operation sea lion (1 Viewer)

Civettone · Mar 28, 2007

I think you're confusing the British with the Germans. It was the British who overestimated the number of German planes shot down. The German count system was the most accurate in the world. It's true that they failed to realize how many fighters the British had but once the BoB had started this mattered little.

In any case, British fighters are not the prime concern. Over Dieppe the British lost four times the number of fighters than the Germans although they outnumbered them with the same multitude! Same story for the Channel Dash. At the beginning of 1942, Fighter Command had 60 squadrons of Spitfires. Almost all of them were Spitfire Vs which were inferior to at least the Fw 190A and Bf 109G, and IMO also to the Bf 109F-4. In my scenario most of the aircraft would have returned after the defeat of Russia, and would have increased pressure on the RAF from 1942 onwards. Quite contary to what happened in reality. This would also weaken the RAF. As such they would not be as strong as historically true.

About naval support. I never said anything about it, and I think that answers your questions. It would have been very limited. I only see German warships providing support during the first day after which they would have to be pulled back and engaged in favorable hit and run attacks against the Royal Navy. The German battlecruisers would be sent out on the Ocean which would prevent the bulk of the Royal Navy to be sent to the Channel. I'm also counting on the Italians at least doing some effort to keep Force Z busy...

Of course 1942 is an excellent year as British forces had been split up to fight in North Africa and the Far East. USA would not have been able to give significant support for the British, and given the surprise attack, their reinforcements would probably come too late to force a decision.
I also feel the Americans would suggest to the British not to let the Royal Navy get decimated. If Britain would fall, the Americans wanted as much as possible transferred to Canada, especially the Royal Navy. Self-interest, you know...

Kris

HealzDevo · Mar 28, 2007

But then even support on the first day you need to get the panzers into the beach so that they can perform as artillery later on. The British really would have resisted the landing and if you take that ground then you still have to get beyond the landing beach and attempt to take that.

Glider · Mar 28, 2007

Kris
Preparation
The Germans would need a lot more than 6 months to prepare. It takes longer than that to build a tank landing craft, let alone design the thing in the first place. This is an area the Germans had no experience in so it wouldn't have been easy. Don't look at the Japanese for help. Their main TLC was the SS class and they didn't start building those until 1942.
Building these in the numbers to transport one division let alone the numbers you are talking about would take a lot longer.
Plus which shipyards are you going to use to build them?

Air
109F vs Spit V. There was a long thread on this but at the end of the day the main agreement was that the training and experience of the crew and tactical position was what counted.
By 1942 the Germans had trained crews in attacking Naval targets so the Dunkirk failure was a thing of the past.
Pedastal doesn't help the German case much. Sinking five or six ships from a slow moving convoy, after a number of air attacks, over a period of days, with zero aerial opposition and plenty of time to prepare, is hardly a record to be proud of.
Crete, Similar but these were naval forces in isolation in most cases unable to support each other in the same way a fleet would.
Your statement that the Germans could and would have an increased sortie rate is no doubt accurate but the RAF would have been able to defend the RN.
By 1942 the RAF was a lot bigger than the GAF and it wouldn't have sat back and done nothing. In May 42 the GAF had around 5,700 aircraft, in May 1940 it was 5,350 a small increase (both all aircraft including training and transport). I don't have the RAF figures but I do know the number of front line squadrons had increased by around 100, say 16 planes a squadron call it 1,500 aircraft.
Its fair to assume that if the GAF concentrated on the invasion, so would the British.
PS you still seem to have forgotten the RAF Heavy Bombers hitting the invasion area at night, if they had got ashore.

German Coastal forces were way outclassed by the RN. I agree the S Boat was the best design of the war, but when it came to fighting the British were all over them. We had the people and the numbers, the invasion fleet would have been decimated if caught at night.

German Battlecruisers breaking out. Simple counter would be to give each of the convoys an old R class BB as escort. These would have been of limited use in the Channel as they had the poorest AA defence and limiter deck armour.
However the Germans wouldn't attack them with a BC, This did happen on one occaision when the Schornurst tured away from a convoy when an old BB was spotted. To attack would be to risk serious damage even if they won the fight and to be damaged in the Atlantic is to face almost certain loss getting home.

Tanks
The new German tanks of May 42 was the PzIVf and PzIIIj. These were better than anything we had but their armour was I believe about 50mm. The few that the Germans could get ashore would have been vulnerable at the sort of ranges common in the UK. They would have the advantage and destroyed more British tanks than they lost but the UK is very different to the Desert or Russia. Max Ranges of 300 yards are quite common sometimes longer, often shorter.

There is I suggest a huge hole in your scenario.

You build prepare and concentrate huge forces for an invasion and launch a Suprise attack. This isn't possible. The tides and the weather dictate the time of the landing and the British can work those out as well as anyone.

Jabberwocky · Mar 28, 2007

Civettone said:
I believe it was Jabberwocky who said the Bf 109F was on equal footing with the Spitfire V. This was not the case. There's only one aspect in which the Spitfire V was better and that's firepower. Speed, climb rate, acceleration, agility are all in favour of the Friedrich.

Fundamentally disagree.

The 109 was faster and climbed better (although climb advantage was marginal), but the Spitfire was considered more manouverable and agile by both sides, as captured Luftwaffe pilots readily attested to.

Plus, up to early 1943 Germans had better pilots than the British (for every German fighter they lost they shot down three British, at the end of 1943 this had turned the other way around!).

By the end of 1941 British pilots were experiancing better training and more operational time in aircraft than their Luftwaffe counterparts, while Luftwaffe training was beginning to decline.

Examine the situation around Malta in 1942 for a different picture to the usual kanalkampf.

Spitfire pilots shot down 1.5 German fighters and 3 German or Italian aircraft in total for each of their own losses in the March to December 1942 period.

This is with a situation of Luftwaffe aerial domiance: the Spitfire Mk Vs being heavily outnumbered (and supposedly outclassed) and not having sufficient fighter cover or AAA for landing operations. Of Spitfires shot down in combat over Malta in 1942, almost 20% were caught in the landing pattern over Talagi (Tal'Qali), Luqa or Hal Far.

