E Boats for Sealion

The biggest disaster for Nazi Germany wouldn't be the loss of men and equipment. But the loss of a substantial portion of the barge fleet used in the inland waterways of Germany and the Netherlands. Which would significantly depress output of essential industries (coal, steel and armaments) for at least a year.
Only for as long as it took the Germans to strip occupied Europe for barges to replace their losses

This of course would have serious repercussions for those occupied nations who had already been looted of trucks, trains etc and already causing all sorts of logistical issues

But yes a serious issue for the Nazis
 
The biggest disaster for Nazi Germany wouldn't be the loss of men and equipment. But the loss of a substantial portion of the barge fleet used in the inland waterways of Germany and the Netherlands. Which would significantly depress output of essential industries (coal, steel and armaments) for at least a year.
Few people seem to know just how important that traffic was to German production. I only learned this in a book on the German War Economy. I often wonder if the mining operations against river traffic had started a year (or more) earlier would have slowed German production enough to bring about an earlier victory.
 
The Astro Hungarian army solved it’s language issues with ‘army Slavic’. An army patois based around Czech which taught all soldiers a limited common language specific to military needs.
 
The Astro Hungarian army solved it’s language issues with ‘army Slavic’. An army patois based around Czech which taught all soldiers a limited common language specific to military needs.
Az elso= LOL: The "U" and "umlaut U" are very hard to distinguish to the English ear. When I was studying Hungarian, I would constantly mispronounce "ur" (sir) as "umlaut r" (space). I kept getting the response "I am a space man?"
A masik: I think this might be a miss-post.
;)
 
Now getting silly (er),
How about bicycle troops peddling away.
Or "You've got a company of soldiers on each of these barges? Have you heard of something called an 'oar'?"


Honestly that tongue in cheek proposal earlier in the thread to build a bunch of longships out of wood (IE, a non strategic material) and train every single infantry company in the Wehrmacht in rowing as part of Basic Training isn't the dumbest idea I've seen in the thread. Like yes, it's still not likely to work, but it's at least better then some that have been suggested.
 
Last edited:
Few people seem to know just how important that traffic was to German production. I only learned this in a book on the German War Economy. I often wonder if the mining operations against river traffic had started a year (or more) earlier would have slowed German production enough to bring about an earlier victory.
That's quite likely. Easier targets, too. ISTR reading that an earlier mining campaign, and focus on power stations, were missed opportunities for Bomber Command.
 
At last I have a little time to reply, so here we go…
What that the ships picking up the troops at Dunkirk we slow moving and in naval terms operating a tight space while doing that?

Are you serious? (in case you are try pretty much any book or article you like on the Dunkirk evacuation)

a quote [Relating to 29th May]

"The Luftwaffe’s most impressive series of attacks put out of action seven of the 10 British ships which were tied up alongside Dunkirk’s mole that afternoon."

So do you think that ships tied up at the mole or slowing manoeuvring in a queue off shore to get into a shallow harbour, might be easier target than usual?
Personally, I think the 1st June was the worst day for air attacks at least. On 29th there were 27 RN Destroyers and a Cruiser involved in operation Dynamo with 9 sunk or damaged by air attack (to a greater or lesser degree). On 1st June there were 19 Destroyers and a Cruiser involved in Dynamo with 11 sunk or damaged by air attack (3 sunk, 6 requiring repairs and 3 able to continue). After all flying conditions were not good enough for large scale air attacks until the afternoon on 29th and there was limited flying due to weather on all but the 27th May and 1st June and only on 1st June were instructions given to concentrate on shipping rather than a mix of shipping and land-based targets.

So, looking more specifically at 1st June.

In the air –
RAF Fighter Command provided patrols from 04:45 through to 20:00. Typically the patrols lasted for 1.5 – 2 hours and consisted of 4 squadrons. In total the RAF flew approximately 240 sorties from Britain plus several inland patrols by Squadrons stationed in France. The Luftwaffe flew approx. 350 Ju87 sorties, 200 level bomber sorties all with fighter escort.

