operation sea lion

[Hop]

It was good news for Great Britain they were not fighting against a naval power. Before the end of 1941, the Kriegsmarine had already destroyed and sent to the bottom 2 battleships (HMS Royal Oak and HMS Barham), 1 battlecruiser (HMS Hood), 2 large carriers (HMS Glorious and HMS Ark Royal), plus several cruisers, and dozens of destroyers and minor escort vessels sent to the bottom, not including other capital ships, such as three battleships badly mauled during the Battle for Crete -Luftwaffe victims-, and HMS Malaya, which took severe battle damage spending many months in repairs, meaning they were not available to fight.

The British should have done what the Germans did, try to keep their warships out of harms way.

Let's face it, by the end of 1941 the British had sunk a much larger proportion of the rather small German fleet. What was left in 1942 and later spent the rest of the war hiding in port.

Whilst the Germans might have sunk 3 British capital ships by the end of 1941 (out of the 15 Britain started the war with), the RN had sunk 4 German and Italian capital ships, out of the 9 they started the war with.

b) The incident of HMS Prince of Wales during her engagement against the Bismarck...that "onboard her were civilian workers" for the amazing reason some significant part of her equipment was not entirely operational.(!!)

Knowing their refined and well earned tradition for concealing information, is that i believe Great Britain should have concealed this particular part which -amazingly- is brought forward to "explain" or "justify" the performance of the British force in that particular engagement. Sorry but i call that utmost mediocrity, and in some cases, utter stupidity. I will go deeper, you should not only have concealed this piece of information, it should have been erased forever. It is terribly embarrasing to read that part in the records of one of the greatest naval powers in history.

Hardly. PoW was still undergoing work, she had been rushed in to service to make up the numbers. The British were having to fight against 2 European navies, and face threats from the Japanese, meaning the battleships were stretched thin. In particular, the RN was having to carry out the task of the French Mediterranean fleet as well as it's own duties.

Just like Kurfurst correctly pointed out: you are confusing naval power with naval tradition; German was no longer a maritime power during WW2, but they had a tradition.

Yes, they had a tradition of hiding their major ships in port in WW1 as well

You can get a measure of just how much time they spent hiding in port by looking at the fates of the German capital ships. Of the 4, two were lost at sea (both sunk by the RN), two in harbour (both by the RAF).

The U.S. Navy in the Pacific did not have anything that might come close to resemble the type of losses endured by the Brits in the Atlantic/Mediterranean,

They lost 4 battleships, 2 carriers and half a dozen cruisers in the first year of the war.

that was a Navy in the broad sense of the term. They more than came back, recovering from the initial losses

The RN started the war with 15 battleships and battlecruisers. They ended it with 15. They started with 7 carriers, and ended with 55, 66 cruisers and ended with 67, 184 destroyers and ended with 308, 60 submarines and ended with 162.

Do not forget Dunkirk is a DEFEAT. The Royal Navy was not the main target of the Luftwaffe in those days. Had it been the target, you have to believe it would have been one of the most horrifying blood chilling killing grounds in the history of war. This is so real, Hitler made a peace offering after that.

Norway: another defeat. Yes, high losses were inflicted to the German navy, but again, all that naval might and alleged superb intelligence were not enough to defeat the Germans.

Crete: not only a defeat; it was another slaughter. It is interesting to notice there are guys here implying losing 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers in the same battle, plus 3 battleships, 6 cruisers and 6 destroyers more damaged (some of them heavly damaged) is an acceptable balance.

Actually none of these is a defeat for the RN. At Dunkirk they evacuated far more men than anyone thought possible. In Norway they did enough damage to the Kreigsmarine to cripple it for the rest of the war, and to ensure that Sea Lion was an impossibility. In Crete they stopped any German seaborne forces reaching the island, and evacuated the allied troops at the end.

 

[plan_D]

Excellent posts, Hop, especially the last. I couldn't have done better myself.

Kris:

"Channel Dash is an example where the KM achieved success against the Royal Navy."

The "Channel Dash" was the Kriegsmarine running away from the Royal Navy. It cannot be considered a fleet action because there was no actual conflict between opposing fleets.

Had the Home Fleet caught that convoy then it would have been destroyed, or at least put out of action. If the Royal Navy thought it was required, any invasion attempt would have been met by the Home Fleet and Force H from the Med.

"Just compare the forces of the Royal Navy in the Channel with the Kriegsmarine.
Sure you could bring in more destroyers or other small vessels but then the British would have lost the Battle of the Atlantic. Germany wouldn't even have had to invade the island."

Why are you only comparing the forces in the Channel? All those forces around the British Isles will arrive at the battle area within days. The Kriegsmarine would have to hold all of them off because if any were to break into the Channel, the invasion would fail.

"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."

So, the invasion barges and Kriegsmarine have left on the second day. Can I ask how you aim to supply and protect your troops? You cannot just land troops then abandon them. There'd need to be logistical support and the Kriegsmarine would need to give artillery support, so it cannot leave.

"Yet, the second one came through unharmed. I think Crete was a good learning lesson for the Germans.
About the halt of hold off, what I meant is that the Luftwaffe didn't try to halt the Royal Navy. I don't see them coming full stop. Most important is to hold them off which means contain them, neutralize their threat. That's what the Luftwaffe in the end managed to do. Or why else was the RN pulled back?"

Kris, the first invasion fleet was destroyed. The Luftwaffe had not been able to prevent this, proving that air power alone cannot halt a navy.

The Royal Navy dispatched the Light Cruisers HMS Dido, Orion and Ajax with the DDs HMS Janus, Kimberley, Hasty and Hereward to attack the Lupo and its convoy. This convoy was destroyed and turned back.
This second "unharmed" convoy, escorted by Sagittario was held back at first. And didn't arrive unharmed because it lost three transports. The attack was made by four light cruisers and three destroyers.

