What if Germany won the Battle of Britain?

[WarBirdMan]

Considering Britain situation after the retreat at Dunkerk and also the fact that she only had only 36 squadrons,instead of 52 and also the fact that they had bassicaly no land army and little resources!
What do u think!:)

[Trexx]

The Brits had a army of capable size, but with not enough guns. Their lions share of weapons and heavy equipment rusted at Dunkirk.

[Mark J]

It's very probable that the 'Battle of Britian' may have been won by the Luftwaffe. It didn't because of a policy change and commencement of attacks on cities.
If Germany had defeated the RAF then I still doubt if a successful invasion would have been possible with the Royal Navy still intact and with a sizable and partially mobile land army in Britian.
To add to Germany's woe's, they didn't have the experiance or equipment for a large scale channel crossing and invasion.

cheers

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

It's very probable that the 'Battle of Britian' may have been won by the Luftwaffe. It didn't because of a policy change and commencement of attacks on cities.
Really?
How?

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

It's very probable that the 'Battle of Britian' may have been won by the Luftwaffe. It didn't because of a policy change and commencement of attacks on cities.
Really?
How?


The Luftwaffe were close to victory over the RAF at the time of the policy change.

The change to bombing London gave the RAF time to recover and rebuild.

[DoBravery]

The short range and brief endurance of the Me109 would have always left the industry and RAF with a safe haven in northern UK IMO. Maybe reaction time would take longer resulting in more southern targets hit, but Germany would still be losing bombers.

I wonder if the RAF tried or contemplated attacking the closer 109 airfields near Calais, even if at night?

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

Your statements regarding the near victory of the Luftwaffe over the RAF and the bombing of London allowing the recovery of the RAF are true.

Add to that the gross mistake by the Luftwaffe's leadership not to concentrate on the destruction of the British RADAR sites. These allowed the RAF to direct the fighters to where they were actually needed rather than spreading thin their already-reduced numbers to patrol large areas of empty sky.

Regards,
Lightning

[Che_Guevara]

Germany never planed to invade Great Britain, Operation "Sea Lion" was just a bluff to put England under pressure. Our LCIs and LSTs were "Elbkähne" and "Rheinkähne", ships like this one only with a ramp. Just scenery, men, just scenery.

http://www.fotodesign-ohde.de/fotos/007/hamburg_vierlanden_elbe_elbkahn_16.jpg

Regards,
Che.

[Kutscha]

RAF FC did not have reduced numbers. RAF FC increased the number of a/c available to them as the battle progressed.

From July 17 to Sept 1, the number of Spits (237 > 208) and Hurries (331 > 405) went from 568 to 613, dispite the losses occuring. Only during the Sept battles did the number drop slightly, 613 > 593.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html

This is contrast to the LW which could not replace its losses.

13 Aug 40

Number - Type - Strength - Svcble
42 1/3 - Kampfgruppen - 1482 - 1008
9 - Stukagruppen - 365 - 286
1 - Schlachtgruppe - 39 - 31
26 - Jagdgruppen - 976 - 853
9 - Zerstrergruppen - 244 - 189



7 Sept 1940

Number - Type - Strength - Svcble - +/-
43 - Kampfgruppen - 1291 - 798 - 192 - 210
4 - Stukagruppen - 174 - 133 - 191 - 153
2 - Schlachtgruppe - 59 - 44 - 20 - 13
27 - Jagdgruppen - 831 - 658 - 145 - 195
8 - Zerstörergruppen - 206 - 112 - 38 - 77

The LW had a negative supply of 546 a/c on hand.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

[Lightning]

Hi DoBravery,

Remember: The farther back you move the short-ranged Spitfire interceptors, the deeper into England the German bombers will penetrate before they are intercepted.

The German aircraft had only to cross the English Channel from France before they threatened the British homeland. Spitfires and Hurricanes flying from Northern Ireland would have had to cross the Irish Sea to be over English soil, and then they would still have a considerable distance to go to mount an effective defense of the urban and industrial areas being attacked. Every minute enroute means one more minute before interception and one less minute of combat time.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

The 10 Group and 12 Group areas are not in Northern Ireland. The only a/c that the British had to contend with were unescorted bombers since the 109s would be RTB. Considering the losses the bombers already suffered with fighter cover, these bomber attacks would have the KGs, what was left of them, going on R&R very quickly.

Interesting article on Operation Sealion, http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

The RAF was losing planes, and more importatly, experienced pilots faster than they could be replaced. It has been estimated that the RAF was three weeks from defeat.

Looking at the figures for 21 Aug 1940 through 18 Oct 1940, the total number of Spitfires and Hurricanes available for combat was as follows:

21 Aug -- 941
30 Aug -- 867
8 Sep --- 805
15 Sep -- 728
2 Oct --- 763
18 Oct -- 797

Source: "The Battle of Britain" by Peter G. Cooksley (Ian Allan Ltd., 1990)

As you can see, their numbers decreased steadily until the turning point which was brought about by the above-mentioned change of policy/tactics.

Regards,
Lightning

[Groggy]

groggyquote:Originally posted by DoBravery

The short range and brief endurance of the Me109 would have always left the industry and RAF with a safe haven in northern UK IMO. Maybe reaction time would take longer resulting in more southern targets hit, but Germany would still be losing bombers.

I wonder if the RAF tried or contemplated attacking the closer 109 airfields near Calais, even if at night?


There was a very mixed bag of pilots and ground crew in the RAF, I think there was a Czech pilot who accrued a very high score by acting as a night intruder or was that at a slightly later period? Bomber Command was fully occupied trying to check the build up of what was perceived as a very real threat from the invasion fleet.
It’s an interesting thought that the Heinkel 119 if it had been produced in Quantity instead of the He111 etc would have been impossible to intercept with or with out the aid of Radar at that period. . Only the French had a realistic piston engine design of that period that would have had any hope of interception. With a push the Westland Whirlwind with Merlins could have been in service given the go head when Petter wanted to change the motors in ’39 or his alternative jet powered Whirlwind might have been able to counter the He119 by 41/42. But then that might have lead the British to have eventually deployed Jet bombers which they would have been reluctant to do because it would have been to easy for the Germans to have copied the engines.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

DoBravery's comments were hypothetical -- a "what-if" scenario. Nothing was said about any specific units or where they were actually deployed.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Lightning -

DoBravery said 'Northern UK' not 'Northern Ireland'...

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
[ With a push the Westland Whirlwind with Merlins could have been in service given the go head when Petter wanted to change the motors in ’39 or his alternative jet powered Whirlwind might have been able to counter the He119 by 41/42. But then that might have lead the British to have eventually deployed Jet bombers which they would have been reluctant to do because it would have been to easy for the Germans to have copied the engines.



The Whirlwind was too small for the Merlin, it was dseigned to be the smallest aircraft that could be buit around twp Peregrines and any chance of development died when they did although the last squadron didn't give their aircraft until December 1943.

Intrestingly with a rnage on internal fuel of around 800 miles, it was better than the Lightning on internal fuel.

[Kutscha]

The following link uses statistics taken from 'The Battle of Britain' by Richard Townshend Bickers, published by Salamander Books Ltd.,1990, http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/fcweek.htm

Aug 16
19 Spit sqd - 328 a/c
28 Hurr sqd - 568 a/c

Sept 13
Spit sqd - 304 a/c
33 Hurr sqd - 528 a/c

Oct 4
19 Spit sqd - 304 a/c
33 Hurr sqd - 528 a/c

As can be seen the squadrons never really lacked for a/c, unlike the LW which could not even maintain there starting 'on hand' numbers.

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Kutscha,

DoBravery's comments were hypothetical -- a "what-if" scenario. Nothing was said about any specific units or where they were actually deployed.

Regards,
Lightning


And before they were forced to Scotland and Northern Ireland, they would have to be forced out of 10 and 12 Groups, which was impossible to do without 109 fighter escort.

[Kutscha]

double post :(

[Kutscha]

oops hit quote instead of edit.:( [:I]

[Ricky]

Ok, let's talk hypothetical - the Luftwaffe keeps up pressure on 11 Group, and the RAF ends up abandoning the airfields there (big if, but we'll run with it for now).

What do the Germans do next?

Obviously they can completely close down any British Shipping in the Channel.

However, any attempt to pursue the RAF deeper into Britain would result in bomber formations escorted solely by Bf110s. Not feasible.

And British fighters from north of 11 Group proved perfectly capable of intercepting German bombers over 11 Group territory historically - the Spitfire's range was not that limited.

Launch Seelowe? :D Nuff said.

