Maps for Seelöwe

Feldgrau's WWII operational map project, map research, archives, tools and techniques, and research requests.

Moderator: Abicht

Rich
Associate
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 9:36 am
Location: Somewhere Else Now

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Rich » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:22 pm

Leandros wrote:In my book I have lined it up like this:
This is the kind of thing that gives me gas. Need to justify a crackpot assumption – that an ad hoc conglomeration of AA guns in ad hoc mountings on an ad hoc flotilla floating off the British Isles will shoot down all and sundry aircraft the RAF sends against it? All you need to do is haul a convenient author off the shelf, extract a random factoid that seems to bear a relationship to the question – after all, its British airplanes being shot down by German flak right? No need to do anything messy like, oh, think about it or do some actual research on what happened in detail to see if it matches the crackpot assumption…

Okay, so what do we have? What happened?

The first attack on the Gaulier Bridge by British forces from the AASF was in the morning as streams of German equipment were crossing. The two squadrons dispatched at 0500 encountered heavy flak but no fighters.

No. 103 Squadron with eight Battles had one badly damaged that crashed on landing.
No. 150 Squadron with ten Battles lost none.
1 of 18 lost, to flak (5.6%)

The second attack in the afternoon encountered both heavy fighter and flak opposition.

17 aircraft of No. 71 and 76 Wing went in first.
No. 150 Squadron launched at 1520 with 4 Battles. All were lost, cause unknown.
No. 12 Squadron launched at 1527-1533 with 5 Battles. Four were lost, cause unknown.
No. 142 Squadron launched c. 1520-1530 with 8 Battles. Four were lost, three causes unknown, one to small arms fire.
12 of 17 were lost, one to small arms fire (8.3%)

The second group was from all three wings:
No. 103 Squadron launched at 1530 with 8 Battles. Three aircraft were lost, one confirmed to a Bf-109, one confirmed to flak, and one unknown.
No. 105 Squadron launched at 1540 with 11 Battles. Seven aircraft were lost, cause unknown.
No. 88 Squadron launched 10 Battles. One aircraft was lost and one damaged (and later abandoned), cause unknown.
No. 218 Squadron launched 11 Battles. Five were lost, one to small arms fire, the rest cause unknown.
No. 114 Squadron launched 2 Blenheims. One was lost, cause unknown.
No. 139 Squadron launched 6 Blenheims. Four were lost, one to fighters, three to causes unknown.
21 of 48 were lost, two to flak (7.7%) and two to fighters (7.7%)

In fact, 33 of 65 aircraft participating in the second attack were lost, plus one damaged and later abandoned. The confusion in most accounts appears to be that the RAF reported 33 Battles and 5 Blenheims lost in total on 14 May (and one Battle damaged), but only 34 aircraft were actually recorded as lost or abandoned by the squadrons involved. The error seems to be in No. 218 Squadron. Usually it is reported it lost ten, but that appears to be incorrect. Furthermore, as noted, the number launched is also probably incorrect, since the squadron had already lost at least seven aircraft by 14 May and only had an IE of 16. Otherwise, the remaining five were probably damaged or abandoned aircraft written off that day. In any case, it matters little since overall the losses for the day were still catastrophic and essentially no different than the usually accepted count of 38 (or 40) lost of 71.

In any case, there is simply no way to make the assumption that German flak was the primary cause of loss. In the morning attack, when no German fighters were reported present, losses were negligible. In the afternoon attack more aircraft were lost, but the sample where cause of loss is identified is so small to be almost meaningless. It is possible to claim that 3 were lost to flak and 2 to fighters out of the 33 lost, but that is about it.

Of course, then it must be considered that the Gaulier Bridge and the German columns crossing it (2. Panzer advancing west from south of Donchery, 1. Panzer advancing west and south from Chehery, and 10. Panzer advancing south from Wadelincourt) occupied a target area roughly ten by fifteen kilometers. That was defended by 303 flak guns: 36 8.8cm, 36 3.7cm, and 231 2cm (three mixed and four light battalions, plus three divisional light batteries) for the corps of three divisions. Compare that to the typical corps landing force in Seelöwe – one mixed battalion and two light batteries, 12 8.8cm and 45 2cm, covering perhaps a twenty by ten kilometer area.

