Seelowe

[Graehame]

OK, guys-- you got me. You see, I'm really an alien (ASB?) from an alternate universe. A place where the Nazis actually-- I know how crazy this sounds--but they remilitarized the Rhineland in '36 & neither the French nor the Brits lifted a finger to stop 'em. Not only that, but they occupied all of Czechoslovakia in '38 & '39. Wiped the floor with Poland in 6 weeks. I know the Czech & Polish campaigns have been intensively wargamed & you all know they would have taken 4 months apiece-- but trust me on this. Poland took just 6 weeks. But wait-- it gets crazier! The Nazis in my world actually conquered Norway in 2 months. I know-- all your real-world simulations say the Royal Navy would've creamed 'em if the Kriegsmarine-- outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1-- had even thought about something like that-- but in my world that's what happened. As for France-- well, enough said.

(BTW-- food for thought. The distance from Kiel to Bergen is 600+ miles. We won't even talk about Trondheim or Narvik. From Calais to Dover? 21 miles. No-- I don't say that those numbers are determinative of the outcome. Just interesting.)

REDCOATT
"...how are the Germans going to deal with the +30 RN submarines on anti-invasion duties?"
Pretty much they way they did at Sandhurst. Ignore 'em. A torpedo goes right under a river barge.

MMMEEE0
"I DO think you should work on it some more."
I have. Not that there's any point in posting any of it. If I'd known ahead of time what kind of firestorm I was stepping into then I wouldn't have bothered in the 1st place. Which I'm sure is just the result this board needs in order to improve.

GRIMM REAPER
"...the war games at Sandhurst...concluded none of the things that you claim and it ended in total defeat of the invasion attempt."
I have addressed this in detail, with specifics instead of the broad-brush generalities that you're so fond of. I've quoted the Sandhurst wargame day-by-day-- even line-by-line. Read what I actually said instead of making it up as you go.

"...the links posted by yourworstnightmare all agree that Sea Lion would have failed if tried."
I've also addressed this in detail. Sealion was impossible-- as planned! It was not impossible in concept. Just-- as I've also said repeatedly-- highly unlikely. But how likely was it that the Germans would be able to invade Norway, or conquer France in 6 weeks? I'm not done with his 2d link yet, but as I said I evaluated his 1st reference as part of my planning. Its conclusions are full of holes, which I'd be happy to post for you if I thought it would do any good.

"...your claim that Luftwaffe supremacy would have been a done deal given 'only' a change in the German political leadership is not supported in the slightest."
It's supported by Churchill's statement that by early Sep, even given the idiotic tactics employed by Goering, RAF Fighter Cmd strength was down by 25%. It's supported by the fact that on 20 Sep RAF Fighter Cmd committed all of its reserves & barely averted a disaster-- mainly due to dense cloud cover. Also by official RAF & Luftwaffe loss & rebuild figures, which I've quoted.

"Incidentally, the capital ships of the RN were never sent to the Channel as the British commanders at Sandhurst concluded that the RN cruisers, destroyers and light craft didn't need the help."
Not what they said, Grimm Reaper. That's more of you making it up as you go. What they actually wrote in their after-action report was, & I quote: "23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs-- the navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back..."

"The FULL strength Germany hoped to deploy during Sea Lion was two 'divisions', together less than 70% the manpower of one German infantry division, and to be sent separately."
I'm perfectly aware of that. But in the Low Countries & again at Crete the Luftwaffe deployed 2 divs more or less simultaneously. It was a stretch, yes-- but with 3 months to gather their transport planes & build gliders there's no reason they can't deploy 2½ divs in 1 drop. There's also no reason that transports carrying paratroops can't tow gliders. And SE England is close enough that there's no reason in the world their transport planes can't make 2 trips in the 1st day. I repeat, if in alt-history we're to be bound by what the principals originally intended, or what they thought was possible, then there'd be no point in posting anything.

