Could Operation Sealion really have succeeded?

There was also one that swamped due to soldiers moving away from what they though was an immanent colliision and as I recall several broached on their approach to the beaches during said test.

That said from what I've read you weren't looking at a single line as Clint's post suggested but convoys from each of the invasion ports which would have the barges in three lines. Again from what I remember reading the "tow" was supposed to be a tug followed by at least one powered barge, followed by one or two more barges. I seem to recall a shortage of tugs though so am not sure what the ultimate composition would have been. Again though it's the speed of the slowest that will define how fast the convoy can move. Empty or lightly loaded barges may make for greater safty in higher winds but they also are going to have more "sail" area and this the wind is going to slow them down unless it comes from almost directly astern.

I haven't seen the source for the exercise with the high winds, could you link it PLS.

 

..except that it was a six-foot....or two metre...freeboard, as specified by the KM.

The RAF and Fleet Air Arm carried out trials in 1940 and again in 1941; their gravity ordnance turned out to be nowhere near as effective as peple think against steelhulled barges - they required either direct hits or "near" misses of within 15 feet to do enough damage to sink a barge.

The initial barge landings were to be two hours after high tide; and if you look at Schenk, they weren't all by any means supposed to be grounded. The barges carrying the amphibious tanks, for example, were to moor out to sea and let the tanks run in underwater/on top of the water.

There were very VERY few troops going to be crossing the Channel on the actual barges; they were to be transported across in the assembled transport fleet, THEN transfer to the barges just a couple of miles off shore.

You have to remember that the RN wasn't intending to operate its captial or heavier ships in the Channel either! The Narrows didn't have the sea room OR the depth for them. Naval defence was by three destroyer flotillas of c.12 vessels each, at Portsmouth, Plymouth and the Medway, each stiffened by a light cruiser flagship. And apart from the c.600 poorly armed yachts and drifters of the Auxiliary Patrol and a very limited number of 1940-era MTBs and MGBs...that was to be it. That was ALL the RN had to play with in the invasion area.

The speed at which the KM could lay mines...should be looked at in terms of how remarkably fast they laid the mine barrages in the Skaggerak and Kattegat in the autumn of 1939! They laid hundreds of thousands of mines in a very few short weeks in September...

Thing is - the partial mine fields they intended to lay for Sealion were exactly that - just small fields. The largest lays were two of 1,200...but the lays varied DOWN from there to 550, 400, 300, 250....

They were also only intending to join up gaps in British fields, and to block deeper water channels that RN vessels would have to use to get into the Narrows

Equally historically, Sealion wasn't ever going to be launched UNTIL the Luftwaffe had at least local air superiority over the area, that was one of the launch criteria. So if Sealion had taken place, the RAF would have been in a defacto worse predicament than it ever was historically anyway.

It took the RAF intensive operations across four weeks to damage or destroy "only" 15% of the gathered, moored-up invasion shipping of all types....

Historically, apart from one large ammo dump at Dunkirk, Bomber Command wasn't actually very good at attacking or hitting any invasion preparations apart from invasion shipping! To prvent resupply and reinforcement of the bridgehead would have mneant finding and attacking German shipping at sea, something that Bomber Command was not good at, and/or bombing the invasion ports on an ongoing basis to disturn loading of the Second Wave etc. Even if they do as well as they did in September 1940, they'll only account for c.15% of preparations and shipping at those ports...

The problem however is that RAF aircraft can't be in two places at once; the Battles, Blenheims etc. that attacked Channel ports on bargebusting raids in Spetember 1940 were the ones to be given over to Army cooperation and control for tactical support on land targets in the event of invasion.

 

It's mentioned in Schenk, p.70.

 

Incorrect; as per Schenk, the barges of the First wave were all to mount artillery on platforms built on them across the open barge holds....the artillery being drawn from the units carried by the barges In other words, they could fire a "run-in shoot" not unlike the RA on D-Day. Poorly coordinated, yes....but it would have been there...and given how bascially crap the vast majority of British coastal defences were....

See Schenk; that's just not correct.

...when crewed by ARMY crews, not KM ones, and carried out on lee shores and in sea states the KM did not recommend for Sealion.