In essence you have, yet again, extracted a pineapple and a banana from your bag of tricks and declared that, because they are both fruits, they are one and the same.

Cheers!

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:08 am

phylo_roadking wrote:
And I note you're neglecting the expensive fiasco at Oslo-Fornebu...it was THAT attack that however expensive lasted only half an hour[/i]
Thank you for ýour information, I shall go through it. As for Fornebu it was left out because it was not attacked by the FJ's but by infantry arriving in transports. The FJ's had turned back because of the weather.
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:10 am

Rich wrote:
Leandros wrote:In my book I have lined it up like this:
This is the kind of thing that gives me gas. Need to justify a crackpot assumption – that an ad hoc conglomeration of AA guns in ad hoc mountings on an ad hoc flotilla floating off the British Isles will shoot down all and sundry aircraft the RAF sends against it? All you need to do is haul a convenient author off the shelf, extract a random factoid that seems to bear a relationship to the question – after all, its British airplanes being shot down by German flak right? No need to do anything messy like, oh, think about it or do some actual research on what happened in detail to see if it matches the crackpot assumption…
Are my numbers wrong....?
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:15 am

lwd wrote:I also note earlier I questioned the 3,200 modified barges. This is a lot more than I have seen anywhere else. Indeed in this thread:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... t=sea+lion
you mention 2,400 modified barges.
That posting is 4 years ago.....I might be wrong, I might be correct - checking. Thank you for posting.

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

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:48 am

lwd wrote:
Leandros wrote:... I would like this to be an ad for my book, yes.... :D ....there you shall find it all in context....
Actually I won't because I have no intention of buying your book or obtaining it through other means for that matter. The combination of continuous bias and this marketing campaign have convinced me that it's of little value.
Sorry about that - you cannot slaughter it properly before you have it, you know... :D

To all the fancy details on the German air-launched torpedoes I would like to post a passus from the operations of the Küstenflieger units of Marinegruppe West - per my book.

Finally, a transcript of the War Diary of the See-Luftstreitkräfte West, fall of 1040. These units operated separate from the Stavanger-based Küstenfliegers.

Sep. 15th – He115 obtains a torpedo hit on a 5.000 tons merchant
Oct. 20th - He115’s from 3./506 Gruppe reports 3 merchants sunk
Nov. 11th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – blew up
Nov. 14th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – result inconclusive
Nov. 15th – Torpedo hit on ammunition ship – blew up
Nov. 18th – 8.000 tons ship hit by torpedo

Other attacks are mentioned in general terms. Only in the first half of November 73 torpedo aircrafts from 13 squadrons (staffeln) flew 113 missions. One plane was lost, two crew members wounded. In the period Oct. 1st to Nov. 19th 48 torpedo attacks were executed, resulting in 15 sinking. Comparing this with bombs dropped relative to hit these are very good statistics, even more so when comparing the lethality of a torpedo hit to a bomb. Finally:

Dec. 20th – Three merchants estimated at 15.000 tons size sunk by air-launched torpedoes.

Mind you - this is taken from their war diaries. In addition came the operations performed by the Staffeln of the 506 Gruppe operating out of Sola/Stavanger.

So, in spite all the alleged problems with torpedo supplies there was quite a lot of activity.
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:43 am

lwd wrote:Actually I won't because I have no intention of buying your book or obtaining it through other means for that matter. The combination of continuous bias and this marketing campaign have convinced me that it's of little value.
I am sorry about that. As a matter of fact I don't think my bias is any worse than the constant bias which has been hammered in since the end of the war. As is stated in the subtitle of my book: A new perspective on Operation Sea Lion, it is exactly that - a new perspective - in the sense that where the history can be read in a changing light I have not always chosen the normal solution - the Allied one, and it should be read in the context outlined by me. It is no secret that the Victors write the history, more so with anything else, WW2, as the losers stood left bare with so little honour in the end.
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by phylo_roadking » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:01 am