Essentially, the result is simply a stand-off, where SE England is contested in the air, but no other difference.

Now, if the Germans do start bombing the radar stations...

[WarBirdMan]

WOW,as a newbie i started quite a topic!:D
Those are interesting presumtions,but what if the germans where to launch an airborne atack using all the gliders an transport planes they had!I alwatys thought that this isn't really feasable because an airbourne invasion not backed up by a land or sea invasion can't relly work well(take Market Garden for examle).You wold need a hell of a lot of paratroops,planes & equipment!I think it's a logisticall nightmare...isn't it!:)

'Theres three kind of pilots:good,bad and dead!'

[Ricky]

I think you answered yourself - it would cause mild panic in Britain, but would result in an astounding defeat for the Germans.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
[ With a push the Westland Whirlwind with Merlins could have been in service given the go head when Petter wanted to change the motors in ’39 or his alternative jet powered Whirlwind might have been able to counter the He119 by 41/42. But then that might have lead the British to have eventually deployed Jet bombers which they would have been reluctant to do because it would have been to easy for the Germans to have copied the engines.



The Whirlwind was too small for the Merlin, it was dseigned to be the smallest aircraft that could be buit around twp Peregrines and any chance of development died when they did although the last squadron didn't give their aircraft until December 1943.

Intrestingly with a rnage on internal fuel of around 800 miles, it was better than the Lightning on internal fuel.


I did not realise that the range was better than the Lightning on internal fuel.. There have been over the years a number of fighters were it might have been difficult to fit a larger motor but I do not think the Whirlwind is one of them. Yes the fuselage cross section was tailored to fit the Pilot – However the motor cowling appears to have ample room that is faired aerodynamically to match the undercarriage. The Peregrine is actually longer than the then production Merlin (at that time) which in turn is a tad wider and deeper except possible in the case of the variant used in the Hornet. In the case of the weights or mass the Peregrine is about a fifth smaller. The overall increase would have been about one twentieth of the aircrafts operational weight. The increase in frontal area if at all would not be meaningful in percentage terms and likewise the difference in wetted area. The airframe would probably have needed beefing up, a four bladed airscrew fitted and some lead ballast in the tail, rather like the Griffon Spitfire. To keep the range up, additional fuel tanks to cater for a thirstier Merlin. There have been in recent years a couple of articles that state, erroneously from my perspective that it was not possible to fit the Merlin. I remember listening to a discussion on the wireless in the late fifties when the official orthodox view was put forward that the Merlin could not be fitted to the Whirlwind when a member of the panel interjected and said it could. He then was rebuffed by the first speaker to which he replied he had worked at Westland’s with Petter at the time and what’s more the idea had been put forward before the War. The proposal was put forward two or three more times before the final termination of production. I admit that I have seen both versions put forward in print in the following years .On balance I believe it was possible but understand how people have been mislead . A few weeks ago I was able to compare an example of both the Peregrine and the Merlin which only confirmed in my mind that it was possible, but then I am prejudiced.

[PMN1]

quote:

I did not realise that the range was better than the Lightning on internal fuel.. There have been over the years a number of fighters were it might have been difficult to fit a larger motor but I do not think the Whirlwind is one of them. Yes the fuselage cross section was tailored to fit the Pilot – However the motor cowling appears to have ample room that is faired aerodynamically to match the undercarriage. The Peregrine is actually longer than the then production Merlin (at that time) which in turn is a tad wider and deeper except possible in the case of the variant used in the Hornet. In the case of the weights or mass the Peregrine is about a fifth smaller. The overall increase would have been about one twentieth of the aircrafts operational weight. The increase in frontal area if at all would not be meaningful in percentage terms and likewise the difference in wetted area. The airframe would probably have needed beefing up, a four bladed airscrew fitted and some lead ballast in the tail, rather like the Griffon Spitfire. To keep the range up, additional fuel tanks to cater for a thirstier Merlin. There have been in recent years a couple of articles that state, erroneously from my perspective that it was not possible to fit the Merlin. I remember listening to a discussion on the wireless in the late fifties when the official orthodox view was put forward that the Merlin could not be fitted to the Whirlwind when a member of the panel interjected and said it could. He then was rebuffed by the first speaker to which he replied he had worked at Westland’s with Petter at the time and what’s more the idea had been put forward before the War. The proposal was put forward two or three more times before the final termination of production. I admit that I have seen both versions put forward in print in the following years .On balance I believe it was possible but understand how people have been mislead . A few weeks ago I was able to compare an example of both the Peregrine and the Merlin which only confirmed in my mind that it was possible, but then I am prejudiced.


Yeah, the range issue surprised me as well and I haven't seen anything that contradicts it or been told it is wrong!!!!

Could you add a new wing sized for the Merlin?

This is something that was sent to me but I cant remember the magazine it came from...

Called "Developing the Whirlwind" the bulk of the article just covers the run-of-the mill stuff about the F37/35 and the design of the Whirlwind. It is stresses that the decision to drop the Peregrine was made by Rolls - Royce simply so that they could concentrate on the Merlin and Griffon - Rolls Royce are quoted as saying "Further production of Peregrines would have entailed the loss of two Merlins for every Peregrine".

What is of particular interest is the revelation that before it was dropped a "developed" version of the Peregrine was mooted by Rolls-Royce, giving a power increase of 15% - Not told of the decision to axe the Peregrine, Westland designed a "Whirlwind Mk II" around the more powerful engine- It made use of a redesigned nose that had been test flown on an existing Whirlwind - It was lengthened to allow the cannons to be grouped in a line with larger 120 round magazines for each - there was a room for an extra fuel tank in the nose giving an increase in fuel of 20%. - The extra power of the engines was calculated to give an increase in top speed (at 20,000 ft) to 422 mph.

The extra power of the engines would have decreased the take-off run from 600yds to 540 (the original Whirlwind was at a disadvantage in being unable to use some of the RAFs smaller airfields) - A Mk II Whirlwind would also have fixed the problem with the fuel systems on both engines being separate (with fuel from one unable to be diverted to the other in the event of an engine failure).

The performance estimates for the new design were... (These figures were produced in May 1940)

Top speed (20,000 ft) 422 mph (an increase from 390 mph on the "Mk I" which was acheived at a lower altitude of 15,000 ft)
Range - 900 miles (on internal fuel)

The article gives a full performance estimate for the Mark II with top speeds at various altitudes compared with the "Mk I" Whirlwind - Rate of climb was particularly expected to improve - reaching 30,000 ft in 12.8 minutes compared to 24 minutes for the Mk I.



The only fly in the ointment is the fact that the Peregrine had only a single speed supercharger, so it's service ceiling, and performance at extreme altitude would not have been as good as the 2 speed, 2 stage Merlins.

[Che_Guevara]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

The following link uses statistics taken from 'The Battle of Britain' by Richard Townshend Bickers, published by Salamander Books Ltd.,1990, http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/fcweek.htm

Aug 16
19 Spit sqd - 328 a/c
28 Hurr sqd - 568 a/c

Sept 13
Spit sqd - 304 a/c
33 Hurr sqd - 528 a/c

Oct 4
19 Spit sqd - 304 a/c
33 Hurr sqd - 528 a/c

As can be seen the squadrons never really lacked for a/c, unlike the LW which could not even maintain there starting 'on hand' numbers.


But the RAF lost (experienced) men, they couldn´t replace so fast. So if germany would had bombed and engage the RAF for a longer timer they
were probably out of pilots, however think the same thing goes for the LW.

You say that they never really lacked for a/c, but imagine what would had happen if germany used their complete airforce. The RAF had their complete Arsenal (a/c, pilots etc) ready for engagement for the BoB, but germany had to send his sqds to everywhere in the ETO. The other problem was that the BF 109 had not enough range/fuel to escort the bombers, Göhring oderd to escort as far as possible and lots of MEs went down into the channel on their way home, trying to reach the base.

Regards,
Che.

[Kutscha]

No Che, the only other place the LW really was, was in Norway during BoB. German a/c production could not keep up with the a/c losses of 1939-40.

The only British fighters that the British really used were from 11 Group in the air battles over southern England. Some a/c from 10 and 12 Group that were near to the 11 group boundery line also participated. The Germans went to night bombing went because they could not sustain their day time losses.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Che_Guevara

But the RAF lost (experienced) men, they couldn´t replace so fast. So if germany would had bombed and engage the RAF for a longer timer they were probably out of pilots, however think the same thing goes for the LW.
The RAF lost less men than the Germans, because every German shot down over England was 'lost' (killed or captured) while a shot-down-but-uninjured RAF pilot could theoretically be up & flying again that afternoon.

