Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
The first wave would be the easy one, and the only chance to get the drop on the RN. After that things get dicey.
Well, easier, but only comparatively. There wouldn't be an awful lot of surprise to be had. Due to RAF & RN raids the Germans had scattered the barge fleet & some of the other ships to smaller ports or inland canals. Those ships would all have to be assembled - not exactly something that could go unnoticed. As mentioned elsewhere, the fleet itself was not going to be quick. Even the elements in the narrowest part of the channel would be giving away many hours warning (up to 12). That would give the RN plenty of time to deploy some 30 odd destroyers, some light cruisers & hundreds of smaller vessels. Worse, the heer was insistent thatthe landing be at dawn, so much of that transit time would be without air cover. If the invasion was to be staged so that the waves all hit the beach at about the same time than the warning would be days, not hours. Even if that wasn't the case those destroyers packs & light cruisers of the Home Fleet would hit the Dover Strait before many of the ships from the Low Countries did.
The paras might be able to gain some surprise, but after what happened in the Low Countries months earler it won't have the same impact. British airfields were guarded & pillboxes around them had been altered so that they could fire on the runway as well as away from it. Many runways also had special plough on hand to rip up the airfield at the first hint of aerial invasion.
Britain was on high alert, so as soon as it became clear an attack had begun plans to sabotage facilities & man defences would be enacted. Unfortuantely amphibious assaults are slow. Not much 'drop' to get.
Raider's narrow front option would have been the wiser choice for the Germans. They had enough fast steamers and ferry's to make quick trips supporting a single bridgehead based on Folkstone.
Agreed, but if anyone had been paying attention to Raeder in the first place they would never have wasted the resources they did on this. The Heer had way too much influence on the plan, and the price for that would have been high. Of course, a small bridgehead would have been easier for the ground forces to deal with - there were enough available to handle one bridgehead that size.
They still had 3-400 Ju-52's and half the numbers lost in Holland would or had returned to service. The critical shortage was in gliders not transports. The German answer was to use paras to seize airfields and then fly in light infantry divisions. Given British weakness in the South, I doubt the air heads could ahve been over run before the beachhead expanded to it.
Depends on how easy the airfields were to seize and, more importantly, how quickly the bridgheads were established.
Raider's folkstone plan was a lot easier on the economic risks Germany would have to entail.
Yes & no. Less chance of defeating Britain & still costly in terms of losses of seagoing craft. Raeder & his guys knew what a complete & total disaster this would be. They fought it as long as they could & then only went along because they were told to. I half suspect the point of his plan was to show thatthe only feasible idea in naval terms would never succeed in terms of the ground battle.
Granted the Folkstone plan was risky in its own right, the harbor was limited. A quick search of ebay.com to look at old post cards of Folkstone harbor show it could handle good sized freighters and liners, and based on WWI freight totals could load/unload 20,000 tons a month in an undamaged state. But it would not be undamaged and 5000 tons a month might be too much. It would be Norway v2.0 using warships and merchies to land troops straight on to the docks. The upsides are no barges, no 30 hours at sea, ample air cover for daylight crossings....
The problem with relying so heavily on one harbour is that it is an easy target. The Luftwaffe won't be able to help much at night. The RAF will be bombing every night. Additionally, within a few days most of the KM bigger than a torpedo boat is going to be damaged or sunk. Even if the RN can't destroy the convoys during the day, they can shell the port at night as they did historically to channel ports.
I don't have firm figures on the supply needs of a German armoured division on the advance, but I've seen 500 tons per day cited as a low figure. Apprently for Overlord the Allies based calculations for their units on 950 tons per day. That means that even an undamaged Folkstone can only cover one and a bit armoured divisions. The Germans need Dover in working condition. Not going to happen.
Folkestone was in the british 12th Corps area (56th and 45th div )
The city itself might have one batalion at a minimum and posibly one brigade max.
In any case I doubt it could hold out more than 48 hours before falling back.
Plenty of time to dynamite everything functional. Pretty sure ports in the invasion zone were either rigged to blow or staffed by engineers who had already worked out how to do it very quickly.
I don't have firm figures on the supply needs of a German armoured division on the advance, but I've seen 500 tons per day cited as a low figure. Apprently for Overlord the Allies based calculations for their units on 950 tons per day. That means that even an undamaged Folkstone can only cover one and a bit armoured divisions. The Germans need Dover in working condition. Not going to happen.
Btw Dover was supposed to be defended also by 12th corps.
