What if: Operation Paul – the Fleet Air Arm attack on Luleå (Sweden) in 1940

Everything is fine. A difference of opinion on a technical point remains.



As wind currents on land can be redirected by changing surface topography, so can underwater currents be changed. One of the ways one maps unknown shifting topology quickly is to measure salinity, stream inflow and take a fish egg census. That is why a topological map accompanies these ecological studies to show changed conditions.

As to the other technical issues...

As I have pointed out; a very astute British planner, the commander, later admiral, Lumley Lyster, in planning an air raid, strictured launching Swordfish aircraft within approximately 100 nautical miles of Taranto, an Italian naval base. The aircraft carrier, involved, dared not come within motor torpedo boat sortie range and stayed well clear of the gulf when it did so. Solid planning was based on known technical limtis.

The Swordfish has a burdened five hour endurance aloft and a low service ceiling when  carrying a torpedo. To my knowledge at that time it did not carry drop tanks in addition to the torpedo. 

Operation Duck is more illustrative of what actually happened to Stavanger in the counter-example offered. In the case of Swordfish used in a Stavanger raid, I found that actual example non-viable. In the separate case of Operation Duck: Wellingtons and Blenheims were actually used, a surface action group was also introduced to blockade and bombard the port The results, actual, as opposed to what was planned in theory, similar to Operation Paul in intent in neutralizing the port, were "less than optimal".  In the case of {Dead} Duck, the actual routes, means, time alofts and aircraft types employed made some coherent sense. It, in results, is what really happened when people did not use their calipers properly in an operation where weather, terrain and expected air and surface opposition was not properly factored.

With this posting I agree to disagree with my colleague as we have decided the issues to our mutual satisfaction. One can disagree about data and reach different conclusions. Happens all the time.