Imagine this situation writ large over the UK in the same period. The RAF gets the benefit of better ground control, equality or even an advatage in fighter numbers, large numbers of reserve aircraft and pilots, breathing space for rotations in and out of the battle space, better defensive AAA and better facilities to operate from (i.e. pilots aren't going into battle with dysentry or short of food)

In a BoB 1942 scenario the RAF enjoys all the tactical advantages that the Luftwaffe did over France in 1941/1942, except that the defences are more concentrated and the defenders more numerous.

Civettone · Mar 28, 2007

Glider said:
Kris
Preparation
The Germans would need a lot more than 6 months to prepare. It takes longer than that to build a tank landing craft, let alone design the thing in the first place.

Are you saying the Germans couldn't have transported tanks?

Plus which shipyards are you going to use to build them?

I said before that the Germans managed to triple U-boat production in 1943. They did this with the existing shipyards. How did they do this? The same way the Americans managed to increase their production. By building prefab parts in factories and let the shipyards assemble them. Germans managed to reduce construction time of a U-boat from 11.5 to 2 months!! Oh yes, they also managed to double production of PT-boats and minesweepers.
Knowing that the Germans thought they would have enough transport vessels for landing 13 divisions in 3 days back in 1940, I don't think they'll have a shortage of vessels if they'll get the opportunity to produce tow and transport ships during an extra half year. I don't think a lack of transport vessels will be the bottleneck of Sealion 42.

109F vs Spit V. There was a long thread on this but at the end of the day the main agreement was that the training and experience of the crew and tactical position was what counted.

If that's so, then the Germans held the advantage: training, experience and tactical position (finding over their own territory).

Sinking five or six ships from a slow moving convoy, after a number of air attacks, over a period of days, with zero aerial opposition and plenty of time to prepare, is hardly a record to be proud of.

They also sunk or damaged destroyers so I don't think that'll make much difference.
Zero aerial opposition? You're misinformed: there were 30 carrier fighters until Malta fighters took over. These intercepted 7 out 8 attacks on the fleet. They usually faced Italian escort fighters or German Bf 110s. But the German bombers over the Channel would fight with sufficient German escort 109 and 190 fighters protecting them.
Time to prepare? Didn't the English have even more time? They were the ones planning Pedestal for a long time. In the end, the Germans/Italians didn't know when the convoy was coming.

By 1942 the RAF was a lot bigger than the GAF and it wouldn't have sat back and done nothing. In May 42 the GAF had around 5,700 aircraft

I already said a couple of times that aircraft and naval production would have to be increased. Plus, there would be no more fighting in Russia in 1942. From around 250 fighters against the British, you'll get a thousand more leading to a decrease of RAF strength.

you still seem to have forgotten the RAF Heavy Bombers hitting the invasion area at night

I'm not forgetting it but using RAF Heavy Bombers would inflict more losses on their own sides than on the German sides. What was their accuracy over Germany? 3 miles??
So I would love to see them bombing the crap out their own boys. Saves the Germans a lot of time and effort. More bombers to attack the RN.

German Coastal forces were way outclassed by the RN.

I agree. That's why I'm talking about hit and run attacks: staying close to the French shore and attacking whenever a favorable opportunity appeared. But never taking on the Royal Navy head-on. Just enough to hinder them and keep them fragmented.

We had the people and the numbers, the invasion fleet would have been decimated if caught at night.

Yes. If. I never said anything about invading at night. It's at dawn. The bulk of the Royal Navy was far away from the Channel.

I agree with you on the battlecruisers. But the British would also have use other warships to defend their convoys. But it's not only about the convoys. The Royal Navy would never take a defensive stand, they would go out hunting for the Gemans ships. They would use several warships to achieve this. In any case, many RN ships would never be used in the Channel because of this.

The few that the Germans could get ashore would have been vulnerable at the sort of ranges common in the UK. They would have the advantage and destroyed more British tanks than they lost but the UK is very different to the Desert or Russia. Max Ranges of 300 yards are quite common sometimes longer, often shorter.

Of course.

But I don't think there will be that many German tanks anyhow as I would take a rather defensive stand. (Only attacking the first couple of days, to take advantageous positions as well as a couple of ports.) AT capability will have to come from towed 50mm, 75mm and tapered bore guns.

You build prepare and concentrate huge forces for an invasion and launch a Suprise attack. This isn't possible. The tides and the weather dictate the time of the landing and the British can work those out as well as anyone.

Was this any different for the Germans on D-Day? They knew the allies were coming and when they could come but they were still caught off guard .. and not because of the bad weather.
Anyway, I don't think the British would have expected an invasion without another air battle prior to an invasion, do you?

The 109 was faster and climbed better (although climb advantage was marginal), but the Spitfire was considered more manouverable and agile by both sides, as captured Luftwaffe pilots readily attested to.

Are you saying there weren't any Luftwaffe pilots claiming the opposite?
You make the mistake of identifying agility with turn rate. It has nothing do with that. Agility is a broad term which refers to speed, acceleration and agressive maneouvres. This is what matters in combat, not sustained climb rate or turn rate. The Bf 109F/G was better in the vertical as well as in the horizontal, it could engage and break off the fight at will. It held the advantage over the Spitfire V. I'm not aware of any previous discussions about it, but I'm more than willing to start it all over again!

By the end of 1941 British pilots were experiancing better training and more operational time in aircraft than their Luftwaffe counterparts, while Luftwaffe training was beginning to decline.

That's also what I said. But it's important to understand that in 1941 training hours were increased but these pilots were only becoming available in 1942. And only in 1943 was the overall pilot quality of the RAF superior to that of the Luftwaffe.

Spitfire pilots shot down 1.5 German fighters and 3 German or Italian aircraft in total for each of their own losses in the March to December 1942 period.

Really? How many Bf 109F/Gs fighters? Can you provide some figures to back this up?

Kris

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 28, 2007

Civettone said:
I'm not forgetting it but using RAF Heavy Bombers would inflict more losses on their own sides than on the German sides. What was their accuracy over Germany? 3 miles??
So I would love to see them bombing the crap out their own boys. Saves the Germans a lot of time and effort. More bombers to attack the RN.

