Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Churchill plans the occupation of Norway properly.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Draco,

    You are labouring under a number of false assumptions and just bad information based on myths.

    - Sending more fighters to the French solves nothing and endangers Britain's defence. British and French air doctrine was not advanced enough to in 1940 to do what you ask. More fighters would simply stayed up high looking for German fighters, they would not have dropped down on the deck to attack German columns. It was not 1944 and Fighter Command was not a tactical air force.

    - The LW lost about 1240 a/c to all causes in the west in the 1940 campaign in May and June. Most British losses pre-Dunkirk were on the ground when they destroyed their own aircraft that could not be evacuated. Those Hurricanes you think were so poor actually acquitted themselves quite well all things considered.

    - The French campaign would not have been altered by more British fighters. the French army was defeated in the first phase of the battle and by the end of May it was only a matter of time before the Germans finished the job. If 96 French, 10 British, 22 Belgian and 10 Dutch divisions were not able to stop 139 German divisions in May, then 66 French and 4 British divisions were not going to stop them in June regardless of how many Spitfires and "3 blade" Hurricanes are available.

    - In 1940 the LW was not that good at hitting moving targets, lacked AP bombs, had no torpedo a/c of note and the torpedos themselves were faulty. British naval losses to LW attack were few and far between considering the effort expended. In 1941 the LW was better at Crete because it had been better equipped and had under gone specific training in anti-shipping operations.

    - Since France would fall in any case the stripping of fighter command would likely mean the British lose command of the air over Channel and may face invasion. While it is unlikely the Germans could have controlled the Channel from the air alone they may have attempted the invasion and if the battle for Britain became a land campaign in July or August, the British army is not likely to be successful in defending the country
    The Purist

    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

    Comment


    • #32
      [QUOTE=Pruitt;2330821]What you are actually describing is called "friction". It is not my job as a senior pilot to worry about who takes my place after I am gone. That is some other person's job. The aircraft at the Front are seldom the newest or best in the inventory. I won't be there to worry about who gets the new Fighters back home! You do know that the British did sell some Hurricanes to Belgium, Finland and Yugoslavia? It did not make any difference.

      Also keep in mind that British Fighter pilots were badly trained at the beginning of the Second World War. They flew in three plane "Vics" and were still flying "Dawn Patrol". The Fighters were trained to open fire while flying in mass formation and not really aiming! The German Fighters were using much better tactics like the "Finger Four" and made a habit of finding and attacking Fighter Bases the British were using in France.

      Any cocky, smart fighter pilot sends crappy tactics to hell in a fight, and uses his brains (even Pokrishkin did with the stupid Soviet tactics, avoiding death and shooting down 60 German planes). Like I said ten times already, those crappy planes, with crappy tactics (also a product of the thoroughly incompetent but much praised Dowding) in very inferior numbers destroyed (together with AA) the same number of planes in France, Holland and Belgium in a few weeks that were shot down in the whole BoB, which lasted several months and had the benefit of radar. Imagine what those allied pilots would have done with a few hundred additional, excellent planes. Perhaps you can't.
      Like I also said already, destroying more planes in France and saving allied bombers would have allowed the massive destruction of the longest traffic jam in the history of Europe (a super highway of death) and also stopped Guderian when he rapidly loses the Stukas and HS-123s that are clearing the way for his few, lousy tin tanks (mostly PZ I and II). The dive bombers would not have lasted a day if the primitive MS.406, etc, dealt with them, instead of with German fighters.

      When Saburo Sakai arrived in Lae with the Taiwan Air Wing they did not find Zero's waiting, they found the Mitsubishi A5M Type 96 Claude! An open cockpit fixed undercarriage Fighter. Fortunately these were destroyed and replaced by Zero's!

      Countries follow their best interests. It was NOT in the British best interests to give their best Fighters to the French. The French were beaten and now you say you think they would have carried on the fight if they were given Hurricanes and Spitfires? I don't think so! Goerring would have gotten a number of them and they would not have been available so fight the Battle of Britain!


