ot - Kenneth Macksey bok about nazi invazion to uk in 1940

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Who knew NSDAP had a plan to invade the UK. Imagine Martin Bormann leading a massive Parteitag rally in Stonehenge at night. Goosebumps!

This just reminds me of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKgHUrKZiXA

[:D]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

IF the Germans had air superiority (and for this to be achieved you need to remove Goering and give the Germans hindsight) then there would be spectacularly small chance of success – and then only provided everything went right for the Germans and wrong for the British for a two week period.

That's what you should have said at the start.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

IF the Germans had air superiority (and for this to be achieved you need to remove Goering and give the Germans hindsight) then there would be spectacularly small chance of success – and then only provided everything went right for the Germans and wrong for the British for a two week period.

That's what you should have said at the start.

warspite1

Why? I said Sealion was impossible and then, in post 9, confirmed the basis of that comment. My position was clear. The study posted assumed a RL BoB up to the point of invasion and you commented upon that - I naturally assumed we were talking about the same thing (although when you were contesting whether the Germans had air superiority and I queried what you were talking about, either one of us could have sought clarification from the other at that point).

[zuluhour]

2c
 
AH never intended to invade.
It was a last ditch ruse to get a treaty with England
 

[Orm]

I am not sure I understand the premise for this any longer.

I thought that the question was that during the war, was there any point were Germany could have launched a successful invasion of England. And my answer to that is that it would have been impossible. No chance whatsoever.

But if the question is rather a "what if" Germany had done this or that instead then it becomes a rather speculative question. And very hard to analyse since that would have altered the actions from the Allies as well.

Edit: That is why we have games. [:)]

[pontiouspilot]

My view is that in late June or early July 1940 if the Germans had rushed a smallish shock force of Amphibs and paras the Brits might not have had enough pitch forks to fight them off. After Dunkirk my recollection is that there was 1 poorly trained and equipped Cndn division in so called fighting form. Such a force could have taken wide swaths only opposed by Home Gds allowing heavy forces to find their way in due course. The Germans could control enough air space over the Channel to slowly move heavier reinforcements in....yes casualties would be high. This may not have captured a determined defence of London but I'm not so sure the will for this would have materialized.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

My view is that in late June or early July 1940 if the Germans had rushed a smallish shock force of Amphibs and paras the Brits might not have had enough pitch forks to fight them off. After Dunkirk my recollection is that there was 1 poorly trained and equipped Cndn division in so called fighting form. Such a force could have taken wide swaths only opposed by Home Gds allowing heavy forces to find their way in due course. The Germans could control enough air space over the Channel to slowly move heavier reinforcements in....yes casualties would be high. This may not have captured a determined defence of London but I'm not so sure the will for this would have materialized.

warspite1

I think you underestimate the number of divisions in the UK at the time and the number of tanks available. Yes, they were very short on heavy weapons - especially artillery, but your post suggests there is one division in the whole of the UK plus the Home Guard.

The problems with getting ANY troops to the English coast remains - both for the initial troops and the reinforcements. How many river barges were ready in June or July. The earliest date the Germans believed they would be ready was September. How small is this smallish force you are thinking of and what would they be tasked with doing - without heavy weapons or transport (assuming they actually got ashore)?

[warspite1]

Just one point to put this more into perspective.

Crete has been mentioned as an example of how the RN would have been destroyed by the Luftwaffe (even IF superiority in the skies had been achieved – which it wasn’t).

So let’s stick with Crete. For the defence of Crete the Royal Navy had no air cover.

There was one occasion during the campaign when the Germans sought to reinforce their paratroopers by sea. Remember, the Luftwaffe:

- Have air superiority
- They are better placed to attack ships by May 1941 than they were a year earlier

So what happened?

The German troops, consisting of just over 2,300 men + heavy weapons and ammunition, were transported in 25 small cargo steamers – travelling at 4 knots. They were escorted by an Italian destroyer. The force was intercepted at night and annihilated by three British cruisers and three destroyers. NO German reinforcements landed at Crete by sea during the battle. This was with total Luftwaffe air superiority.

[Orm]

The German troops, consisting of just over 2,300 men + heavy weapons and ammunition, were transported in 25 small cargo steamers – travelling at 4 knots. They were escorted by an Italian destroyer. The force was intercepted at night and annihilated by three British cruisers and three destroyers. NO German reinforcements landed at Crete by sea during the battle. This was with total Luftwaffe air superiority.

