ships needed for Sealion

German Kriegsmarine 1935-1945.
User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:49 am

There's lots to talk about.
Yes, but in a seperate thread, rather than it being lost within a thread ostensibly about Sealion
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

Michael N. Ryan
Enthusiast
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:10 am

Post by Michael N. Ryan » Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:57 am

I believe this would be part of the thread. We've covered the aspects of Sealion and how it might or might not work. We're basicly satisfied that we've covered everyhing in the operations phase.

This is the Outcome of Sealion if it had worked. The Consequences.

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:21 am

Michael N. Ryan wrote:I believe this would be part of the thread. We've covered the aspects of Sealion and how it might or might not work. We're basicly satisfied that we've covered everyhing in the operations phase.

This is the Outcome of Sealion if it had worked. The Consequences.
Then it belongs in the What If area
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

ak74u
Supporter
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:15 am

Post by ak74u » Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:07 pm

Black Baron wrote:An interesting question to be sure. below is what they did put together for a cross channel trip. 140 tons of material is nuttin to sneeze at. Capture of a usable airfield would be essential to fly in extra supplies. I would imagine U-boats would do commando raids on radar installations prior to launch.



The Naval Landing Crafts - called "Marinefahrprahm" in German were the largest landing craft used by the Kriegsmarine. Although required for Operation Sealion (Invasion of England) in 1940, the first of this transport ships were delivered in 1941. The development of this ship went through several Types (A-D), whose size and armament grew from class to class. They were mainly used for transport and supply duties and not for their initial invasion role and could transport 200 Soldiers or 140 tons of equipment, including Tiger tanks. Marinefahrprahme were used in almost all Kriegsmarine operational areas: the British Channel, the North sea, the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Caspic and the Black sea

Very shallow draft as well which made it impervious to torpedo attack.

Last

do you have any pictures of the Marinefahrprahm
nande Sakura chan

ak74u
Supporter
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:15 am

Post by ak74u » Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:09 pm

ak74u wrote:
Black Baron wrote:An interesting question to be sure. below is what they did put together for a cross channel trip. 140 tons of material is nuttin to sneeze at. Capture of a usable airfield would be essential to fly in extra supplies. I would imagine U-boats would do commando raids on radar installations prior to launch.



The Naval Landing Crafts - called "Marinefahrprahm" in German were the largest landing craft used by the Kriegsmarine. Although required for Operation Sealion (Invasion of England) in 1940, the first of this transport ships were delivered in 1941. The development of this ship went through several Types (A-D), whose size and armament grew from class to class. They were mainly used for transport and supply duties and not for their initial invasion role and could transport 200 Soldiers or 140 tons of equipment, including Tiger tanks. Marinefahrprahme were used in almost all Kriegsmarine operational areas: the British Channel, the North sea, the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Caspic and the Black sea

Very shallow draft as well which made it impervious to torpedo attack.

Last

do you have any pictures of the Marinefahrprahm

oh google @#% yeah


Image
nande Sakura chan

User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:00 pm

question how long did it take to build each Marinefahrprahm and how many could germany build at a time?

User avatar
august
Supporter
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:59 am
Location: florida, usa

Post by august » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:50 pm

more uboats would have helped sealion greatly. the failure to subdue england was hitler's first great blunder.

User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:57 pm

while yes more u boats coud help how do they get tanks over there,

you would really have to work out how much material would go into each production.

eg:100,000 tons a month for u-boats and 50,000 tons a month for Marinefahrprahm.

not that these figures are any were near what they should be.

User avatar
august
Supporter
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:59 am
Location: florida, usa

Post by august » Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:37 pm

i found this info at axishistory.com, a good site! the germans had Submersible/Amphibious Tanks slated for use in sealion.

Three battalions were allocated to the 16th Army and one battalion to the 9th Army. As of 29 August 1940, the four battalions, lettered A-D, totaled 160 PzKpfw III (U) submersible tanks with 37mm guns, 8 PzKpfw III (U) submersible tanks with 50mm guns, 42 PzKpfw IV (U) submersible tanks with 75mm guns, and 52 PzKpfw II (Schwimm) amphibious tanks with 20mm guns. The battalions were organized into three companies of four platoons each. **

** The four panzer battalions (A, B, C, D) later formed Panzer Regiment 18 (I. & II. Abt.) and Panzer Regiment 28 (I. and II. Abt.) under the 1st Panzer Brigade, which was renamed 18th Panzer Brigade and transferred from the 1st Panzer Division to the 18th Panzer Division. Before the launch of Operation “Barbarossa” in June 1941, the Staff/Panzer Regiment 28 was disbanded while I./Panzer Regiment 28 became III./Panzer Regiment 6 (3rd Panzer Division) and II./Panzer Regiment 28 became III./Panzer Regiment 18 (18th Panzer Division).

