Maneuverability vs Speed (1 Viewer)

[Gary Cain]

Inn 1939-40 they had the biggest airforce in the world but that was changing quickly

They only do 4 kts underwater if you know where they are they arent a problem, coming anywhere near the surface leaves them open to being rammed or depth charged. A completely different situation to the open Atlantic.

Like I said, if the U-boats are screening the invasion force, the RN options for attacking them are very limited. Thus the submerged speed isn't nearly so critical. Also the Type VII A&B (what they had at the time) had a top submerged speed of 8 knots. They could cruise for a couple of days at 4 knots. I don't remember how long they could maintain 8 knots. It would have been over two hours, but they wouldn't want to push it for much longer than that.

You are correct about the size of their airforce, but at the time of the invasion of France the Germans had 850 109's to the rest of the Allied forces 800, so not a huge advantage. The main advantage the Germans had was they were dictating the actions. The Allies were reacting, and usually not very well. It wasn't until the retreat to the UK, and their radar, that the British gained the predictive ability to react well.

 

[Gary Cain]

And that means the RN can use anti sub craft to sweep for the U-boats using sonar in a layered manner.
Like a bunch of trawlers and the like going first because invasion barges sure don't have the fire power to stop them, Perhaps you can torpedo them and perhaps you can's. small and shallow draft, then the older destroyers, Can't use sonar at much over 15knts but at some point stop the sonar wind them up to 25-30knots and zig zag, even Prien would have a hard time with that. And they can afford to loose some old destroyers and trawlers. Then the newer destroyers and old light cruisers show up, The RN has the choice of attacking at night or during the day. They have the choice of attacking on the rafts first day at sea or the 2nd or the 3rd or even the 4th (first Germans get ashore, RN shows up, smashes the bulk of the transport on it's home, Germans ashore run out of ammo and food.)
British aren't dummies either. There were several hundred costal escorts/trawlers (not all with sonar) just in the Channel. A few hundred more in Western Approaches.

The RN will take losses, but they can afford to. The Germans can loose some U-boats, they can afford that.
The Germans cannot loose the invasion barges/rafts. The Germans have fewer than 1/2 dozen ships that are destroyer size or larger, They can't afford to loose them.
British have around as many subs as the Germans do. Germans just about zero anti-sub capability.

All valid points. Like I have said, the odds are if the Germans had tried to invade, it would have been a roll of the dice. And most of those rolls were losers. I am just pointing out that, as the British themselves knew, it was not a forgone conclusion. There WAS a risk, however small that risk may have been, it was there.

 

[pbehn]

Like I said, if the U-boats are screening the invasion force, the RN options for attacking them are very limited. Thus the submerged speed isn't nearly so critical. Also the Type VII A&B (what they had at the time) had a top submerged speed of 8 knots. They could cruise for a couple of days at 4 knots. I don't remember how long they could maintain 8 knots. It would have been over two hours, but they wouldn't want to push it for much longer than that.

You are correct about the size of their airforce, but at the time of the invasion of France the Germans had 850 109's to the rest of the Allied forces 800, so not a huge advantage. The main advantage the Germans had was they were dictating the actions. The Allies were reacting, and usually not very well. It wasn't until the retreat to the UK, and their radar, that the British gained the predictive ability to react well.

What would the invasion fleet have done about 6 destroyers steaming up and down the Channl firing on the landing beaches and swamping invasion barges? All I have read about this invasion plan was that no one believed it would work and it didnt seem to take any account of the Channel currents or tides let alone the weather.

 

[pbehn]

Drachinifel did a video on a "stealth battleship". It brings up your scenario, sorta'.

It was actually done, using the cover of an RAF raid a battleship joined in the bombardment.

 

[PAT303]

as the British themselves knew, it was not a forgone conclusion.

The British would have loved the invasion, the RN battle wagon would have sailed right past the 6 or so worthwhile Kriegsmarine surface ships, over the scattered U boats who would be trying to understand what the hell was happening as they tried vainly to cover every approach and plastered the invasion fleet before continuing to the channel ports and blasting them as well before sailing home. The RAF would put every available fighter in the air, the RN every available ship in the channel, German bodies would be washing up on beaches for weeks.