Actually, that's not the case; the Germans were FAR better versed in ground marking for CAS than the British were in 1940....and Richthofen's Stukas had been withdrawn in August for extra training for CAS The LW was also planning on continuing its previous three-day campaign against defensive positions they had identified and marked up on their VERY comprehensive maps of British defences. Often poo-poo'd, these maps were used by the Defence of Britain Project over the last two decades to find the remains of OUR 1940s defences!

A lot of thinking on Sealion was unfortunately coloured by the famous 1970s Sandhurst wargame(s)....which had the parameters hevily weighed. The highly limited RN forces would have had to withdraw at dawn each day....while the Luftwaffe and KM planned a "rolling" replenishment of the minefields the RN would have had to clear a path through each night. This replenishment didn't have to be neat, it didn't have to be good - air-dropped or sub-laid mines didn't have to be nicely spaced or fill whole gaps, they just had to be THERE...making the RN re-sweep clear paths each evening.

 

I think they would have had a chance if they had stopped bombing London, and continued bombing the factories to produced the British planes/parts.
I think if the Germans had air supremacy they could have had a good chance. It also wouldn't have hurt if Hitler had authorized the 300 subs by then for Dönitz.

 

I feel as if that a variety of factors could have helped the Germans accomplish Sea Lion:

-Destroying the radar stations. Radar had been essential to helping the British detect and destroy more of the German planes. Knocking out the radar stations by making them their first priority rather than the RAF airfields and aircraft factories would have sent Britian to it's sure doom. The only deciding factor at the Battle of Britain would have been experience and the Luftwaffe had more from the Invasion of Poland to the Fall of France.

-They had put more effort and attention into developing the jet fighter. I know this sounds like a cliche alternative history topic, but if the Germans had focused all their funds and use their best engineers along with producing at least a couple thousand jet fighters by 1940, they would have had a siginificant force. Remember the faster speed would have made them nearly impossible to head on with them. Also if the jets had been used for their suited role of an interceptor and superiority fighter and had been equipped with four 20 mm cannons in their noses(much like the He 280), they would have easily ripped apart British Spittfires and Hurricanes.

-Focus on a navy of almost entirely U-Boats. Having an invisible navy would have made it easier to rip apart the Royal Navy. Wasting money on huge battleships like the Bismarck and Tirpitz were costly and vulnerable to enemy fire. The U-Boats could ahve easily surrounded the island and made escaping off the isalnd nearly impossible. Of course there would have been several hundred torpedo boats and armed transport ships, to fulfill their roles. U-Boats would have been able to enjoy support from maritime aicraft if Germany had established air superiority. Also the Germans should have had in mind of creating a landing force for navy invasions. The Kriegsmarine should have put focus into building landing craft. There had only been a couple prototypes built by the time of Sea Lion's cancellation.

-Make the use of heavy bombers. Had they had built four-engined heavy piston bombers with the goal of delivering a heavy smackdown on the island, they would have caused far more casualties, considering that the destruction of the area would have more highly concentrated. This would have been done only with the force of the jet fighters. We know this becuase of sucessful USAAF bombing campaigns to Germany were only effective when the P-51D mustang had established air superiority. Their role was significant in destroying large parts of Germany's industrial infrastructure. Germany would have only needed to have constructed a several hundred bombers to reduce london to rubble(even though this wasn't part of the original plan, it would have been more effective than the faster, but lighter-loaded medium bombers such as Ju 88 and the He 111). Heavy bombers would also have played a factor in ridding of the royal navy. Flying at a high altitude of about 40,000 ft and dropping a load of at least 10-15,000 punds would have annihilated almost any ship.Using this, together with the use of U-Boats this would have destroyed nearly the entire Royal Navy in a matter of weeks. As most of their fleet consisted of surface ships, the Royal Navy submarines would have played too small in a role to go against the invading land force of Sea Lion.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I welcome whatever criticisms people have against my statement. I enjoy a fun, but mature debate.

 

The radar stations weren't particularly easy to knock out and at least parts of them could be repaired fairly quickly. An intensive campaign to take them out also would take time and give the RAF more breathing room. The Germans also didn't really have a good read on where the British aircraft factoris were nor were they very good at hitting the ones they did know about. In addition there were signficiantly more deciding factors than just experaince and the British picked that up pretty quickly as well as having some from the Fall of france. There was also a practicle cut off due to weather of some time in October at the latest. IMO the Germans simply didn't have the time with the resources they had in hand.

