Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Have you've read Corum's Luftwaffe book? He makes a very good case for refuting that old myth. Really the LW was positioning it's doctrine between tactical and strategical levels : on the operational level. Tactical would be attacking the enemy directly, ie. on the battlefield, strategical would be
You're confusing two things: what is required and what is available. Likewise, Germany also knew it needed carriers. Yet it didn't have them but continued anyway.If they learned anything, it would be the requirement for large numbers of capital ships providing direct fire support.
If you would have read my posts, you would have known. In any case, the answer is given above.Now what is your KM going to do..... sortie into the N Atlantic to draw away the RN
I think this shows how narrow-minded you are in this discussion. Allies used DUKWs, LSTs, ... and for that reason the Germans should also!And obviously they didn't learn any lessons because none of the purpose built amphib vessels were even on the drawing boards (like LST's, DUKW's", Higgins Boats, LCI's....blah, blah blah)
Again, you're just talking away without realizing that the barges were very capable of crossing the Channel up to Beaufort 6 without significant problems.A little bit of wind and all your unpowered barges and slow moving barges will be scattered.
Once again. The bombers were not capable of hitting anything, plus they would be under attack by an even number of German night fighters.Night time will belong to the bombers and strafing fighters.
You're contradicting yourself. First you say how air support lacked for Guadalcanal, and now you're suggesting removing Wasp?If an invasion of Britain was a certienty in in summer of 1942, the US would have committed those two carriers, simply because it was written down the the war in Europe was going to come first before the Pacific.
What's your source for this?Because their aircrew's were expert ship killers.
What? Out of all the things you've said this is really the ... Have you ever heard of the "Second happy time". Read up on it. Basic books on WW2 mention it...they will be more than useful in sinking your subs.
This is absolutely nonsense. What did the carrier fighters do near Guadalcanal? They protected the carriers, the invasion fleet and the marines on the ground.You are making the classic case of attempting to defend everything and end up protecting nothing.
Don't really understand why you are enquiring about the "own power" notion. All I'm saying is that river barges were succesfully used by the British.Not for the invasion assult. Also as far as I know the barges used to supply the aftermath were carried over and launched on the French coast. Can you tell me which ones were sailed over under their own power?
17th division tested them, as I said before. It is mentioned in the "Halder diaries" as well as the recent work of Schenk.Again we have a fundamental difference. The only tests that I know that took place were a total failure with serious damage to a large number of the improvised vessels.
Thank you for adding this wonderful piece of information. It's completely new to me that the Japs were given a grand tour.I also know that the Japanese who were asked to comment on the invasion preparations considered them to be totally inadequate and quite ill prepared. This was a report from Specialist Officer Major Sakurai who with other specialist Japanese Naval and Army officers reviewed the preparations at the invitation of Goering.
The Germans had 250 fighters for that job. In my scenario (with increased production and the fighters withdrawn from the Ostfront) they would have had 5 times more fighters, if not more.n invasion fleet is hundreds of times larger in sea area, with far more targets which would be sitting ducks and the escort would be about the same size would be spread very thin.
The Kriegsmarine was quite capable of dealing with the British Channel Fleet.Put the same guy in a large 3 knot barge wallowing at sea armed with a couple of light AA guns with torpedoes coming in his direction, 4.7in guns firing at him and multiple 2pds joining in, then ask him then if it's a small inconvenience. The answer may differ a touch.
Well, that's exactly what I'm planning on doing. If the Germans can hold on to Stalingrad, they can also hold on to the British beaches for a couple of days.I dont think you get it. Landing an invasion fleet isn't a one off task. It needs supplies, reinforcements, back up. You don't just land it, then go home and leave it unsupported. You have to land on the beaches, fight your way inland to give the follow up forces space to land and organise themselves. This takes time.
Even more than three units! So with only 1/5 (or so) of the German fighters destined for CAPs they would form a truly minimal CAP while the bulk of the Luftwaffe would attack the Royal Navy. That's the choice I'm making, that's the gamble. With the bulk of the Luftwaffe attacking the Royal Navy, the RAF would have to choose too. Attack the troops or attack the German dive bombers. My guess is that they would probably try to do both. Do you agree?CAPs isn't a minority role. To keep 1 unit constantly on CAP needs at least three units to be involved.
That's also what I would do. Yet I believe the German troops would hold on.Without CAPs you are leaving your forces wide open to attack. I would use every Hurri bomber, I could lay my hands on.
