operation sea lion

[pbfoot]

All the 400 series squadrons were overseas 413 was in Ceylon and 417 was in North Africa the rest in the UK

 

[Civettone]

Are you able to answer my question on the "buying" of British aircraft?
I know that the Belgians were able to buy their British built weapons but that's not CW...

Kris

 

[plan_D]

Udet;

I believe that Crete was abandoned by Great Britain in 1941; Malta was the island to keep. And Germany made the mistake of using its efforts against Crete instead of Malta at that time.

You're right, air support should have been provided for the fleet but in all fairness to the Royal Navy, at the initial stages it wasn't the full fleet. Only CLs and DDs were sent to stop the seaborne invasion, there was no need to risk the larger vessels.

While this was not mentioned by you, it's always funny when people forget to mention the airforce when talking of the invasion of Crete. How the Germans took the islands with half the troops; without talking of the fact that the island had no aerial defence, and the Luftwaffe were smashing it to pieces.

I will admit, right now, that the Royal Navy was over-stretched in World War II. I believe the USN in the same situation would have found itself over-stretched, but would have performed better.

The major problem, in my opinion, with the Royal Navy was not the ships themselves. Nor the usage of the ships, but the FAA. If the carriers of the Royal Navy had the likes of the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsairs onboard in Europe then the fleet carriers would have been able to provide good air cover.

I don't think there was a need to operate carriers in the Med continually like the Royal Navy did. The Med is a small sea and I believe the British should have used airfields on Malta, Gibraltar and in North Africa as their air cover and the CVs should have been used in the Atlantic, North Sea and even the Indian Ocean.

Kris;

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

No fleets fired on each other during the Channel Dash. The RAF attempted to bomb the convoy, and an MTB squadron attacked but that was it.

"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.

The Royal Navy would not have to use the entire Home Fleet as Force H could be used from Gibraltar. The North Sea could be maintained to some degree by Coastal Command.

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

I've read the Feldgrau article, try reading others. The fact remains that the Royal Navy halted the seaborne invasion with only DDs and CLs under intense Luftwaffe bombardment. In the Channel there were DDs and CLs which would be ready to attack any seaborne invasion on the coast. If the Luftwaffe couldn't stop them at Crete, where's the evidence that they'll stop them in the Channel?

"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?"

What exactly do you hope to defend this invasion fleet with, the Luftwaffe alone?

"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."

First off, the German High Command would not agree to this suicidal act. More importantly, however, you aim to send a force across to the British Isles as a diversion to draw the Royal Navy in to be destroyed by the Luftwaffe.

Great Britain had already broken the German codes by then, they would be fully aware of your intention. As the U-boats and Battlecruisers of the Kriegsmarine are not going to protect the invasion fleet, then the Royal Navy would not need to use the Home Fleet as a defence force. The reserve CLs and DDs in the Channel would be enough to wash away the invasion forces, even under heavy bombardment from the Luftwaffe. The losses to the Royal Navy would be heavy, I agree, but they'd come out to meet the movements of Germany.

If you plan on moving those Battlecruisers through the North Sea, the Home Fleet would aim to repeat the chase of the Bismarck. Meanwhile, the forces in the Channel are dealing with the unescorted invasion fleet. And the RAF continues the attacks on any German fighters overhead.
In reality, the Germans lost less than the RAF in 1942 simply because the RAF was operating more over France. But in your invasion attempt it would be back to the Battle of Britain, the RAF would be operating in its best area - home. The home side always has the advantage if numbers are equal, or even when not.

 

[Kurfürst]

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.

That's a Hoppian - he probably counts the escort carriers the same as fleet carriers. Most of these were small sized vessels with limited capability, usually built by the USA and lend-leased to Britiain, or a few were converted from small merchant ships into 'carriers'. Ie. one of these :

"HMS Miralda was a merchant aircraft carrier (MAC) of the Royal Navy. She was originally a tanker of the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company (later Royal Dutch/Shell) launched in 1936. She was purchased by the Royal Navy in 1943, entered service as a MAC in January 1944, and served in World War II.

She displaced 8,000 tons."

Not quite the same as a true fleet carrier.

 

[Kurfürst]

Great Britain had already broken the German codes by then, they would be fully aware of your intention.

I fear that's a bit of wishful thinking or at least a logical flaw - first of all there was no such thing as 'German code'. Different brances of the Army, Navy, subs all used different, and these were periodically changed. The British could only attempt to break what they actually intercepted, this rules out information via land lines or liason officers which would be the rule.

A good illustration of how much German naval code was 'broken' is the outbreak of Bismarck or the channel dash - in neither case British intel could reveal the operation.

 

[plan_D]

First of all, the term "German Codes" was a general term. It would really be a waste of my time to right, "We'd captured the Engima machine, and had the ULTRA team working 24 hours a day cracking each encoded message picked up from Germany".

And a good indication of how well the ULTRA did was the sinking of the Bismarck. As the ULTRA team picked Admiral Lutjens message indicating he was short of fuel and heading for Brest.