No way this is happening in 1940. The Germans didn't really have what most countries would consider an operational fighter during the war. One of the keys was a shortage of exotic metals that their prewar foreign exchange problems would have precluded building up any significant stockpile of even if they realized it in time.

When are they going to do this and what are the repercussions going to be? If the Germans don't build the Bismarcks but do start building more subs the British reaction is likely to be an increased emphasis on ASW. The net result could likely be much worse for the Germans given the types of U-boats they had available pre war. They also might have a hard time getting a naval treaty out of the British like they historically got and Britain may consider them a serious threat earlier than they did historically. Are you saying that U-boats could easily surround Great Britain????? where and when are they going to come up with the armed transports and torpedo boats you are talking about especially if they focused "almost entirely on u-boats"? Pre war Germany or perhaps more properly Hitler though of Great Britain as a likely ally you are haveing him no concentrate on ways to attack that ally and that will provide little or no help vs France or the USSR.

Build much in the way of heavy bombers and they will have to give up fighters and tactical bombers. Without them taking out Poland and especially France becomes more difficult. If France doesn't fall Sea Lion is a non starter. Heavy bombers also weren't all that effective especially in 1940 unless you had a lot of them. For Germany it's a zero sum game. If they want say 100 4 engine bombers they are going to have to give up over 400 single engine planes or more than 200 2 engine planes. But they need several hundred heavies to even get a start at such a campaign. Can they take out France if you take a thousand or more fighters and tactical bombers away from the Luftwaffe?

 

Radar stations...

Weren't easy to knock out because they required a large amount of damage across a large area to render them inoperative for a length of time - reconstruction and repair was simply an overscale carpentery and cable stringing job, followed by recalibration etc.. But in the three days (only) that the Luftwaffe paid attention to them at the start of the BoB....on two days' dedicated attacks they were relatively unsuccessful - and lost a lot of aircraft in the process - but on the THIRD day were very successful, taking out a string of three along the South Coast allowing the Luftwaffe to "spoof" the defences with a couple of fake raids and get a force of bombers through the gap....

The problem was that this "success" came AFTER the order had been given and circulated to stop further dedicated attacks on radar stations after the third day!!!!

Of course, the REAL sticker is that Sealion would only have been ordered after the Luftwaffe had gained at least temporary air superiority over the invasion area - thus the efficacy of radar along the South Coast would have been pretty moot anyway And once the Germans managed tog et ashore anywhere, RDF stations in that area would have gone off the air....

HOWEVER -

RDF as of 1940 had an often-overlooked feature....

The CHL....Chain Home LOW....sets installed at radar station to fill the low-altitude "hole" in coverage illuminated targets right down to sea level They could illuminate shipping....and rapidly radar stations had an RN liaison assigned to check surface contacts with Dover Command This was actually SO effective that the Army requested and received eleven CHL sets to set up to cover the 11 most-threatened potential invasion beaches, the so-called "X stations"....

The question is....could/did the Germans realise that the Channel was actually covered by radar and give the requisite amount of attention to them to blind the defenders to the incoming invasion shipping The evidence of the pattern of raids would say no....

BUT - starting at S-Day minus 9, once ordered, the Luftwaffe was supposed to dedicate its full attention for some days to "defence targets" along the coast, and some formations were to continue doing so right up to S-Day. So one can assume that radiating radar installations would in THOSE circumstances have been among the so-called "defence targets". As Sealion was never ordered, we'll never know. Details on advance ops planning for Sealion is remarkably thin on the ground.

 

How could there be this "shortage" if there were several thousand Ju 88 bombers, Bf 109s, Bf 110s and Ju 87s by the middle of 1940? I don't see any shortage at all. I am confident that had Germany had put more focus into the project and keep it top secret, they would have used all the metal from the intended production of the pistion fighters/bombers into the jet figter. Had the He 178 flown a year or two early, and had been given a go from the RLM, Germany could have easily accomplished this task. That was a constant fault at the beginning of the war, lack of attention to jet fighters, along with producing them in significant numbers/ The use of jet fighter could have easily suited it for tasks such as a superiority fighter, a ground attack, and a light bomber. It would have been an all-in-one plane capable of fulfilling these roles

This is where the jet fighters come in, their quick speed would made knocking out the radar stations effortless in their ground attack role. So what, if they repaired them again? Another jet ground-attack plane would have came in and knocked it out again. Besides this wouldn't haven't happened too many times as I predict that an air battle between piston planes and jet planes would have been over in about a week or two.

