PDA

View Full Version : What really stopped the German's invading Britain in 1940



XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:14 AM
Hitler had no intention of invading Britain in 1940 it was a bluff to get the British to ask for peace terms.
It almost worked too if the RAF hadn't survived/then bettered against the Luftwaffe and saved old Churchills arse. Lord Halifax who was a big knob in Goverment in 1940 and his crowd wanted to give up but Churchill won the day because the RAF still survived and the Luftwaffe began bombing London.

Do you really think the German's were capable of sending an army across the 25mile Channel in rowing boats or barges. Where were the tank landing craft, troop ships and escort destroyers to protect this mighty fleet against the mightier Royal Navy. Ah you think they would have been parachuted in...think of Crete...the German paratropers were beaten on Crete on the first day they tried to invade...also a large force of German soldiers were massacred on fishing boats as they attempted a landing in Crete. It was disastrous order by a British officer to retreat when infact the German's were being slaughtered who allowed the Germans Air Assault troops to create a bridgehead at Maleme Airfield

The truth is once the RAF was beaten then Churchill would have been out , Lord Halifax would have been PM and peace settled with Adolf so he could march on Russia at a much later date than he actually did.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:14 AM
Hitler had no intention of invading Britain in 1940 it was a bluff to get the British to ask for peace terms.
It almost worked too if the RAF hadn't survived/then bettered against the Luftwaffe and saved old Churchills arse. Lord Halifax who was a big knob in Goverment in 1940 and his crowd wanted to give up but Churchill won the day because the RAF still survived and the Luftwaffe began bombing London.

Do you really think the German's were capable of sending an army across the 25mile Channel in rowing boats or barges. Where were the tank landing craft, troop ships and escort destroyers to protect this mighty fleet against the mightier Royal Navy. Ah you think they would have been parachuted in...think of Crete...the German paratropers were beaten on Crete on the first day they tried to invade...also a large force of German soldiers were massacred on fishing boats as they attempted a landing in Crete. It was disastrous order by a British officer to retreat when infact the German's were being slaughtered who allowed the Germans Air Assault troops to create a bridgehead at Maleme Airfield

The truth is once the RAF was beaten then Churchill would have been out , Lord Halifax would have been PM and peace settled with Adolf so he could march on Russia at a much later date than he actually did.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:29 AM
That sneaky Hitler.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:47 AM
That fat idiot Goering. lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:53 AM
A couple good guys with rifles could have stopped Hitler in Poland. Hitler had orders that stated the troops were to stop if they met any stiff resistance.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:56 AM
legodragonxp wrote:
- A couple good guys with rifles could have stopped
- Hitler in Poland. Hitler had orders that stated the
- troops were to stop if they met any stiff
- resistance.
-
-

Yes, but maybe he meant *****es.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 02:00 AM
Operation Sea Lion was a reality in concept only. Problem was they had no real invasion craft. Nonetheless, what really stopped the German invasion was a change in the air campagin tactics from trying to down the British fighters and destroy the radar stations, to Hitler's poorly thought out terror bombing campagin of English cities, notably London, which only stiffened British resolve. Combined with the failure of the German High Command to see the need for a 4 engine, long range bomber and escort fighter, (none of this was needed in the one-sided Spanish Civil war), Operation Sea Lion was doomed from the outset.

<center>Beebop-ProudBirds-VFW<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/230903-Beebop%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 02:03 AM
Beebop-PBNA wrote:
Combined with
- the failure of the German High Command to see the
- need for a 4 engine, long range bomber and escort
- fighter, (none of this was needed in the one-sided
- Spanish Civil war), Operation Sea Lion was doomed
- from the outset.

Don't forget,German carriers could've helped as well...


47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 02:10 AM
Beebop-PBNA wrote:
- Operation Sea Lion was a reality in concept only.
- Problem was they had no real invasion craft.
- Nonetheless, what really stopped the German invasion
- was a change in the air campagin tactics from trying
- to down the British fighters and destroy the radar
- stations, to Hitler's poorly thought out terror
- bombing campagin of English cities, notably London,
- which only stiffened British resolve. Combined with
- the failure of the German High Command to see the
- need for a 4 engine, long range bomber and escort
- fighter, (none of this was needed in the one-sided
- Spanish Civil war), Operation Sea Lion was doomed
- from the outset.
-
You are correct the Nazi's had no true invasion craft, or supply craft to supply the troops. So a seaborne invasion was nonsense from the start. Churchill almost certainly knew this.
I wonder if the Germans actually thought they had beaten the RAF when they changed tactics or was it to put added pressure on Churchill to sue for Peace.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 02:20 AM
sandbag_69 wrote:
-
- - I wonder if the Germans actually thought they had
- beaten the RAF when they changed tactics or was it
- to put added pressure on Churchill to sue for Peace.
-

If I remember right, some errant bombs fell on London. The British retaliated. Then Hitler wanted vengence, so the bombing started.

I think that OKL thought that London was the one target that the RAF would defend at any cost.
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 02:49 AM
Wsn't part of the plan for the Luftwaffe to wipe out the RAF, then turn its attention to the Royal Navy?

As for the after landing part of it, remember the British forces lost a lot of its hardware in France during the evacuation. Men were picked up, but a lot of armor and such had to be adandoned.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 02:53 AM
In Churchill's memoirs, he said that if the German's made it to the English shore, he was going to gas the bastard$.

Also, they had a campaign in the works should the Horrid Hun actually make it into the mainland. The slogan was going to be "Well, you can always take one with you."

Go Winston! Go England!



"Official Lancaster Whiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 03:49 AM
Iris47 wrote:
-
- sandbag_69 wrote:
-
- If I remember right, some errant bombs fell on
- London. The British retaliated. Then Hitler wanted
- vengence, so the bombing started.


IIRC it was a German pilot who lost the radio beam (or something like that) that the Germans were using during the first part of the air campagin to guide the bombers to aircraft/munitions factories in middle England. When he lost the beam he inadvertantly steered over London and released his load on the civilian population not really awrae of the fact that this was not the intended target. Also, IIRC, that pilot was court martialed even though the fault was equipment failure not human pilot error.
This drove the Air Ministry to declare that German cities were fair game. Hitler realizing that the error had been made decided to begin a terror bombing campagin.

<center>Beebop-ProudBirds-VFW<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/230903-Beebop%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:32 AM
Isn't it the case that Hitler and his command staff were idiots who made mistake after mistake throughout the whole of the war?

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:40 AM
the ugly british chicks, the ugly fat chaps...

Maybe...

<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:12 AM
He would have been totally justified to gas em if they invaded Britain.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:14 AM
Churchill and his cabinet had plans to scarper to Canada the instant the germans showed any sign of a landing


needless to say his "we will fight them on the beaches .." speeches failed to mention his brae plan to shoot thru once the going got hot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:15 AM
Oh, forgot...the british WARM beer...


<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:29 AM
sandbag, from where have you gotten your fantastic information?

any source ?





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0


Message Edited on 09/30/0305:32AM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:26 AM
sandbag_69 wrote:
- you think they would have been parachuted in...think
- of Crete...the German paratropers were beaten on
- Crete on the first day they tried to invade...also a
- large force of German soldiers were massacred on
- fishing boats as they attempted a landing in Crete.
- It was disastrous order by a British officer to
- retreat when infact the German's were being
- slaughtered who allowed the Germans Air Assault
- troops to create a bridgehead at Maleme Airfield

But the Germans did it all the same. If they were prepared to take the risk to occupy a small island in the Mediterranean, why not gamble a larger force to knock Britain out of the war? I personally don't think Sealion would have worked, the Royal Navy was simply too strong, but I have 63 years of hindsight to help me reach that conclusion.