"In 1943 the Norden M-series was delivered to the USAAF. It is estimated that this version was 6 to 8 times more precise than the RAF Mk XIV bombsight. It is estimated that the RAF was capable of putting only 5% of its ordinance within a mile of their aiming point under combat conditions."
WW II Encyclopedia -- Norden Bombsight

syscom3 · Mar 28, 2007

Allied bombers operating at night would have advantages in that the targets (the ports or beaches) would be completely undefended and so close to England, that the attacks would be far more accurate.

Civitte is completely ignoring the contributions the US were capable of. Two carriers, two fast battleships and several cruisers and destroyers. More than enough to take on the KM.

US contributions for the airwar? Well admittedly not much material other than a P38 group and a couple of P40 groups, a B26 group. Even B17's could be used in a limited role. However, there was a plethora of pilots available by summer, and if needed, many could be retrained to fly the Spitfire.

US contribution for ground troops? A couple of infantry divisions, maybe one tank division. Not a lot, untrained of course, but they would still be forces the Germans would need to deal with.

Civitte.... do you realize how much shipping is needed to transport a single tank division and then keep it supplied? And factor in that there would be no ports available to offload, and you have a complex logistics issue. The KM could not have designed from scratch and then build in quantity the ships they needed for this. Forget about using those invasion barges because they were not "sea going" and could easily get swamped or held up by moderate sea states or strong currents.

And those 15 division's the Germans figured they could deploy? Look closer at their origional plans and the folly and assumptions they were working under. Everything was based on best case estimates that was not valid after the summer of 1940. Those divisions that could be transported were nothing but light infantry. Forget about landing bulk goods, transports or tanks or artillery as there were no ports to unload on.

Youre making a classic mistake in planning and assumptions on what you want your opponants to do, rather then what your opponants had the capability to do.

renrich · Mar 28, 2007

A Sealion in the summer of 1942? All of the successful amphibious invasions of WW2 that I can think of presupposed complete naval superiority as a prerequisite. Of course that also implied that the enemy would not have air superiority. There have been many good arguments advanced on this thread about the German lack of landing craft for the original Sealion and the difficulties of logistical support for their army if they did force a lodgement in Britain. However, I believe that the major sticking point for any invasion of Britain unless Germany has complete control of the air is their inability to protect their invasion force from the RN. Remember, the Allies ALWAYS knew they would control the waters in the channel and felt certain they would also control the air for D-day. I have a copy(original) of Janes for 1942 in front of me and tried to count the ships in the RN and KM(it wasn't easy for the RN, there were so many.) RN-4 mod BB, 2 Nelson BB, 1 BC, 4 QE BB, 4 R class BB, 8 carriers, 30 CL, 8CA, 18 second class CL, 100 or so DD, 73 SS. This does not include Commonwealth ships. KM- 1 BB, 2 BC, 2 pocket BB, 4 CA, 12 DD, 100 or so SS. If Germany was building up for an invasion of Britain I have to believe at least 50% of the RN would be ready to use as a striking force against an invasion. If Fighter Command provides at least a standoff in the air, the best LW anti shipping a/c is the JU87 but they will sustain heavy losses just as they did in the BOB. Can anyone imagine the carnage among the landing force's ships when the RN is virtually unopposed. There will be British naval casualties but they will not hold back when their island is being invaded. For a foretaste of what would happen review the ABDA forces around Java in 1942 with almost no air support. At Balikpapan at night the poorly led and coordinated allied forces with WW1 4 piper DDs sank a number of Japanese transports and at Sunda Strait the Perth and Houston accidently ran into the Japanese landing force and did much damage before being sunk. I don't see how the Germans could ever invade Britain as long as the RN was intact unless the LW had complete air superiority over the channel.

Bernhart · Mar 28, 2007

The 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade, as the first component of 1st Canadian Infantry Division, embarked for the United Kingdom on 17 December 1939 and arrived at Greenock, Scotland on 25 December. It moved to Aldershot on arrival, but was sent to Northampton on 29 May 1940. It returned to Aldershot on 8 June 1940. The brigade moved to France on 1213 June 1940 and left there on 16-17 June for Aldershot. When the division moved to Oxford on 1819 June 1940, the brigade remained at Aldershot until 16 July 1940, when it rejoined the division in the Guildford-Westerham area of Surrey. The brigade was rotated to the coast of Sussex for coast defence duties. By the autumn of 1941, it moved to the Sussex coast and remained with the division in Sussex until 3 June 1943, when it prepared to embark for Sicily. It embarked on 25 June and landed in Sicily on 10 July 1943.

2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade embarked for the United Kingdom on 22 December 1939 and arrived at Greenock, Scotland on 30 December. It moved to Aldershot on arrival. A force of two battalions of the brigade (PPCLI and Edmonton Regiment) were selected for possible operations against Trondheim in Norway. This force left Aldershot on 18 April 1940 and moved to Dunfermline, Scotland on 19 April, but it was not used and returned to Aldershot. The brigade was sent to Northampton on 29 May 1940. It returned to Aldershot on 8 June 1940. It moved to Oxford on 1819 June 1940 with the division, but left there on 2 July 1940 for Guildford-Westerham area of Surrey. The brigade was rotated to the coast of Sussex for coast defence duties. The brigade (less the Seaforths) was mobilized for operations against Spitzbergen by 3/4 August 1941. It moved to Glasgow on 56 August from Surrey, but by 16 August most were returned to Surrey. Details of the brigade (some Edmontons, Saskatoon LI and 3rd FC, RCE) left for Spitzbergen on 19 August and returned to the Clyde on 7/8 September. By the autumn of 1941, it moved to the Sussex coast and remained with the division in Sussex until 3 June 1943, when it prepared to embark for Sicily. It embarked on 28 June and landed in Sicily on 10 July 1943.