Does anyone know why this force didn't get escorted by a heavier surface escort?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The German troops, consisting of just over 2,300 men + heavy weapons and ammunition, were transported in 25 small cargo steamers – travelling at 4 knots. They were escorted by an Italian destroyer. The force was intercepted at night and annihilated by three British cruisers and three destroyers. NO German reinforcements landed at Crete by sea during the battle. This was with total Luftwaffe air superiority.

Does anyone know why this force didn't get escorted by a heavier surface escort?

warspite1

Actually I think the escort was just a torpedo boat - not a destroyer. They probably thought they needed nothing else as they had air superiority [;)]

[Orm]

This may not have captured a determined defence of London but I'm not so sure the will for this would have materialized.

I am pretty sure that, after the successful evacuation of Dunkirk, the morale was high enough in Great Britain to fight long and hard against a German invasion. Especially with Sir Winston Churchill as Prime Minister to boast the fighting spirit. I can just imagine what the reaction would have been had he talked to the nation about the invasion in progress.

I rather suspect that the German force that made it to the shore would have been demoralized. Troops that had been sea sick for hours abandoned on a foreign coast and that suffered heavy losses. There they try to recover and reorganize while under fire from enemy destroyers and cruisers. Trying to find out where they were supposed to be and where to go. And they were promised German air superiority over the invasion beach but now they discover that RAF concentrate their divisions over the beachhead and it actually seems like the British have air superiority. No, I do not give much for the fighting spirit of those few who made it to the shore.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The German troops, consisting of just over 2,300 men + heavy weapons and ammunition, were transported in 25 small cargo steamers – travelling at 4 knots. They were escorted by an Italian destroyer. The force was intercepted at night and annihilated by three British cruisers and three destroyers. NO German reinforcements landed at Crete by sea during the battle. This was with total Luftwaffe air superiority.

Does anyone know why this force didn't get escorted by a heavier surface escort?

warspite1

Further to my earlier "light-hearted" answer, it appears that that may have been closer to the truth than I realised!

According to Italian sources, the Germans did not believe an escort was necessary as the Luftwaffe would sink any ship that dared to sail close to the island. The Germans only requested a unit to assist navigation rather than an escort.

As it happened, the Italians did not have a strong presence on the Aegean anyway.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

IF the Germans had air superiority (and for this to be achieved you need to remove Goering and give the Germans hindsight) then there would be spectacularly small chance of success – and then only provided everything went right for the Germans and wrong for the British for a two week period.

That's what you should have said at the start.

warspite1

Why? I said Sealion was impossible and then, in post 9, confirmed the basis of that comment. My position was clear. The study posted assumed a RL BoB up to the point of invasion and you commented upon that - I naturally assumed we were talking about the same thing (although when you were contesting whether the Germans had air superiority and I queried what you were talking about, either one of us could have sought clarification from the other at that point).

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am not sure I understand the premise for this any longer.

I thought that the question was that during the war, was there any point were Germany could have launched a successful invasion of England. And my answer to that is that it would have been impossible. No chance whatsoever.

But if the question is rather a "what if" Germany had done this or that instead then it becomes a rather speculative question. And very hard to analyse since that would have altered the actions from the Allies as well.

Edit: That is why we have games. [:)]

My issue is with people saying it was "impossible". That simply isn't true.

Operation Sea Lion could have succeeded, but only if the German plan worked flawlessly and the British made a severe hash of the defence.

That makes Sea Lion unlikely to succeed. Not impossible.

I hope this makes the distinction clear.

There were many who said that crossing the Alps with elephants was impossible, and history is replete with plenty of other examples of the impossible suddenly becoming possible.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just one point to put this more into perspective.

Crete has been mentioned as an example of how the RN would have been destroyed by the Luftwaffe (even IF superiority in the skies had been achieved – which it wasn’t).

So let’s stick with Crete. For the defence of Crete the Royal Navy had no air cover.

There was one occasion during the campaign when the Germans sought to reinforce their paratroopers by sea. Remember, the Luftwaffe:

- Have air superiority
- They are better placed to attack ships by May 1941 than they were a year earlier

So what happened?

RN losses during the battle of Crete:

Crusiers
- Gloucester
- Fiji
- Calcutta

Plus four destroyers.