The Royal Navy pulled back when the evacuation was completed. The Luftwaffe did do serious damage, I will not deny that, but the point made is the Luftwaffe alone could not keep the Royal Navy from attacking the invasion convoys.

"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?
I thought this was common knowledge. At least Churchill knew..."

You don't need to use the BBs in the Channel, they can simply operate at the edges against any screen the Kriegsmarine sets up. If the Kriegsmarine operates in the Channel, then its Battlecruisers become targets for the coastal guns, Bomber Command and Coastal Command. The Royal Navy would send in every other ship to stop the invasion and even BBs if desperate.

"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.)"

I believe the Germans could have defeated the Allies in Normandy had they been able to move around quicker and were better supplied. Had the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions been able to detrain closer to the front, instead of at Paris, then the Allies would have faced a counter-attack toward the beaches. The Wehrmacht wanted to counter-attack but it never had the chance.

"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 Germans had achieved air superiority over the Allied invasion area, then the invasion would have failed. Just as much as I believe if the Germans would have been able to protect their entrance routes and supply columns, they would have been able to defeat or at least suppress the Allies much longer.

In the event of a German counter-attack in early June, the only way of survival for the Allied forces would have been with the aid of naval bombardment from those ships in the Channel.

 

[Glider]

Kris
Quote
The various info regarding the testing of the british barges and their seaworthiness.

Reply
Many thanks for the info, I need to amend my views, but, and it's a big but, they were not assault craft. It's a huge risk. The quote was from Ian Allen book British Warships of WW2 re the use of derricks and seaworthiness.

Quote
Re the Japanese comments on the invasion plans and preparations

Reply
Its not on line but in a book called the Burning Blue ISBN 0-7126-6475-0. The book is supposed to be about the BOB which contains nothing new but it does have some comments on the American and Japanese views of the BOB including a section on the aftermath including the comments mentioned re the invasion.

Quote
Re the resources assigned to the Channel Dash
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.

Reply
I realise this, but the area covered is hundreds of times larger and the resources are going to be thin, very thin even with 5 times the aircraft. You yourself said that to keep one unit overhead on a CAP requires 5 in total, I was allowing for a surge due to the invasion.
Using the 1 to 3 ratio 1500 fighters will give you 500 overhead all day and that is pushing it.
If you want to hold back a reserve to support bombers attacking a key area or a RN attack then you have less overhead.
The RAF in May 42 had 42 squadrons of Spits (Squadrons of the RAF) call it 650 planes a number that would have increased with the threat of invasion. 650 alone would be sufficient to give your 500 planes overhead a very hard time as they can attack and retreat at will, choosing their moment. Not forgetting the 21 attack squadrons of fighter bombers mentioned before.
Remember these were in place and are minimum numbers. An invasion threat would have pulled out all the stops.
Remember these numbers exclude the RCAF who were in the UK at the time.

Quote
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?

Reply
The British have 650 plus fighters to escort the RN and 21 squadrons plus of GA planes to run amok attacking your troops, support vessels anything they can find against minimal opposition. They would have a field day

Quote
The Kriegsmarine was quite capable of dealing with the British Channel Fleet.

Reply
With what?, the BC's are in the Atlantic and you have a handful of cruisers and destroyers. The RN has KGV's, Nelsons, Queen Elizabeth class, numerous cruisers and compared to the Germans, almost unlimited numbers of destroyers. All intent on death and destruction and hang the losses as this is make or break time for the war.

Quote
And I'm just wondering if torpedoes wouldn't go underneath barges??

Reply
Actually they wouldn't go under, but it doesn't matter, one 4in or 4.7in shell would do the job. Torpedo's would be a waste but the MTB's would use them.

Quote
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.

Reply
Then Germany lose, big time. The key to an invasion, any invasion, is that you build up your forces faster than the enemy.
If the defender wins the race, the Invasion forces are trapped and unable to move against dug in defenders with support.
If the invader wins the race, they break through and get into the rear of the enemy forcing a retreat.
Give the British 2 days and you are trapped, with nowhere to go.

Quote
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?
As such I don't think pulling back your units will do you any good.

Reply
You have said it yourself. If the GAF pull out of North Africa then the RAF can leaving the Italians to face the SAAF. Fair comment on the RAAF but my money is on the SAAF.
It gives the RAF an additional 10 squadrons of Hurricanes, 3 of Spitfires and 4 of Kittyhawks. You now have 31 squadrons of GA planes causing hell while your CAP is close to zero. The German army is going to love you.

Quote
I don't care what the British are capable of. You said the Germans didn't have the minesweepers needed. I showed they did.
Reply
Not quite. You showed me a number which I didn't disagree with, plus I gave a suggestion as to how the difference could have been made up and the basis for my number. I have done more digging and the Germans had a class of Motor Minesweepers called R Boats and these are small naval vessels designed for the job and more likely to have been the cause of the difference. Basically these were the size of an S boat but slower and used for a number of roles including minelaying and escort.
The British equivalent was the Fairmile B, and both were considered as part of coastal forces by the German and British navies.

Quote
Re the ability to destroy the BC in dock
Read Kurfürst post: BC tried for months and couldn't destroy their target!! And you say it's good enough?

Reply
As per my last posting yes, that's good enough for me. 350 bombers would play merry hell in the enclosed landing area.
By the way this is based on Sterlings, Halifax's, Manchesters, Wellingtons, Whitleys and Lancasters in front line squadrons, so my original assumption of 6000lb a plane as payload is on the low side by some margin, its probably around 8-9000lb.
Nowhere have I included the Bostons, Hampdens, Hudsons, Blenhiems who would have done something. Also the first 1000 bomber raid was in 1942 so the 350 assumption is also way down on what would have been possible.

Quote
Re opposing forces at Anzio
Don't change your point. You said the Allies were outnumbered. Do you take this back or not?