-------------------------------------

In January 1945 German officials from the Ministry of Armaments assessed what might have been produced in 1944 without the bombing. They estimated that German industry turned out 35% fewer tanks, 31% fewer aircraft and 42% fewer lorries than would have been possible otherwise.All the officials interviewed (after the war) stated that bombing was the factor responsible for the declining gains from rationalisation and for the eventual collapse of the economic structure after January 1945

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:45 AM
It has suited both sides to have the Battle of Britain presented this way.

The actual invasion of Britain was a fantasy pure and simple, there was not the technology available to the Germans.

We know the German fighters were operating at the limit in the escort role, so if the Luftwaffe had carried on bombing airfields the the RAF would have to have withdrawn a little further inland.

The logistical problems facing britain in moving it's vital infrastructure out of range of protected Luftwaffe formations was minimal compared to thet facing the Soviets a year later.

Imagine the battle moving through the winter and into spring 1941.

Britain has used winter to partially evacuate the home counties and remove fighter command to the south midlands/west country.

German bombers are not finding enough suitable targets and are being hacked to pieces without enough escorts.

The fantasy invasion force is set to take advantage of the first good weather but the Royal Navy keeps steaming down from the North Sea at night to smash it up, by daylight their out of range behind their fighter cover again.

When preperations were made for Overlord there was no chance of naval intervention by the Germans, we would have been in real trouble if they had had dozens of battleships and cruisers available for night interdiction of our invasion forces. These kind of semi suicidal attacks would have resulted in the loss of many prized capital ships but not before they had wrecked any invasion force.

The Royal Navy was ina position to make those sacrifices in 1940/41.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:54 AM
legodragonxp wrote:
- A couple good guys with rifles could have stopped
- Hitler in Poland. Hitler had orders that stated the
- troops were to stop if they met any stiff
- resistance.
-

Eh, the Poles had more than a couple of good guys with rifles. In fact they put up very stiff resistance, despite the horrendous strategic situation they were in. That didn't exactly stop the Germans ...

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:01 AM
I believe germans made error after error during WW2, and in particular during the BoB. Just some examples:
- Engaging the BoB with the Bf.109 that coud stay on air for about 10-15 minutes before going back home because of no fuel.
- Having no significant heavy bombers to target GB industries.
- Losing lots of Me.110 which were not uited for what they were put on.
- Wasting their efforts on too many fronts: Britain, France, East Europe, URSS, Africa, and even going to help Italians in Greece.
- Engaging only a significant air war over GB instead of concentrating on Royal Navy and ground targets.
They had no chance to invade Britain, as well as they had no chance to win the war. They just lasted long because of their excellent equipment and the determinations of their soldiers.
Even if they concentrated on GB after invading France, I don't know if they could manage to get it... those guys making decisions in the Third Reich were just mad!



<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/170903-G55_Firma.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0311:02AM by Cippacometa

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:04 AM
Hi,

Just my 2 ducats worth:

Hitler fully expected that he could negotiate a peace agreement with the British after the fall of France, so there wasn't any real plan for a continuation of the war, should the refuse so.

The British decision to stay in the war actually hung in a silver thread. Churchills stubborn insistence made all the difference, but it wasn't the clear cut thing many would like to believe.

Had the Germans hung on to their original plan and kept up the bombing of RAF airfields, they might have succeeded in putting the RAF out of action. Maybe, maybe not.

But for arguments sake, let's say that they had. In my humble opinion that would have made an invasion possible. Had they had air supremacy over the Channel, they could have sunk any Royal Navy vessel foolish enough to venture into that narrow straight. The Japanese sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse clearly demonstrated how vulnerable capital ships were to air attack - not to mention the subsequent Pacific naval campaign. (Oh, and to whoever mentioned it: German carriers wouldn't have made any difference - there's only 25 km of water anyway.)

The Germans would not have needed the specialised landing crafts the Allied used at D-day. The Allies had to carry out an amphibious assault against a strongly defended and fortified beach. The Germans would not face a similar situation. It would be more like the landings in Norway (Narvik etc.)

Again, for arguments sake, let's say the Germans had landed. I'm pretty sure they could win the ground war, and I'm equally sure it would have toppled Churchill and led to peace negotiations. But I do hope that the Germans would still have lost the war in the East.

cheers/slush



http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:25 AM
A variety of things stopped them, one thing was the limited range of fighters and later fighter tactics, and ofcourse hitler had already his eyes on russia and the oilfields.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:44 AM
A few things. The Germans had lost way too many ships in the Norwegian campaign, earlier in the year. Churchill had decisively ordered the destruction of the French fleet to prevent it falling into German hands. The Germans didn't have enough landing equipment. Hitler tried to negotiate rather then have a crack at the British, when they were unprepared. Wasted too much time. The British would never negotiate with Hitler, who had such a track record for lying and breaking promises. From the fighting around Arras and the Dunkirk Perimeter, the British were first troops that the Germans found, that could and would stand toe to toe and fight it out. They could expect much much worse and no quarter on English soil. I personally don't believe Churchill would have packed up to Canada at first sight of Germans on British soil, he would have fought with his people who were united in their war against Hitler. An appeaser like Halifax had already lost favour, which was one reason he did not replace Chamberlain. Maybe the Germans could have carried a sucessful invasion straight after Dunkirk, but it was never envisaged and the rest of France had to be finished off. I wouldn't denigrate the German paratroop force. They were an elite, just look at Monte Cassino, Italy. On Crete, they had the missfortune to face the Australian 6th Division and New Zealanders (ANZAC's) and consequently suffered one third casualties to their entire force. It was Aussies that were first to defeat the Germans & Japanese in land battles at Tobruk in April 41, and Milne Bay, 42.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:45 AM
I dont thing all those barges in the French and Dutch ports + 90 000 soldiers were just for show. They planed to ship 40! divisions to England. "Planes would be used as artillery" Hitler said but then they needed to dominate the skies.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:46 AM
As far as I know German planning for an attack against the Soviet Union started the 22nd of July 1940. Such planning was hardly remarkable, it was the job of the German general staff to prepare contingency plans.

The plans didn't evolve into Operation Barbarossa, and a decision to launch it, before December 1940. By then Hitler had to do something to end the war. Since he couldn't attack Britain, there was only one way to turn: East. In that respect it was quite a bold strategic decision.

Had the Germans succeeded in their attack on the Soviet Union, it might have led to peace negotiations. With the European mainland firmly in Germans hands, and the bulk of the German army deployed in the West, there's no way a US/UK amphibious assault could have succeeded. And certainly not as early as 1944.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

Message Edited on 09/30/0312:47PM by Slush69

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:53 AM
JG77_Tintin wrote:
- A few things. The Germans had lost way too many
- ships in the Norwegian campaign, earlier in the
- year. Churchill had decisively ordered the
- destruction of the French fleet to prevent it
- falling into German hands.

My point is, that you don't need a fleet to dominate the Channel.



- The Germans didn't have
- enough landing equipment.

Oh, I'd really like to see some figures on that.


- The British
- would never negotiate with Hitler, who had such a
- track record for lying and breaking promises.

Recent research has very clearly demonstrated that the British decision to stay in the war only came about after a very hard struggle in the war cabinet.



- From
- the fighting around Arras and the Dunkirk Perimeter,
- the British were first troops that the Germans
- found, that could and would stand toe to toe and
- fight it out.

Myth. The Germans had encountered very strong resistance in Poland, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium and France.

The main problem for the British army in 1940 was, that their core divisions had lost all their heavy equipment in France. Without that they could hardly stop any determined German assault. And even with it, it could be hard as the later fighting in North Africa demonstrated.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:19 PM
i am just very glad that the nazis never were able to produce atomic bomb. i dont really know how close they ever were, but the world would be much different place today.