I don't have firm figures on the supply needs of a German armoured division on the advance, but I've seen 500 tons per day cited as a low figure. Apprently for Overlord the Allies based calculations for their units on 950 tons per day. That means that even an undamaged Folkstone can only cover one and a bit armoured divisions. The Germans need Dover in working condition. Not going to happen.
There are no firm figures, it depends on what kind of oposition they go against ;
20 tons of food, and 80 tons of POL is the minimum.
how many tons ammo they consume on top of that depends on the fight.
Plenty of time to dynamite everything functional. Pretty sure ports in the invasion zone were either rigged to blow or staffed by engineers who had already worked out how to do it very quickly.
There wouldn't be an awful lot of surprise to be had. Due to RAF & RN raids the Germans had scattered the barge fleet & some of the other ships to smaller ports or inland canals. Those ships would all have to be assembled - not exactly something that could go unnoticed.
Dissagree, those ships all have to arrive at the same place at the same time. Using Raeder's plan you need fewer ships and they are faster so the threat of detection is lower
As mentioned elsewhere, the fleet itself was not going to be quick. Even the elements in the narrowest part of the channel would be giving away many hours warning (up to 12).
Wrong, using a single port approach and the faster channel boats v barges cuts down the crossing time considerably. A steamer at 10 knots can cross the channel in 3-4 hours.
That would give the RN plenty of time to deploy some 30 odd destroyers, some light cruisers & hundreds of smaller vessels. Worse, the heer was insistent thatthe landing be at dawn, so much of that transit time would be without air cover. If the invasion was to be staged so that the waves all hit the beach at about the same time than the warning would be days, not hours. Even if that wasn't the case those destroyers packs & light cruisers of the Home Fleet would hit the Dover Strait before many of the ships from the Low Countries did.
Now argue against the plan the KM actually wanted- single beachhead based on Folkstone. The RN is under Luftwaffe controlled skies from the Northern tip of Scotland all the way to the Eastern Approaches and into the channel itself. Those destroyer packs have some major obstacles to over come. First Scapa Flow is 700km+ from Folkstone if traveling a direct path on the waves. A high speed dash down from Scotland zig zagging to avoid subs and air attacks leaves a lot of British destroyers without any fuel at all when they arrive in the invasion area. Second, Bomber command is a joke in 1940, its bombers have been trashed in France and over Germany, few remain and they lack a useful doctrine. Bombing your own civilians at night on the off chance you might kill a German isn't feasible. Thirdly, a battle to save the RN ensures the RAF fights over the water. That means up to 958 fighter pilots (number of hurricanes and Spitfires knocked down) not the historical 317 pilots are gone forever. That is almost every fighter pilot in the RAF after the Fall of France. To this the loss of 128 other British air craft during the BoB will also climb as German fighters get to swat at British bombers. Fourth a dash across the channel in July means long days for the Luftwaffe and short nights for Bomber command. It also means the British army is still mostly disorganized and under-equipped.
The paras might be able to gain some surprise, but after what happened in the Low Countries months earler it won't have the same impact. British airfields were guarded & pillboxes around them had been altered so that they could fire on the runway as well as away from it. Many runways also had special plough on hand to rip up the airfield at the first hint of aerial invasion.
Crete showed just how inept British defensive schemes against paras were. It was a new game and everyone was still learning the rules.
Britain was on high alert, so as soon as it became clear an attack had begun plans to sabotage facilities & man defences would be enacted. Unfortuantely amphibious assaults are slow. Not much 'drop' to get.
Its easy to tear up tracks, disable cranes, burn buildings. Not so easy to wreck stone quays and in an invasion that is what is important the quays. Dock cranes might be more efficient, but the shipboard cranes can do in a pinch. Its easier to use block ships than to destroy quays which is the path the British went and we know the date- July 29th. A hope before then and the harbor is open.
Agreed, but if anyone had been paying attention to Raeder in the first place they would never have wasted the resources they did on this. The Heer had way too much influence on the plan, and the price for that would have been high. Of course, a small bridgehead would have been easier for the ground forces to deal with - there were enough available to handle one bridgehead that size.
Depends, the Germans landed on six different beaches in Norway plus 3 airfields. Not the massive landings the Heer plan called or seen in Overlord for but regiment and brigade sized landings. Something similar at Folkstone (and possibly) Dover is doable. I don't British defenses are not up to it.
Yes & no. Less chance of defeating Britain & still costly in terms of losses of seagoing craft. Raeder & his guys knew what a complete & total disaster this would be. They fought it as long as they could & then only went along because they were told to. I half suspect the point of his plan was to show thatthe only feasible idea in naval terms would never succeed in terms of the ground battle.
