British Army at home September 1940

[Clive Mortimore]

In the event of not being able to do this use the telescopic sights mounted on the guns, well at least the emergency battery guns as shown in Hogg's "British and American Artillery of WW2" have them.

Strange. Knouterer has been quoting from that book but missed that detail. The issue could have been put to bed long since.

Phylo....Are these ideal weather conditions which the bright early morning sun silhouetting the ships out at sea would cause the gunners problems?

Clive - if you look back again at what I did say...

Silhouetted...at dawn? With the rising sun behind them I.E. behind the smoke?

How good does the weather need to be and how high does the sun need to get for there to be enough light for the barges to be silhouetted against the smokescreen they emerge from a short distance from the shore?

15th Sept
Heavy cloud and rain periods overnight was expected to clear and the forecast for the day was fine in most areas with patchy cloud. ...The cloud was expected to clear during the afternoon

Quite dull at dawn then for quite a while...

16th Sept
Much cooler conditions coming in from the North Sea. Most areas can expect heavy cloud cover and rain in all districts that was expected to be heavy at times. The forecast was general for all areas.

Very dull...

17th Sept
Cold with squally winds especially in the Channel areas. Rain periods were to be expected in the south with the chance of a thunderstorm. The possibility of bright intervals expected during the afternoon

Need I go on?

18th sept
Conditions were expected to be a continuation of the previous day except that the low to medium cloud that brought the rain periods would disappear...

...when during the day?...

19th Sept
Heavy cloud was expected to continue throughout the day and rain periods, heavy at times was expected over most of Britain. The Channel areas could expect a very low cloud base with early morning fog and mist patches in coastal districts.

'nuff said...

20th Sept
The morning would be reasonably fair with scattered cloud with showers expected by midday and these would continue throughout the day.

Best day of the lot...depending on what "reasonably" turned out to be in reality.

21st Sept
The day opened to scattered cloud although along the Estuary and the River Thames as far as London there was considerable haze. Once this cleared, most of the south was fine with scattered cloud but by midday cloud had started to build up. In the north there was cloud with sunny spells but it remained dry.

Back to a not-great morning.

The smokescreen was to be laid at 6am...as dawn broke and as the very first barges came ashore. They'll only really be silhouetted against the smokescreen once the sun gets high enough in the sky. All the next waves will be emerging from the smokescreen, with only a short distance to cross in the "open" to beaching.

It was you who said that the sun rising behind the Nazi invasion fleet would blind the gunners. Now would the weather of the dates you provided done so. NO

[phylo_roadking]

It was you who said that the sun rising behind the Nazi invasion fleet would blind the gunners. Now would the weather of the dates you provided done so. NO

The dawn sun would indeed be shining in their eyes right at dawn - then the LW lays their smokescreen. But the sun needs to climb a bit for a few minutes - we don't know how long - to illuminate th temporary gloom between the beach and the smokescreen.

As Rich was kind enough to ask

Ever looked at a dark object in front of a white or grey background?

...in relation to smokescreens, I answered "no" - not at dawn...but I have seen many a dawn here looking out first thing against a background of sea fog. I'm in a nice bubble of microclimate here - no snow or frost in winter, and no fog over the house....but a mile in either direction along the coast or right off shore to the east is another matter. And it can take hours for the light to approach full day, far longer than it on a nice, summer's cloudless morning.

[David Thompson]

An assortment of repartee posts from RichTO90 and phylo_roadking, adding little or nothing of factual value to the discussion, were removed by the moderator - DT.

[sitalkes]

It was said earlier that Nebelwerfer Artillery Regiment 51, attached to 16th Army, could not have had Nebelwerfer 41 150cm rocket launchers as asserted by Schenk. However it turns out that the Lexikon der Werhrmacht has a page devoted to this unit, which says (after Bing's awful translation):

The fog Cannon Regiment 51, was set up on July 10, 1940, on the training area of Munster camp, in the military district X. The regiment was from the departments of fog replacement 7 und8, Which one each the I and II: Department formed, and each raised a battery of fog-teaching Department and derNebel replacement divisions 1 and 2 as army troops. The regiment was fully equipped as a first unit with the 15-cm 41 fog Launcher. The regiment had total 324 pipes through the three departments with the 108 pipes. The preparation and training of the regiment was completed on October 17, 1940 and the regiment moved to France in the District of Chaumont, North of Paris. In January 1941, the 2nd battery of the regiment to the installation of the fog Cannon Regiment 52 was traded. (Source: lexicon der Wehrmacht http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... ment51.htm

So if they had cut their training short a bit, they (some or all of them) could have been available for a September invasion, and they were equipped with the rocket launchers as Schenk states.

