This seems like a reasonable summary of the German coastal guns
The first such guns began to be installed around the end of July 1940. First came Siegfried Battery at Audinghen, south of Cap Gris-Nez, with one 38 cm SK C/34 naval gun (15-inch) gun (later increased to 4 and renamed Todt Battery), shortly followed by:
Three 30.5 cm (12.0 in) guns at Friedrich August Battery, to the north of Boulogne-sur-Mer
Four 28 cm (11 in) guns at Grosser Kurfürst Battery at Cap Gris-Nez
Two 21 cm (8.3 in) guns at Prinz Heinrich Battery just outside Calais
Two 21 cm (8.3 in) guns at Oldenburg Battery in Calais
Three 40.6 cm SK C/34 (16-inch) guns (from among the so-called Adolf Guns) at Lindemann Battery between Calais and Cap Blanc-Nez. The battery was named Lindemann after the fallen captain of the battleship Bismarck.
By early August, Siegfried Battery and Grosser Kurfürst Battery were fully operational as were all of the Army’s railway guns. Seven of the railway guns, six 28 cm (11 in) K5 guns and a single 21 cm (8.3 in) K12 gun with a range of 115 km (71 mi), could only be used against land targets. The remainder, thirteen 28 cm (11 in) guns and five 24 cm (9.4 in) guns, plus additional motorised batteries comprising twelve 24 cm (9.4 in) guns and ten 21 cm (8.3 in) guns, could be fired at shipping but were of limited effectiveness due to their slow traverse speed, long loading time and ammunition types. Land-based guns have always been feared by navies because they are on a stationary platform and are thus more accurate (and can be larger, with more ammunition stowage) than those on board ship. Super-heavy railway guns can only be traversed by moving the entire gun and its carriage along a curved track, or by building a special cross track or turntable. This, combined with their slow rate of fire (measured in rounds per hour or even rounds per day), makes it difficult for them to hit moving targets. Another problem with super-heavy guns is that their barrels (which are difficult to make and expensive to replace) wear out relatively quickly, so they could not be fired often.Better suited for use against naval targets were the four heavy naval batteries installed by mid-September: Friedrich August, Prinz Heinrich, Oldenburg and Siegfried (later renamed Todt) – a total of eleven guns, with the firepower of a battlecruiser. Fire control for these guns was provided by both spotter aircraft and by DeTeGerät radar sets installed at Blanc-Nez and Cap d’Alprech. These units were capable of detecting targets out to a range of 40 km (25 mi), including small British patrol craft near the English coast. Two additional radar sites were added by mid-September: a DeTeGerät at Cap de la Hague and a FernDeTeGerät long-range radar at Cap d’Antifer near Le Havre.[4]
Perhaps the most remarkable gun was the 21 cm (8.3 in) Kanone 12 in Eisenbahnlafette, manned by the German Army. The gun had an effective range of 45 km (28 mi). Designed as a successor to the World War I Paris gun, it is claimed to have had a maximum range of 115 km (71 mi). Shell fragments from the gun were found near Chatham, Kent, 88 km (55 mi) from the nearest point on the French coast. There were two of these guns, operated by Artillerie-Batterie 701 (E) and they remained on the Channel Coast for the rest of the war.
The guns started shelling the Dover area during the second week of August 1940 and continued firing until September 1944. Over a thousand rounds were fired but the German coast batteries only sank:
Sambut,[5] 7,219 BRT, 6 June 1944
Empire Lough, 2,824 BRT, 24 June 1944[6]Empire Lough was one of 21 coastal vessels in the convoy ETC-17, escorted by the frigate HMS Dakins and corvette HMS Sunflower. On 24 June 1944, the convoy left Southend en route to the Seine Bay when the ships were engaged by German long-range coastal artillery guns off Dover. Empire Lough was set on fire and declared a total loss after she was beached near Folkestone. The master Robert Robinson and one crew member were lost. The freighter Gurden Gates (1,791 grt, built 1943) was damaged in the same action.
So the Germans definitely had the firepower to take out a capital ship, whether they could have hit it is an entirely different question.