In fact, we seemed to know a lot of what the Germans were doing.

 

[Kurfürst]

This is my post form another board but I find the issue interesting, so I repost it:

the real problem for the Germans in 1940 was their lack of naval capacity. They had 2 big surface ships, the battlecruisers of the Scharnhorst class, both under repairs at the time and unavailable long with other big ships. They also lost 10 destroyers in Norway.

By 1942, their position would improve considerably. Th 2 battlecruisers were repaired, their crew had good experience, and while they lost Bismarck, Tirpitz was ready for operations. The destroyer losses were replaced as well by that time. The biggest change is the U-boots though. In 1940, there were about 50-60 around in service, many of these being small Type II coastal boats, and they were operating from North German bases. By mid 1942, there are over 350 U-boots in service, and they're operating from French bases nearby, and most of them are of the capable VII and IX classes. The relative strenght ratio was much better the KM than in 1940, though still vastly outnumbered. An idea of submarines forming a protective cordon is rather likely, though - with so many submarines available, you can place subs literally next to each other, dangerours waters indeed! I wonder about the Italian fleet, which had 3 good and modern Battleships at ready, plus a number of older WW1 battleships that were forming the bulk of the British battleship force. They would have to break through Gibraltar - this either means the British need to split their naval forces to reinforce Gibraltar to keep the Italians in the med, or let them join up with the Kriegsmarine, and form a very potent task force of 3 German, 3 Italian modern BBs, and 2 old Italan BBs plus support vessels - 8 available in total. The RN had 15 BBs a the start of the war, 3 new were commissioned (KGV, POW, DOY) up to 1942, 6 were lost. That's about 1.5 : 1 in battleships, same was the case at Jutland. Carriers don't play much of a role here, so near to the continent.

The Royal Navy having suffered considerable loss at that time, loosing the following capital units ;

Up the start of 1942, they lost :

Royal Oak, sunk by U-boot, 1939.
Courageous, sunk by U-boot, 1939.
Glorious, sunk Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, 1940.
Hood, sunk by Bismarsck 1941.
Barham, sunk by U-boot, 1941.
Ark Royal, sunk by U-boot, 1941.
Queen Elizabeth, sunk by Italian frogmen 1941.
Valiant, sunk by Italian frogmen 1941.
Prince of Wales, sunk by Japanese aircraft 1941.
Repulse, sunk by Japanese aircraft 1941.

They commissioned a new BB, Duke of York ever since 1940, while PoW sunk already. Anson and Howe was coming in the summer of 1940, though, but the British had commitments elsewhere, with capital ships simply being far away on the Indian ocean and elsewhere.

The naval scenario is very interesting, now that I look at it in detail.

 

[pbfoot]

Are you able to answer my question on the "buying" of British aircraft?
I know that the Belgians were able to buy their British built weapons but that's not CW...

Kris

I'm 99.9% positive the aircraft were bought and maintained by canada , possibly in the early years the ground crew were Brit but later Canadian

 

[Hop]

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.

Of course there were scattered attacks on other targets. The point is, the bulk of operations were over the Channel. According to Hooton, 70% of all sorties in July were anti shipping attacks.

This argument seems a bit silly. If the Germans are going to invade Britain, the Luftwaffe are going to be carrying out operations over the British coast, more so than they did in July 1940.

So now you're essentially saying the Germans have too many bombers to succesfully attack the Royal Navy?

No, I am pointing out you cannot attack small numbers of moving warships with 1000 bombers.

Luckily for the Luftwaffe, of course, they had plenty of other targets that needed bombing, like RAF airfields, British roads and railways, coastal defences, etc.

Any naval expert will tell you that the weakest element of British ships was their weak AA.

Certainly. It improved throughout the war, though. In particular, large numbers of 20mm guns were fitted in 1941 and early 1942, large number of 40mm in 1942.

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

So in an exercise a single merchant ship, not under attack, managed to unload in 14 hours? And you think you can unload the 100 merchants the 1940 plan called for in the first wave in less than a day, whilst under attack?

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

It's takes only minutes for troops to get out of a barge. But when there are 1500 barges, which have to take turns running up on to the beach (and some have to be pushed), it takes hours for them all to take their turn.

And that's just for the troops to get off the barges. It will take longer to get the barges off the beach. Some will have turned broadside, others will be stuck until the next tide.

And what do the troops do, just run up the beach? What about the mines (any beach suitable for landing on was heavily mined). What about the guns shooting at them from pill boxes?

Let's put it another way. Specialist landing craft can be unloaded even more quickly. Yet in Normandy, the allies were still landing over the beaches weeks later.

The idea the invasion fleet can come and go in a day is preposterous.

Why does it take days for a tank to get of a barge?? Days for a tank???

Days for a tank? No. Days for lots of tanks? Yes. And artillery, and ammunition, and all the other supplies an army needs.

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

It didn't receive top priority. Why on earth should it have? If they had been coming down the channel from Germany to the French coast, it would certainly have been top priority, because the Atlantic convoy system would have been threatened.