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

the only other place the LW really was, was in Norway during BoB
And they launched a few raids on Northern England & Scotland - bombers escorted by Bf110s. And they got creamed. And so they called a halt. [8D]

[Che_Guevara]

quote:The RAF lost less men than the Germans, because every German shot down over England was 'lost' (killed or captured)

Yeah and because of the fact that if germany lost a bomber they lost also 5 men of the crew (killed or captured), but if the RAF lost an a/c they would lost only one pilot (killed). You understand what I´m trying to say? Of course the LW sufferd higher personal losses, but it´s because they had bombers with 4 or 5 men in use.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Che_Guevara

Yeah and because of the fact that if germany lost a bomber they lost also 5 men of the crew (killed or captured), but if the RAF lost an a/c they would lost only one pilot (killed). You understand what I´m trying to say? Of course the LW sufferd higher personal losses, but it´s because they had bombers with 4 or 5 men in use.

Sorry, I should have pointed out that I was only referring to pilots, not other crew members. Apologies.[:I]

[Lightning]

Hi All,

It is a general concept of warfare that, all else being equal, an attacking force will lose about 1/3 more men and equipment than the defenders. The German losses in the first stages of the BoB were not to be totaly unexpected by them. They were somewhat higher, but not prohibitive.

The Germans were losing more a/c in the BoB, but many of them were bombers, Stukas, Me110s, etc. The British, on the other hand, were feeling their losses hardest among their fighters--where they could least afford them.

At the beginning, the German strategy was to destroy Fighter Command and thereby deprive the RAF of air superiority. Their attacks were mainly against the fighter airfields and installations. They also did their best to lure the RAF into massive air battles whereby the the British would lose the battle through attrition. They were succeeding until the German leadership foolishly engaged in retaliation raids against London and other cities thereby diverting much of their strength away from the main objective. This gave the RAF time to repair, refit, and rebuild.

As to the number of British fighter pilots available throughout the Battle, even Winston Churchill spoke of "The Few".

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

They, (Germans) should have used 'fifth column' tactics. Secret agents to sway public opinion sprinkled everywhere...

[ickysdad]

Lightning,
Still the RAF could have moved thier forces to the north as insurance against the impending Operation SeaLion and RAF fighters would still be close enough to aasist in the anti-invasion operations. Furthermore victory over the RAF translates in no shape or form to victory over Great Britain.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

As to the number of British fighter pilots available throughout the Battle, even Winston Churchill spoke of "The Few".
Yes, because they are one fairly small branch of one service of the Armed Forces and relatively few in number compared to (for example) the infantry.

[Kutscha]

Which German pilot asked for a squadron of Spitfires?

Trexx, in GB there was a Nazi movement led by Mosley. When the war started they were rounded up with any supporters. Even the Americans had one.

"MOSLEY, SIR OSWALD (1896-1970) British fascist leader married to Unity Mitford's sister,. Mosley founded the "New Party" in 1930 and changed its name to "British Union of Fascists and National Socialists" in 1936. Interned during WWII and disappeared into obscurity after 1945."

[simon]

Supposedly Adolf Galland.

Just a minor point, as your quote shows Mosely and his Black shirts were Facists rather than Nazis.

[Kutscha]

Yes Simon but their party flag was a modified swastika.

More on Mosley,
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRmosley.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

A side note:

"European Idea
One of Mosley's most enduring concepts was the "European Idea". As early as 1932 the Nazi's called for the creation of a "New Europe" in order to unite corporate Europe against the threat of socialism. This concept was refined in Berlin in 1942 with the publication of "Europaische Wirtschaftgemeingshcaft" (European Economic Community), a grand design which even included plans for a single unitary European state with a European Central Bank."

http://www.poptel.org.uk/against-eurofederalism/mosley.html

[simon]

...and if their flag had contained the hammer and sickle would that have made them Communists?

To me there's no doubt that Mosely modelled the British Union of Facists on the Nazis hoping to emulate their success (Like trying to introduce his own SA, the Blackshirts) and like many who were either fearful of Communist revolutionaries or wanted to see strong, even dictatorial government he probably envied the Nazis, but it still doesn't make them Nazis.

[Trexx]

Our very own, Joseph Kennedy (United States patriarch) was a Nazi sympathizer and also was the Ambassador to Great Britain. The flippen' putz.

[Wuzak]

One of the Bush family's companies traded with Nazi Germany before AND after the USA declared war on Germany.

The company was also involved in construction at Auschwitz

[Mark J]

Hmmmm....new world order.......

isn't the Bush family part of the 'Skull and Crossbones' society?

:(

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

One of the Bush family's companies traded with Nazi Germany before AND after the USA declared war on Germany.

The company was also involved in construction at Auschwitz

Gad. I know. [xx(]

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Hmmmm....new world order.......

:(


Department of <s>Fatherland</s> Defence... errr 'Homeland'...

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

quote:...victory over the RAF translates in no shape or form to victory over Great Britain.

I'm completely convinced that any power of WWII that did not have control of the air over its territory or sea/land forces, either by its own airforce or that of an ally, could not have been victorious.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi PMN1,
Re your posting of Sep 29:

quote:Intrestingly with a rnage on internal fuel of around 800 miles, it was better than the Lightning on internal fuel.

This is only true if you consider the Lightning's range at high cruising speed, and then only in the early models (which were the Whirlwind's contemporaries). The 800-mile range given for the Whirlwind was certainly not at high-cruise. In fact, the higher cruising speeds for the Lightning are not much lower than the Whirlwind's top speed. At more economical cruising speeds, the Lightning had significantly greater range than the Whirlwind:

The P-38F had a range of 400 miles on internal fuel at 333 mph
900 miles at 219 mph



The P-38G 350 miles at 350 mph
850 miles at 219 mph


The P-38J/L 475 miles at 339 mph
800 miles at 285 mph
1175 miles at 195 mph


Since the top speed of the Whirlwind was 360 mph, its cruising speed would have been substantially lower, with its best-economy cruise lower still.

With this in mind, I think it is safe to say that, flown side-by-side
at the cruising speed appropriate to a given long-range mission, the Lightning would have greater range than the Whirlwind. At maximum-economy cruise, the Lightning could go much farther.

Regards,
Lightning

[ickysdad]

Lightning,
What i'm talking about is even if the Luftwaffe gained control of the air it doesn't necessarily mean that they can pull off an invasion of Great Britain. Crete proved just how far the RN would have went to stop an invasion and an invasion is the only way Britain would be knocked out of the war.

[PMN1]

Regarding your Lightning post, I should have stressed this was early P38 vs only version of Whirlwind.

Given the bigger size of the P38, then it would have had more space for internal fuel and gven the increased power, would probably have been able to carry bigger external tanks but the difference between the basic Whirlwind and the standrad P38 (at the time) is what I was looking at..

Do you have any reports of speeds for the Whirlwind to get that range as it doesn't seem to be in anything I have seen to date?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

Regarding your Lightning post, I should have stressed this was early P38 vs only version of Whirlwind.

Given the bigger size of the P38, then it would have had more space for internal fuel and gven the increased power, would probably have been able to carry bigger external tanks but the difference between the basic Whirlwind and the standrad P38 (at the time) is what I was looking at..

Do you have any reports of speeds for the Whirlwind to get that range as it doesn't seem to be in anything I have seen to date?



Interesting and Puzzling.

In 1940 range definitely greater than Spitfire or Me 109.
No new wing needed – the idea was to adopt with minimum changes, to use existing production lines and save time.
No problem with dropping the Peregrine, it was waste of effort from beginning to end.
The 15% power increase appears to equal that gained by changing from 87 octane to 100 octane. The figures for S/L are 87 octane 765 hp and 100 octane 880 hp.
The service Whirlwind only used 87 octane? Two sources contradict, but have only seen the 87 octane figures quoted in the context of the operational fighter
I do wonder if the Mk2 was designed with a optional or eventual use of the Merlin in mind.
I guess with the stated increase in ammunition and the fuel tank it must mean an increase of 500 to 600 lbs at the front how was it balanced?
The extra power needed to give 422 mph must have meant almost doubling the Peregrines output?
According to pilots accounts in service it seems to have used some small airfields, and I think in reality issue of airfield size was an excuse to part justify cancellation.
But I agree the shorter take-off run would be useful.
The figures may have been used May 1940 in an attempt to keep the aircraft in production but I would speculate that they were produced before the first flight in 1938.