Non Solum Armis

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:20 PM
We will never really know how close the polititians of the past came to making different decisions to what they did.

I think it is safe to say that by summer 1940 there was no chance of a British peace treaty, the Luftwaffe campaign to soften up the British by snuffing out air resistance was enough in itself to make sure of that.

As we now know air bombardment could danmage runways but it could'nt break moral. Fact.

The more the Luftwaffe hit at Britain the stronger Chrchills position became, the whole thrust of the RAF campaign was what? To protect the home counties and London and to protect it's own forward airfields.

The policy to protect the south eastern corner of England from air attack at all costs would soon have been
dropped had the RAF really been about to colapse as a meaningful force.

The RAF would not have actually been destroyed since it was able to move out of reach and yet still enter the field of battle at will, unlike the Luftwaffe whose forward airfields were limited by the sea, the reality of a battle of survival was never faced by the British as it would later the USSR.

Had the RAF had to it would have sacrificed much the south eastern to free German bombardment.

Like Germany itself for much of the war, the British might have had rationing and conscription but their way of life was maintained. A real invasion attempt would have ended that status and the Germans would have been massively over extended in 1940.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:30 PM
The Luftwaffe could,and should have beaten the RAF in the summer of 1940.
Initially the Luftwaffe should have taken out the radar stations along the south coast, therefore making the RAF effectively fight the battle "blind", and dissipating and wasting its already meagre and overstretched resourses.Me-109s should have been fitted with paper mache disposable fuel tanks to extend their range, so they could spend more than 30 minutes over England before turning back.
Elementary mistakes that saved the free world!

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:45 PM
sobolan wrote:
- Oh, forgot...the british WARM beer...
-
-

Jolly good stuff, our warm beer. Who wants to drink an ice cold lager (or God forbid - ice cold ******ss) in the middle of one of our damp and miserable winters? You want something that you can actually TASTE.
Mild, bitter, old ales and stouts - all uniquely from the British Isles. Now lagers and pilsners, well there isn't a decent one brewed here. For those you'll have to go to Europe.
So would Adolf have destroyed British beer as we know it and replaced it with lagers and bocks? Probably.
Perhaps the beer-whiners would have been happier if Germany HAD invaded? For we would probably have been defeated if they ever gained a decent foothold in dear old Blighty.

But as Shepherd Neame would have it concerning their Spitfire bitter:

<center>
http://www.shepherd-neame.co.uk/humour/wallpaper1999/downed.gif
</center>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Cheers!



<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/airplane1.3.jpg"


Ladies & gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Thankyou for choosing to fly Mandarin Airlines. Those passengers sitting on the left-hand side of the aeroplane please make yourselves comfortable. Those sitting on the right... please look to your left!

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:30 PM
Cippacometa wrote:
- I believe germans made error after error during WW2,
.
-- Wasting their efforts on too many fronts: Britain, France, East Europe, URSS, Africa, and even going to help Italians in Greece.

yupp, i second that. one of the greatest error was to have italy as allied .

and about the german paratroopers in crete.
the british forces knew about the german invasion.
a bad situation for the paras .

a airborne mission was almost every time very danger and caused high losses.
look what happened to the british "Red Devils" in Arnheim 1944 . they lost 80 % .



http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:30 PM
yep - British beer! I like it so much I'm going to drink loads of it tonight. One more thing to be thankful for.

Prefer a well kept London Pride to Spitfire, though like the latter's name more. And it's not warm, more like a bit below room temperature. After all you don't all laugh at people who drink red wine that hasn't been in the fridge for hours, do you? Do you?

Erm..this is drifting a bit off topic; inter alia, skill determination, courage, some luck, and support from our erstwhile Empire won the battle for us and sent the Hun off to seek cold beer elsewhere.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:49 PM
british beer is wierd i drank 31 pints of boddington's (cream of manchester) in a single night in tenerife - the north-eastern girl (huge) i was drinking with drank 38.

however i think that beer is only 3.5% or so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the british are bulletproof drinking-buddies !

in iceland .. we drink wodka http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
bazzaah2 wrote:
- yep - British beer! I like it so much I'm going to
- drink loads of it tonight. One more thing to be
- thankful for.
-
- Prefer a well kept London Pride to Spitfire, though
- like the latter's name more. And it's not warm, more
- like a bit below room temperature. After all you
- don't all laugh at people who drink red wine that
- hasn't been in the fridge for hours, do you? Do you?
-
- Erm..this is drifting a bit off topic; inter alia,
- skill determination, courage, some luck, and support
- from our erstwhile Empire won the battle for us and
- sent the Hun off to seek cold beer elsewhere.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:09 PM
johann_thor wrote:
- british beer is wierd i drank 31 pints of
- boddington's (cream of manchester) in a single night
- in tenerife - the north-eastern girl (huge) i was
- drinking with drank 38.
-
- however i think that beer is only 3.5% or so /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- the british are bulletproof drinking-buddies !
-
- in iceland .. we drink wodka /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Boddington's - a pale imitation of it's once former glory. Not all our beer is that weak (or tasteless), just mostly that brewed by the multi-national companies that own 80% (?) of our beerage.
If you get over here I hope you will try some of our other more wonderful brews.
Btw, went to Iceland about 20 years ago and had a hell of a job finding (and affording) anything to drink at all. Ended up with some stuff that translated as Black Death. Whatever was it?
Cheers!

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/airplane1.3.jpg"


Ladies & gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Thankyou for choosing to fly Mandarin Airlines. Those passengers sitting on the left-hand side of the aeroplane please make yourselves comfortable. Those sitting on the right... please look to your left!

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:18 PM
legodragonxp wrote:
- A couple good guys with rifles could have stopped
- Hitler in Poland.

Rarely have I heard something so insulting to the memory
of the Polish patriots who died in September 1939 risking
all in some incredible attacks to defend their homeland.
(And we have to be grateful to some of the pilots who
escaped and fought in the Battle of Britain was well -
defending bravely a country not even their own after they
had lost theirs).

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:19 PM
WWRenevant wrote:
- Wsn't part of the plan for the Luftwaffe to wipe out
- the RAF, then turn its attention to the Royal Navy?


The initial attacks in the BoB were on shipping.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:30 PM
absolutely right, Boddies is not what it was.

But hey 31 pints! Are you serious?? Are you a fat bloke?

My record is 13 pints of Royal Oak but I did drink about 100cls of vodka one (long, long) night in Russia.

But it's nothing to be proud of....lol.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:43 PM
I've read somewhere that Heinkel had a Jet flying in April 1941... He-280 is the name of the little bugger, top speed close to 800kph. 8 were produced... This little mistake costed the war to the germans...
And did the He-100 had more fuel capacity than the 109? Because if it did it was another mistake to make only a squadron operational...

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:02 PM
Slush,

Quite agree with your opinion regarding the prospects of a cross-Channel assault. The failure to follow through on this can probably be ascribed to poor cooperation between the armed services. Had the LW, the KM, and the Army crafted a coordinated plan, the channces of success wuld have been good IMO.

The Stuka threat had basically driven the RN out of the Channel in the initial stage of the BoB. A commitment of U-boats, E-boats and the new family of German magnetic mines would have many any attempted penetration by the RN an extremely risky proposition. It would have been far too dangerous to commit large ships in such confined waters. This says nothing about the still numerous German capital ships which also threatened from their North Sea ports.

A successful landing in Kent would have forced the RAF to commit to making low level ground support attacks, which would tactically have played directly into the performance strengths of the Bf-109, and for which the RAF bomber arm was not really trained. Assuming that a decent depth of territory had been seized, the German would have been able to position interceptors on English soil, thereby effectively eliminating the range problem.

