Defensive armament of the German freighters planned for Operation Sea Lion

[Leandros]

In connection with my continuous studies on Unternehmen Seelöwe I again hope to take advantage of your genuine knowledge of the Kriegsmarine. I am looking for references on the various armaments, and crewing, of the more than 150 German freighters which were marked out to participate in this operation.

As I have understood it the Navy only took responsibility for what AA defense was available while the army sought to enhance the anti-ship defense with their own artillery and artillery personnel. Also to use equipment that was later to be landed. Much the same as the bow arming on some tugs.

I am not interested in opinions on whether this would be effective or not, I can draw my own conslusions on that, but the cold facts of equipment and manning.

Anybody? Links to books, articles and studies.

Regds

Fred

[Knouterer]

According to Schenk, the Kriegsmarine installed only light AA guns on a number of freighters. On 19 ships, the army installed a variety of 75 mm field  guns (German French, Belgian and Polish) on wooden "homebuilt" platforms. The 17th ID even constructed a kind of turntables to permit traverse.
However, this was only done in October and November 1940, after the "window of opportunity" had closed.

In my (unsolicited) opinion, even with this makeshift armament, the survivability of these ships would not have been high, they were certainly not comparable to the purpose-built attack transports of the US Navy or the Landing Ships Infantry (Large) of the Royal Navy ("Glen" class).

In particular, while they were at anchor and unloading (up to two days according to German calculations) they would have been static and defenseless targets, both for the British artillery on land, and for the guns and torpedos of the Royal Navy.

You can easily imagine MTB's dashing in and out of Portsmouth all day to reload and sink some more.

In fact, a single destroyer with 1000 4.7" shells and a load of torpedoes on board could have sunk all 160 of them in a day, if it had been allowed to work unhindered;

[Leandros]

According to Schenk, the Kriegsmarine installed only light AA guns on a number of freighters. On 19 ships, the army installed a variety of 75 mm field  guns (German French, Belgian and Polish) on wooden "homebuilt" platforms. The 17th ID even constructed a kind of turntables to permit traverse.
However, this was only done in October and November 1940, after the "window of opportunity" had closed.

In my (unsolicited) opinion, even with this makeshift armament, the survivability of these ships would not have been high, they were certainly not comparable to the purpose-built attack transports of the US Navy or the Landing Ships Infantry (Large) of the Royal Navy ("Glen" class).

In particular, while they were at anchor and unloading (up to two days according to German calculations) they would have been static and defenseless targets, both for the British artillery on land, and for the guns and torpedos of the Royal Navy.

You can easily imagine MTB's dashing in and out of Portsmouth all day to reload and sink some more.

In fact, a single destroyer with 1000 4.7" shells and a load of torpedoes on board could have sunk all 160 of them in a day, if it had been allowed to work unhindered;

Thank you for your response.  As stated in my introductory posting I wasn't looking for opinions as I have my very own on this subject..... A general discussion on Sea Lion here shall only cloud the issue – hard information. I have Schenk's information (book) and am looking for something less general - thank you.

That said, I must ask: Which MTB's dashing in and out of Portsmouth all day...? We are in September 1940 and to my knowledge the RN wasn't even allowed to venture out in the Channel during daytime... According to a British author on naval subjects the RN's Light Forces at this time was called the Light Farces by their contemporaries.....As opposed to their adversaries.....


Fred

[Knouterer]

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that the Royal Navy would not have "ventured out into the Channel" once the invasion had started.

Concerning coastal forces, I grant they were in an embryonal stage, so to speak, no MGBs and a limited number of MTBs (maybe 20 or so, including French, Dutch and Norwegian vessels) but torpedoing ships at anchor a few miles from your home port is not particularly difficult of course.

I recommend "Coastal Forces at War" by David Jefferson. 

[Leandros]

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that the Royal Navy would not have "ventured out into the Channel" once the invasion had started.

