Operation Sea Lion: Could Germany Win the Land Battle of Britain?
Dr. X
successfully conquered Britain, assuming they had won the Battle of Britain
against the RAF. Any comments/links/resources would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dr. X
nightjar
"Dr. X" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:SykYd.27808$fW4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
They would also have had to hold back the Royal Navy. Germany had the choice
of sending across an army that was big enough to beat the defences, or one
that was small enough to keep supplied. IIRC, the former was about three
times the size of the latter, even once the ports were restored. You should
be able to use data from D-Day and after to get an idea of what volume of
supplies an army needed.
Colin Bignell
Dr. X
cheers.
Dr. X
"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here> wrote in message
news:x6OdnQjxnc9...@giganews.com...
Vaughan Sanders
"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here> wrote in message
news:x6OdnQjxnc9...@giganews.com...
>
My opinion is that superior air power might have prevailed over superior
naval power, but getting ashore and staying there was another matter.
The formidable defences of the south east still exist, but the geography
would have also favoured the defenders.
The only really successful invaders were the Vikings who were probably
"the" naval power of history, where invading England was concerned
anyway.
I was reading something in the Sunday press book reviews, about the
German barges getting swamped in a blow, I would point out that a blow
for the "little boats" of Dunkirk would have spelt disaster.
Jamie
John Dean
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here> wrote in
> message news:x6OdnQjxnc9...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Dr. X" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:SykYd.27808$fW4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>> Hi all, I'm writing a paper on whether or not the German Army could
>>> have successfully conquered Britain, assuming they had won the
>>> Battle of Britain against the RAF. Any comments/links/resources
>>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> They would also have had to hold back the Royal Navy. Germany had
>> the choice of sending across an army that was big enough to beat the
>> defences, or one that was small enough to keep supplied. IIRC, the
>> former was about three times the size of the latter, even once the
>> ports were restored. You should be able to use data from D-Day and
>> after to get an idea of what volume of supplies an army needed.
>>
>> Colin Bignell
>>
>>
>
> My opinion is that superior air power might have prevailed over
> superior naval power, but getting ashore and staying there was
> another matter. The formidable defences of the south east still
> exist, but the geography would have also favoured the defenders.
> The only really successful invaders were the Vikings who were probably
> "the" naval power of history, where invading England was concerned
> anyway.
>
We're not counting the Normans then?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Villy Vonka
>Hi all, I'm writing a paper on whether or not the German Army could have
>successfully conquered Britain, assuming they had won the Battle of Britain
>against the RAF.
I'd recommend googling for threads on soc.history.what-if where the
subject comes up with stunning regularity. In a word no, Sealion was a
blueprint for German disaster. Germany was not a great naval power and
didn't have the infrastructure to support an invasion and continued
resupply in the face of the RN and opposition from the RAF (contrary to
popular opinion, the Battle of Britain was not a close run thing at all.
As somebody, somewhere - ie I can't remember ;), put it "the fight
between the Luftwaffe and 11 Group RAF was close. The battle between
the Luftwaffe and the entire RAF was never fought".
There was an excellent study posted on the above newsgroup some years
ago which has been archived here:
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm
but appears to be temporarily down.
Cheers
--
[AGB]Villy Vonka
Sheffield, UK
Villy Vonka
>I was reading something in the Sunday press book reviews, about the
>German barges getting swamped in a blow, I would point out that a blow
>for the "little boats" of Dunkirk would have spelt disaster.
The boats used at Dunkirk, some of them albeit small, were seagoing
vessels, and thankfully not river barges.
hippo
"Dr. X" wrote in message
> thanks lad, that info about D-Day will be a good comparison,
> cheers.
Not really. The Germans had been expecting an invasion and had made
preparations. The Brits had fox hunting clubs with shotguns patrolling the
beaches and had lost most of their heavy equipment in France.
I don't think Hitler ever intended to invade Britain. He was mono-focused on
the USSR and peripheral wars were a distraction. Gathering river craft and
leaving a few divisions behind in France to practice invasions were more to
convince Stalin than to prepare for a real invasion. -the Troll
nightjar
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:3rednfeEwPI...@giganews.com...
...
> Not really. The Germans had been expecting an invasion and had made
> preparations. The Brits had fox hunting clubs with shotguns patrolling the
> beaches and had lost most of their heavy equipment in France.
I think you get the award for the most ridiculous stereotype for the idea of
fox hunting clubs with shotguns.
By the Fall of France, there were 1.5 million men in the Home Guard and,
while they were short of weapons, around one in ten had a Lee Enfield rifle,
priority being given to those units in the likely invasion areas. The main
value of these men patrolling the beaches, manning road blocks and guarding
important locations was that it released the 1.65 million regular troops
from such duties. Only 13 of the 50 divisions of the British Army were in
France, but they were among the most experienced and the rest needed to have
time to be trained up to full readiness.
While we only had 100 tanks after Dunkirk, the Matilda tank was one of the
most effective tanks of the period. almost immune to the German tank
cannons, and Vickers went into overdrive to produce Valentines, eventually
to become the most numerous of British WW2 tanks.
Even what we had left after Dunkirk would have been able to mount an
effective defence along the fairly restricted front that an invasion of SE
England would force on the Germans. At the time, British Intelligence
calculated that the invasion force would need to be at least nine divisions
strong to be sure of victory.
Colin Bignell
martin reboul
It would have been a terrible gamble on Hitler's part. Even so, he was pretty
determined to put Sealion into operation, and made extensive preparations and
used up many resources - such as his best aircews, many lost in the battle of
Britain.
That was of course the clincher, failure to destroy the RAF. If he had however,
I still doubt if a successful invasion could have been launched. His naval
forces were puny, and the RN would obviously have thrown all their enormous
resources into the battle, no doubt taking heavy losses, but inflicting
incredible damage. For a start, we had quite a few submarines, which would have
played havoc against any invasion fleet. We had radar, spies and other resources
to provide plenty of warning, and they hadn't cracked our codes.
The Germans would have had to rely on barges to transport their forces, horribly
vulnerable to surface and submarine attack and mines, and I'm sure some aircraft
would have been hidden away for 'emergency use only'. They didn't have the heavy
fleet guns and enormous bomber capacity to completely subdue our coastal
defences either, and they were (and still are I suppose) substantial, designed
to delay, confuse and hold up the French mostly, but still perfectly effective
against Nazis, however obsolete.
I daresay massive airborne assaults were part of the plan, but once again, radar
would have given warning, and glider and parachute assaults rely almost entirely
on surprise, and are vulnerable to heavy weapons and supply problems. We may not
have had any really effective tanks, but there was plenty of heavy artillery.
The Luftwaffe would have caused havoc I expect, but enough might well have
survived.
Add to that the willingness of Churchill to use gas, fuel flooding, booby traps
and any possible measure to hold them back - I really wouldn't have liked to
have been in any German invasion army!
Then of course there are our natural defences, terrible currents and tides,
shoals, unpredictable weather and most importantly, very few suitable places to
land. No use landing a Panzer division at Beachy Head, or around most of Kent,
Sussex or Essex.
Last, but by no means least, there was the sometimes ridiculous, often suicidal,
but bitterly determined population of a proud nation, unconquered in nine
centuries. I dread to think of the carnage that would have ensued - we may all
have laughed at Captain Mainwaring and his men, but don't forget what a stupidly
brave fellow he was!
I really don't think the Germans would really have had a chance. They had poor
intelligence, no fifth column and diabolical, treacherous terrain to take.
Obvious Hitler thought the same?
Cheers
Martin
Dr. X
far!
Cheers,
Dr. X
"Dr. X" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:SykYd.27808$fW4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Vaughan Sanders
"Villy Vonka" <Villy@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:k63qnVtP...@srobertson.net...
The launches from the upper Thames that mustered at Sheerness were not
built as sea going vessels, they would have probably foundered in a
blow.
The cockle boats from Leigh had never been out of the estuary but were
sea going, as were the Thames Barges. The Medway Queen was a side wheel
paddle steamer, the Royal Daffodil was awarded a medal after taking off
9,500 men in 7 trips and being holed by a bomb.
http://freespace.virgin.net/tom.lee/daffodilimg.htm
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
I would say Hitler has to capture Dover or he's stuffed, Churchill at
the time had to assume he had tank landing craft but he didn't.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:d0tbgi$fbi$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
You mean the Norse Vikings the Franks called Normans?
The Normans were just change of management, a personal civil war / duel,
between Harold and William, settled with one battle.
A comparison to Hastings would be Bosworth rather than Overlord or Sea
Lion, the Great Army would be a far better pointer to the difficulties
of Sea Lion without naval power.
The Great Army, and then Svein and Cnut, used their naval power as a
tactical and strategic weapon to circumvent a formidable Anglo-Saxon
defence system. Using their naval power in much the same way the Allies
did in Italy during WWII but much more effectively, even so it was still
a long struggle of numerous battles.
Jamie
John Dean
I mean the Normans *we* call Normans who lived in Normandy and spoke
Norman French
--
John Dean
Oxford
hippo
"nightjar .uk.com>" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
One in ten with military rifles, wow, and the Matilda paid for its armor
with loss of speed not to mention the failed tactical doctrine used to
employ them. The German little MK IIs ran all around them in France. The
veteran German divisions would have gone thought he HG like crap through a
goose. You have to factor in the demoralization which was infecting all
levels of the BA after the Dunkirk. Ju87s might have been sitting ducks over
Britain but in the Channel against major British fleet elements the story
would have been very different. The RN understood that perfectly well and
did not employ them there.
I have wargamed this many times. The Germans would have had to have had a
plan in place before the attack on France and executed an invasion right
after Dunkirk. By September it would have been too late. I used four
mountain or regular infantry divisions without their horse transport and the
parachute regiment (none of them needed for the second phase in France) to
seize a bridgehead (Isle of Wight and Kent) for advance fighter airfields
supplied mostly by air. My main invasion was from Cherbourg using a Panzer
Div. to Bognor Regis reinforced by the troops already on the Isle of Wight,
and a second to Dover in staggered operations. It always works. The key is
to take and maintain the initiative.
The thing is it would never have happened. Fighting and garrisoning Denmark,
Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Poland, and Britain were distractions to
Hitler. Garrisoning Britain would have been a further drain on slender
German resources needed to fight the USSR and Hitler knew it. The BG would
have fought on from Northern Ireland and Canada if necessary and Hitler knew
that too. -the Troll
Vaughan Sanders
"Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:...
Hmm, I remember the Royal Daff doing the rock across the channel trips
but I didn't know the promoter ran off with Jerry Lee's money.
"After 1955 she made "no passport" trips to France. In an attempt to
revive pasenger numbers, particularly amongst younger passengers, The
GSN held "Rock Across the Channel" events between 1957 and 1963. They
included a1962 crossing with Gene Vincent and in1963 with Jerry Lee
Lewis backed by the Outlaws, featuring a young Richie Blackmore and Chas
Hodges (of Chas and Dave fame). TheGSN ran this event on the Royal
Daffodil (II) from 1957 with a Skiffle event from Southend to Boulogne.
The downside to the 1963 event was that the gentleman promoting it went
off with the money. These attempts proved insufficient to sustain
passenger numbers and sadly, at the end of the season in 1966, the GSN
decided they could no longer continue their Thames services and Royal
Daffodil was withrawn and placed for sale. Keen enthusiasts may remember
the BBC pictures of her sailing under her own power to her final resting
place for breaking up in Holland in 1967."
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
> Vaughan Sanders wrote:
snip
> >> We're not counting the Normans then?
> >> --
> >
> > You mean the Norse Vikings the Franks called Normans?
>
> I mean the Normans *we* call Normans who lived in Normandy and spoke
> Norman French
>
>
> --
> John Dean
> Oxford
>
Ok, point me to an example of this Norman French they spoke in 1066,
there's no record of any form of French in England until a 100 years
later and then very little.
All records in Normandy are also in Latin rather than OF during this
period, William's great grandfather, Duke Richard I, was definitely a
Norse speaker.
Jamie
William Black
> Not really. The Germans had been expecting an invasion and had made
> preparations. The Brits had fox hunting clubs with shotguns patrolling the
> beaches and had lost most of their heavy equipment in France.
You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a destroyer
travelling through it at twenty knots.
The Germans have first to destroy the Royal Navy on its inevitable 'death
ride' down from Scotland, almost certainly under the cover of land based
air cover, and they can't...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
nightjar
...
> I would say Hitler has to capture Dover or he's stuffed, Churchill at
> the time had to assume he had tank landing craft but he didn't.
British estimates put the capacity of Dover, after the blockships had been
cleared and the demolition work had been repaired, at 800 tons per day.
Folkestone was thought to have a capacity of 600 tons per day in similar
circumstances. It was estimated that, assuming the Germans landed sufficient
vehicles over the beaches to do the work, it would take a week to reach full
capacity. Initial capacity was put at 1/4 of the final level. The
requirements of a German division, assuming a short campaign, were put at
300 tons per day, which was probably an underestimate. With both ports fully
working, the Germans would thus have had capacity to supply less than five
divisions, using figures that assumed no interference from either the RAF or
the Royal Navy and that good weather prevailed.
Colin Bignell
ron grainger
>
> "Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:...
>>
>> "Villy Vonka" <Villy@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>> news:k63qnVtP...@srobertson.net...
>> > Vaughan Sanders wrote
>> > >I was reading something in the Sunday press book reviews, about the
>> > >German barges getting swamped in a blow,
...and as I recall the Sea Lion barges would be embarking on a far longer
voyage than the crossing from Dunkirk.
The other interesting point about this thread is that
'you know who' has so far failed to air his views -
perhaps he is disguised as Dr. X ?
Ron
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > "Dr. X" wrote in message
> >
> > > thanks lad, that info about D-Day will be a good comparison,
> > > cheers.
> >
> > Not really. The Germans had been expecting an invasion and had made
> > preparations. The Brits had fox hunting clubs with shotguns patrolling
> the
> > beaches and had lost most of their heavy equipment in France.
> >
> > I don't think Hitler ever intended to invade Britain. He was
> mono-focused on
> > the USSR and peripheral wars were a distraction. Gathering river craft
> and
> > leaving a few divisions behind in France to practice invasions were
> more to
> > convince Stalin than to prepare for a real invasion. -the Troll
> >
> >
>
> I would say Hitler has to capture Dover or he's stuffed, Churchill at
> the time had to assume he had tank landing craft but he didn't.
The Germans rigged up bow ramps to discharge tanks from river barges which
would have worked in ideal conditions. The MkII and Mk38(t) tanks didn't
weigh anything and were small. They captured enough small transport in
Holland alone to make several crossings. Transport wasn't the problem. The
fact is Hitler never intended to invade. Plans were not initiated until
nearly the fall of France which was almost too late anyway. Most of the
preparations were intended to fool Stalin and cloak the movement of major
German troop elements to Poland. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Not really. The Germans had been expecting an invasion and had made
> > preparations. The Brits had fox hunting clubs with shotguns patrolling
the
> > beaches and had lost most of their heavy equipment in France.
>
> You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a destroyer
> travelling through it at twenty knots.
>
> The Germans have first to destroy the Royal Navy on its inevitable 'death
> ride' down from Scotland, almost certainly under the cover of land based
> air cover, and they can't...