Pre-war it has been said that Farnborough produced a faulty mathematical formula to calculate power output at altitude that gave consistently over optimistic performance forecasts. For example I have a vague recollection that Mitchelle expected 400mph from the Spitfire. The apparent over estimate for the Mk 1 is consistent with that sort of error and would explain the Mk2’s super optimistic projected 422mph.
I believe that it was Hooker pre-war who recognised the error and corrected it.
The point about the Merlin’s advantage at altitude is very important, as the contention is that if Petter’s proposal had been given the go ahead pre-war a Merlin powered Whirlwind was a realistic proposition by the summer of 1940. Even with the Peregrine the Whirlwind could out fly any current single engine fighter at or below 15000feet which of course includes both the Spitfire and Me 109. (something that the Lightning could not have done at any stage).Given the Merlin’s altitude performance its superiority would have been from S/L to ceiling. In 1940 depending on altitude its speed advantage would have been from a comfortable 30mph to a sizzling 70mph.
All this with concentrated fire of twelve machine guns or four cannon, a 50% range and endurance advantage. Not forgetting twin engine safety and superb all around view.
The only other possibility’s at the beginning of the summer of 1940 would have been to put a certain French engine in the Spitfire or put the P24 Monarch in the Tornado But the backend could fail which it did not on the Whirlwind.

[Lightning]

Hi Groggy,

Re your posting of Oct. 9:

quote:Even with the Peregrine the Whirlwind could out fly any current single engine fighter at or below 15000feet which of course includes both the Spitfire and Me 109. (something that the Lightning could not have done at any stage).

When you compare the P-38 with the Spitfire and Bf 109, you'll see that it took quite a while for the latter two to equal the performance of the Lightning, and when they did, it was not in all models nor in all respects.

As to the Whirlwind's outperforming the P-38, consider the following figures for the Whirlwind's performance:

Speed: 360 mph @ 15,000 ft.
Climb: 20,000 ft, in 8.6 min.
Ceiling: 30,000 ft.
Bombload: 1000 lbs.
Range: 800 mi.

From these figures, you'll see that the Lightning:
Was faster,
Had a higher rate of climb,
Had a much higher ceiling,
Could carry two-to-four times the load, and
Had longer range
Than the Whirlwind.

I personally really like the Whirlwind, but it was not the equal of the P-38.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi PMN1,

quote:Do you have any reports of speeds for the Whirlwind to get that range as it doesn't seem to be in anything I have seen to date?

You're right about it being hard to find range-related information on the Whirlwind. Several of my references don't mention range at all.

Regards,
Lightning

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Groggy,

Re your posting of Oct. 9:

quote:Even with the Peregrine the Whirlwind could out fly any current single engine fighter at or below 15000feet which of course includes both the Spitfire and Me 109. (something that the Lightning could not have done at any stage).

When you compare the P-38 with the Spitfire and Bf 109, you'll see that it took quite a while for the latter two to equal the performance of the Lightning, and when they did, it was not in all models nor in all respects.

As to the Whirlwind's outperforming the P-38, consider the following figures for the Whirlwind's performance:

Speed: 360 mph @ 15,000 ft.
Climb: 20,000 ft, in 8.6 min.
Ceiling: 30,000 ft.
Bombload: 1000 lbs.
Range: 800 mi.

From these figures, you'll see that the Lightning:
Was faster,
Had a higher rate of climb,
Had a much higher ceiling,
Could carry two-to-four times the load, and
Had longer range
Than the Whirlwind.

I personally really like the Whirlwind, but it was not the equal of the P-38.

Regards,
Lightning


Even with the Peregrine the Whirlwind could out fly any current single engine fighter at or below 15000feet which of course includes both the Spitfire and Me 109 in 40 and early 41

By the time the Lightning had entered service I thought the Fw190 at least was its equal?

I agree with the Perigines you are correct but I was arguing for the use of Merlins and the added performance they would have given, at last found a referance to what Petter was expecting with Merlin XX,and his penultimate submission, top speed 410mph, 37000ft service ceilng and a range of 800 miles.


I do like the Lightning, but in the context of 1940 it was not a factor howerver the Luftwaffe could have had a trump card in the He 119 had it replaced the He 111 for example. The fact that it could not have been intercepted and could have roamed freely at that time would have been a severe psychological blow. at that stage the engine presented no problems not like later in the He 177. any ideas on how it could have been checked?

[Ricky]

Hi Groggy,

well, firstly the He-119 was just too unusual to be actually used;)

But what if...

Well, here is its performance:

Performance: (V6)
Maximum Speed: 367mph (590km/h)
Cruise Speed: N/A

Range: 1,940 miles (3120km)

Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
V2 equipped with upper and lower MG 15

Bomb Load:
V5 to V8 produced as recce and bomber versions. Bomber versions capable of carrying 2,205 lbs. (1,000kg) of ordnance internally.

Now, apparently the Spitfire Mk II (introduced to serive in 1940) was capable of 383 mph, so given Britain's radar advantage then interceptions are fine. I will admit though that the high top speed gives it one heck of an advantage, and the Luftwaffe would lose much fewer bombers. Although it does only carry 1,000kg of bombs, which is a little poor[V]

I reckon that had the He119 been used, RR would be pressured to up the hp of the Merlin faster. Which means that Spitfire Marks are introduced sooner than in reality, which means that the Fw190 is not quite such a nasty surprise...
And a possible earlier up-arming of the Spit to 20mm or even .5 inch to ensure that the interecptions are more successful.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

I reckon that had the He119 been used, RR would be pressured to up the hp of the Merlin faster. Which means that Spitfire Marks are introduced sooner than in reality, which means that the Fw190 is not quite such a nasty surprise...
And a possible earlier up-arming of the Spit to 20mm or even .5 inch to ensure that the interecptions are more successful.


Or possibly introduce the Griffin earlier??

[Mark J]

Spitfire MK I 345mph
Spitfire MK II 354mph
Spitfire MK V 374mph
Spitfire MK IV 408mph

I understand the Whirlwind was the fastest fighter in the RAF during 1940, although it wasn't at squadron strengh until 1941.

cheers

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Hi Groggy,

well, firstly the He-119 was just too unusual to be actually used;)

But what if...

Well, here is its performance:

Performance: (V6)
Maximum Speed: 367mph (590km/h)
Cruise Speed: N/A

Range: 1,940 miles (3120km)

Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
V2 equipped with upper and lower MG 15

Bomb Load:
V5 to V8 produced as recce and bomber versions. Bomber versions capable of carrying 2,205 lbs. (1,000kg) of ordnance internally.

Now, apparently the Spitfire Mk II (introduced to serive in 1940) was capable of 383 mph, so given Britain's radar advantage then interceptions are fine. I will admit though that the high top speed gives it one heck of an advantage, and the Luftwaffe would lose much fewer bombers. Although it does only carry 1,000kg of bombs, which is a little poor[V]

I reckon that had the He119 been used, RR would be pressured to up the hp of the Merlin faster. Which means that Spitfire Marks are introduced sooner than in reality, which means that the Fw190 is not quite such a nasty surprise...
And a possible earlier up-arming of the Spit to 20mm or even .5 inch to ensure that the interecptions are more successful.

Hi,

Yes unusual but in 38---to 41 or 42 it had the edge .

Thanks, I had no details for the
Performance: (V6)
Maximum Speed: 367mph (590km/h)
Range: 1,940 miles (3120km)

These figures may be of interest they were published many years ago.

Performance: (V1)
Maximum Speed: 351mph at 14765 ft
Cruise Speed: 280m.p.h
Range: 1392miles at 14765 ft
Initial Climb: 6560 ft in 4.1 min
Endurance: ---------- Did the DB606 have the” big motorbike type clutches to isolate either component for endurance at that time????

Service Ceiling: 26250 ft

(V4)
Improved cooling, gear ratio altered
Maximum Speed: 385mph
Cruise Speed: 342m.p.h at 14765 ft

(V5)
Fitted with floats

(V7) + (V8)
Pre-production He119B
Fully laden 373mph
Maximum range 1678 miles at 248mph at 14765ft

Bomb Load: as your post.
Although it does only carry 1,000kg of bombs, could it have done multiple sorties?

What was the attrition rate in daylight for example for the He111 during 1940, was it better or worse than that of Bomber Command for the same period???

Which means that Spitfire Marks are introduced sooner than in reality, which means that the Fw190 is not quite such a nasty surprise...

This is definitely a interesting point !

And a possible earlier up-arming of the Spit to 20mm or even .5 inch to ensure that the interceptions are more successful.