For Klunk and gobulchul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Strait_coastal_guns
it’s amusing to think that the the admiralty would consider the channel a no go area during an invasion.
And yet that's what happened to the German navy on D-day apart from the U-boats and small craft.
The ‘Brief Statement of Reasons for Cancellation of Invasion of England’, prepared by the German Naval Historical Staff in 1944,[7] states:
As the preliminary work and preparations proceeded, the exceptional difficulties became more and more obvious. The more forcibly the risks were brought home, the dimmer grew faith in success… just as in Napoleon’s invasion plans in 1805, the fundamental requirement for success was lacking, that is, command of the sea. This lack of superiority at sea was to be compensated for by air superiority. But it was never even possible to destroy enemy sea superiority by use of our own air superiority… The sea area in which we were to operate was dominated by a well prepared opponent who was determined to fight to the utmost of his ability. The greatest difficulty was bound to be that of maintaining the flow of supplies and food. The enemy’s fleet and other means of naval defence had to be considered as a decisive factor. Owing to the weakness of our naval forces there could be no effective guarantee against the enemy breaking into our area of transports, despite our mine barrages on the flanks and despite our air superiority.
3 more weeks attacks on the airfields would have seriously reduced the British ability to get the planes and pilots in the air
Nope, the RAF had dispersal airfields* that were largely ignored by the Luftwaffe, and as has been pointed out, they were losing too many bombers on daylight raids to drop bombs on what were mostly grassy fields, that were quickly and easily repaired and back in service. the Luftwaffe quickly realised that it was unsustainable, there were just too many airfields, and not enough bombers
*remember also that the planes at the time Spitfires and Hurricanes essentially needed about 250 yards of grass to get airborne, Southern England is literally littered with ready made airbases.
is revissionism of the highest order.
Nope, the RN were gagging for the Germans to invade as they knew full well, it probably wouldn't have got out of whichever French port they'd chosen before being blown to bits. There are telegrams from Fleet Nor (at Scapa Flow) arguing this this point to the Home Fleet
And yet that’s what happened to the German navy on D-day apart from the U-boats and small craft.
exactly can't deploy what you don't have.
Grand Admiral Raeder (head of the Kriegsmarine in 1940) said much the same, in almost the same words, after the war; and had tried to dodge out of the invasion as early as July 11th.[8] The last sentence quoted above appears to mean that, even if the Luftwaffe had won the air battle of Britain, the Kriegsmarine would still not have wanted to attempt SEALION.
No they didn’t. They were building more aircraft than Germany in 1940 and taking fewer losses.
That is correct, but had less in stock. I agree with TJ and Baron, it was poor tactics and decisions that meant the Germans missed a window of opportunity to knock out the RAF, and backing off in late August gave the RAF and the factories the chance to turn it around. How things would have turned out had the RAF and Luftwaffe continued at teh same rate of attrition as the "hardest day" we thankfully don't know and can only speculate.
And yet that’s what happened to the German navy on D-day apart from the U-boats and small craft.
Where was no German Navy in June 1944. Tirpitz was a prisoner in Norway. Their remaining cruisers were in the Baltic providing NGS. If they had left the Baltic they would of been wiped out by the Home Fleet.
The main activity was by the E Boats, by 1944 the U boats were very vulnerable to the new technology of the Allies.
it was poor tactics and decisions that meant the Germans missed a window of opportunity to knock out the RAF
Not really, the Luftwaffe have to destroy the RAF, bombing airfields isn't going to work, they don't understand the significance of Chain Home so don't target it in any meaningful way, and they don't ever have air superiority of fighters* at any point of the battle, it's literally hopeless, they cannot; regardless of whatever they do, win...
* regardless of actual numbers of airplanes, one has to consider "time over the battle-space". The 109 can spend maybe 10 minutes over a teeny bit of southern UK, each spitfire can last 4-5 longer in the air as each 109, so has each 109 turns to fly home, the same spitfire is then free to go look for another target. The Luftwaffe simply don't have the numbers, it's a forgone conclusion.
