RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
With all due respect to Lavery, I think that book was cobbled together rather hastily and there are a number of errors concerning British defences and German plans and preparations in 1940. I wouldn't regard it as a work of reference on the subject.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
Thanks!sitalkes wrote:Brian Lavery, We Shall Fight on the Beaches https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shall-Fight-Be ... 1844861015
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
Philson's OOB of the Royal Navy for 30 Sept. 1940 does indeed list HMS Adventure (a cruiser-sized minelayer) and the Armed Merchant Cruiser HMS Esperance Bay as being at Plymouth, the former with the note "to Scapa to work up, thence to Loch Ewe" and the latter with the note "Repairs, completes 12th October".
However, it doesn't seem likely that these or any such ships were at any time used as "floating fortresses"; it would mean that ships and many hundreds of sailors needed for a variety of urgent tasks were essentially laying idle for many weeks. An AMC, lacking armour protection, would in any case seem a poor choice for a "fortress". And using a modern destroyer like the "Isis" (launched 1936) - supposing that is the ship meant in the original post - as a floating battery, instead of repairing/refitting her as quickly as possible and sending her out to sea again, would have been a criminal waste which the Admiralty would never have countenanced.
Plymouth Sound could be defended much more effectively and economically against any attack by surface ships by shore batteries, which included six 9.2-inch guns, four 6-inch guns and eleven 12-pounders on the outbreak of war; by Sept. 1940 another "emergency battery" with two 6-inch guns had been added.
In addition, there were booms and anti-submarine nets; for Plymouth, Philson lists, apart from a host of other vessels, 7 harbour patrol craft, 9 boom defence vessels, 3 boom defence gate trawlers.
However, it doesn't seem likely that these or any such ships were at any time used as "floating fortresses"; it would mean that ships and many hundreds of sailors needed for a variety of urgent tasks were essentially laying idle for many weeks. An AMC, lacking armour protection, would in any case seem a poor choice for a "fortress". And using a modern destroyer like the "Isis" (launched 1936) - supposing that is the ship meant in the original post - as a floating battery, instead of repairing/refitting her as quickly as possible and sending her out to sea again, would have been a criminal waste which the Admiralty would never have countenanced.
Plymouth Sound could be defended much more effectively and economically against any attack by surface ships by shore batteries, which included six 9.2-inch guns, four 6-inch guns and eleven 12-pounders on the outbreak of war; by Sept. 1940 another "emergency battery" with two 6-inch guns had been added.
In addition, there were booms and anti-submarine nets; for Plymouth, Philson lists, apart from a host of other vessels, 7 harbour patrol craft, 9 boom defence vessels, 3 boom defence gate trawlers.
Last edited by Knouterer on 09 Apr 2017, 20:47, edited 2 times in total.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
At this time, the more immediate threat to Plymouth, Portsmouth and other ports were German bombers (mostly of the 9th Fliegerdivision) dropping mines in or near the harbour entrances by night. The German plans included an increase of this activity in the nights just prior to Seelöwe, to "bottle up" the Royal Navy.
This duty was not popular with the German airmen, as it required them to fly very low and slow and in a straight line, which was dangerous in itself and made them easy targets.
To catch such minelaying aircraft, AA barges (without engines) were moored in likely spots. The following pictures from the IWM collection show one such barge. The caption says: "ANTI-AIRCRAFT BARRAGE VESSEL ARRIVES IN PLYMOUTH AND TAKES UP HER DEFENSIVE POSITION IN THE SOUND. SEPTEMBER 1940, PLYMOUTH SOUND"
Armament seems to consist of a 12-pounder and a twin .5 Vickers MG.
This duty was not popular with the German airmen, as it required them to fly very low and slow and in a straight line, which was dangerous in itself and made them easy targets.
