Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

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

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#196

Post by Knouterer » 23 Feb 2015, 13:35

sitalkes wrote:On page 31 of "Hitler's Great Panzer Heist" (2007), A. Tucker-Jones says "By early July 1941, for the defence of the British Isles, the Army could muster 1,141 infantry and cruiser tanks; however, only 391 were considered fit for action. British repair facilities at this stage remained lamentable and a month later 25% of the infantry tanks were still out of action, as were 157 of the 400 cruiser tanks." If this was the situation in August 1941, how many (or what proportion of) Britsh tanks were serviceable a year earlier?
From the reviews on Amazon it doesn't sound like a book I would spend money on. "Panzer Heist" ???

Anyway, what does "considered fit for action" mean exactly?

I have no reason to believe that such a large percentage of British tanks was "out of action" in September 1940. The light tanks, for all their other shortcomings, were mechanically reliable, and insofar as there were problems with the Cruiser and Infantry tanks, apart from the Valentine they were not new designs with unknown problems, and the British maintenance crews had plenty of time to work on them.

In general, I have to say I'm not much impressed by all this "creative accounting" trying to demonstrate that Seelöwe had some chance of success because the Royal Navy wasn't really there and the British army was largely untrained and in any case had almost no equipment or ammunition, and of course British generals were incapable of giving or carrying out the simplest orders, etc. etc. etc.

Let's stick to verifiable facts.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#197

Post by Gooner1 » 23 Feb 2015, 17:45

phylo_roadking wrote:Nope. For in THAT case, with the tide receeded, there would be less actual need for tracked tractors to be available to tow bogged-down vehicles out of the sand.
On the principle that sand dries instantaneously the moment after water recedes?

To be fair, after the barges crews have finished constructing the barge ramps ( :lol: ), the water level should be below the fording depth of Schleppers .
We cannot know the level of the waves though!


User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#198

Post by Juha Tompuri » 23 Feb 2015, 20:10

phylo_roadking wrote:
Knouterer wrote:part from that, with a height of just 1 m (to the top of the hull) and a fording capacity of 0,40 m, it seems that the Renault UE would be of limited utility as a towing vehicle during an amphibious landing, at least it would have to stay well away from the surf to avoid being swamped.

Actually, Stephen Hart's Atlas of Tank Warfare From 1916 to the Present Day (2012) gives the fording depth as 0.7 metres...the limiting factor(s) being the exhaust and air intake height "above ground".
Some questions about the Renault UE fording capabilities and limiting factors at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2&t=214055

Regards, Juha

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#199

Post by sitalkes » 24 Feb 2015, 01:22

Knouterer wrote: From the reviews on Amazon it doesn't sound like a book I would spend money on. "Panzer Heist" ???

Anyway, what does "considered fit for action" mean exactly?.... Let's stick to verifiable facts.
Well it may not be an academic text, but he does give his sources, and in this case it's Churchill, complaining about the state of the home defence forces. I realise that a lot can change in a year, so that's what I was asking for, verifiable figures that would indicate the state of the armoured forces a year earlier, as I have only seen them in terms of "so many tanks plus so many in the workshops." Aslo I find it interesting that the infantry tank figures weren't so good, when in 1941 a good proportion would have been of the supposedly much more reliable Valentine tanks. It's also possible that the low numbers are caused by the introduction of the Covenanator in 1941.

Tsofian
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 05 Apr 2017, 15:49
Location: St Louis, Missouri

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#200

Post by Tsofian » 06 Apr 2017, 15:57

I'm getting into this late (as this is my second day here) and there is a lot of ground to cover. This thread has wound into several areas not included in its title but let me start with that:

Fighters against Barges:
First the barges with which the PT Boats and other small craft had so much trouble with in the Pacific and the Med were far more sturdy and sea worthy than the bulk of the Sea Lion barges. The MPF were bears, well armed and strongly constructed. A comparison of actions against more capable barges later in the war may not be the most applicable to discussing engagements against those for use in Sea Lion.

The .303 will probably not do serious damage to the hulls but will tear up the unprotected troops and cargo and possibly cause casualties with the crews. Any issues with the pilots and even the engines of the powered barges will negatively impact the already unwieldy convoys.

The British do not have to limit their fighter attacks to daylight. They can use both Defiant and Blenheim night fighters. These attacks will be less risky since the Germans have almost no night fighters in the theater and absolutely no way to vector fighters to intercept even if they are available. Flak will be far less effective at night, as the convoy has no radar and very few of the vessels have searchlights or even effective fire control. The Defiants also had a very promising tactical advantage. With the turret they can make beam attacks against the barges, which will make hitting with Flak even more difficult, as they will be crossing targets. The ability of the turret gunner to selectively target specific parts of the ships, say pilot houses or engines, will also potentially provide the Defiants with increased effectiveness against their targets.

