Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Churchill takes the initiative and invades Sicily

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

  • Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Getting back to Churchill and the invasion of Sicily.
    After being mauled by planes in Norway and planes and tanks in France, Churchill realizes that without planes he cannot defend the east. Accordingly, he decides to relocate the planes, men and ships, in Malaya, HK and Burma to Ceylon, India, Aden and Australia. He sends 3 Indian and 2 Anzac divisions to Sicily and Sardinia through the Persian RR. Half the Eastern fleet is sent to destroy the Italian ships in the red sea, leaving the Italian troops in east Africa without supplies and reinforcements. 100 Hurricanes and 50 Spitfires are sent to Ceylon and 200 Indian fighter pilots are trained.
    Assuming that the date for your invasion is in the first half of 1941, then you may be interested to know that at that time there was no Eastern Fleet, other than a handful of old, ex WW1 cruisers, 5 old WW1 'S' class destroyers, a number of armed merchant cruisers, and several Yangtse river gunboats, divided between East Indies Command and the China Station.

    Which of these would you propose sending into the Red Sea?

    Silly Admiralty, sending their ships to where the fighting was rather than holding them back to accommodate the fantasies of an ignoramus!

    I notice, by the way, that you are now invading Sardinia as well.

    Incidentally, Churchill could not send ANZAC divisions anywhere. These divisions were under the control of their national governments. The British government could request that such divisions act in such and such a way, but the Australian and New Zealand governments could, and on occasion did, refuse to comply.

    I can imagine their response had your half-baked scheme been put to them!
    Last edited by Doveton Sturdee; 16 Sep 12, 13:10.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Draco View Post
      According to the 20th century British special theory of negativity and obstacle invincibility (BSTNOI) it is imposible to sail a 9 knot ship to Sicily and much preferable to let it rot in Britain. However, given the much shorter route (relative to supplying Egypt with American charity around SA), I'd much prefer to do that, even if I have to tow it with a cruiser, whose name I leave to you.
      The BSTNOI was Hitler's and Tojo's best ally and America's and Stalin's worst and most costly nightmare. Guderian and Rommel certainly owe their legendary fame to it. Yet, Britain is still proud of it and the fact that the allies won despite the British more than thanks to them.

      I'm sure that you're familiar with Poles who kept a bear as a mascot in the middle east.

      Stick to watching cricket, it's less demanding. Ignore the BSTNOI and watch reruns out of season.
      I don't recall anyone suggesting that Erebus couldn't go to Sicily. It would, however, take her a long time to get there and the necessity of having her there, given that in your fantasy there were already six battleships and Terror on the scene, all capable of providing the gunfire support for the non-existent forces landing from non-existent assult craft that you have postulated.

      A further slight problem which appears to have escaped your encyclopaedic knowledge of the period is that, between January and June 1941, Erebus was undergoing extended refit, to increase her maximum speed to nearer to her designed speed of 13 knots and to equip her with an enhanced AA outfit, and radar.

      Actually, for an elderly ship of limited usefulness, Erebus had a rather active war. She bombarded German barge concentrations in late 1940, provided AA defence at Trincomalee, was present at the invasion of Madagascar, participated in Operation 'Husky' as part of the US navy's Task Force 85, and was of course present at D-Day, supporting the landings on Utah beach.

      She also participated in several other lesser actions, and all in all can hardly be said to have been 'left to rot.'

      Do you ever think of checking any of your 'facts' before you excrete them.

      Yes, I do know of the Polish bear mascot, but wonder how it can possibly be relevant.

      As to the cricket, what makes you think that I only watch?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Draco View Post
        You only need the RR from the tank factory to the closest port and then you ship them anywhere in the world or Britain. I just cannot fathom any country dumb enough to design useless tanks because they had useless RR.
        Hell you can even remove the turret and stand the tank on edge for transport and assemble them before you ship them or after they arrive in their destination. The turrets are lose, like those of a ship.
        Unless of course, the tank is wider than it is tall when sitting on its tracks like almost all are.... Then there is the problem of having to ship them dry (ie without lubricants, batteries, etc.) to prevent these from leaking or going places they weren't intended to... Add in trying to brace something now unstable weighing 20 to 30 tons on a rail car....

        Actually, why am I bothering to answer this as it is utterly absurd...?

        Comment


        • I apologize for seeing a most negative attitude where none exists.