To catch such minelaying aircraft, AA barges (without engines) were moored in likely spots. The following pictures from the IWM collection show one such barge. The caption says: "ANTI-AIRCRAFT BARRAGE VESSEL ARRIVES IN PLYMOUTH AND TAKES UP HER DEFENSIVE POSITION IN THE SOUND. SEPTEMBER 1940, PLYMOUTH SOUND"
Armament seems to consist of a 12-pounder and a twin .5 Vickers MG.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
Lenton, British and Empire Warships of the Second World War, lists BV.7 pictured here as having a displacement of 270 tons and a length over all of 100 feet. Armament was later on increased to one 12pdr and three single 20 mm guns.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
As an added thought, if there had been any need for "floating fortresses" at Plymouth, HMS Revenge was there from 15 Sept. to mid-November. Her eight 15-inch guns (plus twelve 6-inch guns) would have provided enough firepower for any contingency I think.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
Does the original source actually means that they should stop repairs and place themself in that positionKnouterer wrote:
However, it doesn't seem likely that these or any such ships were at any time used as "floating fortresses"; it would mean that ships and many hundreds of sailors needed for a variety of urgent tasks were essentially laying idle for many weeks. An AMC, lacking armour protection, would in any case seem a poor choice for a "fortress". And using a modern destroyer like the "Isis" (launched 1936) - supposing that is the ship meant in the original post - as a floating battery, instead of repairing/refitting her as quickly as possible and sending her out to sea again, would have been a criminal waste which the Admiralty would never have countenanced.
or that in case of imminent German attack be positioned there?
Cheers
/John
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
There were a lot of wild ideas, especially in the period immediately after Dunkirk when many people expected the Germans to follow hot on the heels of the defeated BEF, so it's quite possible that some naval officer planned to have ships under repair that could fire their guns towed out into the Sound in case of (imminent) German attack.
My point is rather that AFAIK this was not actually put into practice, certainly not as a permanent arrangement, during the months when invasion threatened, as the original post seemed to suggest, with the seven days' supplies etc.
In the same vein, as Lavery describes, naval officers at certain ports were planning massive demolitions which would have made those ports unusable for many months, if not permanently. By July however people had calmed down a bit and the Admiralty had issued instructions that demolitions should only be carried out if a port was in imminent danger of being captured, and then only to the extent necessary to deny the enemy the (effective) use of it for a couple of weeks or so, after which the issue would have been decided one way or the other.
My point is rather that AFAIK this was not actually put into practice, certainly not as a permanent arrangement, during the months when invasion threatened, as the original post seemed to suggest, with the seven days' supplies etc.
In the same vein, as Lavery describes, naval officers at certain ports were planning massive demolitions which would have made those ports unusable for many months, if not permanently. By July however people had calmed down a bit and the Admiralty had issued instructions that demolitions should only be carried out if a port was in imminent danger of being captured, and then only to the extent necessary to deny the enemy the (effective) use of it for a couple of weeks or so, after which the issue would have been decided one way or the other.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
Re: RN vessels as Floating Fortresses against Seelowe
Indeed it was common practice for ships capable of offering anti aircraft defence whilst being refitted, repaired or resting in port to be added to that port's defences. The only ports in or very close to the invasion zones that had RN assets were Dover and Newhaven, though neither had heavily armed ships or any assigned as floating fortresses. Folkestone had a blockship already sunk in place but unarmed while a blockship was kept ready at Newhaven.
Portsmouth had the partly operational French battleship Courbet specifically assigned an anti aircraft role for the port. The old battleship HMS Iron Duke was used as a gunnery training ship which also had an anti aircraft role and designated as the main blockship for the port.
I am unaware of any ships assigned similar roles at Plymouth or other major bases.
HMS Adventure apparently completed its refit on 18 September in Plymouth.
Portsmouth had the partly operational French battleship Courbet specifically assigned an anti aircraft role for the port. The old battleship HMS Iron Duke was used as a gunnery training ship which also had an anti aircraft role and designated as the main blockship for the port.
I am unaware of any ships assigned similar roles at Plymouth or other major bases.
HMS Adventure apparently completed its refit on 18 September in Plymouth.