Reply
Sorry but I never said the allies were outnumbered. My whole point has been that the Allies had the greater numbers but couldn't get off the beach as the area was under artillery fire and to small to manoeuvre in. Please point out where I made this statement and I will change it.

Quote
Re ability of nightfighters.
In essence you are saying that my premise that having Ground Radar under local control directing the defending British nightfighters onto the incoming German nightfighters wouldn't be a great advantage. This is because the ground radar at the time is not accurate enough to direct the defending fighter to with the radar range of the incoming German planes.
Also that the Me110 had little to fear from the Beaufighter, as few 110 nightfighters were lost to Beaufighters.

Reply
I am absolutely confident that Erich would support my premise because the British had been using this basis for interceptions since Oct 1940 and by May 1942 it was well practiced and very successful. German losses on raids at night over Britain were alarming as a percentage of the planes involved which backs up the scenario.

Over to you, enjoy

David

 

[Udet]

The British should have done what the Germans did, try to keep their warships out of harms way.

Let's face it, by the end of 1941 the British had sunk a much larger proportion of the rather small German fleet. What was left in 1942 and later spent the rest of the war hiding in port.

Whilst the Germans might have sunk 3 British capital ships by the end of 1941 (out of the 15 Britain started the war with), the RN had sunk 4 German and Italian capital ships, out of the 9 they started the war with.



Hardly. PoW was still undergoing work, she had been rushed in to service to make up the numbers. The British were having to fight against 2 European navies, and face threats from the Japanese, meaning the battleships were stretched thin. In particular, the RN was having to carry out the task of the French Mediterranean fleet as well as it's own duties.



Yes, they had a tradition of hiding their major ships in port in WW1 as well

You can get a measure of just how much time they spent hiding in port by looking at the fates of the German capital ships. Of the 4, two were lost at sea (both sunk by the RN), two in harbour (both by the RAF).



They lost 4 battleships, 2 carriers and half a dozen cruisers in the first year of the war.



The RN started the war with 15 battleships and battlecruisers. They ended it with 15. They started with 7 carriers, and ended with 55, 66 cruisers and ended with 67, 184 destroyers and ended with 308, 60 submarines and ended with 162.



Actually none of these is a defeat for the RN. At Dunkirk they evacuated far more men than anyone thought possible. In Norway they did enough damage to the Kreigsmarine to cripple it for the rest of the war, and to ensure that Sea Lion was an impossibility. In Crete they stopped any German seaborne forces reaching the island, and evacuated the allied troops at the end.

Hop, nobody but yourself could have showed up dragging in this type of response.

Still, my list was incomplete: HMS Courageous, another large carrier, was sunk before the end of 1941.

Unlike you i do not live in a constant state of denial. I have acknowledged the fact the Kriegsmarine took high losses against the Royal Navy early in the war, also stated British seamanship showed in battle action.

Your part regarding HMS Prince of Wales is entertaining: so you are suggesting sending a battleship that is not fully battle worthy to clash with Bismarck does not smell like the type of decision highly related to terrible management of naval affairs? Interesting notion.

Knowing your fashion is that i can say you made a mistake in that last posting of yours: your words seem to agree with the notion Royal Navy losses and capabilities to cover all theathers were becoming nearly unbearable as early as in mid 1941. Does not sound too powerful.

Also stop twisting the words of others, i did not say Dunkerque was a "Royal Navy" defeat...since you like playing the smart guy, you ought to know i was referring to a complete allied defeat in continental europe, and that the Royal Navy was not the main target the Luftwaffe had in its directives.

Also as Kurfurst correctly pointed out, although the achievement of evacuating some 330,000 troops is of course remarkable, the means utilized by Great Britain did not seem too much professional, at all: any type of floating devices, military and civilian alike, were used during the evacuation. Yes, the goal was achieved but not in that very professional manner you constantly remark the Germans were uncapable of achieving to have an invasion force crossing the channel and landing on British beaches (and do not forget the succesful evacuation was made possible thanks to the German orders to let it happen). So it is utterly ridiculous when you try to make fun of the German inabilty to assemble an invasion fleet right after the end of the battle for France; not even the major western naval power was capable of attaining such a thing.

Also how many millions of troops and civilians did the Kriegsmarine evacuated during 1944/45 to save them from the advancing red army?

Now i go to another piece of jewelry from you Hop: Crete was not a Royal Navy defeat because they ensured the small German naval force that would land troops was intercepted? This is a delicacy.

Well, Crete was conquered, and the Royal Navy had to flee the surrounding waters leaving 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers with some 2,400 seamen dead behind, not fogetting a large number of badly damaged units which also took part in the action.

By that time the war was more than in progress, so no "surprise" factor can be claimed. If the Royal Navy was so powerful, why didn´t they have the sufficient carriers in the area to ensure proper aerial cover of their ships in the waters around Crete? Possibly because they were pretty much uncapable of doing it.

Crete occurred when the war had almost entered its 2nd year of bloody combat; do you see the Japanese conducting a similar type of attack against some island in the Pacific by late 1943, where the U.S. Navy would not have had a sufficient number of carriers in the area to ensure the Japanese fighters and bombers must first be engaged in fierce air combat? 100% unlikely.

Just a little difference between the Royal Navy and the US Navy for you to have some extra-entertainment.

 

[plan_D]

Udet,

The Crete invasion saw the Royal Navy face off against the Luftwaffe. In the circumstances the Royal Navy managed to stop any seaborne invasion of the island and evacuate 15,000 men.
While the Royal Navy is considered defeated at Crete, the fact remains that the Royal Navy held onto the Med throughout the entirety of the war. Which was its point of existance in the theatre. Which is a victory in naval terms.

