German losses if Sealion goes ahead

Saphroneth

Banned
Correct, however the 4.7" has a rate of fire of just 5 rounds per minute whereas the 10.5cm gun of the TBs had a rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute. The 4.7" had a shot weight of 22.68Kg and the 10.5cm a shot weight of 24.2Kg. If I'm wrong please tell me ...

The Hunt is listed but it's under the Escort Destroyer section.
Colour me highly skeptical that the 4.7" had a rate of fire one third that of the 10.5 cm under identical conditions.

Heck, even going with NavWeaps (your stated source), they list 10-12 rounds per minute for some mountings and 7-10 rounds per minute for others.

So you've underestimated the rate of fire of those guns by a factor of roughly two by NavWeaps data, and take into account also that NavWeaps data is essentially biased low for British weapons simply because the Brits recorded realistic situations.

...did it not make you wonder even slightly that using a shell weighing less supposedly resulted in a third the rate of fire?
 
Correct, however the 4.7" has a rate of fire of just 5 rounds per minute whereas the 10.5cm gun of the TBs had a rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute. The 4.7" had a shot weight of 22.68Kg and the 10.5cm a shot weight of 24.2Kg. If I'm wrong please tell me ...

The Hunt is listed but it's under the Escort Destroyer section.
Given these figures the 4.7" was capable of putting 106.6kg of shot in the air each minute ... so the Modified W could put 426.4kg of shot in the air each minute.

The 10.5cm could put 363kg into the air each minute therefore the 1923 Class could put 1089kg into the air each minute. HOWEVER after numerous discussions it was decided the figure if 15 rounds per minute was too high so in my calculations I reduced this to just 10 rounds per minute giving the 1923 Class a rate of 726kg of shot in the air per minute.
 
Colour me highly skeptical that the 4.7" had a rate of fire one third that of the 10.5 cm under identical conditions.

Heck, even going with NavWeaps (your stated source), they list 10-12 rounds per minute for some mountings and 7-10 rounds per minute for others.

So you've underestimated the rate of fire of those guns by a factor of roughly two by NavWeaps data, and take into account also that NavWeaps data is essentially biased low for British weapons simply because the Brits recorded realistic situations.

...did it not make you wonder even slightly that using a shell weighing less supposedly resulted in a third the rate of fire?
Yeah and don't forget I also included the German factor to take into account for lack of fire control, RN training being better, the KM being German etc. which reduced all of the German attack values to 50% of the raw calculated values.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Given these figures the 4.7" was capable of putting 106.6kg of shot in the air each minute ... so the Modified W could put 426.4kg of shot in the air each minute.

The 10.5cm could put 363kg into the air each minute therefore the 1923 Class could put 1089kg into the air each minute. HOWEVER after numerous discussions it was decided the figure if 15 rounds per minute was too high so in my calculations I reduced this to just 10 rounds per minute giving the 1923 Class a rate of 726kg of shot in the air per minute.
"These figures" meaning the one half that which NavWeaps says... and you ask why we take what you say with a grain of salt. Using the value of 10 rounds per minute per gun which is not even the higher end of what your source gives, then the Modified W can put about 850 kg into the air.

It's not so cut and dried now, is it? Especially when one considers that your shot weight given is 24.2 kg - and no 10.5 cm gun fired a shot that big. That's the full round weight.
The shot weight was 15.1 kg (NavWeaps) for the 1934 gun, 14.7 kg for the 1930 gun and 17.4 kg for the 1907 gun.


So, let's do this all again, shall we?

German 1923 class

With 15 rounds per minute, the 1934 L/45 fires out 226.5 kg per min per gun of shell. Three guns give that as 679.5 kg for the ship as a whole.
453 kg if you use the 10 rounds per gun per minute.


British modified W

As for the Modified W, that has a 4.7"/45 naval gun.
Rate of fire is given as 7-10 rounds per minute with the worse mounting, so we'll use both.

10 rounds per minute, it fires 22.7 kg projectiles (these are the shells, not the whole round) so 227 kg per gun, or 908 kg for the four-gun ship as a whole.
If firing at the lower bound, 7 rounds per minute, it fires 636 kg of shot.
And if it's got the mountings which are listed as giving a rate of fire of 10-12 rounds per minute, then it peaks at 1090 kg per minute.


In other words, the worst case scenario for the Modified W is slightly worse than the best case scenario for the 1923 class.

The same applies for all four-gun 4.7" armed British ships.

It seems from these numbers as though the three-gun 1923 class is worth between two and three 4.7" guns in terms of throw weight, using realistic rates of fire.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yeah and don't forget I also included the German factor to take into account for lack of fire control, RN training being better, the KM being German etc. which reduced all of the German attack values to 50% of the raw calculated values.
That doesn't even answer my question. I asked you why you used lower values than NavWeaps despite listing that as your source and you just handwave the question away.