FASTMONGREL
"(1) There is nearly 2 hours difference in daylight between 21 sept and 21 oct"
Apparent sunrise at Dover on 22 Sep was at 5:46AM & apparent sunset was at 6:00PM. Apparent sunrise on 16 Oct was at 6:26AM & apparent sunset was at 5:06PM. From civil morning twilight to civil evening twilight on 22 Sep was roughly 13 hours. From civil morning twilight to civil evening twilight on 16 Oct was roughly 11 hours. So you're correct in your 2-hour difference-- which, for the purposes of this exercise, I regard as negligible. The relevant questions are, was there enough daylight to disembark & attack military objectives (yes), & was there enough daylight for 2 air sorties from France? (also yes)

"(2) The Dover narrows is not where the invasion is taking place if it was every german soldier would have drowned as he stepped off the barge into 20 fathoms of water. The invasion was supposed to take place on a broad front from Dover to Eastborne iirc."
Come on, fastmongrel. Do I have to completely explain every detail of everything each time I say it, or can I assume that my previous posts have been read & that you understand what I mean? 1st of all, from Dover to Eastbourne is 50 freaking miles-- much of it out of range of the heavy artillery emplaced around Calais. 50 miles is 2½ days' road march for an infantry div-- 'way too long for them to take Dover. 2d, I decided early-on not to be bound by the plans of the German High Command-- because they lost! 3d, I've repeatedly said that my amphib landings will take place in the vicinity of Deal, just 7mi N of Dover, & Folkestone, just 6mi S of Dover. I'm gonna try to append photos of the broad, sandy beaches at Deal & Folkestone (so much for your 20 fathoms of water), but I've never tried that before & if they don't register then you'll just have to take my word for it. If not, then google "city name" & beach, & you'll get the idea. And 4th, when I say "Dover", I mean "the Dover area-- specifically Deal & Folkestone".


"3) Tides run on a 28 day cycle?"
All right, I was tired when I wrote that. I'm being hit from 6 different directions here with challenges right & left-- few of them as polite as yours are-- & I thought I could wing it. So I missed a trick. Moon's the main influence on the tides, the lunar cycle is 28 days... Makes sense-- sort of. It's 2:00 in the morning, but you've shamed me into looking up the actual tide tables for 1940 :

Date Day Time/Height Time/Height Time/Height Time/Height Time/Height
Sep 22 Sun 01:30 / 6.34 m 08:51 / 1.51 m 13:46 / 6.34 m 21:09 / 1.59 m
Oct 15 Tue 05:38 / 1.24 m 10:28 / 6.44 m 17:54 / 1.07 m 22:46 / 6.41 m
Oct 16 Wed 06:08 / 1.18 m 10:57 / 6.53 m 18:22 / 1.07 m 23:14 / 6.48 m

So basically the tides sucked on both 22 Sep & 16 Oct. But the relevant point is, it needn't have mattered. Using the Knickebein radio navigational system that was tested by the Luftwaffe in 1934 the landing craft could have navigated right up to the beaches in full darkness. The previous high tide was at 10:46PM on the 15th-- so around 3:30AM they land on a falling tide.

"(4) So barges dont have holds do they thats interesting where do they put the cargo then..."
Once again I'm gonna try to append photos of a half-dozen container barges, ore barges, & coal barges-- none of which have holds. Most barges don't (at least not covered holds). And the invasion barges were converted. A few were fitted with experimental bow-ramps. They had concrete poured into their hulls to provide ballast & a floor you could stand or drive on. All of those that had deck coverings had them removed. If you had any military experience then you'd know that's 1 of the first things you do in a combat situation. You take the tops & doors off your vehicles so you can see (& shoot) in case of air attack, which was a major concern in the landings.

[Graehame]

The preceding image is Deal Beach in Kent. The following image is Folkestone Beach in Kent.

[Graehame]

So as not to clutter up the board I'll only post 1 image of a barge...

[FlyingDutchman]

I read this thread yesterday, but I didn't see anything taken into account in your numbers regarding new airplanes built. Maybe it was discussed and I didn't see that?

Seeing as Britain is fairly outproducing Germany at this point in fighters and shot down pilots can easily climb in a new airplane again, that would seem important to me.
The New Zealander Al Deere for example was shot down 7 times, bailed out 3 times, collided with a Me-109 but shot down 17 aircraft from May '40 to August '40.

Anyways, by June '40, the UK had firmly kicked in a higher gear regarding fighter production (with all the negative results that had for its offensive armaments) and was building 500 airplanes a month, with numbers rising every month. Even the Spitfire, with all its initial building issues, was rolling out of the factory 150+ a month.

With those numbers, winning the BoB just doesn't seem likely to me with your explanation.

Secondly, the Germans lost a lot of Ju-52s during Fall Gelb, especially relatively over the Netherlands. I doubt that building the Ju-52 had such priority with the Germans that they would have rebuild and expanded their transportfleet.