They didn't even deploy what they did have, Klunk. And your quote about the Kriegsmarine backs up what I said about the Channel being out of bounds to the navies from both sides for most of the war.
3 more weeks attacks on the airfields would have seriously reduced the British ability to get the planes and pilots in the air
Came to dispute this but nickc beat me to it.
In most cases the craters in the fields were re-filled overnight. I don't think any airfield was out of action for over 24 hours.
I worked at Biggin Hill for an air charter company flying Learjets. Next door was the Heritage hangar with Spitfires- the only aircraft that people would leave their desks to see take off (no-one gave a toss about the bizjets) It didn't go to the main runway to take off- it would do so from the taxi-way.
In the summer of 1940 we were making c1000 aircraft a month- more than enough to cover the losses and I think aircrew losses for the Germans were c5x as great as the RAF.
How things would have turned out had the RAF and Luftwaffe continued at teh same rate of attrition as the “hardest day” we thankfully don’t know and can only speculate.
As both sides suffered very similar losses and the UK was producing more aircraft than Germany, then it would follow that the Luftwaffe still would of failed. Even at that time, the RAF had a system of rotation for it's crews. They would be rotated to quieter sectors to give them a chance to recover. The Nazi's didn't really care about that, or any way of effectively doing it and their pilots flew day after day. battle fatigue was another major factor.
They basically threw themselves against the first modern air defense system and were gradually destroyed. Another myth of the BoB, is that of "The Few", they were the tip of the spear of a massive and complex organisation.
Channel being out of bounds to the navies from both sides for most of the war.
so where then did all the merchant shipping that used London ports go exactly? If not directly into the Channel?
They didn’t even deploy what they did have, Klunk. And your quote about the Kriegsmarine backs up what I said about the Channel being out of bounds to the navies from both sides for most of the war.
So how did the Allies launch the biggest fleet in history in the English Channel?
What do you think kept the Kriegsmarine out of the Channel during D Day?
The Royal Navy didn't deploy Capital ships to the English Channel as it made no sense whatsoever. Why would you risk them to U boats if they were no needed there?
I'm not trying to revise the outcome, Nick or dispute any of that. I got into this correcting errors about radar.
Fact is the Germans lost the Battle of Britain, I'm looking at explanations of that which include poor German choices and backing off at a critical point because it wasn't a foregone conclusion.
In most cases the craters in the fields were re-filled overnight. I don’t think any airfield was out of action for over 24 hours.
Manston was abandoned for a period of time and the RAF were vastly relieved when the attack turned to London, at the behest of Hitler for political reasons, after tit for tat bombing of cities following an initial targeting mistake by the Germans.
because it wasn’t a foregone conclusion.
Interestingly that the point this historian is making, The BoB (like every other battle in the war bar the Battle of France) was a forgone conclusion, given the forces deployed at the start of the battle, it went the only way that it could've, i.e. the UK won, there was literally no other conclusion, what the German military did was largely irrelevant.
And your quote about the Kriegsmarine backs up what I said about the Channel being out of bounds to the navies from both sides for most of the war.
LOL it says we can't win because there's a navy there that's prepare to do what ever it takes to stop us. It doesn't say we can't win because the the rn thinks the channel is a out of bounds.
As both sides suffered very similar losses and the UK
Sorry, no, the Germans lost about 5x as many aircrew (a large proportion being bomber aircrew so more than 1 person per plane) and had c700 captured and more wounded than the RAF.
I think the battle fatigue is worthy to note- after storming Poland & France, it was a shock to be suffering such defeats. I've seen a history channel doc that had a Luftwaffe ace's diary. It starts in 1939 in high spirits but come the summer of 1940 it got darker as the loss of friends took its toll.
I got into this correcting errors about radar.
Which errors were these?
I am still waiting for the spec of the mobile radar system that the UK had in 1940?
So how did the Allies launch the biggest fleet in history in the English Channel?
If you're refering to D-day then by knocking out all the German heavy guns with air raids, commando, paratroop and resistant action. Having air control. Having already eliminated most of the German navy with ehexception of U-boats and light craft.
What do you think kept the Kriegsmarine out of the Channel during D Day?