The RN learned its lesson about operating in coastal waters within range of
German dive bombers in Norway. The Germans would have had no trouble
maintaining control of the air over the Pas de Calais just as they had no
trouble defeating the RAF in France. The Luftwaffe was designed for those
sorts of ranges. Control of the air would have meant control over the waters
of the Channel no matter what the RN did. Battalions of troops and
jury-rigged landing craft are replaceable. Large fleet elements are not. A
battleship took five years to build and a cruiser three. Destroyers caught
without air cover were cold meat to dive bombers.
What Britain was fatally short of after France was pilots, not aircraft.
Pilots shot down over the Channel would have been mostly lost just as German
pilots shot down in the BofB were. If the Germans had landed in Britain in
July there would have been no fighter pilots left by mid-August and the air
war conceded from that point. In addition German forward fighter bases could
have been established in Kent and/or on the Isle of Wight. It wouldn't have
been pretty. -the Troll
John Dean
Michael Howard's granddad was definitely a Romanian speaker and Michael
Portillo's granddad was definitely a Spanish speaker. I don't think
facts like that will contribute to any argument a hundred years from now
about what language was spoken in 20th Century England.
Anyway ...
Charles le roi, le Grand, notre empereur,
sept ans entiers est resté en Espagne.
Jusqu'à la mer il a conquis les terres hautes:
aucun château devant lui ne résiste,
il n'est ni mur ni cité qui reste à forcer
sauf Saragosse, qui est sur une montagne.
--
John Dean
Oxford
William Black
>
> "William Black" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
> > > Not really. The Germans had been expecting an invasion and had made
> > > preparations. The Brits had fox hunting clubs with shotguns patrolling
> the
> > > beaches and had lost most of their heavy equipment in France.
> >
> > You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a destroyer
> > travelling through it at twenty knots.
> >
> > The Germans have first to destroy the Royal Navy on its inevitable
'death
> > ride' down from Scotland, almost certainly under the cover of land
based
> > air cover, and they can't...
>
> The RN learned its lesson about operating in coastal waters within range
of
> German dive bombers in Norway. The Germans would have had no trouble
> maintaining control of the air over the Pas de Calais just as they had no
> trouble defeating the RAF in France. The Luftwaffe was designed for those
> sorts of ranges. Control of the air would have meant control over the
waters
> of the Channel no matter what the RN did. Battalions of troops and
> jury-rigged landing craft are replaceable. Large fleet elements are not. A
> battleship took five years to build and a cruiser three. Destroyers caught
> without air cover were cold meat to dive bombers.
In reality the German invasion barges were irreplaceable in the short term.
The cabinet had decided to sacrifice the Home Fleet in the event of an
invasion and the Germans had to get everything bigger than a destroyer,
which is about ten battleships and thirty five or so cruisers and the big
armoured deck flat tops.
Because every one of them, including the carriers, carried an battery of
guns that would sink every invasion barge they had in about an hour.
They have to sink them all, every one, in a single day in the face of every
fighter the RAF could throw up. That's not just 'Twelve Group', but all
the stuff stashed in the north.
If they don't then their invasion fleet is so much interesting wreckage.
Assuming they do get ashore with a selection of teeny tiny tanks (because
they can't actually land anything bigger that a 38t on the beach) there's a
whole Canadian armoured division just nicely settled in and worked up and
lined up waiting for them to act as the core of any defence...
Oh yes, and Dover and Folkestone will both take at least a week to make
operational, so they're out of fuel in about forty eight hours as well
because they don't have PLUTO or the facilities to unload POL over the beach
in the quantities necessary either.
Of course if only one of the squadron of destroyers in Dover sails through
their invasion fleet at full speed then most of the barges capsize in the
wake anyway...
a.spencer3
"martin reboul" <martin...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4232f...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I agree with your 'gung ho' factor. We'd have fought like trapped rats. But
at the end of the day I think we'd have been as effective as the Polish
cavalry.
Sorry, not your typical Surreyman patriotic delivery! :-))
Surreyman
Vaughan Sanders
Well lets examine what we know.
William's great-grandfather was born in Rouen where the Romna-lingua
(OF) was spoken, he was deliberately sent to Bayeux to be educated
there, where the Danica-lingua (Norse) was spoken. Histories
commissioned by Duke Richard were in Latin, there was no written form of
the Danica-lingua.
William's great-grandson was born in Anjou and brought up there,
speaking the Romna-lingua of that area. Henry II commissioned histories
to be written in the Romana-lingua. Henry's mother born in England, the
grand-daughter of William, could not speak the Romna-lingua of Anjou,
this would seem to point to her father Henry I, born in Normandy, could
not speak it either.
Btw, your quote in modern French, do you think Charlemagne or Alcuin of
York could have read it?
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
I have actual seen a Centurion tank on the mud flats of the estuary.
Some years ago someone took a Land Rover out at low tide and got stuck,
then we had the fiasco of various sizes of break down vehicles getting
stuck, the last one being the army's RR engine heavy recovery wagon. So
by the time the army sent their tank recovery vehicle based on a
Centurion chassis, they had all been under the water a couple of times.
The Centurion hardly made it off the beach before getting stuck, they
all had to be rescued by a floating crane barge at high tide.
The army did strip the RR engine each time it reappeared at low water,
but my experience of salt water and anything mechanical, it was probably
done for.
Hobart's funnies included road laying tanks, and the terrain of
Normandy's beaches is much more tank friendly than the east coast of
England I think.
Jamie
William Black
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:euVYd.128$5M4...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> I agree with your 'gung ho' factor. We'd have fought like trapped rats.
But
> at the end of the day I think we'd have been as effective as the Polish
> cavalry.
> Sorry, not your typical Surreyman patriotic delivery! :-))
And you're wrong as well.
1. They couldn't get ashore, the RN would sink them.
2. Assuming the RN takes the week off, they can't get anything heavier than
a 38t or a 55mm AT Gun ashore, and can't resupply those until after they
rebuild Dover and Folkestone. Dover and Folkestone will take at least a
week to rebuild (that's being optimistic) and they can bring about 48 hours
supply across with them, the second wave was designated as reinforcements
rather than resupply.
3. They then have to win the battle, the British being organised around
the nice shiny new Canadian armoured division just arrived and equipped with
Matilda II tanks. Nothing the Germans can land across the beach can knock
one out...
That's all before we start on the technical issues like getting all that
soft skin stuff across the sands and what happens when the tide comes in...
The Germans approached SEALION as a canal crossing on a large scale, it
isn't, the Allies had to develop a complete technology to get across, and
some stuff , unlike the trivial stuff like Hobart's Funnies, was seriously
nasty and huge and there were loads of them. Look up the LCT(R) . It may
now be forgotten by everyone, except those who were ever fired at by one...
nightjar
...
> One in ten with military rifles, wow,
The proportion in the probable invasion areas would have been much higher,
but the armament of the Home Guard was largely irrelevant. A few units had
specific locations to defend and that sort of duty was normally given to fit
men in reserved occupations. However, the main duty of the Home Guard was to
relieve regular troops of routine duties. There would, doubtless, have been
many valiant deeds, had there been an invasion, but nobody was in any real
doubt as to how they would fare against German assault troops. Even the Home
Guard special units, trained in sabotage and assassination, who would fight
behind enemy lines, only had two weeks' supplies. Nobody expected them to
survive longer.
> ... and the Matilda paid for its armor
> with loss of speed not to mention the failed tactical doctrine used to
> employ them. The German little MK IIs ran all around them in France.
The only way the German tanks could defeat a Matilda was to lure it into a
trap of AT guns, where its lack of an explosive shell put it at a
disadvantage. That trick could only work so often and North Africa would be
a more realistic place to look for how the Matilda would fare in battles
after France.
> The
> veteran German divisions would have gone thought he HG like crap through a
> goose.
Nobody questions that. However, it would be the regular army that faced the
Germans, not, except in a few locations, the Home Guard. The Germans would
also have to advance through coutryside that was dotted with pillboxes and
the several hundred field guns that we still had after Dunkirk.
> You have to factor in the demoralization which was infecting all
> levels of the BA after the Dunkirk.
The impression I have gained, from talking to people who were there, is
that, far from being demoralised, they were eager to show that they could do
better in the rematch. Typical is the chap I knew who, having been
evactuated from Dunkirk, obtained a transfer into the RAF, so he could
continue fighting. He even got in in time to take part in the Battle of
Britain.
> Ju87s might have been sitting ducks over
> Britain but in the Channel against major British fleet elements the story
> would have been very different. The RN understood that perfectly well and
> did not employ them there.
Nor did they ever plan to. The anti-invasion fleet consisted of 36
destroyers, a few cruisers and 1,100 smaller craft. More destroyers could be
steamed from Scapa in less than a day. The effectiveness of the Luftwaffe
against these vessels was shown at Dunkirk where, of 56 destroyers and
torpedo boats, despite having to sit stationary in the water for extended
periods, half were unscathed and only nine were sunk.
> I have wargamed this many times. The Germans would have had to have had a
> plan in place before the attack on France and executed an invasion right
> after Dunkirk. By September it would have been too late. I used four
> mountain or regular infantry divisions without their horse transport and
> the
> parachute regiment (none of them needed for the second phase in France) to
> seize a bridgehead (Isle of Wight and Kent) for advance fighter airfields
> supplied mostly by air. My main invasion was from Cherbourg using a Panzer
> Div. to Bognor Regis reinforced by the troops already on the Isle of
> Wight,
> and a second to Dover in staggered operations. It always works. The key is
> to take and maintain the initiative.
The correct term for a landing on the Isle of Wight is deathtrap, not
bridgehead. We have spent 400 years building defences against an attack on
Portsmouth and a French landing on the Isle of Wight has always been
expected as part of such an attack. The Victorian forts were built in the
expectation that they would receive plunging fire from heavy calibre navy
guns, so they have overhead protection that would be proof against the
heaviest bombs the Luftwaffe could deliver, while the side armour was
designed to be upgraded as guns incresaed in power. The island is 90 miles
from its closest supply bases and separated from the mainland by the most
heavily defended stretch of water in Britain. There is no useful port. One
of the airstrips is small, very corrugated, prone to mud patches and in a
valley with hills at both ends (and a very tall radio mast off one end these
days). The other would need to recieve a minimum of 60 successful Ju52/3m
flights needed each day, against an undefeated RAF, to keep one division
supplied. Both are within easy bombardment range of the Solent Forts and the
mainland. Where are you going to put the fighters, which will need supplies
too? I also seriously doubt that you could get a useful number of tanks
across that route. It is simply too far for the sort of vessels that could
land tanks across an open beach and if they do reach that beach, it is
mined. I think you need either a different set of rules or a more realistic
set of assumptions.
> The thing is it would never have happened. Fighting and garrisoning
> Denmark,
> Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Poland, and Britain were distractions to
> Hitler. Garrisoning Britain would have been a further drain on slender
> German resources needed to fight the USSR and Hitler knew it. The BG would
> have fought on from Northern Ireland and Canada if necessary and Hitler
> knew
> that too.
He also knew that he had to defeat the RAF before his forces had a chance to
cross the channel.
Colin Bignell
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > The Germans rigged up bow ramps to discharge tanks from river barges
The Mk II and Mk 38(t) weighed in at less than 10 tons, and the Mk III less
than 20, compared to the Centurion's nearly 52 tons. The Germans also had a
series of very effective half tracked prime movers for getting tanks out of
the mud but an effective method used in Russia was to simply put wood balks
under the tracks much like a corduroy road. I have no doubt they would have
gotten sufficient equipment landed for the purpose. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > The RN learned its lesson about operating in coastal waters within range
> of
> > German dive bombers in Norway. The Germans would have had no trouble
> > maintaining control of the air over the Pas de Calais just as they had
no
> > trouble defeating the RAF in France. The Luftwaffe was designed for
those
> > sorts of ranges. Control of the air would have meant control over the
> waters
> > of the Channel no matter what the RN did. Battalions of troops and
> > jury-rigged landing craft are replaceable. Large fleet elements are not.
A
> > battleship took five years to build and a cruiser three. Destroyers
caught
> > without air cover were cold meat to dive bombers.
>
> In reality the German invasion barges were irreplaceable in the short
term.
No, they had thousands of barges and tugs for this purpose. Modifications
were only necessary for those carrying tanks. They also had car ferries and
small cargo ships.
> The cabinet had decided to sacrifice the Home Fleet in the event of an
> invasion and the Germans had to get everything bigger than a destroyer,
> which is about ten battleships and thirty five or so cruisers and the big
> armoured deck flat tops.
>
> Because every one of them, including the carriers, carried an battery of
> guns that would sink every invasion barge they had in about an hour.
>
> They have to sink them all, every one, in a single day in the face of
every
> fighter the RAF could throw up. That's not just 'Twelve Group', but all
> the stuff stashed in the north.
>
> If they don't then their invasion fleet is so much interesting wreckage.
>
> Assuming they do get ashore with a selection of teeny tiny tanks (because
> they can't actually land anything bigger that a 38t on the beach) there's
a
> whole Canadian armoured division just nicely settled in and worked up and
> lined up waiting for them to act as the core of any defence...
>
> Oh yes, and Dover and Folkestone will both take at least a week to make
> operational, so they're out of fuel in about forty eight hours as well
> because they don't have PLUTO or the facilities to unload POL over the
beach
> in the quantities necessary either.
>
> Of course if only one of the squadron of destroyers in Dover sails through
> their invasion fleet at full speed then most of the barges capsize in the
> wake anyway...
I send in the parachute regiment (the folks who took Eban Emal) followed by
a mountain division (less its battery of 150mm guns) by air to take the Isle
of Wight. This is the same force used to take Crete against a far larger
allied force. Because it is closer than Crete, fighters based in the
Cotentin can cover the air transports easily. There is little doubt the
island would be rapidly taken and a forward fighter base set up. At the same
time I take Thornley Island with its Coastal Command base. This creates a
fixed, easily defended objective for the RAF (like a moth to the flame) to
counter. RAF fighter losses begin to mount *without having to attack far
inland out of fighter range*. Let them come to me which is what military
initiative is all about. Brits then move forces to the area to counter. It
is a useful feint.
The next phase comes in a night crossing several weeks later at the Pas de
Calais and includes only an assault element of infantry without transport or
heavy guns (German infantry regiments had their own battery of light
infantry guns in addition to mortars and AT guns). The objective is to take
a smallish port and focus opposition. By day the Channel is patrolled by
dive bombers to escort the few transports bringing in support elements and
supplies gradually bringing up the strength in Kent to two full infantry
divs (without transport). The land situation becomes rapidly static,
essentially a siege. The RN is left to decide to intervene or not. If they
do, Boom. Submarines are stationed to attack any British fleet elements in
the area. The RAF must respond taking steady losses. Remember there are few
targets. The invasion isn't from a huge invasion fleet but in bits and
pieces over time and partly by air. This landing is also a useful feint.
The next phase is in Sussex West of Bognor Regis days later by assault
elements of infantry and lead elements of a panzer division. The crossing is
made at night in an area with no prior surface contacts with a landing at
dawn and drive inland. Heavier elements are landed hours later after beaches
are secured. Total force one infantry and a panzer division. Infantry takes
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, panzers take Chichester. These units are the
first which require heavy resupply. Aircraft have been shifted prior to
cover from the Cotentin. The second night brings over another infantry
division and supplies. Infantry, joined by the para Bn from Thornley, takes
Portsmouth, panzers drive on Southampton from the southeast. The Brits are
now aware this is the greatest threat and shift forces yet again to
adjust......... except that it isn't the real threat.