[Clive Mortimore]

It was you who said that the sun rising behind the Nazi invasion fleet would blind the gunners. Now would the weather of the dates you provided done so. NO

The dawn sun would indeed be shining in their eyes right at dawn - then the LW lays their smokescreen. But the sun needs to climb a bit for a few minutes - we don't know how long - to illuminate th temporary gloom between the beach and the smokescreen.

As Rich was kind enough to ask

Ever looked at a dark object in front of a white or grey background?

...in relation to smokescreens, I answered "no" - not at dawn...but I have seen many a dawn here looking out first thing against a background of sea fog. I'm in a nice bubble of microclimate here - no snow or frost in winter, and no fog over the house....but a mile in either direction along the coast or right off shore to the east is another matter. And it can take hours for the light to approach full day, far longer than it on a nice, summer's cloudless morning.

Normally in September the dawn sun shines in my bedroom window, today it did not because there is low cloud and a light fog. As pointed out the weather on most days of the planned invasion was hazy, low cloud or fog. NO SUNSHINE.

This smoke screen at dawn wouldn't that cause visiblity problems for the skippers of the craft trying to see where they were to land as it would hide the few landmarks available. Mind you the landmarks would be in the process of being blown up.

[Knouterer]

Phylo....Are these ideal weather conditions which the bright early morning sun silhouetting the ships out at sea would cause the gunners problems?

For that matter, are these the kind of weather conditions that would leave Romney Marsh baked dry by the sun with only little rivulets of water in the ditches?

[Knouterer]

Knouterer -

OK, so here's the relevant fragment of the Befestigungskarte of Aug./Sept. 1940 ...

As you now seem to have access to the Befestigungskarte for the period under discussion, could we please see the area views for Dungeness, Greatstone, St Mary's Bay and Hythe - to determine for once and for all what the Germans did or didn't know about the British fixed defences?

No, I don't have the Befestigungskarte, I just asked someone I know who does have it to copy the relevant bit for me. I'm not going to trouble him any further just to please you, because - as we have seen many times now - if the documentary evidence doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you call it "dismissable" or you clutter up three pages of this thread with specious "arguments" trying to explain it away somehow.

If you think it is in any way significant, please order copies yourself instead of leaving all the trouble and expense to others.

In any case, the subject of this thread is not what the Germans knew or thought they knew.

[Knouterer]

It was said earlier that Nebelwerfer Artillery Regiment 51, attached to 16th Army, could not have had Nebelwerfer 41 150cm rocket launchers as asserted by Schenk. However it turns out that the Lexikon der Werhrmacht has a page devoted to this unit, which says (after Bing's awful translation):

The fog Cannon Regiment 51, was set up on July 10, 1940, on the training area of Munster camp, in the military district X. The regiment was from the departments of fog replacement 7 und8, Which one each the I and II: Department formed, and each raised a battery of fog-teaching Department and derNebel replacement divisions 1 and 2 as army troops. The regiment was fully equipped as a first unit with the 15-cm 41 fog Launcher. The regiment had total 324 pipes through the three departments with the 108 pipes. The preparation and training of the regiment was completed on October 17, 1940 and the regiment moved to France in the District of Chaumont, North of Paris. In January 1941, the 2nd battery of the regiment to the installation of the fog Cannon Regiment 52 was traded. (Source: lexicon der Wehrmacht http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... ment51.htm

So if they had cut their training short a bit, they (some or all of them) could have been available for a September invasion, and they were equipped with the rocket launchers as Schenk states.

We've been through all that about three months ago, haven't we? See page http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&start=75 At some point of the ongoing planning process, half the regiment was (scheduled to be) on the transports and the other half was scheduled to come over with the "second movement" about a week later. Charitably assuming they hurried up. Although I assume Phylo wil protest that after such hurried training they would have been completely ineffective.

In general, and as noted before, it seems that parts of the plans as detailed by Schenk were "forward-looking" and based on resources that were not yet available at the end of Sept./beginning of Oct. The 8th MG Battalion that I discussed earlier is another good case in point.

[Knouterer]

]

That's what I was trying to say - except there's no sign (yet) that the guns of the EBs were fitted with any sort of "direct fire" sighting telescope...unlike the 88. Just the "autosight" which near the start of the thread the OP noted was next to useless.

