Defensive armament of the German freighters planned for Operation Sea Lion

[Urs Heßling]

hi, Andreas,

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

very good  almost a classic return  ... I agree 

greetings, Urs

[Leandros]

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

Not to forget the "Kelly" - I'd say virtually sunk since it was out of service till Dec. '40?

I believe the S-boats also sunk another RN destroyer early 1941. Compared with that the S-38 was destroyed by a destroyer in Nov. '40. After that I do not believe any S-boats were totally destroyed by enemy action (except mines) untill 1942 (not by destroyers, anyway). I might be wrong.

I have this detailed in my book and can please everybody here that they now have a new chance of making a bargain at eBay - I have put up another no-reserve auction of my book:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/280821331189?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

Regds

Fred

Hmm....this thread was to be about the arming of the German Seelöwe freighters. Perhaps general opinions on Seelöwe can be posted on the "Seelöwe" thread.......

[Leandros]

.....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.

greetings, Urs

Hi, Urs - I cannot go along with you on this one. In the actual period the heaviest armament of the RN MTB's was the .303 Lewis machine gun. I do not believe they had received the .50 calibre Browning as of yet. Please correct me if I am wrong. The German 20 mm, even if mounted on the rear deck, was a much more powerful weapon than the Lewis. To my knowledge the S-boats also carried with them 2 MG34's that could be mounted on each side of the bridge. Before the bow 20 mm came into action I believe they also occasionaly mounted an MG34 on the foredeck.

To be a little pricky I would even say the MG34 was a better weapon than the Lewis. It had a higher rate of fire, quick-change barrel and its ammo belts could be spliced in indefinite lengths........ Quite handy on a weapon with such a rate of fire.

In September '40 the RN MTB's could not, according to Scott, achieve more than 24-25 knots. That brings them almost within the speed range of the German R-boat which was definitely heavier armed than the MTB's. Quite a lot of R-boats were assigned as escorts for Seelöwe. Around 30, I believe. Rather more than the number of serviceable MTB's at the time. Engine reliability is mentioned by Scott as a definite problem.

The MGB's were something different, they were built from the start with heavier armament even if  slower. But, they weren't there!

Anybody anything on the arming of the Seelöwe transports.......

[Doveton]

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.
[/quote]

Just for information:-

The actual strength of British Coastal Forces in Mid-September 1940 was as follows:-

M.T.Bs. :   40 in service, of which 19 were British Power Boat vessels, capable of 33 knots , 2 were Vospers capable of 28 knots, 2 Vospers capable of 35 knots, and 17 a mixture of Vosper and Thornycroft boats capable of 40 knots.

M.G.Bs.:  28 in service, of which 25 were British Power Boat vessels. 9 of these were capable of 23 knots, the remainder of 40 knots. 2 further vessels were French built (by VTB) and requisitioned ny the RN. These were capable of 45 knots. A final vessel was a Higgins type, capable of 40 knots. Armament generally consisted of one 2 pounder gun plus 4 x 0.303 inch or 0.50 inch machine guns.

M.Ls. :  11 Fairmile 'A' types, capable of 25 knots, and 5 Fairmile 'B' types, capable of 20 knots. Both types were armed with one 3 pounder and 2 x 0.303 inch machines guns. There were also a number of private fast launches, generally capable of 25 knots or more, which had been requisitioned and similarly armed.

Incidentally, all of the above, with the possible exception of the Fairmile 'B' type, were faster than the typical 'R' boat. Not that this matters much because when escorting the barge trains the 'R' boats would have been restricted by the the convoy speed in any case.

I have not included the large number of Harbour Defence Motor Launches and Motor Anti-Submarine vessels, both navy built and requisitioned, as these generally came under local, rather than Coastal Forces, command.

The 'get lucky' comment is fairly typical of the manner in which Mr. Leander demonstrates his vitriolic anti-British attitude, and the manner in which he constantly belittles or ignores any British achievement. It rather demonstrates his lack of objectivity which renders most of his conclusions meaningless.

However, perhaps I should let other contributors make their own minds up on this particular point!     

[Urs Heßling]

hi,

.....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.

Hi, Urs - I cannot go along with you on this one. .... The MGB's were something different, they were built from the start with heavier armament even if  slower. But, they weren't there!

yes, I`m sorry, I goofed and wrote MTB instead of MGB. But ... they were "there" !

greetings, Urs

[Leandros]

hi, yes, I`m sorry, I goofed and wrote MTB instead of MGB. But ... they were "there" !

greetings, Urs

Not, I believe, in September 1940. Please see link.

http://www.bmpt.org.uk/boat%20histories/Motor%20Gun%20Boats/MGB-81/index.htm

Regds

Fred

[Leandros]

Since I am the instigator of this thread I think I am in the right to, at least, request that general postings on Unternehmen Seelöwe are made on the proper thread. I have here asked for proper information on the armaments of the Seelöwe transport fleet, not opinions.

Fred

[AndreasB]

Just for information:-

The actual strength of British Coastal Forces in Mid-September 1940 was as follows:-

Hi Doveton

Excellent info, and by the looks of it far more reliable than Peter Scott, no matter how splendid his book is. Could I ask what the source for this is, and maybe have a bit more info on the MGBs (flotilla, station, etc.)

Many thanks!

All the best
Andreas

[Leandros]

Just for information:-

The actual strength of British Coastal Forces in Mid-September 1940 was as follows:-

Hi Doveton

Excellent info, and by the looks of it far more reliable than Peter Scott, no matter how splendid his book is. Could I ask what the source for this is, and maybe have a bit more info on the MGBs (flotilla, station, etc.)

