No announcement yet.

Sealion 'Narrow Front' Feasibility (yes, I know, just read the OP before ignoring)

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [QUOTE=zraver;2253745]Talk about wishful thinking...

    I worked ships of the size we are discussing, well I guess you are an arm chair- books over experience eh

    My source

    1. New Pier The introduction of larger steamers had previously exposed problems at Folkestone Harbour and all services were subject to tidal conditions. To counter this, a new low water pier was completed in September 1861, although this was some distance from the Harbour station, the original South Pier was still preferred for the majority of sailings... London to Paris (via Folkestone-Boulogne) was reduced to 8 hours in 1884 and two years later all tidal services ceased and proper, fixed timetables were able to be introduced. A 7 hours 30 minutes through journey became possible in 1891...By further extending and widening the New Pier between 1897 and 1904, Folkestone Harbour, as we know it today, was completed.

    I do believe that settles the issue of tides and the number of quays/piers/berthing

    New Pier (Rail served ferry with 3 berths indicated per your map), South Quay (1), East Pier (2), Slip (2), Hard (1) and a 7 pier marina for small craft

    I wonder how many are honest enough to apologize?

    2. see attached picture

    I dare you to find a credible source that says that...

    Low water of .9 fathoms for 1 berth. The other 2 berths as my source shows are all tidal depth capable for the ferries.

    That map shows berthing for up to 9 vessels (3 ferries) at a time plus a 7 pier marina for shallow draft boats like the S-boats, whalers etc.

    If I didn't answer them repost them please.

    Doveton Sturdee

    [I think that, when you have as little understanding of the realities of 1940, and know as few of the facts, as seems to be the case with zraver

    Wow talk about uncouth trollish behavior

    You have an absolute fetish for strawmen don't you?

    I was quite clear the S-boats would sneak through as part of a larger S boat attack on the patrol forces. The Germans have 23 S boats ready and 16 under repair in July.
    If correcting clear factual errors and explaining the impossibilities of some of the things you suggest amounts to uncouth trollish behaviour, then I plead guilty as charged, and throw myself upon the mercy of the court.

    I have repeatedly asked you provide the sources for some of your wilder 'facts' but sadly it appears that pressure of time must have delayed your response to date. However, here is another one for you to ignore:

    The German S-Boat situation in mid-July, 1940 was as follows :-
    Prototype : S1 Sold out of service in 1936.
    1931 Series: S2 – 5 Sold to Spain in 1936
    1933 Series: S7 – 13 In service.
    1934 Series: S14 -17 In service, other than S17 (Scrapped following storm damage in Sept 1939)
    1937 Series : S18 - S25 S23 sunk 12/7/40
    1939 Series: S30 – S35 S32 sunk 22/6/40
    1939/40 Series: Only S26 & S27 in commission. (S27 had only been in commission for a few days, and it is doubtful whether she would have been considered worked up sufficiently for combat operations, by the way.)

    Therefore, total un commission in mid July 1940 was 24 at most. Older boats (S8, S9, and S14 – S16) fitted with the unreliable MAN engines had been earmarked for conversion to second line duties as fast submarine hunters, but this modification did not commence until after July 1940.
    I will not bother going into greater detail concerning boats undergoing refits etc., but would ask you, given the facts above, where you get your figure of 39 S-Boats stated above?


    • Originally posted by The Purist View Post

      If this little operation is now scheduled for Dynamo,... how do these transports and S-Boats (were S-Boats in Belgium before Jun 4th?) sail directly across the guarded evacuation routes between Dunkirk and Kentish ports. There are still numerous destroyers and auxiliaries all over the routes.
      Yes, I was going to get back at this too. Until now, I had thought we were talking about July. But if this is while Dynamo is going on...

      - The Luftwaffe is even smaller. It's not as if they didn't take losses during the Battle of France. I could look the data up but by nowe it seems it's something like too much an effort. It's not just permanent losses; in July, they were inching towards a peacetime serviceability of some 75%, but right during the ongoing campaign against France? Probably 60%. That's telling.
      - Meanwhile, those Fighter Command squadrons that are being niggardly hoarded away from action even over Dunkerque, OTOH, have good serviceability rates, maybe 75-80%.
      - The Luftwaffe is largely out of range, way back.
      - The British Southern coast is overcrowded with personnel, including the French personnel that nobody took into account because by July it had been moved back. Surely they are not equipped or organized, but at least they can be used as replacements right there at hand to feed into the action over time... assuming it lasts more than three days.