The British Army was exhausted after the French campaign, having left the great bulk of their equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk. They were short of everything: tanks, artillery, munitions, transport, even rifles. So simple numbers do not reflect the true value of the Royal Army at this point in time.

Student's paratrooper corps would have been far more effective landing in support of a well organized and imminent landing by the German Army than it was in its attack on Crete, in which it was obligated to seize an airfrield simply to supply itself and land reinforcements. No such obligation would have accompanied a landing in England.

Provided that safe airfields could be put into operation on English soil, aerial re-supply by means of the considerable fleet of German transport a/c operating from France over very short flight distances, would have made a significant contribution to maintaining German operations.

IMHO, Operation Sea Lion was not a fruitless bluff. It was an operation with a reasonable chance of success, PROVIDED that the various armed services had been willing to formulate and execute a coordinated plan, as did the Allies at Normandy.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:28 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Slush,
-
-
- The Stuka threat had basically driven the RN out of
- the Channel in the initial stage of the BoB. A
- commitment of U-boats, E-boats and the new family of
- German magnetic mines would have many any attempted
- penetration by the RN an extremely risky
- proposition. It would have been far too dangerous to
- commit large ships in such confined waters. This
- says nothing about the still numerous German capital
- ships which also threatened from their North Sea
- ports.
-
- A successful landing in Kent would have forced the
- RAF to commit to making low level ground support
- attacks, which would tactically have played directly
- into the performance strengths of the Bf-109, and
- for which the RAF bomber arm was not really trained.
- Assuming that a decent depth of territory had been
- seized, the German would have been able to position
- interceptors on English soil, thereby effectively
- eliminating the range problem.
-
- The British Army was exhausted after the French
- campaign, having left the great bulk of their
- equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk. They were short
- of everything: tanks, artillery, munitions,
- transport, even rifles. So simple numbers do not
- reflect the true value of the Royal Army at this
- point in time.
-
- Student's paratrooper corps would have been far more
- effective landing in support of a well organized and
- imminent landing by the German Army than it was in
- its attack on Crete, in which it was obligated to
- seize an airfrield simply to supply itself and land
- reinforcements. No such obligation would have
- accompanied a landing in England.
-
- Provided that safe airfields could be put into
- operation on English soil, aerial re-supply by means
- of the considerable fleet of German transport a/c
- operating from France over very short flight
- distances, would have made a significant
- contribution to maintaining German operations.
-
- IMHO, Operation Sea Lion was not a fruitless bluff.
- It was an operation with a reasonable chance of
- success, PROVIDED that the various armed services
- had been willing to formulate and execute a
- coordinated plan, as did the Allies at Normandy.
-
-
-
- Blutarski
-
-


Response,

1. Do you honestly believe that U-Boats, E-boats and mines would protect a German invasion fleet made of mostly barges and the odd transport ship. You are assuming that the weather would be perfect and that the U-Boats and E-Boats could somehow outshoot/outfight Destroyers, Cruisers and MTB's of the RN from range before they could close on the invasion fleet.

2. Even if the Gerries had landed in Kent they still needed to be re-inforced, re-supplied with Ammo, Fuel etc. I dont see how this was possible with the largest navy in the world at that time biting at your heels.

3. British Army exhausted and short of material : Yes I am sure they were exhausted, but were the Germans not, they had fought there way through France and the Low Countries without a break. Yes, the British were short of equipment but not completly unarmed. There was at least 1 Canadian Division fully armed in the South of England after Dunkirk as well thousands of other troops that could have put up enough resistance to hold a German bridgehead before the navy would have cut its supply lines and pounded it from the sea.

4. Paratroopers : I think the British would have at least expected an airborne landing might have happened so the German Paras would have had a helluva hard time capturing and holding a beach head or port before the British would have overun them with tanks. Crete only succeded due to poor commanders ordering a withdrawal from Malmede Airfield and not counter attacking until too late.

5. Aerial resupply of an invasion force would have been almost impossible. Think of the fuel, ammo, food etc that would have been needed to have been flown in each day to support the troops. I never heard of a safe airfield in wartime in an invasion area,

6. Reasonable chance : No Chance. The only way it would have succeded would have been if the British had thrown their hands up at the first sight of a German fleet. Co-ordination helps greatly in an invasion but relies so much on supplies as well as firepower. How where the Panzers going to come ashore? Where was the fuel coming from, or do you think they would have topped up at teh local Esso in Dover? The Allies in Normandy had all this , a massive fleet, massive airpower and much more.
The British did have tanks and armoured cars to help repel an invasion as well as Guns or do you really think the Luftwaffe could have knocked them all out.

The truth is the SeaLion was a bluff to pressure the British into a peace deal to end the war quickly so the Hun could turn on the Bear.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:31 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- The Stuka threat had basically driven the RN out of
- the Channel in the initial stage of the BoB.

Meanwhile the RAF had shot down so many Stukas that
the Stuka had essentially been withdrawn from frontline
service...

- A
- commitment of U-boats, E-boats and the new family of
- German magnetic mines would have many any attempted
- penetration by the RN an extremely risky
- proposition.

Meanwhile RAF and RN anti shipping operations and the
use of mines would have made things risky the the
German invasion fleet.

- It would have been far too dangerous to
- commit large ships in such confined waters.

For both sides...

- A successful landing in Kent would have forced the
- RAF to commit to making low level ground support
- attacks, which would tactically have played directly
- into the performance strengths of the Bf-109, and
- for which the RAF bomber arm was not really trained.

The RAF was trained in low level ground attacks.
What they lacked was a dedicated, low level modern
ground attack plane. I can't remember off the top
of my head when the fast light/medium bombers
previously earmarked for France (e.g. DB7/A20,
Maryland, etc) arrived in the UK, though. Low level
attacks were bread and butter of things such as
the old Hawker Hart squadrons, though, but that
aircraft was obselete.

- The British Army was exhausted after the French
- campaign, having left the great bulk of their
- equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk. They were short
- of everything: tanks, artillery, munitions,
- transport, even rifles.

This is true, although UK industry was doing rather
well at replacing losses. Certainly there seemed little
problem in replacing combat losses in aircraft. In
comparasion, LW strengths were reducing, and quite
a quantity of German armour was lost in the campaigns of
May to June 1940. The lack of German armour is borne
out by training types (PzKpfw 1 and 2) being used
as frontline tanks. The Germans did posses an advantage
in tanks and heavy weaponry by this point (not an
advantage they actually had in May 1940, when the Allies
actually had more tanks).

- Student's paratrooper corps would have been far more
- effective landing in support of a well organized and
- imminent landing by the German Army than it was in
- its attack on Crete, in which it was obligated to
- seize an airfrield simply to supply itself and land
- reinforcements. No such obligation would have
- accompanied a landing in England.

Possibly not, depending on how well it could coordinate
with the seaborne invasion. It did fairly well in the
Netherlands, so could have done well over England.

- IMHO, Operation Sea Lion was not a fruitless bluff.
- It was an operation with a reasonable chance of
- success, PROVIDED that the various armed services
- had been willing to formulate and execute a
- coordinated plan, as did the Allies at Normandy.

Normandy was essentially two years in planning, though...

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:58 PM
While I don't necessarily believe Sealion was a bluff, I agree with Sandbag that Germany couldn't have pulled off a successful invasion.

All it would take would be one heavy cruiser or capital ship to make it down from Scapa Flow to decimate the entire landing fleet.

Germany would not have had the luxury of many landing points like the Allies did in France...so the invasion force would likely have been more concentrated and easier to attack with capital ships.

Think of D-Day. Overwhelming (and unparalled) air superiority, massive buildup of troops over the years, and incredible navy support...and Eisenhower still was not sure it would succeed - to the point he apparently had two speeches prepared - one announcing the successful invasion the other announcing a failure.

