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

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 24 Apr 2007 10:38

Two topics have been split out of this thread:

Discuss bombing of barges at sea:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=119662

Discuss realistic load conditions of barges:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=119663

All the best

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 25 Apr 2007 09:23

A discussion on German naval escorts was split out:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=119718

All the best

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Re: Fighters and Barges

Post by Andreas » 25 Apr 2007 09:25

leandros wrote:Of course not. However, to damage the personell in the holds attacks would have to be performed in steep angles with corresponding vulnerability from many vessels. The German Railroads supplied roof covers from 4000 wagons for the invasion barges.
One thing you 'forgot' to mention is of course that these roof covers were tarpaulin, according to Kieser. Good for keeping out the elements, but useless against bullets.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
fredleander
Financial supporter
Posts: 2164
Joined: 03 Dec 2004 20:49
Location: Stockholm

Re: Fighters and Barges

Post by fredleander » 29 Apr 2007 18:34

Andreas wrote:
leandros wrote:Of course not. However, to damage the personell in the holds attacks would have to be performed in steep angles with corresponding vulnerability from many vessels. The German Railroads supplied roof covers from 4000 wagons for the invasion barges.
One thing you 'forgot' to mention is of course that these roof covers were tarpaulin, according to Kieser. Good for keeping out the elements, but useless against bullets.

All the best

Andreas
Exactly where in Kieser's books is the word "tarpaulin" mentioned, please....?

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 29 Apr 2007 19:46

Top of page 136, German hardcover edition, chapter on the maritime transport. "Abdeckplanen" is the word you are looking for. Why do you ask?

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
fredleander
Financial supporter
Posts: 2164
Joined: 03 Dec 2004 20:49
Location: Stockholm

Post by fredleander » 30 Apr 2007 10:55

T. A. Gardner wrote:Ok. So now we have a photo of a barge with a 3.7cm and what appears to be a 10.5cm with a very limited field of fire forward planted on the deck. This does little to show that these particular modifications - improvisations, which these definitely are, were common or widespread. If anything, it would appear that they were locally done modifications and very uncommon rather than the norm. There are just too many photos showing no such mountings to say otherwise, at least at this point in the discussion.
I agree. However, regarding photos, you should consider the fact many of those weapons were to be supplied by the army and flak units crossing and therefore probably would not have been mounted unitill during the 10-day warning period given after an actual go-ahead. I should think the German engineers would erect such gun bases in a few hours...... :)

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 30 Apr 2007 11:20

Stop speculating please.

Thank you.

Andreas

User avatar
fredleander
Financial supporter
Posts: 2164
Joined: 03 Dec 2004 20:49
Location: Stockholm

Post by fredleander » 30 Apr 2007 11:39

Andreas wrote:Top of page 136, German hardcover edition, chapter on the maritime transport. "Abdeckplanen" is the word you are looking for. Why do you ask?

All the best

Andreas
Because your tone was less than nice I would like to correct you. I should think in this context "Abdeckplan" was used generally for "covers" - not "tarpaulin". Other places he uses the word "Luken" - which are wooden or metal covers. Anyway, all barge covers I have seen pictured are obviously of a solid (wood or metal) consistency. Ref. the picture I posted a little while ago. That said, I agree completely that only metal top covers would be of any use against machine-gunning from the top.

If we are serious about this as a reseach project, you might have mentioned a couple of other things from the same page which should be of interest to the members here:

"Not only the transport itself was considered duly but also the safety of the soldiers during the crossing, and protection from rifle and machine gun fire during the unloading. Decksides were reinforced with cement and iron plates. Bridge, steering positions and unloading ramps were reinforced as much as it was possible. On deck were set up iron walls where crews could take cover during fire.

All freighters and tugs were prepared for mounting of gun and machine-gun positions".

User avatar
fredleander
Financial supporter
Posts: 2164
Joined: 03 Dec 2004 20:49
Location: Stockholm

Post by fredleander » 30 Apr 2007 11:41

Andreas wrote:Stop speculating please.

Thank you.

Andreas
It is not speculating. It is a fact which can be deduced from several sources. Including original orders. My above posting also refers to this. Positions "were to be prepared". For what...?

From pictures can also be seen barges with empty gun positions.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 30 Apr 2007 12:10

leandros wrote:I should think in this context "Abdeckplan" was used generally for "covers" - not "tarpaulin".
It does not matter what you think. "Abdeckplan" is not a German word with any meaning other than "Plan to cover", and in reality it is not a word you would come across. The word in Kieser is "Abdeckplanen", and that is a word that can only have one meaning: "Non-rigid covers", because that is what a "Plane" is. I used tarpaulin because it is probably the closest to the material used. It could be cloth, or plastic (today).

http://www.stallhandel.de/Hersteller_be ... index.html

BTW - you are about the last poster on this forum who should lecture others on how to quote correctly from books.

