Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#136

Post by Knouterer » 09 Jun 2014, 19:41

phylo_roadking wrote:
As a further example of how many floaters there were, and not just after winter gales: On 16.9.1940, two Vorpostenboote, V 1505 and V1507,escorted some coasters along the Dutch coast, from IJmuiden to Hoek van Holland, a distance of about 30 nm. On the way, they spotted, and sank (or blew up) by gunfire, no less than five Treibminen.
To be fair -

1/ that's not in the Channel, that's the southern North Sea -
Really. You don't say. Now that comes as a REAL surprise to a Dutchman.

But please, enlighten me further - could it be that this is in fact VERY close to where one of the Sealion convoys was supposed to form up at S-2 and S-1?
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#137

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Jun 2014, 21:13

Really. You don't say. Now that comes as a REAL surprise to a Dutchman.

But please, enlighten me further - could it be that this is in fact VERY close to where one of the Sealion convoys was supposed to form up at S-2 and S-1?
Well, there goes the neighbourhood. I tried to keep this civil, but obviously no point, eh? :roll:
it be that this is in fact VERY close to where one of the Sealion convoys was supposed to form up at S-2 and S-1?
Interestingly - the LAST fields to be laid were the very small B1...and the small C1 and C1A fields just north of the Narrows in that OTHER section of strong currents you can see entering the Narrows from the north end. But they were to be laid as late as S minus 2, so there would be less time anyway for floaters to break free than the A fields or B2 and B3 and both the D fields...
I DID note that there was not much of anything that the Kriegsmarine could do for British mines - originally laid, say, in the East Coast Barrage or the anti-uboat fields laid in the mouth of the Narrows...but by the careful timing noted above they could minimise - not eradicate, minimise - German-origin floaters from the two newly-laid fields north of the Narrows. Because if you look at a map of surface currents in the North Sea, you'll see that floating mines along the Dutch Coast are far more likely to be coming UP the coast from the fields laid in the northern mouth of the Narrows!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#138

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Jun 2014, 23:17

YES ... those mines were floating around near where the CONVOY from ROTTERDAM was supposed to form up !!!! And since that convoy would take FULLY TWO DAYS to form up off the Hook (with ships being brought out by tugs one by one through the Nieuwe Waterweg ...
... and since the few escorts could hardly use their searchlights at night to find those floaters with Coastal Command flying regular patrols in the area
... the convoy might well suffer its first losses before it even got underway, WITHOUT the RN or the RAF doing anything !!!!!
Looks like I'll have to keep repeating myself until it sinks in...
Interestingly - the LAST fields to be laid were the very small B1...and the small C1 and C1A fields just north of the Narrows in that OTHER section of strong currents you can see entering the Narrows from the north end. But they were to be laid as late as S minus 2, so there would be less time anyway for floaters to break free than the A fields or B2 and B3 and both the D fields...
....by the careful timing noted above they could minimise - not eradicate, minimise - German-origin floaters from the two newly-laid fields north of the Narrows. Because if you look at a map of surface currents in the North Sea, you'll see that floating mines along the Dutch Coast are far more likely to be coming UP the coast from the fields laid in the northern mouth of the Narrows!
You posted up an example of floaters along the Dutch coast after three days, two of which were notably bad weather; as noted, the currents in the south of the North Sea flow from the Narrows along the copast of Holland - thus if those floaters encountered in the 16th came from anywhere they came from the British fields in the Channel, not the East Coast Barrage.

If the Germans were laying THEIR pre-Sealion fields in such a away as to minimise the numbers that could break free from THEIR north end of the Narrows' fields across the 48 hours that that forming-up would take...they'd at least have done everything in their power to reduce the number of floating GERMAN mines.

They can't eradicate the problem of floaters - but they can at least minimise their share of the issue.

Now....
On 16.9.1940, two Vorpostenboote, V 1505 and V1507,escorted some coasters along the Dutch coast, from IJmuiden to Hoek van Holland, a distance of about 30 nm. On the way, they spotted, and sank (or blew up) by gunfire, no less than five Treibminen.
Can we have a source for that?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#139

Post by David Thompson » 10 Jun 2014, 00:59

A rude post from Knouterer was removed by this moderator - DT.