I never said anything of the sort. Don't try to shift responsibility for your uninformed opinions on to me. What I said (quoting unimpeachable authority) was:

"The guns were also equipped with so-called autosights which permitted reasonably accurate fire out to 4,000 yds or so for bigger ships and 2,000 yds for smaller vessels. However, the naval guns coming out of storage in the summer of 1940 did not have these, so there must have been a certain amount of improvisation."

Which normally would mean fitting such sighting telescopes as were available. In any case, the idea that after about 4 months of frantic work on the defenses, coast defence guns in the most likely invasion zones still had no sights whatever fitted is really too bizarre to merit discussion.

[phylo_roadking]

Normally in September the dawn sun shines in my bedroom window, today it did not because there is low cloud and a light fog. As pointed out the weather on most days of the planned invasion was hazy, low cloud or fog. NO SUNSHINE.

Clive - maybe this makes the silhouetting issue "clearer"...

Dymchurch beach, then hills behind Hythe beyond - and over to the right of the pic, where the German barges would be coming in from...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3560/571 ... b0a76c.jpg

And that's on a relatively good morning, just a little cloud - no haze, or fog....or smokescreen.

Or this...



Now do you see my point? The sun has to be relatively high in the sky to silhouette anything against that sort of background over to the right of the pic - whether cloud or smokescreen...or both. Whereas if the German timetable still holds and hasn't already collapsed...35 ID alone has the Advanced Detachments, the tauchpanzers, and the first follow-on group of 180 men in assault boats already ashore along the front at Dymchurch by 6.15-6.20, 15-20 minutes after dawn...with the next 80 barge and 60 assault boats due by the half hour...

This smoke screen at dawn wouldn't that cause visiblity problems for the skippers of the craft trying to see where they were to land as it would hide the few landmarks available.

If anything - it's the shoreline that would be possibly better silhouetted...

...and they are going to come out of the smokescreen again before they ground on the beach, you know...

{quote]Mind you the landmarks would be in the process of being blown up.

The British would be busy blowing up Littlestone Tower with its artillery OP in it, or the Martello Towers with their MGs and their artillery OPs on the roof, or the Emergency Battery BOPS? That's a novel idea...

Or the first line of houses immediately behind the sea wall at Dymchurch, or the excellent landmark of Marine Parade at Littlestone? Best we find out if they were actually incorporated in the local defence schemes first...

[phylo_roadking]

Knouterer -

I never said anything of the sort. Don't try to shift responsibility for your uninformed opinions on to me. What I said (quoting unimpeachable authority) was:

"The guns were also equipped with so-called autosights which permitted reasonably accurate fire out to 4,000 yds or so for bigger ships and 2,000 yds for smaller vessels. However, the naval guns coming out of storage in the summer of 1940 did not have these, so there must have been a certain amount of improvisation."

Which normally would mean fitting such sighting telescopes as were available. In any case, the idea that after about 4 months of frantic work on the defenses, coast defence guns in the most likely invasion zones still had no sights whatever fitted is really too bizarre to merit discussion.

Well. Now we know from your unimpeachable source (I hope he's better than Evans) that the naval guns that came out of storage didn't have the autosight. It might have been the proper and correct fitment - as noted previously - but as your source says they weren't there, at least to begin with...

In any case, the idea that after about 4 months of frantic work on the defenses, coast defence guns in the most likely invasion zones still had no sights whatever fitted is really too bizarre to merit discussion.

...what does therefore merit discussion is -

1/ were autosights fitted eventually - as per Hogg?

2/ if so - when?

3/ if not - what was, and when?

The guns were also equipped with so-called autosights which permitted reasonably accurate fire out to 4,000 yds or so for bigger ships and 2,000 yds for smaller vessels.

Unfortunately that sentence also means that...

...reasonably accurate fire out to 4,000 yds or so for bigger ships

...accuracy therefore not reasonable over 4,000 yards I.E. the 4-6,000 yard one-third of the EBs permitted engagement range;

(Which of course might just explain why so few hits on "bigger ships" in December 1914...)

...and 2,000 yds for smaller vessels

...accuracy therefore not reasonable over 2,000 yards for smaller ships I.E. the 2,000-6,000 yard two thirds of the EBs permitted engagement range.

And what exactly is the definition of a "smaller ship" vs a "bigger ship"? Is a river barge a "smaller ship" compared to a merchant ship used for invasion transport, for instance?

No, I don't have the Befestigungskarte, I just asked someone I know who does have it to copy the relevant bit for me. I'm not going to trouble him any further just to please you, because - as we have seen many times now - ...

