Barges? The mighty Germans do not need Barges, they can swim across using nothing but flexes of their mighty totally not nazi pecs and galloping abs (in full gear with ammo and rifle/MP-40)! The cold of the channel and the distance is nothing to Glenn's ubermensch! For the heavier things then yes, they might just put a few logs under a tank, but then swim across, dragging it by tow ropes with their teeth.
Operation Sea Lion (1974 Sandhurst Wargame)
- Thread starter Not James Stockdale
- Start date
Rhine river barges are rather more sophisticated then that. Their inland waterway cargo boats, some of which are even self-powered, not just a bunch of logs roped together. They aren't ocean-going but that is more a function of the fact they were never intended to be ocean-going, but that isn't the same as being simple and/or cheap. To replace them all would take years of manufacture and that's ignoring the issue that the loss of the barges themselves would put a serious crimp due to the loss of internal transport capacity. If Germany loses them attempting Sealion, then the economy of much of industrial Europe is going to seize up.
I know that, I was just kidding around. The image of the Germans trying to cross the channel on a bunch of logs lashed together is equal parts funny and sad.
Deleted member 94680
I found this which appears to be a copy the original Telegraph article on the Wargame, which fills out more details, as well as some of the ‘weaknesses’ of the setup of the Game.
Case 1 as close as they need to get to destroy the Barge <1000 yards
Case 2 as close as they need to get to destroy the Barge <1000 yards.....with local control the slow firing 75mm and 50mm are almost irrelevant and will be silenced by 120mm fire from the DD before they are effective, we are anyway talking about the DD Captains who in one case where willing to ram a CA with 8"/203mm guns.
Last edited:
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Not to mention what destroyer captain is stupid enough to let 10 barges get within range? More likely closes to 200 yards for 2 of them, 3 more within 500 yards, rest too far (from the German POV, well, too far to even try shooting!), and just goes down the barge line.
You know, I've been thinking about this "barges vs. destroyers" thing, and the more I think about it the stranger it appears. I can't think of any WW2 naval battle in which destroyer captains of any nationality refused to get close enough to effectively engage their enemy. RN destroyer captains were not noticeably more timid than those of other nations (we ARE talking about the type of people who boarded an enemy ship with cutlasses and bayonets earlier in 1940): the idea that they will hang back and fire ineffectively, simply because their targets can offer ineffectual return fire, just seems bizarre. It gets even weirder when we consider this is in the context of an invasion of the UK being underway - if the captains are unwilling to risk their ships under those circumstances, the the RN has been doing something terribly wrong for the preceding 300 years.
So can anyone tell me why it is thought remotely plausible that destroyer captains of any nation would be deterred by a bunch of barges with infantry guns strapped to them? Because this makes no sense to me. We have ample precedent of destroyer captains risking their lives and their ships against vastly superior opponents, versus none at all of them being deterred by vastly inferior ones... yet that's what is expected to happen here. Why?
So can anyone tell me why it is thought remotely plausible that destroyer captains of any nation would be deterred by a bunch of barges with infantry guns strapped to them? Because this makes no sense to me. We have ample precedent of destroyer captains risking their lives and their ships against vastly superior opponents, versus none at all of them being deterred by vastly inferior ones... yet that's what is expected to happen here. Why?
Because Glenn has to grasp at the thinnest of straws to pretend that Sea Lion is at all plausible.
marathag
Banned
Every Bomb, Bullet and Shell directed towards an obsolete Battleship, is one less used on the other defenders
There is no 'overkill'
There is only 'open fire' and 'reload'
If an Invasion was on, everything with a gun that could float and move would be sent out.
Why hold anything back?
There is a book and I can't remember the title of course about destroyer skippers in WWII and how they were a different breed and special kind of crazy. These were men who took fast ships into harm's way often times with no expectation of survival (think of the US destroyers and destroyer escorts at Samar). IMO if you want to think about how RN destroyers would behave in the Channel against a German invasion, think of the Battle of Samar, or just watch any number of shark shows on Animal Planet or the Science Channel, particularly the parts where they show the feeding frenzies.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Or HMS Glowworm, HMS Acasta and Ardent, or Vian's career (Altmark and Bismarck in particular), to name a few real life examples where destroyer captains were brave, foolhardy, or both. This means facing barges going very slow and no meaningful opposition, the RN is going to stick around until the British are out of ammo, sinking, or the threat is stopped.
Last edited:
9 U-boats of the 29 to date were lost to mines. Approximately 75-80 U-boats had been constructed to date. Roughly 36-38% of boats had been lost so far. At this stage of the war u-boats were banned from entering into the Channel because of the ‘English’ minefields.
Available to fight in the channel 9 battleships, 22 cruisers and 92 destroyers.