Phase four is the landing of a panzer division in Kent several days later
with re-supply for the infantry already there and their heavy equipment
making them mobile. This is the force which is most easily supported by air
and will be reinforced. The attack on Southampton never evolves. It too is a
feint. Once Portsmouth is secured, the mountain div and paras are brought
forward from the Isle of Wight creating a force of three infantry divs and a
panzer div plus one para regt. A mountain bde is left to garrison Wight,
Thornley, Bognor Regis and Chichester. The main force attacks east to join
with force attacking out of Kent which is reinforced by another panzer
division loading out of Belgium, again several days later. At any point any
of these could be shifted in priority simply by moving air cover and
support/re-supply. The goal isn't to take Britain but to destroy the RN and
sucker Stalin. Troops in Britain are later withdrawn after wrecking the
southern ports (asymmetric non-linear warfare or how to defeat a navy when
you don't have one of your own). -the Troll
Vaughan Sanders
>
> "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
>
snip
I used to ride a horse on where the Land Rover got stuck, some parts of
the estuary the Blackwater for example you could be up to your waste in
mud.
Basically even in the solid areas, Thanet sand rather than mud, if you
jump up and down on the surface you can very quickly turn it into a
quick-sand and boy has it got some suction when you do get stuck.
I was down there one day when a some clown got a Citroen 2CV stuck, he
came up to me and said, "you have a 4x4 will you pull me out", the
second word of my answer was off :-)) -- we went out and picked it up by
hand.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
Here's the OF text of your quote.
La Chanson de Roland circa 1090.
"Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
Mur ne citet n'i est remes a fraindre,
Fors Sarraguce, ki est en une muntaigne. "
"Charles the King, our Lord and Sovereign,
Full seven years hath sojourned in Spain,
Conquered the land, and won the western main,
Now no fortress against him doth remain,
No city walls are left for him to gain,
Save Sarraguce, that sits on high mountain."
I doubt Charlemagne would have even understood that, but Alcuin's Latin
would have probably been able to understand Charlemange's OF.
(Le Serment de Strasbourg circa 842)
Louis the German (in Old French):
"Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro comun salvament, d'ist di
in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist
meon fradre Karlo, et in adjudha et in cadhuna cosa si cum om per dreit
son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il mi altresi fazet; et ab Ludher nul
plaid nunquam prindrai qui meon vol cist meon fradre Karlo in damno
sit."
Late Latin translation:
"Pro Dei amore et pro Christiano poplo et nostro communi salvamento, de
ista die in abante, in quantum Deus sapere et potire mî donat, sic
salvaro ego eccistum meum fratrem Karlum, et in adjutum ero in quâque
una cosa sic quomodo homo per derectum suum fratrem salvare debet, in
hoc quid ille mî alterumsic faceret; et ab Lothario nullum placitum
numquam prendero quod meo volle eccisti meo fratri Karlo in damno sit."
Btw, Michael Howard's granddad didn't invade Wales with fleets of
Romanian speakers, or his descendants call on fleets of Romanian
speakers from the homeland to secure their Dukedom of Wales.
So exactly what comparison has Howard or Portillo to the history of
Normandy in circa 1066?
Jamie
D. Spencer Hines
Black The Red completely forgot about the German U-boats.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:ONCdnXMET_N...@giganews.com...
---------------
DSH
William Black
> I send in the parachute regiment (the folks who took Eban Emal) followed
by
> a mountain division (less its battery of 150mm guns) by air to take the
Isle
> of Wight.
You do realise that this is probably the most heavily defended piece of real
estate outside Western Russia?
Have you ever been in any of the defences built for the Portsmouth area?
They're vast, strong and mostly underground. There's a very nasty canal
crossing over a canal designed not to be crossable and with ready built
defences.
The Isle of Wight is a prison...
> The next phase comes in a night crossing several weeks later at the Pas de
> Calais and includes only an assault element of infantry without transport
or
> heavy guns (German infantry regiments had their own battery of light
> infantry guns in addition to mortars and AT guns).
That would be fun. The RN had radar directed gunnery, an agressive attitude
to night fighting and a record of wins.
The objective is to take
> a smallish port and focus opposition.
All the ports were mined. Any port that is taken will need to be rebuilt.
By day the Channel is patrolled by
> dive bombers to escort the few transports bringing in support elements and
> supplies gradually bringing up the strength in Kent to two full infantry
> divs (without transport). The land situation becomes rapidly static,
> essentially a siege. The RN is left to decide to intervene or not. If they
> do, Boom. Submarines are stationed to attack any British fleet elements in
> the area.
The Germans in WWII had what are best described as 'mixed results' when
engaging fleet elements with submarines.
They get one shot as the fleet sails past at 23 knots, then they get depth
charged.
Your strategy depends on the Royal Navy being both paralysed and helpless in
the face of a submarine force that didn't have good results against fleet
elements when at sea and prepared and a dive bomber force that had never
sunk a major fleet element and didn't have that many armour piercing bombs.
The RN, as a general rule, doesn't do 'paralysed'.
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:891Zd.1120$uC2....@eagle.america.net...
> Thoughtful, Provocative And Compelling.
>
> Black The Red completely forgot about the German U-boats.
No I didn't.
Seven knots submerged, the Home Fleet did 23 knots when on operational
duties.
They get one shot.
Or do you expect them to surface and engage by gunfire?
This isn't a North Atlantic convey with two 'Flower class' escorts on some
wild and stormy night, the Germans are crossing using Rhine barges, they
need calm weather and low winds.
The Home Fleet, probably in three squadrons, possibly each with an
accompanying flat top, and including two battleships, six to ten cruisers
and a dozen or two destroyers each is thundering down from Scotland.
Assuming the Germans can find them, because German submarines don't have
radar at this stage, and can engage, how many can they sink?
If they only get 90% they've failed.
A single cruiser in amongst the invasion fleet wins the day for the British.
D. Spencer Hines
All the German U-boats would not be stationed in one place. They would
be spread out at key, shifting, points throughout the Channel.
"You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a
destroyer travelling through it at twenty knots."
Black The Red
Hilarious!
Even MORE twaddle.
When land "recreators" -- such as Black The Red -- try to play Admiral
rather than General they become even MORE ridiculous -- that's one of
Gans's greatest failings as well.
D. Spencer Hines
All the German U-boats would not be stationed in one place. They would
be spread out at key, shifting, points throughout the Channel.
"You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a
destroyer travelling through it at twenty knots."
Black The Red
Hilarious!
Even MORE twaddle.
When land "recreators" -- such as Black The Red -- try to play Admiral
rather than General they become even MORE ridiculous -- that's one of
Gans's greatest failings as well.
D. Spencer Hines
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:d12a3i$h35$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:891Zd.1120$uC2....@eagle.america.net...
>> Thoughtful, Provocative And Compelling.
>>
>> Black The Red completely forgot about the German U-boats.
>
> No I didn't.
>
> Seven knots submerged, the Home Fleet did 23 knots when on operational
> duties.
>
> They get one shot.
>
> Or do you expect them to surface and engage by gunfire?
>
> This isn't a North Atlantic convey with two 'Flower class' escorts on some
> wild and stormy night, the Germans are crossing using Rhine barges, they
> need calm weather and low winds.
>
> The Home Fleet, probably in three squadrons, possibly each with an
> accompanying flat top, and including two battleships, six to ten cruisers
> and a dozen or two destroyers each is thundering down from Scotland.
>
> Assuming the Germans can find them, because German submarines don't have
> radar at this stage, and can engage, how many can they sink?
>
> If they only get 90% they've failed.
>
> A single cruiser in amongst the invasion fleet wins the day for the
> British.
Don't forget the Luftwaffe and what they did to the Royal Navy a bit later
during Crete's siege.
Arkadiusz
nightjar
...
> I send in the parachute regiment (the folks who took Eban Emal) followed
> by
> a mountain division (less its battery of 150mm guns) by air to take the
> Isle
> of Wight. This is the same force used to take Crete against a far larger
> allied force. Because it is closer than Crete, fighters based in the
> Cotentin can cover the air transports easily. There is little doubt the
> island would be rapidly taken and a forward fighter base set up.
There is considerable doubt, for the reasons given in another post from me.
In brief, we have always known that any attack on Portsmouth would involve
an attempt to take the Isle of Wight and the defences were built
accordingly. The guns in the Solent forts and on the mainland would make
short work of any airfield you tried to set up.
> At the same
> time I take Thornley Island with its Coastal Command base.
Do you mean Thorney Island?
> This creates a
> fixed, easily defended objective for the RAF (like a moth to the flame) to
> counter.
Except that you wouldn't capture the airfield intact. Demolition charges
under the runway were standard for all airfields at this time. Even if you
did, there is no need for the RAF to get involved. A few of the 420 field
guns and 156 medium and heavy guns we still had can easily pound the base
into the ground from nearby Hayling Island.
...
> The next phase comes in a night crossing several weeks later at the Pas de
> Calais and includes only an assault element of infantry without transport
> or
> heavy guns (German infantry regiments had their own battery of light
> infantry guns in addition to mortars and AT guns).
A small force will be cut to pieces by the shore batteries and if they don't
get them, some of the 700 anti-invasion patrol boats will. There is one week
each month when the tide is right for a landing and we also know when that
is.
> The objective is to take
> a smallish port and focus opposition.
Like the airfield, the port will be demolished, rather than allow it to be
taken.
> By day the Channel is patrolled by
> dive bombers to escort the few transports bringing in support elements and
> supplies gradually bringing up the strength in Kent to two full infantry
> divs (without transport).
Dive bombers really are not much use against MTBs, which are fast,
manouverable and have AA machine guns. The surviving transports will be
lucky if they find anybody left to greet them when they arrive, as quick
counter-attack was the backbone of anti-invasion policy. We still have
around 400 light tanks available, which would be more than adequate to
support an attack on infantry that has no armour support.
> The land situation becomes rapidly static,
> essentially a siege. The RN is left to decide to intervene or not. If they
> do, Boom. Submarines are stationed to attack any British fleet elements in
> the area.
Seven submarines were stationed to attack the Dunkirk evacuation fleet.
There is no record of them having any effect whatsoever.
> The RAF must respond taking steady losses. Remember there are few
> targets. The invasion isn't from a huge invasion fleet but in bits and
> pieces over time and partly by air. This landing is also a useful feint.
You are now in the realms of fantasy, because the small elements you have
sent in have all been eliminated.
> The next phase is in Sussex West of Bognor Regis days later by assault
> elements of infantry and lead elements of a panzer division. The crossing
> is
> made at night in an area with no prior surface contacts with a landing at
> dawn and drive inland.
Again, you are completely ignoring the routine anti-invasion patrols. The
force would not be able to avoid contact and Destroyers would be despatched
to deal with it.
> Heavier elements are landed hours later after beaches
> are secured. Total force one infantry and a panzer division. Infantry
> takes
> Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, panzers take Chichester.
I have to wonder why? To take Littlehampton, they would have to cross the
second fastest river in Britain, with no bridges (the only two would have
been blown if it looked like the enemy might take them) and they would have
had to defend with that river at their back. The port has never had any
heavy unloading equipment, because the sand bar at the river mouth restricts
the draft of vessels that can enter. Chichester has no strategic advantage
of any kind that I can see.
> These units are the
> first which require heavy resupply. Aircraft have been shifted prior to
> cover from the Cotentin. The second night brings over another infantry
> division and supplies. Infantry, joined by the para Bn from Thornley,
> takes
> Portsmouth,
You would need a much bigger force to take Portsmouth. It is defended by a
ring of forts, built to repel the French. They have heavy guns, with good
overhead cover and deep earth banks around the walls. Even if you are
relying on the mythical demoralisation of the Army, the Portsmouth defences
are manned by the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. If you get past them,
you still have the next line of defences and, after that, the town defences.
We have been fortifying this place for 400 years.
> panzers drive on Southampton from the southeast.
They don't, because they never got past Portsmouth.
> The Brits are
> now aware this is the greatest threat and shift forces yet again to
> adjust......... except that it isn't the real threat.
>
> Phase four is the landing of a panzer division in Kent several days later
You've probably lost the tide if you wait that long.
>... The goal isn't to take Britain but to destroy the RN and
> sucker Stalin. Troops in Britain are later withdrawn after wrecking the
> southern ports (asymmetric non-linear warfare or how to defeat a navy when
> you don't have one of your own).
We didn't use the southern ports much, because they were too close to the
enemy and could easily be bombed. You certainly are not going to destroy the
Royal Navy, because most of it is not in home waters and the Home Fleet is
based in Scapa.
Colin Bignell
John Dean
> of York could have read it?
>
> Jamie
Bizarro trick of the clipboard. Shoulda been:
Carle li reis, nostre emperere magnes,
Set anz tuz pleins ad estét en Espaigne:
Tresque'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
Mur ne citét n'i est remés a fraindre
Fors Sarraguce, k'est en une muntaigne.
--
John Dean
Oxford
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
martin...@tiscali.co.uk (martin reboul) wrote:
> I daresay massive airborne assaults were part of the plan,
There were only the troops for one massive airborne assault and I
doubt if the result would have been better than Crete. Of course as
has been pointed out this has been discussed ad-nauseum on
soc.history.what-if.
Among other points the Wermacht and the Kriegsmarine had drawn up
incompatible plans. The only thing they could agree on was that the
Luftwaffe had to eliminate the RAF. This was impossible. The RAF bases
in the Midlands and the North were out of range of German fighters
based in France. The landing zones on the other hand were in range of
just about all the RAF bases. There is also the problem that British
fighter production was higher than the attrition rate, though there
were bottle-necks in pilot training. Of course as the fighting was
over Britain RAF personal losses were lower than German ones.
Sealion has been wargamed at Sandhurst. To make it interesting the
Germans had to be given a 24 hour start without interference by the RN
or the RAF. In spite of this the result was a German loss every time.
It's not just the problem of the initial landing, it is supplying the
troops once they landed.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(hippo) wrote:
> The Germans would have had to have had a
> plan in place before the attack on France and executed an invasion
> right after Dunkirk. By September it would have been too late.
I am curious about what magic method you use to get the Germans over
the Channel, and keep them supplied. I am also wondering what the rest
of the French army was doing while the major German forces were
shipped to Britain. The immediate priority after Dunkirk were the
French troops in the South of France.
> My main invasion was from Cherbourg using a Panzer
> Div. to Bognor Regis reinforced by the troops already on the Isle
> of Wight, and a second to Dover in staggered operations.
Bognor Regis is not a port, it is a watering place. As for Dover, the
possibility of an invasion of Britain had been appreciated since
Anglo-Saxon times. It had also been clear since Napoleon that any
major invasion would require seizing a port. The outcome of this was a
systematic building of coastal defences at every major port. These had
been progressively upgraded since and included protection against land
attack. In addition to this the war emergency program had mined and
built beech defences on anywhere remotely suitable for a landing.
The major problem however is that you are ignoring the RN and RAF.
Geoffrey Sinclair
>Twaddle....
>
>All the German U-boats would not be stationed in one place. They would
>be spread out at key, shifting, points throughout the Channel.
In other words an effective pseudo random patrol to counter the
RN pseudo random patrols, not exactly a formula for success.
And the U-boats needed to be outside the channel to intercept
incoming RN ships, not in the middle of the invasion convoys area.
There were 57 U-boats in August 1940, the same number as in
September 1939. Of these 27 were front line, 10 were undergoing
trials or training and 20 were designated training boats.
