Originally posted by zraver
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pocket battleships or U-boats?
Collapse
X
-
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostThat's exactly right. It doesn't really matter how badly the British Army was hurt...Sealion was a non-starter from the get-go.
But as long as the cruisers and destroyers didn't venture into the channel and the RAF fought over friendly soil it was a non-starter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View Postthe British could have deployed 27 divisions " theoretically " to defend their home islands
I say theoretically because more than half of them would be simply men with rifles.
there was a chronically shortage of machine guns, light AAA, antitank guns, artillery .
British Equipment losses at Dunkirk and the situation post Dunkirk
In June 1940 the British purchased "More than half a million rifles, 85,000 machine guns, 25,000 automatic rifles, some hundreds of 'seventy-fives' and mortars, 21,000 revolvers, with supplies of ammunition for all these weapons" from American WWI stock.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostIf the RN and RAF had failed Southern England at least to London would likely have been lost at a minimum.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostFunny thing is I still think if the Germans had found a way to lure the RN into the channel without the bait being the invasion force the combined u-boat Luftwaffe attacks could have sent the Rn reeling and running for Scotland at least during the daylight hours. Given the slightly better exchange rates favoring the Jagdwaffe v Fighter command this would have destroyed the RAF.
But as long as the cruisers and destroyers didn't venture into the channel and the RAF fought over friendly soil it was a non-starter.
And the Luftwaffe would have struggled to sink ships in the BoB, just as it had in the Dunkirk operation.
The Stukas had been decimated in the preliminary phase of the battle (Kanalkampf, attacking merchant convoys) and there were still no torpedo aircraft ... the medium bombers that made up the KGs would be relying on level bombing to hit moving naval targets. That sort of operation lacked results for all nations throughout the Second World War.
Comment
-
If LW finished RAF (which was close to) was there a possibility to
a) airlift the troops and equipment, or
b) keep several sea lanes open with constant air support?No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by clackers View PostSubs can't operate in the Channel, Zraver - too narrow, too shallow. Doenitz forbade his boats using it to get to the Atlantic after 1939.
And the Luftwaffe would have struggled to sink ships in the BoB, just as it had in the Dunkirk operation.
The Stukas had been decimated in the preliminary phase of the battle (Kanalkampf, attacking merchant convoys) and there were still no torpedo aircraft ... the medium bombers that made up the KGs would be relying on level bombing to hit moving naval targets. That sort of operation lacked results for all nations throughout the Second World War.
The U-boats could not operate as effectively in the channel proper but the approaches to it were open.
As for the battle of Dunkirk, the allies lost on average 1 destroyer, 1 large transport and 22 small craft sunk and 3 destroyers damaged per day. Considering the RN only had 64 destroyers in the Home Fleet for both defense of the British islands and convoy escort (54 in June with only 35 operational) the loss of 6 [9 total with the french losses] sunk and 19 damaged in 9 days is quite a heavy blow. The Luftwaffe and German navy did this with significant submarine assets operating in other areas and with a large part of the Luftwaffe still supporting the German army against the French.
The Luftwaffe could have delivered the killing blow to both the RN and RAF had the RN ventured south, thy didn't and as long as they didn't the German's could not invade.
Comment
-
The thing that has always got me about Sealion is that all the studies that say it could not have worked would also have said the German invasion of Poland would have taken longer, the German invasion of France would not have succeeded and the German invasion of USSR would not have gotten so far so quick.
War games and reflection never take into account the human factor involved in war.
That said, I'm not saying that Sealion would be a success.
And remember that the anti shipping ops at Dunkirk were undertaken from hastily prepared captured airfields. Sealion anti ship ops would have been from prepared fields and with air-superiority.
I was also under the impression that the bombs dropped at Dunkirk were the type being used for close support and not armor peircing or those suited for sinking ships.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostIf LW finished RAF (which was close to) was there a possibility to
a) airlift the troops and equipment, or
b) keep several sea lanes open with constant air support?
a) the number of transport aircraft and their payload was insuficient.
b) the RN could not be stopped at night.J'ai en marre.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View Posta) the number of transport aircraft and their payload was insuficient.
b) the RN could not be stopped at night.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Comment