Yes, I do. As you well know they did not venture out in daylight when there was an actual invasion "scare". Also, the night after this scare the RN only managed to put up a couple of small patrols. The reason they did not dare operate in daylight in the Channel was, of course, the Luftwaffe.

Concerning coastal forces, I grant they were in an embryonal stage, so to speak, no MGBs and a limited number of MTBs (maybe 20 or so, including French, Dutch and Norwegian vessels) but torpedoing ships at anchor a few miles from your home port is not particularly difficult of course.

If you get there. They were not able to touch German traffic on the other side of the Channel to any particular degree untill middle of 1941. Even a shorter distance.

Well, this thread was established to hopefully get some more details on the arming of the German Sea Lion transports. Anybody? I am planning to buy the new German book on German landing crafts but have not come around to it. Does anybody know if this book contains any such information?

Fred

[Urs Heßling]

hi, Fred,

They were not able to touch German traffic on the other side of the Channel to any particular degree untill middle of 1941.

I disagree. Allow me to point out my source from this forum http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php?topic=4256.msg57947

and,from the "Chronik" :
11.– 12.10.1940
Kanal
...
In der Nacht zum 12.10. versenken die brit. Schnellboote MTB 22, MTB 31 und MTB 32 vor Calais die »Seelöwe«-Fischdampfer Nordenham und Brandenburg. Beide fuhren als Seenotschiffe für Flieger.

greetings, Urs

[Leandros]

hi, Fred,

They were not able to touch German traffic on the other side of the Channel to any particular degree untill middle of 1941.

I disagree. Allow me to point out my source from this forum http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php?topic=4256.msg57947

and,from the "Chronik" :
11.– 12.10.1940
Kanal
...
In der Nacht zum 12.10. versenken die brit. Schnellboote MTB 22, MTB 31 und MTB 32 vor Calais die »Seelöwe«-Fischdampfer Nordenham und Brandenburg. Beide fuhren als Seenotschiffe für Flieger.

greetings, Urs

Hi, Urs - I do not find that to be of any "particular degree". Particularly when we compare with what happened on the other side of the Channel.......

Regds

Fred

[Leandros]

hi, Fred,

They were not able to touch German traffic on the other side of the Channel to any particular degree untill middle of 1941.

I disagree. Allow me to point out my source from this forum http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php?topic=4256.msg57947

and,from the "Chronik" :
11.– 12.10.1940
Kanal
...
In der Nacht zum 12.10. versenken die brit. Schnellboote MTB 22, MTB 31 und MTB 32 vor Calais die »Seelöwe«-Fischdampfer Nordenham und Brandenburg. Beide fuhren als Seenotschiffe für Flieger.

greetings, Urs

Anything on the armaments of the transports, Urs...?

[Urs Heßling]

hi, Fred,

Hi, Urs - I do not find that to be of any "particular degree". Particularly when we compare with what happened on the other side of the Channel.......

well, we are both entitled to our opinions ... 

Facts for my line: Between Sep 15 and Dec 31, 1940 ...
- British MTB sank 4 ships (2 trawlers, 2 transports) with a total of 12,500 grt
- German E-boats sank 4 freighters with a total of 11,500 grt and torpedoed 2 more with 6,500 grt

I´d call that comparable ...

Anything on the armaments of the transports, Urs...?

sorry, no.

greetings, Urs

[Leandros]

well, we are both entitled to our opinions ... 

Facts for my line: Between Sep 15 and Dec 31, 1940 ...
- British MTB sank 4 ships (2 trawlers, 2 transports) with a total of 12,500 grt
- German E-boats sank 4 freighters with a total of 11,500 grt and torpedoed 2 more with 6,500 grt

I´d call that comparable

greetings, Urs

Oh, yes - very lucky with those anchored ships. When was the next success for the RN MTB's........? I know, I believe they had a break till Sept. '41. As had the S-boat units for much of the period you mention. Mostly mining operations, rescue service - oh, and the weather. But, before this period they a had several destroyers on their claim sheet, including the venerable Kelly. Oh, yes, she didn't sink but was out of business for many months. That would have been good enough in a Sea Lion scenario.