Yes, agree upgrade to at least .5 or may be even 23mm. I am told the French 23 mm was far more destructive than the 20mm. can any one help with details?

Hi, PMN1 You have a good idea. Definitely use the Griffon.

At the start of 1940 the French had a Griffon size engine that was giving 1800hp at altitude?? That might have fitted the Spitfire??
Any one have sizes or weights of the engine??

What grade of Aviation fuel did the French use in 1940????


Hi, Mark agree but would the change of engine had got the aircraft into full squadron service sooner???

[Kutscha]

You all relize that the Griffon was a RN engine and not a RAF engine.

The Brits were looking at 20mm cannons even before WW2 started. A few Spits did have 20mm during BoB(late)0 but they did not work very well.

The French engine was the H-S 12Z-1 of 36l. Weight is said to be 1367lb which seems very light compared to other engines of the same displacement. The 12Z went into production post war, producing 1600hp

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
And a possible earlier up-arming of the Spit to 20mm or even .5 inch to ensure that the interceptions are more successful.

Yes, agree upgrade to at least .5 or may be even 23mm. I am told the French 23 mm was far more destructive than the 20mm. can any one help with details?

The Hispano-Suiza HS 406/7 was indeed a potent number, firing much more powerful 23x122 ammo (there's a pic on the Ammo Photo Gallery on my website, as well as cartridge info in the Ammo Data Tables). The gun didn't weigh much more than the HS 404 either, although I have no info on rate of fire. It never got past the development phase, and could probably not have been available for service until 1941/2.

If it were not for the 1940 German invasions, the RAF may well have adopted the Belgian FN 13.2mm - a .50 Browning firing a cartridge with a slightly larger calibre.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Kutscha]

The Whirlwind become operational with #263 in Dec 7 1940, flying 30 sorties by month end. The first combat occured on Jan 12 1941 when PO Stein and Sgt Mason intercepted a Ju88 (damage only claim) ~40 mi south of the Scillies.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
And a possible earlier up-arming of the Spit to 20mm or even .5 inch to ensure that the interceptions are more successful.

Yes, agree upgrade to at least .5 or may be even 23mm. I am told the French 23 mm was far more destructive than the 20mm. can any one help with details?

The Hispano-Suiza HS 406/7 was indeed a potent number, firing much more powerful 23x122 ammo (there's a pic on the Ammo Photo Gallery on my website, as well as cartridge info in the Ammo Data Tables). The gun didn't weigh much more than the HS 404 either, although I have no info on rate of fire. It never got past the development phase, and could probably not have been available for service until 1941/2.

If it were not for the 1940 German invasions, the RAF may well have adopted the Belgian FN 13.2mm - a .50 Browning firing a cartridge with a slightly larger calibre.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



Thanks, Interesting about the 13.2mmm FN what improvement would the larger calibre given over the standard .5? I read many years ago that Factories were set up in the USA in 40/41 to produce .5's to replace the .303's for Bomber Command but the production was taken over when the USA entered the War. Was that true?

[PMN1]

I remember reading a while back (in Stepen Bungay's 'Most Dangerous Enemy' I think)that later on in the war they did an exercise to repeat the BoB but using Leigh Mallory's 'Big Wing' tactics and the result was Luftwaffe air superirity over the proposed landing areas.

Of course, as has been said, air superiority doesn't necessarily mean a succsful invasion - it could just mean a lot of German troops cut off without chance of resupply as their one shot barges have been used.

Also the result on the historic tactics had the Luftwaffe not turned away from airfields and targetted London is debatable.

[ickysdad]

hy the BoB couldn't be won by the Germans !!! go to this website....
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

hy the BoB couldn't be won by the Germans !!! go to this website....
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm


Ah yes, the link I posted on pg 1.

[ChrisMcD]

You can achieve almost anything with hindsight.

But the Germans could have won the BoB if various actions/decisions had been taken (there is a very good book, which has an obvious title like Operation Sealion, that shows that if the Germans had got tanks across the Channel they would have won).

So necessary factors

1) Dunkirk fails and Britain is left with far fewer troops in the UK

2) Dowding is overrulled and more Spitfires and Hurricanes are sent to France and lost

3) the Luftwaffe develops anti ship expertise after Norway

4) the Messerschmitt 332 Gigant is ready in time for Sealion

5) the Ju52 force is not decimated in Norway and Holland.


So the Germans make an airlifted assault on Romney Marsh and manage to resupply by sea.

If they can get three panzer divisions across they would be in London in a week.

[ickysdad]

Sorry Kutshka!!!!!! LOL
ChrisMcD,
well if you alow "if" for the Germans then you have to allow "if" for the Allies!

[Kutscha]

It is a good site ickydad, worth posting again.[8D]

Here is a link to Directive No.17, http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/direct17.html

Some more info,

Operation “Seelöwe” (Sea Lion) Order of Battle, mid-September 1940

Army Group A
Commander-in-Chief: Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt
Chief of the General Staff: General der Infanterie Georg von Sodenstern
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberstleutnant Henning von Tresckow

16th Army
Commander-in-Chief: Generaloberst Ernst Busch
Chief of the General Staff: Generalleutnant Walter Model
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Hans Boeckh-Behrens

FIRST WAVE

XIII Army Corps: General der Panzertruppe Heinrich-Gottfried von Vietinghoff genannt Scheel (First-wave landings on English coast between Folkestone and New Romney)
17th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Herbert Loch
35th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Hans Wolfgang Reinhard

VII Army Corps: Generaloberst Eugen Ritter von Schobert (First-wave landings on English coast between Rye and Hastings)
1st Mountain Division: Generalleutnant Ludwig Kübler
7th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Eccard Freiherr von Gablenz

SECOND WAVE

V Army Corps: General der Infanterie Richard Ruoff (Transferred from the first to the second wave in early September 1940 so that the second echelons of the two first-wave corps could cross simultaneously with their first echelons)
12th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Walter von Seydlitz-Kurzbach
30th Infantry Division: General der Infanterie Kurt von Briesen

XXXXI Army Corps: General der Panzertruppe Georg-Hans Reinhardt
8th Panzer Division: Generalleutnant Adolf Kuntzen
10th Panzer Division: Generalleutnant Ferdinand Schaal
29th Infantry Division (Motorized): Generalmajor Walter von Boltenstern
Infantry Regiment “Großdeutschland”: Oberst Wilhelm-Hunold von Stockhausen
Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler Regiment: SS-Obergruppenführer Josef “Sepp” Dietrich

THIRD WAVE

IV Army Corps: General der Infanterie Viktor von Schwedler
24th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Hans von Tettau
58th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Iwan Heunert

XXXXII Army Corps: General der Pionere Walter Kuntze
45th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Friedrich Materna
164th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Josef Folttmann

9th Army (General der Artillerie Christian Hansen’s X Army Corps headquarters staff was in addition allocated to the 9th Army for use with the first-wave troops)
Commander-in-Chief: Generaloberst Adolf Strauß
Chief of the General Staff: Generalleutnant Karl Adolf Hollidt
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberstleutnant Heinz von Gyldenfeldt

FIRST WAVE

XXXVIII Army Corps: General der Infanterie Erich von Lewinski genannt von Manstein (First-wave landings on English coast between Bexhill and Eastbourne)
26th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Sigismund von Förster
34th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Werner Sanne

VIII Army Corps: General der Artillerie Walter Heitz (First-wave landings on English coast between Beachy Head and Brighton)
6th Mountain Division: Generalmajor Ferdinand Schörner
8th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Rudolf Koch-Erpach
28th Infantry Division: Generalmajor Johann Sinnhuber

SECOND WAVE

XV Army Corps: Generaloberst Hermann Hoth
4th Panzer Division: Generalmajor Willibald Freiherr von Langermann und Erlencamp
7th Panzer Division: Generalmajor Erwin Rommel
20th Infantry Division (Motorized): Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin

THIRD WAVE

XXIV Army Corps: General der Panzertruppe Leo Freiherr Geyr von Schweppenburg
15th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Ernst-Eberhard Hell
78th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Curt Gallenkamp

Airborne Formations
7th Flieger-Division (Parachute): Generalmajor Richard Putzier (under Generalfeldmarschall Albert Keßelring’s Luftflotte 2). The division was assigned drop zones in the area of Lyminge—Sellinge—Hythe on the right wing of the 16th Army and tasked with the immediate capture of the high ground north and northwest of Folkestone. The division consisted of Fallschirmjäger Regiments 1, 2 and 3 commanded by Oberst Bruno Bräuer, Oberst Alfred Sturm and Oberst Richard Heidrich respectively, and the Air Landing Assault Regiment commanded by Oberst Eugen Meindl. All four regiments were to be employed in the operation.