3rd Canadian Infantry Brigade embarked for the United Kingdom on 8 December 1939 and arrived at Greenock, Scotland on 17 December. It moved to Aldershot on arrival, but was sent to Northampton on 29 May 1940. It returned to Aldershot on 8 June 1940. The division moved to Oxford on 1819 June 1940 and then to the Guildford-Westerham area of Surrey on 2 July 1940. The brigade was rotated to the coast of Sussex for coast defence duties. By the autumn of 1941, it moved to the Sussex coast and remained with the division in Sussex until 3 June 1943, when it prepared to embark for Sicily. It embarked on 27 June and landed in Sicily on 10 July 1943

2nd Canadian Infantry Division arrived on 2 August 1940. I Canadian Corps HQ was finally needed in the United Kingdom on 25 December 1940. 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade embarked for the United Kingdom on 23 July 1940 and arrived at Gourock, Scotland on 2 August. [The Royal Regiment of Canada left 9 June 1940 for Halifax and then served on Iceland from 16 June 1940 to 31 October 1940. It arrived at Greenock, Scotland on 3 November 1940 and rejoined the brigade at Aldershot. The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa left Canada on 30 June 1940 and arrived in Iceland on 7 July 1940, where it remained until 27 April 1941.] The brigade moved to Aldershot on arrival. It moved to Surrey on 7 September 1940 and came under command of VII Corps to replace the recently departed New Zealand contingent. The brigade did its turn on the Sussex coast until the autumn of 1941, when the Canadian Corps moved into the Sussex coast, with 2nd Division replacing 55th British Division in East Sussex in July and August 1941. The brigade moved to the Isle of Wight on 18 May 1942 to prepare for Dieppe and landed there on 19 August 1942. It returned to Sussex and remained in Sussex through June 1943. It landed in France on 5 July 1944. 5th Canadian Infantry Brigade with the Calgary Highlanders, embarked for the United Kingdom on 27 August 1940 and arrived at Gourock, Scotland on 4 September. [1st Black Watch was sent to Newfoundland on 21 June 1940 and remained there until 11 August 1940. It rejoined the brigade at Halifax on 13 August. Les Fusiliers Mon-Royal left the brigade on 7 July 1940 and arrived in Iceland on 9 July 1940. It officially left the brigade on arrival in the United Kingdom] The brigade moved to Aldershot on arrival. Starting in September 1940, the brigade did its turn on the Sussex coast until the autumn of 1941, when the Canadian Corps moved into the Sussex coast, with 2nd Division replacing 55th British Division in East Sussex in July and August 1941. It remained in Sussex through June 1943. It landed in France on 7 July 1944. 6th Canadian Infantry Brigade embarked on 16 December 1940 and arrived on 25 December 1940 in the United Kingdom. It moved to Aldershot on arrival and was joined there by Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal from Iceland on 3 November 1940. The brigade did its turn on the Sussex coast until the autumn of 1941, when the Canadian Corps moved into the Sussex coast, with 2nd Division replacing 55th British Division in East Sussex in July and August 1941. The brigade moved to the Isle of Wight on 18 May 1942 to prepare for Dieppe and landed there on 19 August 1942. It returned to Sussex and remained in Sussex through June 1943. It landed in France on 7 July 1944.

During 1941, two additional divisions arrived in the United Kingdom: the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division (7th, 8th and 9th Canadian Infantry Brigades) on 29 July and the 5th Canadian Armoured Division (1st, 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigades and 5th Support Group) in November. They were preceded by the 1st Canadian Army Tank Brigade on 30 June. The 1st Canadian Anti-Aircraft Brigade was created in the United Kingdom on 1 October 1941. 7th Canadian Infantry Brigade left Halifax on 24 August 1941 and arrived in Gourock, Scotland on 1 September 1941. It moved to Aldershot on arrival. Soon after arrival, the division moved to the south of England and remained there until it landed in France on 6 June 1944. 8th Canadian Infantry Brigade left Halifax on 21 July 1941 and arrived in Gourock, Scotland on 29 July 1941. 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade left Halifax on 21 July 1941 and arrived in Gourock, Scotland on 29 July 1941. In September 1941, the 1st Canadian Army Tank Brigade left Warminster for Surrey. Shortly after arriving in Surrey, the regiments were sent to the coast. (11th-Brighton, 12th-Worthing, and 14th-Seaford). The 1st Canadian Anti-Aircraft Brigade was formed at Colchester in Essex and all the Light Anti-Aircraft Regiments came under command as they arrived in the United Kingdom. It later moved to the south of England as part of Army Troops of 1st Canadian Army with 2nd Heavy AA Regiment, RCA and 7th, 11th Light AA Regiment, RCA. It was disbanded on 1 March 1944.

The final major formation to arrive in the United Kingdom was 4th Canadian Armoured Division. This division had been formed from 4th Canadian Infantry Division in the Maritimes on 26 January 1942 and consisted of 3rd and 4th Canadian Armoured Brigades and 4th Canadian Support Group on arrival in the United Kingdom in August and September 1942. The 1st Canadian Army was raised in England on 1 April 1942 and by September 1942 most of its formations had arrived in the United Kingdom. Add seventeen squadrons of
planes and about 100 ships of various sizes, the brits had some help already there

Civettone · Mar 28, 2007

Allied bombers operating at night would have advantages in that the targets (the ports or beaches) would be completely undefended and so close to England, that the attacks would be far more accurate.

No. First, the lousy accuracy was not due to enemy actions. Second, the targets would not be completely undefended as every German division had AD guns. Plus, German nightfighters knew exactly where to be, unlike their normal duties over the German fatherland.

Civitte is completely ignoring the contributions the US were capable of. Two carriers, two fast battleships and several cruisers and destroyers. More than enough to take on the KM.

They would come too late. And also the other American reinforcements would come too late.
Everyone seems to agree that the real difficulty for the Germans was to get their troops across the Channel and keep supplying them. The battle would be decided in the first couple of weeks.

Civitte.... do you realize how much shipping is needed to transport a single tank division and then keep it supplied?

Where did I mention a tank division? Germany never had a tank division... but never mind that, I suppose you mean a Panzerdivision? Someone wrote it needed 25% more supplies than a Infantry Division...