The British army in July 1940 was a joke, the RN and RAF would have gotten clobbered opposing the Folkstone plan- Britain teeters.... the victory will be decided by strength of the British government. If the army suffers another set back/ defeat on top of Norway, Belgium, Dunkirk and the RN and RAF have failed the government might collapse. If they did in, its Gallipolli redux.
Dissagree, those ships all have to arrive at the same place at the same time. Using Raeder's plan you need fewer ships and they are faster so the threat of detection is lower
Wrong, using a single port approach and the faster channel boats v barges cuts down the crossing time considerably. A steamer at 10 knots can cross the channel in 3-4 hours.
Now argue against the plan the KM actually wanted- single beachhead based on Folkstone. The RN is under Luftwaffe controlled skies from the Northern tip of Scotland all the way to the Eastern Approaches and into the channel itself. Those destroyer packs have some major obstacles to over come. First Scapa Flow is 700km+ from Folkstone if traveling a direct path on the waves. A high speed dash down from Scotland zig zagging to avoid subs and air attacks leaves a lot of British destroyers without any fuel at all when they arrive in the invasion area. Second, Bomber command is a joke in 1940, its bombers have been trashed in France and over Germany, few remain and they lack a useful doctrine. Bombing your own civilians at night on the off chance you might kill a German isn't feasible. Thirdly, a battle to save the RN ensures the RAF fights over the water. That means up to 958 fighter pilots (number of hurricanes and Spitfires knocked down) not the historical 317 pilots are gone forever. That is almost every fighter pilot in the RAF after the Fall of France. To this the loss of 128 other British air craft during the BoB will also climb as German fighters get to swat at British bombers. Fourth a dash across the channel in July means long days for the Luftwaffe and short nights for Bomber command. It also means the British army is still mostly disorganized and under-equipped.
Crete showed just how inept British defensive schemes against paras were. It was a new game and everyone was still learning the rules.
Its easy to tear up tracks, disable cranes, burn buildings. Not so easy to wreck stone quays and in an invasion that is what is important the quays. Dock cranes might be more efficient, but the shipboard cranes can do in a pinch. Its easier to use block ships than to destroy quays which is the path the British went and we know the date- July 29th. A hope before then and the harbor is open.
Depends, the Germans landed on six different beaches in Norway plus 3 airfields. Not the massive landings the Heer plan called or seen in Overlord for but regiment and brigade sized landings. Something similar at Folkstone (and possibly) Dover is doable. I don't British defenses are not up to it.
The British army in July 1940 was a joke, the RN and RAF would have gotten clobbered opposing the Folkstone plan- Britain teeters.... the victory will be decided by strength of the British government. If the army suffers another set back/ defeat on top of Norway, Belgium, Dunkirk and the RN and RAF have failed the government might collapse. If they did in, its Gallipolli redux.
Z,
You are all over the place here. You are making proposals that the Germans themselves did not seriously consider & with good reason. Having spent more of my life than I care to debating harebrained 'Sealion could work' theories I am disinclined to continue in this case. I simply don't have the time to chase down every point you can throw out. If you have a genuine interest in testing your theories (as opposed to posting them unapposed & thus assumming them 'proven') can I suggest you pay a visit here:
This forum & this thread contain some remarkably well informed people. 'Doveton Sturdee' has actually authored an extremely good book on just this topic - he probably knows more about sealion than all of us combined. 'Leandros' self-published a book claiming Sealion was possible. it was so riddled wiht werror & invention that no publisher would touch it. he is still wandering the internet trying to flog it. There are plenty of other folk on the thread who can debate each point you raise in considerable detail. If this particular thread is not to your liking then start one in the 'Alterantive History' section laying out the Raeder Plan & why you think it would work.
Alternatively, try the same thing at Axis History Forum. There are some very well informed folk there too. Start a thread & link to this one - I'd be curious to see what people make of it.
As for me, I'm out. This topic can literally drag on forever (there is one ACG thread that was locked at almost 1000 pages) and it doesn't get any more informative the third or fourth time around.
You are all over the place here. You are making proposals that the Germans themselves did not seriously consider & with good reason. Having spent more of my life than I care to debating harebrained 'Sealion could work' theories I am disinclined to continue in this case. I simply don't have the time to chase down every point you can throw out. If you have a genuine interest in testing your theories (as opposed to posting them unapposed & thus assumming them 'proven') can I suggest you pay a visit here:
This forum & this thread contain some remarkably well informed people. 'Doveton Sturdee' has actually authored an extremely good book on just this topic - he probably knows more about sealion than all of us combined. 'Leandros' self-published a book claiming Sealion was possible. it was so riddled wiht werror & invention that no publisher would touch it. he is still wandering the internet trying to flog it. There are plenty of other folk on the thread who can debate each point you raise in considerable detail. If this particular thread is not to your liking then start one in the 'Alterantive History' section laying out the Raeder Plan & why you think it would work.