Your mention of the IJN vs. USN is quite confusing. Had Great Britain wanted to give the Luftwaffe a meeting in the air, surely they would have kept the fighters on the island of Crete rather than use aircraft carriers?

By the way, HMS Formidable was in the area. But the Royal Navy were aiming to stop seaborne invasion and evacuate troops.

Tell me, if the United States Navy were in the Med...do you think they'd have used carriers? No, you'd use the island bases to send up fighters. But Britain practically abandoned the island.

 

[Kurfürst]

Let's face it, by the end of 1941 the British had sunk a much larger proportion of the rather small German fleet. What was left in 1942 and later spent the rest of the war hiding in port.

It fails to account though for the loss of the HMS Edinburgh, sunk by German destroyers, the loss of the Scharnhorst on it's operative sortie against North Sea convoys, the actions of the Prinz Eugen after 1941, battle of the Barents Sea involving Admiral Hipper and Lutzow in the end of 1942, Admiral Scheer also engaged in the North Sea and the Baltic etc.

You simply live in an alternate reality appearantly.

Whilst the Germans might have sunk 3 British capital ships by the end of 1941 (out of the 15 Britain started the war with), the RN had sunk 4 German and Italian capital ships, out of the 9 they started the war with.

Well let's see those 3 capital ships sunk :

Royal Oak, sunk 1939.
Courageous, sunk 1939.
Glorious, sunk 1940.
Hood, sunk 1941.
Barham, sunk 1941.
Ark Royal, sunk 1941.
Queen Elizabeth, sunk 1941.
Valiant, sunk 1941.
Prince of Wales, sunk 1941.
Repulse, sunk 1941.

More like 8, 10 if we count the IJ efforts, as you were kindly including Italian losses, why not apply the same here..

And what '4 German and Italian capitol ships' were sunk by the end of 1941? Bismarck, for one, at the cost of the Hood and the fiasco at Crete and the loss of 20 000+ troops as half of the Royal Navy was sent against Bismarck (a single ship... ). A single German capital ship lost so far.

The Italians? The British managed to sink the old WW1 Battleship Conte di Cavour at Taranto, but even that one was raised before the end of the year and sent to repairs and refit. A mere week later the Italians came out slightly on top at Cape Teulada in naval combat. A month later the Italians sank two older British Battleships on their anchor in Alexandria in return.

So that's 8 (or 10) Royal Navy capitol ships lost in exhange for 1 German, 1 Italian (temporary loss). Hardly something to boast about.

Yes, they had a tradition of hiding their major ships in port in WW1 as well

Well, on the other hand the British had the tradition of loosing their major ships in their ports and at the sea - amazing the Germans could achieve that while hiding in their ports ! 8)

Skagerrak still hurts, I guess. Thinking of it, just about every naval engagement between the Germans and the British, if between roughly equal forces, was won by the Imperial navy or the Kriegsmarine, and Britain lost some 30 million GRT of it's merchant shipping in the two wars. I wonder where and why the Nelsonian spirit disappeared by WW1.

You can get a measure of just how much time they spent hiding in port by looking at the fates of the German capital ships. Of the 4, two were lost at sea (both sunk by the RN), two in harbour (both by the RAF).

Well, which two German capital ships were sunk in port, can you name them?

The RN started the war with 15 battleships and battlecruisers. They ended it with 15. They started with 7 carriers, and ended with 55, 66 cruisers and ended with 67, 184 destroyers and ended with 308, 60 submarines and ended with 162.

I wonder why they built so many submarines, if they did nothing through the war.

Actually none of these is a defeat for the RN. At Dunkirk they evacuated far more men than anyone thought possible.

They lost well over 250 ships in the proccess, though, and some 10 000 men drowned at the sea. To what? A meager number of LW attacks, while both the LW and the Heer was concentrating on the French, while the British fled as fast as they could.

It's difficult to sea a rout than anything else it was, anyway.

In Norway they did enough damage to the Kreigsmarine to cripple it for the rest of the war, and to ensure that Sea Lion was an impossibility.

While still loosing. Pity that the RN's job was not to make harder for the Germans to invade Britiain. It was to prevent the Germans from successfully landing in Norway, and to ensure the British invasion of Norway. We all know the results - they miserably failed on both objectives, despite having a far larger force at sea, whereas the small KM detachments successfully completed their landings almost everywhere, and sunk an aircraft carrier and a couple of smaller RN vessels on the top of that.

As for crippling KM for the rest of the war, laughable, they lost a couple of destroyers to the British and a light cruiser as I recall, about as many the British lost to the KM, plus a carrier of course - hardly a crippling loss.

In Crete they stopped any German seaborne forces reaching the island, and evacuated the allied troops at the end.

Garrison of Crete :

United Kingdom:
15,000
Greece:
11,000
Australia:
7,100
New Zealand:
6,700
Total:
40,000

Casualties
Official British figures:
3,500 dead
1,900 wounded
12,000 captured
5,255 Greek Captured

Hmmm... According to Hop, Crete was a successfull evacuation by the Royal Navy : Out of a defending force of 40 000, 22 655 troops were lost, 17 255 men captured was stranded on the island. Beaten by half the force of paratroopers btw.

76% of the losses occured because the RN failed to evacuate them - the LW prevented them doing so, and with meager forces : only 280 bombers, 150 dive bombers, 180 fighters were employed, ie. about 1/4 of the bomers, and half of the dive bombers employed in BoB, under a much shorter time. In less than week, the LW destroyed three cruisers (Gloucester, Fiji and Calcutta) and six destroyers (Kelly, Greyhound, Kashmir, Hereward, Imperial and Juno). Seven other ships were damaged, including the battleships Warspite and Valiant, and the cruiser Orion. The RN fled to Alexandria as quickly it could, leaving most of the troops behind.

 

[renrich]

The sinking of the Queen Elisabeth and the Valiant will I am sure come as a surprise to the crew of those ships that are still alive as well as to the Admiralty since they were not sunk.