Cruiser guns could fire 8 rounds per minute. Some cruisers had 8 guns, some 9 guns and some 12 guns. Theoretically 9x8=72x22 = 1584 rounds per minute, blasting into the German barges. Though rate of fire could not be sustained, but even if 1/2 the rate of fire over the bare minimum of 5+ hrs your talking 4000-7500 rounds into barges that even a near miss would sink.
Then there’s the 92 destroyers. Average 4 DP guns each. Even only firing at the German fleet, with a rate of fire of up to 12 RPM. That’s between 15,000-20,000 rounds in 5 hrs. Allowing for a 10% strike rate that would equate to 2500+ hits. NB This would 100% destruction of the amphibious fleet.
DP guns averaged approximately 340 TDS to bring down an aircraft. Theoretically the cruisers secondary guns plus destroyers main guns alone would take out 100+ German aircraft.
40mm AA Guns could fire at a rate of fire of 115 RPM. Cruisers and Destroyers averaged 4 quads per vessel taking 1700 rounds to shoot down an aircraft. Therefore they could take out over 400+ enemy aircraft.
0.303 - 20mm would bring down up to 500 enemy aircraft.
Then there’s the RAF.
The RAF had 9,000 pilots. British factories were producing 300 aircraft per week. By mid September the Germans had lost over 1500 aircraft.
The Germans had lost 47% of their initial fighters & 45% of their initial bombers. However they did manage to replace most of their aircraft losses. In comparison the RAF lost 40% of its initial strength. Though aircraft losses were similar, actual aircraft numbers were increasing by 200 units per week and an additional 40 pilots per week.
The RAF maintained a serviceable rate of 65% throughout the campaign, the Germans averaged 70% serviceability rate, but crews had fallen drastically to 64% for fighters & 52% for bombers.
British warships that had been sunk by Luftwaffe, had by an large had no friendly aircraft in support.
If we reflect to the Battle of the Coral Sea, where the American fleet had its own organic air cover. The Japanese lost 72% of aircraft involved and the Americans lost 54%.
At the Coral Sea the Americans only had 41% of the cruiser force available to that of the RN at the Battle of the Dover Straits, and 15% of the destroyers that we’re deployed by the RN.
Of the aircraft available on the day of the invasion, there would’ve been approx 500 German fighters and 450 bombers available.
Question ?
Do yo go whole Hogg to protect the invasion fleet ie attack the RN?
Do you go 1/2 & 1/2 against RN & RAF airfields ?
Do you go ahead with the terror bombing of London?
I would suggest the out come of the Battle of the Dover Straits. Would be something like this.
RN 2 cruisers sunk, 6 seriously damaged. 6 destroyers lost and a further 12 damaged beyond repair.
RAF 105 Hurricanes, 53 Battles, 45 Wellingtons, 40 Blenheims, 70 Spitfires and 11other aircraft.
Luftwaffe 135 fighters and 330 bombers of various kinds 180 Ju52 transports & 300+ gliders. Any paratroopers who are fortunate enough to actually get to step into ‘English’ soil are quickly detained.
None of the 2,500+ German transport barges get to within 5 miles of the English coast.
No matter which of the options you take, it will result in the annihilation of the German war machine.
As I’ve said before, even Hitler wasn’t that stupid.
Available to fight in the channel 9 battleships, 22 cruisers and 92 destroyers.
Cruiser guns could fire 8 rounds per minute. Some cruisers had 8 guns, some 9 guns and some 12 guns. Theoretically 9x8=72x22 = 1584 rounds per minute, blasting into the German barges. Though rate of fire could not be sustained, but even if 1/2 the rate of fire over the bare minimum of 5+ hrs your talking 4000-7500 rounds into barges that even a near miss would sink.
Then there’s the 92 destroyers. Average 4 DP guns each. Even only firing at the German fleet, with a rate of fire of up to 12 RPM. That’s between 15,000-20,000 rounds in 5 hrs. Allowing for a 10% strike rate that would equate to 2500+ hits. NB This would 100% destruction of the amphibious fleet.
DP guns averaged approximately 340 TDS to bring down an aircraft. Theoretically the cruisers secondary guns plus destroyers main guns alone would take out 100+ German aircraft.
40mm AA Guns could fire at a rate of fire of 115 RPM. Cruisers and Destroyers averaged 4 quads per vessel taking 1700 rounds to shoot down an aircraft. Therefore they could take out over 400+ enemy aircraft.
0.303 - 20mm would bring down up to 500 enemy aircraft.
Then there’s the RAF.
The RAF had 9,000 pilots. British factories were producing 300 aircraft per week. By mid September the Germans had lost over 1500 aircraft.
The Germans had lost 47% of their initial fighters & 45% of their initial bombers. However they did manage to replace most of their aircraft losses. In comparison the RAF lost 40% of its initial strength. Though aircraft losses were similar, actual aircraft numbers were increasing by 200 units per week and an additional 40 pilots per week.
