There were very few attacks on land targets in July.
That's completely untrue. Either your source is wrong, or you're making a deliberate attempt to hold back information. Which is it? I hope it's not the latter, that would really disappoint me!
To say that the German Luftwaffe only flew a couple of bombing missions over England is BS! If you want, I'll back it up (as I always try to do).
Go on then. I have posted the summaries from Wood and Dempster. Certainly there were some attacks on land targets in July, but shipping strikes predominated.
And as I pointed out earlier, if the Germans did actually invade, they are going to have a lot of targets on land, unless they abandon the army to it's fate.
Following your previous statement, I also doubt if this is true. I can hardly remember any missions where the Germans used three times as many fighters as bombers.
ER Hooton gives the German sortie numbers. For 1st July - 8th August they are 1150 daylight bomber sorties, 3350 fighter sorties.
Searching the vast spaces of the Channel with just 1000 bombers? What was I thinking...
Not searching. Coordinating 1000 bombers in attacks on small numbers of warships.
Coordinating 1000 bombers attacking a big fixed target like London is difficult enough. Trying to do the same against small numbers of warships, especially when you have freindly warships in the area, is a nightmare.
That's why it never happened during the war.
Good point. But did they all have increased AA armament and an air gunnery radar?
Pretty much. AA defences on destroyers and small craft increased hugely as the war progressed.
The page you linked to. They have photographs showing the camouflaging work being carried out.
What's the point in camouflaging the ships if you can't conceal the docks?
Docks tend to cluster together. A ship takes up a very small part of most docks.
Do you have Google earth? Brest is in fairly high res. I count about 9 dry docks, miles apart, and a lot of wet berthing areas.
And like I said, I don't plan on leaving the invasion fleet on the British beaches. They have to be pulled back. As such, there won't be a German fleet along the British coast when the Royal Navy appears.
This is getting silly.
Unloading heavy equipment and vehicles from barges and freighters, over beaches, takes a long time. Barges, many of which couldn't even reach 10 mph, take a long time to cross 100 miles of water. And just as long to return.
Then there are the problems of landing things in the correct order on the beaches, taking them inland to free up room for the next cargo etc.
The larger freighters will take literally days to unload.
I remember one night, there were 40 sunk. Don't remember the details. Will look it up!
From the War Diary of the Wehrmacht High Command, 19th September, translated by Klee for the USAF:
"strong British air raids against the Channel coast, 80 barges sunk, an
ammunition train with 500 tons of explosive blown up.
<snip raids on Germany>
The Torpedo Boat T 11 received two hits the T 3 sunk last night owing to a bomb hit".
One more time, this time a bit less complicated: 1.Send out the entire fleet. First wave supported by warships.
2.Disembark the troops.
Disembarking troops will take a few hours from powered barges, quite a few hours from unpowered craft.
Unloading tanks, trucks, artillery, ammunition etc will take days.
Whilst a few of the boats might make it back the same day, the vast majority are still going to be in place the next day, and the next. And the follow on supplies will be arriving by then, as well.
4.Royal Navy arrives from SF.
What about the RN in Portsmouth, and Plymouth, and the host of other bases?
The RN operated cruisers and destroyers in the channel throughout the BoB.
You might not get the battleships and heavy cruisers attacking the invasion fleet the first night, although I wouldn't count on it. But cruisers and destroyers are going to make short work of barges and tugs.
And if the few German heavy ships are actually down south, and not skulking in Norway like in the real world, then expect the RN heavy units to be further south too.
Now you're holding on to threads.
Barges don't look like destroyers. Stukas don't look like Spitfires.
You'd be surprised. When you are in a boat and you think there are hostile aircraft, you shoot at anything that flies. When you are in an aircraft looking for enemy warships, anything that floats is your target.
And it's not just barges on the German side and destroyers on the British. Both sides had converted trawlers etc as gunboats in fairly large numbers.
Those from Ostend maybe? But 50 miles is a better average. And that's 5 hours according to your calculations? Or do you want me to attach a map of the Channel?
Look at a map of the proposed landing sites from 1940. They intended landing as far west as Portsmouth. Portsmouth - Le Harve is 103 miles as the crow flies.
And none of those speeds allow for currents, which can reach more than 5 mph in the Channel
And "averages" don't cut it. The lead elements have to set out at least 10 hours before they are due to land. In the actual plan, the Germans had some ships setting out 24 hours before they were due to land, so I'm really giving your plan the benefit of the doubt by saying 10 hours, especially as few of the barges could make 10 mph.
Days? What do you base this on? Why not one day?
Reality. Ever beached a boat? Ever tried unloading over a beach? Ever tried it with people shooting at you, aircraft bombing you, and artillery shelling you?
Unloading will take days even without enemy interference.
So? Did the British have to seal off the Channel? The Germans were quite capable of mining the Channel. Even in 1944 the British were still minesweeping the Channel. You're clearly underestimating the German minelaying capability.
I'm not underestimating the British minesweeping capability. I'm just saying that the British cannot sweep them as fast as the Germans can lay them.
And the Germans cannot sweep them as fast as the British can lay them. So what happens to your tugs and barges and gunboats?
You didn't read what I wrote. I specifically said that the British would no longer have the advantage of flying over friendly territory, and that's why the situation was different from 1940.
And I pointed out to you that in the fighting over the Channel in 1940, the British came out on top.
And there are a few more points to consider.
If the Luftwaffe does not reach the British coast, then the German beachheads have no air cover. The British soldiers do not have to worry about air attack.
The invading forces will be light on artillery (it's heavy, so is the ammo). The British will outgun them by a considerable margin. The British will be able to bomb the Germans ashore with impunity.
The problem for the Germans is that the Luftwaffe has 4 separate tasks, all of which they
have to carry out.
Firstly, because the Kreigsmarine is so weak, it's up to the Luftwaffe to protect the invasion fleet from the RN.
Secondly, because the invasion forces will be light on artillery and armour to begin with, the Luftwaffe has to support the army.
Thirdly, because it's easier and quicker to get troops to the front by road and rail than by ship and barge, the Luftwaffe has to interdict the British road and rail network. Otherwise the few German divisions struggling ashore are going to be overwhelmed by the 40+ divisions based in Britain.
Fourthly, because a seaborne invasion is very vulnerable to air attack, and the advancing German troops will be light on AAA, the Luftwaffe has to protect them from the RAF.
Now the Luftwaffe has to do all these tasks at once. That's why in the real world, the absolute prerequisite for the invasion was the defeat of the RAF. Trying to do all 4 tasks at once, with thousands of RAF fighters and bombers opposing them, is not going to work.