Did the Navy win the Battle of Britain?

Discussion in 'The War In The Air' started by adrian roberts, Aug 25, 2006.

Tags:
  1. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Germany could have only have gained "fighter" air superiority over the South East of England - RAF planes could be stationed out of the their reach and sortie in for specific tasks during any attempted.


    The problem is - the ranges of RAF fighters in 1940 - both types of which were not yet able to carry extended-range or droptanks.

    Stationing Hurricanes and Spitfires out of effective LW range means well up into Twelve Group north of the Thames; this means a 70-mile flight to get over the coast, and a 70-mile return leg to refuel/rearm. The Spitfire/Hurricane of 1940 ONLY had a range of ~600 miles, there's 140-160 miles lopped off their duration already!

    British carriers had armoured decks, although using them in the channel would have been risky, although out in the North Sea with planes overflying an invasion attempt was not.


    Adm.Forbes specifically refused to sortie any capital ships of Home Fleet further south than Great Yarmouth in the event of an invasion.

    Exploding armoured piecing shell were not available to Stukas at the time, so penetrating armoured decks was near impossible


    Exactly how much deck armour did RN destroyers have?

    Britain also had a huge bomber force, which would be used against any invasion beaches and they were bombing the barges at their mooring anyway.



    Entirely and absolutely WRONG; the RAF's tactical force had been greatly impacted by the losses to the AASF in France and Belgium; only a handful of Blenheim and Battle squadrons were available - why do you think the RAF had to plan Operation BANQUET?

    There were few decent invasion beaches on the south east coast, as the Spanish knew in 1588, so any invasion would be concentrated a few beaches, which would be primarily around the Thames estuary, which is easier for the defenders


    I think you

    1/ need a map, and

    2/ need to read some of the standard works on Sealion.

    Then look at the concrete barges the Germans were to use. They had to blow off the fronts to get heavy vehicles out - this would mean the concrete lump would litter the beach preventing any follow up barges from coming ashore. The wake of a full speed frigate would turn the barges over, so a few of these mixing in the force would cause panic.


    O good lord - see point 2/ above :rolleyes: Barges made of concrete??? Do you seriouslhy think that's what's meant in the descriptions??? Their keels/bilges were filled with concrete for ballasting and for deck reinforcement for heavy vehicles - the sides and bows were NOT made of concrete!!!

    Then their would be beach obstacles for the barges to get around.


    Beach obstacles??? I think you'd better read David Newbold's thesis and find out exactly what these comprised...

    Now look at the German army. Top class front line tanks used as a battering ram, which took all by surprise, with backup supply by horses, with the following infantry marching with the horses. This slow manpower and horse intensive setup was to conquer the south east of the England? Not likely even if by the remote possibility they gained an initial beach head.



    Strangely enough - it worked in Poland, in France, in Holland, in Belgium, in half of the USSR...

    Now look at the strength of the RN (largest navy in the world) against the virtually non-existent German navy who only a few months earlier suffered large losses at Norway. Most of their surface navy was wiped out at Narvik


    Wrong - just under half their destroyers, and a quarter of their major surface units were lost in WESERUBUNG

    During the Battle of Britain the UK sent 55 tanks to the Middle East. This is not in-keeping of a country that was about to fall.


    Also wrong; they sent a LOT more; see David Newbold's thesis. And they didnt send them BECAUSE they knew they weren't going to loose an invasion - they sent them because they had just enough intelligence (in the military sense) to decide that they could probably be replaced with new builds before Sealion would be launched. We actually sent half our front-line tank strength abroad...
     
  2. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    What don't you understand?
     
  3. fredleander

    fredleander Senior Member

    What don't you understand?

    If it is me you are asking I do not understand from where you have generated all this nonsense.....o_O...
     
  4. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    What don't you understand?

    This is not the way to conduct debate on this site.

    Show courtesy to others, listen to the advice of us Mods, and if someone disagrees with you and takes the time to highlight issues with what you say, have the courtesy to reply, and in a civil way.

    We tend not to offer this advice twice... B)
     
  5. fredleander

    fredleander Senior Member

    In a way it can well be said that the RN won the BoB. The Germans had a great respect for the RN but didn't know how weak its presence was in the Channel area end of September. If they had known, another admiral than Raeder might have dared take the plunge. He, however, ran an effective campaign to have it postponed. Luckily enough, the result was that Germany had to fight a two-front war the year after.
     
  6. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    Adm.Forbes specifically refused to sortie any capital ships of Home Fleet further south than Great Yarmouth in the event of an invasion.


    Until ordered to.

    Exactly how much deck armour did RN destroyers have?

    Depends on the ship

    Operation BANQUET? was to throw all available planes at the invaders. Something the French never did. The UK has a large collection planes of all types.