The 27 front line boats figure is comparable to the 29 boats figure
the USN had in the Philippines in 1940, but some, around 4, of the
USN boats were being refitted when the war began. Those USN
submarines did not have much effect.
So assuming the Kriegsmarine stops the training system for the
crucial period then it can have around 47 boats to block both
sides of the channel as a maximum effort surge. The blocking
forces minimal distance to cover is the Dover-Calais line and the
Cherbourg-Weymouth line.
However leaving the convoy routes means the RN can allocate the
convoy escorts to anti invasion. It also means giving up the attempt
to stop the supplies from North America in particular coming through.
And North America represented the only place where Britain could
find any sort of ready to use weapons that could possibly be available
in time for a September invasion.
In August 1940, counting ships under repair and training, the RN had
some 91 modern and 73 older destroyers, 6 hunt class destroyers and
57 ocean going anti submarine escorts.
The u-boats sank around 460,000 GRT of shipping August and
September 1940.
WWII submarines made poor defensive ships, the warships were
usually much faster, and concentrating in an area threw away the
submarines best defensive asset, the difficulty of finding it.
If the U-boats are supposed to be able to significantly attrition off
the RN in September 1940 I assume the same rules will be applied
to the RN submarines operating in the same area? So as the
U-boats sink many RN ships the RN submarines sink many of the
larger invasion ships? The RN had some 49 submarines in August 1940.
>"You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a
>destroyer travelling through it at twenty knots."
>
>Black The Red
>
>Hilarious!
>
>Even MORE twaddle.
Interesting concept of twaddle, the invasion force consisted of many
river barges and many unpowered craft. It should be noted that even
some of the allied specialised landing craft were not considered
suitable to cross the channel on their own in 1944.
The September 1940 fleet consisted of something like 142 steamers,
1,939 barges, 422 tug boats, 944 motorboats and a small number of
Siebel ferries. Each tug and steamer would tow two barges. The
unpowered barges would be towed at high speed towards the beaches
by motor boats which would release the tow close enough to shore
for the barge to ground without broaching while enabling the motor
boat to avoid running aground. By the way many of the motor boats
were small enough to be using outboard motors.
The entire system was close to guaranteeing no organised beach
assault could take place. Running a pack of destroyers through an
invasion convoy, cutting tow lines, disabling the towing craft would
have ensured this. Then the barges, with minimal freeboard could
almost be left to the channel waves and currents, even the powered
ones tended to have a top speed less than the currents could reach.
The wash of high speed ships would have been dangerous to many
of the loaded barges.
>When land "recreators" -- such as Black The Red -- try to play Admiral
>rather than General they become even MORE ridiculous -- that's one of
>Gans's greatest failings as well.
Ah, the standard gratuitous insult.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
hippo
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> In article (hippo) wrote:
> > The Germans would have had to have had a
> > plan in place before the attack on France and executed an invasion
> > right after Dunkirk. By September it would have been too late.
>
> I am curious about what magic method you use to get the Germans over
> the Channel, and keep them supplied. I am also wondering what the rest
> of the French army was doing while the major German forces were
> shipped to Britain. The immediate priority after Dunkirk were the
> French troops in the South of France.
The remainder of the French Army was insignificant. It had no offensive
capability and only a limited defensive one as was proven in subsequent
operations. Only very few troops would have been needed initially for an
invasion of Britain. In my wargaming I used one mountain division, the
parachute regiment, and two horse drawn infantry divisions without their
horse transport.
> > My main invasion was from Cherbourg using a Panzer
> > Div. to Bognor Regis reinforced by the troops already on the Isle
> > of Wight, and a second to Dover in staggered operations.
>
> Bognor Regis is not a port, it is a watering place. As for Dover, the
> possibility of an invasion of Britain had been appreciated since
> Anglo-Saxon times. It had also been clear since Napoleon that any
> major invasion would require seizing a port. The outcome of this was a
> systematic building of coastal defences at every major port. These had
> been progressively upgraded since and included protection against land
> attack. In addition to this the war emergency program had mined and
> built beech defences on anywhere remotely suitable for a landing.
The German Army expected to encounter defenses. Armies are in the business
of overcoming defenses. They did fairly well in Holland, Belgium, and
France. More important the area to the west of Bognor Regis is a very large
beach which was under-populated at the time, 14 miles of beach.
> The major problem however is that you are ignoring the RN and RAF.
Not at all. -the Troll
hippo
"nightjar .uk.com>" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > One in ten with military rifles, wow,
>
> The proportion in the probable invasion areas would have been much higher,
> but the armament of the Home Guard was largely irrelevant. A few units had
> specific locations to defend and that sort of duty was normally given to
fit
> men in reserved occupations. However, the main duty of the Home Guard was
to
> relieve regular troops of routine duties. There would, doubtless, have
been
> many valiant deeds, had there been an invasion, but nobody was in any real
> doubt as to how they would fare against German assault troops. Even the
Home
> Guard special units, trained in sabotage and assassination, who would
fight
> behind enemy lines, only had two weeks' supplies. Nobody expected them to
> survive longer.
Yup.
It wasn't the soldier who was demoralized but the command on all levels. The
Germans in the west were outnumbered in every category of field units and
equipment and handed the allies a smashing defeat in record time. The
command hadn't figured out how it happened or how to combat it. Paralysis
effects commands at such times. Remember there had been a defeat in Norway
earlier in the spring.
> > Ju87s might have been sitting ducks over
> > Britain but in the Channel against major British fleet elements the
story
> > would have been very different. The RN understood that perfectly well
and
> > did not employ them there.
>
> Nor did they ever plan to. The anti-invasion fleet consisted of 36
> destroyers, a few cruisers and 1,100 smaller craft. More destroyers could
be
> steamed from Scapa in less than a day. The effectiveness of the Luftwaffe
> against these vessels was shown at Dunkirk where, of 56 destroyers and
> torpedo boats, despite having to sit stationary in the water for extended
> periods, half were unscathed and only nine were sunk.
That's because the Luftwaffe was engaged against the BA. The RN was not a
threat to the campaign in France while the British army potentially was.
Landing on the Isle of Wight would not be a bridgehead in the usual sense.
Almost all troops would be brought in by air as in Crete. The parachute
regiment by parachute and a mountain division by air landing over time. A
dozen fighters based there would be all that would have been needed. The
Victorian forts would have been useless and taken from the land side.
Maintaining aerial supremacy would have been a lot easier for the Luftwaffe
than defending bombers penetrating hundreds of miles from the coast. The
idea is to force the RAF to react to your strengths.
> > The thing is it would never have happened. Fighting and garrisoning
> > Denmark,
> > Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Poland, and Britain were distractions
to
> > Hitler. Garrisoning Britain would have been a further drain on slender
> > German resources needed to fight the USSR and Hitler knew it. The BG
would
> > have fought on from Northern Ireland and Canada if necessary and Hitler
> > knew
> > that too.
>
> He also knew that he had to defeat the RAF before his forces had a chance
to
> cross the channel.
Yes, and I have outlined the way to do it. You put on a good show and hope
they believe you are really invading. -the Troll
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
Chuckle, I had a VW jeep as a kid in college and we did the same when it
finally got stuck after the sixth pass over a beach motorcycle course. The
objective had been to scare the pants off of several gents at a party who
had made disparaging remarks about my wheels. I did. You should have told
the fellow that he had two horses while you only had one. The problem with
the 2CV, or course, is that it is French. -the Troll
hippo
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
> Thoughtful, Provocative And Compelling.
>
> Black The Red completely forgot about the German U-boats.
There were not more than about 50 at the time. The idea is to focus the
enemy navy where you want them to be and set up a shooting gallery. Even the
German type II boats (coastal) would have been useful. Offensive mines would
also be useful. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > I send in the parachute regiment (the folks who took Eban Emal) followed
> by
> > a mountain division (less its battery of 150mm guns) by air to take the
> Isle
> > of Wight.
>
> You do realise that this is probably the most heavily defended piece of
real
> estate outside Western Russia?
>
> Have you ever been in any of the defences built for the Portsmouth area?
> They're vast, strong and mostly underground. There's a very nasty canal
> crossing over a canal designed not to be crossable and with ready built
> defences.
>
> The Isle of Wight is a prison...
I have seen them. They were designed in the Victorian era to defeat a naval
threat and were of no use against aircraft or a modern army from the rear.
Remember the idea isn't to defeat Britain but to present a credible
appearance of threat. Announcing the capture of the place would be a shock
to defenders elsewhere and far more important than its actual worth. My unts
there would have to live off the land, more or less, but no one in London
would know that.
> > The next phase comes in a night crossing several weeks later at the Pas
de
> > Calais and includes only an assault element of infantry without
transport
> or
> > heavy guns (German infantry regiments had their own battery of light
> > infantry guns in addition to mortars and AT guns).
>
> That would be fun. The RN had radar directed gunnery, an agressive
attitude
> to night fighting and a record of wins.
We aren't talking about a large invasion force or a predictable timetable or
location. The RN would mostly be watching the Isle of Wight where there has
been a landing and daylight dive bomber attacks, mines, and submarines would
have thinned the RN destroyer force by then.
> The objective is to take
> > a smallish port and focus opposition.
>
> All the ports were mined. Any port that is taken will need to be rebuilt.
I do not intend to use the port for major operations. The idea is to focus
British opposition as I said.
> By day the Channel is patrolled by
> > dive bombers to escort the few transports bringing in support elements
and
> > supplies gradually bringing up the strength in Kent to two full infantry
> > divs (without transport). The land situation becomes rapidly static,
> > essentially a siege. The RN is left to decide to intervene or not. If
they
> > do, Boom. Submarines are stationed to attack any British fleet elements
in
> > the area.
>
> The Germans in WWII had what are best described as 'mixed results' when
> engaging fleet elements with submarines.
>
> They get one shot as the fleet sails past at 23 knots, then they get
depth
> charged.
>
> Your strategy depends on the Royal Navy being both paralysed and helpless
in
> the face of a submarine force that didn't have good results against fleet
> elements when at sea and prepared and a dive bomber force that had never
> sunk a major fleet element and didn't have that many armour piercing
bombs.
>
> The RN, as a general rule, doesn't do 'paralyzed.
No, the idea is for them to come where I want them to be and concentrate my
limited assets against them. In this instance I wouldn't want the RN to be
paralyzed. I would want them to come to my party and dance. Asymmetric
warfare, remember? Between twenty German subs, several hundred bombers,
twenty or so MTBs out of Belgium, and aerial mines dropped in the right
places I think the old RN light forces could have been handed a very bloody
nose over a month or so *If* the Germans could have put up a credible
threat. -the Troll
hippo
"nightjar .uk.com>" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > I send in the parachute regiment (the folks who took Eban Emal) followed
> > by
> > a mountain division (less its battery of 150mm guns) by air to take the
> > Isle
> > of Wight. This is the same force used to take Crete against a far larger
> > allied force. Because it is closer than Crete, fighters based in the
> > Cotentin can cover the air transports easily. There is little doubt the
> > island would be rapidly taken and a forward fighter base set up.
>
> There is considerable doubt, for the reasons given in another post from
me.
> In brief, we have always known that any attack on Portsmouth would involve
> an attempt to take the Isle of Wight and the defences were built
> accordingly. The guns in the Solent forts and on the mainland would make
> short work of any airfield you tried to set up.
Yes they would if they knew where it was and before I took Portsmouth from
the rear. The air base isn't important in any case.
> > At the same
> > time I take Thornley Island with its Coastal Command base.
>
> Do you mean Thorney Island?
Yup, it's been many years since I wargamed this.
> > This creates a
> > fixed, easily defended objective for the RAF (like a moth to the flame)
to
> > counter.
>
> Except that you wouldn't capture the airfield intact. Demolition charges
> under the runway were standard for all airfields at this time. Even if you
> did, there is no need for the RAF to get involved. A few of the 420 field
> guns and 156 medium and heavy guns we still had can easily pound the base
> into the ground from nearby Hayling Island.
Ah but the RAF would have gotten involved. How could it not? London doesn't
know this is a fake invasion. Airfields, as such, were not necessary.
Fighters of the day used grass strips and so did the old reliable JU52.
Cratering a dirt field does little harm. The Bn to take Thorney Island would
be dropped by parachute.
...
> > The next phase comes in a night crossing several weeks later at the Pas
de
> > Calais and includes only an assault element of infantry without
transport
> > or
> > heavy guns (German infantry regiments had their own battery of light
> > infantry guns in addition to mortars and AT guns).
>
> A small force will be cut to pieces by the shore batteries and if they
don't
> get them, some of the 700 anti-invasion patrol boats will. There is one
week
> each month when the tide is right for a landing and we also know when that
> is.
This isn't a capital 'L' landing like 'D' day. There are no large targets,
and it would be at night. The landing would have no heavy equipment to
require specialized transports. The patrol boats would be a problem except
that they would be mostly elsewhere or reduced by aerial attack earlier as
would the shore batteries have been. The Luftwaffe had a nice penetrating
bomb for the purpose of taking out fortifications.
> > The objective is to take
> > a smallish port and focus opposition.
>
> Like the airfield, the port will be demolished, rather than allow it to be
> taken.
No problem. This isn't a real invasion, remember? The idea would be that a
port has been taken and so noted in London. It is hoped that the government
would send in the fleet which is what all of this is about.
> > By day the Channel is patrolled by
> > dive bombers to escort the few transports bringing in support elements
and
> > supplies gradually bringing up the strength in Kent to two full infantry
> > divs (without transport).
>
> Dive bombers really are not much use against MTBs, which are fast,
> manouverable and have AA machine guns. The surviving transports will be
> lucky if they find anybody left to greet them when they arrive, as quick
> counter-attack was the backbone of anti-invasion policy. We still have
> around 400 light tanks available, which would be more than adequate to
> support an attack on infantry that has no armour support.
Dive bombers had 20mm canon which are deadly against MTBs as are fighters.
The AA capabilities of MTBs at this stage in the war were negligible. The
hope would be for a counter attack by the RAF and the RN. The remaining
tanks would be off-loading at Southampton by this time presumably. Remember
this is a staged affair.
> > The land situation becomes rapidly static,
> > essentially a siege. The RN is left to decide to intervene or not. If
they
> > do, Boom. Submarines are stationed to attack any British fleet elements
in
> > the area.
>
> Seven submarines were stationed to attack the Dunkirk evacuation fleet.
> There is no record of them having any effect whatsoever.
I would plan ahead and have 20 or more in place. Dunkirk took the Germans by
surprise. They would be in place to attack warships, not wee transports and
fishing boats.
> > The RAF must respond taking steady losses. Remember there are few
> > targets. The invasion isn't from a huge invasion fleet but in bits and
> > pieces over time and partly by air. This landing is also a useful feint.
>
> You are now in the realms of fantasy, because the small elements you have
> sent in have all been eliminated.
Nah. The reinforced division on Wight has taken the place and Thorny Island.
The several brigades in Kent have taken a wee port and are holding on by
their teeth supported by the Luftwaffe. The RAF is now hemorrhaging in
fighter strength, the Channel bottom is newly floored with HM destroyers
which had been running back and forth between the two threatened areas not
knowing where the real threat was.
> > The next phase is in Sussex West of Bognor Regis days later by assault
> > elements of infantry and lead elements of a panzer division. The
crossing
> > is
> > made at night in an area with no prior surface contacts with a landing
at
> > dawn and drive inland.