Yes, England's defenses were in no way as built up as "fortress Europe", but then the Germans had no where near the air or navy or logistical means to successful pull off an invasion.

Course it would have made one interesting fight...maybe that should be the next sim.

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg


"Death before Unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:14 PM
sandbag_69 wrote:
- Response,
-
- 1. Do you honestly believe that U-Boats, E-boats and
- mines would protect a German invasion fleet made of
- mostly barges and the odd transport ship. You are
- assuming that the weather would be perfect and that
- the U-Boats and E-Boats could somehow
- outshoot/outfight Destroyers, Cruisers and MTB's of
- the RN from range before they could close on the
- invasion fleet.

Yes, in much the same manner as the BEF was evacuated from Dunkirk and returned to England. ASSUMING that a truly coordinated plan had been crafted by the Germans, any sortie by RN forces out of Scapa or the W Coast of the UK would have been subjected to attack from a variety of sources - U Boats, E-Boats, mines, and ceaseless air attack, all within shallow and restricted seas. Any Scapa units would have been under rolling air attacks from the time that they came within 200 miles of the Dutch coast. Consider what German airpower inflicted upon the RN during the evacuations of Greece and Crete, not to mention the fates of PoW and REPULSE. And this says nothing about the substantial German naval surface forces which were then still available in the North Sea.

The weather is rarely perfect in the vicinity of the Channel. But if it was periodically good enough to permit Dunkirk and Normandy to occur, then who's to say that it would not have favored the Germans with a window of opportunity? The Germans possessed several major and secure port facilities - Antwerp, Rotterdam, LeHavre, Brest, Cherbourg -where they could simply wait for that window.

Yes, the RN was large, but much of it was deployed in the Mediterranean. The Germans basically faced the Home Fleet out of Scapa as an immediate threat and that was it. All other RN forces were scattered between Gibraltar, Malta, and Alexandria.

In any case, by being forced to follow a predictable path toward the the Channel, the Germans could probably have maintained 20-30 subs at each entrance. Add E-boats at night (no effective radar FC for the Allies at this time in the war), rolling air attacks by day, the intervantion of powerful German naval surface forces, and the RN would have faced a daunting task to just reach the invasion beaches in condition to fight.


- 2. Even if the Gerries had landed in Kent they still
- needed to be re-inforced, re-supplied with Ammo,
- Fuel etc. I dont see how this was possible with the
- largest navy in the world at that time biting at
- your heels.

See above re largest navy in the world.

Agree that post landing logistics would make or break the operation. I am supposing that, if truly serious, the German would have devoted as much effort to knocking out England as they did preparing for Operation Barbarossa.

It would do well to remember that, at the time of BoB, Germany possessed the largest military air transport fleet in the world. This is not to say that air re-supply could have covered all bets, but it might have been able to provide a valuable increment of supply until the cross-Channel situation had been stabilized. The RN in the summer of 1941 would have been utterly unable to contest control of the Channel for any sustained period of time. Amy ship damaged would have been either lost through subsequent attack or out of action for months in the event that it was actually able to make a safe port.


-
- 3. British Army exhausted and short of material :
- Yes I am sure they were exhausted, but were the
- Germans not, they had fought there way through
- France and the Low Countries without a break. Yes,
- the British were short of equipment but not
- completly unarmed. There was at least 1 Canadian
- Division fully armed in the South of England after
- Dunkirk as well thousands of other troops that could
- have put up enough resistance to hold a German
- bridgehead before the navy would have cut its supply
- lines and pounded it from the sea.

I do not think that the Germans could have been deemed exhausted by any means. What was the duration of the Battle of France - a month of fighting?

By contrast, the BEF had been driven off the Continent, losing vast amounts of materiel in the process. At that moment in time, they were desperately short of field artillery, transport, tanks, general materiel, even rifles. Numbers of troops are inconsequential if they are not properly equipped.
-
- 4. Paratroopers : I think the British would have at
- least expected an airborne landing might have
- happened so the German Paras would have had a
- helluva hard time capturing and holding a beach head
- or port before the British would have overun them
- with tanks. Crete only succeded due to poor
- commanders ordering a withdrawal from Malmede
- Airfield and not counter attacking until too late.

The Allies certainly enjoyed success in their paratrooper drops over Normandy. They helped considerably to isolate the battlefield. What if the Germans had employed theirs to in the same manner?



- 5. Aerial resupply of an invasion force would have
- been almost impossible. Think of the fuel, ammo,
- food etc that would have been needed to have been
- flown in each day to support the troops. I never
- heard of a safe airfield in wartime in an invasion
- area,

Normandy? Guadalcanal? Okinawa? Demyansk Pocket? Airfields were put into use long before the enemy had been finally defeated. I do not say that aerial re-supply alone could support the entire invasion force. But it was available to provide a respectable increment in very quick time.

-
- 6. Reasonable chance : No Chance. The only way it
- would have succeded would have been if the British
- had thrown their hands up at the first sight of a
- German fleet. Co-ordination helps greatly in an
- invasion but relies so much on supplies as well as
- firepower. How where the Panzers going to come
- ashore? Where was the fuel coming from, or do you
- think they would have topped up at teh local Esso in
- Dover? The Allies in Normandy had all this , a
- massive fleet, massive airpower and much more.
- The British did have tanks and armoured cars to
- help repel an invasion as well as Guns or do you
- really think the Luftwaffe could have knocked them
- all out.

It has been claimed in a previous post that the British government was extremely close to seeking terms with Germany after the Battle ofFrance and that the decision to persevere had only been taken after long and agonized debate. What might have been the reaction of the government to a successful German lodgement upon the coast of Kent, or the Isle of Wight? or Portsmouth?

The panzers would have come ashore, even if the infantry first had to secure the ferry docks at Dover. Had the Germans been serious about the operation, a way would have been found.

Agreed that the Allies deployed a hugs force to effect the invasion of Normandy, but the opponents was likewise far more powerful that what Great Britain could have mustered in the dark days immediately after Dunkirk. the British undeniably had tanks and armored cars remaining in England, but how many? and of what quality? For every Matilda, there were also the decrepit A.9's, A.10's, A.13's, and Marmon-Herringtons. The British were still deploying using WW1 vintage Rolls-Royces in the Desert at this point in time. In any case, they were desperately few in numbers after Dunkirk.

The British would have had to commit the RN and the RAF to fight to the last extremity, and, IMHO, they would have been defeated by the Germans.
-
-
- The truth is the SeaLion was a bluff to pressure the
- British into a peace deal to end the war quickly so
- the Hun could turn on the Bear.

I know that we must ultimately agree to disagree on this matter, but that's what makes history and hindsight such tantalizing pursuits.....


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:18 PM
I just love historically accurate accounts of what happened 60+ years ago, especially from 14 year olds.

At least they're thinkin' and tryin'

-------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:29 PM
nearmiss wrote:
- I just love historically accurate accounts of what
- happened 60+ years ago, especially from 14 year
- olds.
-
- At least they're thinkin' and tryin'
-
I am re-incarnated.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:43 PM
nifse wrote:
- I dont thing all those barges in the French and
- Dutch ports + 90 000 soldiers were just for show.
- They planed to ship 40! divisions to England.
- "Planes would be used as artillery" Hitler said but
- then they needed to dominate the skies.
-
-

40 Divisions , my God, think of all those poor Gerries on wooden barges sailing on the choppy channel with a few cruisers n destroyers sailing at you full speed.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:46 PM
all you need to know about the German invasion fleet is that it largely comprised extemporised canal barges. To cross the channel. Yeah, they were serious alright. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:04 AM
For SeaLion to have worked it would have required a fast unopposed landing on the South Coast, a speedy embarkation of panzers, supplies, Guns and men from Wooden barges defended on the Sea by Submarines and E-Boats against Destroyers, Cruisers and MTB's as well as a Battleship or 2 in perfect weather.

