.

The initial jap landings at wake incurred heavy losses - but what did they expect - Marines are too dumb to give up easily. The chinese learned that too when 1st Mar Div rendered 10 chinese divisions combat ineffective at chosin res. However, due to overwhelming superiority the wake attack succeeded.

Syscom - I believe you're right that a German invasion would have failed - probably even if they succeeded in smashing fighter command in the BoB and secured air superiority (which would have threatened the RN with severe losses for operating w/o air cover).
However - there was a possibility for it to work after Dunkirk providing the Luftwaffe cleared out the RAF in the 4 weeks they stated. The British Army would still be in rugged shape, and they would have had a fair chance at making another Norway style invasion work. After the BoB though, not a chance. The whole kicker is that it absolutely required German control of the air.

 

[syscom3]

However - there was a possibility for it to work after Dunkirk providing the Luftwaffe cleared out the RAF in the 4 weeks they stated. The British Army would still be in rugged shape, and they would have had a fair chance at making another Norway style invasion work. After the BoB though, not a chance. The whole kicker is that it absolutely required German control of the air.

I dont think the Germans in their wildest dreams expected to defeat the French and British so completely and so quickly. In the few weeks after dunkirk, there was a window of opportunity and if the Germans had proper plans and preperations to follow the retreating forces, then perhaps they could have pulled it off.

But I keep thinking that the RN had other plans and would have deployed the fleet right into the invading forces due to the extreme emergency of stopping the them ASAP.

 

[mkloby]

Well Syscom - I think we can agree on that. The RN, with the richest of naval traditions, would likely have attacked any invasion attempt - the cost of which may very well have been the bulk of the home fleet. Luckily, the Brits bloodied the germans' nose in the BoB. Speaking of the BoB - good book is Eagle Day: Battle of Britain by robert collier. Follows operational squadrons on both sides throughout the opening of the engagement.

 

[syscom3]

For the newcomers.....This thread was started as a look at all the landing craft in WW2.

It looks like we kind of got off topic here, so any remarks about a projected invasion on England, go to this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/did-rn-win-battle-britain-5122.html?highlight=royal+navy

Any remarks about landing craft, please continue to contribute.

 

[syscom3]

dupe

 

[mkloby]

Here you guys go - this should be of interest - lots of good info.

HyperWar: USMC Staff Officer's Field Manual for Amphibious Operations [Chapter 3]

 

[Twitch]

As noted the Germans had no way to invade. They never planned on it. Their concept was always that GB would sue for peace. When we go "what if" I still maintain that German ingenuity and fabrication facilities could have manufactured the required craft IF Hitler had so instructed in 1937-38. Certainly a well planned and equipped invasion force was not beyond the German means IF they had set their minds to it.

As for aquatic landing and support I like the Japanese stuff. They had an island empire and were way ahead of everyone. Their vehicles were superb and were used to disembark troops onto all their little isles acrosss the Pacific. Christ their Diahatsus were copied by the US as the Higgens. Plus they had scads more types of all displacements for many roles too numerous to list.

Daihatsu Landing Craft

The 46 ft type

Dimensions: 47 3/4 X 11 X 2 1/2 ft
Machinery: Type A; 1-60 H.P. Army Diesel = 7 knots
Type AB; 1-60 H.P. high speed diesel = 7 1/2 knots
Type B; 1 -80 H.P. Navy petrol motor = 8 knots
Type C; 2-Automobile 40 H.P. petrol motors = 8 knots
Type D; 1 -60 H.P. high speed diesel = 8 knots
Type E; 1 - 150 H.P. diesel = 8 1/2 knots

Armament 2 - 7.7 mm, or 2 - 25 mm A.A. (1 X 2) or 3 - 25mm A.A. (1 X 3)

Cargo: 1 tank or 70 men or 10 tons of cargo

Number Built: 3229

Japanese Amphibious Vehicles

And a little about them in combat- HyperWar: US Army in WWII: Fall of the Philippines [Chapter 8]

Until America got into manufacturing the Japanese had the widest variation of craft applicable to every conceiveable use and role.

 

[syscom3]

That was interesting.

Great info!

 

[Joe2]

They do, it splits in the middle and one goes to the left and the other to the right like normal double dorrs...

oh...right..ermmm...well...thanks anyway


Silly me