But 3 German warships retreating to Germany, where they could no longer threaten Britain, is hardly top priority. Especially when you consider the effort it would take them to break out again.

As Churchill wrote to Eisenhower:

The naval position in home waters and the Atlantic has been definitely eased by the retreat of the German naval forces from Brest. From there they threatened all our Eastbound convoys, enforcing two battleship escorts. Their squadron could also move either on to the Atlantic trade routes or into the Mediterranean. We would far rather have it where it is than where it was. Our bomber effort, instead of being dispersed, can now be concentrated on Germany. Lastly, as you may have learnt, Prinz Eugen was damaged and both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were mined, the former twice. This will keep them out of mischief for at least six months, during which both our Navies will receive important accessions of strength. Naturally, we were very sorry we did not sink them, and an inquiry is being held as to why we did not know at daylight they were out.

Sinking them would have course been nice, but top priority for the RN was guarding against enemy attacks, not pursuing retreating enemies.

So that means there's just as much chance of the British shooting down their own Spitfires?

Yes.

The big advantage the British have is that they will be operating proper warships, not have thousands of seasick troops in barges blazing away at anything that moves.

The best action for the British would be to fly their fighters as top cover, where they are largely out of the range of light AA. But dive bombers have to get lower, and when they do everyone will be shooting at them.

And their cruisers start sinking their own trawlers?

There's less chance of that because the navy usually has their recognition sorted quite well. There would almost certainly be collisions, though.

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.

I'm trying to get you to understand some of the difficulties involved. It's not an exercise. It doesn't all go smoothly. In fact, almost nothing goes to plan. Everything takes longer than expected.

In short, it's the real world.

You show a similar tendency to simply ignore realities you don't like by continuing to assume the events of the Channel dash, in early February storms, would play out again in summer. Not even recognising the difference between attacking barges in good weather and battleships in bad weather is simply ignoring reality.

They were sunk. They were raised afterwards.

No, they were not sunk.

From The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean by Titterton and Brown:

At 6:06 an explosion occurred on the port side of Valiant between A and B turrets. Flooding was confined to A magazine and shell room and some compartments between 29 and 52 bulkheads. There were no casualties. She was heavily down by the bow.
<snip bit about QE repeated below>
The Valiant's damage extended over about 80ft. She was taken in to the floating dock on the 21st, and it was estimated she would take 2 months to repair temporarily, and 3 more months to complete

As for the Queen Elizabeth:

At 6:10 there was an explosion under Queen Elizabeth which immediately flooded A, B and X boiler rooms, many adjacent compartments and cut off all light and power. Two submarines were ordered alongside to provide power. She listed badly to starboard, but this was corrected by counter flooding.

Neither ship was sunk, in any sense of the word.

As to German destroyers, of the 22 completed by the end of Sept 1939, their fates were:

Sunk at Narvik: (Z2, Z9, Z11, Z12, Z13, Z17, Z18, Z19, Z21, Z22)

Sunk by the Luftwaffe: (Z1, Z3)

Of the 22 German modern German destroyers in existence up to Spring 1940, 12 had been lost.

By summer 1942, the Germans had added another 9 destroyers, but lost another 3 (Z7, Z8, Z26) taking their total to 16 destroyers. (note not all were operational at any one time, they had a terrible serviceability record)

By 1942, their position would improve considerably. Th 2 battlecruisers were repaired, their crew had good experience, and while they lost Bismarck, Tirpitz was ready for operations.

Scharnhorst was damaged whilst in Brest in 1941. She was patched up, but not fully seaworthy, for the Channel dash. She hit two mines, went in to dry dock for repairs, and wasn't fully operational until the end of 1942. Certainly not fit for an invasion in 1942.

Gneisenau was hit by a torpedo in Brest, and wasn't fully seaworthy for the channel dash. She hit a mine returning to Germany. In February, whilst having that damage repaired, she was bombed, she never became operational again.

Neither of the battlecruisers was available for an invasion in 1942.

The destroyer losses were replaced as well by that time.

22 at the start of the war, 16 by the summer of 1942.

 

[Kurfürst]

No, they were not sunk. Neither ship was sunk, in any sense of the word.

Snippets and selective quoting. Both ships were mined and sunk in the harbor down until they hit the port's bottom and rested on it.

HMS QE class:

"Queen Elizabeth missed Jutland, but took part in the Dardanelles Campaign in World War I. In World War II she was mined and sunk by Italian frogmen at Alexandria in 1941. She was subsequently raised, repaired, and served in the far east until 1945.

Valiant astonishingly received no hits at Jutland. In World War II, she took part in the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir, and was mined and sunk at Alexandria in 1941. She was subsequently raised, repaired, and served in the far east until 1944."

Why raise a ship that has not been sunk..?

I am still waiting for those 3 Italian BBs that were allegadly sunk by the British. Obviously Hop claims the ships at Taranto were all sink, the reality is that 2 took torpedo damage that was repaired, the 3rd one, the CdC sank on anchor like the QE and Valiant in Alexandria, raised within a month and sent to repair and refit.

