Operation Sealion - creative approach

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#196

Post by JonS » 15 Dec 2006, 23:55

kalpazanin wrote:As to the idle time - I thing multiplying by 4 is very exaggerating.
Serious question: do you have any military experience?

Also, what level of education are you at? I'm not asking that to belittle, but to try and figure out where you're coming from.

User avatar
Ostkatze
Member
Posts: 344
Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 04:08
Location: Ohio

Jing-a-linga-linga

#197

Post by Ostkatze » 16 Dec 2006, 04:56

Military experience? As for me, none ( thank God I was 320 in the Vietnam Lottery ) since I was a cadet up in Yorkshire in 1966 commemorating 1066 Stamford Bridge with old WW2 radio packs ( which I can attest sometimes even worked ) and Enfields with blanks. But I did learn enough to understand why a tank can do 35mph but a division very seldom 70 miles a day.

Halftracks will do 50kph back to the ships. Through dunes, beach and what was sea bed an hour ago. I think you need large dune buggies. And since we're fascists, a large dose of fascines for those wheeled carriages being hauled up through the muck. In your favour, however, although you called for sandy beaches ( fully plotted beforehand ), those are modern phenomena, the sand being trucked in and dredged up for the tourists. Pebbles would have been the rule back then.

"The attaching of the barges would be done in the following manner:
In port the ship would be filled with water until it reaches the waterline.
Then 4 of the 100 ton barges are positioned by it's sides and attached to it with multiple ropes.
Then the water is pumped out until the barges are 1m above sea level. "

I told you guys Santa was in the House!!

Creative indeed, kalpazanin, but the Flanders ports ( as in ports with cranes ) ( and multiple ropes ) aren't really the issue here.

I'm confident you have the method of holding up and then lowering these barges. Possibly we could orchestrate 6 of those tanks on the deck to deftly lower the multiple ropes as one. Being the best trained in the world and all, this could be done in 10 mins.

" I know my proposal is more of a rough estimates than precise, clean plan. " Have a little faith, baby, Santa gets those toys all round the world in one night every time. Neil P.


Hop
Member
Posts: 571
Joined: 09 Apr 2002, 01:55
Location: United Kingdom

#198

Post by Hop » 16 Dec 2006, 04:59

There appears to be quite a disagrparity between various sources I am gathering about Kannalkampf
So this issue requires some deeper analysis with non british sources prefferably included . (I don't mean conspiracy theories ,but honest mistakes do happen)
Wood and Dempster used the Luftwaffe quartermasters records for thier loss figures, I assume Cooksley did the same. There are no British records of German losses, just records of British claims.
a) If the proportion of LW to RAF losses was the same as in the whole BoB then why did they withdraw from the channel so hastily? (leaving their convoys to the mercy of LW)
They didn't.
The convoys were reduced for a period because Dowding, quite naturally, wanted to concentrate air cover over his airfields, rather than have extra targets to protect. But the convoys didn't stop altogether. And the convoys were reduced, not just left unescorted to the mercy of the Luftwaffe.
b) If the LW could provide protection for the 1900 slow barges to be successfuly moved through the channel to the French ports why wouldn't they be capable of providing for 100 much faster freighters to cross it?
For one thing, because the RAF were conserving their forces in case of an invasion. That makes attacking empty barges in full force along the French coast foolhardy. Much better to attack them on your own side of the channel, when they are loaded down with troops and supplies. After all, empty barges are rather cheap, and not a worthwhile target for large scale daylight raids on the enemy coast, with all the losses that implies.

The barges were not, for the most part, passing "through" the channel, they were approaching the channel hugging the French coast, thus hard to detect and never far from a port they could put into if attacked.

User avatar
Ostkatze
Member
Posts: 344
Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 04:08
Location: Ohio

#199

Post by Ostkatze » 16 Dec 2006, 05:22

Or, being canal barges, came to the coast along canals, which Flanders is full of.