Alternatively, try the same thing at Axis History Forum. There are some very well informed folk there too. Start a thread & link to this one - I'd be curious to see what people make of it.
As for me, I'm out. This topic can literally drag on forever (there is one ACG thread that was locked at almost 1000 pages) and it doesn't get any more informative the third or fourth time around.
BF, sorry but I am going to call that a dodge, since all I did was answer your points. Fact is Raeder wanted a single port narrow front plan centered on Folkstone. In hindsight this plan offers the best overall chance for the Germans to accomplish anything. It moves as many of the game pieces as possible towards the Germans. It still leaves a huge amount to overcome.
Just arguing from known historical fact
Destroyer range- But it does remove your crutch of sunken barges and destroyer dashes. Look at the range from where the destroyers are, to where they need to go. They have to do that under hostile skies to get at a much smaller and faster German logistics tail.
Crete- Ditto for your claim about British ability to repel paras- Crete showed they were hardly the expert para killers you claim.
BoB fighter losses- The RAF lost badly fighter on fighter in the BoB and fighting over water to try and protect the RN means far more pilot losses than over the fields of Southern England.
Stone quays- it takes a lot more than dynamite to destroy Stone Quays, hundreds if not thousands of of allied 500lb bombs couldn't destroy them or the u-boat pens. The British did decide to use blockships and sank them July 29, 1940
BF, sorry but I am going to call that a dodge, since all I did was answer your points. Fact is Raeder wanted a single port narrow front plan centered on Folkstone. In hindsight this plan offers the best overall chance for the Germans to accomplish anything. It moves as many of the game pieces as possible towards the Germans. It still leaves a huge amount to overcome.
Just arguing from known historical fact
Destroyer range- But it does remove your crutch of sunken barges and destroyer dashes. Look at the range from where the destroyers are, to where they need to go. They have to do that under hostile skies to get at a much smaller and faster German logistics tail.
Crete- Ditto for your claim about British ability to repel paras- Crete showed they were hardly the expert para killers you claim.
BoB fighter losses- The RAF lost badly fighter on fighter in the BoB and fighting over water to try and protect the RN means far more pilot losses than over the fields of Southern England.
Stone quays- it takes a lot more than dynamite to destroy Stone Quays, hundreds if not thousands of of allied 500lb bombs couldn't destroy them or the u-boat pens. The British did decide to use blockships and sank them July 29, 1940
Like I said Z, I'm not the guy to play this game.If you want to call that a dodge that is down to you. No skin off my nose. I've had all of this settled to my personal satisfaction on numerous occasions by people dramatically better informed than either of us. I have seen every realistic scenario debated to death. Each one unravels the more closely it is examined. I have neither the time nor patience to track down all the information I would need to counter each point. As is always the case in these scenarios it is easier to make a half-informed speculation than a fully informed rebuttal. I've seen your 'energizer bunny' act on numerous other threads & I don't especially want to be on the other side of it. I didn't plan to get myself into yet another of these interminable threads so I am getting out now.
To repeat, if you just want to score points off me then you win - a victory worthy of Phyrrus. If you are really serious about arguing out particular scenario that you think credible then don't waste it at WAB, go to ACG & mix it with the big boys. In fact, I'll go you one better. I'll happily start a thread for you using the quotes you've put here & link it back to this thread. If you really want to test your points then that will be the place to do it. The good folk there will be able to answer your every point & judge how feasible each is. If you just want to win a 'last man standing' victory here then you have it.
Like I said Z, I'm not the guy to play this game.If you want to call that a dodge that is down to you. No skin off my nose. I've had all of this settled to my personal satisfaction on numerous occasions by people dramatically better informed than either of us. I have seen every realistic scenario debated to death. Each one unravels the more closely it is examined. I have neither the time nor patience to track down all the information I would need to counter each point. As is always the case in these scenarios it is easier to make a half-informed speculation than a fully informed rebuttal. I've seen your 'energizer bunny' act on numerous other threads & I don't especially want to be on the other side of it. I didn't plan to get myself into yet another of these interminable threads so I am getting out now.