Thank you for ýour information, I shall go through it. As for Fornebu it was left out because it was not attacked by the FJ's but by infantry arriving in transports. The FJ's had turned back because of the weather
And what aircraft were the men of 22nd Airlanding being carried in???
Sep. 15th – He115 obtains a torpedo hit on a 5.000 tons merchant
Oct. 20th - He115’s from 3./506 Gruppe reports 3 merchants sunk
Nov. 11th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – blew up
Nov. 14th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – result inconclusive
Nov. 15th – Torpedo hit on ammunition ship – blew up
Nov. 18th – 8.000 tons ship hit by torpedo
So, in spite all the alleged problems with torpedo supplies there was quite a lot of activity
Check out the dates, and the vessels attacked - what do you see???
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:18 am

phylo_roadking wrote:Check out the dates, and the vessels attacked - what do you see???
You tell me...
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

Rich
Associate
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 9:36 am
Location: Somewhere Else Now

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Rich » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:52 am

Leandros wrote:Are my numbers wrong....?
As always, you avoid the question and the point. Sophistry isn't analysis.

Cheers!

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:03 am

Rich wrote:
Leandros wrote:Are my numbers wrong....?
As always, you avoid the question and the point. Sophistry isn't analysis.

Cheers!
I have read what you have written and I have no obligations to comment on them. I also react to your constant insults.

Are my numbers wrong? See, just a question - no insult. It is possible.
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

Rich
Associate
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 9:36 am
Location: Somewhere Else Now

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Rich » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:16 am

Leandros wrote:Finally, a transcript of the War Diary of the See-Luftstreitkräfte West, fall of 1040. These units operated separate from the Stavanger-based Küstenfliegers.

Sep. 15th – He115 obtains a torpedo hit on a 5.000 tons merchant
Oct. 20th - He115’s from 3./506 Gruppe reports 3 merchants sunk
Nov. 11th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – blew up
Nov. 14th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – result inconclusive
Nov. 15th – Torpedo hit on ammunition ship – blew up
Nov. 18th – 8.000 tons ship hit by torpedo

Other attacks are mentioned in general terms. Only in the first half of November 73 torpedo aircrafts from 13 squadrons (staffeln) flew 113 missions. One plane was lost, two crew members wounded. In the period Oct. 1st to Nov. 19th 48 torpedo attacks were executed, resulting in 15 sinking. Comparing this with bombs dropped relative to hit these are very good statistics, even more so when comparing the lethality of a torpedo hit to a bomb. Finally:

Dec. 20th – Three merchants estimated at 15.000 tons size sunk by air-launched torpedoes.

Mind you - this is taken from their war diaries. In addition came the operations performed by the Staffeln of the 506 Gruppe operating out of Sola/Stavanger.

So, in spite all the alleged problems with torpedo supplies there was quite a lot of activity.
Yep, you still have absolutely no clue what is wrong with your methodology.

From 1 July to 9 August the Kanalkampffuehrer, Johannes Fink, dispatched 1,300 anti-shipping sorties, supported by Frya and including the main effort of Richtofen's Stukas, and they managed to sink 28 ships totaling 54,109 GRT.

Ships Sunk/GRT/German KG Sorties (bombing/minelaying)

July 25/50,528/
August 10/50,151/239/246
September 10/47,675/90/279
October 7/36,325/60/610
November 18/66,398/23/605
December 4/13,045/8/192

As far as torpedo strikes go, Bruch had a single Staffel, for which SKL claimed on 17 October 1940 that they had sunk 82,000 GRT in 45 missions. In reality, in November KuFlGr 706 torpedoed 7 ships, sinking 5 (18,085 GRT) and damaging 2.

Cheers!

Rich
Associate
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 9:36 am
Location: Somewhere Else Now

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Rich » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:28 am

Leandros wrote:I have read what you have written and I have no obligations to comment on them. I also react to your constant insults.

Are my numbers wrong? See, just a question - no insult. It is possible.
Where is the insult? Sophistry - a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. You have taken two completely unrelated events - British air attacks on the Sedan bridges and the losses they incurred along with a hypothetical air attack on a Seelöwe assault force - and drawn conclusions from them. Worse, you have taken "numbers" that are at best contradictory and claimed certainty for them - 56% losses due to German flak is your conclusion. That is fallacious reasoning.