Gentlemen, drop the taunting, baiting posts.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#140

Post by Knouterer » 10 Jun 2014, 09:02

I can't helping noticing that very considerable numbers of posts from Phylo in the same vein are not removed. I think mine was a pretty fair imitation of the sort of stuff he continuously irritates and provokes other posters with.

Apart from the fact that my post actually made a valid point, to wit, that if there were many "floaters" on that streatch of coast, as seems to have been the case, that would have posed a serious risk to the Sealion convoy from Rotterdam, which was supposed to form up off the Hook in the period S-3 to S-1.

If you want to exercise a positive regulatory influence David, maybe you could explain to Phylo that it's not really necessary to quote every single thing I write - often three times over - and adorn it with his own comments, as he has been doing for the past months? You have to admit it doesn't exactly improve the readability of threads. In fact, it seems to have no other purpose than to provoke heated discussions about nothing much at all, which ultimately lead to the thread being locked.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#141

Post by Knouterer » 10 Jun 2014, 10:02

phylo_roadking wrote:
Now....
On 16.9.1940, two Vorpostenboote, V 1505 and V1507,escorted some coasters along the Dutch coast, from IJmuiden to Hoek van Holland, a distance of about 30 nm. On the way, they spotted, and sank (or blew up) by gunfire, no less than five Treibminen.
Can we have a source for that?
The last time you demanded a source (about the burned-out Armadillo at Lympne), and I took the trouble of making a a scan, it turned out that you already had the info yourself, but did not share it because it disproved your earlier statements about the "small working party" &c.

So no, you can't have a source, at least not until you start to play fair and demonstrate some basic intellectual honesty yourself.

However, you're free to buy a map and measure the distance yourself :milwink:
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#142

Post by Knouterer » 10 Jun 2014, 12:19

Well OK then, just to show my extreme tolerance, forbearance and respect for the rules - even as others flout them - it's from this book, written by someone who served himself in one of these Vorpostenflotillas in the Channel from mid-1940, and it strikes me as pretty precise as regards events, dates, etc.
Satisfied?
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/3813208 ... UTF8&psc=1
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#143

Post by Knouterer » 10 Jun 2014, 12:32

In the same context, you may want to consult this thread as well, it's largely in English, you might learn something.

http://www.forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/in ... ic=17518.0
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#144

Post by phylo_roadking » 11 Jun 2014, 00:02

The last time you demanded a source (about the burned-out Armadillo at Lympne), and I took the trouble of making a a scan, it turned out that you already had the info yourself,


I asked for it....but any evidence took SO long in coming that I had to obtain it myself. As you can see from the various dates - when I asked for it, when the ORB scans arrived with me, and when you obtained yours.

One of the reasons I didn't return immediately to the subject was that I was busy trying to obtain more information on the RAF Lympne Armadillos -as in where off-field they were stored. But the MAIN reason I didn't immediately refer to the ORB scans was...
but did not share it because it disproved your earlier statements about the "small working party" &c.
...it was immediately obvious to me that the ORB proved your assumption about the c.400 RAF personnel at RAF Lympne wildly inaccurate, and I decided to spare you the embarassment of discovering it from me.

However, when YOU received the ORB scans, you admitted yourself you had been wrong.
On 16.9.1940, two Vorpostenboote, V 1505 and V1507,escorted some coasters along the Dutch coast, from IJmuiden to Hoek van Holland, a distance of about 30 nm. On the way, they spotted, and sank (or blew up) by gunfire, no less than five Treibminen.
Can we have a source for that?
However, you're free to buy a map and measure the distance yourself
Why would I buy a map? It's not the distance I'm interested in...
So no, you can't have a source, at least not until you start to play fair and demonstrate some basic intellectual honesty yourself.
I'm not the one putting words in Peter Schenk's mouth about PzII floats, or neglecting to mention that a German weather report only referred to one area on the French coast, or choosing to distort the issue over the RN's training of Royal Artillery personnel on RN range-finding and fire control equipment.