Although there were few cannon armed fighters at this time (some Spitfires, Beaufighters and Whirwinds) these were specifically tasked with attacking barges carrying tanks and AFVs. The 20mm cannons on these fighters would be very capable against the barges, and also against the top armor of their AFV cargo. In addition many of these tanks are submersible or amphibious and so have a lot of critical equipment that is unarmored. Even .303 rounds would be enough to destroy the inflatable seals and I wonder if the pontoons for the Panzerkampfwagen II mit Schwimmkörper would be proof against .303 AP rounds. Did the pontoons on the Panzerkampfwagen II mit Schwimmkörper have pumps to remove water or were they simply sealed?

In addition to barges there are a number of ferries built on a wide variety of structures used as pontoons. Everything from bridging equipment to aircraft fuel tanks to wine casks was looked at. At least the engineering pontoons were used. The ferries carried equipment that was absolutely critical to every stage of the Sea Lion operation, in that the Luftwaffe Flak units with their 8.8 Flak 18s were on these craft. This resources was tasked with engaging Royal Navy surface forces, RAF aircraft, British Army shore batteries and pillboxes (this both while afloat and once they land), general artillery support once ashore, AAA defense of the beachhead and defense against British infantry tanks. There are 25 Siebel Ferries each with an 88 and 2 X single 20mm guns. That is decent firepower but how much damage can the pontoons take? How thick were the shells of the pontoons, and how many watertight sections did each pontoon have? Could these pontoons have survived concentrated .303 or .50 caliber fire from aircraft or MTBs? Would near misses from bombs or artillery have either crushed them or perforate them and let them fill with water?

Also a large number of the control boats aren't the heavily built barges but are pilot, customs and police boats. These are almost certainly less survivable than the barges and are also critical to the effective movement of the convoys. Their positions will make them stand out from the barges and tows and may make them more obvious targets for fighter attack.

So the question about RAF fighters vs barges I think can be answered with a qualified yes:
Cannon Armed fighters probably can sink barges
.303 armed day fighters can damage and mission kill barges and possibly sink pontoon based vessels as well as lighter command boats
.303 armed night fighters are the same and will be able to do so without the threat of interception and also without having conflicting missions, since the can be tasked only with night attack against the convoys and anchorages

Terry

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

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#201

Post by Knouterer » 06 Apr 2017, 21:05

According to British military manuals, 20 mm of iron or soft steel were required for adequate protection against .303 ball rounds, more of course against AP rounds. The sides of the Sealion barges were not nearly that thick; 5 to 8 mm is a reasonable estimate. Modern regulations for Rhine barges require a minimum hull thickness of 3 mm.
A .303 AP round fired by a strafing British fighter would go in one side and out the other, after passing through a horse in between.

Anyway, not a very relevant issue I think; the RAF would probably concentrate its attacks on the transports and not waste any bombs, torpedoes or other ammunition on barges.

At the beginning of June, the Air Ministry declared stocks of 142.6 million .303 rounds (including 28.8 million AP and 12.2 million incendiary), as of 29 Sept. the Air Ministry/RAF had 157.3 million.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Tsofian
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 05 Apr 2017, 15:49
Location: St Louis, Missouri

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#202

Post by Tsofian » 07 Apr 2017, 13:44

Knouterer wrote:According to British military manuals, 20 mm of iron or soft steel were required for adequate protection against .303 ball rounds, more of course against AP rounds. The sides of the Sealion barges were not nearly that thick; 5 to 8 mm is a reasonable estimate. Modern regulations for Rhine barges require a minimum hull thickness of 3 mm.
A .303 AP round fired by a strafing British fighter would go in one side and out the other, after passing through a horse in between.

Anyway, not a very relevant issue I think; the RAF would probably concentrate its attacks on the transports and not waste any bombs, torpedoes or other ammunition on barges.

At the beginning of June, the Air Ministry declared stocks of 142.6 million .303 rounds (including 28.8 million AP and 12.2 million incendiary), as of 29 Sept. the Air Ministry/RAF had 157.3 million.
The Fighter Command fighting instructions specifically match cannon armed fighters against barges carrying AFVs. I agree that heavy ordnance would go against the larger ships. There was a specific set of fighting instructions for Bomber Command, which I saw on the web, didn't copy, download or bookmark, because I'm an idiot, and can't find now, that described the use of machine guns as well as air dropped ordnance. If the British determine that only 1/3 of the barges are actually self propelled I can also see them very quickly targeting the lead barges in the strings with machine guns and light bombs. The ferries will certainly suffer heavily, as I doubt any of the pontoons are thick enough to avoid penetration. The ferries have high signatures, since they are actively seeking to get into both air and naval combat, and what looks like poor survivability. These are exceptionally high value targets.