Having a fleet of U-Boats would be WAY harder to go after than a giant target like the Bismarck. This was the biggest mistake of the Kriegsmarine, building large heavy expensive warships. Plus you could have around 30 U-Boats for every battleship roughly. A U-Boat will be able to sink ships more effectively than a battleship would due to it's stealth element. The British could have not competed with making submarines like Germany did. Plus what difference would it have made whether they had a naval treaty with Britain? A fleet of U-Boats against a surface navy is lethally unforgiving. The higher quantity of U-Boats, due to them being easy and chepaer to construct, along with them being more effective weapons than a land vessel would have made the Royal Navy doomed anyway. Plus, with air superiority established, Britain would have had a hard conducting ASW against the U-Boats as they would have to deal with the incoming heavy bombers. Also, the use of torpedo boats and merchant raiders would have simply played an assisting role to the U-boats. The torpedo baots would act as a secondry role in reconaissance, with the maritime bombers and as a distractio for the surface navy in order for the U-Boats to give them a better position. The transport ships would have only have to have been couple dozen strong as Britain had a weak army after the Battle of France and would have easily succumbed to a land force on their island.

They wouldn't give up any fighters, they would have taken metal that was intended for their Ju 88s and He 111 and put them into heavy bombers such as the Me 264, which also should have received early attention. Germany's concept of a schnell bomber was kind of pointless. No matter how fast you make a bomber, a fighter would be able to catch up to it. So it would be better to have a heavy bomber to take out the area after the jet fighters lead the way. There would have been no shortage of materials for jet fighters and heavy bombers. I believe there would have been a surplus of metals from not producing the piston fighters.

 

There failure in the BoB quite clearly indicates that the Luftwaffe wasn't strong enough to acomplish its task. What are you going to give up to get 4 engine bombers? Fighters? Ju-87s? Ju-88s? Something else? Some mix? Remember if you want to have a significant 4 engine bomber force you have to start well before the attack on Poland so those tactical aircraft won't be availble for either Poland or France.

You maybe confident but after discussing this on numerous forums I've yet to see anyone who understands the problems express similar feelings. The metal from piston fighters and bombers wouldn't have made much difference. If you wanted jet engine with any real reliability and service life you need metals other than steel and aluminum which is mostly what went into the piston engine aircraft. Even in 45 the Me-262 wasn't ready for front line service. If the Germans had had 1,000 of them, the fuel to run them, and the trained pilots it still wouldn't have mattered as they wouldn't have been able to keep them in service. Keeping them secret would also have been difficult once they started any serious flight testing program. As for having them ready by the summer of 1940 simply no way.

Actually lit would have made it near on impossible. There is an inverse relationship between speed and accuracy of bomb delivery.
Given that they wouldn't have been available anyway it hardly matters though.

Historically the Germans expected to win the BoB in about the same time period didn't they? Didn't quite work out for them did it? You might be right though as if they started with 1,000 jet aircraft of any sort that could be produced in 1940 in a couple of weeks almost none of them would still be in service due to operational losses alone.

Not really. Especially if the force composition has been telegrafed. What you forget is that the British can also build a lot of escorts and ASW aircraft for the cost of a battleship. Furthermore those platforms can be upgraded signficantly faster as technology improves than submarines can. You are ignoring just how much efort and resources the British spent to check the German surface navy. If there is no surface navy then most of that can be redirected towards ASW. It's much quicker to build escorts and planes than battleships and cruisers.

I'm not sure that is accurate but it is irrelevant. A corvet or a sloop is cheaper and faster to build and to man than a sub is and it or a patrol bomber are quite capable of sinking a submarine. There's also the question of just what kind of u-boats Germany would have if they started building them at this point in time. Remember the first tyep VII boat wasn't commissioned until mid 36 and the first type VII-C wasn't commissioned until Nov of 40. So if they have a large fleet of Uboats in early 40 it's going to be composed of older and less capable type subs.