User avatar
Brian Ross
Member
Posts: 861
Joined: 29 May 2005, 09:34
Location: Australia

#200

Post by Brian Ross » 16 Dec 2006, 06:59

Andreas wrote:
LWD wrote:
kalpazanin wrote:....
The destroyers had 50 km range radars - therefore by moving in front of the invasion fleet they could observe and engage the RN forces leading to at least equal chances of winning.
Even if some RN MTB's could escape that sweep it's not a fact that the armed merchants would be that easy to sink....
Several points her.
1) KM DDs had radar at this piont in the war? Even if they did radar that could pick up RN DDs and MTBs at 50km?
It appears to be more nonsense from kalpazanin. They may have had radar, but it was bearing restricted, and its range was far less than 50km, try 14-18km according to the link below.
50km might be their air search range. Surface search is usually substantially shorter than that because of sea "clutter" (false returns from the ocean waves). I'd be very surprised if the DDs had radar, German capital ships (Graf Spee, Bismark, etc) were only just being fitted before the outbreak of war IIRC.

User avatar
Brian Ross
Member
Posts: 861
Joined: 29 May 2005, 09:34
Location: Australia

#201

Post by Brian Ross » 16 Dec 2006, 07:29

kalpazanin wrote:According to von Tipelschirh there were 1900 MTB's assembled as part of the invasion fleet.
Let me get this right. He's claiming 1900 MTBs (Motor Torpedo Boats)? 8O 8O

You sure he doesn't mean something else with that designation or number and that you haven't made a mistake with transcribing the number? Where the hell did they find 1900 MTBs (Motor Torpedo Boats)? Where did they find the crews for them and where did they find the torpedos to arm them with?

User avatar
Brian Ross
Member
Posts: 861
Joined: 29 May 2005, 09:34
Location: Australia

#202

Post by Brian Ross » 16 Dec 2006, 07:35

JonS wrote:
kalpazanin wrote: There would be 10 halftracks towing 5 tons of cargo each, at speed of 5km/h to 2 km inland.
Considering margins to connect the ropes etc + return time - 30 min per 50 ton.
that means 500 tons for 5 hours.
That's some pretty cool maths you got going on there.

The round trip is 4km. At 5km/hr you are talking about a travel time of 48 minutes, plus extra time for farting about, hold ups, accidents, hitching and un-hitching, etc. For example, not all 10 h/ts can be accessing the ship at the same time (BTW, the mechanics of the bow/ramp PFM still haven't been adequately explained). Total trip time is on the order of 2 hours. Not 30 minutes. Total unload time is on the order of 20 hours. And frankly, I think that even 2 hours/trip is unreasonably optimistic.
Note also, I've seen no noting of the use of trailers, merely pallets on which to "tow" these mythical supplies with. Pallets which more than likely wouldn't survive being towed 2 km, let alone off a ship and down a ramp and onto the beach. If they are being loaded onto trailers, then time must be allowed for that. There won't be any MHE (Mechanical Handling Equipment) such as forklifts, therefore the pallets will need to be unloaded and then loaded onto trailers by hand. This will take a considerable amount of time. We usually worked on a rate of 10 men per 5 ton truck in 1 hour, with pre-packaged rations. That time could be halved with double the men but then if you add more men, the time actually increases (they get in each others' way).

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#203

Post by kalpazanin » 16 Dec 2006, 08:19

Andreas wrote:
LWD wrote:
kalpazanin wrote:....
The destroyers had 50 km range radars - therefore by moving in front of the invasion fleet they could observe and engage the RN forces leading to at least equal chances of winning.
Even if some RN MTB's could escape that sweep it's not a fact that the armed merchants would be that easy to sink....
Several points her.
1) KM DDs had radar at this piont in the war? Even if they did radar that could pick up RN DDs and MTBs at 50km?
It appears to be more nonsense from kalpazanin. They may have had radar, but it was bearing restricted, and its range was far less than 50km, try 14-18km according to the link below.

Info on radars on destroyers, frustratingly without date of equipment:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WRGER_08.htm

Info on radar set capabilities:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WRGER_03.htm

But: Karl Galster got its radar in 1941/42:

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/ZTyp36-R.htm

One could infer that the surviving 1934 class destroyers did not get their radar before Norway either, which would then mean it is unlikely they would have it by the end of the summer. Or maybe that explains why only four were available? But maybe someone who has good knowledge about German destroyers would want to comment.

All the best

Andreas
You can dispute the range of the radar. (and I did intend the diameter of the detection circle and not the radius) - but calling my posts nonsense is hardly conductive to the civilized discussion.
Again - you've demonstrated on number of occasions that such discussion is hardly what you strive for...