          I imagine the formidable Malagasy and the few hundred French troops were quite an opponet for radar guided 15" cannon, those slippery bastards. I still much prefer to use them without Radar against fortifications in nearer Sicily.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Unless of course, the tank is wider than it is tall when sitting on its tracks like almost all are.... Then there is the problem of having to ship them dry (ie without lubricants, batteries, etc.) to prevent these from leaking or going places they weren't intended to... Add in trying to brace something now unstable weighing 20 to 30 tons on a rail car....

            Actually, why am I bothering to answer this as it is utterly absurd...?
            Oh, its worse than you think. Removing the turret, which is not simply plunked on top the tank (as you know) and standing the tank on its side would mean having cranes available at factories capable of lifting 25+ tons. Not something one finds at automotive plants. Since tanks were driven up onto railcars and not craned on to them the loading process slows way down and the number of trains leaving a factory per day is decreased.

            Bang on with the lubricants and other items. Tanks are rather fragile beasts all things considered. Flipping one on its side presents problems for all sort of lit on the inside and the tracks would also have to come off. All in all the tank has to then be put back together at the port, the lubricants and fluid addded, the engines and other equipment run to ensure the thing is still serviceable. All of this slows loading at the port.

            So we have reduced shipments from factories as the tanks are dismantled and drained of all fluids, back logs in ports while the need to reassemble and test the tanks is carried out,... brilliant logistics.

            This entire thread has degenerated into nonsense.

            Its end is nigh.

            Tanks were best shipped complete and then "prepared" for over seas shipment so they travelled well down the hold of a ship (delicate parts)
            The Purist

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

            Comment


            • And then blown to bits as soon as they enter battle (after being shipped around SA and with a crew that took months to train). Quite sensical.

              Fortunately, Santa will provide thousands of bombers with longer wings and more powerful engines than the Stirling and tanks with larger cannon and faster than the Matilda and self propelled guns, long range escort fighters, less obsolete carrier planes, etc, and even ships to transport them all faster than the Germans can sink them, so why bother thinking at all and dealing with all that inertia? Carry on with business as usual, Gerry will be smothered by Soviet and American materiel and men sooner or later. BSTNOI,

              OOPs, how do you transport by RR the Shermans when they arrive in Britain for the invasion of France? oh, no another invincible obstacle. Force the Americans to make wimpier tanks with 40 mm guns that can be carried in the British RR.
              Last edited by Draco; 16 Sep 12, 17:35.

              Comment


              • I thought Eurotunnel was built waaaaay after the war.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                  OOPs, how do you transport by RR the Shermans when they arrive in Britain for the invasion of France? oh, no another invincible obstacle. Force the Americans to make wimpier tanks with 40 mm guns that can be carried in the British RR.
                  Riiiiiight... Which tank would this be then?

                  As others have said, by the time significant numbers of US troops had arrived in the UK, there were sufficient tank transporters in country that the RR gauge was no longer a real issue.
                  Diadochi Rising Wargame:
                  King Pairisades I of the Bosporan Kingdom

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
                    Assuming that the date for your invasion is in the first half of 1941, then you may be interested to know that at that time there was no Eastern Fleet, other than a handful of old, ex WW1 cruisers, 5 old WW1 'S' class destroyers, a number of armed merchant cruisers, and several Yangtse river gunboats, divided between East Indies Command and the China Station.

                    Which of these would you propose sending into the Red Sea?

                    Silly Admiralty, sending their ships to where the fighting was rather than holding them back to accommodate the fantasies of an ignoramus!

                    I notice, by the way, that you are now invading Sardinia as well.

                    Incidentally, Churchill could not send ANZAC divisions anywhere. These divisions were under the control of their national governments. The British government could request that such divisions act in such and such a way, but the Australian and New Zealand governments could, and on occasion did, refuse to comply.

                    I can imagine their response had your half-baked scheme been put to them!
                    The submarines and a half handful of cruisers and destroyers will do for the weak Italian Red Sea fleet.

                    Ultimately, Churchill received far too many Anzac divisions, which were used rather poorly in Crete, Tobruk, el Alamein, Singapore, etc, led by Ritchie, Monty, Percival and other clowns and fighting against a Rommel supplied by Britain. In contrast, they would really have shone in Sicily and Sardinia under O'Connor and with excellent air and naval support.
                    When one considers the Anzac population and the number of Anzacs who died just to whak Rommel on the head several times without finishing him off and compares it to the British population (which was much closer to Egypt) and the number of British dead in these campaigns, Churchill's action appear rather immoral.
                    Last edited by Draco; 16 Sep 12, 22:19.

                    Comment


                    • Sorry Lads,... should have done this far earlier.

                      Feeding the troll has no positive benefit to the forums.
                      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

                      Working...
                      X