Why would the Rhine or "Dutch style" barges capsize across the Channel?
A British couple took their narrow boat across the Channel a few years ago.
See some pictures here. I've read the book, it sounds hairy but it was done .
http://www.narrowdog.com/lunaticscheme.htm

I see what you mean, but you are talking of a covered craft, built or modified to be fully waterproof and cozy for a family. The cargo barges I have in mind (see the google link in my previous post) are much rougher day-to-day work affairs, with uncovered holds. A bit of undulation that comes above the gunwales and you're down the drink.

__________________
Bah!

From Derek Robinson "Invasion 1940"

For Germans:

This was the enormous gamble of Sealion. Its planners assumed that all would go well, or at least fairly well.They could tolerate losses of 10 or 20 per cent in the crossing, but they must have enough shipping to get back to France, re-load, return, and hustle reinforcements to the men on the beaches who, after 48 hours, of fighting, must be running out of strength and hope and ammunition. The RN existed to shatter that plan. Even if it sank only half the enemy ships each night, that was enough to kill off Sealion.

---------

What evidence is there that the RN was competent to find and to smash Sealion at night? Here is what it did in September 1940.

On 11 SEptember , every port from Holland to Cherbourg got entered and shelled. Next night, British destroyers, MTB`s and fast gunboats from the Nore, Portsmouth and Plymouth carried out what was almost a tour of inspection, entering the mouth of the Maas, Flushing and the Scheldt, Ostend, Dunkirk, Calais, Boulougne, Le Touquet and even heavily fortified Cherbourg surveying them for signs of invasion preparations and shelling...any vessels..they encountered. All the attackers got back to England unharmed.And so it continued. The biggest operation was in the early hours of 11 October. The Battleship Revenge, with an escort of seven destroyers, bombarded Cherbourg harbour and left it in flames. A week later Calais got similar treatment. A total of 45 salvoes hit the harbour. No British ships were lost.

If the RN, night after night, in fair weather or foul, could penetrate the invasion ports and sink enemy ships, there can surely be no doubt that the same British warships could find the Sealion fleets in mid-Channel, and reduce them to wreckage and corpses. The German Army and Navy expected to land 60,000 men on S-day. Few would have lived to see the dawn.

__________________

Say again, invade what?

__________________
Bah!

I read too that several hundred Thompson Submachine guns were also sent to England along with the consignment of rifles, artillery pieces and other war materials.

According to Manstein's "lost victories" the channel was 'smooth like a pond' for most of the august and the beginning of September 1940.
Considering the relatively short length of the trip, surely the barges are not that impossible option. - People have crossed the channel in completely open fisherman boats.
(There are better options though...)

__________________
If you believe - you receive, if you doubt - you go without.

For Germans the channel length might not be the problem but the speed of the barges would be. If also the wind would slow them down then they would be just sitting ducks in the channel.

__________________

The pictures of barges on the river usually shown here are somewhat misleading , since the barges shown are fully loaded (for obvious economical reasons and since there aren't any big waves in the rivers).
However the typical hull dimentions of a barge are above 3 meter high ,
(See the link : http://www.barges.us/bargedrafttable.html)
therefore if it's only ~ 50% filled it'll be :
a) 1.5-2 meters above the waterline. (Reasonably close to the landing craft used on D- Day)
b) Have a significant spare buyoncy for the intake of occasional wave that crosses its gunwale.
(Again - I think there were better ways to make the Sealion work than the barge fleet, but let's not get too nasty on the good old barges...)

__________________
If you believe - you receive, if you doubt - you go without.

Is it possible that you are reffering to some other battleship, since there doesn't seem to be reference to any such action in the HMS Revenge's list - it only states that it was removed from operational service in october due to bad condition...
http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/phot...x.php?cat=1069

__________________
If you believe - you receive, if you doubt - you go without.

Kai Petri...can you cite a source for those British raids. I will be able to make good use of it elsewhere.

The problem here is one of metacentric height in addition to simple freeboard and bouyancy. The barges were designed to haul a substancial load of heavy bulk material on inland waterways. Using them as landing craft presents two naval engineering problems:

The first is that the new craft will not be hauling a heavy load but rather one that has considerable space requirements, eg., men. The vehicles again take up alot of space with respect to their weight. This leads to the second problem: Metacenter.

Metacenter in simple terms is a mathematical model of the ship's stability. It is measured as the difference between its center of gravity and its center of bouyancy. While a light load gives the barge better bouyancy it also raises its metacentric height considerably. On a smooth river this is of little concern. At sea what it means is that the barge bobs around like a cork. The Germans tried to fix some of this by adding concrete ballast. But, only so much could be added before they ran out of space.

So, the choice is do the barges rock and roll like corks in a toilet bowl or do the Germans load them down for stability and take chances with low freeboard? Of course, if the first course is taken the passengers are likely to not be in great shape by the time of the landings also.

From my limited experince with landing craft, there may be problems with steerageway, & drift off course, from the boyancy/high center. Also suspected is making way against the winds & currents of the open sea will raise fuel consumption over that of the a river or cannal passage.

Finally in the case of Sea lion I am wondering if the Germans really had enough seamen experinced both in handling boats on open waters and in handling the barges. From the several descriptions of their 'exercise' I've read one would guess not.

Your point has been amply proven to me that in every way, case, shape or form, the Germans were undermanned, understaffed and undersupported on land, on sea and in the air to make a successful Sealion invasion, especially in the face of overwhelming British air, land and seapower.

I have my doubts about the use of the word "overwhelming" connected with air and especially land power. What I do not believe is in the ability of the Germans to do a crossing with the quantity and especially quality of mean available.

But we should perhaps stop as we have stopped adding anything new here for some time.

__________________
Bah!

Theres a expression "That dog dont hunt" which has the same meaning. To streatch the anology folks with no experince with dogs have be educated if they are going to 'hunt'.

If I had time to burn I'd go back thru all the discussoin boards where this subject comes up and organize all the arguments & information into a single essay. Then when it appeared before me again all the data, staticstics, facts, quotes, sources, bibliographys, refutations and expert witnesses could be posted in a single entry.

How about drop-tanks on the German Me 109s?

The Germans did develop a drop tank for the Me 109 prior to the invasion of France. There were a couple of problems with its use:

1. The tank was made from 'non-strategic' materials...ie wood primarily, and had serious problems with leakage. They also tended to deteriorate quickly when left out in the weather.

2. Most Me 109 in the inventory were not equipped to take the tank having neither the mounting point nor the associated piping etc., to use it.

3. The whole program had low priority so no one was really taking a proactive role in making sure these would be available in the near future.

Its possibly due to the fact the date is wrong, the attack took place on the 11th October 1940
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4061.html

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Thanks for the link & into on the battleship riad in 1940. Elsewhere folks have insisted that neither of the Allied navys would ever risk a battleship anywhere near the German occupied coast for a simple raid.

I read once that a German general (cant remember which one) planned to launch an attack on England just days after France surrended.

He planned to use every airborne soilder he had along with as many fighters as were available, They were to be dropped into England around an area that had several air fields. These were to be secured and then fleets of Ju 52 transports carrying 2 divisions of Germanys best Infantry would land.

They would then start spreading out, Firstly towards the beach, and then inland. While this was happening Fighters would use captured air fields and Ju 52 transports would continue to bring up more troops and equiptment.

The plan was shown to Goering who approved it, But when Hitler found out about it who orded it stopped, He wanted to give England the chance to surrender. I wouldnt know why he would do such a thing.

At the time England had only a few fighters, Almost no army. They only had one fully equipt division except it still had only minor motorisation. In some cases they had a single artillary gun to defend a 2km area of beach. While yes a naval group would suffer casualties on there way over on the landing there forces would ripp the British troops apart.

When France fell, Fighter Command had 346 Spitfires/Hurricanes at operational readiness in the UK.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Dropping the single available parachute division (the 7th) into England on its own would have been suicide. This division had just sustained heavy casualties in their drop into Holland and was not that large to begin with. To drop the full unit would have taken about 3 lifts with available Ju 52 aircraft due to losses in the French campaign.
The entire unit would have amounted to about 6,000 men with no heavy weapons to speak of.
The British response would have been to commit the fully motorized, fully equipped, and well trained 1st Canadian Infantry Division then in Southern England to crush this drop. Given that this division had about 25,000 men in it and could have been supported by various smaller