Author Topic: Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff  (Read 513 times)

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« on: July 11, 2005, 04:40:16 PM »
Always an interesting what if - could they etc etc.

So when you see the claims of the german fleet being 1 x BB [Scharnhorst]; HC [Hipper] & 2 x CL plus 7 destroyers and escorts, Thats the post Norway fleet [IE June 1940].. When the invasion was planned for the end of September and the beginning of October the situation was quite different.

they could rely on the following….

BB Scharnhorst [ 9 x 11” + 12 x 6” plus 14 dual purpose 4” flak and 26 flak & 3 A/C ]
BC Scheer [ 6 x 11” + 8 x 6” plus 8 dual purpose 4” flak and 16 flak & 2 A/C ]
HC Hipper [ 8 x 8” + 12 x dual purpose 4” flak and 46 flak & 3 A/C ]
3 x CL [each with 9 x 6” guns + 6 x 88mm plus 20 flak and 2 A/C ]
16x DD [each with 5 x 5-6” guns + 10-12 flak ]
8 x TB [each with 4 x 4” guns + 8 flak ]
43 x Corvette/Escorts [each with 2 dual purpose 4” guns + 4-8 flak plus sonar’s and 4 x depth charge]
13 x minelayers various converted ships with a compliment of 4-5” guns plus flak
~ 30 x heavy Sperrbrecher [armored mine breakers] with 2 dual purpose 4” flak and 17 light flak.
~ 50-60 tankers/freighters [ with 3 x 6” guns & 6 x Flak]
9 auxiliary cruisers [converted merchants with 6 x 6” guns & 6 flak plus several A/C]
There also looks like 1240 River barges [¼ powered by November and the rest towed] plus about 900 towing trawlers/tugboats and 700-800 steamers /freighters of various sizes.


The steamers and warships could sortie from German ports and meet up with the barge fleet escorted by the fleet of corvettes [know to the Brits as “Channel Destroyers”], for the amphibious invasion. The landing force would have firing support of 15 x 11” guns 8 x 8” and ~ 70-120 x 6” guns. The extent of the British coastal defenses in 1940 was slim indeed. While its believed that a string of British fortifications had been erected , these were mostly just bunkers that should fall to heavy coastal bombardment. The German Fleet flak amounts to ~ 200 heavy flak [88-105mm] and ~1500 light flak [20-37mm] which should provide adequate defense against RAF bombers that get through the Luftwaffe fighter cover to the armada.

The RN could count on 76 destroyers and destroyer escorts in the “anti invasion fleet”, mostly older destroyers [4-8 x 4” guns & 2-4 flak] plus a dozen CC [Heavy (8 x 8” + 4 x 4” & 8 flak) or Light (8-9 x 6” guns & 16 flak)]. With the 1/3 rotation , that leaves about 4 x CC and 25 x DD/DE to intercept the invasion fleet covered by 2 x BC , 4 x CC/CL & 24 DD/DE…looks like an even match.

The “ Home Fleet” could risk sorties through the “Channel”, with 8 x BB /BC plus 2 x CV and 15 x CC/CL escorted by up to 32 x DD , however most of these capital ships had only 8-16 flak, making them extremely vulnerable to Stuka dive bombing attacks. While its true that the Luftwaffe had little experience attacking warships , it didn't seem to have stopped them sink/damage ~ 1/4 of the UK fleet [~ 100 out of 400] sent to liberate the troops at Dunkirk.

This may force these capital ships to night attacks only , however they would remain always vulnerable to U-boat interceptions day or night. As with the anti invasion fleet, only 1/3 of these warships would actually be available for sorties. That’s up to 3 x BB/BC/CV ; 5 x CC/CL and 11 x DD. It may make sense for the Germans to sortie the Scharnhorst , the Scheer and Hipper to draw the “Home Fleet” away from the invasion, as it would take this entire force out of the channel action for some time.

Needless to say there are other RN warships are far a field, that could intervene but these could take weeks to complete their duties [convoys etc] and make their way to the channel. These include up to 40-45 destroyers on convoy duties in the Atlantic ocean, and another 40 in the Med. Further their should be 8 x BB/BC & 3 x CV plus 18 x CC/CL . Again as above only 1/3 of the above mentioned warships would actually be available for intervention….in other words about 30 destroyers, 6 cruisers , 1 x CV & 3 x BB/BC.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2005, 04:43:26 PM »
Re; Macksey's late 70's Imperial war college paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
His premise of a successful invasion was based on the ships, freighters, barges etc that were actually known to be available to the Wehrmacht. No more, no less. Plus extensive use of minefields and pre-invasion parachute drops.

And there is this bit.