[fastmongrel]

Once more with feeling

As for military service I do have some. Obviously I have never planned a major amphibious landing but I have enough experience of the problems of trying to get a battalion and all its vehicles on and off ferries for the unopposed crossing of the North Sea to spot that your plan has about as much chance of success as trying to buy a bubble for a spirit level.

If you think your getting flak on this forum try your luck on this one they would be interested I am sure http://www.arrse.co.uk/content/

[Cockroach]

To summerise Graehame plan:
1. Modifications to all (taking your first post at face value) German fighter aircraft (provision for drop tanks on 109s and revised armourment on 110s... not sure if said change is actually possible as a 13mm MG is likely to be rather larger than a 7.92mm one) in the two months between putting France out of action and the start of the BoB.
2. Change in air attack stratergy from OTL... assuming all related changes to doctrine, tactis and deployments go flawlessly and that the poms don't make any attempt to change their own stratergy...
3. An extra para division comes into active duty... YEARS early despite losses taken by the existing division in the previous campaign.
4. Massively expand production of transport aircraft (needed as you've got two and a half times as many paratroopers and airlanded forces as the real plan).
5. Attempt to take out RADAR stations and tighly tie attacks on RAF airfields with said raids... What allowances for if the krauts fail to take out the RADARs?
6. Haul a large number of coastal guns up to the Channel and get them installed in less than two months... without the poms noticing.
7. Luftwaffe achieves effectivness against manouvering large warships (CL on up) a year ahead of OTL (All capital ships you pin down to be sunk were -as you said yourself- based up in Scotland... beyond the effective range of your bombers, thus to sink 'em you must engage when they come south, and so while manouvering)... with no training of a dedicated anti-shipping force. BTW, the Russian ships you provide as examples were largelly sunk or damaged in harbour (Marat, Maxim Gorky, Kirov... unable to find mention of a cruiser named Petropavlovsk during WW2 - one Kirov was renammed as such in the 1950s, but said ship was still under construction in 1941) NOT what's going to be happening here.
8. The naval diversion? Two damaged German Battlecruisers teleport to Brest and head directly into action.

So, all in all:

THE REAL PLAN FOR SEELOWE IS MEERLY IMPLAUSIBLE. THIS IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (see Naval Diversion).

Originally Posted by Graehame

The RAF's 11th Fighter Group was the only group involved in defending SE England.

Given in OTL elements of 12 Group were committed to the fight over South East England surely it would be committed in the more desperate situation of your scenario?

Originally Posted by Graehame

You are correct in all of your criticisms of 1st gen German drop-tanks. However, I presume that the engineers who designed the Me-262 jet fighter, the V-2 rocket, & the HS-293 radio-controlled glide bomb could have solved these relatively minor problems.

Except in this case you've only got two to three months to fix said problem and roll it out across the majority of the Luftwaffe's fighters.

[ComradeTovarich]

Okay... *dons bomb-proof suit*

Originally Posted by Graehame

"...how are the Germans going to deal with the +30 RN submarines on anti-invasion duties?"
Pretty much they way they did at Sandhurst. Ignore 'em. A torpedo goes right under a river barge.

Oh yes, I'm sure the torpedo will miss the river barge and go on to hit an escorting destroyer.

Originally Posted by Graehame

"...the links posted by yourworstnightmare all agree that Sea Lion would have failed if tried."
I've also addressed this in detail. Sealion was impossible-- as planned! It was not impossible in concept. Just-- as I've also said repeatedly-- highly unlikely. But how likely was it that the Germans would be able to invade Norway, or conquer France in 6 weeks? I'm not done with his 2d link yet, but as I said I evaluated his 1st reference as part of my planning. Its conclusions are full of holes, which I'd be happy to post for you if I thought it would do any good.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=162318

Maybe this will help you in posting up these things.

Originally Posted by Graehame

I'm perfectly aware of that. But in the Low Countries & again at Crete the Luftwaffe deployed 2 divs more or less simultaneously. It was a stretch, yes-- but with 3 months to gather their transport planes & build gliders there's no reason they can't deploy 2½ divs in 1 drop. There's also no reason that transports carrying paratroops can't tow gliders. And SE England is close enough that there's no reason in the world their transport planes can't make 2 trips in the 1st day. I repeat, if in alt-history we're to be bound by what the principals originally intended, or what they thought was possible, then there'd be no point in posting anything.