      My point is that it was precisely in Britain's best interest to keep most British pilots in Britain (instead of sacrficing them stupidly in obsolete planes) and to use excellent foreign pilots to wipe out the LW and slow the invasion and to keep French pilots in the fight even if France fell. Experienced pilots and time were the paramount comodities and they wasted both by keeping the best planes out of action (wasting 100 of them in Dunkirk evacuating, instead of defending). They then wasted hundreds of the excellent planes coming out of production in the hands of brave but inexperienced pilots.
      Last edited by Draco; 02 Sep 12, 10:16.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
        I have it from secondary sources there were no pre June 1940 German plans to use the French ports as naval bases, other than entirely hypothetical. It is clear from general reading the rapid conquest of France was not expected nor the capture of the Atlantic ports that summer. Indeed the German naval planners were spending as much time that spring wondering what they would do when the attack in the west was defeated and the German armies pushed back. Raeder & his staff thought the most porbable case would be possesion of the Dutch & and Channel ports. They probablly dreamed about the Atlantic ports, but I've not yet seen any solid evidence they were basing actual operational plans on posessing them. They did not think it would happen until it happened.
        Thanks, that was my impression too.
        Michele

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
          Quote:
          Donitz had suggested Norway for U-boat bases, but this is rather shortsighted since plans for the invasion of France were already underway.
          Quote:
          Is it? or is your take of the issue teleologic? Can Doentiz be sure the Germans will gain submarine bases on the French Atlantic coast? BTW, by mid-war, the same consideration above (difficulty of accessing the open Atlantic and going back to base) applied to these bases too, the most dangerous part of the U-Boote's missions from here was crossing the first few hundreds miles.

          I have it from secondary sources there were no pre June 1940 German plans to use the French ports as naval bases, other than entirely hypothetical. It is clear from general reading the rapid conquest of France was not expected nor the capture of the Atlantic ports that summer. Indeed the German naval planners were spending as much time that spring wondering what they would do when the attack in the west was defeated and the German armies pushed back. Raeder & his staff thought the most porbable case would be possesion of the Dutch & and Channel ports. They probablly dreamed about the Atlantic ports, but I've not yet seen any solid evidence they were basing actual operational plans on posessing them. They did not think it would happen until it happened.
          You are quite correct in your comments about there being no pre-existing plans to operate U-boats from the French Atlantic ports. It would be a brave commander who planned his strategy on the use of assets which were not actually in his possession at the time he drew up his plans, especially since, only 25 years earlier, Kaiser Bill's army never came close to the Atlantic coast in over four years of trying!

          The same point, incidentally, applies to the suggestion that Norwegian ore supplies were not essential to the German war economy because alternative sources would become available once the deposits in Northern France were captured. I have come across this argument more than once, usually put forward by individuals who insist upon reading history backwards!

          By the way, the first boat actually to use a French Atlantic port was U30, a Type VIIA, which entered Lorient to refuel, after an Atlantic patrol, on 7 July 1940.
          Last edited by The Purist; 03 Sep 12, 22:41. Reason: changed "&" to "7"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
            Again, referring to the highlighted sections, I would point out the following.

            1). All Mitchell proved by sinking the Ostfriesland was that the aircraft of the time, given enough time, could sink an old battleship, provided that the battleship was motionless, without a crew to carry out damage control or operate anti-aircraft weapons, and had her internal watertight doors opened in advance. As a military lesson, the whole undertaking was useless.

            2). I suspect you don't know who Dr. Possony was , but if you really believe that the loss to the German navy of one heavy cruiser, (50% of those in commission), three light cruisers ( two sunk and one damaged beyond effective repair, 50% of those in commission), and 10 destroyers (50% of those in commission ), together with the damage to two battleships (100% of those in commission) which put them both out of action until early 1941, was worth the capture of four small torpedo boats and the odd pre WW1 coast defence ship, then I would respectfully submit that your view is not really in accordance with reality.

            3). 'The mighty RN was chased away from...etc' Emotive language is no substitute for the facts, which are that the RN successfully transported the BEF to France, successfully transported the Norwegian expedition to Norway, subsequently successfully crippled most of the German fleet during the Norwegian campaign, and then successfully evacuated the bulk of allied troops from Norway.