    The invasion river barges were not designed for the open sea with a low freeboard. A frigate's wash would turn them over. They would have been slow and vulnerable to attack. There were not enough barges to transport the first wave never mind the following waves. The Germans would need to capture a port, which was tall order.

    Strangely enough - it worked in Poland, in France, in Holland, in Belgium, in half of the USSR...



    A seaborne invasion? New to me but enlighten us. :)

    We actually sent half our front-line tank strength abroad...

    Yes, they must have been quivering in their boots to such a thing. ;)

    I think you need to read some more. ;)
     
  7. fredleander

    fredleander Senior Member

    Dear Bayman - sorry for being so tough on you but I must agree with PR. May I recommend my book to you? See the link at my postings....:)...
     
  8. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    This is not the way to conduct debate on this site.


    Is saying this then? "From where have you sucked all this nonsense....?" This where your comments should be aimed. I show courtesy to others a pity they did not do it to me. Please do not accuse me not being civil. I did not insult anyone and have not in ay way to anyone.
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  9. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    I'm not debating this with you, I'm just telling you learn how to play nice. Up to you whether you follow that advice or not.
     
  10. fredleander

    fredleander Senior Member

    Is saying this then? "From where have you sucked all this nonsense....?" This where your comments should be aimed. I show courtesy to others a pity they did not do it to me. Please do not accuse me not being civil. I did not insult anyone and have not in ay way to anyone.
    Sorry about this B, but your posting was so overwhelming in its, well, lack of knowledge. As a matter of fact it would be interesting to know from where you have acquired the opinions aired therein. I could recommend you several books, other than my own, where you can pick up on the subject. It is a very interresting subject, but not simple in any way.
     
  11. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    Dear Bayman - sorry for being so tough on you but I must agree with PR. May I recommend my book to you? See the link at my postings....:)...


    My point is that the the air battle, the misnomer, The Battle of Britain did not stop the Germans occupying the UK, as the myth portrays. The army and navy by being there stopped that. The army was not wiped out at all. In fact 6 months after the fall of France this army was poised to take all the southern Med coast.

    Churchill did state that he would have liked the Germans to have made an attempt to give them a bloody nose.

    BTW,Surprisingly Adam Tooze gives the misnomer, Battle of Britain, scant regard. The UK produced twice as many planes as Germany in mid to late 1940. He sums up:

    Wages of Destruction, Page 400:
    "in retrospect it seems an extremely one sided affair."

    "France had cost the Luftwaffe almost 30% of its initial strength"

    "the Luftwaffe lacked the equipment to deliver the fatal blow"

    Page 410:
    "The fundamental point was simple: in 1940 neither Britain or Germany had developed the technology nor had they mobilised the resources necessary to provide the smothering air superiority that would make a cross-channel invasion a viable proposition."
     
  12. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    I'm not debating this with you, I'm just telling you learn how to play nice. Up to you whether you follow that advice or not.

    It is clear you are saying I am the offender when I am clearly the offended. The posts are there for all to see - no ambiguity.
     
  13. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Until ordered to.


    It's just a pity then that Their Lordships at the Admiralty agreed with him...

    Depends on the ship


    I'll read that as - you don't know.

    The invasion river barges were not designed for the open sea with a low freeboard. A frigate's wash would turn them over.


    Pity about the ballasting...

    They would have been slow and vulnerable to attack.


    They were NOT actually that vulnerable to attack; the FAA carried out two series of tests with their gravity ordnance against single-skinned barges of similar types, and found that only impacts within 15 feet or less would do enough damage to threaten their integrity

    Operation BANQUET? was to throw all available planes at the invaders.


    Not quite the case; it was planned to formate certain types of non-operational types, arm them and set them against a range of SPECIFIC objectives. It was by no means as random as your statement would indicate.

    A seaborne invasion? New to me but enlighten us.


    An armoured/motorised spearhead followed by slower-moving foot or horse transport; how it gets to the start line is immaterial once it's got there.

    Yes, they must have been quivering in their boots to such a thing. :wink:

    I think you need to read some more.


    Actually - no; as I PM'd an acquaintance the other night...

    On the 21st/22nd of August 1940 we sent abroad over 150 light, Cruiser
    and Infantry tanks from our frontline strength, together with 48 x 2 pdr. anti-tank guns, 20 x Bofors light A.A. guns, 48 x 25 pdr. field guns, 500 Bren guns and 250 anti-tank rifles, plus the necessary ammunition and personnel.

    They comprised the 50 "I" tanks of 7 RTR, the 55 Cruisers of 2 RTR, and 52 Vickers Lights that were sent abroad from the strength of 1st
    Armoured Brigade in 2nd Armoured Division.

    In fact 6 months after the fall of France this army was poised to take all the southern Med coast.