 

[Gary Cain]

The British would have loved the invasion, the RN battle wagon would have sailed right past the 6 or so worthwhile Kriegsmarine surface ships, over the scattered U boats trying to understand what the hell was happening as they tried vainly to cover every approach and plastered the invasion fleet before continuing to the channel ports and blasting them as well before sailing home. The RAF would put every available fighter in the air, the RN every available ship in the channel, German bodies would be washing up on beaches for weeks.

Indeed they would have. But the RN would have suffered as well. That's the point. You keep implying that I think it would have been a likely victory. That is not what I am saying at all. I am merely pointing out that the risk was there. The British knew the risk existed, and based on their catastrophic losses at Dunkirk had the Germans made an immediate crossing, as unlikely to succeed as it was, there would have been a chance of success. Not a good one, but a chance. The British didn't sleep well for months after Dunkirk.

 

[Gary Cain]

The British would have loved the invasion, the RN battle wagon would have sailed right past the 6 or so worthwhile Kriegsmarine surface ships, over the scattered U boats who would be trying to understand what the hell was happening as they tried vainly to cover every approach and plastered the invasion fleet before continuing to the channel ports and blasting them as well before sailing home. The RAF would put every available fighter in the air, the RN every available ship in the channel, German bodies would be washing up on beaches for weeks.

I disagree emphatically with the British "enjoying" an invasion. EVERY period letter, and report, says otherwise.

 

[Shortround6]

based on their catastrophic losses at Dunkirk had the Germans made an immediate crossing, as unlikely to succeed as it was, there would have been a chance of success. Not a good one, but a chance. The British didn't sleep well for months after Dunkirk.

It might have been good newspapers but there zero chance of the Germans making an immediate crossing. Now how many weeks or months is subject to question.
Is July immediate? Is Aug 15 immediate or Sept 15th or Oct 15?

Or June 15th, 11 days after Dunkirk but before the French sign the surrender papers?

In June the British Army is at it's weakest but the RAF was pretty strong. Navy was in pretty good shape. Few loses to the channel convoy battles.

German army needed refit and resupply, gets stronger as time goes on, but so does the British Army.
Fighter command gets weaker. Bomber command?? Costal command??
RN navy over 3 months? (Sept 15th) stronger or weaker?

Germany navy might get stronger with a few ships repaired, but that is like saying a man in wheelchair is stronger because he can stand while holding on to the wheelchair with a large nurse helping him.

Luftwaffe needs a few weeks or a few months to repair aircraft and bring fuel and ammunition to the bases it will be using?

Frances collapse took a number of people by surprise. Unless somebody sat down and thought about it seem like the Germans could do anything.
In reality they could not, Sending a few thousand German soldiers across a few weeks after Dunkirk (How many many boats and ships can the German get in a few weeks?) is not going to get anything but dead Germans.

 

[GrauGeist]

The British were anxious about the possibility of a German invasion just as much as the Americans on the west coast of U.S. were about the prospect of a Japanese invasion.

With Germany's successes, as well as the Japanese, it seemed that they were unstoppable.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The British were anxious about the possibility of a German invasion just as much as the Americans on the west coast of U.S. were about the prospect of a Japanese invasion.

With Germany's successes, as well as the Japanese, it seemed that they were unstoppable.

And there were plenty appeasers, and even Nazi sympathizers lurking in the wings.

 

[Gary Cain]

It might have been good newspapers but there zero chance of the Germans making an immediate crossing. Now how many weeks or months is subject to question.
Is July immediate? Is Aug 15 immediate or Sept 15th or Oct 15?

Or June 15th, 11 days after Dunkirk but before the French sign the surrender papers?

In June the British Army is at it's weakest but the RAF was pretty strong. Navy was in pretty good shape. Few loses to the channel convoy battles.

German army needed refit and resupply, gets stronger as time goes on, but so does the British Army.
Fighter command gets weaker. Bomber command?? Costal command??
RN navy over 3 months? (Sept 15th) stronger or weaker?

Germany navy might get stronger with a few ships repaired, but that is like saying a man in wheelchair is stronger because he can stand while holding on to the wheelchair with a large nurse helping him.

Luftwaffe needs a few weeks or a few months to repair aircraft and bring fuel and ammunition to the bases it will be using?

Frances collapse took a number of people by surprise. Unless somebody sat down and thought about it seem like the Germans could do anything.
In reality they could not, Sending a few thousand German soldiers across a few weeks after Dunkirk (How many many boats and ships can the German get in a few weeks?) is not going to get anything but dead Germans.