Fighter Command lost 20 aircraft in combat (including 3 from Squadrons stationed in France) with 1 further aircraft crash landing in England and 4 damaged. In total the pilots claimed 50 German aircraft destroyed (including one on the ground at Ostend), 29 probably destroyed and 10 damaged.

The Luftwaffe lost 10 aircraft in combat (plus another 3 from ground fire) with 1 further aircraft crashing on its return to base and 6 damaged (plus another 3 from ground fire). In total the pilots claimed to have destroyed 19 aircraft.

At sea –
As mentioned the RN had 1 Light Cruiser and 19 Destroyers involved in Operation Dynamo on 1st June plus maybe 10 other significant warships (gunboats, fleet minesweepers, basically 70-80m in length, 4” or better armament), in addition there were a small number of French warships. Of these 30 or more ships 6 were sunk by air attack, at least 7 were damaged to the point where they could no longer continue on operation Dynamo. Other ships sunk by air attack on the 1st included 3 French minesweepers, a Belgian tug, a British tug, a Yacht (67m steam yacht) and the steamer Scotia (3454grt).

Of the 6 ships sunk only only two were stationary when first attacked.

If you assume that all of the 13 war ships were attacked by Ju87 and the Ju87s did nothing but attack these 13 ships that means it took 27 Ju87 sorties to sink or significantly damage a warship. That would mean that the other ships listed were exclusively sunk by the 200 level bombers with a strike rate of 1 sunk per 28.5 sorties. These assumptions are not very realistic though because it ignores any other ships that were mission killed or any of the smaller boats sunk by air attack.

HMS Basilisk-I don't have much on her but she was sunk somewhere near the port.**

MN Bourrasque-Same as Basilisk.

MN Foudroyant-Same as above but her wreck location is right off Dunkirk, unlikely she was able to maneuver freely in open water.**

HMS Grafton-Torpedoed by a U-Boat while rescuing survivors from Wakeful, if she wasn't stopped she was barely moving.

HMS Grenade-Caught in Dunkirk Harbor by bombers and sunk.

HMS Havant-Sunk while picking up survivors from disable Ivanhoe.**

HMS Keith-Minimal info, but her wreck is again right off Dunkirk.**

HMS Wakeful-Torpedoed by an E-Boat while loading at Dunkirk.

So we've got:

4 DD's sunk right off Dunkirk, not going to go digging for logs or anything but I think it's safe to assume they weren't in open water at high speed?
2 DD's sunk in Dunkirk by various causes.
2 DD's sunk while picking up survivors.
As the 4 listed destroyers highlighted above were sunk on the 1st I can provide further details.

HMS Basilisk was embarking troops at La Panne (10-15km from Dunkirk) when first attacked and was immobilised. It was taken under tow but was attacked again, sank in shallow waters and finally scuttled. So yes Basilisk was most likely stationary though procedure was to keep as mobile as possible unless a rescue boat was on final approach or resting alongside the Destroyer.

HMS Havant was sunk approximately 5km outside of the Dunkirk breakwater and was running at over 20 knots and able to make evasive manoeuvres. The brief description below mentions a bomb dropped 50 yards before the ship which exploded as the Havant passed over it proving Havant was moving at a considerable speed at the time of the attack.

“When leaving the harbour at 0800 hours there was a heavy air attack and the destroyer HMS Ivanhoe was hit amidships. At 0840 hours she went alongside her and helped remove her troops. She then proceeded down the channel at the entrance to Dunkirk under heavy dive-bombing attacks all of the way. At the end of the channel HMS Havant was hit by two bombs in the engine room and a third bomb dropped approximately 50 yards (46 metres) ahead of her that exploded as she passed over it.”
HMS Keith was in the vicinity of La Panne when first attacked damaging her helm and leaving her circling out of control. A second attack occurred and scored a direct hit down the No. 2 Funnel. One of the crew describes it as follows:-

'The skipper was flinging the ship around at full speed, about 35 knots [40 m.p.h.] and of course I had to swing my gun right round to follow the bastard down, because you've got to hit them right on the nose when they are coming towards you. And before I knew it I'd shot all our bloody wireless aerials away. Leaving poor old Commander Wake-Walker out of contact with Dover. I got a bollocking from the First Lieutenant but I said, 'Well, you know, sir, it's a choice of whether you want the wireless aerials restrung or a thousand pound bomb on the bridge.'