If you think it is in any way significant, please order copies yourself instead of leaving all the trouble and expense to others.

In any case, the subject of this thread is not what the Germans knew or thought they knew.

Well, you're the one repeatedly claiming that the Germans didn't know about the EBs in Zone B, just Dungeness...I would have thought you would have liked the opportunity to prove that claim for once and for all. You appreciate we're free to assume for ourselves whether they're on or not on the Befestigungskarte then...

If the documentary evidence doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you call it "dismissable" or you clutter up three pages of this thread with specious "arguments" trying to explain it away somehow.

I'm not trying to argue away anything; the Evans' map was brought to the thread as an example of what the Germans "knew" about the defences of RAF Lympne - and it turns out that Evan's map is quite unreliable as he didn't transpose the details very well at all...especially given that neither bear any resemblance to what was (not) on the ground I.E. none of those marked defences can be seen. You really should look at the GoogleEarth 1940 overlay sometime.

For that matter, are these the kind of weather conditions that would leave Romney Marsh baked dry by the sun with only little rivulets of water in the ditches?

After a long summer, yes. Especially as you've been kind enough to bring to the thread the evidence that it took ten days for the accumulated rainfall from a hurricane to significantly raise the water level in Romney Marsh in early October if no pumping was done.

[Clive Mortimore]

Normally in September the dawn sun shines in my bedroom window, today it did not because there is low cloud and a light fog. As pointed out the weather on most days of the planned invasion was hazy, low cloud or fog. NO SUNSHINE.

Clive - maybe this makes the silhouetting issue "clearer"...

Dymchurch beach, then hills behind Hythe beyond - and over to the right of the pic, where the German barges would be coming in from...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3560/571 ... b0a76c.jpg

And that's on a relatively good morning, just a little cloud - no haze, or fog....or smokescreen.

Or this...



Now do you see my point? The sun has to be relatively high in the sky to silhouette anything against that sort of background over to the right of the pic - whether cloud or smokescreen...or both. Whereas if the German timetable still holds and hasn't already collapsed...35 ID alone has the Advanced Detachments, the tauchpanzers, and the first follow-on group of 180 men in assault boats already ashore along the front at Dymchurch by 6.15-6.20, 15-20 minutes after dawn...with the next 80 barge and 60 assault boats due by the half hour...

This smoke screen at dawn wouldn't that cause visiblity problems for the skippers of the craft trying to see where they were to land as it would hide the few landmarks available.

If anything - it's the shoreline that would be possibly better silhouetted...

...and they are going to come out of the smokescreen again before they ground on the beach, you know...

{quote]Mind you the landmarks would be in the process of being blown up.

The British would be busy blowing up Littlestone Tower with its artillery OP in it, or the Martello Towers with their MGs and their artillery OPs on the roof, or the Emergency Battery BOPS? That's a novel idea...

Or the first line of houses immediately behind the sea wall at Dymchurch, or the excellent landmark of Marine Parade at Littlestone? Best we find out if they were actually incorporated in the local defence schemes first...

This is an excellent example of you twisting things. The sun according to you would rise BEHIND the Nazi invasion fleet, as to make life difficult for the gunner to see it. Now you have sun rising above the land. NO it rises in the east, not the north.

Look up what silhouette means.

I think this is the silhouetted view the British gunners would see of a Nazi boat.

Nazi tug.png (5 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

Sun behind the boat silhouettes the boat. Sun in front of coast line does not, it might illuminate it but not silhouette it. Basic physics.

It was you who said that the expertly trained Stuka bombers would be bombing all the known (and unknown) observation post, this must include those same few tall buildings that you say the tug skippers would be aiming for pulling along their river barges. You cannot have it both ways both Schenk and you have the mighty Luftwaffe blowing them up or nearly as mighty Kreigsmarine using them as navigational points of reference.

As I have already stated the wonderful smoke screen you keep on about renders the thing hopeless and no bugger can see a thing.

[phylo_roadking]

This is an excellent example of you twisting things. The sun according to you would rise BEHIND the Nazi invasion fleet, as to make life difficult for the gunner to see it. Now you have sun rising above the land. NO it rises in the east, not the north.

How is posting up an actual picture of an actual dawn on the actual beach at Dymchurch twisting things? "Dawn at Dymchurch beach " by one Mike Robinson. I wrapped the wrong tags around it, so here it is again for anyone who didn't cut&paste the link into their browser



From his same series...

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/259530 ... 972469778/

"The Outfall" at St Mary's Bay...

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/259530 ... 144614446/

"Blazing skies" At St. Mary's Bay.