As to German destroyers, of the 22 completed by the end of Sept 1939, their fates were:

Sunk at Narvik: (Z2, Z9, Z11, Z12, Z13, Z17, Z18, Z19, Z21, Z22)

Sunk by the Luftwaffe: (Z1, Z3)

Neither Z1 or Z3 was sunk by the LW, I wonder where you get your info from.

Of the 22 German modern German destroyers in existence up to Spring 1940, 12 had been lost.

By summer 1942, the Germans had added another 9 destroyers, but lost another 3 (Z7, Z8, Z26) taking their total to 16 destroyers.

More like 13 was added.

By summer 1942, Z23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37 was commissioned. 10 destroyers, one being lost (Z26). In addition, 3 Dutch, French and Greek destroyers were also put into service. There was a larger number of T class Frigates available, not just destroyers.

(note not all were operational at any one time, they had a terrible serviceability record)

I don't think so - you have terrible record of making up things or exaggevating then.

Scharnhorst was damaged whilst in Brest in 1941. She was patched up, but not fully seaworthy, for the Channel dash. She hit two mines, went in to dry dock for repairs, and wasn't fully operational until the end of 1942. Certainly not fit for an invasion in 1942.

A Hoppian - Scharhorst had finished it's repairds by July 1942 when it was tested. The rest of the year she spent working up and training - hardily unoperational if needed. It was simply in no rush.

Gneisenau was hit by a torpedo in Brest, and wasn't fully seaworthy for the channel dash. She hit a mine returning to Germany. In February, whilst having that damage repaired, she was bombed, she never became operational again.

Somkescreen - Gneisenau was damaged by a bomb, and it was seen a proper time, as the ship is under repais anyway, to refit her with 15" guns. The fact that she did not become operational again was a decision (U-boots were doing the same job better and cheaper), rather than something neccesiates by the level of damage to her unarmored bow section. She could move on their own even in this condition.

Neither of the battlecruisers was available for an invasion in 1942.

Scharnhorst definietely was. Gneisenaue may or may not have been repaired in time, remember, in this scenario the Germans need surface ships a lot and quick, in real history they didn't.

22 at the start of the war, 16 by the summer of 1942.

No, 22 at the start of the war, 19 by the summer of 1942.
16 were lost, 10 were built, 3 were captured and used.

 

[Bernhart]

How long would it take to build up the invasion fleet? Or assemble the troops or weapons your needing to invade? I wouls assume it would take months? you can't keep such a build up quiet, so would think the allies would also start better preparing thier defenses, building more planes, moving ships airplanes closer. The Yanks would also probably build up thier forces. I don't remeber ever hearing the Germans training for sea born invasions at any grand scale either.

 

[Hop]

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?

You fight a war with what you've got. The British had a lot of other commitments, they didn't have enough ships to go around. Who did?

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.

Of course they were. They were fighting the Germans and Italians, and having to guard against the Japanese.

Britain had about half the population of Germany, about the same as Italy, and half that of Japan. If you think the RN was not strong enough, then what would you say about the German and Italian navies?

Does not sound too powerful.

It was powerful enough to take on the largest power in Europe at the time, and their Italian allies, whilst still maintaining forces elsewhere in the world.

It might have been a stretch, but they still got the job done. PoW and Hood might not have sunk the Bismarck, but the RN did. And when you look at the outcome, the RN lost one of their old WW1 battlecruisers, the Germans lost their newest, most powerful battleship. Pretty fair trade, I'd say.

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.

Well, the British could have put together a much more convincing invasion fleet, but I agree it would still have been inadequate. Which should say something to those that think river barges and armed trawlers are all you need.

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?

I don't know anyone who's claiming the RN was all powerful, or even as powerful as they'd like to have been. But once again, the facts are the RN stopped any naval resupply of Crete, and took off the soldiers when the decision to evacuate was taken. The salient point for the proposed invasion of Britain is that the Luftwaffe did not manage to stop the RN doing their job.

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.

No, of course not. But then again, the US had twice the population of Japan, whereas Britain had half the population of Germany. Britain was always going to be on the back foot to begin with, fighting a much larger enemy that had begun preparing for war earlier.

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

Actually, the RN submarine fleet was the second most successful in the war, in terms of tonnage sunk for boats lost, after the US. That's remarkable when you consider the Germans had the Atlantic to hunt in, for most of the war out of the range of land based aircraft, whereas the RN operated mainly in coastal waters and the Med, shallower and in range of land based aircraft.

Figures from Submarines of WW2, by Erminio Bagnasco:

Germany
1060 boats lost
14,333,082 tons sunk
2840 merchant ships sunk
150 warships sunk

2.8 ships sunk per boat lost
13,521 tons sunk per boat lost

Britain
75 boats lost
1,524,000 tons sunk
493 merchant ships sunk
169 warships sunk

8.8 ships sunk per boat lost
20,320 tons per boat lost

Snippets and selective quoting. Both ships were mined and sunk in the harbor down until they hit the port's bottom and rested on it.