Bergedorf
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 20:35
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#203

Post by Bergedorf » 07 Apr 2017, 21:35

The ferries will certainly suffer heavily, as I doubt any of the pontoons are thick enough to avoid penetration. The ferries have high signatures, since they are actively seeking to get into both air and naval combat, and what looks like poor survivability. These are exceptionally high value targets.
Hi Tsofian,

there were no Ferries operational before October 1940.

regards

Dirk

Tsofian
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 05 Apr 2017, 15:49
Location: St Louis, Missouri

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#204

Post by Tsofian » 08 Apr 2017, 23:46

Dirk
I don't believe that to be correct. Schenk as quoted in Wikipedia says

On 31 August 1940, the newly modified Siebel ferry was tested in the Ems estuary by the Special Command of the Merchant Shipping Division. Using only the ship’s aircraft engines, it attained a maximum speed of 8 knots (9.2 mph; 15 km/h). In contrast to the truck engines in the pontoons, the aero engines were directly controlled by the helmsman via throttles in the wheelhouse, allowing him to vary each engine’s speed as necessary. This greatly improved manoeuvrability but the aircraft engines were noisy, prevented voice communication on deck and consumed large amounts of fuel. For Sea Lion, it was decided to use them only for the run-up onto the invasion beaches or as a back-up in the event the water screws were damaged.[7]

On 4 September, two additional versions of the Siebel ferry, one powered by Opel Blitz truck engines and one powered by Ford V8s were again tested on the Ems estuary. Using only water screw propulsion, they achieved a cruising speed of 7 knots (8.1 mph; 13 km/h), though it was believed this could be raised by installing more efficient propellers.[7]

The Siebel ferry pontoons were flat-bottomed and squared off in front. In combination with the vessel’s wide cargo deck, this made for an exceptionally stable gun platform. The Luftwaffe mounted various-sized flak pieces on the ferries and tested their suitability for engaging both air and surface targets while at sea. The 8.8 cm guns in particular proved well-adapted for this role.[9]

Series production of the Siebel ferry began in September 1940 at Antwerp as a joint Army–Luftwaffe venture with the Army’s Böndel Pionier-Sonderkommando (Engineer Special Command) assembling the pontoons, decking and water propulsion while Col. Siebel’s Luftwaffe-Sonderkommando installed the auxiliary surplus aircraft engines. By late September twenty-five of these craft had been completed.[10]

For Operation Sea Lion, the Luftwaffe organized the Siebel ferries into two flotillas: Flakkorps I (assigned to 9th Army) and Flakkorps II (assigned to 16th Army). They were intended to provide flank defense against air, ground and surface targets for the First Wave tow formations. Each Siebel ferry would transport a complete flak unit consisting of one 8.8 cm gun and two 2 cm guns plus their three prime movers (although 9th Army planned to transport the necessary towing vehicles and support personnel separately via barges). Upon reaching the invasion beaches, the ferries were to land their flak units and then assist with unloading the larger steamers anchored offshore. The Army rather disingenuously referred to the Siebel ferries as “destroyer substitutes”.[11]

Schenk, Peter (1990). Invasion of England 1940: The Planning of Operation Sealion. Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-548-9.

So if Schenk is correct there should be around20-25 of these available for the invasion.

Bergedorf
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 20:35
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#205

Post by Bergedorf » 10 Apr 2017, 02:09

@Tsofian:

It seems as 25 Siebel Ferries were ready in Antwerpen on 2nd October 1940, but without crew. Seebefehlshaber West (Lütjens) reported on this day, thar the navy personel shold be send to Antwerpen (for the Siebel Ferries) and Fecamp (for the Herbert-Ferries).

Before 30th September 1940 the navy had no intention to use the Ferries at all.

regards

Dirk

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#206

Post by T. A. Gardner » 10 Apr 2017, 05:41

Getting back to the original question of this thread... Could RAF fighters sink a barge using .303 gunfire? I would say it is at least definitively possible.

Take this example: A plane strafes a barge. It creates 20 holes slightly larger than a .303 round one foot below the waterline in doing that. That allows 120 gallons of water into the barge an hour. As the amount of water taken on increases and the barge begins to list, those holes fall to two feet below the waterline. Now 170 gallons of water an hour is entering the barge.

That's just 20 small holes below the waterline. What if it increased to 50, or 100?

Since we know that the rounds could penetrate the hull of a barge, all that's needed is for some to be at or slightly below the waterline to begin flooding the barge. I assume on the unpowered ones there's little means to pump water that gets in out and the crew and passengers have limited or no access to the bilges to attempt manually removing it.

So, as the flooding progresses, the barge will sink lower in the water increasing the flooding rate and probably increasing the number of holes through which flooding occurs. This will also increase the weight and drag of the barge on the tow, slowing the tow speed slightly as well.