I'm basing much of my stuff on the original German plans. The KM said they were capable of transporting the forces required by the army. In hindsight we can all say they didn't have the capacity ... but in all honesty who are we to judge this? I think we're looking at this too much from a D-Day point of view, as if the Germans would need as much vessels as the allies needed for the same amount of troops...
Here's what I know: Germans wanted to transport 13 divisions in 3 days. KM said they would be able to do so. (Of course they assumed the RN would have been neutralized.) Now, even if they were wrong in the assesment of their own transport capabilities, I think an extra 6 months would be able to fill that gap. This is not wishful thinking, this is logic ... or at least to me...

And factor in that there would be no ports available to offload

German plans acknowlegded that the harbours would have been sabotaged. That's why they would send along engineers to get the ports ready ASAP. I'm thinking of how long it took for the Americans to repair Cherbourg, Toulon, ... and see at least part of the captured British ports being kept operational.

Forget about using those invasion barges because they were not "sea going" and could easily get swamped or held up by moderate sea states or strong currents.

Really? I am starting to get the impression that this sinking of barges is becoming an urban legend...
I don't know exactly what Beaufort 6 entails but that's apparently what the barges were cleared for when taken over by Yugoslav forces after the war...

I don't see how the Germans could ever invade Britain as long as the RN was intact unless the LW had complete air superiority over the channel.

Good post, Renrich. I agree with what you're saying. I come to the same conclusion you do. But my calculation of British ships being taken out by German bombers makes me conclude that most of the British ships could be taken out (after which the transport would resume.) I myself am surprised by the result of that calculation and half already divided it by two, to be on the safe side.

Again, unlike the BoB, the British would not be one step ahead of the Germans when fighting over the Channel as it lies in between France and England. I have tried to show that German fighters and fighter pilots were superior to the British and that when aircraft production would go up and when most of the Luftwaffe was called back from Russia, the German fighters would get the upper hand over the Channel (just look at Dieppe!) and that a 1000 German bombers flying 5 missions a day would have a DEVESTATING effect on the Royal Navy.

Kris

syscom3 · Mar 29, 2007

Civettone said:
No. First, the lousy accuracy was not due to enemy actions. Second, the targets would not be completely undefended as every German division had AD guns. Plus, German nightfighters knew exactly where to be, unlike their normal duties over the German fatherland.

And now you are inventing night fighters to operate over England?

They would come too late. And also the other American reinforcements would come too late.
Everyone seems to agree that the real difficulty for the Germans was to get their troops across the Channel and keep supplying them. The battle would be decided in the first couple of weeks.

And obviously you didnt read my 65th anniversary thread because on this day in 1942, a USN task force consisting of the BB's did arrive in England.

Where did I mention a tank division? Germany never had a tank division... but never mind that, I suppose you mean a Panzerdivision? Someone wrote it needed 25% more supplies than a Infantry Division...

So now youre saying that only a few panzers are going to be landed? And try +200% more tonnage than light infantry because of the fuel and ammo requirements.

I'm basing much of my stuff on the original German plans. The KM said they were capable of transporting the forces required by the army. In hindsight we can all say they didn't have the capacity ... but in all honesty who are we to judge this? I think we're looking at this too much from a D-Day point of view, as if the Germans would need as much vessels as the allies needed for the same amount of troops...

And the brits in 1942 were in a far better position to repel an invasion than in 1940. What part of that don't you understand? An allied invasion of Europe in 1942 was going to fail big time, and vice versa.

Here's what I know: Germans wanted to transport 13 divisions in 3 days. KM said they would be able to do so. (Of course they assumed the RN would have been neutralized.) Now, even if they were wrong in the assesment of their own transport capabilities, I think an extra 6 months would be able to fill that gap. This is not wishful thinking, this is logic ... or at least to me...

What part dont you understand of the following:
1) What the KM said they could do in 1940 was not exactly the truth as it was based on extremely unlikely best case scenario's on what the brits were going to do vs. what they were capable of doing.
2) The KM in the space of 4 months was going to design and build all sorts of ships and vessels needed to perform a complex invasion all without a doctrine or practice.
3)The RN and RAF (and the US units) were all going to self destruct and not interfere with your buildup or invasion and not notice your sailing from the ports.
4) The German army had no need to worry about logistics because it didnt count.

German plans acknowlegded that the harbours would have been sabotaged. That's why they would send along engineers to get the ports ready ASAP. I'm thinking of how long it took for the Americans to repair Cherbourg, Toulon, ... and see at least part of the captured British ports being kept operational.

And it took the allies thousands of ships to supply their forces, 24/7 under absolute maritime and aerial supremecy. And you certenily dont know your German army very well because engineering/logistics was not a high point for them at all during the war.

Really? I am starting to get the impression that this sinking of barges is becoming an urban legend...
I don't know exactly what Beaufort 6 entails but that's apparently what the barges were cleared for when taken over by Yugoslav forces after the war...

And where did you discover this little gem of a detail thats been overlooked by thousands of historians?

Good post, Renrich. I agree with what you're saying. I come to the same conclusion you do. But my calculation of British ships being taken out by German bombers makes me conclude that most of the British ships could be taken out (after which the transport would resume.) I myself am surprised by the result of that calculation and half already divided it by two, to be on the safe side.

Once again, why is it the KM suffers no damage and only the allies?

Again, unlike the BoB, the British would not be one step ahead of the Germans when fighting over the Channel as it lies in between France and England. I have tried to show that German fighters and fighter pilots were superior to the British and that when aircraft production would go up and when most of the Luftwaffe was called back from Russia, the German fighters would get the upper hand over the Channel (just look at Dieppe!) and that a 1000 German bombers flying 5 missions a day would have a DEVESTATING effect on the Royal Navy.

Try to understand something about the aerial war.....both sides were evenly matched. The LW had to be the aggressor to gain air superiority and it was going to suffer irreplacable losses. Its irrelevant that the -109 may have had marginal superiority over the Spit because in a macro sense, they weer going to be shot down over the UK with the loss of the pilot. At nighttime, it wasn't going to stop the RAF from bombing its targets. And you're conveniently forgetting the US war machine that was spooling up to make good any losses the RF had.

Civettone · Mar 29, 2007

I could do with a bit less sarcasm, thank you very much.

syscom3 said:
And now you are inventing night fighters to operate over England?