Um, no. Websites make notoriously poor resources. The book I quoted is one of the official histories of the RN.

Neither Z1 or Z3 was sunk by the LW, I wonder where you get your info from.

German destroyers in WW2 by M J Whitley.

What's certain is that Z1 was bombed by the Luftwaffe, and heavily damaged. She began firing her anti aircraft again a few seconds before two more explosions that sank her.

Z3 was sunk shortly afterwards, although in their panic the the Germans were reporting multiple aircraft and submarines firing torpedoes.

The German court of inquiry concluded that both had been sunk by the Luftwaffe. However, British mines were in the area, and may have been responsible for sinking Z3.

More like 13 was added.

By summer 1942, Z23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37 was commissioned. 10 destroyers, one being lost (Z26).

Z37 wasn't completed until mid July 1942. Working up will mean she's too late for the invasion.

Z26 might be the only one of the new batch lost, but Z7 and Z8 had also been lost. Result, 31 destroyers completed by that point, 15 lost. 16 destroyers operational.

In addition, 3 Dutch, French and Greek destroyers were also put into service.

No.

The only Dutch destroyer the Germans put into service was the Gerard Callenburgh, and she wasn't commissioned until October 1942, and didn't actually become operational until October 1943, far too late for the proposed 1942 invasion.

The Greek destroyer was the Vasilevs Georgios. She was commissioned in March 1942, but as she was in Greece, had no chance of taking part in any invasion.

AFAIK, none of the French destroyers captured was ever made operational by the Germans.

That leaves, as I said, 16 destroyers for any proposed invasion in 1942.

A Hoppian - Scharhorst had finished it's repairds by July 1942 when it was tested. The rest of the year she spent working up and training - hardily unoperational if needed.

Most definitely non-operational.

Somkescreen - Gneisenau was damaged by a bomb, and it was seen a proper time, as the ship is under repais anyway, to refit her with 15" guns. The fact that she did not become operational again was a decision (U-boots were doing the same job better and cheaper), rather than something neccesiates by the level of damage to her unarmored bow section.

Un armoured bow section? Even A turret was burnt out. Didn't German armour extend to cover the turrets?

No, 22 at the start of the war, 19 by the summer of 1942.
16 were lost, 10 were built, 3 were captured and used.

I'd love to hear the names of these 3 destroyers no-one else has ever heard of.

 

[Glider]

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.

Misleading
To invade in 1940 the Germans only had 10 fleet destroyers, that was crippling which ever way you look at it.
By May 42 which is the second invasion date we seem to be looking at, the Germans had also lost Z7, Z8, Z26, which gives the Germans a total of about 20 destroyers allowing 6 months for completion from launch dates (I don't have commisioning dates). Hardly enough to go against the scores of destroyers available to the RN.

Re Heavy Cruisers I was counting the Pocket BB's as a different class, but understand your comment.

Re Renown the Escort played no part of the battle as they couldn't keep up in the seas at the time.
The Germans had a funny idea about protecting their invasion force by running away. There is no doubt that had the British been in command of the German vessels and the Germans the Renown the Renown would have been sunk. They had the Renown bang to rights and that was the major problem with the German Naval Command, the ships were as good as the best but leadership was pitiful. To leave an enemy capital ship running loose in the area of an invasion fleet when you easily had the power to destroy it for good is foolishness of the highest order.

A Carrier and its two destroyer escort was a loss we could afford. The Germans couldn't afford the losses they suferred in Norway and that was the difference.

 

[Kurfürst]

It might have been a stretch, but they still got the job done. PoW and Hood might not have sunk the Bismarck, but the RN did. And when you look at the outcome, the RN lost one of their old WW1 battlecruisers, the Germans lost their newest, most powerful battleship. Pretty fair trade, I'd say.

Except of course that since the failure of the single British ships to combat Bismarck caused the entire Royal Navy and it's carriers swarming around the Atlantic to try to catch Bismarck, leaving the island of Crete without any air cover that could have been easily provided by carriers hunting Bismarck. Lack of air cover resulted in 22 000 men lost, and a significan defeat for the RN at Crete plus the additional prestige loss of the RN's general incompetence dealing with a single German capitol ship, and the fear of Tirpitz.
Yes I agree it was a pretty fair trade.

But once again, the facts are the RN stopped any naval resupply of Crete, and took off the soldiers when the decision to evacuate was taken.

Again, tell about that successfull evacuation to those 17 000 souls left behind and becoming PoWs.

The salient point for the proposed invasion of Britain is that the Luftwaffe did not manage to stop the RN doing their job.

Well the RN had to get as far away from Crete, and was forced to leave much of the British defenders behind because of the fraction of the bomber force the LW deployed was being too much of a threat.

Actually, the RN submarine fleet was the second most successful in the war, in terms of tonnage sunk for boats lost, after the US.

Well in absolute terms they achieved very little, but I am sure there's some sort of statistics that can be shown them not only the second best, but the best. Say, number of tea-bags on board per crew member compared to USN or KM vessels. Number of knighted skippers. Number of members from the British aristocracy, who married their own cousins, per boat. Whatever. Meaningless statistics.