HMS Formidable, Barham, and Valiant all damaged by air attack.

HMAS Perth, HMS Orion and sundry others also damaged.

That's some pretty significant losses, even if it is over a longer time period.

[warspite1]

1. You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that for Sealion to succeed the Germans would need air superiority. is that right?

Without air superiority Sealion is a failure - with it - assuming everything goes right for the Germans and wrong for the British, there is a slim chance, a very slim, chance of success. Of course things can go wrong in war, but there is simply too much, too many variables that the Germans need to overcome for the operation to be other than a graveyard for so many German servicemen.

The sheer number of jobs the exhausted and depleted Luftwaffe pilots are being asked to do - units are already running low on morale, numbers and experience. How does the Luftwaffe actually do everything it is tasked with?
There was little by way of naval support available.
As has already been said, the wake from a destroyer alone would sink the barges, so low in the water were they.
The barges could not be manned fully with naval personnel
The barges were mostly towed by tugs (2 per tug) - take out the tug and those barges are dead in the water waiting for destruction.
The Germans could not afford losses amongst the barges - they were needed for subsequent waves and re-supply.
The weather
The time taken to get to England ensures night attacks cannot be avoided - there is no Luftwaffe protection at this point
The inability of the Luftwaffe to hurt the RN sufficiently given the weapons available
By September American supplies (to re-equip the British Army) had already begun. It was not just a case of getting across the channel.

2. Re the losses and damage incurred by the RN off Crete, yes this is well known - and losses and damage during Sealion could be heavy, very heavy. But the Royal Navy - our senior service - spent the entire war putting themselves in harm's way - with the entire future of the country at stake they would have done the same in the autumn of 1940.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


My issue is with people saying it was "impossible". That simply isn't true.

Operation Sea Lion could have succeeded, but only if the German plan worked flawlessly and the British made a severe hash of the defence.

That makes Sea Lion unlikely to succeed. Not impossible.

I hope this makes the distinction clear.

There were many who said that crossing the Alps with elephants was impossible, and history is replete with plenty of other examples of the impossible suddenly becoming possible.

Could you give me a percentage figure on what "unlikely" is to you so I better understand what number we argue about.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1. You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that for Sealion to succeed the Germans would need air superiority. is that right?
...

I've maintained throughout that air superiority is an absolute necessity for Sea Lion to succeed.

Without air superiority Sealion is a failure - with it - assuming everything goes right for the Germans and wrong for the British, there is a slim chance, a very slim, chance of success. Of course things can go wrong in war, but there is simply too much, too many variables that the Germans need to overcome for the operation to be other than a graveyard for so many German servicemen.

...

Then there is at last something we agree on!

You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that Sea Lion was "impossible". Is that right?

2. Re the losses and damage incurred by the RN off Crete, yes this is well known - and losses and damage during Sealion could be heavy, very heavy. But the Royal Navy - our senior service - spent the entire war putting themselves in harm's way - with the entire future of the country at stake they would have done the same in the autumn of 1940.

And what does this add to the discussion exactly?

Some propaganda poster esque paragraph about the nobility of the Royal Navy does not take away from the fact that they had several capital ships sunk and even more damaged in operations off Crete - operations conducted when the Luftwaffe had air supremacy.

We're all aware you've got a thing for the RN, but to try to defend their obvious tatical failings like this is, frankly, embarrassing for you.

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could you give me a percentage figure on what "unlikely" is to you so I better understand what number we argue about.

5% mark.

Without air superiority, you're probably hovering around at the 1%.

[JeffroK]

Now we have come to argue about the definitions of phrases rather than the actual argument.

Time to toss in the flag.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1. You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that for Sealion to succeed the Germans would need air superiority. is that right?
...

I've maintained throughout that air superiority is an absolute necessity for Sea Lion to succeed.

Without air superiority Sealion is a failure - with it - assuming everything goes right for the Germans and wrong for the British, there is a slim chance, a very slim, chance of success. Of course things can go wrong in war, but there is simply too much, too many variables that the Germans need to overcome for the operation to be other than a graveyard for so many German servicemen.

...

Then there is at last something we agree on!

You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that Sea Lion was "impossible". Is that right?

2. Re the losses and damage incurred by the RN off Crete, yes this is well known - and losses and damage during Sealion could be heavy, very heavy. But the Royal Navy - our senior service - spent the entire war putting themselves in harm's way - with the entire future of the country at stake they would have done the same in the autumn of 1940.