??? I'm amazed that you would even ask such a question. The British German naval treaty had a rather profound impact on relationships between the two countries. For one it convinced the British that Germany wasn't much of a threat for at least the near future. Germany building up it's sub force instead of getting such a treaty is going to do just the opposite.

U-boats proved to be a fragile weapon when used against a well trained and well equipped surface force especially one that had ready access to ASW aircraft. In the scenario you propose the British would have had years to prepare and practice for this battle. You make the classic what if mistake of not allowing for the reactions of the opponent to your proposals. As part of a combined arms force submarines were indeed quite powerful the USN proved that quite conclusivly. Not sure what you mean by a "land vessel" though. Saying the RN was doomed is rather easy producing a convincing argument to that effect isn't.

??? The main ASW efforts would have been West of Great Britain. The Luftwaffe has no way of establishing air superioirity in that area and ASW aircraft aren't used to deal with "incoming heavy bombers".

What exactly are you taking about when you say "torpedo boat"? Do you mean small craft like the PT boat, MTBs, or S-boats? Or do you mean the larger vessels the Germans called torpedo boats? A "couple of dozen" transports wouldn't have been anywhere near enough transport for a successful invasion of Britain especially after July of 1940. Launching an invasion prior to that is very problematic, especially with the changes you have made.

 

Had to break this up due to quote limits:

So you are giving up a bunch of tactical bombers for your heavies. That means the invasion of Poland is a bit rougher and the invasion of France even more so. Indeed it's possible in this scenario that Germany fails to take France out of the war or if it does doesn't do so in the spring of 1940. That really messes up Sea Lion doesn't it?

Actually the Mosquitto rather proved that to be a false assumption. Speed can make it much more difficult to intercept bombers. It doesn't provide a perfect defence by anymeans but it isn't useless either.

Jet fighters aren't going to be the best of escorts for heavy bombers. Your proposal would likely see heavy losses among the bombers for little gain. Heavy bombers weren't all that effective in 1940 either even by late in the war you needed truly massive numbers and air supremacy for them to have any great effect.

That is a rather classic example of "an argument from ignorance". Historically Germany was short on metals witht the possible exception of low grade iron during the late 30's. Freeing up some aluminum and steel from piston engine aircraft doesn't mean that you have the metals you need to produce reliable jet engines.

 

DerGiLLster,

To build on what Lwd has so accurately stated thus far, you need alloying metals for high temp, high stress, high wear or anti-corrosion applications, such as jet engines or exposure to the corrosive jet fuel Germany was using. Tungsten, Cobalt, Nickel, molybdenum, titanium, etc. Germany did not have acess to large deposits of these crucial metals in the quantities that would have been required. You may need small amounts of some of these for superchargers and such in a piston engined aircraft, but that pales when compared to the quantities needed for what you're suggesting.

 

Woah, I didn't say to give up every type of plane for the four-engined bombers. For every several Ju 88's and/or Stuka's, we would have a four-engined bomber. There would be enough materials to go around for a four-engined bomber if it had been given attention in place of the Stuka and the Ju 88 in the mid 30s.

The Germans had good relations with the Chinese before the Tripartite Pact. Germany should had not wasted hundreds of millions of reichmarks on huge, slow, vulnerable battleships. The funds should have been used to buy the metals needed in order to run the jet engines. China has a bulk amount of metals as USMCPrice had stated. Also, if Germany o0nly had to keep the jet project a secret until it there were prototypes making successful flights. They could have kept the early prototype flights by flying low key at altitude or for no more for an hour.

The ground-attack version would have flaps to aid in accurate bomb delivery. Besides, the pilots would have been trained enough before to make attacks on that level of speed. It's not pilots flying stukas all of sudden flying Me 262s during the Battle of Britain. They would have been available as I said through the metals they would have received from China, and along with the RLM having put much focus into the program of jet fighters.

The British had around 1900 aircraft servicable around the time of the attack. Their fighters were armed with simple machine guns. The Germans may be outnumbered by nearly 2:1, but the speed of the jet, along with a quad 20mm cannon setup would have given the Germans an upper hand and would have easily brought down fighters faster than before, plus the ground attack versions would have destroyed more aircraft on the ground, therefor reducing resistance in the air.