 

[Civettone]

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.

From Battle of Britain Diary of Events 1940, here's a summary of the first days. The following days show the same thing but it takes too long for me to summarize the entire month.
10. The main attacks concentrated on shipping ... Later in the day enemy raids took place along the West, South and East coasts with the largest being nearly 70 bombers attacking Falmouth Swansea.
11. Between 0600hrs 0900hrs small raids were reported. 1100hrs a large raid, of 50 plus Ju87's Me110's, to attack Portland and a convoy off the coast. Later that day, 1745hrs, a raid, consisting of He111's and Me110's, attacked bombed Portsmouth. After 2100hrs raids were reported and bombs were dropped in South Wales, Somerset, Bristol, Portland, Dorchester, Plymouth, Hull, Ipswich, Harrogate, Doncaster, Colchester and Harwich areas.
12. raids reported in the Portland area and off East coast. The largest raid, Do17's He111's approached convoy leaving Thames Estuary. ... around 1640hrs when bombs were dropped on Weymouth, Falmouth and St. Eval. ... an attack off the Essex coast on a trawler.
13. two small raids approach the South Coast ... 50 enemy aircraft are sighted off Portland ... by Ju87's, as the convoy passed through the Dover Straits ... Dover Harbour was attacked at 1730hrs by Ju87's ... another raid of about 20 aircraft, at 1800hrs 15 miles off Dover.
During the night mines were dropped
14. Activity during the morning was low with a few raids reported near Poole, Swanage, Dungeness and Lands End. The action increased into the afternoon with an attack over Dover around 1500hrs and a large attack by Ju87's and Me109's on a convoy off Eastbourne. Mines dropped.
15. Once again bad weather hampered the German offensive with a few small raids reported during the morning on Brighton, the Cardiff area and off the Norfolk coast. The afternoon saw raids over Liverpool, Drem in Scotland, St. Athan in Wales, a convoy off the Norfolk coast, the Westland Aircraft factory near Yeovil was bombed and railway lines near Avonmouth. 15 Do17's made one of the largest raids of the day over the Thames Estuary at about 1415hrs. Mines dropped.

And so on and on...
Attacks were both on inland targets as on coastal targets. And if they attacked naval targets, these targets were along the English coast.

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.

ER Hooton gives the German sortie numbers. For 1st July - 8th August they are 1150 daylight bomber sorties, 3350 fighter sorties.

Is this was you base your comment that Historically, the Germans found that 3 fighters per bomber was the minimum escort force needed. on?

Coordinating 1000 bombers in attacks on small numbers of warships.

So now you're essentially saying the Germans have too many bombers to succesfully attack the Royal Navy?
What's next? There were too many seagulls in the sky?

Pretty much. AA defences on destroyers and small craft increased hugely as the war progressed.

Any naval expert will tell you that the weakest element of British ships was their weak AA. Until they learned from the US Navy how it should be, the Royal Navy thought its destroyers could get by with 40° or 50° guns; later, a fit of frenzied magnanimity gave rise to 55° elevation. This official contentment with low-angle DD guns evolved within the context of prewar fleet AA doctrine, a pleasant but impractical notion in which destroyers needed only to account for torpedo planes and other low-altitude aircraft while the high-angle guns of heavier ships delat with targets overhead.
46 out of 120 British destroyers lost were caused by air attack.

Docks tend to cluster together. A ship takes up a very small part of most docks.

The larger freighters will take literally days to unload.

What's your source?
I've got one for you: Feldgrau.net :: View topic - German Navy's Aircraft Carrier
in one exercise a merchant was unloaded on to the beach through 24 barge sortie in 14 hours and averaged about 40 tons per load

From the War Diary of the Wehrmacht High Command, 19th September, translated by Klee for the USAF:

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.

What is this based on? Why does it take hours for troops to get of their barge?
Why does it take days for a tank to get of a barge?? Days for a tank???

The RN operated cruisers and destroyers in the channel throughout the BoB.

Where were they during the Channel Dash which received top priority from Churchill?

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.

So that means there's just as much chance of the British shooting down their own Spitfires? And their cruisers start sinking their own trawlers?
I think you're really looking for arguments just to make one. And if you can't find one, you just repeat your old ones.

Kris

 

[renrich]

Civettone, Not a problem with your brief reply. Appreciate all the effort you put in to your discourse. My point about the High Sea's Fleet in WW1 was that in only one major engagement, Coronel, did the Kaiser's ships come out the victor. In the rest of the engagements they wound up in retreat.

 

[Glider]

I sense the temperature rising in some areas. To be objective can I observe that the Queen Elizabeth and Valient were sunk leaving the Med almost defensless, but they were fairly easily repaired. The important thing was that Germany and Italy didn't know this or if they did, totally failed to make anything of the oppertunity.

Not a lot of credit to either side apart from the Italians who carried out the attack showing considerable skill and courage.

Re Norway
Germany lost the
Heavy Cruiser Blucher one of only three in the Fleet
Light Cruiser Konigsberg one of only five in the fleet
10 destroyers Z2, Z9, Z11, Z12, Z13, Z17, Z18, Z19, Z21 and Z22 out of 20 destroyers in the fleet. Two Z1 and Z3 had already been sunk by the German airforce in error off Borkum on 22/2/40.
In addition the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had met the unescorted Renown at sea and run away receiving damage.

There can be little doubt that this was a crippling loss to Germany. No one, is going to invade anyone, let alone Britain, with only ten destroyers.

 

[Civettone]

Final word on the British fighters:
In 1942 272 German day fighters were lost for (from all causes) for 574 RAF day fighters destroyed.

The sinking of the Queen Elisabeth and the Valiant will I am sure come as a surprise to the crew of those ships that are still alive as well as to the Admiralty since they were not sunk.