As you see, it takes some time for the sun to get high enough to do the job on a cloudy day. His comment on the pic above is that it took 20 minutes for the sun to climb high enough for the second pic THEN "it all went supernova".

Only ONE of your days that you supplied weather for guaranteed a sunny morning - and even then with haze. The rest of your material showed days with lesser or greater amounts of cloud, or fog or haze in the morning.

For instance - "Dawn at St Mary's bay" taken in October...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25953086@N03/5047916225/

Beneath all that cloud on the horizon doesn't look that clear, does it?...

It was you who said that the expertly trained Stuka bombers would be bombing all the known (and unknown) observation post, this must include those same few tall buildings that you say the tug skippers would be aiming for pulling along their river barges.

No, it was me who said that two Stuka gruppen were to attack defensive positions in the Hythe/Sandgate area, and a "specially equiped" squadron was to attack the Dungeness battery.

As I have already stated the wonderful smoke screen you keep on about renders the thing hopeless and no bugger can see a thing.

...until they come out of it again.

Mind you - as it was to be laid at dawn at 6am, and the first barges were to come ashore at dawn at 6am...the advance detachments and the tanks are already ashore just as it's laid. It's there to protect the rest of the shipping from observation as the sun comes up.

EDIT : Let me make something clear; I'm not using those pictures to illustrate the compass point the sun would rise from....JUST the height it can need to be above sea level on less or more cloudy days to suitably illuminate the sea beneath it. Further complicated for EB BOPs by any smokescreen laid.

But on the issue of compass point - Clive, I'm sure you know the rising/setting sun moves around the compass between limits depending on the season - hence Stone Age monuments like Stonehenge only on Midsummer's Day etc., etc. The two St Mary's Bay pics show where the sun would rise in very early October...and thus not far at all off where it would rise in the second half of September...

But the very first pic was taken in MAY; which shows where the sun would have risen if the Germans had returned to the idea of Sealion in the Spring of 1941 as the British thought for a long time. It's not relevant to the time period of this thread of course - I was just using it to illustrate the illumination issue...but it's interesting to find out the problem would have been worse in the next putative invasion season.

[phylo_roadking]

...or from a competent gunner versed in visual range estimation. As was noted earlier, most were confident of first round hits at short ranges, which given the ballistic characteristics of their guns and the ranges involved, wasn't likely a misplaced confidence.

Apart from the relative lack of live firing practice, that is.

Ammunition was in short supply - only a hundred rounds were available for each gun....

But we have already seen documentary evidence from the time showing Lavary was simply wrong about the ammunition situation insofar as it pertained to September, when it was 168.75-275 rounds per gun

IIRC it averaged out as that, across all the gun types used - the 9.2s, the 6"s, the 4.7s...but ammunition for some types was more scarce than others. And into those averages you also have to reckon all the RN guns also mounted on lorries etc...

Aiming and fiore-control systems were of the naval type, and parties had to be sent round to train the army to use them...

...He also appears to be wrong about the "aiming and fire-control systems" since there is little evidence that I can see that a degree of elevation or train differed between the Army and Navy and every photo or schematic I have seen shows the same basic setup. The mobile Army guns would have required survey and a clinometer - as Clive already mentioned - but that would not be necessary for either static or naval guns...so what mysterious bit of kit was there in the Navy "system" - ju-jube beans?

Last night you noted that this was just a single reference; however - it's not. Don't forget we do also have the war diary entry confirming that battery officers from the Royal Artillery received training in naval equipment. So whether or not you choose to accept Lavery is correct - we have the primary evidence of the training he talks about for the different equipment actually happening.

I know it's the British Army, which sometimes could be a bit odd in what it did - but given the threat and urgency of the period, sending officers for technical training they didn't need?

Perhaps someone should actually reference ADM 234/436 "The navy and the threat of invasion 1940" instead of taking Lavary's secondhand opinion of what it said at face value. Or find out "whatever" was so astonishingly different between Army and Navy telescopes and degrees.

Yes they should, but as I live on the wrong side of the Irish Sea, it's not digitised yet, and as it would be a choice between ordering it and eating, and I prefer eating - sadly it won't be me.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi phylo, I have just looked at the photo you on flickr of the sunrise on the beach at Dymchurch, oh dear it was taken in May. The sun rises later in September and would appear to the right of the cliffs at Hythe. Out at sea not above the land.

Anyhow if the same sun was going to blind the British gunners, how was not going to do the same to the Nazi skippers if they were to look directly at it. Again you are twisting things.