This is where air superiority plays a role. With there being hundreds of Me 264 maritime aircraft, they would have provided an obsatcle for Britain's ASW. Their ASW force would be reduced alongside the that Me 264 heavy bombers would striking at British factories giving them a reduced industrial capacity. Britain may be able to destroy hundreds of submarines, but they would eventually be able to pass through the defenses and rid the ships.

It is relevant to point out that Britain did not have so much of a stealthier navy. Also, the Germans should have focused on their U-Boat technology rather building a large surface navy. Had the Germans done that, quieter and more versatile U-Boats would have come out. So the Germans would have advanced their U-Boats considerably to increase their hunting effect. This would make ASW a bigger pain for the British.

I will admit fault at this. This treaty had been responsible for allowing the Kreigsmarine to size up, and keep Britain's guard. So, this was necessary, didn't think about it before.

What would the British do? Build their own submarines? I don't think this would have helped since they are on the defensive. I am aware that Britian would not just sit around and watch. They would of course increase ASW efforts, but again the maritime aircraft come into play. By land vessel, I mean battleship, aircraft carrier and transport.

Why would the Luftwaffe bother around that area? Their focus would have to have been around the english channel. The ASW force would have just sat there hunting U-Boats while Luftwaffe air superiority along with a distraction of the Royal Navy would have allowed the Germans to have invaded from the English channel. The use of the Me 264 as a drop plane would have allowed around 100 paratroopers per plane and with around 100 flying over Britain, they would have a problem of around ten thousand troops invading their country.

I mean the E-Boats. The boats that carried twin 20mm AA cannons and could go around 50mph. Well, then Germany should have conducted a massive airborne invasion. It would have been quicker and faster to carry out the invasion, plus it would have given another surprise element and have made the british clueless about where the troops would be at. The paratroopers would have been effective if they had carried heavy weapons and not submachine guns. The paratroopers could have secured certain beaches in order to bring material such vehicles and supplies underway.

 

What do you mean by the invasio of Poland being "rougher"?The heavies would have been more effective than tactical bombers. they would have caused more damage in the area and have created higher casualities. If anything, the campaign against france would have been cut down by a week with the heavies.

This wouldn't have helped with jet fighters who have quad 20mm cannons.

I didn't say that they would escort the bombers. They would have helped destroy small targets such as gun posts and vehicles. The ground-attack versions would have been able to help reduce the number of AAA on the ground, in order to increase effectiveness.

Again, as I stated before, Germany had good relations with China, so they should have ordered the metals needed for the jet engines from them, enough for a couple thousand jet fighters before cutting them off, and then partnering with the Japanese. They would have had enough metals to go around with in occupied-Norway and Sweden who were trading with Germany in the war despite their neutrality.

 

Focussing on the LW is only wasting time : SL could only succeed if the Germans were able to land on the first day some 60000 menwith weapond and supplies,and this was out of the question : it could not happen in a million of years .

 

'Couple of thousand jet fighters' in 1940. Fine. Since this is now purely "what if", Britain would have shot them down with a couple of thousand Vampires and bombed Berlin with their Vulcans.

 

Exactly and 4 engine heavy bombers don't work out very well as tactical aircraft.

Reichmarks were almost useless for trade outside Germany in the late 30's. Germany had essentially been reduced to a barter economy as far as international trade went by the mid to late 30s. As it was the test flight program for the German jets lasted almost a decade and you want to shorten it to a year or two? and keep it secret?

Until you have smart bombs and good ones at that going in fast is a prescription for inaccuracy. Piston engine aircaft were still prefered for tactical support through both Korea and Vietnam as well as other aircarft and the A-10 was hardly designed for speed. Note that to do all the training you would need to do would also involve consuming a lot of critical resources. The availability of minerals via China is also suspect. Especially if relations with the other major powers are shaky. Slowing down especially on the deck wasn't a good idea for the Me-262 either as it had pretty poor acceleration so it would be vulnerable to both ground fire and British fighters while making such attacks.

Or not. They simply aren't going to have the jets. Even if they did the reliabilty rates would be such that the British would hardly have to fly to defeat the German jets. If they are doing ground attacks on British airfields I suspect barrage ballons alone would be accounting for a fair number of them. Slow down to avoid them and you become a good AA target.