They were sunk. They were raised afterwards.

Appreciate all the effort you put in to your discourse.

That means a lot to me. Thank you, Renrich!
Kris

 

[Kurfürst]

A few comments :

The Destroyers were replaced - since most of them lost at Narwik, that new class become the 'Narwik' class of destroyers - 8 of these were commissioned by the end of 1941 the replace the lost ones, 3 of these before the calander turned 1941, followed by 7 of the Type 36A(Mob) class and 3 Type 36B(Mob).

Blucher was one of the 6 Heavy Cruisers the Germans had. Graf Spee was lost already by that time, but all the others survived up to 1945. Blucher was lost the Norwegian shore defenses anyway.

As for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau..

a, Renown wasn't unescorted, it had nine destroyer escorts
b, S's and G's mission/orders were to protect the own invasion force, and avoid engagement with major enemy units unless neccesary. They succeeded in their mission.
c, Superficial damage was sustained by G (one hit to a turret's optic, another to the radar), and it meant both could successfully operate in June 1940, with the known results - a British carrier and both of it's escort DDs sunk.

 

[Udet]

Udet,

The Crete invasion saw the Royal Navy face off against the Luftwaffe. In the circumstances the Royal Navy managed to stop any seaborne invasion of the island and evacuate 15,000 men.
While the Royal Navy is considered defeated at Crete, the fact remains that the Royal Navy held onto the Med throughout the entirety of the war. Which was its point of existance in the theatre. Which is a victory in naval terms.

Your mention of the IJN vs. USN is quite confusing. Had Great Britain wanted to give the Luftwaffe a meeting in the air, surely they would have kept the fighters on the island of Crete rather than use aircraft carriers?

By the way, HMS Formidable was in the area. But the Royal Navy were aiming to stop seaborne invasion and evacuate troops.

Tell me, if the United States Navy were in the Med...do you think they'd have used carriers? No, you'd use the island bases to send up fighters. But Britain practically abandoned the island.

Plan_D:

I insist, British seamanship is akcnowledged; that they managed to evacuate part of the troops that were on Crete is remarkable for sure if we see the circumstances of the engagements. Also i am not suggesting anything like the Royal Navy got kicked out of the Mediterranean.

Rather what i am trying to remark here is the fact a nation that by the time was still considered a major naval power, failed to provide their warships with sufficient and proper aerial cover during a very important battle. This should be significant. If they had a doctrine regarding naval operations, how come the Royal Navy units operated around the island with almost zero aerial cover? Non-existant coordination between naval and ground based forces? Should not this element be part of the "doctrine" in the manual of a naval power?

If battle action occurs on an island, therefore, naval means are most likely to be involved.

The Royal Navy surely was around Crete to deal with whatever naval menace the axis could bring forward to the battle, and i can accept they fared well -not that great though, as commented by Civettone- in that department, but again, see what my point is: there are people here trying to ridicule any idea which might suggest the Kriegsmarine was capable of mounting succesful and professional operations, insisting on the idea the Royal Navy had a "doctrine" on amphibious operations as well as in any other department involving naval action, something that according to them the Germans lacked.

Again, all the experience and doctrine regarding naval warfare did not show up too brilliantly around Crete; Hop says the Royal Navy saw the end of the war with more carriers in service than there were at the beginning of the war.

I know HMS Formidable was there, but what were the results? Where were the rest of the carriers while the Royal Navy was getting slammed by the Luftwaffe around Crete?

Does not anyone believe it is one the duties of carriers to ensure proper aerial cover to their own fleet while conducting operations? Or what was the purpose of having HMS Formidable around the island?

I refuse to believe the Royal Navy was brought forward to a battle zone where the enemy had strong aerial forces committed knowing there would be almost zero aerial cover. Smells like Kamikaze, and Britain did never operate like that.

Finally, i brought up the IJN-US Navy to the discussion to give an example of what a highly competitive navy can be. After almost 2 years in the PTO, wherever the IJN and US NAVY clashed it became increasingly nasty to the Japs. The US Navy had learned, but not just that, their performance showed critical improvements: wherever the met after two years of war the Navy attained adequate and sufficient presence to given them a very unpleasant time. We can not tell the same in the case of the Royal Navy after almost 2 years of fight in the Atlantic/Channel/Mediterranean.

I am not sure how the US Navy would have operated a carrier force in the Mediterranean though, but what is it that you mean? That there was no purpose in deploying carriers in the Med or what?

 

[Civettone]

This discussion is going so fast it's difficult to keep up. I'm not going to reply to everything, only the stuff directed to me. I like to see my bed before sunrise

The "Channel Dash" was the Kriegsmarine running away from the Royal Navy. It cannot be considered a fleet action because there was no actual conflict between opposing fleets.

Sure it was. Two fleets shot at eachother. It was a conflict between opposing fleets.

Had the Home Fleet caught that convoy then it would have been destroyed, or at least put out of action.

Had the Home Fleet been used for this then they could no longer have guarded the North Sea.
U-boats would also have liked to see Royal Navy presence diminished in this area.

You cannot just land troops then abandon them. There'd need to be logistical support and the Kriegsmarine would need to give artillery support, so it cannot leave.

Let me guess? The allies did so, so the Germans must do the same.
Can't you understand that the German invasion forces are the bait? Open your mind and see what would have happened to the Royal Navy.

Kris, the first invasion fleet was destroyed. The Luftwaffe had not been able to prevent this, proving that air power alone cannot halt a navy.

That's not proving it. What do you call Midway then?