The RAF maintained a serviceable rate of 65% throughout the campaign, the Germans averaged 70% serviceability rate, but crews had fallen drastically to 64% for fighters & 52% for bombers.
British warships that had been sunk by Luftwaffe, had by an large had no friendly aircraft in support.
If we reflect to the Battle of the Coral Sea, where the American fleet had its own organic air cover. The Japanese lost 72% of aircraft involved and the Americans lost 54%.
At the Coral Sea the Americans only had 41% of the cruiser force available to that of the RN at the Battle of the Dover Straits, and 15% of the destroyers that we’re deployed by the RN.
Of the aircraft available on the day of the invasion, there would’ve been approx 500 German fighters and 450 bombers available.
Question ?
Do yo go whole Hogg to protect the invasion fleet ie attack the RN?
Do you go 1/2 & 1/2 against RN & RAF airfields ?
Do you go ahead with the terror bombing of London?
I would suggest the out come of the Battle of the Dover Straits. Would be something like this.
RN 2 cruisers sunk, 6 seriously damaged. 6 destroyers lost and a further 12 damaged beyond repair.
RAF 105 Hurricanes, 53 Battles, 45 Wellingtons, 40 Blenheims, 70 Spitfires and 11other aircraft.
Luftwaffe 135 fighters and 330 bombers of various kinds 180 Ju52 transports & 300+ gliders. Any paratroopers who are fortunate enough to actually get to step into ‘English’ soil are quickly detained.
None of the 2,500+ German transport barges get to within 5 miles of the English coast.
No matter which of the options you take, it will result in the annihilation of the German war machine.
As I’ve said before, even Hitler wasn’t that stupid.
The destroyer skippers are brave and bold, but not stupid. If they can get the job done from a bit of distance and not risk even ineffective fire with a lucky hit, well and good. If to get the job done they need to close to 50 yards, well that is just fine as well. Just like listening posts and forward outposts for the infantry, destroyers are chips that you'd like not to lose but if need be are expendable for the greater good. The RN knows that if the Germans get ashore and get their act together, and if they get a supply route working (yes, I know they really con't do that but was anyone sure in 1940?), things may go very badly for Britain. They will fight as if their families were right behind them in the path of the Hun - which in a sense they are. No matter what the cost if they defeat the invasion, more ships can be built and victory is possible. Fail to defeat the invasion due to caution, and the saving of some ships means nothing.
Agreed, with an invasion going on everyone is determined not to let one damned German get ashore. You know every skipper will close in and make every round count, not to mention ramming and swamping as many more barges as they can.
First Guadalcanal and Samar are two shining examples of how DD commanders WILL go toe-to-toe with the largest foes if necessary, or even if not...
Can you source either of these please? Actual RN Capital Ships available were Revenge at Plymouth, Nelson, Rodney & Hood at Rosyth & Repulse at Scapa Flow. What destroyers had 4 quad pom poms?
I'm not disagreeing with the gist of your post at all but do think it's important that within that it's important to stay factual. Any thing else tends to allow Sealion defenders to exploit the inaccuracy in their favour & repeated by other posters until it becomes a myth more difficult to dispel.
Tribals, J,K & N class destroyers. See the mistake now destroyers single quad cruisers a pair of quads.
Difficulty with this scenario is that Hitler invaded Russia nearly six months before Pearl Harbor. The U.S. was sort of poking along with rearmament (factories were not on three shift with OT, something that can create 36 hours of production in a 24 hours day if properly managed) and the public was far from sold on mixing it up with the Reich (62% of those polled favored helping the UK even if it led to war, which isn't exactly the same as lining up at the recruiting stations).
Oops, wrong.
You argue positions here, you don't directly insult other posters.
You have been warned about this in the past. Probably should have taken it to heart.
Kicked for a week.
For an operation that never happened Sealion has certainly caused a few casualties here over the years.
Just curious even if all 1500 barges make it to the UK how many Wehrmacht soldiers would that be? Also those soldiers would be lacking in artillery, armor, and supplies.
During D-Day the Wallies had a massive naval and air advantage which Germany would not have and I am pretty sure the average Frenchman was more willing to support or at least actively resist the Allies than the average Brit would be to the Nazis. And it still took 3 months to liberate most of France.
I guess I am asking is that best case scenario isn't Germany sending some of their best soldiers to get overwhelmed by the better armed larger much better supplied British Army?
During D-Day the Wallies had a massive naval and air advantage which Germany would not have and I am pretty sure the average Frenchman was more willing to support or at least actively resist the Allies than the average Brit would be to the Nazis. And it still took 3 months to liberate most of France.
I guess I am asking is that best case scenario isn't Germany sending some of their best soldiers to get overwhelmed by the better armed larger much better supplied British Army?