Where are you going to get those Australians from? Australia decided that its troops would fight in the Pacific. SAAF was already in Africa. So if you pull back the RAF I can also pull back the Luftwaffe?However my figures (including the ones above) exclude RCAF, RAAF and SAAF aircraft who would bolster the numbers in the UK or N Africa. The GAF would have to rely on the Italians. My money isn't on the Italians.
I don't care what the British are capable of. You said the Germans didn't have the minesweepers needed. I showed they did.My guess is that the Germans would have included trawlers converted to minesweepers to bolster the numbers. I do have the list of similar British conversions but the list is huge.
Read Kurfürst post: BC tried for months and couldn't destroy their target!! And you say it's good enough?No their bombsights were as good as most. They could see the ships in Brest (and hit them a couple of times) and they plastered the area around it. That is good enough for what I am after.
Don't change your point. You said the Allies were outnumbered. Do you take this back or not?When the USA landed they had a huge advantage in numbers and were slow to extend the bridgehead.
Exactly. And I said this already in my very first post!By landing and leaving the Germans in your scenario, your making the same mistake plus the Germans don't have any old BB's to use for shore bombardment and will be open to heavy air attack at night far beyond anything the Allies suffered from Germany at Anzio.
You're missing my point: because the Germans knew exactly where the bombers were, they didn't even need ground control (even though they did have the Liechtenstein radar).Ground control directs the fighter to a range behind the enemy aircraft where the fighters radar can take over. The aircrafts radar then takes the fighter to visual range where the attack takes place.
I'm jus saying that the Germans didn't need to fear the Beaufighters. They didn't fear them when escorting their own bombers, so why would they fear them now? This is not my personal opinion, this is looking at loss figures of German nightfighters prior to the arrival of the Mosquito.Top speed is almost irrelevant. Both planes fly at cruising speed
What period? IIRC USSBS deals with 1943-1945. Before 1943 the British didn't have H2S and improved bomb sights.Re bombing accuracy the following may be of interest. Its a summary of the bombing accuracy on plants as reported by the US Strategic Bombing Survey. Showing that on average British night bombing was more accurate than US day bombing.
Under the conditions created in Germany by heavy flak, fighter opposition, bad weather, and effective smoke screening, it was necessary in a high percentage of the attacks to use instrument bombing, which proved to be far less accurate than visual bombing. As a result, tremendous tonnages had to be flown from England in order to hit vital parts of plants with a relatively small tonnage. Detailed plant records for three plants (Leuna, Ludwigshafen-Oppau, Zeitz) show that, of 30,000 tons of bombs dropped, only 3,781 tons hit within the plant fences. Different aiming techniques gave the following results:
Air Force and Technique Percentage of Hits Within the Plants
8th AF visual aiming 26.8
8th AF, part visual aiming and part instrument 12.4
8th AF, full instrument 5.4
RAF, night Pathfinder technique 15.8
Weighted average 12.6
Hi Renrich,The object of having control of the air for the Germans in 1940 over the channel was to help the German navy keep the RN from sinking all of the invasion boats and ships and drowning all the soldiers while they were trying to get ashore during Sealion. Even then the KM could assure the army that they could control the sea only on a narrow beach head. The army wanted a landing on a broader front which was part of the squabbling that went on between the different German commands. In the Pacific the US always made sure that they could maintain local air superiority as well as superiority on the sea during an opposed amphibious landing. The landing at Guadalcanal was unopposed but the allies controlled the air and sea until the troops were landed and many of the supplies were ashore. Of course that was a very small scale compared to a Sealion. The only time in the Pacific that the allies did not have total air superiority during an amphib operation was at Okinawa because of the kamikazes and there was no enemy surface fleet to threaten the landing. The only time the IJN really threatened a landing with surface ships was at Leyte and if Kurita had kept his nerve he could have really done some damage. I am not claiming by any means that the US is going to pull Britain's chestnuts out of the fire in case of a Sealion II in 1942 but I am saying that with the knowledge of an impending invasion of England by enemy forces abundantly clear the US would have attempted to reinforce the Brits in every way possible probably with combat ships some troops and a few a/c and it is unrealistic to assume otherwise. I am aware that the Kaiser built an impressive navy prior to WW1. After all he was Queen Victoria's grandson and there were some impressive ships although built for a different mission than British and American vessels. Good ships don't necessarily make for a good navy and the High Seas Fleet never was able to defeat even a portion of the Grand Fleet and after Jutland was largely a non-factor in the war and in fact was untrustworthy at the end of the war. I think we have an impasse here in this spirited and well contested discussion somewhat like another discussion about the best recip. engined fighter of all time. It all boils down to opposing opinions that can't be proven. My opinion is that the LW could not achieve air superiority over the channel long enough to deny the channel to allied naval forces that would brush aside the KM(while sinking most of it) and then proceed to sink enough of the supply ships and landing craft that a landing force if any got ashore would be stranded and would be either captured or killed by British forces.