I'm not inventing anything. I just hadn't mentioned this before as I hadn't talked about night warfare yet. On the other hand, I am inventing a whole lot of things. It's a what-if scenario so I can come up with whatever I believe was possible. Using nightfighters over the Channel is possible.

And obviously you didnt read my 65th anniversary thread because on this day in 1942, a USN task force consisting of the BB's did arrive in England.

I only read this from time to time. Very interesting though, I appreciate the effort you put into it!
Point taken on the BB's!

So now youre saying that only a few panzers are going to be landed?

Where did I say the opposite?

And try +200% more tonnage than light infantry because of the fuel and ammo requirements.

Like I said, someone else mentioned the 25% rule. I believe it was this thread. Browse back if you want to find out who said it.
In any case, no Panzerdivisions in the early phase of the invasion...

And the brits in 1942 were in a far better position to repel an invasion than in 1940. What part of that don't you understand? An allied invasion of Europe in 1942 was going to fail big time, and vice versa.

Nice to see you've got it worked out.
I agree that the Brits were in a better position. But with Russia defeated, their air force drawn back to the west, and with 6 months of preparation so were the Germans.

What part dont you understand of the following:
1) What the KM said they could do in 1940 was not exactly the truth as it was based on extremely unlikely best case scenario's on what the brits were going to do vs. what they were capable of doing.
2) The KM in the space of 4 months was going to design and build all sorts of ships and vessels needed to perform a complex invasion all without a doctrine or practice.
3)The RN and RAF (and the US units) were all going to self destruct and not interfere with your buildup or invasion and not notice your sailing from the ports.
4) The German army had no need to worry about logistics because it didnt count.

I think you got confused here...

And it took the allies thousands of ships to supply their forces, 24/7 under absolute maritime and aerial supremecy.

That was one of the main reasons why it was such a success. Now, what if they didn't have this total supremecy but only a minor superiority? Would D-Day have failed? I doubt it.
Like I said, "the Germans could do with less".

And you certenily dont know your German army very well because engineering/logistics was not a high point for them at all during the war.

Oh boy, that story again. Besides specialized engineers, the German army had 'pioniere' units (under divisional or regimental level) which were capable of basic engineering (blowing up bridges, boobytraps, demining, etc). They performed wonderfully in WW2. At the end Sturmgruppen were created out of these Pioniere units.
You should really read "Military Improvisations", a post-war publication based on accounts of German commanders. It becomes clear just how important engineering was for the Germans, and how resourceful they were.
And of course it's true that they never gave it enough resources but then again ... what section of German armed forces did have enough?

And where did you discover this little gem of a detail thats been overlooked by thousands of historians?

You're making the classical mistake "I read this everywhere so it must be true."
Well, I still read everywhere that the Bf 109F had a maximum speed of 600 km/h. I still read everywhere that the Me 163 suffered a horrible number of accidents, incinerating its pilots, ... but it doesn't make it any more true.
In tests with the 17. division the barges proved much more seaworthy than originally hoped for. The minimum spec. was for sea state 2 (which isn't much). However, rebuilt barges were towed in sea state 6-8 with very few damages. This was also the experience when these were towed Westwards. (I don't know if sea state is the same as Beaufort...)

Once again, why is it the KM suffers no damage and only the allies?

Who said it wouldn't? I didn't say the German troops would suffer losses, I didn't say the Fw 190s would suffer losses. Does that make you believe I think they wouldn't?
All I'm saying is that the KM would be held back and only used in situations where they held the advantage, and without going for the Royal Navy head-on. If you had read my posts, you would have seen it. I also explained it as hit-and-run attacks. But in fact the Kriegsmarine would have the primary role to lure the Royal Navy away from the invasion beaches, while itself staying close to the French coast and fighter cover. All that time 1000 German bombers escorted by most of the available fighters would pound on the Royal Navy during two or three days. If the British still wanted a Navy to protect itself against future invasions, it would have to pull it back or face complete annihilation of its naval forces. Knowing that in that case, all the Germans had to do was get another 10 divisions ready and invade England again and again and again. In such a war of attrition the British would lose.

Its irrelevant that the -109 may have had marginal superiority over the Spit because in a macro sense, they weer going to be shot down over the UK with the loss of the pilot.

See, you didn't read my posts. Why do you even comment on them? I specifically said that the German fighters would be escorting bombers over the Channel and protecting the invasion beaches, so they're not flying over England like in Sealion 1940. The British would now face the opposite, they would have to fight over the German held beaches and over the Channel. Gone is the home advantage of 1940. This is one of the main reasons why I see the Germans winning this battle of aircraft attrition.

At nighttime, it wasn't going to stop the RAF from bombing its targets.

And its own troops with it!

And you're conveniently forgetting the US war machine that was spooling up to make good any losses the RF had.

Doesn't matter. The battle would be decided in a week or two. Any help the Americans would offer should already be in place. The critical moment is the first week when the Royal Navy needs to be neutralized.

Kris

Hop · Mar 29, 2007

I specifically said that the German fighters would be escorting bombers over the Channel and protecting the invasion beaches, so they're not flying over England like in Sealion 1940. The British would now face the opposite, they would have to fight over the German held beaches and over the Channel. Gone is the home advantage of 1940. This is one of the main reasons why I see the Germans winning this battle of aircraft attrition.

Are you aware that a lot of the fighting in 1940 was over the Channel?

The first phase of the BoB, from early July until early August, is known as the Channel phase because it involved German attacks on British shipping, mostly coastal convoys.

Wood and Dempster in the The Narrow Margin sum up this phase as:

Throughout July the Germans probed and sparred with little achievement. They sank eighteen small steamers and four destroyers, and shot down 145 British fighters for the loss of 270 planes

Oh boy, that story again. Besides specialized engineers, the German army had 'pioniere' units (under divisional or regimental level) which were capable of basic engineering (blowing up bridges, boobytraps, demining, etc). They performed wonderfully in WW2. At the end Sturmgruppen were created out of these Pioniere units.
You should really read "Military Improvisations", a post-war publication based on accounts of German commanders. It becomes clear just how important engineering was for the Germans, and how resourceful they were.

German battlefield engineers certainly performed well, but German logistics left a lot to be desired.