'I just suddenly saw this Stuka appearing over the bridge – it seemed to be almost touching it – and this great big bloody yellow bomb fell from its clamps. It was a thousand pounder… We were moving to starboard [to the right] and he dropped it down the port
side. It didn't land on us but it blew a part of the port side in…'

French Destroyer Foudroyant was on its way to the Dunkirk area and still 3 or so miles from the mole moving at full speed when attacked, she received several direct hits and near misses which caused the ship to break up and sink.

[/QUOTE]
Speaking of details have I missed the post where you explained where those exercises you brought up were conducted? I mean if you are going to demand others give you chapter and verse then its only fair you reciprocate.
Unfortunately as its now approaching 1:30 I’ve not had time to go through my notes, just that there were trials through July and several exercises in August… none in bad weather and none with a silt sea bed. Several different ramp designs were trialled from different types of vessels. Further details to follow.​
 
That's quite likely. Easier targets, too. ISTR reading that an earlier mining campaign, and focus on power stations, were missed opportunities for Bomber Command.
Both the RAF and USAAF were all over the place trying to pick priority targets. Ball bearings, POL, electricity - I think almost everything was hit more than a few times. My vote would be POL, especially the plants turning coal into gasoline - take those out plus Polesti and Germany runs out of fuel fast...
 
That's quite likely. Easier targets, too. ISTR reading that an earlier mining campaign, and focus on power stations, were missed opportunities for Bomber Command.
Bomber Command had trouble hitting the right country in 1940 hitting a canal with a parachute mine would be like throwing darts in the dark.
 
Both the RAF and USAAF were all over the place trying to pick priority targets. Ball bearings, POL, electricity - I think almost everything was hit more than a few times. My vote would be POL, especially the plants turning coal into gasoline - take those out plus Polesti and Germany runs out of fuel fast...
It only became an option in 1944 when the navigation aids required for night time ops became both available and prevalent. The USAAF attacks were also less effective as they used a lot of 500lbs bombs, this was picked up on by the post-war survey on bombing. They identified that the USAAF used 500lbs when fewer and larger bombs of 1000 and 2000lb bombs would have been the better choice for attacks on various systems. The Germans also had most of their synthetic oil targets in Eastern Germany which was at the edge of USAAF fighter cover and the RAF could only get to them in Autumn/winter when the nights were much longer.
 
At last I have a little time to reply, so here we go…

Personally, I think the 1st June was the worst day for air attacks at least. On 29th there were 27 RN Destroyers and a Cruiser involved in operation Dynamo with 9 sunk or damaged by air attack (to a greater or lesser degree). On 1st June there were 19 Destroyers and a Cruiser involved in Dynamo with 11 sunk or damaged by air attack (3 sunk, 6 requiring repairs and 3 able to continue). After all flying conditions were not good enough for large scale air attacks until the afternoon on 29th and there was limited flying due to weather on all but the 27th May and 1st June and only on 1st June were instructions given to concentrate on shipping rather than a mix of shipping and land-based targets.

So, looking more specifically at 1st June.

In the air –
RAF Fighter Command provided patrols from 04:45 through to 20:00. Typically the patrols lasted for 1.5 – 2 hours and consisted of 4 squadrons. In total the RAF flew approximately 240 sorties from Britain plus several inland patrols by Squadrons stationed in France. The Luftwaffe flew approx. 350 Ju87 sorties, 200 level bomber sorties all with fighter escort.

Fighter Command lost 20 aircraft in combat (including 3 from Squadrons stationed in France) with 1 further aircraft crash landing in England and 4 damaged. In total the pilots claimed 50 German aircraft destroyed (including one on the ground at Ostend), 29 probably destroyed and 10 damaged.