Transport Fleet “B” (Dunkirk): Vizeadmiral Hermann von Fischel – transporting the first echelons of the 17th and 35th Infantry Divisions and the staff and corps troops, including Panzer Battalions B and D (less one company from the latter), of the XIII Army Corps.
Tow Formation 1 (Dunkirk): Vizeadmiral von Fischel (as well as being the transport fleet commander)
Tow Formation 2 (Ostend): Kapitän zur See Walter Hennecke
Convoy 1 (Ostend): Kapitän zur See Wagner
Convoy 2 (Rotterdam): Kapitän zur See Ernst Schirlitz

Transport Fleet “C” (Calais): Kapitän zur See Gustav Kleikamp – transporting the first echelons of the 1st Mountain Division and the 7th Infantry Division and the staff and corps troops, including Panzer Battalion A, of the VII Army Corps.
Convoy 3 (Antwerp): Kapitän zur See Wesemann

Transport Fleet “D” (Boulogne): Kapitän zur See Werner Lindenau – transporting the first echelons of the 26th and 34th Infantry Divisions and the staff and corps troops, including Panzer Battalion C, of the XXXVIII Army Corps.

Transport Fleet “E” (Le Havre): Kapitän zur See Ernst Scheurlen – transporting the first echelons of the 6th Mountain Division, the 8th and 28th Infantry Divisions and the staff and corps troops, including one company from Panzer Battalion D, of the VIII and X Army Corps.

Echelon 1a (Le Havre): Korvettenkapitän von Jagow (originally designated Convoy 4)

Echelon 1b (Le Havre): Kapitän zur See Ulrich Brocksien (originally designated Convoy 5)

*** Four convoys would be formed for the operation – Convoy I: the steamers Stettiner Greif, Dr. Heinrich Wiegand, and Pommern loading troops of the 69th Infantry Division at Bergen/offloading at Bekkervig, Norway; Convoy II: the steamers Steinburg, Bugsee, Ilse LM Russ, and Flottbeck loading troops of the 214th Infantry Division at Stavanger/offloading at Haugesund, Norway; Convoy III: the steamers Iller, Sabine, Howaldt, and Lumme loading troops of the 214th Infantry Division at Arendal/offloading at Kristiansand, Norway; Convoy IV: the liners Europa and Bremen simulating loading troops at Wesermünde and the liners Gneisenau and Potsdam loading troops at Hamburg/offloading at Cuxhaven.

User avatar
august
Supporter
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:59 am
Location: florida, usa

Post by august » Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:42 pm

sorry, bit of a tech glitch. transport fleet "B" was based at dunkirk, fleet "C" at calais, fleet "D" at boulogne, and fleet "E" at le havre.

User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:49 pm

thanks for the info,

User avatar
august
Supporter
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:59 am
Location: florida, usa

Post by august » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:59 pm

Mit Vergnugen!

User avatar
Leandros
Supporter
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:54 am
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Leandros » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:07 am

august wrote:more uboats would have helped sealion greatly. the failure to subdue england was hitler's first great blunder.
Quite a few German subs were available for Sealion. Dønitz was set at using all his resources for the operation. As such, I believe his thinking was correct. If the operation had succeeded it wouldn't have mattered how many boats he lost, how many crews were delayed in training or new boats not readied for service.

Fred
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

lwd
Enthusiast
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: ships needed for Sealion

Post by lwd » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:24 am

According to http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1145 the number was 27. Not what I would consider "quite a few". Had they deployed for SeaLion it's not at all clear how many would still have been operational by the time they were needed either.

User avatar
Leandros
Supporter
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:54 am
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: ships needed for Sealion

Post by Leandros » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:37 am

lwd wrote:According to http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1145 the number was 27. Not what I would consider "quite a few". Had they deployed for SeaLion it's not at all clear how many would still have been operational by the time they were needed either.
I have seen that figure before and it would be interesting to know how they arrived at it.

Fred
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

Post Reply