Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Historigraph"
channel.
-
The Luftwaffe had failed badly at Dunkirk. It had not been trained in anti-shipping operations, and in the whole of the war sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN ship bigger than a light cruiser. Attempting to attack warships, and in particular destroyers, is the opposite of what U-Boats actually did in WW2. Moreover, the Channel is a death trap where U-Boats were concerned. Three were sent to operate there in late 1939, and were promptly sunk.
When the RN had around 70 destroyers and light cruisers within 4 hours steaming of the Channel, and the Germans were, potentially, trying to cross it by means of Rhine barges towed by tugs and trawlers, and needed eleven days simply to get the first wave ashore, then in all honesty what was happening (or, at night, not happening) was more or less irrelevant.
5
-
Hitler was trying to get Britain to make peace in July, 1940? Really? Why not provide some examples of his efforts? Oh, the 'Appeal to Reason' speech (Surrender or we bomb you) is not a credible one, by the way.
The Luftwaffe lost 1700 aircraft & 2700 aircrew not being 'serious', whilst more than 2000 barges were taken out of the European canal network, crudely converted into landing craft, and sent to Channel ports, together with around 200 freighters, over 400 tugs, and around 1200 motor boats.
Over 20 divisions were allocated to the operation and undertook the necessary training, and a large amount of senior officer & staff time and resources was spent on planning & preparations.
You might ask the people of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, & The Netherlands what their opinions of whether the war was necessary or not were, perhaps?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
'The Royal Navy stood no chance against the Luftwaffe.' Oh please! The Luftwaffe had just failed badly at Dunkirk, hadn't been trained in anti-shipping techniques, and didn't even acquire a high performance torpedo bomber until mid 1942.
If you were to look at statistics rather than myths, you would find that, in the whole of WW2, the Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship at all larger than a light cruiser. To put that into perspective, the RN Pink List shows, for mid September, 1940, some 70 RN destroyers and light cruisers within five hours' steaming of the Straits, with a further 500 or so smaller warships available in support.
That doesn't include the additional 40 destroyers further away but still in Home Waters, or the heavy ships of the Home Fleet at Rosyth and Scapa Flow available to intercept any German surface ships which might have been sent to support an invasion fleet, which consisted, by the way, of converted barges towed at little more than walking pace by tugs and trawlers.
Do you seriously wish to maintain that, having been largely unable to hit RN destroyers either stopped or moving slowly in restricted waters off Dunkirk, the Luftwaffe would have been effective against similar ships, free to manoeuve at speeds of 28 + knots, as they appproached those virtually unprotected barges.
I wonder whether you would have been able to convince Oskar Dinort, the commander of Stuka-Geschwader 3? Dinort had been a leading competition flyer in pre-war Germany, and his unit had had considerable success attacking ground targets in Poland. On 25 May, he led a flight of 40 Ju87s against a Destroyer Flotilla off Calais?. His own bomb exploded over 300 feet from his target, and no hits were achieved by any of his aircraft. His report, which may still be read, concluded that attacks on warships required 'a greater degree of expertise than his aircraft had previously needed to demonstrate.'
Or Wolfram von Richtofen, commander of Fliegerkorps VIII, whose dive bombers would have been expected to protect the barges from the Royal Navy, and who reported to Goering that such a task was utterly beyond the capablities of his crews?
5
-
Sealion, at least from the naval viewpoint, might well have been another Crete, in the sense that ground forces sent to support the invasion would never arrive. One convoy, heading for Maleme, was annihilated by a British cruiser squadron, and the second, heading for Heraklion, returned to Greece to avoid a probable similar fate.
There were not 'a lot of soldiers' available. Because of a lack of towing vessels for the hastily converted barges, the first wave was intended to consist of around 6,700 men from each of nine divisions. This first wave would be lacking motor transport and divisional artillery.
The passage would not have been short. The time needed to extracate these towed barges from their ports, form them up into cumbersome box formations, and set off down the Channel to their beaches meant that in some cases, the voyage would require three days. These formations would be almost devoid of escort vessels, and would sail at little more than walking pace.
Would this air force 'protection' have been supplied by the Luftwaffe, which, untrained in anti-shipping operations, had failed totally to prevent the Dunkirk evacuation?