And finally...
...it's not really necessary to quote every single thing I write - often three times over - and adorn it with his own comments, as he has been doing for the past months? You have to admit it doesn't exactly improve the readability of threads.
These are discussion threads. If you didn't post up material that needed commenting on, there would be no discussion required. If what you're interested in is readability - why aren't you using your ISP's personal allocation of free webspace and creating a Sealion website and populating that?
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 11 Jun 2014, 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#145

Post by phylo_roadking » 11 Jun 2014, 00:08

By the way -
YES ... those mines were floating around near where the CONVOY from ROTTERDAM was supposed to form up !!!! And since that convoy would take FULLY TWO DAYS to form up off the Hook (with ships being brought out by tugs one by one through the Nieuwe Waterweg ...
... and since the few escorts could hardly use their searchlights at night to find those floaters with Coastal Command flying regular patrols in the area
... the convoy might well suffer its first losses before it even got underway, WITHOUT the RN or the RAF doing anything !!!!!
...you did realise that in those 48 hours of late September 1940....there would be at least 25 hours (c12.5 hours between sunrise and sunset x 2....and the light of false dawn and twilight) daylight for spotting floating mines? And that if Hitler was to order Sealion commenced, there were two requirements - at least local air superiority....and at least five good days' weather? So floaters broken free due to high sea states would have been at a minimum anyway...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#146

Post by Knouterer » 11 Jun 2014, 10:09

phylo_roadking wrote:

...it was immediately obvious to me that the ORB proved your assumption about the c.400 RAF personnel at RAF Lympne wildly inaccurate, and I decided to spare you the embarassment of discovering it from me.
You can twist and turn and quibble and misquote for fifty pages on end Phylo, but the fact of the matter, as anyone can check, is that what I did write was (post 493 of 12 June 2013 on the "British Response to Operation Sealion" thread):

"As a working assumption, 200-300 RAF personnel armed with rifles and a few MGs seems reasonable "

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=480

And as we now know, as far as can be determined from the available sources, ie the record book, that working assumption was absolutely bang spot on :lol:

Of course, there may well have been as many as 400. We don't know. But the fact that there were no less than four "defence officers" does certainly point in that direction.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#147

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 Jun 2014, 00:10

And as we now know, as far as can be determined from the available sources, ie the record book, that working assumption was absolutely bang spot on
"As a working assumption, 200-300 RAF personnel armed with rifles and a few MGs seems reasonable "
1/ the record book doesn't mention the strength of any Airfield Defence Detachment; only the number of RAF personnel on-site as of June.

2/ "Airfield Defence Detachments" were formed from whatever odds and sods didn't have any OTHER alert post - I.E. they were not comprised of the fitters, riggers, armourers....or the RAF personnel staff manning any of the RAF's defensive positions in the event of attack or air attack. I.E. the "defence detachments" were the admin clerks, the mess clerks, the kitchen staff...

Thus even the personnel figures we see for JUNE 1940 do not in any way permit "200-300 RAF personnel armed with rifles and a few MGs"

3/ Haven't you ALREADY been told the on-paper establishment for an RAF ELG...which RAF Lympne became in mid-August? And that number is around HALF that putative "300" upper figure...

4/ Whether you like it or not we have two sources which tell us that the airfield was "evacuated" after the damaging August raids.

So on at least four counts that working assumption cannot be "spot on". And those are facts - unlike your assumptions.

By the way...
You can twist and turn and quibble and misquote for fifty pages on end Phylo, but the fact of the matter, as anyone can check, is that what I did write was (post 493 of 12 June 2013 on the "British Response to Operation Sealion" thread):

"As a working assumption, 200-300 RAF personnel armed with rifles and a few MGs seems reasonable "
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that your estimate went UP over the next few months -

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1865697
To recapitulate, at the end of Sept., I would tentatively assume say 400 RAF personnel at Lympne...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re:

#148

Post by Knouterer » 19 Feb 2015, 15:21

Andreas wrote:
RichTO90 wrote: [
I just noticed this, which is curious and perhaps an early indicator of the de facto decision to abandon Seelöwe. Five minelayers of the Westgruppe after being assembled at Cherbourg, where they could actually conduct the operations, were moved to St. Nazaire? Which is a pretty off place to attempt to conduct near round-the-clock minelaying in the Channel well east of a line from Falmouth to Cherbourg? I mean they now have to steam some 500-600 kilometers to reach their area of operatons? That's kind of strange thinking, its probably about 30 hours or more steaming time away.
Reduces the risk of aerial attack?