Heavy guns, battle ships, the RAF, submarines... .
The Royal Navy didn’t deploy Capital ships to the English Channel as it made no sense whatsoever. Why would you risk them to U boats if they were no needed there?
Absolutely, and yet you were claming the Navy could have romped through the Channel with impunity in 1940 had the Germans won the air war (which they didn't) and embarked on Sealion (which they didn't) because the Luftwaffe couldn't touch capital ships and the Germans didn't have heavy guns (which they did). Some of that was Gobulchul.
You're now taking the facts I'm providing to rubbish your own earlier contributions, klunk. You're learning. It must be all this revision.
Fascinating thread. People are still more passionate about events of 70 odd years ago than screwing their own economy with Brexit. With a common theme.
I think the battle fatigue is worthy to note- after storming Poland & France, it was a shock to be suffering such defeats. I’ve seen a history channel doc that had a Luftwaffe ace’s diary. It starts in 1939 in high spirits but come the summer of 1940 it got darker as the loss of friends took its toll.
Completely agree. It was the same for the British though and what doesn't seem to have been addressed earlier in this thread (I might have missed it) is that while Britain was able to keep up with hardware losses, toward the end of the BoB there was immense pilot fatigue but also pilot losses were only being replaced by inexperienced aircrew - sub 20 hours on Type in some cases. That was another reason there was huge relief when London was targeted.
Manston was abandoned for a period of time and the RAF were vastly relieved when the attack turned to London
Typical the one I drive past on the way to work! Yes relieved, but its not as if they had a number of airfields out of action and they could then repair them. A lot of them were back in operation over night. The respite just gave the repair crews a bit of a breather. Given the greater losses the Luftwaffe had, we were still getting aircraft in the air so couldn't have been that disadvantaged.
They were plotted approaching the Isle of Wight soon after 2 p.m., and ... because back-up semi-mobile radar had been installed on the Isle of Wight and soon ...
the numbers
People are still more passionate about events of 70 odd years ago than screwing their own economy with Brexit. With a common theme.
That's quite a leap, this IS a thread about historical revisionism so guess what...folk are talking about history The point I was trying to make was that still, after the heaps of material written about this monumental and well recorded event, historians are still finding new ways of looking at the facts and coming to different conclusions.
It has **** all to do with Brexit.
You’re now taking the facts I’m providing to rubbish your own earlier contributions, klunk. You’re learning. It must be all this revision.
lol
People are still more passionate about events of 70 odd years ago than screwing their own economy with Brexit.
It's 'cos we know what happened. With the latter we don't know WTF it's going to end up like and don't like to envisage it!
If you’re refering to D-day then by knocking out all the German heavy guns with air raids, commando, paratroop and resistant action.
So why did they launch the Merville and the Point du Hoc Raids if these guns had been knocked out? Bombing them had been largely ineffective and the French resistance never took out any hard targets like that.
The "heavy guns" you keep referring to, were not a major threat to the ships but were intended to shell the troops on the beaches. They did not deny the sea to the Allies.
Absolutely, and yet you were claming the Navy could have romped through the Channel with impunity in 1940 had the Germans won the air war (which they didn’t) and embarked on Sealion (which they didn’t) because the Luftwaffe couldn’t touch capital ships and the Germans didn’t have heavy guns (which they did). Some of that was Gobulchul.
Nobody said the RN would of been impervious to losses. The fact is, that if invasion had become a reality the RN would of excepted losses to sink the invasion fleet. They accepted the loss of a significant number of destroyers at Dunkirk, so imagine what they would of acceptted had Sealion gone ahead.
These "heavy guns" you seem to think would of dominated the sea, have been described above and been shown to be mostly useless against shipping.
Still waiting for this mobile radar station information.
It has everything to do with Brexit. Or should I say Brexit has everything to do with anti-European propaganda and a lot of that is rooted in anti-German attitudes that go back to WW2.
Zoom in small enough and tactics matter. Take the naval battles in Pacific: Japan gets a stunning victory at Pearl Harbour. Then the still crippled US Navy rolls the dice at Midway and defeats a far superior Japanese force. On those days tactics mattered. But zoom back out and look at the Pacific Theater as a whole.