You need to read a book or two on the subject before embarrassing yourself further.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
Might have been difficult. Graf Spee had been sunk in 1939, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were both in Brest, damaged, Hipper was under repair between March & November, 1941, Scheer was repairing between April & July, 1941, Lutzow was repairing & refitting between April 1940 & December, 1941, and Tirpitz was not declared fit for operations until January, 1942.
4
-
4
-
Firstly, if sufficient resources had been allocated to provide these, then the build up of the German army & air force would, of necessity, have been scaled back, with the result that the conquest of France & the Low Countries would almost certainly not have occurred, the Kriegsmarine would not have had the Atlantic bases from which to operate these boats, and Hitler's over-riding priority, the destruction of the Soviet Union, would have been out of his grasp.
Secondly, should major construction of U-boats commenced, then the British, with vastly greater shipbuilding resources, would have begun producing escort corvettes, sloops, and destroyers in greater numbers.
4
-
4
-
@jddallas7274 Congratulations on getting so many facts wrong in so short a post. Quite an achievement.
The Germans had 27 operational U-boats by September, 1940, of which an average of 13 were at sea on any one day. At the same time, they had only seven operational destroyers. For comparative purposes, at the same time the RN had 70 or so destroyers and cruisers based within five hours steaming of Dover, and a further 40 or so destroyers in Home Waters if needed.
Magnetic mines might have caused problems in shallow waters, had the Luftwaffe not managed to drop a couple on mud flats near Shoeburyness in November, 1939. A team from HMS Vernon recovered them and determined how they worked. As early as 27 November, tests (successful ones) were carried out on HMS Manchester, and degaussing methods were rapidly introduced. By 9 March, 1940, over 600 vessels had been successfully treated, and the procedure was quickly gathering pace.
The RN didn't seem to have been 'afraid of getting shot to bits by the Luftwaffe in the channel' at Dunkirk when they evacuated over 323,000 men of the BEF & French 1st Army without serious losses. Nor did they seem deterred as they undertook daily destroyer, cruiser, and MTB patrols through the Channel for the rest of the summer. Out of interest, and because it is clearly another fact of which you are ignorant, in the whole of WW2 your mighty Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship at all larger than a light cruiser.
'The Germans would have conducted the landing at night and the Royal Navy would not have responded till the day that is a head start. Every amphibious operation of WW2 succeeded and the British destroyers did not have the guns to shoot the German landing craft till 1942' This is idiocy on a masterful level. The Germans did not have any landing craft. They intended to transport their troops in barges towed in pairs by tugs or trawlers. The barges were to be towed in cumbersome block formations. For example, Barge Convoy 1, from Rotterdam, Ostend & Dunkirk heading for the area between Folkestone & New Romney consisted of 150 barges from Dunkirk & 50 from Ostend, together with a further 114 barges & 57 transports from Rotterdam.
Have you even considered how long it would take to extricate these barges from their ports, assemble them into some sort of formation, and then set sail? The quickest convoy required two days, and the largest three.
'The British destroyers did not have the guns to shoot the German landing craft till 1942 the Germans conducted a successful landing without control of the sea in Crete and they were intercepted by the Royal Navy and still all made so just saying your argument is weak not my.' What do you think that the 6 inch and 4 inch guns aboard British light cruisers, or the 4.7 inch, and 4 inch guns aboard British destroyers in 1940 were? Wooden mock ups? Or,of course, the 4 inch & 3 inch guns aboard supporting vessels, such as minesweepers, gunboats, sloops, and corvettes?
The salient point about Crete was that the Axis were not able be land troops from the sea, at least not until the British had decided to withdraw. Two convoys sailed from Greece, one bound for Maleme & one for Heraklion. The Maleme convoy was annihilated by a RN cruiser squadron, and as a result the Heraklion convoy turned back to Greece.
One of your comments, however, is correct, that 'Every amphibious operation of WW2 succeded.' Do you know why that was? Because those in Europe & North Africa were planned and executed by the Royal Navy, and those in the Pacific by the United States' Navy.
I assume from your post that you are just an immature child. The other possibility, that you are a remarkably stupid or ignorant adult, does also exist, however.
Would you like me to recommend a few book for you to read, or have read to you?
4
-
4
-
@jddallas7274 Oh dear. Has no-one ever told you that, when you are in a hole, you should stop digging? Oh well.