It's worth noting that in the desert war, the British shipped all their supplies around Africa and up the Red Sea, a round trip of about 14,000 miles.

The Germans shipped theirs through Italy and across the Med, a round trip of about 1,400 miles.

And yet it was the British who managed to build up their supplies at the front line, because they improved their ports, and built a railway from the docks to the border. The Germans had supplies piling up on the dockside in Tripoli, and relied on enormous numbers of trucks, a hugely inefficient way of operating.

All that time 1000 German bombers escorted by most of the available fighters would pound on the Royal Navy during two or three days. If the British still wanted a Navy to protect itself against future invasions, it would have to pull it back or face complete annihilation of its naval forces.

That's exactly the situation the British faced in 1940, and they didn't withdraw their navy, or see it annihilated.

In 1940, it was Ju 87s and 88s facing Spitfires and Hurricanes armed with rifle calibre machine guns.

In 1942, it would be the same Ju 87s and 88s, but facing Spitfires armed with 20mm cannon. If the German bombers couldn't survive the first time, how are they going to cope in 1942?

Glider · Mar 29, 2007

Kris
Landing Tanks. Yes I am saying that the Germans couldn't land any tanks. They had no Landing Craft for the job or designs, and neither did the Japanese the only country who would be likely to assist them with the design of such a vessel. The Japanese SS type of 1942 only carried small tanks or trucks.

Building Them
Germany did triple the building of U Boats but only at the cost of halting all other major building projects. If you are going to build the Landing Craft then something has to give because all the shipyards are working at maximum capacity. Its easy to build a tank factory but a shipyard is a different thing entirely.

Pedastal
I will have to admit to being wrong about air cover of the convoy but 30 Naval fighters of 1942 would presumably have been Sea Hurricanes, not exactly the cutting edge of performance. Spit V would have been far more dangerous.
The performance is still poor. Eight attacks and the convoy still got through.

Heavy Bombers
Now I know your kidding. 3 mile radius would be sufficient unless the German Landing has already failed. If the beachhead is less than 3 miles then the entire area is under fire from all british artillery and Germany are in deep deep trouble. Remember Anzio?
Besides you and I know this was caused by navigation problems, 3 miles out at a range of 1000 miles plus. Compared to 200 mile range call it a 1 mile error. More than enough to destroy or distrupt almost anything that landed.

Coastal Forces
Germany cannot hit and run if your defending a landing site, you have to protect it day and night. If you don't, then you leave it wide open to attack, the RN being more than capable of bombarding at night totally nullifying the GAF from the equation.

Battlecruisers
I believe the RN would take a defensive stand. As long as they are not attacking convoys they are not doing any harm. The old BB's will stop them attacking the convoy and all they do is burn fuel. Apart from trying to find and tail them by air that is all I would do.

Attacking at dawn
To attack at dawn you need to sail at night then the coastal forces will have them. If you sail at dawn you will have a number of vessels at sea at the end of the day and again they are wide open.

Dates of the Landing.
The Germans were caught off guard because of the weather, they knew the likely dates. It was the same in 1940. Britain and Japan both knew the likely dates for the German invasion. A high tide is a requirement and a full moon is helpful.

renrich · Mar 29, 2007

The Fleet Air Arm fighters embarked on the carriers in Pedestal were Fulmars. An early version of the LST.

Civettone · Mar 29, 2007

Hop said:
The first phase of the BoB, from early July until early August, is known as the Channel phase because it involved German attacks on British shipping, mostly coastal convoys.

Not quite. Yes, it involved attacks on British shipping but the Channel phase was more than that. (I know you're not saying it wasn't but at first read it comes across as if you do.) This first phase was called the Channel Phase because it attacked targets along the Channel. So that means attacks on ports and on the coastal radar installations. As this was a first probing phase - so only part of the Luftwaffe participated - the Germans still made the error of not escorting all their bombers. Especially thinking of the tragedy of those Stuka's attacking radar along the coast and getting decimated by RAF fighters. This also stopped further use of the Stuka in the BoB.
Btw, I think your book is wrong: 145 British fighters shot down seems to be too much. I think it's even less! (Fair's fair.)

German battlefield engineers certainly performed well, but German logistics left a lot to be desired.

That's it! Engineering was not always given the attention it deserved. But nevertheless, they did wonderful things with the resources they had. They were incredibly ingenious!
If I interpret Syscom's words as that engineering never was a high point for the Germans, then yes, I agree. But that in no way means that they would not send engineers to the British docks. They used engineering work when they thought it was necessary. In North Africa they wrongly assumed it wasn't...

That's exactly the situation the British faced in 1940, and they didn't withdraw their navy, or see it annihilated.

The Royal Navy was never attacked by a thousand bombers. So it wasn't the same situation. It could have been had the invasion actually happened.
And don't forget my point on training on naval targets since BoB.

In 1942, it would be the same Ju 87s and 88s

They were?
The Ju 87D got more armour and could carry three times the load of the Ju 87B of the BoB.
The Ju 88A-4 got more armour and was more suited for dive bombing than the Ju 88A-1 and A-5 of the BoB.

Yes I am saying that the Germans couldn't land any tanks

Oh c'mon, the Germans were definitely going to transport tanks over the Channel in 1940. And don't forget the Tauchpanzer.

Germany did triple the building of U Boats but only at the cost of halting all other major building projects.

Completely untrue! You apparently didn't read my post on how the Germans managed to triple production: it was by prefab production away from the shipyards. That resulted in producing a U-boat in 2 months where before it would have taken 11.5 months! And I also said that Speer managed to double production of PT-boats and minesweepers. By 1942 there was no longer any big warship construction going on.

I will have to admit to being wrong about air cover of the convoy but 30 Naval fighters of 1942 would presumably have been Sea Hurricanes, not exactly the cutting edge of performance. Spit V would have been far more dangerous.

Most of the intercepts were done by Maltese Spitfire Vs.
Carried based Sea Hurricanes, Martlets and Fulmars were used before that. All of them good enough to shoot down bombers. They hardly encountered enemy fighters (because of the range). The Maltese Spits had only few Bf 109s to fight, most fighters were Italian or Bf 110s.

