Easy Kag' he's new to the rarified air of the Monastery. Pan-man, please note that Kag is saying you've got to read his earlier posts for context before hammering back, it's only fair.Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Hypothetically possible, of course, but history suggests that the Nazi's poor rationalization of industry during the early phases of the war makes such altered construction unlikely. A basic alteration in sealift capacity is, of course, a fundamental and important difference. Once you are talking LST equivalents that can make the crossing in 8-24 hours rather than barges taking 12-36, its a different game.Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Most of the channel is 75+ miles wide and often has a depth of over 300'. That's deep for mine work. Deploying mines to cover the Western approaches and trying to create a true blockade would be difficult at best. German mine production was probably not equal to the task, and they would have had to do much of the work with subs -- which are at a disadvantage in such shallow water (shallow by sub standards anyway). The Eastern end, at the narrows is narrow enough where coastal batteries on both sides could restrict most of the channel (though not all) and minefields would be more effective in the relatively shallower waters here. Unfortunately, you would have to keep significant areas clear for your transports, so....Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Bookmarks