Not the Royal Navy, but the Royal Navy ships of the Channel. Those are the ones which would be used against the first wave. These could be contained by the KM and LW.I'm sorry but your reasoning that the Channel Dash proves the Kriegsmarine could stand up to the Royal Navy just doesn't cut it.
But wouldn't get there until the first wave was unloaded.The Home Fleet and anything from Gibralter would be sent to the invasion area.
Halt or hold off?The Luftwaffe tried to halt the Royal Navy at Crete
No, he said it in anticipation of the invasion. He said no BB would be used in the Channel as long as the Germans wouldn't commit theirs. A wise decisions as BBs in the Channel are a prize target.If any invasion attempt was made on Great Britain, Churchill would have gladly lifted any kind of ban to throw everything he had at the invasion.
That's your opinion. I also get that opinion of many others who post here but I keep that opinion to myself.and if you were in charge of this operation it'd be the biggest foul up in military history.
Perhaps you need to start looking at the invasion from a German point of view, instead of from an allied one.I can hardly believe that without interdiction the operation would have been a success.
Can you prove it? All you've shown so far is that the reinforcements and supplies came in slower. Where do you get the evidence that the invasion would have been stopped if these reinforcements came in faster?To believe Overlord would have been a success without the Allied air forces is naive, at best.
Also you are talking about a narrow bridge head. Wouldn't that make it easier for aircraft to fly overhead and drop bombs? Especially the big aircraft such as the Manchester and Lancaster to destroy the troops.
Channel Dash is an example where the KM achieved success against the Royal Navy.How can you prove that would be so? There's no case in World War II where the Kriegsmarine achieved success in fleet action against any part of the Royal Navy.
Just compare the forces of the Royal Navy in the Channel with the Kriegsmarine.What possible proof can you bring forth that can give the idea that the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe could contain the Home Fleet?
I think that's where we disagree. The bulk of the Royal Navy would not have arrived until the next day (being held up by mines, subs and aircraft) when my invasion barges and the KM have already made their way back to France."But wouldn't get there until the first wave was unloaded."
Yet, the second one came through unharmed. I think Crete was a good learning lesson for the Germans."Halt or hold off?"
I do not know what you're trying to imply with this picky question. Nor do I see reasonable argument when you're picking out minor, unimportant points. It makes no difference which words you use, either way the Luftwaffe failed to protect the first invasion flotilla sailing to Crete.
It's folly to send BBs to the Channel. They are way too vulnerable! Why else did the British never use them in the Channel until they had complete control of the waters and sky of the Channel in 1944?Even if that were the case, the BBs would be used to breakthrough any naval screening that the Kriegsmarine would try. This would allow any BC, CA or CL squadrons the Home Fleet would want to send in.
I reluctantly admitAs I say, I cannot solidly prove that the invasion fail just the same as you cannot prove your invasion would succeed.
This is off-topic but out of curiosity - do you believe that the Germans could or would have defeated the allies if the German transport system was not shot to pieces and they could bring in reinforcements much faster? (I just want to know, I'm not going to use it in this discussion.)Time was one of the most vital things for the Wehrmacht in June/July 1944, every moment wasted provided the Allies with more time to bring in reinforcements and fresh supplies.
Don't get me wrong. I didn't say that to show that the Germans could have stopped the Allied AFs. I just wanted to know your opinion about what would have happened if the allies didn't have air superiority. That's why I gave the example of a 1000 planes.If the Luftwaffe could have fielded 1,000 planes, as unrealistic as that is, it would have made no difference.
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).
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.
Searching the vast spaces of the Channel with just 1000 bombers? What was I thinking...
Good point. But did they all have increased AA armament and an air gunnery radar?
Camouflaged? Says who?
What's the point in camouflaging the ships if you can't conceal the docks?
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.
I remember one night, there were 40 sunk. Don't remember the details. Will look it up!
"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.
3.Send the fleet back.
4.Royal Navy arrives from SF.
Now you're holding on to threads.
Barges don't look like destroyers. Stukas don't look like Spitfires.
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?
Days? What do you base this on? Why not one day?
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.
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.
This only reinforces my opinion about the striking power of the British. The article also states that the British used over 700 aircraft (amongst them 400 fighters) against 250 German fighters. Yet, they only managed to get in a few bombers? They couldn't get them escorted by fighters? Why would things have been different during an invasion?
I agree that the targets would have been easier to find but nevertheless, it still says a lot about British capabilities.