Maybe. Psychology is a major part of how, and why a country surrenders. Had two or three thousand German soldiers landed near Bath, who knows what the response would have been?

The Brits were shell shocked after Dunkirk. I do think that there was a very short window where it would have been possible. It is still unlikely that it would have succeeded, but there is a chance that it might have.

 

[Gary Cain]

The British were anxious about the possibility of a German invasion just as much as the Americans on the west coast of U.S. were about the prospect of a Japanese invasion.

With Germany's successes, as well as the Japanese, it seemed that they were unstoppable.

Exactly. For over 100 years the British enjoyed a perception of invincibility at sea. Out of over 300 single ship actions they lost IIRC, seven of them. And most of those were to the Americans.

If your opponent thinks you are invincible, half the battle is already won.

 

[PAT303]

I disagree emphatically with the British "enjoying" an invasion. EVERY period letter, and report, says otherwise.

They would have enjoyed it, it would have been a total disaster ending the war years earlier than it did

 

[PAT303]

But the RN would have suffered as well.

They could loose one for one and still finish with more than the Kriegsmarine started with.

 

[GrauGeist]

The six landing sites of Operation Sealion would have put civilians in harm's way.

The Luftwaffe was to drop mines in planned corridors ahead of the landings and then saturate bomb inland ahead of the assault along with waves of fighter ground attack sweeps.

I cannot begin to see how any of that would be in the least part enjoyable to those on the receiving end.

 

[Gary Cain]

The six landing sites of Operation Sealion would have put civilians in harm's way.

The Luftwaffe was to drop mines in planned corridors ahead of the landings and then saturate bomb inland ahead of the assault along with waves of fighter ground attack sweeps.

I cannot begin to see how any of that would be in the least part enjoyable to those on the receiving end.

Exactly. The civilian casualties would have been tremendous. And the simple reality is the RN would have taken serious damage. Look at what Narvik cost them.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The six landing sites of Operation Sealion would have put civilians in harm's way.

The Luftwaffe was to drop mines in planned corridors ahead of the landings and then saturate bomb inland ahead of the assault along with waves of fighter ground attack sweeps.

I cannot begin to see how any of that would be in the least part enjoyable to those on the receiving end.

No. War isn't enjoyable. It's a bloody nightmare. It kind of creeps me out the way we 'consume' war in our media, the way the pundits weigh-in on it, the way the press reports on it, almost as if it's sports or some kind of abstract contest. I love all the kit and the tactics and i even kind of like to fight, personally. I did martial arts for many years. I've fought for my friends 'back in the day'. I certainly would have fought for my country when i was in back when I was a kid, but thank God it was peace time. I think peace is good, we should relish that a bit more.

 

[WARSPITER]

Exactly. The civilian casualties would have been tremendous. And the simple reality is the RN would have taken serious damage. Look at what Narvik cost them.

How was Narvik serious damage to the RN ?

 

[Gary Cain]

How was Narvik serious damage to the RN ?

HMS Glorious, HMS Acasta, and HMS Ardent were lost, along with most of the aircrew.

This was as the British were evacuating. I think 12 German vessels were lost as well, and Scharnorst sucked up a torpedo, but the loss of Glorious and her air detachment was a terrible loss.

I am sure there were more losses on both sides, but my memory is a bit foggy

 

[WARSPITER]

HMS Glorious, HMS Acasta, and HMS Ardent were lost, along with most of the aircrew.

This was as the British were evacuating. I think 12 German vessels were lost as well, and Scharnorst sucked up a torpedo, but the loss of Glorious and her air detachment was a terrible loss.

I am sure there were more losses on both sides, but my memory is a bit foggy

The two water battles of Narvik took place when the Germans first landed. The action involving Glorious was at the end
of the campaign. That's why I was curious.

Losses to the RN at Narvik were two destroyers with German losses at ten destroyers.

In 1939 Britain had 184 destroyers. Germany had 22.

At Narvik Germany lost 45% of it's remaining destroyer fleet opposed to the RN loss of less than 4% (including Acasta and Ardent).

Glorious going down put Britain back to six carriers with five more under construction opposed to Germany having zero.

The loss of destroyers hampered escort of larger ships in future operations (not that the Z class was all that good in the open
Atlantic anyway).

This was Germany's problem with an invasion of Britain. Not enough to control the channel.