To repeat, if you just want to score points off me then you win - a victory worthy of Phyrrus. If you are really serious about arguing out particular scenario that you think credible then don't waste it at WAB, go to ACG & mix it with the big boys. In fact, I'll go you one better. I'll happily start a thread for you using the quotes you've put here & link it back to this thread. If you really want to test your points then that will be the place to do it. The good folk there will be able to answer your every point & judge how feasible each is. If you just want to win a 'last man standing' victory here then you have it.
I'll keep an eye out for you on ACG.
start the thread and gimme the link and i'll join the site.
Look at the range from where the destroyers are, to where they need to go. They have to do that under hostile skies to get at a much smaller and faster German logistics tail.
the cruisers Aurora , Cardiff and 36 destroyers are 3 to 4 hours away, at a minimum the germans would need to face that .
It has bean mentioned in the thread that the british have hundreds of auxiliary small ships .
what it was not said is that only 300 are in the invasion zone and the rest deployed from thames estuary to Hull on the british east coast , their misions involved ASW and minesweeping ( unlikely to be abandoned in order to make them available for the channel ).
for direct escort of the barges the german had asigned 80 aux. minesweepers, 40 R-boats, 80 aux. patrol boats ( about 200 ) out of 430 aux.
a full strength sortie is not possible before the americans arrive, and until they do, the british battleships sent east remain in the home fleet so the situation si not any better.
[/quote]
Possible but if this option is used then the Germans have by default already "won" a major victory just by forcing the British to totally reorganise their naval deployments for that part of the war, crippling their sea power in the Med, Indian and Pacific theatres in the process.
The slow bb's supported by land aircraft take the low end, the fast bbs and carriers take the high end- not 3 gaps, 2 routes, low side close to the northern part of the british isles or farther out to sea to make for the north atlantic. The allies were also reading the german naval codes.
[/quote]
Yes but you underestimate the difficulties faced by the British in tracking German raiders in the first half of the war. Look at the famous "channel dash" incident for example. There was a operation that by rights the Germans should have had no chance of pulling off successfully yet it worked. Yes the British had long range aircraft but not enough at this stage of the war and they had to cover thousands of sq miles of ocean in some of the harshest weather conditions and sea states known to man. Yes they were partly reading the codes but once at sea that only assisted if/when the target broke radio silence. When you read up on this part of the war you realise how much the British sweated "blood" trying to locate and intercept a German sortie.
Then why was the bismark sunk? You also know that the first hostile warship ever sunk by dive bombing was the german cruiser konigsberg sunk by faa skua's in norway. Also the us sdb dauntless could pack a 1 ton bomb, twice what the skua could.
[/quote]
If you read up on the sinking of the Bismarck I'm sure you will see that the British launched 3 separate torpedo bomber attacks during its final voyage. The first saw 9 torpedoes launched but only one hit with minimal damage. The second saw 7 torpedoes launched with no hits and the last saw (I think) 15 torpedoes launched with two hits. Of these last two hits the first also caused only minor damage while the last scored a "fluke" hit on its rudders. In fact if you only had one torpedo to fire at the Bismarck that is place you would want to aim for. (You’re talking proton torpedos and thermal exhaust port territory here!)
By my count that's a total of 31 torpedos expended for 3 hits, two of which had only a marginal impact on its fighting efficiency. So assuming this last torpedo had struck anywhere else in all probability the Bismarck would have made it home despite the British throwing everything they had available at her. As far as I can tell air launched torpedos weren’t particularly effective against capital ships at sea during WWII. In port yes but not at sea when they had speed and room to manoeuvre as well as escorts providing AA support. Most of the "heavies" I have read about were taken out (at sea) with bombing attacks, submarine launched torpedos or shell fire followed up by torpedos at the end to finish them off. The Yamamoto was one exception but that was right at the end of the war when she was deliberately being sailed out on a one way mission and even then she was swamped with something like 100 plus attack aircraft that scored 7?? hits
The germans don't have the choice of time of year, the allies are sending convoys through the long arctic nights to russia. If the germans are massing for a maximum effort against the arctic convoys chances are the british know to the ships i listed earlier you might add the repulse, prince of wales and hermes as it is conceivable that churchill will keep them home given the that you are talking about, or that he will send slow battleships instead.
[/quote]
The Russian convoys were only one option as I noted if the massed sortie manages to avoid interception on the outwards run they have the option of hitting a UK bound convoy (preferably a large one already identifiied detected by U-Boats/Condors/radio intercepts). Then head home - fast! However they could also choose to engage one of the slow BB groups and then head home, much greater risk of serious damange to themselves of course but also greater tonnage sunk.
Tweet
Comment