I doubt even the Luftwaffe could have sank all the ships of the Royal Navy before they managed to attack the landing beaches. Anyway what about at night , there would be no aircover available to defend against the ships.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:06 AM
As the crazy man told his naval commander-in-chief:
"On land I am a hero. At sea I am a coward."

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:10 AM
yes large scale amphibious landing at night; I like it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Let's hope they included torches in the Wehrmacht kit to help out.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:17 AM
if the germans had been able to land .. which is of course very doubtful .. the entire British armored contingent in the south of England consisted of 6 tanks (Matilda's from memory).. everything else had been abandoned in France.

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:57 AM
Point 1: Hitler really did admire and respect the British Empire (he used to continually watch the film 'The North-West Frontier'). He really really did hope to persuade the British to join his side. he was greatly saddened and disappointed when they didn't.

Point 2: One thing is perfectly clear - the British public and government took the threat of German invasion very very seriously in 1940. They expected to be invaded at any moment. So if it was an elaborate hoax by the Germans, then it was perfectly deployed.

Point 3: The germans did not realise how important RDF was to the British defence system (although they did realise what it was). When they did attack the RDF stations, they found little visible evidence of damage after the attacks (the towers 'open' lattice-work structure meant they were resistant to bomb blast damage - of course the germans couldn't see the greater damage that was being done to the associated network of cabling!). Consequently, efforts were soon dropped against the RDF system.

Point 4: merchant shipping was targeted in the first phase of the battle, but this was only a means to an end; that of the destruction of RAF fighters. It was meant to lure RAF fighters into combat.

Point 5: I have heard accounts of some tremendously brave actions by polish fighting forces. During fighting in Poland, some polish troops were taking a hammering. Seeing this, a polish cavalry unit sabre charged the german tanks in order to help save their comrades! Polish airmen in the RAF were renowned for their fighting spirit and bravery.

Regards,

BobTuck.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:13 AM
BobTuck wrote:
- Point 1: Hitler really did admire and respect the
- British Empire (he used to continually watch the
- film 'The North-West Frontier'). He really really
- did hope to persuade the British to join his side.
- he was greatly saddened and disappointed when they
- didn't.
-
- Point 2: One thing is perfectly clear - the British
- public and government took the threat of German
- invasion very very seriously in 1940. They expected
- to be invaded at any moment. So if it was an
- elaborate hoax by the Germans, then it was perfectly
- deployed.
-
- Point 3: The germans did not realise how important
- RDF was to the British defence system (although they
- did realise what it was). When they did attack the
- RDF stations, they found little visible evidence of
- damage after the attacks (the towers 'open'
- lattice-work structure meant they were resistant to
- bomb blast damage - of course the germans couldn't
- see the greater damage that was being done to the
- associated network of cabling!). Consequently,
- efforts were soon dropped against the RDF system.
-
- Point 4: merchant shipping was targeted in the first
- phase of the battle, but this was only a means to an
- end; that of the destruction of RAF fighters. It was
- meant to lure RAF fighters into combat.
-
- Point 5: I have heard accounts of some tremendously
- brave actions by polish fighting forces. During
- fighting in Poland, some polish troops were taking a
- hammering. Seeing this, a polish cavalry unit sabre
- charged the german tanks in order to help save their
- comrades! Polish airmen in the RAF were renowned for
- their fighting spirit and bravery.
-
- Regards,
-
- BobTuck.
-
-

Good points there Bob!

Point 1 : Is that the film with Errol Flynn in it. Was it historically accurate? lol. Glad we never joined them cunning Nazi's they may have stabbed us in the back once the Commies were beaten.

Point 2 : I doubt they expected an invasion but it was wise for them to show that they would attempt to repel it if it happened for public morale.

Point 3 : I didn't know that but it sure makes sense.

Point 4 : I watched an old newsreel of a Luftwaffe attack on Merchant Shipping in the Channel around the time of the B.o.B., but they couldn't hit any of them. i know this was one attack but think of a large feet of naval ships at full steam ahead , gun's blazing etc powering down on a fleet of Wooden canal barges full of men and material.
I really dont believe Hitler would have risked a major disaster in the channel after such a fantastic victory in France.

Point 5 : Poles were always brave men, they took Monte Cassino when no one else could, they landed at Arnhem on the third wave knowing the british were in serious trouble and still attempted a crossing under fire of the Rhine to aid the British.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:15 AM
The Kriegsmarine was heavily damaged after Norway. Their total forces ready for action:

1 pocket battleship (possible, but engaged in working up after a refit, so unlikely to be fully seaworthy)

1 heavy cruiser

3 light cruisers

7 destroyers

various torpedo boats

approx 30 submarines.

The Royal Navy forces available for immediate action in Britain (ie not on convoy escort, based in Med etc)

5 battleships

10 or 11 cruisers

50+ destroyers

various light craft, submarines etc

Only the destroyers would have really been necessary. The German forces could not have screened their invasion fleet, and all it would take is for the destroyers to get amongst them. Most of the barges were so unseaworthy, they could have been sunk by the wake of a passing destroyer, without it even firing it's guns.

The German invasion fleet was supposed to sail the night before the landing, and for some units they would spend more than 24 hours on their river barges at sea before landing.

That means the Luftwaffe has to be able to keep the RN at bay at night as well as in the daytime. Considering the Luftwaffe didn't even manage to stop the RN evacuating 300,000 men from Dunkirk, that seems pretty unlikely.


Regarding air supply, the Luftwaffe tried it in Crete. They lost over 150 Ju 52s, and the seaborne part of the invasion was wiped out by the RN.


The British forces lost most of their heavy equipment at Dunkirk, but resupply was fairly swift. There was one Canadian division already in place, and by 11th September there were a further 3 divisions fully equipped, and 8 "well equipped". There would be little difficulty concentrating them at the invasion sites, as the Luftwaffe couldn't defeat the RAF, defeat the RN, provide close support AND provide interdiction of reinforcements (of course, they didn't even manage the first of those tasks, so the rest is moot)

Just after the Dunkirk evacuation, there were 8 tanks left in Britain. By the middle of September, the earliest date at which the Germans could have tried an invasion, there were 400.

As to wether or not it was a serious plan, it certainly was. The preparations went ahead, the forces were allocated, the Rhine was stripped of barges, the air campaign was launched. It went no further because the air campaign failed.

The invasion was probably doomed from the start, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. The Germans had improvised an invasion of Norway, which worked. They had little experience in amphibious invasions, so it's only natural they underestimated the risks.

Possibly a more cautious leader wouldn't have attempted it, but the final decision rested with Hitler, and he was nothing if not a gambler.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:36 AM
Dunkelgrun wrote:
- johann_thor wrote:
-- british beer is wierd i drank 31 pints of
-- boddington's (cream of manchester) in a single night
-- in tenerife - the north-eastern girl (huge) i was
-- drinking with drank 38.
--
-- however i think that beer is only 3.5% or so /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
--
-- the british are bulletproof drinking-buddies !
--
-- in iceland .. we drink wodka /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Boddington's - a pale imitation
- of it's once former glory. Not all our beer is that
- weak (or tasteless), just mostly that brewed by the
- multi-national companies that own 80% (?) of our
- beerage.
- If you get over here I hope you will try some of our
- other more wonderful brews.
- Btw, went to Iceland about 20 years ago and had a
- hell of a job finding (and affording) anything to
- drink at all. Ended up with some stuff that
- translated as Black Death. Whatever was it?
- Cheers!


Black death is a wodka http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - 20 years ago beer in iceland was BANNED and ONLY strong alcohol was allowed !

a beer in a bar in iceland is 7 euros http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif bring lotsa cash !