The Sebiel ferries in particular would be vulnerable if one pontoon took all the hits. That means the vessel starts to list to the side flooding. That would become a serious issue pretty quickly not just for the list but even for the structural stability of the vessel.

Given crossing times on the order of 20 to 72 hours, I'd say that the barges are vulnerable to strafing and being flooded to a point that their sinking becomes a real possibility.

Tsofian
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 05 Apr 2017, 15:49
Location: St Louis, Missouri

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#207

Post by Tsofian » 10 Apr 2017, 20:05

Bergedorf wrote:@Tsofian:

It seems as 25 Siebel Ferries were ready in Antwerpen on 2nd October 1940, but without crew. Seebefehlshaber West (Lütjens) reported on this day, thar the navy personel shold be send to Antwerpen (for the Siebel Ferries) and Fecamp (for the Herbert-Ferries).

Before 30th September 1940 the navy had no intention to use the Ferries at all.

regards

Dirk
Dirk,
interesting. What is your source for this? My research indicates that the Luftwaffe, no the KM, would man the Ferries, since they were designed and built by them. If these are not available the firepower of the invasion fleet, and the landing force is badly degraded.

Tsofian
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 05 Apr 2017, 15:49
Location: St Louis, Missouri

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#208

Post by Tsofian » 10 Apr 2017, 20:09

T. A. Gardner wrote:Getting back to the original question of this thread... Could RAF fighters sink a barge using .303 gunfire? I would say it is at least definitively possible.

Take this example: A plane strafes a barge. It creates 20 holes slightly larger than a .303 round one foot below the waterline in doing that. That allows 120 gallons of water into the barge an hour. As the amount of water taken on increases and the barge begins to list, those holes fall to two feet below the waterline. Now 170 gallons of water an hour is entering the barge.

That's just 20 small holes below the waterline. What if it increased to 50, or 100?

Since we know that the rounds could penetrate the hull of a barge, all that's needed is for some to be at or slightly below the waterline to begin flooding the barge. I assume on the unpowered ones there's little means to pump water that gets in out and the crew and passengers have limited or no access to the bilges to attempt manually removing it.

So, as the flooding progresses, the barge will sink lower in the water increasing the flooding rate and probably increasing the number of holes through which flooding occurs. This will also increase the weight and drag of the barge on the tow, slowing the tow speed slightly as well.

The Sebiel ferries in particular would be vulnerable if one pontoon took all the hits. That means the vessel starts to list to the side flooding. That would become a serious issue pretty quickly not just for the list but even for the structural stability of the vessel.

Given crossing times on the order of 20 to 72 hours, I'd say that the barges are vulnerable to strafing and being flooded to a point that their sinking becomes a real possibility.
I'd think even the unpowered barges have a manual pump, and there might be plenty of German soldiers willing to wrestle with the pump handles, or use their helmets, to bail out a barge that is sinking under them. That being said what is the fighting ability of a group of soldiers that have spent the last day or so in a sinking barge bailing for their lives?

Bergedorf
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 20:35
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#209

Post by Bergedorf » 10 Apr 2017, 22:10

Dirk,
interesting. What is your source for this? My research indicates that the Luftwaffe, no the KM, would man the Ferries, since they were designed and built by them. If these are not available the firepower of the invasion fleet, and the landing force is badly degraded.
The Luftwaffe shuld only man the aircraft engines. The KM personal shoul be the captain und two seafaring personal according to "Seebefehlshaber West GKdos 1769 A 1, 2.10.40". Luftgaustab z.b.V. 300 wanted to have additional 1-2 seafaring personal (Luftgaustab z.b.V. 300 Ia 37/40 , 18.9.1940)

Sources: many files in the Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv in Freiburg.

cheers

Dirk

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#210

Post by T. A. Gardner » 10 Apr 2017, 22:45

Tsofian wrote:I'd think even the unpowered barges have a manual pump, and there might be plenty of German soldiers willing to wrestle with the pump handles, or use their helmets, to bail out a barge that is sinking under them. That being said what is the fighting ability of a group of soldiers that have spent the last day or so in a sinking barge bailing for their lives?
You should go back to the earlier pages of this thread where there is considerable discussion, including drawings and pictures, of these barges. It's pretty obvious that the unpowered ones were not normally manned in commercial use so did lack things like pumps and what not, and also had a construction such that there were bilges and other compartments in the hull that were inaccessible.

I'd say, even if they were to have a pump aboard, it would be only of sufficient capacity to deal with everyday leakage, not steady flooding.

The worst problem however, would be if you had flooding going on it would progressively lead to free surface effect if not eliminated. As most of these barges were pretty marginal in a sea state, if they were pitching about on waves, having say 20 to 50 tons of water aboard would probably dramatically affect the stability and potentially lead to capsizing.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”