So you're saying that the transport planes have a shield around them which prevents them from getting shot at by British anti-aircraft guns, right? Last I checked, this magical shield does not exist in reality, the transport aircraft will get shot at and some of them will be downed. Thus, the Germans would probably be able to land less than 2 1/2 airborne divisions in that one day.

Originally Posted by Graehame

"(4) So barges dont have holds do they thats interesting where do they put the cargo then..."
Once again I'm gonna try to append photos of a half-dozen container barges, ore barges, & coal barges-- none of which have holds. Most barges don't (at least not covered holds). And the invasion barges were converted. A few were fitted with experimental bow-ramps. They had concrete poured into their hulls to provide ballast & a floor you could stand or drive on. All of those that had deck coverings had them removed. If you had any military experience then you'd know that's 1 of the first things you do in a combat situation. You take the tops & doors off your vehicles so you can see (& shoot) in case of air attack, which was a major concern in the landings.

Hey, this could become a new AH.com meme:

Originally Posted by Graehame

River barges have no holds

SOMEONE SIG THIS!!!!!

One more thing: please make use of the 'quote' button at the bottom right hand corner of the post.

[redcoatT]

Originally Posted by Graehame

I wonder if you've actually read my scenario. There is nothing remotely implausible about the Luftwaffe gaining air superiority over SE England in Sep-Oct of 1940. Churchill admitted they almost did it in the first week of Sep-- even under the absurd Hitler-Goering plan. Official RAF statistics bear this out.

Actually, official RAF statistics show that on the evening of the 6th September 1940, the day before the switch to attacking London, RAF Fighter Command had over 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 operational pilots available to it, an increase of 150 more planes and 200 more pilots than at the beginning of the battle in July
The claim that the Luftwaffe was winning the battle is a myth, that has been exposed by historians looking at losses and their ability to replace them for both sides during the battle.
For example: In July the Luftwaffe had 906 operational Bf 109 pilots, by September the number had fallen to 735.
The Luftwaffe fighter groups were also complaining that some of the replacement pilots been sent to them had only done ten landings in a Bf 109, had no navigational training, and had never fired a 20mm cannon.

Source, The Most Dangerous Enemy, A History Of The Battle Of Britain, by Stephen Bungay

BTW, what's your reference for the Matildas & cruiser tanks? Your figures are different than mine.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.p...cles&Itemid=61

[redcoatT]

Originally Posted by Graehame

REDCOATT
"...how are the Germans going to deal with the +30 RN submarines on anti-invasion duties?"
Pretty much they way they did at Sandhurst. Ignore 'em. A torpedo goes right under a river barge.

They will save the torpedo's for the fast transports you mentioned, for the barges they will do the same as they did with the small vessels they found in the Mediterranean, sink them with their 4.7 inch gun.

[Macragge1]

Originally Posted by redcoatT

They will save the torpedo's for the fast transports you mentioned, for the barges they will do the same as they did with the small vessels they found in the Mediterranean, sink them with their 4.7 inch gun.

Hell, they could shout at the river barges and they'd capsize - worst comes to worst they just sail past them and destroy them with their wake. You've got to assume your plan's flawed when the enemy actually shooting at you is considered overkill.

Nevermind though, they've taken the tops off of the barges so the Germans can shoot out the top - Rodney and Nelson better beware of the new KM battlecruisers with their 7.92mm broadsides.

[Jotun]

Gentlemen...I think most of us know that a German amphibious assault, let alone a successful one, on the Monkey Rock in 1940 was impossible period. I know and recognize this myself.

What REALLY galls me, however, is the blatant arrogance, condescension and outright insults some of the esteemed memebers of this board choose to hurl at whoever tries to construct a successful "Seelöwe". Yes, I know, the repeated attempts get pretty old, pretty quickly, especially to the older hands here. And there is nothing wrong with a bit of irony and of course showing the requisite older threads etc.

But, please excuse my French, why can't there be a bit of F***ING civility around here? Even in cases like this/these?

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman

I read this thread yesterday, but I didn't see anything taken into account in your numbers regarding new airplanes built. Maybe it was discussed and I didn't see that?

Seeing as Britain is fairly outproducing Germany at this point in fighters and shot down pilots can easily climb in a new airplane again, that would seem important to me.
The New Zealander Al Deere for example was shot down 7 times, bailed out 3 times, collided with a Me-109 but shot down 17 aircraft from May '40 to August '40.