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#204

Post by kalpazanin » 16 Dec 2006, 08:24

Brian Ross wrote:
kalpazanin wrote:According to von Tipelschirh there were 1900 MTB's assembled as part of the invasion fleet.
Let me get this right. He's claiming 1900 MTBs (Motor Torpedo Boats)? 8O 8O

You sure he doesn't mean something else with that designation or number and that you haven't made a mistake with transcribing the number? Where the hell did they find 1900 MTBs (Motor Torpedo Boats)? Where did they find the crews for them and where did they find the torpedos to arm them with?
My mistake - I meant various motor boats.

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

#205

Post by kalpazanin » 16 Dec 2006, 08:29

Brian Ross wrote:
JonS wrote:
kalpazanin wrote: There would be 10 halftracks towing 5 tons of cargo each, at speed of 5km/h to 2 km inland.
Considering margins to connect the ropes etc + return time - 30 min per 50 ton.
that means 500 tons for 5 hours.
That's some pretty cool maths you got going on there.

The round trip is 4km. At 5km/hr you are talking about a travel time of 48 minutes, plus extra time for farting about, hold ups, accidents, hitching and un-hitching, etc. For example, not all 10 h/ts can be accessing the ship at the same time (BTW, the mechanics of the bow/ramp PFM still haven't been adequately explained). Total trip time is on the order of 2 hours. Not 30 minutes. Total unload time is on the order of 20 hours. And frankly, I think that even 2 hours/trip is unreasonably optimistic.
Note also, I've seen no noting of the use of trailers, merely pallets on which to "tow" these mythical supplies with. Pallets which more than likely wouldn't survive being towed 2 km, let alone off a ship and down a ramp and onto the beach. If they are being loaded onto trailers, then time must be allowed for that. There won't be any MHE (Mechanical Handling Equipment) such as forklifts, therefore the pallets will need to be unloaded and then loaded onto trailers by hand. This will take a considerable amount of time. We usually worked on a rate of 10 men per 5 ton truck in 1 hour, with pre-packaged rations. That time could be halved with double the men but then if you add more men, the time actually increases (they get in each others' way).
So if I understand correctly, by using 20 men a 5 ton truck could be loaded in 30 minutes?

kalpazanin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 19:14
Location: Bukureshti

Re: Jing-a-linga-linga

#206

Post by kalpazanin » 16 Dec 2006, 08:44

Ostkatze wrote:
Halftracks will do 50kph back to the ships. Through dunes, beach and what was sea bed an hour ago. I think you need large dune buggies. And since we're fascists, a large dose of fascines for those wheeled carriages being hauled up through the muck. In your favour, however, although you called for sandy beaches ( fully plotted beforehand ), those are modern phenomena, the sand being trucked in and dredged up for the tourists. Pebbles would have been the rule back then.
Are you disputing that they can go much faster than 5 km /h when empty?
Ostkatze wrote: "The attaching of the barges would be done in the following manner:
In port the ship would be filled with water until it reaches the waterline.
Then 4 of the 100 ton barges are positioned by it's sides and attached to it with multiple ropes.
Then the water is pumped out until the barges are 1m above sea level. "

I told you guys Santa was in the House!!

Creative indeed, kalpazanin, but the Flanders ports ( as in ports with cranes ) ( and multiple ropes ) aren't really the issue here.
If you disagree with the proposed method then tell me why? I can't read your mind..
Ostkatze wrote: I'm confident you have the method of holding up and then lowering these barges. Possibly we could orchestrate 6 of those tanks on the deck to deftly lower the multiple ropes as one. Being the best trained in the world and all, this could be done in 10 mins.
What you mean by 'holding up'?
The tanks would not be on the upper deck.
The lowering would be done by simple polyspasts. (There is only 1 meter to lower)
Ostkatze wrote: Have a little faith, baby, Santa gets those toys all round the world in one night every time. Neil P
My methods are somewhat unortodox - so what ?
Where did I violate law of physics or factual historical data?
If all solutions were ortodox, we'd still be on trees eating banana

Insulting content removed by moderator.
Last edited by kalpazanin on 16 Dec 2006, 09:44, edited 1 time in total.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Let's just redefine dark to be the new standard

#207

Post by JonS » 16 Dec 2006, 08:50

kalpazanin wrote:I did intend the diameter of the [radar] detection circle and not the radius
Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
kalpazanin wrote:Where did I violate law of physics or factual historical data?
In about 59 posts so far.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#208

Post by Jon G. » 16 Dec 2006, 09:50

And on that note, this topic is locked.

Locked

Return to “What if”