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:38 AM
Fantastic post hop2002. Figures are brilliant and well researched.

I still belive it a major bluff, remember for a bluff to work you must make the opponent believe you are serious thats why a lot of preparation for invasion was done.

Hitler was a gambler but no fool, and any good gambler needs to be able to bluff, this he did very well with Sealion.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:46 AM
Dude stfu what really stopped the germans from invading england everybody knows was tom cruise in his spit!!

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:17 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- The weather is rarely perfect in the vicinity of the
- Channel. But if it was periodically good enough to
- permit Dunkirk and Normandy to occur, then who's to
- say that it would not have favored the Germans with
- a window of opportunity?

Normandy was planned for June, due to the increased
likelihood of good weather and favourable tides. The
weather might be nice right now, but in September/October
1940 (the window of opportunity for invasion) the weather
might well have been less favourable (I don't have full
metereological information to know how good or bad it is,
though) and the tides less favourable. Post October 1940
the next favourable tide/weather opportunity would have
been after the spring tides of early 1941, by which time
the UK would have been rather stronger militarily.

[...snip...]

- The Allies certainly enjoyed success in their
- paratrooper drops over Normandy. They helped
- considerably to isolate the battlefield. What if the
- Germans had employed theirs to in the same manner?

The deployments at Normandy were the first divisional
scale parachute drops ever seen. Again, they were years
in the planning. Some troops of the US 1st Infantry
division were also given parachute training, after that
division was changed from triangular (3 regiments, then
the standard US Divisional organisation) to
square (4 regiments, as 2 2 regiment brigades) but not
used. Prior to Normandy all use of paratroops had been
at battalion or regimental strength only, by both
Allied and Axis.

[..snip...]

- Agreed that the Allies deployed a hugs force to
- effect the invasion of Normandy, but the opponents
- was likewise far more powerful that what Great
- Britain could have mustered in the dark days
- immediately after Dunkirk.

This is also very true.

- the British undeniably
- had tanks and armored cars remaining in England, but
- how many? and of what quality? For every Matilda,
- there were also the decrepit A.9's, A.10's, A.13's,

Actually the A series were no worse than the PzKpfw III.

The Pzkpf III AusfA had armour ranging from 5 to 50mm,
with an average on most surfaces of 30mm. It's maximum
speed was 32kph. The A9 had typical armour of 30mm
(also its maximum) and a speed of 25kph. The A13 had
very much thinner armour (6 to 14mm) but better speed at
about 50kph. The armaments were similar. So the main
battle tanks (as opposed to close support like the Pz IV)
were very similar in capabilities.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:22 AM
Hilter was an opportunist.

Britain in 1940 wasn't an opportune target (Hermann's fault).

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:47 AM
AaronGT wrote:

-
- The deployments at Normandy were the first
- divisional
- scale parachute drops ever seen.

AFAIK both the Germans and the Soviets had launched divisional sized para drops before that.

Anyway, I believe the operational capability of the Royal Navy in the Channel is severely overestimated. IF the Germans had air supremacy, I fail to see how, or why, any British vessel could survive in that narrow strait.

There's a reason battle ships were abandoned as the main arm of navies during WW2.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:51 AM
Here's an interesting link:

http://www.wargamesdirectory.com/html/articles/various/sealowe.asp

I used to go down to London to wargame, and apparently
once in the early 1970s the wargames group recreated
the Battle of Britain, with Adolf Galland commanding the
Luftwaffe.

We did one wargame at Camberley staff college, recreating
a Soviet assault. This comprised a command team for each
Army or Corps on each side, in separate rooms, with two
phones - one up to higher command, one down to the troops
at the front (a.k.a our dedicated unit umpire).
I don't know how accurate it was, but there was definitely
a certain fog of war, and juggling expectations of location
and resupply of logistics were key. The USSR Front had to
reconfigure its entire operation half way through as its
initial system for managing information flow didn't work.
It ended up with about 3 people at Front doing the planning,
and about 7 manning the phones!

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:09 PM
My grandad was a cook for an AA battery.

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:16 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- Here's an interesting link:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.wargamesdirectory.com/html/articl
- es/various/sealowe.asp"
- target=_blank>http://www.wargamesdirectory.com/htm
- l/articles/various/sealowe.asp</a>
-

Thanks for the link. Interesting game. And most likely a probable scenario for a German assault without air supremacy.

Obviously there's a lot of "If's" in this particular "What if?", and we all like to stack odds in our own favour. My main point is just that given the right circumstances (ie. a complete defeat of the RAF), Sealion just might have succeeded. And I'm just glad it didn't. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:18 PM
homeless1 wrote:
-
-
- My grandad was a cook for an AA battery.
-

Oh, I guess he recharged it then? Anyway, I mostly use AAA batteries - for the cordless keyboard and mouse, you know.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /slush



http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:19 PM
I'm sure the Germans would have had an easier ride without Churchill and could maybe have got what they wanted without a direct invasion (a compliant Britain, keeping it's nose out of europe, but keeping it's Empire, mainly to frustrate the Americans and Japanese). It's difficult to overestimate the difference that Churchill made in terms of keeping the home front together at a very difficult time.

Certainly true that Hitler admired British Empire and he wanted to base his rule over conquered east Europe/USSR on British Raj in India in that he was amazed the way 30,000 British could control a country the size of India..

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:28 PM
One chap pointed out that the German armed forces can't have been very tired after invading France.

My limited understanding is that

Despite an overwhelming success in France the German airforce was tired: machines had flown a lot, pilots had been flying a number of sorties a day and there was air opposition, even if not very effective, by French and British during the invasion of France. It had taken its toll.
The Germany army had just crossed most of europe- and it wasn't a stroll in the park, with fierce opposition in certain places. Men and equipment must have been tired as well.

Am not saying they were exhausted or anything like that- am just pointing out that they weren't in tip top shape.

Neither was the British army i'd say. However the RAF had very wisely refrained from engaging too heavily in the battle of France and this had preserved its fighting strength.

can't comment on anything else i lack the knowledge

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:57 PM
Slush69 wrote:
-
- homeless1 wrote:
--
--
-- My grandad was a cook for an AA battery.
--
-
- Oh, I guess he recharged it then? Anyway, I mostly
- use AAA batteries - for the cordless keyboard and
- mouse, you know.
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /slush


Don't mock. He won the MM for capturing a German pilot armed only with a bottle of Worchester Sauce.

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:43 PM
You're all wrong. What stopped Hilter crossing the Channel was sharks. With lasers. On their heads.

I should know. My Great Uncle was the commanding officer of some sort of division - it was a long division, I think.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:21 PM
A peace treaty was not possible in 1940, due to a pact with poland and france britain was already at war with germany, it must be realised that this was a war of ideals not simply territory, there was no chance of the british accepting german occupation under the swastika.


With regard to the invasion, the only equipment the germans needed to get across the channel was all in place, and yes it was simple barges and rowboats, for their planned first strike the germans realised that britain had no heavy weapons left, so a strong concentration of infantry along a wide beachead front backed up by their air support (read stukas) would be sufficient at least to form a hold on southern england.

to this end they would need to

1) get their units across the channel
2) gain and maintain air superiority

regarding air superiority even then the germans realised that the stukas could not be effective if there were maurauding RAF fighters on them, also with air superiority they could defend their own foothold from arial bombing, the only real offensive power left to britain.

getting their units across the channel was as noticed hindered by the royal navy, since the british fleet was much larger than the german. however it was felt that using stukas and JU88s with armed with torpedoes the RN could be effectively held off from mounting a serious attack on their convoy of invasion barges, again for these bombers to attack with impunity the RAF would have to be out of the picture.