I think I rest my case at this point.
 
Colour me highly skeptical that the 4.7" had a rate of fire one third that of the 10.5 cm under identical conditions.

Heck, even going with NavWeaps (your stated source), they list 10-12 rounds per minute for some mountings and 7-10 rounds per minute for others.

So you've underestimated the rate of fire of those guns by a factor of roughly two by NavWeaps data, and take into account also that NavWeaps data is essentially biased low for British weapons simply because the Brits recorded realistic situations.

...did it not make you wonder even slightly that using a shell weighing less supposedly resulted in a third the rate of fire?
Yes you are quite right the Modified W had the 4.7 QF with a rate of fire of 10-12 Rounds per minute ... my memory is a bit on the cr@p side at the moment. So that's 907.2kg per minute which beats the 1923 Class.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yes you are quite right the Modified W had the 4.7 QF with a rate of fire of 10-12 Rounds per minute ... my memory is a bit on the cr@p side at the moment. So that's 907.2kg per minute which beats the 1923 Class.
So, to sum up?


For the Germans:

You used the highest possible rate of fire and used the full round weight instead of the shot weight. ("We fire the whole bullet! That's 50% more bullet per bullet!")


For the British:

You used a number 30% lower than the lowest given for a gun of the same size for any mounting.





...and I've never to my knowledge seen you make this kind of mistake the other way around.
 
Last edited:
...and I've never to my knowledge seen you make this kind of mistake the other way around.

Hrm... does that count as "ignoring basic physics" on the Wehrabingo chart or not?

2959ff6c-f07d-44e7-8af0-cca60832553d_zps095a647a.png
 
He's not inciting anyone to do anything. Unfortunately the feeling lingers that you constantly try to massage the facts and figures in favour of one side, and it's a feeling I've had since I've known you.

I really don't mind you playing Devil's Advocate - it's been the basis of some decent and informative discussions - but your constant claims to be totaly impartial are wearing slightly thin.

But he is impartial, as he stated in one of the many Sealion threads he's only interested in facts so he will nitpick to death those who use facts to point out the ludicrousness of Sealion but the speculation of the wehraboos(to use the polite term for those who think a swaztika makes everything automatically superior) is of no interest to him.
 
But he is impartial, as he stated in one of the many Sealion threads he's only interested in facts so he will nitpick to death those who use facts to point out the ludicrousness of Sealion but the speculation of the wehraboos(to use the polite term for those who think a swaztika makes everything automatically superior) is of no interest to him.

The point raised was that every "whoops", "forgot that one" or "oh I did this calculation quickly and messed up, I guess you're right" is always, always in favour of the KM and never, never in favour of the RN. Starting to wear a bit thin.

Hence why people say they're running out of ways to continue to give the benefit of the doubt that it's merely impartial nitpicking or whatever.

And to clarify, I've not had a pitchfork handed to me or been incited to do anything. I've lurked for a long time in various sealion threads to observe the craziness, including the naval forces I&II threads, so was speaking from experience.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Ah, there's the Hunt on that site... Hunt 1 has four 4" guns.
Hunt 2..

Six.
It has six 4" guns.

How the fyck do three 4.1" outgun six 4"?

Hunt 3 has 4 4in and extra torps, Hunt 4 is like Hunt 2.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I spent my lunch on this, I hope people like it...







Ship loadout data from uboat.net, gun details from NavWeaps. Highest value given used for RoF and shell mass.
Ships in WW2 refers to total available at start of war or completed during it. Number in brackets indicates number in RN/KM at 15 Sep 1940, if different

British

ONLY DD mentioned

Class: R
Main battery: 4" (13 rpm x 15.9 kg = 206.7 kg)
Number: 2
Throw weight: 413.4 kg
Ships in WW2: 1

Class: S
Main battery: 4"
Number: 3
Throw weight: 620.1 kg
Ships in WW2: 11 (3 of which were armed with 2 4" instead)

Class: Admiralty Leader + Shakespeare + Codrington + Faulknor + Exmouth + Hardy + Grenville + Intrepid
Main battery: 4.7" (12 rpm x 22.7 kg = 272.4 kg)
Number: 5
Throw weight: 1362 kg
Ships in WW2: 14 (10)

Class: V&W
Main battery: 4"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 826.8 kg
Ships in WW2: 43 (38) - not sure how many instead had 3 4" guns

Class: mod W
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 16 (15) - not sure how many instead had 3 4.7" guns

Class: Ambuscade/Amazon
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 2

Class: A
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 10 (8)

Class: B
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 9 (6)

Class: D
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 10 (7)

Class: F
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 10

Class: E
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 10 (8)

Class: H
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 10 (7)

Class: G
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 10 (6)