Fred

[Doveton]

Personally, it is my opinion that simple statements without supporting evidence are never satisfactory.

Perhaps, therefore, you would assist us by telling us the names of the various destroyers, together with the dates of the incidents.

Incidentally, in the early days the light forces were actually called 'Coastal Forces' and referred to as 'Costly Farces' by the regular Navy. Whilst boat for boat an S-Boat was superior to an MTB or MGB, there were a lot more MTBs and MGBs, and the nickname was long forgotten by the mid-war period.

Anyway, names & dates please!

[Urs Heßling]

hi,

Whilst boat for boat an S-Boat was superior to an MTB or MGB,

thank you from an old FPB driver and S-Boot fan; for pure seakeeping qualities, that´s true, but I am willing to concede that in 1940 the MTB´s gun armament was, probably, superior. This changed somewhat with the introduction of the 20 mm gun in the bow of the S-boats.

Afaik, prior to "Seelöwe" the S-boats in the West had sunk in the week of May 24-31, the French DD Jaguar, Scirocco and Cyclone and, during DYNAMO, the (old) British Wakeful, not any more.

greetings, Urs

[AndreasB]

Technically, I believe they sank a lot more prior to Seeloewe, since it has yet to be executed. 

All the best

Andreas

[AndreasB]

Oh, yes - very lucky with those anchored ships.

Here's what Seekrieg and RN Day by Day has to offer for sinkings.  It does appear that H-32 was not anchored when attacked?

1.12.1940
Nordsee
Der dt. Frachter Santos (ex »Seelöwe«-Transporter H41, 5943 BRT) wird in der Schelde-Mündung vom brit. MTB 31 (Lt. Jermain) mit Wasserbomben beschädigt und sinkt, wird später aber gehoben und wieder in Fahrt gebracht. (From Jermain's obituary: "Two months later his MTB was the only survivor of a flotilla which ran into a convoy off the Scheldt. Jermain's torpedo-firing mechanism failed but, selecting the largest target, he made a depth-charge attack while his gunners fired upwards at anyone who put his head over the merchant ship's gunwales."

18.12.1940: Um 04:40 Uhr wird H-32 in der Schelde Mündung auf der Rückgabefahrt auf Position 51°25'N, 03°28'05''O durch MTB-29 und MTB-32 (MTB-29 trifft mit einem Torpedo mittschiffs, MTB-32 mit einem Torpedo das Heckversenkt. Um 09:55 Uhr läuft das Geleit mit H-31 ein. An dem britischen Angriff waren MTB-29, MTB-31 und MTB-32 beteiligt

7 January 1941
Motor torpedo boats MTB.32 and MTB.34 laid minefield PW.1 in Zuydcote Pass.
German torpedo boats KONDOR and WOLF laid minefield RENATE off Dover on the 7th.
Returning, torpedo boat WOLF was mined and sunk north of Dunkirk in British minefield PW.1 on the 7th.

23.7.1941
Kanal
Das deutsche Vorpostenboot V 1508 / Rau III wird südwestl. Boulogne von einem brit. MTB mit Torpedos versenkt.

There were other operations.

All the best

Andreas

[Knouterer]

Well ... I'm very happy to see that Mr Leander is willing to concede that British MTBs actually existed and could "get lucky with anchored ships". If Sea Lion had been launched, there would have been plenty of German anchored ships to choose from, just off the British coast (supposing they would have made it that far) and within convenient distance of the MTB bases, so perhaps we can agree that they probably would have bagged, say, half a dozen or so?

And before we get into that again: I don't think any of the hundreds of British MTBs and MGBs launched during the war was ever sunk by a Stuka (or any other German aircraft, probably) while moving at speed. Apart from the fact that they usually operated at night.