The Luftwaffe lost 10 aircraft in combat (plus another 3 from ground fire) with 1 further aircraft crashing on its return to base and 6 damaged (plus another 3 from ground fire). In total the pilots claimed to have destroyed 19 aircraft.

At sea –
As mentioned the RN had 1 Light Cruiser and 19 Destroyers involved in Operation Dynamo on 1st June plus maybe 10 other significant warships (gunboats, fleet minesweepers, basically 70-80m in length, 4” or better armament), in addition there were a small number of French warships. Of these 30 or more ships 6 were sunk by air attack, at least 7 were damaged to the point where they could no longer continue on operation Dynamo. Other ships sunk by air attack on the 1st included 3 French minesweepers, a Belgian tug, a British tug, a Yacht (67m steam yacht) and the steamer Scotia (3454grt).

Why would you pick the worst/best day as illustrative of the wider point?

Of the 6 ships sunk only only two were stationary when first attacked.

1). you haven't shown that

2). not being stationary =/= fully able to manoeuvre at high speed in open waters

You have failed to address the point about the terrain at Dunkirk being very favourable for air attacks on shipping, making it an inappropriate comparison for LW anti naval operations in Sealion

What you've done is found one written account of a destroyer being hit while under full steam and presented that as if it's the whole story. But again you've ignored the reality of the operation and that one of the reasons why the 1st June was the worst day was because not only was the conditions perfect for the LW but it was one of the heaviest days of evacuation making an already bad situation worse for the RN ships.

If you assume that all of the 13 war ships were attacked by Ju87 and the Ju87s did nothing but attack these 13 ships that means it took 27 Ju87 sorties to sink or significantly damage a warship. That would mean that the other ships listed were exclusively sunk by the 200 level bombers with a strike rate of 1 sunk per 28.5 sorties. These assumptions are not very realistic though because it ignores any other ships that were mission killed or any of the smaller boats sunk by air attack.
I have no idea how you arrived at these per sortie figures, but even what you have written is full of assumptions

You think the level bombers are going to leaving the destroyers alone to concentrate on Tugs and yachts?



So OK the problem here is trying to assess what the results would be of operation that didn't take place is that differences in operations have big effects on results

That said I think a better example would be the kanalkampf, not because it would be an exact match for sealion. But at least its the right area, and vaguely the right force mix, but with the following caveats:

1). The LW won't just be hunting the RAF and merchant navy they will have to escort the slow moving invasion fleet (it's actually quite hard to loiter over a 2-4kn fleet for any length of time).

2). The RAF have just beaten the LW in the BoB, so they will have the benefit of the numbers, and experience, while LW sill still be making good their loses in numbers and experience.

3). because the German goals were very different the Kanalkampf was fought over a much longer period of time than any sealion will be, and thus the LW were much more able to pick and chose when to attack and when to hold off. This is not the case for Sealion, where the LW have to be there all the time no matter what. That's a lot od operational stress



The Kanalkampf was not a great success for the LW, and I think on balance the initial set up for them in sealion will be worse.

However the biggest problem for the LW in sealion is that their success is not going to measured in how may RAF planes are shot doen or how many RN destroyers are hit, it in how well they protect the invasion fleet in transit and on disembarkation. Nothing else matters because the fleet is defeated then the whole thing is waste of time and all LW loses ill be for nothing.

The key problem the LW has here is it's job is split

So the RN primary job is to stop the invasion fleet

The RAF primary job is to stop the LW from stopping the RN

But the LW has to both stop the RN and see off the RAF
 
Last edited:
I think they already stripped the barges of occupied nations for Sealion.
Yes. But what ever % of German Barges lost in the op would be made up from whatever was left of the the fleet taken from occupied Europe. And if that was not sufficient they would take whatever was not previously looted.
 
Az elso= LOL: The "U" and "umlaut U" are very hard to distinguish to the English ear. When I was studying Hungarian, I would constantly mispronounce "ur" (sir) as "umlaut r" (space). I kept getting the response "I am a space man?"
A masik: I think this might be a miss-post.
;)
Czech has similar issues. My poor teacher during my first lessons, begging me to hear a difference I just couldn't...
 