22nd Air Landing Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Hans Graf von Sponeck (under command of OKH for probable support of the 16th Army in the early stages of the operation)

6th Army
Commander-in-Chief: Generalfeldmarschall Walther von Reichenau
Chief of the General Staff: Oberst Ferdinand Heim
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Anton-Reichard Freiherr von Mauchenheim genannt Bechtolsheim

The 6th Army held the II Army Corps (General der Infanterie Walter Graf von Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt) with the 6th Infantry Division and the 256th Infantry Division, commanded by Generalleutnant Arnold Freiherr von Biegeleben and Generalmajor Gerhard Kauffmann respectively, in readiness for potential landings in Lyme Bay between Weymouth and Lyme Regis. The 6th Army was under the command of Army Group C (Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb), which had taken over this function from Army Group B (Generalfeldmarschall Fedor von Bock) on 11 September 1940.

OKH Reserves
These divisions, comprising the Fourth Wave, were to be designated on S-10 Day.

Amphibious Tanks
Three battalions were allocated to the 16th Army and one battalion to the 9th Army (250 total amphibious tanks).

Luftwaffe

Luftflotte 2 (cooperating with the 16th Army)
Commander-in-Chief: Generalfeldmarschall Albert Keßelring
Chief of the General Staff: Generalleutnant Wilhelm Speidel
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberstleutnant Walter Loebel

VIII. Fliegerkorps (dive-bomber aircraft): General der Flieger Dipl. Ing. Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen
II. Fliegerkorps (bomber aircraft): General der Flieger Bruno Loerzer
9. Fliegerdivision (bomber and mine laying aircraft): Generalleutnant Joachim Coeler
Jagdfliegerführer 1 (fighter aircraft): Generalmajor Theodor “Theo” Osterkamp
Jagdfliegerführer 2 (fighter aircraft): Generalmajor Kurt-Bertram von Döring

Luftflotte 3 (cooperating with the 9th Army)
Commander-in-Chief: Generalfeldmarschall Hugo Sperrle
Chief of the General Staff: Generalmajor Günther Korten
Operations Officer (Ia): Oberstleutnant Karl Koller

I. Fliegerkorps (bomber and dive-bomber aircraft): Generaloberst Ulrich Grauert
IV. Fliegerkorps (bomber aircraft): Generalleutnant Kurt Pflugbeil
V. Fliegerkorps (bomber aircraft): General der Flieger Robert Ritter von Greim
Jagdfliegerführer 3 (fighter aircraft): Oberst Werner Junck

Kriegsmarine

Commander-in-Chief of Navy Group Command West: Generaladmiral Alfred Saalwächter (Responsible for operational direction of the “Sea Lion” light naval forces based in France and the Low Countries.)

Naval Commander West for Operation “Sea Lion”: Vizedamiral Günther Lütjens (Responsible for the tactical control and protection of the four transport fleets. The Kriegsmarine began assembling the following formations for protection of the convoy routes: two destroyer flotillas at Le Havre and four torpedo boat flotillas at Cherbourg to protect the western flank and three motor torpedo boat flotillas at Zeebrügge, Flushing and Rotterdam to protect the eastern flank. Also, 27 U-boats under the direction of Vizeadmiral Karl Dönitz were arranged to reinforce the convoy protection formations. Finally, nine patrol flotillas, 10 minesweeping flotillas and five motor minesweeping flotillas would accompany the transport convoys during the actual Channel crossing. An additional three minesweeping flotillas, two anti-submarine flotillas and 14 minelayers were allocated to Navy Group Command West for supplementary support.)

Transport Fleet “B”: (Dunkirk): Vizeadmiral Hermann von Fischel
Transport Fleet “C” (Calais): Kapitän zur See Gustav Kleikamp
Transport Fleet “D” (Boulogne): Kapitän zur See Werner Lindenau
Transport Fleet “E” (Le Havre): Kapitän zur See Ernst Scheurlen

Heavy Naval Units
The Kriegsmarine did not plan to employ its few remaining heavy surface units in the coastal waters of the main invasion area. Instead, they would be used for diversions to draw British naval forces away from the English Channel and tie down British troops away from the landing zones.

• Two days prior to the actual landings, the light cruisers Emden, Nürnberg and Köln, the gunnery training ship Bremse and other light naval forces would escort the liners Europa, Bremen, Gneisenau and Potsdam, with 10 transports, on Operation “Herbstreise” (Autumn Journey), a feint simulating a landing against the English east coast between Aberdeen and Newcastle. After turning about, the force would attempt the diversion again on the next day if necessary. (The troops allocated to the diversion would actually board the ships, but disembark before the naval force sortied.)
• Shortly before the commencement of “Sea Lion,” the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper, on standby at Kiel from 13 September 1940, would carry out a diversionary sortie in the vicinity of Iceland and the Faroes.
• The heavy cruiser (“pocket battleship”) Admiral Scheer would carry out another diversionary mission by raiding merchant shipping in the Atlantic. (It is highly doubtful this ship would have been available in time for the operation as she was undergoing extensive trials in the Baltic Sea following a major shipyard refit.)
• The remaining German heavy surface units, the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the heavy cruiser (“pocket battleship”) Lützow and the light cruiser Leipzig were all undergoing repairs for varying degrees of battle damage and were thus not available for Operation “Sea Lion.”
• In August 1940, the Kriegsmarine considered employing the pre-dreadnought battleships Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien to provide artillery support for the landings, but ultimately rejected the idea.

Taken from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3268&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Thread is worth the reading.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Kutscha.

I think the point is that the the German army is taking the piss!

They know that the Navy has lost just about every warship worth of the name in Norway and are asking for a huge army to be taken across the Channel.

This is more to do with scoring points in Third Reich politics than winning wars.

We are talking about a balance of probabilities here and the simple truth is that the necessary resources had been used up in Norway and Holland, or were not yet available.

But the Brits had taken a calculated gamble (and would continue to do so) of having very little in the way of army resources back in the UK.

If the Germans had been able to get a quite small, but armoured, force across the wargamers imply that they could have got away with it.

They had the expertise (ie paratroopers, assault gliders, expertise in massive airlifts etc.) but had used them up in earlier campaigns. As I remember they got through nearly 500 Ju52's in Norway, Holland, Belgium and France and were simply unable to do another airborn assault until Crete - which did them for good!!

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

They had the expertise (ie paratroopers, assault gliders, expertise in massive airlifts etc.) but had used them up in earlier campaigns. As I remember they got through nearly 500 Ju52's in Norway, Holland, Belgium and France and were simply unable to do another airborn assault until Crete - which did them for good!!

If what I have read is correct - the Germans were not above 'crash-landing' the Ju-52s (ie: they would happily land i small fields and let the hedges slow them down), which seems rather callous, but I suppose it adds to the whole 'surprise' aspect (they can't land there, it's too short. Oh...)

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

If it were not for the 1940 German invasions, the RAF may well have adopted the Belgian FN 13.2mm - a .50 Browning firing a cartridge with a slightly larger calibre.


Thanks, Interesting about the 13.2mmm FN what improvement would the larger calibre given over the standard .5?

Not a lot, but at that time I believe that the .5 was US-only, whereas the 13.2x99 was well-established in the Hotchkiss MG it was designed for, and had also been adopted for the Italian Army's HMG (Breda M31). So it was very much the 'European standard' HMG round in the years before WW2 (along with the .50 Vickers - 12.7x81 - a semi-rimmed version of which was used by the Italians in the Breda-SAFAT aircraft MG and a couple of other guns).

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Kutscha]

Chris,

I was not trying to say anything, just posting info on Operation Seelowe.

[simon]

Keep it friendly gentlemen please.

It is relevant to any discussion that touches on the possibility of SeeLowe what the plans of the Army were, it is of course equally relevant to the discussion that many regard the planning and preparations as all part of a massive bluff and that the requirements of the Army often conflicted with the capabilities of the Luftwaffe and Navy.

[simon]

If the Germans had been able to get a quite small, but armoured, force across the wargamers imply that they could have got away with it.

Every serious study or debate that I have heard about generally comes to the conclusion that SeeLowe was a no-goer. Even if the forces could be landed re-supply and reinforcement would be difficult to impossible. The Luftwaffe wasn't up to it, and the Navy was not strong enough to keep the supply lines open in the face of a determined RN counterattack.

True the Army had a massive shortage of capable anti-tank guns but they probably wouldn't have needed them, just pull back until the Panzers break down or run out of fuel.