>
> Again, you are completely ignoring the routine anti-invasion patrols. The
> force would not be able to avoid contact and Destroyers would be
despatched
> to deal with it.
The landing would be over in less than an hour. This is no big fleet deal
and the destroyers would presumably be off the Pas de Calais where there are
German MTBs and subs reported.
> > Heavier elements are landed hours later after beaches
> > are secured. Total force one infantry and a panzer division. Infantry
> > takes
> > Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, panzers take Chichester.
>
> I have to wonder why? To take Littlehampton, they would have to cross the
> second fastest river in Britain, with no bridges (the only two would have
> been blown if it looked like the enemy might take them) and they would
have
> had to defend with that river at their back. The port has never had any
> heavy unloading equipment, because the sand bar at the river mouth
restricts
> the draft of vessels that can enter. Chichester has no strategic advantage
> of any kind that I can see.
Chichester will connect the two parts of the invasion area once Portsmouth
is taken later on. If I don't take it my force is permanently divided.
Bognor Regis is far enough inland. I shouldn't get greedy.
> > These units are the
> > first which require heavy resupply. Aircraft have been shifted prior to
> > cover from the Cotentin. The second night brings over another infantry
> > division and supplies. Infantry, joined by the para Bn from Thornley,
> > takes
> > Portsmouth,
>
> You would need a much bigger force to take Portsmouth. It is defended by a
> ring of forts, built to repel the French. They have heavy guns, with good
> overhead cover and deep earth banks around the walls. Even if you are
> relying on the mythical demoralisation of the Army, the Portsmouth
defences
> are manned by the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. If you get past them,
> you still have the next line of defences and, after that, the town
defences.
> We have been fortifying this place for 400 years.
I have seen the fortifications and they were obsolete and had no landward
defenses even approaching those of the Dutch, Belgians, or French. One
German div. supported by the Luftwaffe is more than sufficient to take the
place from the land side. The thing is it would be a surprise move and
exactly why I'd do it. Think of the consternation if the place were to fall.
> > panzers drive on Southampton from the southeast.
>
> They don't, because they never got past Portsmouth.
The infantry is dealing with Portsmouth and it is a fake attack. It just has
to look good.
> > The Brits are
> > now aware this is the greatest threat and shift forces yet again to
> > adjust......... except that it isn't the real threat.
> >
> > Phase four is the landing of a panzer division in Kent several days
later
>
> You've probably lost the tide if you wait that long.
Nope, we didn't care about the tide for the first landing.
> >... The goal isn't to take Britain but to destroy the RN and
> > sucker Stalin. Troops in Britain are later withdrawn after wrecking the
> > southern ports (asymmetric non-linear warfare or how to defeat a navy
when
> > you don't have one of your own).
>
> We didn't use the southern ports much, because they were too close to the
> enemy and could easily be bombed. You certainly are not going to destroy
the
> Royal Navy, because most of it is not in home waters and the Home Fleet is
> based in Scapa.
Suckering Uncle Joe is the big objective. Portsmouth had building and repair
yards, not much I grant you, but something anyway. The thing is the
Luftwaffe hasn't been flying unescorted all over Britain loosing aircraft
and pilots. The bombers would have mostly been supporting the army well
within fighter range of France or working over destroyers in the Channel and
the fighters would have, by this time, severely dented the total available
supply of RAF pilots and planes. Once Germany had aerial superiority over
the south of England it would be safe to pull the few divisions out once
they have done their destruction. Think of it as a big army raid to sink as
many destroyers as possible and try to lure in the Home Fleet. A few land
victories with London threatened and who knows if the HF would have been
sent into the Channel. -the Troll
a.spencer3
But via Bognor? Which 14-mile beach is that? West of Bognor is Portsmouth &
Chichester Harbours - a bit defended!
Surreyman
William Black
> Twaddle....
>
> All the German U-boats would not be stationed in one place. They would
> be spread out at key, shifting, points throughout the Channel.
That's fine if you're after a nice slow nine knot convoy that can be caught
up over a couple of days, they're not, they want to engage a battle fleet
travelling at 23 knots which is expecting to fight a fleet action and is
closed up ready.
U-boats on the surface in the North Sea are dead meat, submerged they're
too slow.
The Germans have to concentrate or they run out of torpedoes even if they
sink a capital unit with every shot.
The two dozen or so operational U-boats need to be exactly where the fleet
is or they get washed away. I don't know what the hit rate was for U-boats
in 1940, but if half hit and sink a ship (which sounds high) they still
can't kill enough Royal Navy ships.
> "You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a
> destroyer travelling through it at twenty knots."
>
> Black The Red
>
> Hilarious!
>
> Even MORE twaddle.
Nope.
Most of the German invasion fleet was made up of low freeboard towed Rhine
barges. Look up just how much freeboard they have. They sink if the swell
is much over two feet high.
Good grief, you're a retired naval officer, can't you see what rubbish
you're talking...
Jayne
torpedoes.
At this stage in the war, the German G7e torpedo had problems with its
internal depth-keeping equipment (it ran about 6 feet deeper than it
should!), and its firing pistol (they exploded prematurely). In the
Norweigan campaign (roughly the time we are talking about), 30-35% of
torps were failures. Another point is that the warhead wasn't big
enough. An analysis of the best period of German U-boat (1942) attacks
shows that torpedoes only sank 40% of ships with a single torpedo. The
rest had either required two or more, or had escaped after one or
multiple hits.
Ian Dalziel
a.spencer3
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:e71b31hecgsq5ntlu...@4ax.com...
I don't need a map, I live quite close.
I still see no 14-mile beach west of Bognor.
Surreyman
Vaughan Sanders
snip
>
> Bizarro trick of the clipboard. Shoulda been:
>
> Carle li reis, nostre emperere magnes,
> Set anz tuz pleins ad estét en Espaigne:
> Tresque'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
> N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;
> Mur ne citét n'i est remés a fraindre
> Fors Sarraguce, k'est en une muntaigne.
>
>
> --
> John Dean
> Oxford
>
No contemporary source mentions the Song of Roland at Hastings in 1066,
the first to mention it is the 12th century Gesta regum Anglorum of
William of Malmesbury.
"Then beginning the song of Roland, that the warlike example of that man
might stimulate the soldiers; and calling on God for assistance, the
battle commenced on both sides".
Rivet (Histoire littereraire de la France vii, 72) infers from this
passage that the "langue Romane" was in use at that period.
La Chanson de Roland was known to Malmesbury and Wace in the 12th
century, but its 1090 date puts a bit of a question mark on its use at
Hastings by William the Conqueror or Taillefer (Wace, who combines the
two)
Jamie
nightjar
> The German Army expected to encounter defenses. Armies are in the business
> of overcoming defenses. They did fairly well in Holland, Belgium, and
> France. More important the area to the west of Bognor Regis is a very
> large
> beach which was under-populated at the time, 14 miles of beach.
Six miles west takes you to Selsey Bill, which has notorious rocks offshore
and a nasty rip tide, which even the locals avoid. There is also usually a
reason why somewhere is under-populated. In this case, it was the marshy
ground in the area you have just landed your panzers.
Colin Bignell
Paul J. Adam
<arca...@gazeta.pl> writes
>Użytkownik "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
>news:d12a3i$h35$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>> British.
>
>Don't forget the Luftwaffe and what they did to the Royal Navy a bit later
>during Crete's siege.
The Luftwaffe were unable to prevent the Royal Navy from lifting 18,000
troops off Crete, or to keep the RN from completely stopping the planned
seaborne landings.
Warships were vulnerable to sustained air attack and losses rose rapidly
once the AA ammunition ran out: off Norway and Crete that typically took
a couple of days of action.
A more relevant example might be Dunkirk, where the RN lifted over a
quarter-million troops off the beaches despite the best efforts of the
Luftwaffe.
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
nightjar
...
>> There is considerable doubt, for the reasons given in another post from
> me.
>> In brief, we have always known that any attack on Portsmouth would
>> involve
>> an attempt to take the Isle of Wight and the defences were built
>> accordingly. The guns in the Solent forts and on the mainland would make
>> short work of any airfield you tried to set up.
>
> Yes they would if they knew where it was and before I took Portsmouth from
> the rear. The air base isn't important in any case.
Why wouldn't they know where it was? You could expect daily high altitude
passes from a PR Spitfire.
...
> Ah but the RAF would have gotten involved. How could it not? London
> doesn't
> know this is a fake invasion. Airfields, as such, were not necessary.
> Fighters of the day used grass strips and so did the old reliable JU52.
> Cratering a dirt field does little harm. The Bn to take Thorney Island
> would
> be dropped by parachute.
The targets would be parked aircraft, stores dumps and the troops' quarters,
not the field itself. I know that area quite well from the air and the
low-lying ground means that there are lots of drainage ditches. You would
have to use the airfield, as the fields simply aren't large enough for use
in an emergency landing, much less as an airfield.
...
> This isn't a capital 'L' landing like 'D' day. There are no large targets,
> and it would be at night.
Night landings do not have a great expectation of arriving at the right
place and you are aiming your fleet at an area with a nasty reef.
...
> Dive bombers had 20mm canon which are deadly against MTBs as are fighters.
The Ju-87B carried 7.9mm MG17 machine guns.
> The AA capabilities of MTBs at this stage in the war were negligible. The
> hope would be for a counter attack by the RAF and the RN. The remaining
> tanks would be off-loading at Southampton by this time presumably.
The bottom of the Solent is more likely. You have not included any provision
to take the Solent Forts, or Hurst Castle. Both approaches to Southampton
are, therefore, covered by heavy naval guns.
...
>> Seven submarines were stationed to attack the Dunkirk evacuation fleet.
>> There is no record of them having any effect whatsoever.
>
> I would plan ahead and have 20 or more in place.
with nearly double that number of destroyers looking for them, even if no
more than the anti-invasion fleet were involved.
> Dunkirk took the Germans by
> surprise. They would be in place to attack warships, not wee transports
> and
> fishing boats.
There were 56 warships at Dunkirk.
...
> The landing would be over in less than an hour. This is no big fleet deal
> and the destroyers would presumably be off the Pas de Calais where there
> are
> German MTBs and subs reported.
You presume wrongly. There were four distinct stations around the coast and,
if one were reinforced, it would be from Scapa, not from a nearby station.
We have heard of diversionary tactics too.
...
> I have seen the fortifications and they were obsolete and had no landward
> defenses even approaching those of the Dutch, Belgians, or French. One
> German div. supported by the Luftwaffe is more than sufficient to take the
> place from the land side. The thing is it would be a surprise move and
> exactly why I'd do it. Think of the consternation if the place were to
> fall.
ISTM that you have viewed one or more forts in isolation, not as part of an
integrated defence network. The city has a continuous ring of forts around
it, with overlapping fields of fire. Your attack has been anticipated for a
century, so no surprise. If you do get past the land forts, you still have
to take the Hilsea Lines, a wide, fortified moat. After that, you need to
take the town. Even then, the Solent Forts are not on land and, having been
built to withstand plunging fire, are hardened against air attack.
...
> Suckering Uncle Joe is the big objective. ....Think of it as a big army
> raid to sink as
> many destroyers as possible and try to lure in the Home Fleet.
That is not quite the same as claiming that a full invasion could have
worked.
> A few land
> victories with London threatened and who knows if the HF would have been
> sent into the Channel.
You wouldn't see anything larger than a Cruiser, and probably not that,
within range of the French coastal guns.
Colin Bignell
D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Sinclair The Charlatan [Brit or Aussie?], feeling froggy, is
trying to move the goalposts and change the terms of the argument.
DSH
---------------------
Black The Red said:
"You're talking about an invasion fleet that could be sunk by a
destroyer travelling through it at twenty knots."
Black The Red
---------------
DSH then said:
"Hilarious!"
"Even MORE twaddle."
D. Spencer Hines
-----------------
Then Pogue Sinclair The Charlatan magically changed Black The Red's
SINGLE British destroyer simply proceeding through the postulated German
Invasion Fleet at 20 knots -- to an entire "PACK" of destroyers carrying
out mayhem in imagined British Mischievous, Cockle-Shell Heroes Glory:
"Running a pack of destroyers through an invasion convoy, cutting tow
lines, disabling the towing craft would have ensured this."
Pogue Sinclair The Charlatan
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au>
Hilarious!
Pimply-Faced-Kid Equivalent, playing What-If Admiral.
How Sweet It Is!
D. Spencer Hines
Hippo, a former Army man, is doing a FAR better job of playing What-If
Admiral here than the several poseur Brits with whom he is dealing.
Diesel-powered U-boats wait for their prey to come to them -- when they
are moving slowly -- and then unleash their tongues of fire. They don't
try to outrun fleet units.
Why they Brit naval poseurs don't even remember Gunther Prien, captain
of U-47, who sank HMS Royal Oak at Scapa Flow in 1939 -- or even Otto
Weddigen, captain of U-9, who sank three British cruisers, _HMS
Aboukir_, _HMS Cressy_ and _HMS Hogue_ in less than an hour. Three
weeks later Weddigen sank another British cruiser.
Yes, Black The Red and his sidekick, Sinclair, are complete buffoons
when it comes to Submarine Warfare -- adolescent Pimply-Faced-Kid
Equivalents.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:WNudnTaherm...@giganews.com...
Yama
: Hilarious!
: Then Pogue Sinclair The Charlatan magically changed Black The Red's
: SINGLE British destroyer simply proceeding through the postulated German
: Invasion Fleet at 20 knots -- to an entire "PACK" of destroyers carrying
: out mayhem in imagined British Mischievous, Cockle-Shell Heroes Glory:
Since you like to nitpick so much, lets nitpick: yes, it could have happened.
Not very LIKELY that single destroyer sinks entire invasion fleet
without firing a shot, but possible.
D. Spencer Hines
Deeeelightful!
Hippo, a former Army man, is doing a FAR better job of playing What-If
Admiral here than the several naval poseur Brits with whom he is
dealing -- notably Black The Red and Pogue Sinclair The Charlatan.
Diesel-powered U-boats wait for their prey to come to them -- when the
targets are moving slowly -- and then unleash their tongues of fire.
They don't try to outrun fleet units.
Why these Brit naval poseurs don't even remember Gunther Prien, captain
of U-47, who sank HMS Royal Oak at Scapa Flow in 1939 -- or even Otto
Weddigen, captain of U-9, who sank three British cruisers, _HMS
Aboukir_, _HMS Cressy_ and _HMS Hogue_ in less than an hour in 1914.
Three weeks later Weddigen sank another British cruiser.
Yes, Black The Red and his sidekick, Pogue Sinclair The Charlatan, are
complete buffoons when it comes to Submarine Warfare -- adolescent
Pimply-Faced-Kid Equivalents.
How Sweet It Is!
Paul J. Adam
<4235016b$0$21032$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Geoffrey
Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> writes
>Interesting concept of twaddle, the invasion force consisted of many
>river barges and many unpowered craft. It should be noted that even
>some of the allied specialised landing craft were not considered
>suitable to cross the channel on their own in 1944.
>
>The September 1940 fleet consisted of something like 142 steamers,
>1,939 barges, 422 tug boats, 944 motorboats and a small number of
>Siebel ferries.