The RAF not lose the Battle of France. The Allied ground forces did. The RAF was outnumbered by the Luftwaffe throughout the campaign. As, of course, it was during the Battle of Britain, although a combination of the ability to operate on interior lines, and the use of a brilliant use of resources to produce a unique air defence plan, enabled it to achieve victory.
The Germans were able to take Crete by means of their paratroop and air landing capabilities, against Allied forces still disorganised by their evacuation from Greece. Precisely because the Germans did not have naval 'sumperacy' (whatever that is) the Italian navy was not able to deliver additional ground troops to the island.
As a result, the numbers of operational German transport aircraft were severely reduced, and their airborne forces greatly weakened, to the extent that Hitler lost faith in them, and they were only thereafter used as ground troops.
Have you actually read anything at all?
4
-
4
-
Bypassed by which paratroopers? The 4.500 which were all that still remained after their losses in Norway and the Netherlands? Transported, presumably, in the 225 or so surviving operational transport aircraft which still survived after similar heavy losses during the campaigns in Norway, the Low Countries, and France?
Oh, and those paratroops were equipped with light arms only, as would be any reinforcements flown in by the non-existent transport aircraft. Moreover, should such a force have landed, then ipso facto the British would know where they were, and would be able to concentrate troops, artillery, and armour against them, as well as deploying fighters to intercept and destroy the (imaginary) transport aircraft bringing supposed reinforcements.
4
-
4
-
@GlobeOculaireTechnologique 'even after I explained plainly how to totally circumvent it.' No, you haven't. You simply postulated an idea which, as I explained, had no conceivable basis in reality.
I have already explained to you the number of paratroopers available to Germany, and the number of transport aircraft available.
I have also explained the helplessness of paratroop units which have no hope of relief from more heavily armed and equipped ground troops. In the case of Germany, these could only be delivered by sea. Unless, of course, you have worked out some magical way of transporting Pz IVs using Ju52s, even non existent ones?
You appear to think that shipyards can simply switch to building aircraft, which idea can best be described as 'interesting.'
The fact is that, as I wrote earlier, the British were able to outproduce Germany in aircraft.
In terms of fighter aircraft, the actual totals per year were:-
1940. Britain 4283 Germany 2735
1941. Britain 7064 Germany 3744
1942. Britain 9859 Germany 5358
1943. Britain 10722 Germany 10059
Bear in mind, also, that the figures from 1941 onwards do not include fighters either supplied by or purchased from the United States. Nor do they include, from 1942, aircraft of the USAAF based in Britain.
If you seek to make any sort of credible case, mon vieux, perhaps you sjould check your facts first before indulging in fantasies?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
People who use 'lol' in their posts have already discredited anything they have to say, but just to correct you, the Anglo-French alliance ended with the fall of Paul Reynaud and the subsequent signing of the Armistice on 22 June. One of the terms of the armistice, in case you didn't know, was that the French fleet was to be returned to French Atlantic ports and placed under German supervision. The Head of the French navy, Admiral Darlan, sought to reject this clause, until told by Weygand that 'we aren't going to scupper the armistice for the sake of your little boats.'
This was, obviously, something the British could not permit to happen. Accordingly, at Mers-el-Kebir, the British gave Gensoul a series of options as part of an ultimatum, among which was the transfer of the French fleet to the French West Indies, where it could be placed under the supervision of the neutral United States. Darlan might well have accepted this, but unfortunately Gensoul failed to pass on the full text of the British ultimatum, claiming only that the offer said that he must join with the British or his ships would be sunk.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In September 1940 the Germans had, on average, 13 U-boats at sea on each day. They had attempted to send three boats into the Channel in October, 1939, and all were promptly sunk. The Channel was heavily mined (by the British) and unsafe for submarines. Moreover, your suggestions that these boats would 'ravage' the Royal Navy is directly contrary to the manner in which U-boats operated in WW2, when they attempted to keep clear of destroyers or escort vessels, as such encounters generally ended badly for the U-boat concerned.
As to mines, how were these to be laid? At Gallipoli, the Turks had had plenty of time to lay mines in their own waters, much as the British had in the Channel. To lay mines in hostile waters, the Germans needed a large fleet of minelayers, but in fact only had seven converted merchant ships. By contrast, the British had several hundred fleet & auxiliary minesweepers. Furthermore, the mines would need to be laid at night, and the British carried out nightly destroyer patrols every night, from Plymouth & Sheerness.