For these reasons it has been widely accepted that the battle of britain was entirely rested on an air campaign, the result of which would dictate what followed, had the RAF been destroyed a large number of germans would have been coming across the channel with their aircraft striking defensive positions ahead of them.



http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/snake.jpg



IL2 : http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/il2
CS : http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/cs

Hawgdog
10-01-2003, 03:24 PM
Dam, I thought it was affordable housing...

<center></script>The original HawgDog, dont be fooled by fneb imitations
~W~ cause S! has become USELESS
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:33 PM
AaronGT,


Very interesting post, thanks.


some thoughts -

(1) Under 15,000 feet the 109 had a substantial performance advantage over the BoB Spitfire. I wonder how/whether this was factored into aerial combat attrition rates.

(2) Does the wargame address what the LW & REF had been doing in the time it took to assemble shipping for the crossing?



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:38 PM
AH_Solid_Snake wrote:
- A peace treaty was not possible in 1940, due to a
- pact with poland and france britain was already at
- war with germany, it must be realised that this was
- a war of ideals not simply territory, there was no
- chance of the british accepting german occupation
- under the swastika.
-
-
Nice idea but wrong. Think of how the British destroyed their French Allies Fleet at Oran, and you still think Britian would not have made peace because of a pact with France and Poland.

- With regard to the invasion, the only equipment the
- germans needed to get across the channel was all in
- place, and yes it was simple barges and rowboats,
- for their planned first strike the germans realised
- that britain had no heavy weapons left, so a strong
- concentration of infantry along a wide beachead
- front backed up by their air support (read stukas)
- would be sufficient at least to form a hold on
- southern england.
-
- to this end they would need to
-
- 1) get their units across the channel
- 2) gain and maintain air superiority
-

getting troops across is the one thing, keeping them supplied with canal barges of food, fuel, ammo and re-inforcements is quite another with a massive hostile navy in the area. A lot of people seem to think that if a German army had somehow invaded a beachhead then the war would have been over. I doub't this would have been the case without at least an attempt by the RN to attack its supply barges in the channel. Sealion was a sham no doubt about it.

- regarding air superiority even then the germans
- realised that the stukas could not be effective if
- there were maurauding RAF fighters on them, also
- with air superiority they could defend their own
- foothold from arial bombing, the only real offensive
- power left to britain.
-
Air superiority is vital but I doubt the Luftwaffe in 1940 could have destroyed a British Armoured counter-attack before it engaged the German Ground troops on a beachhead.
the germans would have needed large amounts of panzers and 88's to beat off the heavily armoured Matildas that the British had. i seriously doubt that the canal barges would have allowed the Germans to get many panzers and Guns on shore in time to beat off a co-ordinated attack.

- getting their units across the channel was as
- noticed hindered by the royal navy, since the
- british fleet was much larger than the german.
- however it was felt that using stukas and JU88s with
- armed with torpedoes the RN could be effectively
- held off from mounting a serious attack on their
- convoy of invasion barges, again for these bombers
- to attack with impunity the RAF would have to be out
- of the picture.
-
i don't doubt a number of ships would have been sunk and badly damaged by air-attack but even a few destroyers intercepting that fleet would have caused carnage and failure for the entire invasion.

- For these reasons it has been widely accepted that
- the battle of britain was entirely rested on an air
- campaign, the result of which would dictate what
- followed, had the RAF been destroyed a large number
- of germans would have been coming across the channel
- with their aircraft striking defensive positions
- ahead of them.
-
If the RAF was beaten then I think the British would have sued for peace terms. Even without a RAF the Germans would never have risked a seaborne or Airborne invasion of England. The Germans were just not capable of amphibious assault in 1940.
If you have ever read about Narvik 1940 and realised what the battleship Warspite did to a German flottila there then you may understand why I believe Sealion was a non-starter.
-

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:26 PM
I'd just like to correct something quick...

>>A couple good guys with rifles could have stopped Hitler
>>in Poland. Hitler had orders that stated the troops were
>>to stop if they met any stiff resistance.

This was the re-occupation of the Ruhr in Germany, not Poland.

Hitler didn't care if the Poles shot back.

Stenciled on the side of my Dora:

"Lasst das H√¬∂llentor √¬∂ffen, es friert hier oben!"
("Leave the gates to Hell open, it's FREEZING up here!")

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:29 PM
e boats where potent, dont think otherwise, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
i think they could of gone for england over russia
3million germans invaded russia
how many boats could 3million germans make?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
politics got in the way of the german war effort, and madness too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
they planed to take out the raf so they could bomb at will
the rn was the 2nd target i think

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:50 PM
p1ngu666 wrote:
- e boats where potent, dont think otherwise, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Agreed E-Boats were potent against transport shipping on the East coast but not sure how effective they would be against a fighting fleet of destroyers, cruisers etc, esp in daytime.

- i think they could of gone for england over russia
- 3million germans invaded russia
- how many boats could 3million germans make?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I imagine 3 million rowing boats could have been built but anything else would have taken months to build , launch and test before attacking England.

- politics got in the way of the german war effort,
- and madness too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think Hitler was mad at the end of the War but not sure about 1940.

- they planed to take out the raf so they could bomb
- at will
- the rn was the 2nd target i think
-

My point exactly, take out the RAF, force a Peace agreement with a bombed Britain. Although I think that Bombing alone would have taken years as the German's didn't have enough heavy bombers to destroy enough of Britains city's

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:52 AM
You're ignoring context if you think the Jerries weren't terrified of the Royal Navy catching their "invasion fleet' of E-boats and barges bobbing around in the Channel and destroying the cream of the Germany's youth in 1940. Remember, the Pacific war hadn't started yet, and battleships and cruisers were, by and large, considered almost invulnerable to air attack by military experts of the time.

It was, in fact, extremely difficult to hit a maneauvering warship with enough high explosives to sink it while it was shooting the daylights out of you. The successes of the Imperial Japanese, and later, the US, Navy were due to the very high professionalism of their aircrews, and it is unlikely that the Stukas of 1940 could match their standards or the quality of their torpedos.

That was why the German Navy demanded the destruction of the RAF and neutralization of the Home Fleet in its harbors before agreeing to Sealion

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:07 AM
horseback wrote:
- It was, in fact, extremely difficult to hit a
- maneauvering warship with enough high explosives to
- sink it while it was shooting the daylights out of
- you. The successes of the Imperial Japanese, and
- later, the US, Navy were due to the very high
- professionalism of their aircrews, and it is
- unlikely that the Stukas of 1940 could match their
- standards or the quality of their torpedos.

What sort of torpedo capable force did the LW have
at the time? The RAF/RN had several aircraft capable
of delivering torpedos at the time.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 01:23 PM
churchil knew he was losing. The luwftwafe was destroying the most important targets like radars and airports.
he tried a dirty trick that changed the course of the war,

he started bombing civilians, in Dresde.

hitler besides a bastard was ****** enough as to answer him back starting bombing london and leaving the important targets forgotten,then the RAF had the time to recover and most important of all, they kept the radar

this lousy trick was what got us rid off of the nazis

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 04:47 PM
LOL, it took the British till Feb 1945 to bomb Dresden./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The Allies were not loosing the war in 1945.

The LW had dropped some bombs on London, though by accident, to which the British dropped some bombs on BERLIN a few nights later.

raaaid you are WW2 illiterate.


raaaid wrote:
- churchil knew he was losing. The luwftwafe was
- destroying the most important targets like radars
- and airports.
- he tried a dirty trick that changed the course of
- the war,
-
- he started bombing civilians, in Dresde.
-
- hitler besides a bastard was ****** enough as to
- answer him back starting bombing london and leaving
- the important targets forgotten,then the RAF had the
- time to recover and most important of all, they kept
- the radar
-
- this lousy trick was what got us rid off of the
- nazis
-
-



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"