Many thanks!

All the best
Andreas

Excellent info - for 1941......

Fred

[Doveton]

Just for information:-

The actual strength of British Coastal Forces in Mid-September 1940 was as follows:-

Hi Doveton

Excellent info, and by the looks of it far more reliable than Peter Scott, no matter how splendid his book is. Could I ask what the source for this is, and maybe have a bit more info on the MGBs (flotilla, station, etc.)

Many thanks!

All the best
Andreas

Excellent info - for 1941......

Fred

The information is correct for Mid September 1940, as I stated. If you claim to know otherwise then prove it.

[Doveton]

Since I am the instigator of this thread I think I am in the right to, at least, request that general postings on Unternehmen Seelöwe are made on the proper thread. I have here asked for proper information on the armaments of the Seelöwe transport fleet, not opinions.

Fred

Which would be fine had you not introduced two inaccurate statements in the same post, about British Coastal Forces. All Knouterer did was challenge your errors.

Most people do the research and then write the book. How refreshing that you have taken the opposite course!

[Doveton]

Just for information:-

The actual strength of British Coastal Forces in Mid-September 1940 was as follows:-

Hi Doveton

Excellent info, and by the looks of it far more reliable than Peter Scott, no matter how splendid his book is. Could I ask what the source for this is, and maybe have a bit more info on the MGBs (flotilla, station, etc.)

Many thanks!

All the best
Andreas

The best source for the Royal Navy of WW2 is a book called 'British & Empire Warships of the Second World War' by H.T. Lenton. It is a very big, very heavy book, almost 800 pages long, full of technical detail, covering everything from Capital Ships to Motor Fishing Vessels, and including requisitioned civilian vessels (well over 1000 trawlers and drifters alone). It was published by Greenhill Books of London and the Naval Institute Press of Annapolis, USA.

I have had my copy for many years, and have yet to find a factual error. Absolutely superb!

[AndreasB]

Thank you!

All the best

Andreas

[Knouterer]

To get back to the original question: I find that Vol 7 of Gröner's "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945" gives a useful list of all the freighters assigned to Sea Lion. A little cross-referencing gives the following result for armament - assuming for the sake of argument that the armament indicated was in fact installed in Sept. 1940. The ? are ships that are classed by Gröner and co as ship types other than Transporter and are therefore depicted and described (in other volumes) with the armament (if any) they carried in that (later) role.
For the Rotterdam convoy:

RO1, 2, 3, 4: unarmed;
RO5 (Aludra, 4930 BRT): 4 x 20 mm;
RO6 (Vesta, 1854 BRT): 1 x 20 mm, 2 x MG;
RO7 (Orestes, 2663 BRT): 2 x 75 mm (possibly Dutch naval guns?), 2 x MG;
RO8 (Irene, 1153 BRT): 2 x 20 mm;
RO9 (Orion, 1722 BRT): 1 x 88 mm, 1 x 20 mm, 2 x MG;
RO10, 11: unarmed;
RO12 (Damsterdijk): ? (Zielschiff) (similar to RO13 Drechtdijk, so perhaps similar armament);
RO13 (Drechtdijk, 9338 BRT): 8 x 20 mm;
RO14 (Kota Pinang, ? BRT): 4 x 20 mm;
RO15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20: unarmed;
RO21 (IJssel, 2262 BRT): 4 x 20 mm;
RO22: unarmed;
RO23 (Kerkplein, 5085 BRT): 2 x 20 mm, 2 x MG;
RO24: unarmed;
RO25 (Gordias, 1632 BRT): 1 x 20 mm, 2 x MG.
RO26, 27, 28, 29: unarmed;
RO30 (Adler): ? (VTS)
RO31, 32: unarmed;
RO33 (Gonzenheim): ? (V-Schiff)
RO34: unarmed;
RO35 (Franz E. Schütte, 2042 BRT): ?
(later armament as a netlayer: 1 x 75 mm, 2 x 37 mm, 4 x 20 mm);
RO36, 37, 38, 39: unarmed;
RO40 (Capri): ? (Versuchsschiff)
RO41, 42, 43, 44, 45,: unarmed;
RO46 (Lauterfels, 6310 BRT): 4 x 20 mm;
RO47, 48, 49: unarmed.

Hope this helps (to get a clearer view of things),

Gerard

[Knouterer]

And for Antwerp:

A1 (Isar, 9026 BRT): 2 x 20 mm, 2 x MG;
A2 (Donau, 9035 BRT): 2 x 20 mm, 2 x MG;
A3, 4, 5: unarmed;
A6 (Belgrano, 6095 BRT): ? (Sperrbrecher from 17.1.1941)
A7 : unarmed ;
A8 (Bochum, 6121 BRT): 2 x 37 mm;
A9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16: unarmed;
A17 (Levante, 4769 BRT): 1 x 20 mm, 1 x MG;
A18 (Urundi): ? (VTS)
A19: unarmed;
A20 (Hestia): ? (Artillerieschulschiff);
A21, 22, 23, 24: unarmed;
A25 (Frida): ? (Torpedoklarmachschiff);
A26 (Telde, 2969 BRT): 2 x 20 mm, 2 x MG;
A27, 28, 29, 30, 31: unarmed;
A32 (Birkenau): ? (Antriebsversuchsschiff);
A33 (Dalbek, 2884 BRT): 2 x 20 mm;
A34 (Eider, 3288 BRT): ? (Sperrbrecher from 1943);
A35: unarmed;
A36 (Mars, 2468 BRT): 1 x 37 mm, 2 x 20 mm;
A37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 (Lazarettschiff), 50: unarmed.