That's remarkable when you consider the Germans had the Atlantic to hunt in, for most of the war out of the range of land based aircraft, whereas the RN operated mainly in coastal waters and the Med, shallower and in range of land based aircraft.

Actually, that's not remarkable, about what the Italian submarines achieved. The RN were facing the smaller Italian ASW, the Axis didn't have many aircraft in the MTO and didn't use them for sea patrols much either.

The Atlantic was an easy ride for U-boots, operating undistrubed by aircraft. Interesting.

Figures from Submarines of WW2, by Erminio Bagnasco:

Britain
75 boats lost
1,524,000 tons sunk
493 merchant ships sunk
169 warships sunk

8.8 ships sunk per boat lost
20,320 tons per boat lost

In-credible figures, just by looking on the silly claim of '169 warships sunk' - unless it counts the last armed fishing boat with a pop gun on it.. I doubt Germany and Italy combined had as many warships at all in their fleets. It's silly, really. The loss-ratio tells a lot more about that they lacked agressiveness and didn't face that much of an ASW threat as their Axis counterparts.

In any case, they had available about 1/5th the boat the Germans had and managed to sink 1/10 of the tonnage, under much easier conditions.

The British started with 62 subs, built 165 during the war and lost 76 (or around 80, depending what you count).

Um, no. Websites make notoriously poor resources. The book I quoted is one of the official histories of the RN.

Well, the fact remains both Queen Elisabeth and Valiant sank to the bottom of the harbor. The ships sunk, wheter you or the 'official history' likes it or not, and they need to be raised, which did not occur until April-May 1942.

It's also a fact that you claimed 3 Italian BBs lost, and since you didn't comment on the names so far. Which were those 3 Italian BBs the British allegadly sunk, for the 4th tme...?

German destroyers in WW2 by M J Whitley.

What's certain is that Z1 was bombed by the Luftwaffe, and heavily damaged. She began firing her anti aircraft again a few seconds before two more explosions that sank her. Z3 was sunk shortly afterwards, although in their panic the the Germans were reporting multiple aircraft and submarines firing torpedoes.

The German court of inquiry concluded that both had been sunk by the Luftwaffe. However, British mines were in the area, and may have been responsible for sinking Z3.

Well, Gordon Williamson states both run on mines. Anyway, irrelevant.

Z37 wasn't completed until mid July 1942. Working up will mean she's too late for the invasion.

Z37 was commisioned in mid-July 1942.

Z26 might be the only one of the new batch lost, but Z7 and Z8 had also been lost. Result, 31 destroyers completed by that point, 15 lost. 16 destroyers operational.

16 German plus 3 captured destoreyers, that's 19. Plus the T-class ships.

Most definitely non-operational.

Wishful thinking, I say.

Un armoured bow section? Even A turret was burnt out. Didn't German armour extend to cover the turrets?

Well the bombs hit the bow section in front of the citadal AFAIK, setting improrperly stored ammunition on fire there. In any case, the structure damage is seen at the extreme bow, far away from A turret, which might be burned as a result of fires spreading.

I'd love to hear the names of these 3 destroyers no-one else has ever heard of.

Well a bit of a conflict with yourself, since you yourself listed some of them above, yet did not include them in the count..

Collenburgh, L'Opiniatre, Hermes, for a total of 19 destroyers in service.

 

[Kurfürst]

Misleading
To invade in 1940 the Germans only had 10 fleet destroyers, that was crippling which ever way you look at it.
By May 42 which is the second invasion date we seem to be looking at, the Germans had also lost Z7, Z8, Z26, which gives the Germans a total of about 20 destroyers allowing 6 months for completion from launch dates (I don't have commisioning dates). Hardly enough to go against the scores of destroyers available to the RN.

Granted the RN was building on quantity rather than quality, that was never challanged they had numerical superiority - I wonder how many destroyers were available to the British for home defense, not being in the Med, India, or PTO, or on escorting vital merchant convoys against the ever-present Uboot threat.. The point being the Germans had better naval background in 1942 than in 1940.

Re Heavy Cruisers I was counting the Pocket BB's as a different class, but understand your comment.

The 'pocket BB' was never term used by the Germans, it was Allied pressed that dubbed them so; they first regaded them as 'armored ships', kind of an Armored cruiser I guess, later simply redesignated them Heavy cruisers, which is probably the best solution, since they were really just heavy cruiser hulls, with big guns though.

The Germans had a funny idea about protecting their invasion force by running away.

Well how many of the invasion force was sunk by the British then...?

There is no doubt that had the British been in command of the German vessels and the Germans the Renown the Renown would have been sunk. They had the Renown bang to rights and that was the major problem with the German Naval Command, the ships were as good as the best but leadership was pitiful. To leave an enemy capital ship running loose in the area of an invasion fleet when you easily had the power to destroy it for good is foolishness of the highest order.

