Nothing contradicts them either. Of course one problem may be that more is being read into them than is justified. Thus the problem may be with us to some extent as well.Juha Tompuri wrote: Yes, but the text (and the understanding) comes from a non-navy person, and nothing by so far presented fact backs up his claims.
As I mentioned the first time this was brought up I was rather surprised how soon this was a problem. As I see it there are 3 possibilities:Do you believe in the speculation that it would be possible that up to/more than 50% of the mines laid would have been torn loose at the time frame mentioned?LWD wrote: ???? It's clearly not speculation. I was simply pointing out that we have no idea what percentage of the mines would break their cables in the period indicated. Since some WWII minefields lasted well after the war it clearly wasn't 100%. In the context it seems implies that periodic reseeding of the fields would be necessary. Furthermore it's not clear if that number was a general rule of thumb or applied specifially to the conditions in the channel. This isn't speculation is recognizing the limits of the information presented.
1) The above is incorrect or misleading.
2) The above applies in particular to German mines of the time layed in the Channel. One of the other sources I linked noted a number of problems with the German mines of the time and an account I've read of laying the North Sea Barrage in WWI indicated significant mine losses (via premature detonations) during the laying process. The currents and bottom conditions in the Channel might also cause more problems than normal.
3) It was more generally applicable to mine fields of that period.
As for what the percent losses are we can make some estimates based on the fact that such fields were still considered hazards post war in some circumstances. If the loss rate were 50% per week in 6 months less than 1 mine in 1,000,000 would be left. If it was 50% every 2 weeks it would be 1 in 1,000 for 6 months or 1,000,000 for a year. Clearly there would be no post war hazard from such fields. Even 50% in 6 months would leave only 1 in 1,000 after 5 years. So if it's generally applicable we are talking about the earliest possible time for a few mines breaking away. This still tends to suggest 3 is not correct.
It's hard to say anything more about 2 I simplly don't know enough about it.
As for 1 the KM from what I've read did not want to attempt Sea Lion at the same time they didn't want to say no to Hitler. Now this and what follows can readily be called speculation. I have seen documents, indeed one I've linked in this thread I beleive, where the KM complains that they are behind schedule in their mine sweeping due to lack of LW support. Stating that they are short on mines for the use intended would be verifyable and seems to be verafied (although I haven't seen any numbers on captured French mines that might be used). Accentuating this by implying that mines breaking away are more of a problem than it really is could be another ploy to discourage Sea Lion without coming right out and saying "it's a bad idea". The Heer didn't seem all that thrilled with the prospect either so wouldn't be inclined to challenge this.
We are unfortunatly left at least at this point with the above statement. How accurate it is or even exactly what it means are far from clear. On the other hand the numbers of mines that Sea Lion projected using were never laided in the waters they planned on using them so the floating mine problem you suggest never really had a chance to form. Although I believe I have read of a number of ships hitting floating mines during the war and after. Of course during the war it's not always easy to tell if it was a floating mine, a layed mine, or even a torpedo. I would love it if we could get a document that goes into more detail on this and/or someone with knowledge in the area to post here.I really haven't seen any facts that backs up the claim that Channel and the neighbouring waters were full of floating mines every now and then during the war.LWD wrote:It's certainly not as good of data as I would like but at this point it is all we have. If you have more one way or another please present it.