Most wargames do not take logistics into account.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Simon & Kutsha,

Sorry if I seemed abrupt, I was enjoying the debate!

I will have to try and find the book I read on the subject, it makes a very plausible case for the defence of Britain coming horribly unraveled if the Germans had got Panzers across the Channel.

In reality Seelowe was a dead duck because of the lack of German warships post Norway and the decimation of the airlift capacity. The Army's plan is rubbing in the point!

But, the Germans were both rash (I like the idea of hedges as alternatives to brakes) and unlucky (or to put it another way those Skua's got really lucky with the Konisgsberg).

In reality, there was no way it could have happened because nobody on the German side had forseen that they would be considering an invasion of Britain in June 1940 and had used the resources in earlier campaigns - and you can hardly blame them for that.

After all one of the underlying ideas of Blitzkrieg was that your opponents would give in after a short war and let you take over their resources

But, all the necessary components for a succesfull airborne assault were available - just not in the right timescale - and we were speculating after all.

[simon]

No problem Chris, the unfortunate thing with discussion forums, especially multi-national ones is that people's commands of English vary (Although here certainly the non-native speaker's have a truly superb command of the English language, I am genuinely envious of anyone who can master more than one language!), but perhaps most importantly people will not necessarily read things the way you intend them to be read.

[Kutscha]

Chris,

I did not take your post as being 'abrupt'.[8D] Just wanted to make sure you undestood that all I was doing was supplying info to show the scale of the German plans for Seelowe, which some might not know of.

And yes, it was a 'pipe dream'.

[ChrisMcD]

Cheers Kutscha,

The link you posted was extremely interesting and makes the point that the Whermacht planned to put an excessive amount of divisions across the channel compared to the Allies at D-day. And to recoup, I suspect that it was a political plan designed to make excessive demands on the Navy and Luftwaffe and therefore provide the army with an excuse for not carrying it out.

But. I feel that if there had been a real will to invaide and if the OKH had got an air-landing expert (like Richtofen) to do the job, they could have come up with a smaller, but much more realistic plan (remeber that when Fall Gelb was disclosed the Mannstein plan to invade France was very quickly adopted and made to work).

So, I am of the party that believes that the Germans could have made a succesful invasion if various factors had opperated in their favour.

And to return to the original thread - if the Me109's were called upon to simply protect a beachead on Romney marsh (with temporary landing fields), and the RAF had to attack it the results could have been a bit different.

[ChrisMcD]

I have been reading up on this in a new book by Derek Robinson "Invasion 1940"

he makes a number of interesting points

1) with 40 available RN destroyers against a total German navy count of 8, the invasion barges would have been extremely lucky to get across the channel.

2) Any invasion would have needed panzers and the likelyhood of even the waterproofed ones getting off the invasion beaches was slim (read Diepe rather than D day here)

3) there was a critical lack of Ju52's for the airborne forces. The Luftwaffe started the war with 475 transport aircraft, but by May 1940 were down to 262 at most. he talks about a 'dawn massacre of Ju52's with 32 being 'hacked down in the air" - I've never heard of this. I thought most of the early Ju 52 losses were in the shambles on the Dutch .

I knew about the naval problem and had some inkling of the airborne problem - but was not aware of this level of transport aircraft massacres!

[alyster]

That's what Germans had, now what Germans should of done was triple the plane industry. Yup, you heard me right, it was no problem to their economy in 39, 40 or 41.
Secondly they should of get some extra feul tanks for their Bf109 and get some faster bombers then Ju-87. Maybe more of Ju-88. That way they would increas their range and air power helping them to get the air superiority. And after that use some more Stutkas at sea to get the better half on the water also(like the plan Sea Lion goes, just that Luftwaffe wasn't ready for it).

Anyway invasion of England wouldn't of changed much:
The English empire would of gone on fighting with or with out London.
Invasion of England would of made Germans lose much troops and weaken their strenght in the east, which is good thing for uncle Joe, who had a plan "Grosa" ready. It was a plan of attack war and invasion of Germany. Stalin had huge amout of troops tanks and planes for the job, like I said the attack war. That's part of the reson soviets lost so much in the east, they weren't ready to defend. So if invasion of Englad would of been for real, then the op. Barbarossa would of been delayed and Stalin would of striked first and probly hard.

[PMN1]

An increase in German production is going to be matched (with a bit of delay) by an increase in British production.

The effect of German fighters having drop tanks or longer range on internal fuel on the outcome of the battle of Britain is quite often discussed.

In his book ‘The Most Dangerous Enemy – a history of the Battle of Britain’ Stephen Bungay makes an interesting argument, what do you think of it?

‘Suppose the Bf109 had the range of the Mustang. What would the Luftwaffe have done with it? Similar endurance would have enabled the Germans to send escorted bombers to John O’Groats. Why would they have wanted to do that? Given the goal of establishing local air superiority, there was no point in attacking any target north of London. A bit more endurance would have helped in raiding Hornchurch, North Weald and Debden, but unless the RAF could be caught on the ground, attacking airfields was not in itself going to win the battle. The key aircraft factories (at the time) were at Kingston-upon-Thames and Southampton, which were within range. The range of the fighter escorts was only critical if the plan was to conduct economic warfare as part of a long-term siege. It was not critical to gaining air-superiority over the invasion beaches.

Had they had an extra margin of 15 – 20 minutes, the 109 pilots would probably have been able to do a bit more damage and somewhat reduced their losses. They would certainly have been more relaxed. However, their cannon only had seven seconds worth of ammunition and although they had sixty seconds worth machine gun rounds, their two machine guns alone would have greatly reduced their effectiveness. So if their fuel had not been used up, their ammunition would have been. Any pilot who spent more than five minutes in a dogfight would have been exhausted anyway. When the Mustangs went to Berlin they spent most of their time in getting there and back, not dogfighting. When RAF Fighter Command took the offensive in 1941, the pilots carrying out sweeps over Northern France in order to draw up the Luftwaffe complained about many things, but not the range of the Spitfire. It was only when the target was further away that range became critical’

Note he is making a difference between the Luftwaffe goals (air-superiority over the invasion beaches) and the later Allied goals (economic warfare as part of a long-term siege).


Even if the Luftwaffe is stronger with more range there is still the issue of how to transport the Army - the vst majority of the invasion 'barges' were just that - 'barges' capable of being used once and needing to be towed to get there. The Germans could have built up a force of proper landing crfat pre-war but that makes it clear to even the most appeasement minded Britain that Germany has plans for the UK.

[alyster]

German economy was sky rockting in the first years of the war. If I'm not mistaking then the building of Autoban begun at about that time. I'm sure Germans could of over built any number Brithis could of built, unless the US help on England would of increased massivly.
The allied nations protuction got bigger then Germans in 1942-43, with the help of US.

Secondly the extra feul tanks don't only give extra range, but extra time over London. Adolf Galland in his book "The First and the last" complains alot about the short combat time Luftwaffe had.
What you said about the ammo is true, but remember that the combats never last long, most of the time was spent looking for the enemy.

Also the upper 9/10 of England which Germans couldn't reach was vaital for England. In there were most of the support units, pilot training areas - all the safe zone, where you do everything where you don't want Germans to interupt(too bad they couldn't move London there [:o)]). That's another things Galland didn't like - they couldn't get to the rookies.

Finaly if englishmen would of had to cover the whole or atlist half of their island with strong air defence, then want it or not, some places will be weaker, some stronger, cause covering 50% or 10% of your country with effective defence makes a difference. In the real world most of the war was over London or South England, so just stick all your AAs and most of the fighters there, move the bomber bit more to the north etc - it makes a difference.

[Red Admiral]

Luftwaffe:RAF losses

Figures are for aircraft "destroyed" not "probable"

September (when an invasion would occur)
15th 186:25 in favour of the RAF 12 pilots survived
20th 6:7 3 pilots survived
25th 26:4 2 pilots survived
30th 46:20 12 pilots survived
October
5th 22:9 7 pilots survived
10th 5:5 2 pilots survived
15th 19:15 9 pilots survived
20th 7:3 all pilots survived

[ChrisMcD]

Sorry, I was a bit focused on the mechanics of an invasion.

Robinson makes the point that, despite all the limitations of the Me109, the Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority over the South East of England, but that the Germans did not really know what to do next.

As Kutsha pointed out, the German army was massively superior.

The problem was that the German Navy has weak before Norway and decimated for the critical 12 months after.

Even if the Luftwaffe had been able to carry out an airlift the seaborne assault and reinforcements would have been decimated as they were in Crete.