And what does this add to the discussion exactly?

Some propaganda poster esque paragraph about the nobility of the Royal Navy does not take away from the fact that they had several capital ships sunk and even more damaged in operations off Crete - operations conducted when the Luftwaffe had air supremacy.

We're all aware you've got a thing for the RN, but to try to defend their obvious tatical failings like this is, frankly, embarrassing for you.

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could you give me a percentage figure on what "unlikely" is to you so I better understand what number we argue about.

5% mark.

Without air superiority, you're probably hovering around at the 1%.

warspite1

mind_messing
I've maintained throughout that air superiority is an absolute necessity for Sea Lion to succeed.

mind_messing
Without air superiority, you're probably hovering around at the 1%.

Okay so is it 1% or is it an absolute necessity for Sealion to succeed?

You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that Sea Lion was "impossible". Is that right?

You know I haven't I do not know how many times I can refer back to earlier posts - but one last time to hopefully get through:

1. Sealion is launched in September against the back drop of real life events. Sealion will fail 100%.
2. Sealion is launched with the local air superiority for the Germans that Hitler demanded. Sealion has a slim chance of success and for that to happen everything needs to go right for the Germans and wrong for the British.
I cannot make myself any clearer.

And what does this add to the discussion exactly?

Some propaganda poster esque paragraph about the nobility of the Royal Navy does not take away from the fact that they had several capital ships sunk and even more damaged in operations off Crete - operations conducted when the Luftwaffe had air supremacy.

We're all aware you've got a thing for the RN, but to try to defend their obvious tatical failings like this is, frankly, embarrassing for you.

We have debated strongly previously on many issues but things have always been civil between us. But you obviously feel the need for this nonsense. A real shame, hot on the heels of "you've seen Battle of Britain too many times" there is now this.

Let me be crystal clear:

- The point of that statement is that in previous posts you have indicated that the RN will not fully commit capital ships at a time when there is an invasion of the UK going on. Like not having air superiority will be enough to keep RN ships in port. The point I am politely making is that this view is as childish as your assumption that Bismarck would have been combat ready in September 1940. This is not propaganda - this is what happened in Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Malta, South China Sea etc and can therefore be taken as a given (whatever you may say to the contrary).
- What is most interesting though is that you accuse me of spouting nonsense (fact actually) to avoid the fact that the RN suffered casualties off Crete.

a) Firstly, far from hiding anything I AGREED with you on the losses (and you forgot HMS Warspite by the way) and admitted that the losses during Sealion would be heavy, very heavy. So you saying I am trying to cover something up that I have readily agreed to - and expounded upon is er.... really rather silly
b) If we are talking covering up - why won't you address ANY points I have made about the plan - a plan so ridiculous that Raeder and Goering both knew was going to fail? You bang on quite embarrassingly about adding pre-dreadnought class "battleships" and the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen (not to mention the Scharnhorsts under repair), you totally ignore the stats given about the state of the Luftwaffe and the RAF by September 1940 and the lack of weaponry that the Luftwaffe has in its armoury in September 1940 to kill the quantity of shipping required to allow Sealion to succeed? And if we are going down the embarrassing route, how many RN capital ships were sunk off Crete?

At least, whilst not addressing the points I made, you at least seem to have taken them on board with the 5%/1% comment.

But a real shame you had to resort to snotty comments in getting there [:(]

[Skyros]

Tactical failings? What are you talking about. If the RN smashed the invasion and took similar losses as Crete it would be a resounding success. German heavy forces would be just as vulnerable as the RNs. The light units, DDs and cruisers would slice and dice the invasion at night. The RN was not shy about sailing into harms way and would take the losses if it meant crushing the invasion. The political blow back would be devastating for Germany and further inspire the underground movements and neutral nations to resist. This would impact Barbarossa and Marita Merkur in the Balkans.

The Royal Navy would get bloodied, but they are defending there home turf and it would fUrther damage the armed forces of Germany .

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Now we have come to argue about the definitions of phrases rather than the actual argument.

Time to toss in the flag.

Ah, but the invasion is NOT impossible. It REALLY isn´t.

It also is not impossible that a cold glass of water starts to boil in front of you without the help of any external energy source.

mm tries to make a point. Don´t you see?