    Against the same army they'd have been fighting on the shores of England? ;) Look what happened when that army DID arrive in Libya...

    P.S. since when did "ALL the southern Med coast" comprise half of Libya? 50% of said coast was actually FRENCH and newly Neutral...

    BTW,Surprisingly Adam Tooze gives the misnomer, Battle of Britain, scant regard. The UK produced twice as many planes as Germany in mid to late 1940.

    I LOVE economic historians; they manage to miss small details like - anywhere from 45 to 50% of that build was training/communications aircraft of all types :huh:

    A far more accurate and specific figure comes from John Ray - Great Britain produced three monoplane fighters for every two the Germans did on the eve of the BoB.

    The production gap doesn't look so big that way, does it? ;)
     
  14. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    As far as I'm concerned (and it's my opinion), Operation Sealion was an option to Hitler and the decision to use that option depended on air superiority. He didn't gain said superiority so he didn't use the option.

    And as we all know you can built twenty times the aircraft but if you don't have the pilots then what does it matter.
     
  15. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Take care crossing the airfield runway. There is a flight of Corvettes. with a destroyer pathfinder just about to take off, on bombing mission over Peenemunde,to stop the rockets from arriving. BIG GRIN.

    It demeans the courage and sacrifices of those brave young men.
     
  16. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    to Fred Leander.....
    A quickie from wiki....

    The obvious solution for the Navy to assemble a large sea-going invasion fleet in the short time allotted was to convert inland river barges to the task. Towards that end, the Kriegsmarine collected approximately 2,400 barges from throughout Europe (860 from Germany, 1,200 from the Netherlands and Belgium and 350 from France). Of these, only about 800 were powered (some insufficiently). The rest required towing by tugs. Len Deighton and some other writers have called the German amphibious plans a "Dunkirk in reverse"
    400 barges unpowered! Many with power would need towing anyhow. So hundreds of tugs (ships of all types) would be needed. With an invasion it is necessary to get the men and materials ashore ASAP, otherwise they get driven off the beaches.

    From the invasion ports it would some approx 24 hours to get across the water. Any faster and the barges will sink in the swell of the sea. Now this is assuming the RN decides to go AWOL. In reality the passage will be partially at night and the RN would run amok amongst them. Many will collide. Also being attacked by aircraft.

    Then the men, many seasick and cold, will have to run up a heavily defended beach pounded by artillery shells and machine gun fire and aircraft straffing the barges as they close in.

    The barges had no front loading landing craft. Having the tanks high up would make the barges even more unstable, and that is the big Rhine barges tat could hold a tank. To get heavy vehicles (tanks) off they would have to blow the fronts off some of them. There is no other way. A tank rolling over a bow to get off would crush the bow, even if reinforced with concrete. The Germans had only a few amphibious tractors, designed for rivers, to pull barges up and down beaches, assuming they survived of course.
     
  17. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    As far as I'm concerned (and it's my opinion), Operation Sealion was an option to Hitler and the decision to use that option depended on air superiority. He didn't gain said superiority so he didn't use the option.


    Gage, even with superiority it was not an option. Slaughter!
     
  18. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    Take care crossing the airfield runway. There is a flight of Corvettes. with a destroyer pathfinder just about to take off, on bombing mission over Peenemunde,to stop the rockets from arriving. BIG GRIN.

    It demeans the courage and sacrifices of those brave young men.

    The fact is those pilots did not stop a German invasion as myth portrays. The navy and army did that.
     
  19. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    There never was a serious plan to invade the UK..... Everyone knew it was a propaganda ploy...... An attempt to take us out the war... And there were senior MPs that wanted to make peace with the Enemy at that time...

    I even recall the Conservative MP standing up in Parliament saying: "It is a crime to bomb the German arms factories. They are private property"... I am Dead serious!
    Sapper
     
  20. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    With an invasion it is necessary to get the men and materials ashore ASAP, otherwise they get driven off the beaches.


    ONLY if there are forces there to do that...;)

    From the invasion ports it would some approx 24 hours to get across the water. Any faster and the barges will sink in the swell of the sea.



    Actually - the 24-hour figure was for those barges leaving Dutch and Belgian ports that were to hug the coast THEN turn 90 degrees to starboard and cross the Channel directly.

    Now this is assuming the RN decides to go AWOL. In reality the passage will be partially at night and the RN would run amok amongst them.


    Unfortunately, the RN never EVER gave a categorical guarantee that they would discover that an invasion fleet had left port. Nor did the RAF....

    Also being attacked by aircraft.


    At night???

    Then the men, many seasick and cold, will have to run up a heavily defended beach pounded by artillery shells and machine gun fire and aircraft straffing the barges as they close in.


    You REALLY need to read Newbold...
     

Share This Page