Why would you pick the worst/best day as illustrative of the wider point?



1). you haven't shown that

2). not being stationary =/= fully able to manoeuvre at high speed

You have failed to address the point about the terrain at Dunkirk being vey favourable for air attacks on shipping, making it an inappropriate comparison for LW anti naval operations in Sealion

What you've done is found one written account of a destroyer being hit while under full steam and presented that as if it's the whole story. But again you've ignored the reality of the operation and that one of the reasons why the 1st June was the worst day was because not only was the conditions perfect for the LW but it was one of the heaviest days of evacuation making an already bad situation worse for the RN ships.


I have no idea how you arrived at these per sortie figures, but even what you have written is full of assumptions

You think the level bombers are going to leaving the destroyers alone to concentrate on Tugs and yachts?



So OK the problem here is trying to assess whet the results would be of operation that didn't take place is that differences in operations have big effects on results

That said I think a better example would be the kanalkampf, not because it would be an exact match for sealion. But at least its the right area, and vaguely the right force mix, but with the following caveats:

1). The LW won't just be hunting the RAF and merchant navy they will have to escort the low moving invasion fleet (it's actually quite hard to loiter over a 2-4kn fleet for any length of time).

2). The RAF have just beaten the LW in the BoB, so they will have the benefit of the numbers, and experience, while LW sill still be making good their loses in numbers and experience.

3). the kanalkampf was fought over much longer period of time than any sealion will be, and th LW were much more able to pick and chose when to attack.



The Kanalkampf was not a great success for the LW, and I think on balance the initial set up for them in sealion will be worse.

However the biggest problem for the LW in sealion is that their success is not going to measured in how may RAF planes are shot doen or how many RN destroyers are hit, it in how well they protect the invasion fleet in transit and on disembarkation. Nothing else matters because the fleet is defeated then the whole thing is waste of time and all LW loses ill be for nothing.

The key problem the LW has here is it' job is split

So the RN primary job is to stop teh invasion fleet

The RAF primary job is to stop the LW from stopping the RN

But the LW has to both stop the RN and see off the RAF
Yes it does always seem to end up that the principle issues that the Germans face for Sealion are answered by “the Luftwaffe deals with it”.
 
Bomber Command had trouble hitting the right country in 1940 hitting a canal with a parachute mine would be like throwing darts in the dark.
They did lay mines in harbors (nightmissions with Swordfish) in 1940. Also Bomber Command bombed the barges in the harbors (which caused significant losses to the barges),
Yes. But what ever % of German Barges lost in the op would be made up from whatever was left of the the fleet taken from occupied Europe. And if that was not sufficient they would take whatever was not previously looted.
Barges taken from occupied countries will still harm the German (war) economy, because it makes looting harder. They don't only need the barges in Germany, but in other countries as well. Because if you don't have barges, it makes it harder to transport coal from France to Germany.
 
They did lay mines in harbors (nightmissions with Swordfish) in 1940. Also Bomber Command bombed the barges in the harbors (which caused significant losses to the barges),

Barges taken from occupied countries will still harm the German (war) economy, because it makes looting harder. They don't only need the barges in Germany, but in other countries as well. Because if you don't have barges, it makes it harder to transport coal from France to Germany.
Don't forget that, just as today Dutch/Belgium river barges handeld a lot of traffic on the german rivers. The dutch barge typ "Spits" (340 tons) was develop for the french rivertrade (max seize for the french canal locks).
 
Yes it does always seem to end up that the principle issues that the Germans face for Sealion are answered by “the Luftwaffe deals with it”.
Yep, and if you look at the plans the LW were doing a lot,

On top of the stuff in the channel, they were also going to support the airborne landings of 2s Divs, send a chunk of the population of London scurrying out to block the roads/encourage the Gov to panic, and mess with transport infrastructure in order to mess with internal movement of troops.
 
Last edited:
Top