Japan struck Pearl Harbour before even declaring war. Naturally ,this pissed off the Yanks but the latter had their carriers at sea and did a helluva repair job on the ships that did get hit.
I don't entirely agree that the US rolled the dice at Midway. I believe they cracked some Japanse codes, intercepted them and then kicked their arses due to the latter making a catalogue of errors and having just about everything go wrong, eg they had a load of planes doing a turnaround on one of the carriers when the Americans attacked = carnage that they couldn't recover from. All in all, Midway was over pretty damn quick.
Japan is doomed from the start as it has nowhere near the industrial power of the US to sustain and win a war.
Yep. Their fleet was chugging through an insane amount of oil alone. It didn't matter how advanced their carriers and aircraft were, they couldn't get anywhere near the production levels of the US. The whole Pacific War was very unlikely going to turn out differently.
yeah because say a German railway gun couldn't hit a destroyer doing 36knots is somehow anti German propaganda! 😀 Call me a traitor but I'd hazard a guess a british one would do no better.
They accepted the loss of a significant number of destroyers at Dunkirk
And, perhaps more importantly the losses of destroyers at Dunkirk is significant for two reasons, 1. the losses given the overall destroyer fleet were actually pretty small (6 out of a fleet of over 160) and 2. The RN didn't feel the need to deploy any capital ships at all to the evacuation, knowing full well, they didn't need to...
The RN didn’t feel the need to deploy any capital ships at all to the evacuation, knowing full well, they didn’t need to…
Absolutely. They wouldn't of needed to deploy any capital ships to sink an invasion fleet either.
It has everything to do with Brexit.
That sort of populist nonsense is entirely antithetical to what were talking about. It may play well on the Sun's FB page, but it relies of myth making, what were doing here is trying to bust myths. The propaganda (of the Brexiteer) relies on a stories of "Britain standing alone" (which evidence has shown that it didn't) and the BoB myth of the "few against the many" which it sort of was, only the other way around, the few was the Luftwaffe, not the RAF...and that you, ironically are arguing for...
The revisionism I'm talking about takes away the propaganda of the war from the Brexiteers...
The radar unit that was used when Ventnor was destroyed is consistently described as "mobile" or "semi-mobile" depending on the source.
The radar unit that was used when Ventnor was destroyed is consistently described as “mobile” or “semi-mobile” depending on the source.
Whatever it was, it was only used before they repaired the station in a few days.
Semi-mobile might be a better description, as they certainly didn't have the cavity magnetroms that made radar truly mobile in 1940.
My main point is that the German's did not grasp how fundamental the radar stations were to the defense system and paid little attention to them. To say otherwise is nonsense.
Gobuchul,
They wouldn’t of needed
...
Please, please stop using " wouldn't of " etc.
"Wouldn't have needed" is correct. It's difficult to appreciate an argument when the message is mangled by bad grammar.
the BoB myth of the “few against the many” which it sort of was, only the other way around, the few was the Luftwaffe, not the RAF…and that you, ironically are arguing for…
Yes I am, because that's what the numbers say wherever you look. In July 1940 when the battle started the RAF was outnumbered:
https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-the-battle-of-britain/
In July 1940 when the battle started the RAF was outnumbered:
Only slightly, and it still doesn't matter. What matters is time and range. The Luftwaffe's main fighter (the Bf109E) could spend just 10 minutes over the southern coast of the UK, and then it HAD to go home. The RAF fighter that on paper was equivalent (the Spitfire) could spent 4-5 times as long over the airspace, In effect that means the RAF had a significant numerical advantage in every battle. Plus, even if every airbase in southern Britain is destroyed, and every sqn destroyed...That's still just 11 group, there's 10 group and 12 group just to the north and west respectively, The Luftwaffe cannot reach either in significant numbers enough to win...So even if Biggin Hill had been utterly blown to bits and Manston rendered unusable, just fight from Duxford, or Middle Wallop, and if they get destroyed, Upper Heyford and Cottishall...It's never going to go in any other way than a RAF win. The reason for this is that the Luftwaffe is a tactical airforce, it's job is to support the Wermacht, it's now fighting a strategic war against the most sophisticated Air Defence force in the world at the time.