Raeder's staff assessed the required shipping as 155 transport ships,
1,722 barges, 471 tugs and 1,161 motor-boats, according to Fleming's
"Invasion 1940". That was the force that was eventually accepted as
*necessary* (it had to keep being revised down to get it somewhere near
the actual available strength, with results like the first wave of the
invasion being landed in three waves over eleven days).
It was not fully mustered: for example only 386 tugs were ever
assembled, putting a big constraint on planning (can't use barges
without something to tow them). 1,918 barges were mustered, but 214 were
sunk (by 12 September, HQ Naval Group West was telling Berlin that the
RN was operating almost unmolested in the Channel, and the French ports
could not be used for assembly because of the bombing and shelling)
> Each tug and steamer would tow two barges. The
>unpowered barges would be towed at high speed towards the beaches
>by motor boats which would release the tow close enough to shore
>for the barge to ground without broaching while enabling the motor
>boat to avoid running aground. By the way many of the motor boats
>were small enough to be using outboard motors.
>
>The entire system was close to guaranteeing no organised beach
>assault could take place. Running a pack of destroyers through an
>invasion convoy, cutting tow lines, disabling the towing craft would
>have ensured this. Then the barges, with minimal freeboard could
>almost be left to the channel waves and currents, even the powered
>ones tended to have a top speed less than the currents could reach.
>The wash of high speed ships would have been dangerous to many
>of the loaded barges.
It gets worse. The flotilla was to proceed at night, without lights, in
order to enjoy the cover of darkness for as much of its journey as
possible. However, it was considered possible that they might still be
found and attacked by the RN... therefore the troops in the barges were
under orders to fire on any unidentified vessel approaching them. Is the
painful outcome not rapidly apparent?
This is what happens when one service decides on routing and timing, and
another decides the rules of engagement...
Meanwhile, this flotilla is being met by thirty-six destroyers
(flotillas based at Portsmouth, Harwich, Sheerness and the Humber) as
the immediate, dedicated reaction force tasked with nothing else: the
rest of the RN would be coming down from Scapa shortly thereafter (HMS
Codrington was in Dover twenty-three hours after being ordered to move,
for example). Churchill wasn't kidding when he said "We are waiting for
the long promised invasion. So are the fishes."
hippo
"a.spencer3" in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> My gutfeel is that the Germans could possibly have done it.
> But via Bognor? Which 14-mile beach is that? West of Bognor is Portsmouth
&
> Chichester Harbours - a bit defended!
The Bognor council advertises 14 miles of beach. That's plenty of space for
a landing. Neither are there any cliffs or other natural obstacles. Most
important it isn't the Pas de Calais where they were expected. Most
effective is that scattered landings spread out over time and using
different methods would increase the same sense of 'what's going on' which
had paralyzed the allied high command in France after the German invasion.
Paralysis at the top in war is infective and extremely debilitating right
down the chain of command.
1) German parachutists landing on Wight and Thorney Islands.
2) German cargo planes ferrying troops to Wight.
3) Forts on Wight taken and Thorney Island captured.
3) Landings of German infantry in Kent and one of two small ports taken.
4) Unsustainably heavy losses in British warships in Channel and to RAF
Fighter Command.
5) Unknown German forces including tanks landed west of Bognor Regis, the
seaside town and Chichester taken. Last fort on Wight falls.
6) German tanks and re-enforcements landed in Kent.
7) Portsmouth under attack from land side supported by bombers, German tanks
advancing on Southampton.
8) German breakout in Kent. ............and so on. The idea is to give no
clear picture of plans, objectives, methods, or intent. -the Troll
D. Spencer Hines
"Hippo's" stepfather was reportedly an American naval officer.
"Hippo" apparently listened to him on occasion.
It's paying off for him here.
KNOW THY SOURCE...
...AND THY OPPONENT.
Ian Dalziel
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I don't need a map, I live quite close.
>I still see no 14-mile beach west of Bognor.
OK - me neither. I don't see Portsmouth either, though. What defences
does Chichester Harbour have?
--
Ian
hippo
"nightjar .uk.com>" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > The German Army expected to encounter defenses. Armies are in the
business
> > of overcoming defenses. They did fairly well in Holland, Belgium, and
> > France. More important the area to the west of Bognor Regis is a very
> > large
> > beach which was under-populated at the time, 14 miles of beach.
>
> Six miles west takes you to Selsey Bill, which has notorious rocks
offshore
> and a nasty rip tide, which even the locals avoid. There is also usually a
> reason why somewhere is under-populated. In this case, it was the marshy
> ground in the area you have just landed your panzers.
Better than dealing with a dense civil population and built-up areas ideal
for the defense. Marshes can't shoot you and there is no high ground and few
civilian structures from which to be observed. Give me the marshes every
time. The Ardennes wasn't suitable for tanks either, remember? -the Troll
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
news:73lw7BF9...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <d12dg9$7m8$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>, Arkadiusz Bugaj
> <arca...@gazeta.pl> writes
>>Użytkownik "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
>>news:d12a3i$h35$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>> A single cruiser in amongst the invasion fleet wins the day for the
>>> British.
>>
>>Don't forget the Luftwaffe and what they did to the Royal Navy a bit later
>>during Crete's siege.
>
> The Luftwaffe were unable to prevent the Royal Navy from lifting 18,000
> troops off Crete, or to keep the RN from completely stopping the planned
> seaborne landings.
troops, which were left behind and made POW subsequently.
>
> Warships were vulnerable to sustained air attack and losses rose rapidly
> once the AA ammunition ran out: off Norway and Crete that typically took a
> couple of days of action.
That kind of an action would have been Sea Lion. Vessels would have had to
operate long hours being attacked by their worst enemy: the plane. Note that
German seaborne invasion was held off by night sweeping patrols of cruisers
and destroyers. They resumed their operation as ssoon as the dayberak
withdrawing quickly south so as to leave the area which was within the
Luftwaffe range. In spite of that tactics these units of vessels took heavy
losses. They wouldn't have been unable to restrain German landing on Crete
if the Germans had had superiority at sea, and thus they wouldn't have had
to operate at night. Fortuantely, it needed bravery, which the Italians
lacked and they weren't able to prowide proper back up for German sea
landing troops.
>
> A more relevant example might be Dunkirk, where the RN lifted over a
> quarter-million troops off the beaches despite the best efforts of the
> Luftwaffe.
It is more relevant example because it took place in, or close to, the area,
where Sea lion would have taken place if the Germans had decided to execute
it, thus the conditions would have been comparable. OTOH it was different
from Crete's defense as evacuation of British expeditionary forces froim
Dunkirk had strong RAF cover, which gen. Freyberg and RN was desperately
lacking on, and around, Crete. Close cooperation of the RAF (or rather
Fighter Command forces then) and the RN could sweep any attempt of invasion
on the British Isles. OTOH, if the Germans had succeded in destroying RAF,
the RN witholut aerial cover wouldn't have had any chances to stand up
massive attacks of bombers and divers of the Luftwaffe.
Cheers
Arkadiusz
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> napisał w wiadomości
news:d14s27$rpn$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
>
> Uzytkownik "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:73lw7BF9...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <d12dg9$7m8$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>, Arkadiusz Bugaj
>> <arca...@gazeta.pl> writes
>>>Użytkownik "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
>>>news:d12a3i$h35$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>> A single cruiser in amongst the invasion fleet wins the day for the
>>>> British.
>>>
>>>Don't forget the Luftwaffe and what they did to the Royal Navy a bit
>>>later
>>>during Crete's siege.
>>
>> The Luftwaffe were unable to prevent the Royal Navy from lifting 18,000
>> troops off Crete, or to keep the RN from completely stopping the planned
>> seaborne landings.
> Agreed, but OTOH, the RN wern't able to evacuate some 10 000-12 000 other
> troops, which were left behind and made POW subsequently.
>>
>> Warships were vulnerable to sustained air attack and losses rose rapidly
>> once the AA ammunition ran out: off Norway and Crete that typically took
>> a couple of days of action.
>
> That kind of an action would have been Sea Lion. Vessels would have had to
> operate long hours being attacked by their worst enemy: the plane. Note
> that German seaborne invasion was held off by night sweeping patrols of
> cruisers and destroyers.
for lack of attention in formulating thoughts)
> their operation as soon as the dayberak withdrawing vessels quickly south
M. J. Powell
<hi...@southsudan.net> writes
snip
>
>> The impression I have gained, from talking to people who were there, is
>> that, far from being demoralised, they were eager to show that they could
>do
>> better in the rematch. Typical is the chap I knew who, having been
>> evactuated from Dunkirk, obtained a transfer into the RAF, so he could
>> continue fighting. He even got in in time to take part in the Battle of
>> Britain.
He must have been a born pilot. Considering the time for basic flying
training in a Tiger Moth, advanced training in a Harvard and then
Operational Training in a Spitfire or Hurricane.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
martin reboul
> >
> > The proportion in the probable invasion areas would have been much higher,
> > but the armament of the Home Guard was largely irrelevant. A few units had
> > specific locations to defend and that sort of duty was normally given to
> fit
> > men in reserved occupations. However, the main duty of the Home Guard was
> to
> > relieve regular troops of routine duties. There would, doubtless, have
> been
> > many valiant deeds, had there been an invasion, but nobody was in any real
> > doubt as to how they would fare against German assault troops. Even the
> Home
> > Guard special units, trained in sabotage and assassination, who would
> fight
> > behind enemy lines, only had two weeks' supplies. Nobody expected them to
> > survive longer.
>
> Yup.
>
> > > ... and the Matilda paid for its armor
> > > with loss of speed not to mention the failed tactical doctrine used to
> > > employ them. The German little MK IIs ran all around them in France.
> >
> > The only way the German tanks could defeat a Matilda was to lure it into a
> > trap of AT guns, where its lack of an explosive shell put it at a
> > disadvantage. That trick could only work so often and North Africa would
> be
> > a more realistic place to look for how the Matilda would fare in battles
> > after France.
>
> > > The
> > > veteran German divisions would have gone thought he HG like crap through
> a
> > > goose.
> >
> > Nobody questions that. However, it would be the regular army that faced
> the
> > Germans, not, except in a few locations, the Home Guard. The Germans would
> > also have to advance through coutryside that was dotted with pillboxes and
> > the several hundred field guns that we still had after Dunkirk.
> >
> > > You have to factor in the demoralization which was infecting all
> > > levels of the BA after the Dunkirk.
> >
> > The impression I have gained, from talking to people who were there, is
> > that, far from being demoralised, they were eager to show that they could
> do
> > better in the rematch. Typical is the chap I knew who, having been
> > evactuated from Dunkirk, obtained a transfer into the RAF, so he could
> > continue fighting. He even got in in time to take part in the Battle of
> > Britain.
>
> Germans in the west were outnumbered in every category of field units and
> equipment and handed the allies a smashing defeat in record time. The
> command hadn't figured out how it happened or how to combat it. Paralysis
> effects commands at such times. Remember there had been a defeat in Norway
> earlier in the spring.
>
> > > Ju87s might have been sitting ducks over
> > > Britain but in the Channel against major British fleet elements the
> story
> > > would have been very different. The RN understood that perfectly well
> and
> > > did not employ them there.
> >
> > Nor did they ever plan to. The anti-invasion fleet consisted of 36
> > destroyers, a few cruisers and 1,100 smaller craft. More destroyers could
> be
> > steamed from Scapa in less than a day. The effectiveness of the Luftwaffe
> > against these vessels was shown at Dunkirk where, of 56 destroyers and
> > torpedo boats, despite having to sit stationary in the water for extended
> > periods, half were unscathed and only nine were sunk.
>
> That's because the Luftwaffe was engaged against the BA. The RN was not a
> threat to the campaign in France while the British army potentially was.
>
> > > I have wargamed this many times. The Germans would have had to have had
> a
> > > plan in place before the attack on France and executed an invasion right
> > > mountain or regular infantry divisions without their horse transport and
> > > the
> > > parachute regiment (none of them needed for the second phase in France)
> to
> > > seize a bridgehead (Isle of Wight and Kent) for advance fighter
> airfields
> > > supplied mostly by air. My main invasion was from Cherbourg using a
> Panzer
> > > Div. to Bognor Regis reinforced by the troops already on the Isle of
> > > Wight,
> is
> > > to take and maintain the initiative.
> >
> > The correct term for a landing on the Isle of Wight is deathtrap, not
> > bridgehead. We have spent 400 years building defences against an attack on
> > Portsmouth and a French landing on the Isle of Wight has always been
> > expected as part of such an attack. The Victorian forts were built in the
> > expectation that they would receive plunging fire from heavy calibre navy
> > guns, so they have overhead protection that would be proof against the
> > heaviest bombs the Luftwaffe could deliver, while the side armour was
> > designed to be upgraded as guns incresaed in power. The island is 90 miles
> > from its closest supply bases and separated from the mainland by the most
> > heavily defended stretch of water in Britain. There is no useful port. One
> > of the airstrips is small, very corrugated, prone to mud patches and in a
> > valley with hills at both ends (and a very tall radio mast off one end
> these
> > days). The other would need to recieve a minimum of 60 successful Ju52/3m
> > flights needed each day, against an undefeated RAF, to keep one division
> > supplied. Both are within easy bombardment range of the Solent Forts and
> the
> > mainland. Where are you going to put the fighters, which will need
> supplies
> > too? I also seriously doubt that you could get a useful number of tanks
> > across that route. It is simply too far for the sort of vessels that could
> > land tanks across an open beach and if they do reach that beach, it is
> > mined. I think you need either a different set of rules or a more
> realistic
> > set of assumptions.
>
> Landing on the Isle of Wight would not be a bridgehead in the usual sense.
> Almost all troops would be brought in by air as in Crete. The parachute
> regiment by parachute and a mountain division by air landing over time. A
> dozen fighters based there would be all that would have been needed. The
> Victorian forts would have been useless and taken from the land side.
> Maintaining aerial supremacy would have been a lot easier for the Luftwaffe
> than defending bombers penetrating hundreds of miles from the coast. The
> idea is to force the RAF to react to your strengths.
It could probably have been captured, but the IoW would, as you say, never have
been a bridgehead or a forward airbase, only a big killing zone. If you've ever
seen the forts on the s. coast overlooking it, old as they were, they are were
massively built and equipped with enormous guns and huge reserves of
ammunition - almost invulnerable to air attack or even the Bismark and Tirpitz
(which would have been sunk many miles away before even coming in sight).
I can't actually see any point in bothering with the place, rather like sitting
duck land, or parking a stationary carrier at point blank range Even with
amphibious modern troops, still one of the most naturally, treacherously
difficult stretches of water in the world to cross, in full view and range all
the way.
From all I've seen and read, the RAF were (to quite a large extent) preserved
and kept in reserve even at the height of the battle of Britain, never mind
Dunkirk - which I believe rather frustrated and exasperated a lot of pilots, who
felt they were standing idly by. They weren't of course, as had the Germans ever
been foolish enough to invade, they would have been thrown in at the crucial
moment, and probably most would not have survived it - though they would have
caused tremendous damage, and won the day.
Hitler never had the enormous resources that the allies had by 1944, his
hastiness and impatience to go to war were probably one of the most important
reasons that he lost. Goering, though no strategic or tactical genius,
repeatedly told him that Germany should not have gone to war until the mid 40's,
by which time they would have had many advanced weapons, a Jap style carrier
fleet, landing craft, really heavy bombers and who knows what else in the 'V'
department. He already had advanced nerve gases, but (thing we had them too) was
unwilling to use them... just as well he was gassed himself in WWI really!