Class: I
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1089.6 kg
Ships in WW2:

Class: Tribal
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 8
Throw weight: 2179.2 kg
Ships in WW2: 26 (24)

Class: J
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 6
Throw weight: 1634.4 kg
Ships in WW2: 8

Class: K
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 6
Throw weight: 1634.4 kg
Ships in WW2: 8 (7)

Class: Havant
Main battery: 4.7"
Number: 3
Throw weight: 817.2 kg
Ships in WW2: 6 (5)




Ships after this not necessarily for Sealion, though just for the lulz:

Daring (1945)
Main battery: 4.5" (25 kg x 24 rpm = 600 kg)
Number: 6
Throw weight: 3,600 kg
Ships in WW2: 0




German

All ships large TB or DD considered.

TB

1923 class
Main battery: 105mm L/45 (17.4 kg * 15 rpm = 261 kg)
Number: 3
Throw weight: 783 kg
Ships in WW2: 6(5)

1924 class
Main battery: 105mm L/45
Number: 3
Throw weight: 783 kg
Ships in WW2: 6(3)

1935 class
Main battery: 105mm L/45 C/32 (15.1 kg * 15 rpm = 226.5 kg)
Number: 1
Throw weight: 226.5 kg
Ships in WW2: 12

1937 class
Main battery: 105mm L/45 C/32
Number: 1
Throw weight: 226.5 kg
Ships in WW2: 9 (0)

DD

1934
Main battery: 127 mm (28 kg x 18 rpm = 504 kg)
Number: 5
Throw weight: 2520 kg
Ships in WW2: 4(1)

1934A
Main battery: 127 mm
Number: 5
Throw weight: 2520 kg
Ships in WW2: 12 (8)

1936
Main battery: 127 mm
Number: 5
Throw weight: 2520 kg
Ships in WW2: 5(1)

1936A
Main battery: 150mm (45.3 x 8 rpm = 362.4 kg)
Number: 4
Throw weight: 1449.6 kg
Ships in WW2: 8 (1 - commissioned on the 15th September! Squeaks into the period)





And just for further comparison...


Deutschland class
Main battery: 11" (300 kg x 2.5 rpm = 750 kg)
Number: 6
Throw weight: 4500 kg


Exeter
Main battery: 8" (116 kg x 6 rpm = 696 kg)
Number: 6
Throw weight: 4176 kg

Ajax and Achilles
Main battery: 6" (50.8 kg x 8 rpm = 406.4 kg)
Number: 8
Throw weight: 3251.2 kg
Present at River Plate: 2


Conclusion: By this model, the Graf Spee is beaten handily, with her 4500 kg/min of throw weight defeated by over 10,600 kg/min of throw weight.

Evaluation of conclusion: Don't forget the armour, fire control, and basically the bits that aren't the gun.




As for the 1923 class... allowing for the generous 15 rpm of their main guns, they are superior by this metric to:

The R class.
The S class.

They are inferior to:
The Admiralty Leader,
V and W,
mod W,
Ambuscade/Amazon,
A,
B,
D,
F,
E,
H,
G,
I,
Tribal,
J,
K,
and Havant
classes.

(As well as the V/W ones modified to become dedicated convoy ships instead of pure warships.)
 
Last edited:

Ian_W

Banned
Losses in a Sealion that goes ahead will, of course, include the few remaining floating bits of the Kriegsmarine.

In the invasion, they will have too many jobs, will be escorting too many armed-but-half-trained auxiliary vessels, will be transiting too many minefields and will be subject to a very confused air/sea battle, which means friendly fire.

This is utterly regardless of their exact throw-weight.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yeah - a few MTBs or a DD or two might get away, but for the most part the KM will be reduced to whatever couldn't leave dock.

So they'd keep most of their heavy units. Zing!
 
Yeah - a few MTBs or a DD or two might get away, but for the most part the KM will be reduced to whatever couldn't leave dock.

So they'd keep most of their heavy units. Zing!

I laughed out loud when reading that and now my dog is looking at me funny. Mind if I sig that?

Anyways I'm getting the general consensus seems to be that the Kriegsmarine is a total loss save for whatever doesn't sortie, and that the vast majority of troops who enter a river barge are never returning to France alive. How about Luftwaffe losses?
 

Ian_W

Banned
I laughed out loud when reading that and now my dog is looking at me funny. Mind if I sig that?

Anyways I'm getting the general consensus seems to be that the Kriegsmarine is a total loss save for whatever doesn't sortie, and that the vast majority of troops who enter a river barge are never returning to France alive. How about Luftwaffe losses?

Apart from finishing the job Holland started on the JU-52s, around about the same as OTL IMO - the Battle of Britain was pretty much the German fighter and bomber force going hammer and tongs against British fighters anyway.
 
Top