The Feldgrau site gives a more accurate view on Crete. (The Invasion and Battle for Crete)

Seaborne Invasion (20-22 May)

During the night of May 20-21, a British light naval force broke through the German aerial blockade and searched the waters north of Crete. Admiral Schuster thereupon decided to call back to Milos the first naval convoy, which was approaching Crete under escort of an Italian destroyer. At dawn on May 21, German planes sighted the British ships and subjected them to heavy air attacks. One destroyer was sunk and two cruisers damaged. At 09:00 the waters north of Crete were cleared of enemy ships and the convoy was ordered to continue its voyage in the direction of Maleme. During the day German dive bombers based on Skarpanto and Italian planes flying from Rhodes scored several hits on British ships returning to Crete waters, thereby preventing them from intercepting the Axis convoy. The German troops on the island were anxiously awaiting the arrival of artillery, antitank guns, and supplies, but poor weather conditions so delayed the convoy that it could not reach the island before darkness.

When it finally came around Cape Spatha at 23:00, a British naval task force suddenly confronted the convoy, which was on the way to Suda Bay to land reinforcements and supplies. The British immobilized the Italian escort vessel and sank most of the motor sailers and freighters. Many German soldiers, most of them mountain troops, were drowned. Sea rescue planes, however, picked up the majority of the shipwrecked. The second convoy, which had meanwhile reached Milos, was recalled to Piraeus to save it from a similar fate. No further seaborne landings were attempted until the fate of Crete had been decided.

On the morning of 22 May, VIII Air Corps started an all-out attack on the British fleet, which was forced to withdraw from the Aegean after suffering heavy losses. The battle between the Luftwaffe and the British Navy ended in the victory of German air power, which from then on dominated the air and waters north of Crete.

the point made is the Luftwaffe alone could not keep the Royal Navy from attacking the invasion convoys.

Point taken but it's your point. My point is that the Luftwaffe defeated the Royal Navy as shown by the Feldgrau article.

If the Kriegsmarine operates in the Channel, then its Battlecruisers become targets for the coastal guns, Bomber Command and Coastal Command.

No, German battlecruisers would head out for the Ocean. We can debate about this but I don't think it's a fact that the British won't use their BBs to give chase. A fleet of three German BCs and a bunch of submarine Wolfbacks could destroy every convoy it desired. What's the point in defeating the invasion and losing the biggest part of your Navy when it means you'll lose the Battle of the Atlantic?

Just as much as I believe if the Germans would have been able to protect their entrance routes and supply columns, they would have been able to defeat or at least suppress the Allies much longer.

Fascinating.

Kris

 

[syscom3]

Any naval expert will tell you that the weakest element of British ships was their weak AA. Until they learned from the US Navy how it should be, the Royal Navy thought its destroyers could get by with 40° or 50° guns; later, a fit of frenzied magnanimity gave rise to 55° elevation. This official contentment with low-angle DD guns evolved within the context of prewar fleet AA doctrine, a pleasant but impractical notion in which destroyers needed only to account for torpedo planes and other low-altitude aircraft while the high-angle guns of heavier ships delat with targets overhead.
46 out of 120 British destroyers lost were caused by air attack.

And the German AAA was even worse.

Feldgrau.net :: View topic - German Navy's Aircraft Carrier
in one exercise a merchant was unloaded on to the beach through 24 barge sortie in 14 hours and averaged about 40 tons per load

14 hours? heheheheheh. 14 hours at anchor being a sitting duck.

I asked my neighbor ( he served on an LST in the pacific) next door awhile ago on how long it took to unload his ship, and he replied.... less than 1 hour depending on how critical the time element was. He saw training films where the LST's could be unloaded in a HURRY if they had to.

What is this based on? Why does it take hours for troops to get of their barge?
Why does it take days for a tank to get of a barge?? Days for a tank???

Tjhat does sound rather long, but the point is without a port to unload, it takes a long time if the barge has to unload off shore onto lighters.

Where were they during the Channel Dash which received top priority from Churchill?

Why do people keep bringing up the channel dash for? it was a KM sortie to get their ships from one port to another as fast as possible. A channel invasion would mean they would have to stick around and await their inevitable fate.... being disabled and out of action, or sunk.

 

[renrich]

I have consulted my copy of "Janes" 1944-45 and "British and Dominion Warships" WW2 and neither of them show Valiant or QE sunk. May we compromise and call them heavily damaged and repaired?

 

[Civettone]

Hi David. I'm going to rush through things. From what year is "Burning Blue"? And what does the title refer to?

I realise this, but the area covered is hundreds of times larger and the resources are going to be thin, very thin even with 5 times the aircraft. You yourself said that to keep one unit overhead on a CAP requires 5 in total, I was allowing for a surge due to the invasion.

Spot on! Germans will have to be using CAPs on the first day but if the Channel Dash was an indication, the British were easily taken by surprise and not very well organized. That makes me conclude that on the first day the British won't be able to muster all their aircraft.
From the second day onwards the German fighters will mainly be used to escort the bombers, so no more CAP. (Except for the 250 or so over the beaches). I am thinking about the possibility of forward escorting though. As the Royal Navy would place itself in firing range of the beaches, the German bombers would attack them and the German fighters in their forward escorting style as favoured by Galland would in effect be flying over the beaches. This is not wishful thinking from my point - well that too - but it's the only way it could have gone down.
In any case - given the fact that the British lost twice as many fighters as the Germans in 1942 - I think the Germans would have been able to seriously reduce the threat of the RAF. I also said before, that 1/3 of the barges were expendable (of course after delivering their loads). I don't think this is such a wild assumption.

The RAF in May 42 had 42 squadrons of Spits (Squadrons of the RAF)

Are you sure? I think they had more of them (over 60 in August) though I could be mistaken. Unless you mean 42 in Britain alone?

Remember these numbers exclude the RCAF who were in the UK at the time.

Ok. How many RCAF squadrons were there by 1942?

With what?, the BC's are in the Atlantic and you have a handful of cruisers and destroyers. The RN has KGV's, Nelsons, Queen Elizabeth class, numerous cruisers and compared to the Germans, almost unlimited numbers of destroyers.