All the best

Andreas
That seems to have been the reason, according to v. Kutzleben, Schroeder & Brenneke, Minenschiffe 1939-1945. The Westgruppe (Schiff 23, Tannenberg, Cobra, Togo and Schwerin) arrived at Cherbourg on the late evening of 10 sept. From then on they stayed in harbour (at 6 hours' readiness to move). Schiff 23 was hit by a bomb on the 18th, minor damage. Cobra sustained some splinter damage. In view of the threat from the air unloading the mines had already started the day before. On the 19th the last mines were unshipped and the ships began the move to St. Nazaire where they arrived on the 21st.

The Ostgruppe (Grille, Königin Luise, Preussen and Roland) was in Ostende from 9 Sept. No mines were taken on board because of the daily air attacks, these were on a train (or trains) a bit south of the town. It was planned to load the mines in the daytime under strong fighter cover, if the order to start operations should be given. On the 20th an order was received to move the ships back to Rotterdam, and they left the next day.

All in all, it looks like the minelaying operations would have had some trouble just to get started. Or to be more precise, it looks as if the KM had decided not to use these not very battleworthy ships (converted ferries &c., some had already served as minelayers in WWI) after all.

That would leave the fighting ships, which could carry only a limited number of mines: max. 60 for Zerstörer, 30 for Torpedoboote, and 8 for S-Boote and R-Boote if I'm not mistaken.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#149

Post by Knouterer » 02 Mar 2015, 15:34

Further to the minelaying capacity of both sides:

Since just about any vessel could be equipped to lay mines, there was a certain reluctance in the 1930s to spend money on purpose-built minelayers. The Kriegsmarine had none; a class of four fast (28 knots) and heavily armed offensive minelayers of around 6,000t, carrying 400 mines, was planned but annulled on the outbreak of war.

The RN had HMS Adventure (launched 1924, cruiser-sized at 6,740 tons, 27 knots), and the new Abdiel class, four of which were launched but not yet completed.

About eight auxiliary minelayers (converted cargo ships, varying from 3,000 to 10,000 GRT, carrying 240-560 mines) were also in service. According to H.T. Lenton, British and Empire Warships of the Second World War, p. 304: “While it was left to the naval minelayers to undertake lays in enemy waters, mercantile conversions of large mine capacity and radius of action were used for the laying of mine barrages in areas relatively safe from enemy interference. They were only defensively armed with one/two 4in guns, plus lighter AA weapons, and operated under the cover of the main fleets.”

There were a few destroyers fitted for minelaying available; nine V-class destroyers converted to minelayers in WWI were in 1939 still carried on the list as such, with a capacity of 74 H2 mines, but they were never modernised to take standard WWII mines. A number of the more modern G, H and I class destroyers were also modified for ready conversion to minelayers, and could carry about 60 mines (like the German Zerstörer).

In addition, there were a few small coastal and “controlled” minelayers.

Minelaying by RN coastal forces (minelaying motor launches)did not begin before 1941 it seems.

The Dutch Navy could have contributed the new and relatively powerful Hr. Ms. Willem van der Zaan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Will ... aan_(ML-2) ), plus a few coastal minelayers (Nautilus, Jan van Brakel, Van Meerlant, employed at boom defence in the Thames estuary and convoy escort at the time it seems).

Info on British minelaying: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelöwe - German & British mining operations

#150

Post by Knouterer » 15 Mar 2015, 17:53

On the subject of floating mines, here's an interesting article about the Faroe Islands during the war which mentions that many floaters exploded on the shore and damaged some 200-300 houses. The British army distributed some rifles to the locals to fire at mines and blow them up or sink them before they reached the shore, and no less than about 850 mines were disabled in this way. Considering that this can have been only a very small fraction of all the mines breaking free from the minefields laid by various navies, it gives you some idea of the scope of the problem.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A4r%C ... _Weltkrieg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”