All the best

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 30 Apr 2007 12:13

leandros wrote:
Andreas wrote:Stop speculating please.

Thank you.

Andreas
It is not speculating. It is a fact which can be deduced from several sources. Including original orders. My above posting also refers to this. Positions "were to be prepared". For what...?

From pictures can also be seen barges with empty gun positions.
Then refer to the orders, and/or the sources for them, or post the pictures indicating where they come from.

If you want to speculate, you can do so in the relevant thread in the What-If section. As explained here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=119831 the threads on this forum are for discussion of the actual planning, not for speculation on what would have happened had the operation been undertaken.

Thank you.

Andreas

User avatar
fredleander
Financial supporter
Posts: 2164
Joined: 03 Dec 2004 20:49
Location: Stockholm

Post by fredleander » 30 Apr 2007 12:53

Andreas wrote:[ The word in Kieser is "Abdeckplanen", and that is a word that can only have one meaning: "Non-rigid covers", because that is what a "Plane" is. I used tarpaulin because it is probably the closest to the material used. It could be cloth, or plastic (today).

All the best

Andreas
Now you are speculating. Today it is mostly plastic. It can also mean a cemented/concrete "plane".

John T
Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 30 Apr 2007 14:48

LWD wrote:
leandros wrote:.... It would be bad economy - and totally out of the Dowding spirit - to use the fighters for this purpose......... 8-) ...
If we are about to abandon this topic for a bit I think this is an important point to reiterate. Even if the fleets AA performance in terms of shooting down attacking fighters is in questions. I agree that strafing the barges would be far from the best use for British fighters.
Yes, since there is a feeling that German soldiers not trained to fire AA from a naval vessel would be of little use, I think a similar judgement could be made on Fighter Commands pilots firing at naval targets. IMHO FC would have better use of their ammo.

Or to use the phrase used during the cold war "The enemy will not do anything in war he haven't trained in peace"

So I think this discussion is a bit hypothetical and getting into the Tree rather than woods perspective.

On the other hand Andy H had a nice post in the original thread here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... oth#966038

Andy H wrote:Though I have mentioned before that Bomber Command & Coastal command both had orders to attack the invasion fleet with anything & everything, I have also just read about a similar order pertaining to Training command.

Training Command Operational order No1, issued on May 23rd 1940, for the command in time of declared national emergency (invasion) to reinforce Bomber Command. As originally devised, the overall scheme called ZZ and known as "The Julius Caesar Plan" by Army Co-Op, but was renamed Operation Banquet on May 27th, when the Dep.Director of Home Operations was advised that 663 Tiger Moths could be mustered for service. A plan was approved on June 12th 1940 for the 663 Tiger Moths to be fitted with 8 Cooper or 'F' type bombs of 20lb or 25lb. The bombs were to be mounted on racks on the underfloor of the Tiger Moth. Some 1500 were ordered and were to be distributed among the Elementary Flying Schools.

Regards

Andy H


So the duel situation Tiger Moth Vs Barge would be more common than fighters.
Cheers

/John T.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 30 Apr 2007 14:56

leandros wrote:
Andreas wrote:[ The word in Kieser is "Abdeckplanen", and that is a word that can only have one meaning: "Non-rigid covers", because that is what a "Plane" is. I used tarpaulin because it is probably the closest to the material used. It could be cloth, or plastic (today).

All the best

Andreas
Now you are speculating. Today it is mostly plastic. It can also mean a cemented/concrete "plane".
What is that supposed to be please? Are you confusing the English use of the word with the German use?

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28Abdeckung%29

I have to remind you again to stop going off on unsupported speculative tangents. Kieser states that Abdeckplanen were to be supplied by the Reichsbahn, such as were used for their open carriages. He does not say anything about them being reinforced in any way (and I am a bit puzzled how this should work). The idea that these would somehow have a protective effect against bullets was introduced by you, presumably because of a misunderstanding of what they are which led to your mistranslation of roof cover. I have now corrected this misunderstanding and provided the correct translation (non-rigid cover). If you want to continue to go down the line of argument that these Planen had a protective effect against bullets, it is up to you to show that they were to be reinforced. Bring the sources, don't speculate. If you don't have any sources, the point remains that the Planen were not supposed to have a protective effect against enemy action (bullets, splinters), but only against the elements.

All the best

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 30 Apr 2007 15:12

John T wrote:So I think this discussion is a bit hypothetical and getting into the Tree rather than woods perspective.
I fully agree with that. I think the point has been settled reasonably well. Barges would have survived strafing attacks and continue to swim. Their freight would have been vulnerable to a degree. Whether FC would have made a major effort attacking barges with fighters is quite questionable - as John says, their would have been a better use/more pressing need for the asset.

All the best

Andreas

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”