I think Paul transposed the count on the destroyers and torpedo-boats. The status on 1 October was seven destroyers available for operations (counting Z6 despite on-going problems with her port engine, but excluding Z4 which entered dock on 21 September 40.) Z5, Z10, Z14, Z15, Z16 and Z20 were all available. Z7 and Z8 were completing refit. I count sixteen torpedo-boats available on that date, excluding two which suffered minor damage during operations in September. However, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were not fit for service until the end of the year. Gneisenau lay in dock until 21 Oct and didn't complete post-repair trials until 19 December 1940. Scharnhorst didn't complete repairs until 21 November; defects turned up in trials forced her back into dock until 23 December 1940.
-Vince

Again, a hot topic. Like all what if's, nearly impossible to determine with 100% certitude one way or the other. But worthy of exploration-chat nonetheless.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2005, 04:48:04 PM by agent 009 »

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2005, 12:56:04 AM »
I have to say its all flawed.
The main flaw is that you move heaven and earth to maximize the number of german ships and do the same to minimize the british ships.
A simple count of the numbers of ships available is apperenlty too shallow a comparison. You must divide the number of british ships by 3 and totally ignore the totalitiy of the british force in the air and on the seas.
Ill grant that the coastal defences of britian are inadiquit but the navy alone is sufficient several times only to stop a german invasion that would have to be telegraphed well in advance.
Besides your new version has France taken. What happend to your northern empire?

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2005, 01:21:01 AM »
Germans had way too small navy to do anything at seas...

However britons had their navy scattered all around the globe.
Germans didn't have the need for that.

Of course Italians could have joined to assist the german navy - they had pretty nice BB's.
Gibraltar would been a slight problem in moving the italian fleet to the atlantic.

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2005, 01:38:16 AM »
You guys are talking about an escorted channel invasion
fleet as if it were a one time thing.  The amount of logistics
involved in supporting a landing force against a hostile
population was barely within Allied capabilities even in 44.

     Even if they got ashore, I'd have to imagine city fighting in
a city the size of London would have made Stalingrad look like
a picnic.
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2005, 01:41:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rino
Even if they got ashore, I'd have to imagine city fighting in
a city the size of London would have made Stalingrad look like
a picnic.


Rivers and the name are what made Stalingrad the Stalingrad.
London would been probably "blitzed".
A cut off city is nothing more than a ripe apple waiting to be picked.
It could been even abandoned by the brits, to avoid loosing troops unnecessarily, so it would be possible in the future to counter attack.
Leaving troops in London, which quite likely would be encircled, would be a suicide for the troops and the kingdom.

Stalingrad however was a whole different matter, a result of two crazed leaders.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2005, 01:45:36 AM by Fishu »

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2005, 02:09:38 AM »
If ya wanna play the shoulda coulda game,

Had Hitler let the Wermarcht finish the BEF in Dunkirk, and kept the Luftwaffe sinking supporting ships, the Brits would have surrendered before an invaison was necessary.

oh, and as for London becoming a Staingrad, I doubt it.  Churchill would not have had the stomach to kill 5 million of his own people!
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2005, 02:24:30 AM »
Occupation of France was covered in old thread.

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2005, 03:19:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
Rivers and the name are what made Stalingrad the Stalingrad.
London would been probably "blitzed".
A cut off city is nothing more than a ripe apple waiting to be picked.
It could been even abandoned by the brits, to avoid loosing troops unnecessarily, so it would be possible in the future to counter attack.
Leaving troops in London, which quite likely would be encircled, would be a suicide for the troops and the kingdom.

Stalingrad however was a whole different matter, a result of two crazed leaders.


     There is absolutely NO chance the Brits would have abandoned London.  It's the heart of Great Britain, sort of like
Moscow was for the USSR.  

     The Germans would have to have a pretty easy landing to be
to have enough troops to encircle London.  Btw, london was
blitzed, didn't seem to slow em down much.

     Historically the English are absolute bears on defense, and I
certainly don't believe the Germans had anywhere near the
ability to project that sort of force accross the channel.
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2005, 09:11:25 PM »
Why not just sum up these silly threads with
"imagine if britain had capitualted with belgium!"

Offline cpxxx

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2005, 09:46:25 PM »
I think the consensus nowdays is that Hitler had no real intention of invading Britain. He hoped for a peace deal or an armstice of sorts. The British were always admired in Germany. In any case Britain was effectively out the game and could never have set foot back on the Continent.
 
If Hitler was serious about the invasion it would have succeeded. The Fleet would not have survived the attentions of the Luftwaffe. Even the RAF would have been forced to commit it's full strength to defend the beaches. In the Battle of Britain, Dowding was able to husband his resources and not commit his entire force. Flying into a flak storm and and the Luftwaffe close to their bases would have used them up fast.  

Once  a beachhead was achieved. The British army post Dunkirk was in no state to repel them.
It would have been bloody but the result inevitable.

The problem for Hitler that the losses he entailed and need for a very large occupying force would have hindered preparations for his real target: The Soviet Union. He had his eye on the big prize. As far as he was concerned, Britain was effectively neutralised. It simply wasn't worth invading. Even the Battle of Britain was more punitive than a real prelude to invasion. Not for the last time was Goering to make a promise his air force couldn't keep.

The RAF man for man was always better than Luftwaffe. That was later proved again in Malta.

No Seelowe was never on as a practical proposition. An interesting exercise but no more than that.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Thought o was closed. Cross channel stuff
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2005, 08:11:38 PM »
wow.