Well, the German Naval Command's plan was to invade Norway. They did. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau's mission was to protect the invasion fleet, minimize risking the big ships - they did. Renown's mission was to destroy the invasion fleet - she failed.

For them, there would be no point risking their ships - as you noted they'd feel it a lot more. Perhaps some British commanders would put glory ahead of the actual weighting of gains and losses, the Germans were certainly more calculative and tactical.

A Carrier and its two destroyer escort was a loss we could afford. The Germans couldn't afford the losses they suferred in Norway and that was the difference.

Well, they still won, despite the fact they had far less of a force at hand, an amazing achievement. And that was all that mattered. They could afford the losses more than loosing Norway.

 

[Civettone]

No fleets fired on each other during the Channel Dash. The RAF attempted to bomb the convoy, and an MTB squadron attacked but that was it.

What about HMS Worcester?
The attacks from the British destroyers were concentrated on Gneisenau. Two hits were claimed. The crew of Worcester said they heard big underwater explosions. There must have been some other reason for the sounds. None of the torpedoes found their targets.
Worcester was the last to deliver her attack. By this time the gunners in Gneisenau had got the range right and the little ship received a fearful battering. The first salvo to hit her removed the starboard side of the bridge. The next two exploded in number 1 and 2 boiler rooms. As she was helplessly round by the tide she presented herself broadside on to Prinz Eugen. Four more shells crashed into her. Nearly all her guns were put out of action. She was now on fire and listing dangerously.

The Royal Navy would not have to use the entire Home Fleet as Force H could be used from Gibraltar. The North Sea could be maintained to some degree by Coastal Command.

Interesting, especially in relationship to your previous post of how overstretched the Royal Navy already was. First Syscom asks for the USS Wasp and now you're calling back Force H. That leaves Malta unprotected.
Not to mention how long it would have taken Force H to get to the Channel.
And you will leave a part of the Home Fleet in the north although it was much closer to the Channel than Force H was? Interesting to say the least.

The fact remains that the Royal Navy halted the seaborne invasion with only DDs and CLs under intense Luftwaffe bombardment.

Intense? From what I've read is that most of the German bombers were used to attack land targets.
On the morning of 22 May, VIII Air Corps started an all-out attack on the British fleet
which suggests it wasn't an all-out attack before.

In the Channel there were DDs and CLs which would be ready to attack any seaborne invasion on the coast. If the Luftwaffe couldn't stop them at Crete, where's the evidence that they'll stop them in the Channel?

Compare the British fleet around Crete with the Channel Fleet. Compare the number of German aircraft in Greece with the number which would have been assembled in France.

What exactly do you hope to defend this invasion fleet with, the Luftwaffe alone?

Are you saying the Kriegsmarine consisted solely of battlecruisers?

First off, the German High Command would not agree to this suicidal act.

What a joke. Since when did German HQ have anything to say? Since when did they care about losses?

Great Britain had already broken the German codes by then, they would be fully aware of your intention.

I think it's a pity you don't take the effort to read my previous posts. Bletchley Park and Enigma has already come up. And as nobody mentioned it since, I think my arguments were convincing that British Intelligence wasn't that all-knowing. They could decode about 20 messages a week. They failed to know about the Channel Dash or the outbreak of the Bismarck.

If you plan on moving those Battlecruisers through the North Sea, the Home Fleet would aim to repeat the chase of the Bismarck. Meanwhile, the forces in the Channel are dealing with the unescorted invasion fleet.

I'm struck by lightning. You're actually believing the Kriegsmarine had nothing but battlecruisers??

But in your invasion attempt it would be back to the Battle of Britain, the RAF would be operating in its best area - home.

Wrong! That's one of my essential arguments: they would no longer have the home advantage. If you would have read at least some of my posts, you would have read it as I already explained this 10 times.
The British aircraft would have to fight over the German held beaches and over the Channel which is not exactly friendly territory. Unlike the BoB the British squadrons would not be able to scramble in time as the Germans would be flying over the Channel when the RAF would take off.
Just like the Germans lost the BoB due to attrition, now the British will lose it for the same reason.

Kris

 

[syscom3]

How long would it take to build up the invasion fleet? Or assemble the troops or weapons your needing to invade? I wouls assume it would take months? you can't keep such a build up quiet, so would think the allies would also start better preparing thier defenses, building more planes, moving ships airplanes closer. The Yanks would also probably build up thier forces. I don't remeber ever hearing the Germans training for sea born invasions at any grand scale either.

It would be impossible for the Germans to keep the loading up of the barges secret. All of their barges would be based in occupied countries, and there were plenty of "eyes" from the resistance to keep the Allies informed.

Even air recon was going to show something was up, simply because the barges had to be moved from their mooring points over to the docks.

And then the shear number of ships means it would have to be distributed over many ports, which means different sailing times for each force.

Then you couple into these "inconvenient" facts..... the invasion dates are pretty much predetermined by tides. Because the fleet is also entirely made up of small vessels, weather also dictates whether a possible invasion date is possible.

You couple all of these together and the germans would have no advantage of surprise and the Brits hade the luxury of 1-2 weeks warning.