Anyways, by June '40, the UK had firmly kicked in a higher gear regarding fighter production (with all the negative results that had for its offensive armaments) and was building 500 airplanes a month, with numbers rising every month. Even the Spitfire, with all its initial building issues, was rolling out of the factory 150+ a month.

With those numbers, winning the BoB just doesn't seem likely to me with your explanation.

Secondly, the Germans lost a lot of Ju-52s during Fall Gelb, especially relatively over the Netherlands. I doubt that building the Ju-52 had such priority with the Germans that they would have rebuild and expanded their transportfleet.

After sicklecut the germans only had 538 ju-52's on hand which was just enough for what remained of 7th fleiger to be transported in one wave... however the division which was allready understrength had been torn up in the low countries AND German pilot and aircraft losses in that op where unacceptable making the netherlands a pyriach victory

with the exception of operation plunder which was launched against an allready defeated enemy ALL airborne ops of ww2 in division strength or more where total disasters...this was not a German specific phenominon (like creete or the low countries) one could look at sicily, salerno, dday, market garden and the russian airborne assault over the dneiper and see exactly what sort of casualties and dispersion could be gained relative to the resources committed to field and land an airborne division

[Readman]

Well Jotun, to a degree I can see where your coming from, and I think this fellow has gotten a bit of undue flack, but seriously there's what like 50 threads each showing how bloody unlikley that [REDACTED] could happen. It doesn't excuse behavior per se, but bear in mind that it is more or less board tradition to savage any one whom dares bring up the dreaded [REDACTED].

[Grimm Reaper]

Graehame, we welcome you to our alternate reality and hope that you find your visit a pleasant one. Also that there are no nutrients necessary for your diet missing in our planet's foodstuffs and that the oxygen-nitrogen mix is acceptable to your breathing apparatus.

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

After sicklecut the germans only had 538 ju-52's on hand which was just enough for what remained of 7th fleiger to be transported in one wave... however the division which was allready understrength had been torn up in the low countries AND German pilot and aircraft losses in that op where unacceptable making the netherlands a pyriach victory

I know. Didn't we discuss this more detailed some time ago?
Not far from where I live, there apparently were beaches which had dozens of written-off crashlanded Ju-52's on them, after the Germans failed to take the airfields at Ypenburg Waalhaven.

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

with the exception of operation plunder which was launched against an allready defeated enemy ALL airborne ops of ww2 in division strength or more where total disasters...this was not a German specific phenominon (like creete or the low countries) one could look at sicily, salerno, dday, market garden and the russian airborne assault over the dneiper and see exactly what sort of casualties and dispersion could be gained relative to the resources committed to field and land an airborne division

One could say that by '41/42ish every side was aware of the possibility of airborne attack and wasn't as suprised as the W-Allies were in early '40 (Norway/Denmark) when para's were used. I know that the Russians, even late war, took precautions against division-sized German para attacks.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by Jotun

Gentlemen...I think most of us know that a German amphibious assault, let alone a successful one, on the Monkey Rock in 1940 was impossible period. I know and recognize this myself.

What REALLY galls me, however, is the blatant arrogance, condescension and outright insults some of the esteemed memebers of this board choose to hurl at whoever tries to construct a successful "Seelöwe". Yes, I know, the repeated attempts get pretty old, pretty quickly, especially to the older hands here. And there is nothing wrong with a bit of irony and of course showing the requisite older threads etc.

But, please excuse my French, why can't there be a bit of F***ING civility around here? Even in cases like this/these?

Well, it tends to go something like this...

Someone posts a 'new' idea about a successful Sealion giving improbably POD's, or circumstances, or both
This raises the stakes to Defcon-4 (suggestions that this is impossible, and that you might like to try the search funtion before, rather than after, writing)
While this occasionally works, the usual result is that the thread continues, with all historical facts, results etc being ignored with increasingly large amounts of handwavium.

Under the current AH defence protocols, this amount of Handwavium use (it is, after all, a controlled substance) raises us to Defcon-3, polite sarcasm (note: US members may move straight to Defcon-2 if they wish due to a lack of this particular tool in the US armoury)

Again, this MAY result in the termination of the thread. However more usually it just causes an escalation to not just truly awsome amounts of Handwavium, aided by creation of 'facts' to fit the proposed Aquatic Mammalian Visit. Its often also identified by the sound of la-la-la-la by the author as he sticks his fingers in his ears...