I somehow doubt we would (or could) have been able to keep up militarily, their
entire economy was completely geared up for it, ours wasn't. Churchill would
probably have vanished into insignificance until it was too late, and we would
*really* have had it in a few months had the little Corporal had a little more
patience - but thankfully he didn't.
> > > The thing is it would never have happened. Fighting and garrisoning
> > > Denmark,
> > > Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Poland, and Britain were distractions to
> > > Hitler. Garrisoning Britain would have been a further drain on slender
> > > German resources needed to fight the USSR and Hitler knew it. The BG would
> > > have fought on from Northern Ireland and Canada if necessary and Hitler
> > > knew that too.
> >
> > He also knew that he had to defeat the RAF before his forces had a chance
> to
> > cross the channel.
>
> Yes, and I have outlined the way to do it. You put on a good show and hope
> they believe you are really invading. -the Troll
The problem is, despite any amount of feints and diversions, we still had rader,
which although always mentioned as being vital, would (IMHO) undoubtedly have
been the deciding factor in the event. The Germans had radar, knew we had it and
understood it - better stuff than ours even then I reckon, I have some bits in
the loft somewhere - but not the means to effectively fox, fool, destroy or jam
ours at that time. A weapon far more use to defenders than attackers.
'Putting on a good show' is interesting too. It appears that a lot of chicanery
and trickery was in the offing, 'allowing' landings and leading the invaders
into deadly traps. The route from any 'invadeable' place on the S coast to
anywhere vital or useful, was extremely difficult thanks to Napoleon...
http://www.canals.btinternet.co.uk/canals/royalmilitary.htm
These were planned to be flooded with fuel and gas... no Panzers please! The few
roads would have been absolutely deadly with mines and booby traps, if nothing
else.
I'll have to play you at one of these wargames Hippo! Not fair really, I live
here, and that's always a great advantage. Just for fun of course - no money on
it, unfair.
I never gamble normally, but I'd make an exception for this one....
Cheers
Martin
martin reboul
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d12a3i$h35$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:891Zd.1120$uC2....@eagle.america.net...
> > Thoughtful, Provocative And Compelling.
> >
> > Black The Red completely forgot about the German U-boats.
>
>
> Seven knots submerged, the Home Fleet did 23 knots when on operational
> duties.
>
> They get one shot.
>
> Or do you expect them to surface and engage by gunfire?
>
> This isn't a North Atlantic convey with two 'Flower class' escorts on some
> wild and stormy night, the Germans are crossing using Rhine barges, they
> need calm weather and low winds.
>
> The Home Fleet, probably in three squadrons, possibly each with an
> accompanying flat top, and including two battleships, six to ten cruisers
> and a dozen or two destroyers each is thundering down from Scotland.
>
> Assuming the Germans can find them, because German submarines don't have
> radar at this stage, and can engage, how many can they sink?
>
> If they only get 90% they've failed.
>
> A single cruiser in amongst the invasion fleet wins the day for the British.
A handful of MTB's with 20 and 30mm Oerlikons would be very troublesome alone...
I'd like to see a U Boat take them on, and even the Luftwaffe would have
problems!
I thought you were in the Navy Spencer, don't you know *anything*?
Fool! No wonder they kept you out of the way shuffling paper....
Cheers
Martin
martin reboul
It wouldn't have been a question of a bloody nose however, they would have
fought to the bitter end. Don't forget our MTB's and subs either... or
minefields! The thing is, no matter what, you have to get those barges through
and get some armour on the beach, whilst supplying your airborne advance units.
They are another problem. In holland and Belgium, Stusent & co. had total
surprise and took the initiative (with spectacular success). That lesson had
been learned, and we had radar... which leads to another thing. Despite the
Blitz and Coventry, German bombing was questionable when it came to damaging
anything other than morale, and in the 'battle of the beams' we always had the
last laugh - they weren't destroying our industry or military, only damaging it
at best, and at a high cost.
Cheers
Martin
renab...@aol.com
> In message
in Dover twenty-three hours after being ordered to move,
> for example). Churchill wasn't kidding when he said "We are waiting
for
> the long promised invasion. So are the fishes."
>
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
As a much earlier First Lord said,
"My lords, I do not say they can not come. I only say they can not come
by sea."
The British published a phrase book entitled something like "Useful
Phrases for the German Tourist in Britain" and dropped them over
France. It's format was the Greman phrase, followed by a phoentic
rendering of prase in English. It contained gems like
"Look, the lieutenant is burning"
"So is the sergeant"
"Listen to them scream!"
This played on the rumor that the British had foud a way to "set the
sea on fire"
Jack Linthicum
For example:
http://www.shford.fslife.co.uk/ShingleSt/accounts.htm
http://www.shford.fslife.co.uk/ShingleSt/letters.htm
http://www.1940.co.uk/shop/books/bodies.htm
http://www.psywarrior.com/DeceptionH.html below
SET THE CHANNEL ABLAZE
A deception and disinformation campaign that might have helped the
British stave off a German invasion from France involved a rumor that
they had the ability to set the English Channel ablaze.
As the victorious German army gazed wistfully across the 21 miles of
the English Channel in 1940, they were unaware that the British had
almost no arms with which to defend themselves. Everything had been
left behind on the beaches of Dunkerque. All of Britain was ripe for
the taking. In occupied France the Germans were building landing barges
and troops were being trained for an amphibious assault. It was just a
matter of time.
The British Chiefs of Staff admitted "Should the Germans succeed in
establishing a force with its vehicles in this country; our Army forces
have not got the offensive power to drive it out." The weapons
situation was so bad that in Manchester several rifles used in the
Indian Mutiny were obtained from the Zoological Gardens and issued to
the troops.
Meanwhile, the British were calling up everyone, building a civilian
guard, and asking for old hunting rifles to be donated to defend the
realm. They also devised several invasion scenarios, planning what
steps to take when the German ships were sighted.
One plan involved dousing the channel with oil, then setting it ablaze
to burn the Germans alive before reaching the shore. Of course, they
did not have the ability to do so and therefore could only use
deception, rumor, and propaganda to imply that the island was protected
by a wall of fire.
Sefton Delmer
Sefton Delmer, Director of Britain's "Black" Radio during WWII, talked
about the British deception plan in Black Boomerang, The Viking Press,
New York, 1962. Delmer ran numerous black radio and leaflet operations
for Great Britain during WWII. He spoke perfect German and could
imitate the speech patterns of both the elite and working social
classes.
I went on the air in the BBC studio and did a little more teasing.
I pretended to have a telephone conversation with my old friend
Göring, told the story of my smooth and uneventful voyage, and taunted
him with his inefficiency. A few days later I followed this up by
broadcasting an English lesson for would-be invaders.
He goes on to talk about his English lesson to the Germans. The
original wartime tape was played at a 1st PSYOP Battalion Command
Briefing about PSYOP at Fort Bragg, NC, July 1973. Some of the tape is
as follows:
We English, as you know, are notoriously bad at languages, and so
it will be best, meine Herren Engellandfahrer, if you learn a few
useful English phrases before visiting us.
For your first lesson we will take: Die Kanaluberfahrt. The
Channel crossing, the Channel crossing.
Now just repeat after me: Das Boot sinkt. The boat is sinking; the
boat is sinking.
Das Wasser ist kalt. The water is cold. Sehr kalt, very cold.
Now, I will give you a verb that should come in useful. Again
please repeat after me, Ich brenne, I burn. Du brennst, you burn. Er
brennt, he burns. Wir brennen, we burn. Ihr brennt, you are burning.
Yes, meine Herren, in English, a rather practical language, we use
the same word "you" for both the singular and the plural. Ihr brennt,
you are burning. Sie brennen, they burn.
And if I may be allowed to suggest a phrase: Der SS Sturmfiihrer
brennt auch ganz schon, The SS Captain is also burning quite nicely,
the SS Captain is also burning quite nicely!
Delmer concludes:
Crude stuff, but excellent in one important respect. The line about
burning in the Channel fitted in perfectly, as of course it was
intended to, with the information which our deception services had
planted on Admiral Canaris, the head of Hitler's espionage. Our rumor
agencies too, had been busy spreading it everywhere. The mean murderous
British, it said, had apparatus in readiness with which they were going
to set the Channel and the beaches on fire such time as Hitler launched
his boats.
This was a lie. But it went over so well that it is believed by
many Germans to this day.
Releasing the oil to set the Channel ablaze
The British went so far as to actually build some large oil pipes that
stretched out into the English Channel. They made a great show of using
them to set the channel afire. Journalists were invited to watch the
demonstration.
Peter Fleming mentions the technology in Operation Sea Lion, Simon and
Schuster, NY, 1957:
One of the few wholly successful experiments, which took place on
24 August on the northern shores of the Solent is described by the head
of the Petroleum Warfare Department.
Ten pipes were rigged from the top of a thirty-foot cliff down into
the water well below high water mark and ten Scammel tanker wagons
connected to them delivered oil at the rate of about 12 tons an hour.
Admiralty flares and a system of sodium and petrol pellets were used
for ignition and within a few seconds of the pumps being started a wall
of flame of such intensity raged up from the sea surface that it was
impossible to remain on the edge of the cliff and the sea itself began
to boil.
Fleming goes on to say that although the limited experiment was a
complete success, it was extremely costly in steel, manpower and
valuable oil. The Chiefs of Staff approved 50-miles of what the British
called "Flame barrage," but the only complete sections were in Deal,
St. Margaret's Bay, The Shakespeare Cliff, Rye and Studland Bay.
John Baker White discusses the plan in The Big Lie, New York: Crowell,
1955. London: Evans, 1955. White says:
Fire has played always an important part in defense against
invasion. The Crusaders made unpleasant acquaintance with it in the
Holy Land, as did the Spanish Armada with Drake's fireships. it was
natural, therefore, that in 1940 it should figure prominently in our
anti-invasion plans. The Finns had shown us in their short but gallant
struggle with Russia the effectiveness of the "Molotov Cocktail" in
dealing with armored vehicles. Countless thousands of these modern
versions of the Chinese fire bottle were issued to the Home Guard, who
had great difficulty in finding safe places in which to store them.
Incendiary bombs were one of the chief weapons used by the R.A.F. in
its attacks on the barges massing in the Channel ports.
The Army had discarded flame-throwers after the First World War, so
none was available in 1940. A considerable number were improvised
hastily from pressure-greasing equipment collected from garages and
service stations. Filled with mixtures based on gasoline, fuel oil and
creosote they were fairly effective weapons with a strictly limited
life and range. There remained the problem of applying fire to the
defense of beaches, and the machine finally adopted was operated on the
same principle as the garage pressure greaser. From a pump and supply
tank set back from the shore the combustible mixture was pumped,
through pipes buried in the beach, to a series of flash points. In the
same way as a truck garden irrigation system sprays water over a wide
area, these points sprayed fire over the beaches down as far as the
low-water mark. In operation they were a frightening spectacle, with
clouds of thick, blinding black smoke through which shot great jets of
red flame. It is difficult to say to what extent the pipe-line network
could have been disrupted by bombardment, but this apparatus gave
confidence to defending forces whose battle equipment was very meager.
Some of the details of the plot are told by James Hayward in The Bodies
on the Beach. It is a study of the various myths surrounding the
planned German invasion of Britain in 1940, and in particular the
legend of an actual invasion attempt repulsed by the burning sea.
James Hayward also reported his findings of the English Channel flame
barrage in issue 84 of After the Battle, Battle of Britain Prints
International Ltd. Church House, Church Street, London, E15 3JA and
again in another book: Shingle Street - Flame, Chemical and
Psychological Warfare in 1940 and the Nazi invasion that Never Was, LTM
Publishing, 40 Prior way, Colchester, Essex, CO4 5DH. UK 1994. <on and
on>
John Redman
<renab...@aol.com> wrote
> This played on the rumor that the British had foud a way to "set the
> sea on fire"
More than just a rumour:-
"One of the few wholly successful experiments, which took place on 24 August
on the northern shores of the Solent is described by the head of the
Petroleum Warfare Department.
Ten pipes were rigged from the top of a thirty-foot cliff down into the
water well below high water mark and ten Scammel tanker wagons connected to
them delivered oil at the rate of about 12 tons an hour. Admiralty flares
and a system of sodium and petrol pellets were used for ignition and within
a few seconds of the pumps being started a wall of flame of such intensity
raged up from the sea surface that it was impossible to remain on the edge
of the cliff and the sea itself began to boil."
Peter Fleming, Operation Sea Lion, Simon and Schuster, NY, 1957
Doubtful how practical it was.
Paul J. Adam
<arca...@gazeta.pl> writes
>Uzytkownik "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>news:73lw7BF9...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> troops off Crete, or to keep the RN from completely stopping the planned
>> seaborne landings.
>Agreed, but OTOH, the RN wern't able to evacuate some 10 000-12 000 other
>troops, which were left behind and made POW subsequently.
So, in the face of complete Luftwaffe air superiority, the RN was "only"
able to lift 60% of the defenders off while stopping all seaborne
reinforcement until the island was abandoned.
This augurs poorly for the Kriegsmarine's ability to achieve an opposed
amphibious landing.
>> Warships were vulnerable to sustained air attack and losses rose rapidly
>> once the AA ammunition ran out: off Norway and Crete that typically took a
>> couple of days of action.
>
> That kind of an action would have been Sea Lion. Vessels would have had to
>operate long hours being attacked by their worst enemy: the plane.
But the German troops ashore would have been trying to harvest the
ammunition trees of Kent. Putting men ashore is not that hard (cf.
Dieppe), supporting them and reinforcing them is much, much harder.
And those troops have a few dozen tanks and little more artillery: while
the Luftwaffe, meant to be "the artillery of the troops", is busy
bombing ships rather than attacking strongpoints.
>Note that
>German seaborne invasion was held off by night sweeping patrols of cruisers
>and destroyers. They resumed their operation as ssoon as the dayberak
>withdrawing quickly south so as to leave the area which was within the
>Luftwaffe range.
Or withdrew into strongholds the Luftwaffe couldn't attack without
unacceptable loss (which is why the Dover flotilla moved to Portsmouth)
>In spite of that tactics these units of vessels took heavy
>losses. They wouldn't have been unable to restrain German landing on Crete
>if the Germans had had superiority at sea, and thus they wouldn't have had
>to operate at night.
True, but so what? Count the ships. How does the Kriegsmarine achieve
"superiority at sea" for an invasion of Britain?
If a cow had balls she'd be a bull.
>> A more relevant example might be Dunkirk, where the RN lifted over a
>> quarter-million troops off the beaches despite the best efforts of the
>> Luftwaffe.
>
>It is more relevant example because it took place in, or close to, the area,
>where Sea lion would have taken place if the Germans had decided to execute
>it, thus the conditions would have been comparable. OTOH it was different
>from Crete's defense as evacuation of British expeditionary forces froim
>Dunkirk had strong RAF cover, which gen. Freyberg and RN was desperately
>lacking on, and around, Crete. Close cooperation of the RAF (or rather
>Fighter Command forces then) and the RN could sweep any attempt of invasion
>on the British Isles. OTOH, if the Germans had succeded in destroying RAF,
>the RN witholut aerial cover wouldn't have had any chances to stand up
>massive attacks of bombers and divers of the Luftwaffe.
Trouble is, the Germans couldn't destroy the RAF. The Germans could
destroy 10 Group but couldn't strike at the North and West of Britain,
nor could they outproduce the UK.