The Luftwaffe had had no training in anti-shipping operations at the time of Sealion, and as a result had failed badly at Dunkirk. Neither could they operate at night against ships, and they didn't even have any torpedo bombers until mid 1942. In fact, in the whole of the war, the Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers. In September 1940, the British had around 100 destroyers in Home Waters, supported by several hundred smaller warships.
Sorry, but an utterly implausible scenario, and one which has been discredited and disproven for some time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
By September, 1940, the British had re-armed and re-equipped. There were 34.5 operational divisions by then, the vast majority in the South East.
What paratroopers? After losses during the Spring & Summer, the Germans only had around 4,500 left. Moreover, in early September, there were only just over 220 operational transport aircraft in Luftwaffe service. So, how do you suggest a small number of lightly armed troops, with no hope of reinforcement or re-supply, would fare?
As the Kriegsmarine had no tank landing craft, how do you suggest that tanks could have got across the Channel, still less to 'Salisbury Plain?' Especially in view of the following:-
The bulk of the RN's anti-invasion forces were at the Nore, Portsmouth, & Plymouth. Some 70 destroyers and light cruisers in all, supported by around 500 smaller warships. The Home Fleet was mainly at Rosyth, but not intended to steam south unless German heavy warships appeared, which was unlikely as there were none in service until November, 1940.
Which U-boats? In September, 1940, there were, on any one day, only some 13 at sea. Moreover, U-boats throughout the war tried to avoid encounters with smaller warships such as destroyers, sloops, or corvettes, yet here you suggest that they would seek them out?
Luftwaffe? You mean the Luftwaffe which had just failed badly at Dunkirk? Which had received little or no training in anti-shipping operations, which was still almost two years away from acquiring a torpedo bomber, and which could not operate at night? That Luftwaffe?
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bottcherimmobilien4864 Of course the idea of a successful invasion is nonsense. Actually, the Allies used 4127 landing craft on D-Day, just to be precise.
Oh, yes. The Appeal to Reason, which basically said 'Stop resisting or we bomb you.' As to the lunatic Hess mission (or should that read 'The Lunatic Hess's Mission?). Reason would suggest that, if Hitler sought a peace, he would have cautiously approached the British government via Embassies in Sweden, Switzerland, or Spain. Even, perhaps, asking the neutral USA to act as a peace broker. Reason would not suggest that a lone flight to Scotland, which ended by mad Rudolf bailing out near the estate of a minor Scots. aristocrat who might or might not have had a tenuous connection with the Westminster government, was a credible course of action.
Hitler, by the way, didn't stop the tanks. Von Rundstedt did, as the war diary of Army Group A states. The reason was to service the armour and rest the crews before beginning the second stage of the campaign, and because he feared a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne. Hitler had been told on the previous day, by Goering, that the elimination of the BEF & First Army was a 'special task for the Luftwaffe,' and chose to believe him. Seriously, if you want your enemy to come to terms, do you :-
1). Capture his entire field army and put it into prison camps? or,
2). Allow him to lift that army back to Britain, where it can be re-armed and re-equipped behind the impenetrable barrier of the English Channel & the Royal Navy?
Send your answer to anyone except me. I already know the answer.
There was a brief period when, had Dynamo failed, Halifax might have won a power struggle and, effectively, surrendered. After Dynamo, Halifax was a busted flush, abandoned in Parliament even by his own supporters.
The rest of your post is irrelevant. I thought the subject was Sealion?
4
-
Of course Jutland was a British victory, in the strategic sense. Battles are generally waged in pursuit of a wider aim, and in the case of Jutland the outcome was to demonstrate to Scheer that the High Seas Fleet would never be able to break the blockade on Germany imposed by the Grand Fleet. As a result, the High Seas Fleet stayed out of action until it mutinied, and the Royal Navy starved Germany to defeat by late 1918.
As to the subsequent 'massive defeat' I presume you mean like the River Plate action, the first and second Battles of Narvik, the sinking of Bismarck, the Battle of the Barents Sea, the Battle of North Cape, and the big one, the Battle of the Atlantic?
4
-
4