Sealion and big cannons

Another ASB option...

If you can't build a causeway, dig the Channel Tunnel.

"Fuhrer, we can attack from below and surprise them!"
"How long will it take?"
"About 10 years...."
 
There are difference in the accuracy of various shore batteries. If you have a dedicated shore battery, such as the types the U.S. had guarding the Panama Canal or Pearl Harbor, with all the ammunition handling equipment, directors, and other accoutrements in place, these are going to be very accurate and capable of sustained fire. These were specifically designed to attack ships and have the equipment to assist them. If you have a bunch of field artillery, these weapons will be far less accurate. Likewise, most railway guns were not designed to attack ships. (Most of the German super-heavy guns were designed for attacking the Maginot line from I have read.)
...Something similar. There were arguments that I'd severely overgunned Heligoland and Cuxhaven in my HMS Heligoland thread. The Germans had 24 guns, at least six of 30-cm calibre.

Thing is, coastal batteries have STABILITY, which you don't get even in the biggest battleship - sea motion/currents will always add a further problem for a naval gunner. Hence, the remark that a gun in a shore battery is worth three afloat. Greater stability means less dispersion at range and (if your predictors are any good) better accuracy.

The 'Black Pearl' using a broadside to disable the guns of a fort was pure Hollywood and in stone vs. timber, stone wins.

If I remember correctly, the Germans in the Great War were actually able to prepare battlefield positions for 30-cm railway guns very swiftly, devising a special steel box mount for that purpose.

Just thought I'd my halfpenn'orth.

What you need for a Sealion is a Sven Foyn harpoon gun.
 
...Something similar. There were arguments that I'd severely overgunned Heligoland and Cuxhaven in my HMS Heligoland thread. The Germans had 24 guns, at least six of 30-cm calibre.
30cm is more cruiser calibre than battleship (about 11.8 inches).

Thing is, coastal batteries have STABILITY, which you don't get even in the biggest battleship - sea motion/currents will always add a further problem for a naval gunner.
You only have stability up until the first near miss, because even a near miss is going to upset your footings and rattle your teeth, whereas a near miss to a battleship is a shell the enemy just wasted.
 
If you can't build a causeway, dig the Channel Tunnel.

"Fuhrer, we can attack from below and surprise them!"
"How long will it take?"
"About 10 years...."

Well, that's better than the 45 plus years needed for the causeway. But we don't need to go under when we can go over; just anchor a line of blimps from Calais to Dover and lay a causeway on top of them.

Now if we can just keep the Brits from shooting at it, and hope the weather stays calm ...
 
The R class would be super vulnerable to air strikes (their aa armament was crap)... and weren't those keeping watch in the med... when the Germans where actually threatening sealion only QE was kept in the channel

Queen Elizabeth was at Portsmouth but was not operational. The battleship that was there in the Channel to face Seelöwe was Revenge, and it was slated to be employed directly against any attempted landing. The Royal Navy would be ready to consider it expendable, provided that it did its work - which it would.

albiet the need to disable battle wagons would be devastating for the LW because they can't be straffing and bombing ships; and supporting ground troops at the same time; just not enough planes and pilots

Right here. In particular, not enough Stukas (the only aircraft that had half a chance to do damage on a battleship) and not enough fighters to escort those very vulnerable Stukas.
 
Let's add that:

1. Even if this whole idea worked 100%, creating a 100% killing zone within the range of the German coastal guns, it can work in the Dover Straits. The rest of the Channel is wider and the Royal Navy would have plenty of room outside the range of fixed coastal batteries. So the Germans have to attack on a narrow, narrow and very, very predictable front. No Blitzkriegs, no daring outflanking maneuvers. WWI on a pitifully short front around Dover. End of invasion.

2. Night. The Royal Navy's destroyers are specifically trained to fight night actions, and those coastal batteries aren't going to hit them at night.
So the Germans stop running supply convoys at night, this half chokes the landing force. So the British send in outdated battleships and monitors at night, and bombard the Dover and Folkestone ports, as well as the landing beaches, at point blank range. This chokes the remaining half of the supply lifeline of the landing force. End of invasion.

3. Smoke. Warships have this little trick to turn day into night. Sure, some of the destroyers might be hit anyway. So what, there's plenty of them and they are expendable. The outcome is the same as the first half of #2 above. Coupled with night actions as per #2 above, the supplies stop coming. End of invasion.

4. The funny thing about the Seelöwe scenarios is that it seems that the secret cool weapon that makes them work, only works for the Germans. Use sea mines, they'll kill the Royal Navy OK, but if that is true, why shouldn't the British also use them and kill the invasion armada? Same holds true for coastal guns. End of invasion.
 
The heavy gun positions would be quickly built, limited traverse and unlike the later anti invasion positions wouldnt stand up to a near miss from a 15" HE round. The RAF could provide a Spitfire for a FAA pilot to do the spotting with cover from other Spits. Not saying a R class would survive the duel but I dont think the German heavy guns would be good for much afterwards.
 
Top