And we haven't even started on repairing airplanes and production of new airplanes or pilot numbers all of which were mostly again significantly in the UK's favour.
Edit: and, that's just the Defensive air war, we haven't talked at all about Bomber Command bombing the shit out of every French coastal Luftwaffe airbase, day and night, and Coastal Command harassing the U-boat pens and the S-Boats...
Please, please stop using ” wouldn’t of ” etc.
“Wouldn’t have needed” is correct. It’s difficult to appreciate an argument when the message is mangled by bad grammar.
Yeah OK. I mean it's completely unclear.
Why will you never admit you are wrong? You have some serious issues.
I’ve visited la pointe du Hoc, it’s a sea of craters, what with that and the commandos. By D-day the RAF, paratroppers, resistants, commandos had knocked out the heavy guns but shipping losses were still high, mainly down to torpedos. At least one gun had been moved back to a safer place and was taken by a handful of parras.
As a French speaker, I would of thought you would of known that Pointe has a capital letter?
What's a "paratropper"?
What's are "resistants"?
commandos? I suppose you mean Commando? There were none at Pointe du Hoc. A lot of US Rangers.
torpedos?
parras?
It’s difficult to appreciate an argument when the message is mangled by all of these spelling mistakes.
By the way, there were no "heavy guns" on the Normandy coast.
Also, shipping losses were not "high" on D day and most were lost to mines, or were small landing craft destroyed on the beaches.
Sealion was wargamed at sandhurst in 1974
the conclusion....
Although the first echelon landings were more successful than had been anticipated, the German navy's relative weakness, combined with the Luftwaffe's lack of air supremacy, meant they were not able to prevent the Royal Navy from intercepting the second and third echelon Channel crossings. The Navy's destruction of the follow-up echelon forces prevented resupply and reinforcement of the landed troops. This made the position of the initially successful invasion force untenable; it suffered further casualties during the attempted evacuation. Of the 90,000 German troops who landed only 15,400 returned to France. 33,000 were taken prisoner, 26,000 were killed in the fighting and 15,000 drowned in the English Channel. All six umpires deemed the invasion a resounding failure.
think the revisionist term is "Dunkirk in reverse"
some of the assumptions are interesting...
The Luftwaffe continued to attack British airfields after September 7, 1940 instead of bombing London during the day, but despite continuous attacks up to September 19 had not yet established air supremacy; albeit that their intelligence assessments proposed that the RAF was at breaking point.[7]
The Channel Guns had no effect.
The Home Fleet would send its capital ships south.
Chaps please let’s not let what could be a really interesting thread get derailed by unnecessary insults 😉
The Sealion war gaming is interesting - whereas the traditional school of thought might be that Britain’s safety was secured when Hitler turned East, one wonders if actually Sealion wasn’t just a massive distraction and waste of resources, which undermined German chances in Russia.?
It’s also interesting that the Germans don’t themselves seem to have learned the lessons of history ie the difficulty of invading the British isles, and Napoleons retreat from Moscow. But of course people always think they can do it better!
Chaps, this would be a better thread without the sniping.
Moving away from BoB for a minute.
I've read some stuff suggesting that the atom bomb attacks on Japan weren't really all that decisive. They provided an excellent reason for Japan to finally accept total surrender but what really changed the strategic situation was that the Russians has declared war against Japan and could potentially invade them from the East and North where Japan had almost no defenses.
Not sure I agree entirely, but its an interesting twist on the conclusion to the Pacific war.
I haven't criticised your English and won't, gobulchul, that was Moses. It was petty from someone who isn't contributing to the debate, I don't care if you use of or have.
Like you if I understand that's good enough. It would appear I often fail to use capitals when I should in every language I speak. It's really hard work in German where every noun takes a capital. I used to be paid to produce perfect text, these days I have the luxury of being able to type without even looking at what's appearing on the screen.
(was that better, I reread and corrected)