Again, this results in the board moving to Defcon-2, pointing out that the author is, perhaps, not quite listening and is in fact daft. Hopefully this works before we have to go to a yet higher Defon.

Does this answer your question?

[jlckansas]

How about having all those RR guns and other heavy guns, 8 inches and larger zeroed in on the last mile or so before the beaches. Near miss by a 15 incher on those 8 knot barges is going to be as good as a hit. They don't have to worry about hitting them at 10 miles range in the channel. Not that it would be hard to hit a group of barges going about 8 knots at that range. But by waiting till that they get withing 2 or three miles of the beaches you would increase your accuracy of the heavy guns alot.

[Cockroach]

At the end of Sep the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were avail @ Brest [the Prinz Eugen having suffered bomb damage], the Lutzow was avail in the Baltic, & the Scheer was about to depart on her N Atlantic cruise [the Hipper being in drydock for a refit].

How come I was the only person to comment on this utter howler!
Shall we look at those ships in detail?
Scharnhorst - Damaged by Torpedo hit (DD launched) during Norweigen campaign under repairs June through December 1940, not in Brest until March 1941 in OTL.
Gneisenau - Damaged by Torpedo hit (Sub launched) during Norweigen campaign under repairs June through Decemeber 1940 and not in Brest until March 1941 in OTL.
Lutzow - Damaged by Torpedo hit (Sub launched) during Norweigen campaign, under repairs until well into 1941 (departed to work up in Norweigen water in June 1941).
Scheer - Finished serious refit in July, on trials till mid-October.

You have exactly one ship of those four that could conceivably be pushed into action in time for your proposed Seelowe. And that one ship is a Panzerschiff - able to be dealt with by a couple of heavy cruisers and utter minced meat if caught by a Battlecruiser.

Edit to add: Even assuming siad vessels were operational, relocating S and G to Brest prior to Seelowe would risk both vessels getting sunk or damaged before the operation.

[Graehame]

FASTMONGREL
My apologies. I thought you were talking about enclosed holds. However, in point of fact many barges ship cargoes on their open decks.

COCKROACH
You are correct about the Lutzow. However...

From ww2db.com :
"On 14 Oct 1940 under the command of Captain Theodor Kranke (the Admiral Scheer) left for a raiding mission."

25 Jul 1940 "German battleship Gneisenau completed its torpedo damage repairs and departed Trondheim, Norway for Kiel, Germany..."

from feldgrau.com :
"November 21st-27th, 1940 the Scharnhorst sortied as far as south of Iceland and sunk the British auxiliary cruiser Rawalpindi."

[Cockroach]

Originally Posted by Graehame

COCKROACH
You are correct about the Lutzow. However...

From ww2db.com :
"On 14 Oct 1940 under the command of Captain Theodor Kranke (the Admiral Scheer) left for a raiding mission."

More or less that date I said she was back to operational status. So, a maybe I was one week error on her end of trials... but hat is hardly something for your to crow about when you've got the sinking of an AMC in ENTIRELY THE WRONG BLOODY YEAR!

25 Jul 1940 "German battleship Gneisenau completed its torpedo damage repairs and departed Trondheim, Norway for Kiel, Germany..."

"Repaired" as in patched up to be seaworthy enough get home for the proper repair work. Actual repaired as in fully operational is December 1940 (http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/, http://www.german-navy.de/).

You're not getting that fully repaired while at anchor in a Norweigen fjord...

"November 21st-27th, 1940 the Scharnhorst sortied as far as south of Iceland and sunk the British auxiliary cruiser Rawalpindi."

Other sources (ww2db for both vessels, http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk, http://www.german-navy.de/) attest that HMS Rawalpindi was sunk in 1939.

Looks, I'd suggest you drop out NOW before you make an even bigger fool of youself. You've been caught out selectively quoting completely out of context (Gneisenau) and out right distorting dates (Rawalpindi) to support your already implausible scenario.

Edit to add: one thing I do need to take back is my snarky reply over the Cruiser Petropavlovsk: turns out it was an uncompleted Hipper class the krauts sold to the Soviets (I was aware this was planned, not that the vessel was actually transfered and renamed though... does get rather confusing when one of the Soviet BBs had previously held the same name; the Hipper class vessel was later renamed Tallin and a Kirov class cruiser was renamed Petropavlovsk post war). Still, an immobile hulk sunk in harbour by artillary fire hardly helps your case with regards to the Anti-Shipping capabilities of the Luftwaffe.