            In addition, the RN was able, in the face of German air superiority, to evacuate over half a million men from France during Operations Dynamo, Cycle & Aerial. Furthermore, far from being 'chased away' from Crete, the RN succeeded in all the tasks allocated to it at the time, these being the evacuation of Commonwealth troops from Greece to Crete, the prevention of Axis reinforcements reaching Crete by sea, and the subsequent evacuation of Commonwealth troops from Crete.

            Thus, it is far from reasonable to assume, as you do, that the RN would be 'sunk or chased away from the invasion zone' the available evidence suggests exactly the opposite, and the facts to September 1940 rather demonstrate the difficulty the Luftwaffe experienced in hitting ships at sea in daylight, whilst of course the Luftwaffe could not operate against naval targets during the hours of darkness at all.

            I do not deny that the RN of 1940 could not determine the outcome of military operations on land, where the role of air power had indeed become pre-eminent, but to argue that air power had superceded sea power in naval warfare in 1940/1 is, I would contend, fallacious and is, I fear, demonstrative of a rather simplistic and populist view of the events of 1940, based on the (often incorrect) myths which arose at the time concerning the nature and capabilities of air power, most of which have been long discredited by subsequent research.
            1) Yes Mitchell proved that an old plane could sink and old Battleships and as planes evolved much faster than batleships it was obvious that the army with the best bombers and torpedo planes could destroy the army with battleships several hundred miles away. The Japanese and Germans drew the right conslusions, the British didn't.

            2) You do not mention that Germany captured 15% of the huge Norwegian commercial and much of the fishing fleet.

            3) If planes didn't chase away the RN from Norway after Germany had lost most ships, why did it live? It had no where else to fight and abandoning an ally without any need seems rather dumb.
            If the British navy was not chased away from Crete, why did Crete fall to a few German troops that were helpless agianst naval guns.
            I never thought than the most powerful and expensive navy in Europe was conceived for extremely successful evacuations. If that were the case Britain might as well have saved the money and weight wasted in huge cannon, shells, dangerous powder sacks, etc, and made large ships with lots of room for evacues and with 3 times as much AA. I thought that the RN was conceived to invade and to support land troops, and it was not allowed to do this because of Churchill's stupid planning, policies and decisions.
            The British think that it was the unavoidable destiny of the mighty French navy and RN to run away from or to fall under the mighty German war machine. In fact, the RN, RAF and the French forces had more than enough to trounce Germany, had they used it properly. I can only imagine what the much more competent Finnish, Polish or German military would have done with the formidable resources of the allies.

            Comment


            • #36
              I thought that the RN was conceived to invade and to support land troops, and it was not allowed to do this because of Churchill's stupid planning, policies and decisions.
              Wrong again. the RN existed to maintain "freedom of seas" for peaceful commerce and to protect British interests. It was not bulit to support the army although it did so once amphibious doctrine and, most importantly, craft were developed an built. Since the fleet existed to protect the sea lanes it was not going to allow a defeated ally's navy be used against british interests. That is pretty basic startegy,... keep weapons out of the hands of your enemy.

              Ships, unsupported by aircraft, were becoming more and more vulnerable as the war progressed and it makes perfect sense to protect your fleet from unnecessary damage. Fifty dive bombers are much less expensive than a heavy cruiser so the cruiser must be preserved for use where and when one has the advanatge. To expend resources where the advanatge lies with the enemy is bad strategy and worse tactics.

              Despite your rather comic book view of history the British made the correct call both in Norway, France and again in Crete (Crete being a near run thing). The battle was lost so it was time to retreat and thanks to the strength of the RN and the professional competency of its commander, it was there when needed,... and there when Italy, then Germany and then Japan all capitualted.

              So,... as has been shown in every thread you have participated in your judgement is flawed, your conclusions false and your knowledge of what was behind events extremely weak. In more than 8 years here I do not think anyone has been as grossly wrong about everything as you have been.

              Even "The Duke" was less erroneous than you when he was here discussing Sealion,... and that is a lowering of the bar that is remarkable in its own right.
              The Purist

              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

              Comment


              • #37
                Draco,

                In both cases you cite, the Luftwaffe had control of the air over these places. The Royal Navy was short of ships to patrol a global empire and lost quite a few in Greece and off Crete. They quit sailing to the North Coast of Crete in daylight hours.