At worst, the Germans could force the RAF to retreat to beyond "escorted
bomber" range and wait for the time to strike south while yielding Kent
and disputing London.
Against the Sealion fleet, perhaps Leigh-Mallory's "big wings" have a
chance to actually work.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(hippo) wrote:
> Yes, and I have outlined the way to do it. You put on a good show
> and hope they believe you are really invading. -the Troll
I already mentioned various problems. Some more. the powered barges
used had a maximum speed of 3-5 knots in good weather. Some of the
experimental ones with bow ramps actually sank while being tested on a
lake. They were river barges for gods sake. There were not enough
powered barges anyway a large part of the force would be in towed
barges.
Next contrary to your suggestion the Germans can not afford to ignore
the remaining French forces. Most of the aircraft used in the BOB were
based in the south of France. Only the fighter bases were set up on
the Channel coast. There is also the problem that any pre-war invasion
plan would have been set up to use German ports. The Germans had no
way of knowing France would collapse in the way it did.
Like I said before Sealion often comes up on shwi, nobody has been
able to come up with a remotely creditable way to make it work. The
Germans just did not have the resources. As it was they were barely
able to equip their front line troops hence the mass of captured
equipment used. An example of this is rifles. Over 30 different types
were issued to various units. Occupation troops in France were
entirely equipped with French weapons.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
hippo
"martin reboul" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Landing on the Isle of Wight would not be a bridgehead in the usual
The forts would have made no difference to air landed troops. The
psychological value of the loss of the island with the presumed intended use
of the ports it guarded, would be worth the casualtes taking them from the
rear.
> From all I've seen and read, the RAF were (to quite a large extent)
preserved
> and kept in reserve even at the height of the battle of Britain, never
mind
> Dunkirk - which I believe rather frustrated and exasperated a lot of
pilots, who
> felt they were standing idly by. They weren't of course, as had the
Germans ever
> been foolish enough to invade, they would have been thrown in at the
crucial
> moment, and probably most would not have survived it - though they would
have
> caused tremendous damage, and won the day.
That's the idea of presenting the BG with a convincing enough need to commit
the RAF. RAF fighter losses in the BoB historically were so severe at
several points they did not have enough pilots to meet squadron needs. The
same pilots were flying several times a day and far more than was good for
them with no time off even though many were recovered after getting shot
down and pilots from other aircraft types were brought on strength. Very few
German pilots were recovered. By invading and moving the threat to the
coast, and well within fighter range of France, RAF losses would be higher,
German losses lower, with a more equal chance to recover downed German
pilots. The idea is to take local control of the air to make extracting your
landed troops easier. And to attrite RN forces operating in the Channel from
the air with relative impunity.
> Hitler never had the enormous resources that the allies had by 1944, his
> hastiness and impatience to go to war were probably one of the most
important
> reasons that he lost. Goering, though no strategic or tactical genius,
> repeatedly told him that Germany should not have gone to war until the mid
40's,
> by which time they would have had many advanced weapons, a Jap style
carrier
> fleet, landing craft, really heavy bombers and who knows what else in the
'V'
> department. He already had advanced nerve gases, but (thing we had them
too) was
> unwilling to use them... just as well he was gassed himself in WWI really!
>
> I somehow doubt we would (or could) have been able to keep up militarily,
their
> entire economy was completely geared up for it, ours wasn't. Churchill
would
> probably have vanished into insignificance until it was too late, and we
would
> *really* have had it in a few months had the little Corporal had a little
more
> patience - but thankfully he didn't.
Nah, your countrymen are of tougher stuff than that. The thing is there were
far more battleships and carriers building in Britain and the US than
Germany and Japan so waiting would have been worse for them. The problem was
Germany could afford to make no mistakes and the allies could. The Germans
made fewer mistakes but they did make them.
Chuckle, it would probably be a blast but my knees can't take all that
crawling about the floor anymore. I can remember when a mate and I would
fight wars all through a weekend only stopping to sleep. We had a lovely
scenario called the Battle of Zitsk wherein the Russian commander,
I.L.Terertizov, had his mare (Ludmila), with whom he was having a sexual
affair, stolen from the convent of Our Lady of Zitsk by the French Pink
Hussars and threw his entire corps at the French to get her back. The French
corps he attacked was made up of all the dross of the Empire with battalions
from thirty odd minor German and Italian Principalities. It was a hoot. All
of the Russian battery commanders were Princes because only the aristocracy
was literate. The Frog General was Hector de Bordelleaux, previously an
illegitimate Norman peasant, who had caught Napoleon's eye by holding his
horse in Italy and standing 4 foot 6 inches tall in his high heeled boots.
Doing up the Order of Battle was most of the fun. -the Troll
Howard Berkowitz
<johnphil...@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
I forget the author, but there is a Ballantine paperback entitled, IIRC,
_Secret Weapons of WWII_, about the Admiralty's Department of
Miscellaneous Weapons Development (the "Wheezers and Dodgers"). They
were responsible for this system, and did tests indicating that oil on
the water really wouldn't bother landing craft.
The group had many other successes.
nightjar
"M. J. Powell" <mi...@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BDurZMDs...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
He assumed that one reason he got the transfer was that he already had a
private pilot's licence and that, after Dunkirk, pilots were needed more
than artillery officers.
Colin Bignell
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(hippo) wrote:
> 4) Unsustainably heavy losses in British warships in Channel and to
> RAF Fighter Command.
Britain was prepared to sacrifice the entire fleet to prevent an
invasion. You are also crediting the Luftwaffe with something more
than they could manage in the Med.
hippo
"martin reboul" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> It wouldn't have been a question of a bloody nose however, they would have
> fought to the bitter end. Don't forget our MTB's and subs either... or
> minefields! The thing is, no matter what, you have to get those barges
through
> and get some armour on the beach, whilst supplying your airborne advance
units.
>
> They are another problem. In holland and Belgium, Stusent & co. had total
> surprise and took the initiative (with spectacular success). That lesson
had
> been learned, and we had radar... which leads to another thing. Despite
the
> Blitz and Coventry, German bombing was questionable when it came to
damaging
> anything other than morale, and in the 'battle of the beams' we always had
the
> last laugh - they weren't destroying our industry or military, only
damaging it
> at best, and at a high cost.
The idea is for the Brits to fight to the end, but not in the Med, or
against Norway where I haven't the resources to fight them but in my front
garden where I do. British subs would be a total loss and in fact more
danger to their own forces in this kind of situation. The Germans had quite
good MTBs too at the time and minefields work both ways, the more ships
engaged, the greater the loss. Remember I have only subs and MTBs engaged
here and a bunch of little coastal transports and fishing boats mostly
captured in Holland and France.
Radar is unimportant here. I am not bombing with unescorted bombers far
inland. The bombers are not the level sort but primarily dive bombers which
were extremely accurate. I would want RAF Fighter Command to try and
intercept them so as to shoot them down with my far more numerous and mostly
better fighters (most RAF fighters were Hurricanes at this time). -the Troll
hippo
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
> Key, Essential Fact:
>
> "Hippo's" stepfather was reportedly an American naval officer.
Nothing 'reportedly' about it but he had nothing to do with the 'floatin'
navy' as he called it. He was an engineering graduate of MIT, a Seabee, and
commanded a naval construction battalion. Interestingly he had one of the
earliest dog tags issued in WWII which was made by writing his information
on a metal disc in wax and plunging the disc in acid. -the Troll
D. Spencer Hines
previous post.
I have not confirmed the report myself and have no reasonable means to
do so -- without more bother than I care to make -- such as running you
down in Charleston.
That's the intelligent way to make a statement that one has not proven
oneself -- and for which one does not have a confirmed source -- which
one then cites and quotes.
"hippo"-- some half-arsed pseudonym by a poster in Charleston, who is
afraid to use his Real Name -- is not a valid source, as any fool should
know.
We -- the cognoscenti -- say "allegedly" or "reportedly".
Any half-bright high-school kid should know that -- if he is getting a
decent education.
Didn't they teach you that -- no later than in the 9th Grade?
If they didn't, your teachers fell down on the job.
Further, it matters not if your stepfather was a member of the forces
afloat -- he would still have picked up a great deal of naval lore.
I served in destroyers, carriers, cruisers and submarines -- but I still
picked up a good deal of information about the CB's, especially in
Vietnam -- where I worked closely with them.
When did your stepfather graduate from MIT?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:QYOdnUeTjIx...@giganews.com...
a.spencer3
"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:9dqb3158o2rgkq5nn...@4ax.com...
Surreyman
a.spencer3
>
> "a.spencer3" in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
> > My gutfeel is that the Germans could possibly have done it.
> > But via Bognor? Which 14-mile beach is that? West of Bognor is
Portsmouth
> &
> > Chichester Harbours - a bit defended!
>
> The Bognor council advertises 14 miles of beach. That's plenty of space
for
> a landing.
Didn't you look at a map? Sounds like a bit of tourist puff to me.
And apart from that, that whole vulnerable coast to the EAST of Bognor was
also very heavily defended ('cos they thought people like you might think
like that!).
I lived not far from there. That whole coast was a military district, with
no entry to people like me, let alone like you!
It's an obvious vulnerable area on a map (until you start moving inland,
when it becomes very defendable. My past wargaming included a great
defensive battle along the North Downs, just above my home!). You would have
been expected!
I don't disagree with you overall, my gut feel is that an invasion could
have succeeded at that time. Just don't fancy your mapreading! :-))
Have you read 'Invasion', Derek Slade, Oriflamme Publishing, 1990. A novel,
but nevertheless deals with a German invasion in 1940, taking you almost
yard by yard through the area(s) of the UK involved. I think you'd like it,
so I won't give away any more details (or the ending!).
Surreyman
a.spencer3
Surreyman
a.spencer3
"M. J. Powell" <mi...@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BDurZMDs...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
About 5 hours in each if I remember rightly!! :-))
Surreyman
Ian Dalziel
Sure - it's over the fold to the left, though.
I thought most of the defences were focused on the Solent?
--
Ian
Vaughan Sanders
"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here> wrote in message
news:gaadnRQtP5q...@giganews.com...> news:k6qdnTLq7tD...@giganews.com...
> ....
> > The German Army expected to encounter defenses. Armies are in the
business
> > of overcoming defenses. They did fairly well in Holland, Belgium,
and
> > France. More important the area to the west of Bognor Regis is a
very
> > large
> > beach which was under-populated at the time, 14 miles of beach.
>
> Six miles west takes you to Selsey Bill, which has notorious rocks
offshore
> and a nasty rip tide, which even the locals avoid. There is also
usually a
> reason why somewhere is under-populated. In this case, it was the
marshy
> ground in the area you have just landed your panzers.
>
>
>
I think this rip is were Martin Frobisher lured a couple of Galley's of
the Armada to their doom.
14 miles east would take in Worthing known for some of the largest shore
break on the south coast, although Brighton is known for the most
dangerous.
I was watching a programme about Selsey Bill just recently, if you get
into the rip at certain states of tide you can't get out. The coast
guard was saying you have to sit it out until the tide lets you go, any
wind against tide makes it an extremely rough experience. When I saw the
programme on the Armada they were using a huge ocean going Tug as a
demonstration, he was at full power just to stand still.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
>
> "a.spencer3" in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
> > My gutfeel is that the Germans could possibly have done it.
> > But via Bognor? Which 14-mile beach is that? West of Bognor is
Portsmouth
> &
> > Chichester Harbours - a bit defended!
>
> The Bognor council advertises 14 miles of beach. That's plenty of
space for
Most
> important it isn't the Pas de Calais where they were expected. Most
> effective is that scattered landings spread out over time and using
> different methods would increase the same sense of 'what's going on'
which
> had paralyzed the allied high command in France after the German
invasion.
> Paralysis at the top in war is infective and extremely debilitating
right
> down the chain of command.
> 1) German parachutists landing on Wight and Thorney Islands.
> 2) German cargo planes ferrying troops to Wight.
> 3) Forts on Wight taken and Thorney Island captured.
> 3) Landings of German infantry in Kent and one of two small ports
taken.
> 4) Unsustainably heavy losses in British warships in Channel and to
RAF
> Fighter Command.
the
> seaside town and Chichester taken. Last fort on Wight falls.
> 6) German tanks and re-enforcements landed in Kent.
> 7) Portsmouth under attack from land side supported by bombers, German
tanks
> advancing on Southampton.
> 8) German breakout in Kent. ............and so on. The idea is to give
no
> clear picture of plans, objectives, methods, or intent. -the Troll
>
>
Your Bognor landings are trapped in a 10 mile bottle neck between
Chichester and Arundel Castle. Your Kent landings are on the most
heavily defended front of 20 miles, Whitstable / Hythe, you're trapped
between the Thames and Romney Marsh.
I would think an airborne assault on Thorney Island would end up with a
lot of drowned parachutists, Wight just ends up a prison without a major
invasion succeeding in taking the mainland, I doubt even the RN could
have mounted such an invasion with the geography of this area.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
>
snip
>
> > A few land
> > victories with London threatened and who knows if the HF would have
been
> > sent into the Channel.
>
> You wouldn't see anything larger than a Cruiser, and probably not
that,
> within range of the French coastal guns.
>
> Colin Bignell
>
>
Don't forget the Italian and French fleets come into the picture for
awhile, but Churchill only thought Hitler might be able to get localised
naval superiority across the Dover straits with his heavy coastal
batteries. Two Capital ships were in for long refits and he was
bombarding the Admiralty to get some of their heavy guns to Dover.
He is telling FDR at this time that he is confident of out gunning the
French shore batteries, and he is only asking General Ismay for tide and
moon tables between the Humber and Beachy Head, he does not appear to
think Bognor a threat.
Jamie
a.spencer3
Portsmouth's not involved with the Solent?
Surreyman
a.spencer3
re 'Invasion' ISBN is 0-948093-08-0
Surreyman
Ian Dalziel
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:hled31186dv5h7pts...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:00:17 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ian Dalziel" <ianda...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> >news:9dqb3158o2rgkq5nn...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:40:05 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>> >> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I don't need a map, I live quite close.
>> >> >I still see no 14-mile beach west of Bognor.
>> >>
>> >> OK - me neither. I don't see Portsmouth either, though. What defences
>> >> does Chichester Harbour have?
>> >>
>> >See that bit to the left which says (Ports)MOUTH?
>>
>> Sure - it's over the fold to the left, though.
>>
>> I thought most of the defences were focused on the Solent?
>> --
>
>Portsmouth's not involved with the Solent?
>
Of course it is. Chichester isn't, though.
--
Ian
a.spencer3
Very involved with the Solent in its activities. When did I say it was
defended? But it doesn't have a 14-mile beach either. Not sure what you're
saying./asking?
Surreyman
Ian Dalziel
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"My gutfeel is that the Germans could possibly have done it.
But via Bognor? Which 14-mile beach is that? West of Bognor is
Portsmouth & Chichester Harbours - a bit defended!"
Which suggested that Chichester Harbour was strongly defended as well.
I know the defences at Portsmouth, but I didn't think they'd cover
even the entrance to Chichester Harbour.
Prepared to be corrected - but I couldn't think of any defences
anything like Portsmouth.
>But it doesn't have a 14-mile beach either. Not sure what you're
>saying./asking?
It doesn't. You orginally sounded as though you were saying Portsmouth
was within 14 miles of Bognor, which it clearly ain't.