Please David, I already explained this more than 5 times. The KM would protect and support the invasion of the first day after which it would retreat. As such it will only have to fight the forces which are already in the Channel. The bulk of the Royal Navy was at least a day away from the Channel.

Torpedo's would be a waste but the MTB's would use them.

German E-boats were far superior to the British MTBs.

Then Germany lose, big time. The key to an invasion, any invasion, is that you build up your forces faster than the enemy.
If the defender wins the race, the Invasion forces are trapped and unable to move against dug in defenders with support.

I agree.
But let's take Anzio as an example again. The allies failed to exploit their numerical advantage and soon they were up against an enemy as strong as they were. They were hard pressed to hold on but they did, for months! I'm only asking the Germans to hold on for two-three days. And in the end ... the Allied army broke through the German lines and conquered central Italy within weeks.

It gives the RAF an additional 10 squadrons of Hurricanes, 3 of Spitfires and 4 of Kittyhawks. You now have 31 squadrons of GA planes causing hell while your CAP is close to zero. The German army is going to love you.

I don't think the German army is going to love me anyhow as I plan on using them as a bait for two-three days.
In any case, German AF was capable of holding off the CW AF in North Africa, so I think moving both forces to the Channel will result in the same stalemate.

Quote

I have done more digging and the Germans had a class of Motor Minesweepers called R Boats and these are small naval vessels designed for the job and more likely to have been the cause of the difference. Basically these were the size of an S boat but slower and used for a number of roles including minelaying and escort.
The British equivalent was the Fairmile B, and both were considered as part of coastal forces by the German and British navies.

So these German boats couldn't have been used along the English coast during the invasion?

Also the first 1000 bomber raid was in 1942 so the 350 assumption is also way down on what would have been possible.

No, it's not. I told you that Bomber Command had less than 500 bombers available in the middle of 1942. The 1000 bomber raids were a result of saving of bombers and use them once every month. So sure, you could use 1000 bombers once. Normal availability however was less than 500.
And again, the British bombers would suffer the heaviest night time losses ever, with 300 German night fighters knowing exactly where to find them!

Sorry but I never said the allies were outnumbered. My whole point has been that the Allies had the greater numbers but couldn't get off the beach as the area was under artillery fire and to small to manoeuvre in. Please point out where I made this statement and I will change it.

My sincere apologies David, I must have been confused or tired when I wrote this... You said the Germans were outnumbered and I wanted to refer to that but then I remembered it as you saying the Allies were outnumbered ... Where's that rock to crawl under?

German losses on raids at night over Britain were alarming as a percentage of the planes involved which backs up the scenario.

Losses on the German bombers was high but not on German night fighters, and that's what I was talking about!

Kris

 

[Civettone]

And the German AAA was even worse.

That's not the point. I was talking about the Royal Navy getting attacked by over a 1000 bombers.

Tjhat does sound rather long

That's my point.

Why do people keep bringing up the channel dash for?

Because it shows the inability of British naval forces and air force. The powerful Royal Navy can't stop a small German fleet crossing its backyard. Something which hadn't happened since the 17th Century.
The British used 700 aircraft and only a fraction was able to find those ships. No hits were recorded.
This around the same time 'my' invasion fleet is going to be ripped apart by the invincible Royal Navy and Royal Air Farce.

May we compromise and call them heavily damaged and repaired?

Ok because the HMS QE, She was mined and sunk by an Italian human torpedo attack on 18 December 1941 in shallow water in the harbour at Alexandria, Egypt. Although low in the water, her decks were clear and the Italian crews were captured. She was able to maintain the illusion of full operational status, concealing the weak British position in the Mediterranean, until raised and patched up for the journey to the United States Navy Yard in Norfolk, Virginia where she was repaired.

Kris

 

[pbfoot]

I'm shocked at what Canada had in 41 in the UK 2sqn x p40
3 x hurricane
4 x spit
3 x Beaufighter

And 1 each of Wellington,hudson, Manchester, Catalina ,Beaufort, Boston. hUDSON.

 

[Civettone]

Well, I suppose every little bit helps. I did another try at looking it up and this is what I found:
The first unit formed overseas was No. 403 Fighter in March 1941. Seventeen more squadrons were formed in 1941, ten in 1942, four in 1943, and nine in 1944, so that by the end of the war the number of squadrons in the overseas 400 series had grown to 44
It still doesn't say how many of these overseas squadrons were based in Britain...

And this is also interesting:
During this war, however, Canada would still not control its own squadrons, which did not have majority Canadian ground crews. Eight Canadian fighter squadrons were involved in the air battle over Dieppe on 19 August 1942 - which was virtually separate from what was taking place on the ground - without even the support or knowledge of the senior Canadian air force officers posted to Britain. It is often forgotten that the RAF used the Dieppe raid to provoke the biggest air battle over the European continent. Although aircraft losses were two to one in Germany's favour, the Germans could no longer manage to build as many planes as they were losing, whereas the Allies could easily make up their losses.

PBfoot, as you're Canadian, I have an off-topic question which you might be able to answer. Did the Canadians have to buy their British built aircraft (before they could build their own) or were they handed over to them? And what about the RAAF and SAAF?


I also wanted to comment on Britain increasing its aircraft production as a result of the German invasion plans. I have my doubts about this. First, like in 1940 aircraft production was limited by the number of pilots available. The crisis of 1940 was over, and thousands were in training in Canada and the rest of the CW. But the British had increased training hours so the output was still limited. If they would have increased aircraft production in 1942, they would have had to limit training hours as more pilots would have been needed immediately.

On the other hand, they wouldn't have had to increase production. Simply stopping deliveries to the Russians would have freed up hundreds of aircraft. Unfortunately these were mainly second-rate aircraft (Kittyhawks, Airacobras, Hurricane Is).

Kris