Looking at:
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/BOB/BoB-German/index.html#organization
On 10 August the Germans had 138 (with only 123 operational) twin engine bombers and 406 (316 operational) single engine bombers. That translates to less than 200 4 engine aircraft with less than 150 operational. The history of heavy bombers during the war suggest that it would take months or years for a force like that to have a serious impact on British production. Note also that some of the factories are going to require raids much deeper into British territory While the Me-262 has a bit more range than the Me-109 I'm not sure it's enough and timing and coordinaiton will be a significant problem as the speeds of the bombers and fighters are so far apart. Germany can't afford to loose 100's of subs especially early in the war. Indeed it's questionable if they can even afford to build them. Then there's the problem of maning them. It takes time to train decent crews for subs and not everyone is cut out for it.

Is it? I'm not even sure what you are talking about much less if it is relevant.

Really? When and why?

The question is when would the newer boats come out? Admittedly better U-boats make it tougher on British ASW but more resources and better ASW tech make it tougher on the U-boats and WW2 showed the allies developed ASW tech faster than the Germans did advanced U-boats furthermore they got it into the field quicker and in considerable quantity.

Probably getting close to the quote limit so more in the next post.

 

The British actually got a fair number of sub on sub kills during the war but their main effort would likely be escorts (perhaps including CVEs) and ASW aircraft. Some they could build some they might buy. The B-24 for instance was a very good ASW platform and could patrol a signficant distance from it's land bases. They developed and built huge numbers of corvetts as it was given a bit more time to design them they could have had much better vessels in significant numbers available before the war started. German long range planes are going to have a hard time surviving west of Great Britain as well. They won't have fighter escort and will be vulneralbe to directed intercepts.

That's a rather strange terminology. When I heard it the only thing I could think of was the Maus or other such monstrosities. The more conventional term would be surface vessels.

You said the subs would surround the island. The Channel was generally considered a death trap for subs. Too shallow and lots of mines. The RN was large enough historically that it could perform the requried ASW work and still defeat any potential German invasion.

Well it's very much an open question if the Me 264 would even be in service by that time much less in numbers. As indicated in the previous post even if it is the Germans are likely to start the BoB with less than 200 so having 100 combat ready after the BoB is questionable. Looking a the stats for the C-130 your estimate of 100 paratroopers per plane looks very optomistic. I'm not sure that the 264 was designed with that in mind either.

The Germans didn't have the plances and couldn't have the planes to mount an airborne invasion of Britain with any hope of success. They might have been useful in the event of a sea borne invasion but that's about it. German paratroopers didn't even jump with their weapons but had to pick them up after landing. They wouldn't have had the numbers of the equipment to secure beaches and even if they did they would lack the supplies to hold them and Germany didn't have a very impressive ship to shore capability either.

 

I don't know where you got that idea. Blowing holes in the dirt may be impressive to some but it has limited miltiary utility. Note that the reason the British went to area bombing is that when they were doing "precision" bombing early in the war studies indicated that they were lucky if they dropped within a mile of their target. Tactical air support requires hitting point targets. Doing so with heavies requires a lot of heavies and a lot of bombs and still doesn't always work as planned as the case of General McNair illustrates. What World War II showed was that heavy bombers could be effective if you had the numbers and air supremacy and that their tactical uses were rather limited. Without the close air support provided by the Ju-87s the Germans would have had a tougher time in Poland and may have given the French time to establish a solid defence.

The point was that the concept was not bankrupt although it was the British rather than the Germans who produced an aircraft capable of it (although the late war German jets were also capable of it). Not sure why you keep harping on the quad 20mm cannons either. I haven't seen a case that would drive that armament especially during the period you are talking about.

You are suggesting that the bombers attack unescorted? That's a good way to have a bomber fleet reduced to an ineffective force in a very short period of time. As stated elsewhere jets aren't all that good at taking out point targets either and ground attack is generally considered more dangerous that air to air combat so you are looking at signifiant attrition to the fighters as well.

When do they know what they need and when do they make the order and how do they pay for it? They may have good relations with China but the Chinese aren't likely to just give them the metals. From Norway and Sweden they got high quality steel not the exotics they needed for the jet engines.