To quote Lord St Vincent in an earlier war "I am not saying that the enemy cannot come - just that he cannot come by sea!".

Sorry Alyster -
--------------------------------------------------------
"German economy was sky rocketing in the first years of the war".
--------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't - the Germans were spinning down their war economy at this point; "after all the war was won!" Messerschmidt production was being replaced by aluminium ladder production!

Hitler went to great lengths to minimise German privations in the early war years by keeping a lot of non essential parts of the economy going.

[ickysdad]

Ok guys could Germany pull off an invasion? Not at all!!! Look at it this way Overlord took over a year of planning by armed forces that had total air superiority ,total naval superiority ,and most importantly the Expierence of Operations like Torch, Husky ,invasion of Italy( Salerno & Anzio), Madagascar, Dakar,and numerous assaults in the Pacific along with numerous proper landing craft(and more importantly expierenced and very well trained landing craft crews). What type of craft did the German's have that could land heavy equipment & tanks over open beaches?
When could it have taken place? In the late fall??? I think the English Channel gets a bit rough starting around then.

[alyster]

A.Galland cirtenly doesn't agree with you ChrisMcD.

Secondly Overlord took some time and planing, but Market Garden took only about a week to plan. And that allies didn't get the last bridge, it was total luck for germans, cause they had pulled of a tank division from front to rest and it hapened to be near the last bridge. So you can carry out some good operations in short time.

[Ricky]

Uh - Market Garden was a slightly less complex operation than the invasion of Continental Europe...;)

[Nick Sumner]

German economy was sky rockting in the first years of the war. If I'm not mistaking then the building of Autoban begun at about that time.

No, the German economy was badly managed and burdened with excessive government spending (notably on the military). One of the key issues that drove Nazi expansionism was that Germany kept running low on cash, its an oversimplification to say that that's why they annexed Austria and invaded Czecheslovakia and Poland but it was an important factor in all these cases.

This is the best essay I've seen on 'Sealion'

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Alyster,

I am a great fan of Galland, but he was a bit prone to rewritting history with the benefit of rose coloured glasses. There is a fair bit of evidence that a lot of the Luftwaffe's poor communication between fighters, bombers and air-sea rescue during the BoB was down the disdain the 'old Spanish Experts' had for radio.

Anyway - I am not sure where I dissagree with him!

My point is that the Luftwaffe had achieved it's objective of gaining air superiority over SE England. If it had carried on the tactics of wearing down the RAF for a few more weeks that would have been clear.

So I think I am in agreement with him

Where all went wrong was that both the German Army and the Navy did not have a solution for how to get to the other side of the Channel if the Royal Navy had contested the crossing.

A smaller number of destroyers massacred the seaborne invasion of Crete despite having no air cover.

At Dunkirk, over 10 days, 39 destroyers uplifted 100,000 troops and lost six despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe. Opposing Sealion, there were 40 destroyers available for anti invasion measures and they only had to survive one day. So, even if the RAF was not able to stop the Stukas (and this was before they had anti-ship training), the destroyers would have probably been able to do catestrophic damage before they were sunk.

Just to give you an idea, at Crete, 3 RN light cruisers and 4 destroyers caught the German seaborne reinforcements of 2,300 troops - Only 52 men reached Crete.

[alyster]

I was saying that about the German economy. In his book Galland discribes the eceonomy abit and how it seemed to me, it was doing great.

Anyway what you r saying about Selion. Yeah, if Luftwaffe would of had time, they would of finished what they started. How ever as I said before, it wouldn't of changed the outcome of the war due to uncle Joe.

Secondly your talking about the Kriegsmarines. You're right, the navy wasn't ready for the job, but as it was planed, Luftwaffe had to cover the shortcomings of the navy. Looking at German op. Thunderbolt(which was major navy movement), I'd say well planed invasion with solid airsuport would of been likely to be sucsess.
Also when talking about Thunderbolt, then the airsuport there was minimal: only JG2 and JG26 were left in France.

But Sealion wasn't canceled due to the Kriegsmarines nor Luftwaffe faliure, but Hitlers plans in the east. German high Comand tought that the campian in the east would be over in 3 months.

[Hop]

quote:My point is that the Luftwaffe had achieved it's objective of gaining air superiority over SE England.

I find it hard to see how the Luftwaffe position could be described as "air superiority". Ju 87s were withdrawn from combat due to unacceptable losses, the number of bomber sorties was heavily constrained by the need to provide increasing numbers of escorts, and the Luftwaffe was experiencing unsustainable losses.

To me, air superiority implies some sort of control, not having to remove one bomber type, and reduce sorties by others, due to heavy losses. It also implies freedom of action, and the Luftwaffe certainly did not have freedom of action over the SE during the BoB. From late August they began to switch a large proportion of their bomber forces over to night attacks, partly due to the lack of escorts, partly due to the heavy losses.

quote:But Sealion wasn't canceled due to the Kriegsmarines nor Luftwaffe faliure, but Hitlers plans in the east.

Well, iirc Sealion wasn't actually cancelled until 1944. But it was postponed repeatedly during late summer 1940, and put on indefinate hold in autumn 1940, and that was down to the Luftwaffe's failure, and the Kriegsmarine's weakness. (not failure on the Kriegsmarine's part, because they never even got as far as trying)

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Hop

quote:My point is that the Luftwaffe had achieved it's objective of gaining air superiority over SE England.

I find it hard to see how the Luftwaffe position could be described as "air superiority".

Indeed. I can't recall if it's in this thread (there are a few such discussions floating around the net) but the point has been made that the Luftwaffe suffered considerably more from the BoB than the RAF did. Park's 11 Group came under pressure, certainly, but there were many more RAF fighter squadrons available on the borders of his area. By the end of the BoB, the number of fighters and pilots available to the RAF wasn't very different from the start, whereas the Lufwaffe had seen their numbers drop significantly since they did less well in replacing losses (and of course lost a far higher proportion of the pilots shot down as they were operating over hostile territory).

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[alyster]

quote:Originally posted by Hop
Well, iirc Sealion wasn't actually cancelled until 1944. But it was postponed repeatedly during late summer 1940, and put on indefinate hold in autumn 1940, and that was down to the Luftwaffe's failure, and the Kriegsmarine's weakness. (not failure on the Kriegsmarine's part, because they never even got as far as trying)


Nope. It was stoped cause of Barbarossa. In the first place Barbarossa was planed on 3 months and after that they would come back for England. That's what Göring said, thea's what Hitler said. But it wasn't only 3 months and due to the lack of winter closing in the army, then the winter of 1941/42 was the best thing russians could of hope and stupidest mistake germans ever made(maybe except for puting Göring in front of Luftwaffe).

[Kutscha]

I see someone is reading generalized books. Lack of winter clothing was just an excuse, for there was much more to the German failure than that. Btw, the Russians also had a lack of winter clothing. When one sees photos of Russian troops all bundled up, they are the Siberian troops.

The German economy did not go to a *war time* economy until Speer took over in 1942-3 (iirc).

The LW took a beating in BoB, not even capable of replacing a/c losses, unlike the British who had almost the same number of a/c they started with and shortly after the air battles ended had more a/c than they started with.

Lw OoB for BoB, http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/Aug40.html#13Aug

[alyster]

I never said winter was only reson for Germans losing in the east. However have you ever felt russian winter[?] And now try moving into a tent or a foxhole with that! You'll freez your butt of there in 30mins(!) not to mention fighting a war. However if you live in that sort of area every year, your more use to it.

Yup German economy went to war time economy in 1943. BTW Russians did it way before the WW2. And that's part of the resons Luftwaffe didn't replace their loses. Secondly they didn't see a need for that. For once Luftwaffe tought RAF had the 50 last Spitfires in service.
Thirdly the Luftwaffe loses had to be higher: many of them were bombers. Defender doesn't have bombers in the air, so no loses from there. However attackers have bombers, which very much can be sitting ducks.

[Kutscha]

You think Russia is the only place it gets cold? [:p] Where I live, I have seen many many times -40C, and is with high humidity as well.

[alyster]

Ok, sry then.:D
Your name sounded like you'd be from somewhere like SE Asia or something. :) Sry.
Anyway, then you know what I'm talking about.

[Kutscha]

Kutscha is a Bf110 ace who survived WW2.

Hptm Herbert KUTSCHA
5./JG77,II./ZG1,ZG76,SKG210,12./JG3,15./JG27,JG11
47 kills, 22 as Zerstörer, 6 Viermots, 900+ sorties