 

[Civettone]

Of course there were scattered attacks on other targets. The point is, the bulk of operations were over the Channel. According to Hooton, 70% of all sorties in July were anti shipping attacks.

Then that probably included the attacks on ships in the British ports.

No, I am pointing out you cannot attack small numbers of moving warships with 1000 bombers.

Small numbers? You're sending over the bulk of the Royal Navy and that's small numbers?
And all in all it's ridiculous to think that the Luftwaffe wasn't capable of directing a 1000 bombers. If the British can launch 1000 bomber raids on a single target, then I don't see why the Germans couldn't. They used hundreds of aircraft against the British in 1940, around Kursk, around Stalingrad.

Certainly. It improved throughout the war, though. In particular, large numbers of 20mm guns were fitted in 1941 and early 1942, large number of 40mm in 1942.

What's the point if you can't shoot them at a high angle. They would be defenseless against the German dive bombers.

So in an exercise a single merchant ship, not under attack, managed to unload in 14 hours? And you think you can unload the 100 merchants the 1940 plan called for in the first wave in less than a day, whilst under attack?

I don't see why the number of merchants would matter. When trained, soldiers can execute their orders under fire. In any case, the freighter will be unloaded and back in the Channel the next night.

But when there are 1500 barges, which have to take turns running up on to the beach (and some have to be pushed), it takes hours for them all to take their turn.

No, that's why the Germans wanted to land on a broad front in the first place. For exactly that reason.

And what do the troops do, just run up the beach? What about the mines (any beach suitable for landing on was heavily mined). What about the guns shooting at them from pill boxes?

The first assault will happen by assault forces in 1,400 Sturmboote. On the first day, they will be supported by the German warships and bombers.

Yet in Normandy, the allies were still landing over the beaches weeks later.

Well, no one was able to explain to me why they managed to get 150,000 men ashore in the first 24 hours, and after that only 1 division every two months.
My guess is that they were concentrating on bringing in supplies and transport vehicles, to mass them together for the final outbreak.

The idea the invasion fleet can come and go in a day is preposterous.

I'm sure that's what critics said about the assault on Eben-Emael. There's a fine line between preposterous and "eheum" genius!

It didn't receive top priority. Why on earth should it have?

Churchill said: "At all costs the ships must be intercepted and made to pay dearly for their audacity." That makes me conclude it was top priority. Having two BCs going through your backdoor must have been as important as a single BC going in the Atlantic.

Sinking them would have course been nice, but top priority for the RN was guarding against enemy attacks, not pursuing retreating enemies.[/quoting]A loser rarely admits his loss.

There's less chance of that because the navy usually has their recognition sorted quite well.

You show a similar tendency to simply ignore realities you don't like by continuing to assume the events of the Channel dash, in early February storms, would play out again in summer.

Which events? The only thing that I remember is the small force the British had in the Channel and the tumbling organization of the British when faced with a sudden threat.
Both of these elements would probably still be around in the Summer, regardless of the weather.

Neither of the battlecruisers was available for an invasion in 1942.

If you assume the British would have brought in reinforcements for the anticipated invasion, I can also think about what would have happened without Russia in the war and with an invasion of Britain planned. As the Germans would now have 5 times as many fighters in France, I don't think they would have moved their BCs to the North Sea. Very unlikely that they would do this when they were starting an invasion just a few months later.

Kris

 

[Civettone]

How long would it take to build up the invasion fleet?

In reality the Germans already hd their invasion fleet ready in 1940. They had close to 3000 river barges assembled together with hundreds of other supporting and transporting vessels.

Or assemble the troops or weapons your needing to invade? I wouls assume it would take months? you can't keep such a build up quiet, so would think the allies would also start better preparing thier defenses, building more planes, moving ships airplanes closer.

Of course they would but there's a limit to what you can do. The British were already producing at 100% and overstretching their forces in 1942. If they would have to give more resources defending against the invasion, they would have to take those resources away from something else. And they would have to do that starting in early 1942, long before the invasion would take place. This would have had a result on either North Africa, Malta, Atlantic Ocean or the Far East.

Yanks would also probably build up thier forces.

They were building them up as fast as they could. And by diverting more forces to Britain, they would get in trouble either over the Atlantic or in the Pacific, perhaps losing the fight over Guadalcanal or the Solomons.

I don't remeber ever hearing the Germans training for sea born invasions at any grand scale either

That's a good point and something which most people don't really grasp. If the Germans would have been planning the invasion for months, they would surely conduct exercises. They were miticulous planners. Especially thinking of Kursk where they achieved a tactical victory although the Russians were building up their defences all along.

Kris

 

[Kurfürst]

I am wondering about a simple scenario. The Germans came up with a simple plan - they have about 350 submaines by mid-1942. They simply set those up in ambush position north of the channel, say a 70 nautical miles-long line between Ipswich and Ostende. 5 subs for every nautical mile.

I wonder who'd get through down to the invasion fleet..

Just illustrating the size and power of the submarine force by that time.