      I suppose it would be too much to ask when exactly this stunt is going to take place...


      • Originally posted by Michele View Post
        I seemed to remember an actual history example that didn't bode well for this. Now I placed it.
        It was the improvised crossing to Crete, making use of Greek fishing boats and trawlers, on May 21. The Royal Navy was out. Some 1,000 Gebirgsjäger drowned that night. Another 1,600 survived, but most because their boats turned tail, and thanks to the intervention of one Italian torpedo boat, Lupo, which albeit repeatedly hit managed to distract the British force.

        This happened in an area where the Luftwaffe mastered the skies; but it was after dark, and the Royal Navy mastered the waters.

        Imagine what happens in an area where the same applies as to the waters at night, but the Luftwaffe does not master the skies in daylight.
        Quite correct, a convoy of 25 small steamers and fishing boats left Milos for Maleme on 21/5/41, and on the night of 21/22 May was intercepted by an RN force of three cruisers (Dido, Orion, & Ajax) and three destroyers (Hasty, Hereward & Kimberley). 22 of the 25 vessels were sunk despite the heroic efforts of Lupo to protect them. The actions of Lupo that night could be considered one of the most valiant destroyer actions of the war, and full tribute was paid to her efforts by the British force commander in his subsequent report.

        Actually, you have probably overstated the losses, as many of the troops in the water were subsequently rescued by Lupo and Italian Air Sea Rescue services, but the fact is that throughout the campaign on Crete, no reinforcements reached the island by sea until the British decision to evacuate had been taken.

        the improvised nature of the operation sounds familiar doesn't it? For Maleme, read Folkestone, perhaps!?


        • zraver's link proves conclusively that Folkestone was a ferry and fishing port, no more. The fact that cars were craned onto ferries until the Ro-Ro types entered service only shows that any German AFVs that were ferried across (no mention as yet from him as to which ones they are, their loading capacity, or when they actually became available for the Germans to use) would have to be lightweight (excludes tanks from his scenario) and if the cranes were destroyed then no heavy cargo could be transferred ashore!

          The s-boote scenario is reminiscent of Operation Chariot which, apart from the wrecking of the dry dock, was a disaster. If the Germans want to do some damage to the port of Folkestone then, assuming the soldiers were motivated and trained in demolition work, then it might have some merit. Easier and less costly just to bomb it though.
          Signing out.


          • Can I request that a moratorium be declared on all Sealion related discussions for at least a year with a sticky link put in place that directs interested parties to the relevant thread(s) where we've discussed the issues repeatedly?

            Either that or I'll leave.
            Signing out.


            • As I predicted the rule Britannia crowd is not only dishonest, but dishonorable.


              • Originally posted by zraver View Post

                77th Division at Okinawa with its full complement and supplies for the expected campaign used less than 100,000 tons of shipping.

                No I didn't thank you very much

                Let's see 17 Attack Transports and Attack Cargo Transports @ c8000 tons each = 136,000

                56 Landing Ship Tanks @ c4000 tons each = 224,000 tons

                = approx. 360,000 tons


                • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                  Can I request that a moratorium be declared on all Sealion related discussions for at least a year with a sticky link put in place that directs interested parties to the relevant thread(s) where we've discussed the issues repeatedly?

                  Either that or I'll leave.
                  No need to leave. Last night as I read through the thread from start to finish I noted it was slipping into the same "yes they could - no, the could not" trap this topic always does. In this case the scenario is even more far fetched and less well researched than Mr Leandros' better penned version.

                  Since this thread is only going to go in circles now and both the pro and con side will only repeat what has been said a number of times, we will wrap this exercise up.
                  Last edited by The Purist; 01 Jun 12, 12:39.
                  The Purist

                  Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.


                  Latest Topics