                The Germans were able to air transport enough men into Norway and Crete to turn the tide. In these two cases air control was decisive.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  Draco,

                  In both cases you cite, the Luftwaffe had control of the air over these places. The Royal Navy was short of ships to patrol a global empire and lost quite a few in Greece and off Crete. They quit sailing to the North Coast of Crete in daylight hours.

                  The Germans were able to air transport enough men into Norway and Crete to turn the tide. In these two cases air control was decisive.

                  Pruitt
                  I know that's the reason I used them to show how the RN was chased away repeatedly by German planes, only because Churchill used dismally his mighty RAF. However, somebody countered that the RN was not chased away, but simple and wisely performed amazing evacuations.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Amazing things that get posted here?

                    If you believe the RN was wisely performing amazing evacuations, I have a bridge I want to sell you!

                    Pruitt
                    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Draco View Post
                      1) Yes Mitchell proved that an old plane could sink and old Battleships and as planes evolved much faster than batleships it was obvious that the army with the best bombers and torpedo planes could destroy the army with battleships several hundred miles away.
                      Armies don't have battleships, Navies do


                      The Japanese and Germans drew the right conslusions, the British didn't.
                      Yet Germany and Japan lost and the British(among others) won.
                      You should draw the proper conclusions......but probably won't.

                      2) You do not mention that Germany captured 15% of the huge Norwegian commercial and much of the fishing fleet.
                      These were commercial craft, not military.

                      3) If planes didn't chase away the RN from Norway after Germany had lost most ships, why did it live? It had no where else to fight and abandoning an ally without any need seems rather dumb.
                      Very few, if any, soldiers were left behind by the British in Norway.
                      Not really sure what you go about here.


                      If the British navy was not chased away from Crete, why did Crete fall to a few German troops that were helpless agianst naval guns.
                      That was explained to you long ago. You obviously are ignoring the very good information that has been provided for you.

                      I never thought than the most powerful and expensive navy in Europe was conceived for extremely successful evacuations. If that were the case Britain might as well have saved the money and weight wasted in huge cannon, shells, dangerous powder sacks, etc, and made large ships with lots of room for evacues and with 3 times as much AA. I thought that the RN was conceived to invade and to support land troops, and it was not allowed to do this because of Churchill's stupid planning, policies and decisions.

                      Nope. The RN was conceived for control of the high seas.


                      The British think that it was the unavoidable destiny of the mighty French navy and RN to run away from or to fall under the mighty German war machine. In fact, the RN, RAF and the French forces had more than enough to trounce Germany, had they used it properly. I can only imagine what the much more competent Finnish, Polish or German military would have done with the formidable resources of the allies.

                      Judging from your various threads, much better than you ever would have.
                      Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Go ahead Purist, kill this thread like you killed the one on Sicily.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Damn you Draco you have been killed several times , change strategy or you will fall deeplyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...................... ...........
                          "Give me 100 000 croatian soldiers and I will conqure all world" - Napoleon Bonaparte

                          Soldiers are coming and leaving while war will never end.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Draco View Post
                            Go ahead Purist, kill this thread like you killed the one on Sicily.
                            Granted.

                            You do not seem to want to take on board anything that shows your "theories" are nonsense so there is not need to continue sterile discussions.

                            You were given plenty of rope.
                            The Purist

                            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            • casanova
                              Adults Rashid Dostur
                              by casanova
                              The Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostur came back to Afghanistan and was promoted to military marshal by the Afghanian president Ashraf Ghani. ...
                              Today, 00:48
                            • casanova
                              Alouette III
                              by casanova
                              The military helicopter Alouette Iii will be staioned off duty in 1923 because of oldness by the Austrian airforce. The Austrian airfoce wants to buy...
                              Today, 00:22
                            • casanova
                              Israel Army
                              by casanova
                              The Israelian Army stationed all airdefencesystens, tanks and soldiers on the Liban and Syrian border. The Iran wants to attack Israel. Arabian terrorists...
                              Yesterday, 23:15
                            Working...
                            X