Now you have decided that German aerial torpedoes existed (and conflated that someone told you they didn't) and that since the SKL claimed sinkings for their aerial torpedoes that the Luftwaffe torpedo arm was a potential battle winner. Ditto the M35's. You still can's see the glaring logical fallacy in that line of reasoning - and that is sophistry rather than reasoning. If it is insulting to you that it is constantly being factually pointed out that your arguments are sophistry, then perhaps you need to improve your methodology rather than protest that you are being insulted.

Cheers!

Rich
Associate
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 9:36 am
Location: Somewhere Else Now

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Rich » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:52 am

Leandros wrote:That posting is 4 years ago.....I might be wrong, I might be correct - checking. Thank you for posting.
Fred, I honestly am not trying to be insulting, but my irritation with you has always stemed directly from your inability to realize just how damning such a statement - made by yourself - actually is. Four years later and you still don't actually know what you "know"? Four years after being given countless clues you still - after your book has been published - are unaware of the basic facts and sources regarding British defense measures and have to rely on amateur hobbyist's accounts of fortifications and sixty year-old books? Have you even bothered to do research at Kew?

Cheers

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

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by Leandros » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:00 am

Sorry, I have to give you this one, too..... :wink: ...then my time is out, I have to keep on with my new projects now.
Rich wrote:Where is the insult? Sophistry - a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. You have taken two completely unrelated events - British air attacks on the Sedan bridges and the losses they incurred along with a hypothetical air attack on a Seelöwe assault force - and drawn conclusions from them. Worse, you have taken "numbers" that are at best contradictory and claimed certainty for them - 56% losses due to German flak is your conclusion. That is fallacious reasoning.
Sorry I see no wrong in such a conclusion. For all we know their losses during a Sea Lion could have been even higher. What is at best contradictory with the numbers I have claimed certainty for? I have referred to Ellis. These are not something out of my fantasy. Please inform me.
Rich wrote:Now you have decided that German aerial torpedoes existed (and conflated that someone told you they didn't) and that since the SKL claimed sinkings for their aerial torpedoes that the Luftwaffe torpedo arm was a potential battle winner.
This is not what I have done. This is what you think, or prefer to think, I have done. I have referred to the war diaries of the Küstenflieger units in Sektor West (BSW). Did not German aerial torpedoes exist? Who told me they didn't exist? How could they not exist with the number of missions flown. I have not claimed they were potential battle winners but that they were in fact existing - and well, in spite of Gørings efforts to have them castrated.
Rich wrote:Ditto the M35's. You still can't see the glaring logical fallacy in that line of reasoning - and that is sophistry rather than reasoning. If it is insulting to you that it is constantly being factually pointed out that your arguments are sophistry, then perhaps you need to improve your methodology rather than protest that you are being insulted.!
Ditto above.... :[] ....No M35's were lost to RN surface vessels untill summer of '43 (MTB) even if they were in constant use as escorts along the French coast. End of 1942 twenty-two were in service only in that area (Befehlshaber See West). I have seen no reasons to check any further as I do not find it relevant. This is information. And my point is still to point to them because it is rarely done. As for minesweeping during an eventual Sea Lion there were dozens of auxilliary minesweepers in addition to these.
http://www.fredleander.com - buy my book on Operation Sea Lion

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: Maps for Seelöwe

Post by phylo_roadking » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:10 am

You tell me...
Sep. 15th – He115 obtains a torpedo hit on a 5.000 tons merchant
Oct. 20th - He115’s from 3./506 Gruppe reports 3 merchants sunk
Nov. 11th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – blew up
Nov. 14th – Merchant hit by air-launched torpedo – result inconclusive
Nov. 15th – Torpedo hit on ammunition ship – blew up
Nov. 18th – 8.000 tons ship hit by torpedo
Further up the thread you were told that the air-dropped torpedoes available to the Germans were relatively slowmoving...and just by chance their successes (AFTER the putative Sealion date!) are all against equally slow-moving merchant shipping?

Where are the necessary successes against fastmoving destroyer-class naval vessels? Necessary that is to demonstrate that such a tactic would be as effective as you say against the RN, rather than the Merchant Navy??? Ships fast enough to manouver to turn into/avoid incoming torpedoes AND heavily-protected with AA?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

Post Reply