The performance is still poor. Eight attacks and the convoy still got through.

I got a joke for you. It's not as good as actually telling it but well...
Three guys were going swimming in a lake. An American, a Brit and a Belgian. They made a bet on who would reach the other side first. So they started swimming. But about halfway the American shouted "I'm tired, I can't go on any more!" and he drowned. Three quarters of the distance swum, the Brit shouted "I'm tired, I can't go on any more!" and he drowned. The Belgian swam on but when he was just 10 metres away from the bank he complained "I'm tired ... I'm going back!"

My point is, once you've crossed most of the distance, it's worse to turn back!

brb
Kris

Civettone · Mar 29, 2007

If the beachhead is less than 3 miles then the entire area is under fire from all british artillery and Germany are in deep deep trouble. Remember Anzio?

Wasn't Anzio succesful? Didn't they manage to hold their ground against overwhelming odds?

Besides you and I know this was caused by navigation problems, 3 miles out at a range of 1000 miles plus. Compared to 200 mile range call it a 1 mile error. More than enough to destroy or distrupt almost anything that landed.

Oh no, that's not what is meant by navigation problems. Read the classic 'Bomber offensive' by Noble Frankland.
What you're saying should indicate that the BC bombers were less accurate over (for instance) Brest and (most) inaccurate over Berlin. That's obviously not the case as was shown in the BC offensive against Brest in late 1941 and early 1942 when they failed to destroy the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. In 1941 only 1/3 of the bombs were dropped within 5 miles from the actual target. In 1942 there was a radar guidance system called Gee and this worked up to western Germany (Ruhr) which helped find the targets. But accuracy remained a big problem.
This only improved when in August 1942 the first pathfinder groups were created and when in late 1942 and early 1943 Oboe and and H2S were introduced.
So with 500 bombers operational and an accuracy of 1/3 within 5 miles I'm not all that much worried. And don't forget that these bombers had to fly at low altitude where the German army AD could barrage fire at them.

Germany cannot hit and run if your defending a landing site, you have to protect it day and night.

I never said they would be defending the landing site. I specifically said that the KM would stay close to the FRENCH coast to draw away Royal Navy ships, and only engage in favourable circumstances, after which they would retreat to the French coast again.

I believe the RN would take a defensive stand. As long as they are not attacking convoys they are not doing any harm. The old BB's will stop them attacking the convoy and all they do is burn fuel. Apart from trying to find and tail them by air that is all I would do.

I know that during operation Neptune most of the Home Fleet was reserved for countering the Tirpitz and other German warships. Very unlikely they would have broken out, yet the allies went out of their way to prevent this happening.
That makes me conclude that the British would definitely hold back several BBs and other warships to counter the German BCs.

To attack at dawn you need to sail at night then the coastal forces will have them. If you sail at dawn you will have a number of vessels at sea at the end of the day and again they are wide open.
Dates of the Landing.
The Germans were caught off guard because of the weather, they knew the likely dates. It was the same in 1940. Britain and Japan both knew the likely dates for the German invasion. A high tide is a requirement and a full moon is helpful.

I think you've got a point here. So far I have relied on two elements: surprise and local Kriegsmarine strength. As the bulk of the Royal Navy wasn't in the Channel, I think the Kriegsmarine should have been able to deal with them. Like I said before, I would use the KM on the first day after which I would pull them back. I think they could have contained the coastal RN ships. But I'm less certain about the surprise element. The British would know when the possible dates were and would have seen the Kriegsmarine assembling in the weeks prior to the invasion.
Good point!

Kris

Bernhart · Mar 29, 2007

An added thought, you would need time to assemble enough transport to move enough men for an invasion, and a number of operational ports. I would think that word would get to the allies quite quickly from the resistence
(after all the germans are operating in a hostile country) and there was constant recon flights that woulds also pick up the build up. this would take time allowing the allies to build up forces, move them along the coast. the Americans would step up thier deployment of troops and ships, and airplanes.

you could direct the night bombers and fighters to the costal ports and areas of troop build up and bomb them. The navy could send enough ships to shell these areas also. There would be huge air battles over the area as each side met, the germans after the navy and the allies trying to protect them. The allies would probably hold back enough squadrons I would think to meet an invasion should it still happen, they had already done this during battle for France. If the germans do get air superiorty as clivetone believes it would be a a cost, with the Brits and Yanks still holding back some reserves

renrich · Mar 29, 2007

I still think there is an underestimation of the strength of the RN. I don't believe after the first day there would have been any KM left, if they had been commited to the battle. In WW1 the High Seas fleet never wanted to confront the Grand Fleet belly to belly and the disparity in strength was not nearly as great in 1914-1918 as it was in in 1942. If the KM was as potent as some seem to think it was, why did not they put up an effort to prevent the evacuation from Dunkirk. As far as I know there was no action from the KM beyond a few E-boats. I would not be fooled too much by the British debacle off Malaya where the Repulse and Prince of Wales were lost. They had no air cover and they were up against probably the best anti shipping air force in the world at that time. Also at that time the RNs fire control system against a/c was notoriously poor. In the channel in the summer of 1942, if all the KM was commited there would be 2 King George Vs to take out the Tirpitz, 2 more King George Vs to handle the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the Renown with some County class CAs would ruin the Hippers and others of that class. The RN still have the Nelson and Rodney in reserve plus all the R class for convoy duty and the Queen Elisabeths in the Med. The RN does not need any carriers since they have plenty of land based air to cope with the JU 87s and 88s and to help sink ships. A few of the Colony class should dispose of all of the KM Cls nicely. That leaves the Leanders and DDs to sink all the transports and most of the landing craft. Of course this ignores the fact that the British have emplaced many coastal guns that would take there share of the shipping available for targets.

renrich · Mar 29, 2007

I neglected the two pocket battleships in my earlier post. One of the King George Vs would sink those two and the Renown would help with the KM battle cruisers and there would need to be perhaps a couple of the Newcastle class along with the County class CAs to overwhelm the Hippers.

operation sea lion (1 Viewer)

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Chief Master Sergeant

Tail end Charlie

Tech Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tail end Charlie

Chief Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads