A Better Show in 1940
- Thread starter Michele
- Start date
In that case please remember I am a person, with feelings, when you make, what I assume are supposed to be funny, remarks about me personally in the future ... thank you.
Saphroneth
Banned
You know, I was wondering when you'd do that.
I've seen it happen a couple of times before, when you switch from criticism
to "this is no criticism" and end a sentence with a lol.
It caught my eye a couple of times before. Interesting quirk of phrase.
Look at the Kenley raid from the German perspective. The survivors would have reported an accurate, damaging bombing attack - but a recon mission the next day would report that the airfield was still operational and hence the attack had been an expensive failure, with 89% of the aircraft damaged or destroyed and 45% crew casualties. It's a brave man to order a repeat of such a mission, and an even braver one to actually fly it.
I don't know if those recon missions were actually performed, but presumably the LW must have had some method for gauging the effectiveness of the airfield attacks, otherwise they really would have been swinging in the dark.
I don't know if those recon missions were actually performed, but presumably the LW must have had some method for gauging the effectiveness of the airfield attacks, otherwise they really would have been swinging in the dark.
sharlin
Banned
Well we know that German military intel was not that great to begin with and the Luftwaffe like all armed forces of the time over estimated damage done. They could have simply assumed that the base was out of action but seeing the damage done would still make them think twice about it. If it was a success then it was a costly one and perhaps too costly to repeat.
The recon flights should and no doubt would have been done, but considering that 3 out of the 4 hangers had been destroyed along with other buildings it may have been classed as a success. Yes the low level bombers suffered, but they only made up about 15% of the total force.
This is something I've never even thought about or remember reading. How much post raid recon did the Luftwaffe do during BoB and how much of it produced accurate information?
So the Radar stations get disabled or destroyed in some way... and it makes the situation worse for the Germans. So Radar shouldn't have been used at all.
How about this: The radar stations are not working. The British don't get a 20 minute warning of a raid anymore. They first hear about it through their wireless intercept service and through the Observer Corps. They send up fighters as the attackers are turning for home, while other attackers get through unmolested. The attackers still get to fight some British fighters except the odds are more in their favour. Or maybe the British fighters have to put up standing patrols and are more easily exhausted or have their flight intercept times cut. Maybe the attack has had some effect and the fighters that are not fighting the Germans in the air are on the airfield being bombed. Or maybe the airfield is put out of action by repeated bombing. If enough airfields are put out of action then there won't be any fighters coming to attack the Germans, or if they do come, they will be from further away and have similar problems to the Germans in the amount of time they have to attack before having to turn for home.
The Revenge doesn't get shot at by a U-boat, doesn't hit a mine, and doesn't get shot at by the Channel guns or by any of the German escorts (though probably only those armed with torpedos could do any significant damage). It was an unmodified WW1 battleship and has little or no AA capability. I don't know how thick its deck armour was but it wasn't any better than the Repulse and I tend to think it would have been vulnerable to air attack. There was no need for it to do what it did in the timeline, its main armament could fire from a long way away. I think you probably had the Revenge right the first time.
How about this: The radar stations are not working. The British don't get a 20 minute warning of a raid anymore. They first hear about it through their wireless intercept service and through the Observer Corps. They send up fighters as the attackers are turning for home, while other attackers get through unmolested. The attackers still get to fight some British fighters except the odds are more in their favour. Or maybe the British fighters have to put up standing patrols and are more easily exhausted or have their flight intercept times cut. Maybe the attack has had some effect and the fighters that are not fighting the Germans in the air are on the airfield being bombed. Or maybe the airfield is put out of action by repeated bombing. If enough airfields are put out of action then there won't be any fighters coming to attack the Germans, or if they do come, they will be from further away and have similar problems to the Germans in the amount of time they have to attack before having to turn for home.
The Revenge doesn't get shot at by a U-boat, doesn't hit a mine, and doesn't get shot at by the Channel guns or by any of the German escorts (though probably only those armed with torpedos could do any significant damage). It was an unmodified WW1 battleship and has little or no AA capability. I don't know how thick its deck armour was but it wasn't any better than the Repulse and I tend to think it would have been vulnerable to air attack. There was no need for it to do what it did in the timeline, its main armament could fire from a long way away. I think you probably had the Revenge right the first time.
All true, apart from the facts that German torpedoes in 1939-40 were next to useless, the Channel guns were far too innacurate and had far too slow a rate of fire to hit a moving ship, the 1940 Luftwaffe showed during the Norwegian campaign and the Dunkirk evacuation just how useless it was at hitting ships at sea, and the RN had a far more effective minesweeping capacity than the KM.
sharlin
Banned
Well pointed out Ironsides, folks forget that the German fleet at the time consisted of 8 destroyers, 3 very bad light cruisers and that was it in terms of major surface units. Also U-boats in the shallow waters of the channel have issues, and as you said the RN could sweep mines far better (and in greater quantities) than the Germans could lay them.
Saphroneth
Banned
Wiki says that Revenge had a refit improving AA capability in 1938-9. She had antitorpedo bulges, which helps from the torpedo side of things, and IIRC in the TL she gets the crap kicked out of her by aerial bombardment.
As for the artillery, can cross-channel artillery even range on one of the outer landing zones?
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
Only about 30-35% of the torpedoes in Norway actually failed. That was due to the magnetic interference of the Fjords and the leaky torpedoes taking on air, causing them to run deep. About 2/3rds worked.
http://uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm
You need to read more about "putting airfields out of action". It's wishful thinking, made possible by ignorance.
The Revenge was vulnerable to air attack but your comparison with the sinking of the Repuls emeans you need to read how exactly the Repulse was sunk. While you are at it, you should also read about the strength, capability and equipment of the German torpedo bombers.
The total German force of that day suffered 69 destroyed aircraft.
It's also the day of the slaughterhouse for the Stukas and the beginning of the end of the Stuka as an operational aircraft in the historical Battle. StG 77 was shred to pieces, even though they were escorted by no less than 157 Bf 109s. The total tally was 17 Stukas and 8 Bf 109s destroyed for a price of five British fighters, a 5:1 kill ratio for the home team.
Last edited:
sharlin
Banned
Nope it can't, this was discussed in another thread (yet another See-fecking-lowe) and the uselessness of the Germans cross channel guns was generally recognised as was their lack of radar to spot for the guns.
Three torpedoes hit the Nelson and failed to explode.
Three torpedoes were fired at Ark Royal and exploded before reaching the ship.
“I do not believe that ever in the history of war, men have been sent against the enemy with such a useless weapon” - Karl Donitz
sharlin
Banned
The USN's submariners in 1941 would probably dispute that, their torpedoes were if anything worse than the Germans at the start of the war, and being that bad takes some serious effort.
I can't be bothered to do your research for you, but I will point out that Gunther Prien fired seven torpedoes at Royal Oak, and five of them malfunctioned. In the calm waters of an anchorage.
In addition...
As expected, the Norwegian seas were filled with Allied ships. Almost immediately, the U-boats began attacking.
snip
Their efforts remained completely fruitless. Worse yet, when the data was analyzed back at BdU, it was found that four attacks were launched on the battleship HMS Warsprite, fourteen on cruisers, ten on destroyers, and a further ten on transports – yet only one transport was sunk. Discounting marginal attacks, Donitz concluded that had the torpedoes not failed, the U-boats would have “probable sinkings” of one battleship, seven cruisers, seven destroyers, and five transports. In summary, about twenty enemy warships had escaped certain destruction because of torpedo failures.
By the end of the Norwegian campaign, the men of the U-boat Force had lost all faith in their torpedo and had not much heart to resume the fight. On April 19, Prien refused to attack when he spotted a convoy of ten transports and several destroyers. He still had four torpedoes left, but had so little faith in them that he sailed away silently. Upon his return, in explaining his refusal to attack, he told Donitz that he “could hardly be expected to fight with a dummy rifle”.
http://www.uboataces.com/articles-wooden-torpedoes.shtml
So, I'll pit my HMS Revenge (with an appropriate escort) against your U-Boat force in the shallow waters of the Channel, and the loser buys the other guy a Porsche.
The Revenge in this timeline is stationary or moving very slowly for at least part of the time, that's normally the case for battleships doing shore bombardment. It's also a much larger target than a coastal steamer, and films of the shots at the merchant ships show them being straddled. If it is stationary then even the rail guns can have a go at it. The channel guns were able to hit from Beach "C" to Beach "A" ie from about Rye to past Deal, though Beach "C" would have been extreme range. The Germans planned to setup 17cm guns on the north side of the channel as soon as possible after the landing, to shoot at shipping from the north side.
Whether the torpedoes are working or not depends on the writer of the time line, but to be accurate there should be some explanation in the timeline why the U-boats don't shoot at all, why the mines only affect German ships, and why the channel guns don't shoot at all. For a timeline entitled "A better show" the torpedoes could be working, with disastrous results for the RN prior to the landings, which would make a landing attempt more credible (with the Germans still losing though).
Whether the torpedoes are working or not depends on the writer of the time line, but to be accurate there should be some explanation in the timeline why the U-boats don't shoot at all, why the mines only affect German ships, and why the channel guns don't shoot at all. For a timeline entitled "A better show" the torpedoes could be working, with disastrous results for the RN prior to the landings, which would make a landing attempt more credible (with the Germans still losing though).
Last edited: