Black Hornet, you are quite right, the Germans were far from incapable.

 

Which is why they never tried to do anything as rediculous as you suggest with regard to 8 inch guns on barges, or even on lasrger lsanding craft had they built any. 

 

Having had a bit of time to read your various posts, I uspect that you are nothing more than a wind-up merchant, as you surely cannot really believe any of the nonsense you put forward.

 

You haven't explained how pouring concrete into barges makes them harder to sink, by the way.

 

 

As to this site, as far as I can see Doveton didn't have any 'cohorts' apart from one guy who asked a question just before you flounced off the site in a huff. He got a reasoned reply from Doveton, and a rant about Doveton from you.

 

Finally, as you seem happy in your own little world, and as no one else except me and Factfinder even botheres to reply to the silliness you write, I don't think I will bother with you again, or at least not until you say something worthy of being taken seriuosly. 

Dovetons cohorts were in the Historum chatroom, not here. & again bringing into a forum an argument from elsewhere is out of place & has no place in discussions here. Unrelated.

 

As to Factfinder, thus far he has contributed such silly ideas such as firing the gun mid transit on the open sea, that shells could not be transported, that the gun could not be mounted, & followed that with the idea of sending it facing backwards on the beach. He can't fathom the simple idea of placing concrete on the floors of invasion craft, ( machine gun bullets? Holes? hello!), to make em harder to sink.

 

Interspersed with the ridiculous posits are his plethora of immature insults. What you might imagine I could gain from such a person & his unacademic posts I can't begin to understand.

 

As an asides, the design & outlay of an LCT is entirely different to a Siebel. It's narrower, Siebel more flat & wider, hence stable.

Concrete was also used as ballast & as well to create a flat space on the bottom to make storage easier. When Factfinder posits something intelligent, then he can be taken with some modicum of seriousness, this far, it hasn't happenned.

 

bal·last  (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gif" alt="" />lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif" alt="" />http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif" alt="" />st)

Here again is the ammo carrier link Alf. To suggest the Germans weren't capable of transporting ammo is not exactly the academic comment. Factfinders comment that Norways coast was entirley unsuitable for Siebel/MFP's was as well demonstrated to be wrong. As have all his points been thus far. It isn't an insult to plainly point out the truth. 

 

Windup Merchant, thanks for the name. I see you indulge the same sort of "gang up, name calling "mentality that Doveton, Factfinder & cohorts enjoy. Perhaps you think I should accept the immature ridicule with no response, but I no one's dartboard.

 

The Germans did in fact envision sending 6 inch guns on barges, ( as previously linked), to Dover area to combat the RN. So I have to diagree with your assessment that they never tried or thought up anything such as this. 6 inch easier to work with, but then no Siebels or MFPs were available circa 1940.

 

I don't suppose there is any point in mentioning that name calling & denigration doesn't present you in an educated or sophisticated light. I tried that with Factfinder, & we saw the result.

 

As it is, thus far, I am the "only" poster here that HAS offered up any ideas on how operation Sealion might have been planned & conducted differently, so far you & factfinder have only offered up naegative unscholastic critiques, the value of which is nil. You have 1 up on him I will admit by presenting the only point of merit, that being recoil.

 

As I stated in the Historum forum, I am neutral of the subject of Sealion & have no stake in it per se, rather an interesting subject as regards "how it might be done" therefore Factfinders absurd comments about this idea of sending guns to the English shore as being a battle winner is fluff & prattle of no relevance as I never stated such. And again, I am the ONLY poster to offer up anything of interest strategically about it.

 

 

 

They also had the  Landwasserschlepper if  you're interested in how pulling heavy stuff off the beach was to be facilitated. I tend to think you're more interested in denigration than having meaningful chat or learning anything.

 

Not sure why I am bothering to reply as your laast batch of submissions are virtually incoherant.

 

Two pointsdo occur, however. Firsly, As far as I can see Factfinder has never proposed any ofthe wild nonsense you accuse him of, he has simply pointed out the total impracticality of your 8 inch gun idea. Like me, and probaly everyone else who has read your posts he knows that your ideas are unrelated to the real world.

 

Secondly, how will concrete on the decks of barges protect them from machine gun bullets. Ar you now saying that the British had a machine gun firing upwards from underwater? In any case, the barges would not be facing marchine guns, but 4.7 inch, 4 inch, and 3 inch shells.

 

This habit you have of accusing people of making statements they have not made is rather infantile, dont you think?

I see that Factfinder has asked for the views of other observers on the subject of this site, so thought I would break my own rule and contribute something.

 

Factfinder and Alf, do you not realize that you are wrong in the way you deal with BH. I have viewed with interest his antics on numerous threads, including Historum, and feel that it is useless pointing out that most of his ideas are hare-brained at best, because he is not looking for debate. He is making statements, not asking for opinions. In this one, the very fact that he has suggested transporting or firing large guns from barges, ferries, or landing craft means that it must be possible, simply because he says so. In this case he has probably seen a picture of a landing craft and a picture of an 8 inch gun, and had a revelation. Alf, you may have years of experience in the artillery, but you obviously know nothing about how large guns operate, because if you did you would understand that BH cannot possibly be in error. In the same way, Factfinder, you can produce as much evidence and speak to as many eye-witnesses as you like, but you must be ignorant, rude, or stupid (and so must your eyewitnesses) or you would appreciate that BH is always right on every point.

 

On the other site, which BH mentions a lot but says you shouldn't, did you not notice how he became fixated with a number of items. Firstly, the number of men captured at Dunkirk. Do you not realize that BH is right, and all the historians and reference books wrong. Secondly, clearly destroyers cannot have rescued more men from the beaches at Dunkirk than any other type of vessel, despite what the records state, because BH says they didn't. Thirdly, the number of ships sunk at Dunkirk. The fact that the archives state that most of these were actually small boats, and that the number of actual ships lost was much less, is clearly wrong, because BH says it must be. Fourthly, the German pilot Dinort, commanding a dive-bomber squadron, recorded at the time that destroyers were difficult targets. Again, he clearly didn't know what he was talking about because BH knows better.

 

Where your friend Doveton Sturdy went wrong was trying to engage BH in rational debate, when it is clear from his various posts that he cannot cope with rational debate, but simply demands unthinking acceptace of his views. So what if Doveton Sturdy made a vast array of valid and accurate arguments, and backed them up with quotations, statistics, and evidence, in a manner which, despite the insults posted by BH, demonstrated to me at least how vastly knowledgeable he is on the subject. The simple fact is that he did not agree with BH, and must therefore be uneducated, offensive, and misinformed.

 

What I am saying is, I suppose, that the way BH works is this :-

 

1). He puts forward a preposterous hypothesis, which is usually so bizarre that nobody bothers to respond.

2). When somebody does respond, he becomes offensive (such as calling you Factblunder at an early stage).

3). When you, and latterly Big Alf, respond by further pointing his errors, and asking him to provide evidence in support of his claims, he flies off at a tangent, accusing you of being abusive. This enables him to avoid the need to justify his claims, whch even he must know he cannot. He is rather like the little boy in the playground giving cheek to his elders, who runs off shouting 'mummy, mummy, those big boys were rude to me!' when they answer back.

4). Finally, he becomes, as he seems to be doing on this thread and as he did on Historum, ravingly incoherant and gratuitously offensive.

 

In conclusion, you should realise that it is an exercise in futility to try to debate with BH. Anything he says must be right, simply because he says it is right. Any evidence in contradiction of his views  must be either tainted, lies, or the result of ignorance, because, as he knows, he is always right on every point.

 

He is that entertaining character, someone who doesn't know how much he doesn't know. Why do you think he gets very few replies to his posts? I suspect that most people, like me, simply read his latest fantasy, chuckle at the silliness of it, and ignore it further. You will get nowhere trying to debate with someone whose knowledge of the realities and practicalities of warfare in World War 2 seems minimal, but who knows that anything he says ought to be accepted as Holy Writ.

 

Sorry this post is so long, but as I say I have broken my own rule on just this one occasion. Don't worry Factfinder and Big Alf, you aren't the problem here!