# Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2



## NightHawk (Oct 1, 2004)

what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
1.Stalingrad
2.Normandy
3.El alamain
4.BOB
5.kursk


----------



## plan_D (Oct 1, 2004)

No single battle on its own can be said to be the most important. 

Stalingrad is always said to be the turning point, but I fail to see how. The Germans didn't actually lose offensive capability until the Ardennes Offensive 1944. Kursk and the Ardennes Offensive must be two of the most important. 

Battle of Britain definately has to be up there because it was the first time Germany had been beaten. And it halted their onslaught in Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 1, 2004)

they're all important for different reasons............

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Felipe (Oct 1, 2004)

NightHawk said:


> what was the most importent battle of ww2 ?
> 1.Stalingrad
> 2.Normandy
> 3.El alamain
> ...



Ídem...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 1, 2004)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 2, 2004)

lets say thet stalingrad was lost to the germans, or el alamain was lost ? or the landing in normandy never happend ? i tihnk if any one of those battles were lost. germany could have won the war.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 2, 2004)

Stalingrad is too hard to say. It would have provided an excellent garrison, industrial base and access to the Caucasus oilfields. On top of that an open route to the Caucasus would have given an open route to Persia. That said the Soviet Union could have held up defences further East, if desperate times even on the Ural Mountains. It was an important battle though. 

El Alamein if won by the Germans would not be assurance of a complete victory in North Africa. The supplies of Rommels Afrika Corps was running low due to Royal Navy blockades. Had the British 8th Army retreated from the area surrounding El Alamein and set up defences further East then Rommel would still have the troubles of the 8th Army from the East, and the American-Anglo Armies landing in the west. 

Had the Normandy Landings never happened, or been wiped out. The Germans would have, at least, been able to hold on for months, or even years after they did. The greatest of the German Army was present to defend against the Normandy Invasion (11th and 21st Panzer Divisions), had the 10 Panzer Divisions and 48 Infantry Divisions been in the East the Soviet Union would not have been able to achieve the great advances they did in the dying months of '44 and early 1945. 
On top of that, due to the Western Invasion Gen. Balck possibly the greatest Panzer generals of the war was moved Westward to halt the advance of Allied Armies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 2, 2004)

all very good points, i agree, no one battle can claim to be the most important..............


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 2, 2004)

if germany would have taken 1 fron each time and not at 3 fronts at the same time they would have had a better chanse of sucsses in wining ww2.
russia would have not surrvived the full might if the german army.
but lucky they lost/

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

Im not even going to comment...


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 3, 2004)

well whats stoping you ? i know thet you will proberly say 
"what a retard" so if you want you can say it.i cant stop can i ?


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 3, 2004)

'Je ne commez pas'.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 3, 2004)

does nighthawk realise russia's man and military power??


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

No he's right. The German Army crushed the Red Army with ease in 1941. By 1943 the Red Army was reaching the extents of its manpower, German soldiers were capturing children and old men in the Soviet ranks. The Red Army did not have unlimited resources or manpower. 
They realised that the Soviet army if subjected to a great defeat in 1943, would collapse. And they were right but unfortunately (for them) they chose the wrong day, wrong place and wrong time at Kursk. 

Had Germany took A) Moscow B) Stalingrad or C) Kursk then the Soviet would be in deep trouble. None, however, were an assurance of victory.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 3, 2004)

i realise no country can have unlimited man or military power, but the russains won but ion was no walk in the park, it was partly russia's might that caused the german downfall in the east...............


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

I would say, more of German (mainly Hitlers) mistakes. The Russian Army was at its limits in 1943. Had the German Generals been allowed to have freedom of thought and action, then the Red Army would have been crushed. 

On top of that, the Red Army wouldn't have even been able to move as a mobile force without the 500,000 trucks sent as Lend-Lease from the West.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 3, 2004)

With the size of Russia, the Germans already exceeded their ability to resupply their frontline;- they'd never have got much further than they did, and isn't it historically fascinating that these types like Napolean and Hitler seem doomed to repeat failures.... Both Germany and Russia ended up throwing young n' old into the fray... makes y'wonder about a Power far bigger than all this 'earthly' stuff, the way things turned out...
- Personally, the BoB was I believe, the more important, as by August 1940, Britain faced Germany's 2,600 aircraft with 52 Fighter Sqn.'s with 660 aircraft and 1,300 pilots.....At a cost of 510 fighter pilots killed, winning the BoB was decisive to the outcome of the War......


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

I dont think the BoB would have been won if the German (Hitlers) plan of attack had stayed with the bombing and attacking of airfields...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 3, 2004)

but we would have won it allot earlier if we had the mossie.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

I dont believe that... Alot earlier would have meant alot more Mossies burning on the ground from German attacks....

Round what time did the Germans change their strategy from airfield bombings and start bombing London and the cities???


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

The German halt on the Eastern Front was not due to Russian over-whelming superiority in numbers, nor was it do with the stretched supply line. It was due to Hitler and his hate of giving up an inch of land, even if it doomed him in the long run. 

The Red Army was, factually, running to the end of its limits. And the German supplies were sufficient, it is foolish to say the Germans could not have gone on. The more they went the more supply they captured. The Germans had not exceeded their frontline supply, so they could have moved on. 

The Germans were NEVER planning to move further than the Urals, so victory was certainly in their grasp in 1941.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 4, 2004)

actually it was the russian winter thet stop the german army. hitler thought thet the russian campaing will only last for 2 months so he orderd his generlas to NOT pack winter clotheing.supplys and so on.



and if BOB was lost to the germans. the allied invation of normandy would have never hapend. so BOB was more impotent from stalingrad.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2004)

Again, the cliche of Russian Winter stopping the German Army. The German Army was stopped in 1941 by the Russian Winter but not defeated. What defeated the Germans in 1941, on the gates of Moscow, were Hitlers orders to hold all ground. This did not allow the German forces to pull back to defensible positions which is why they were pushed away from Moscow. 
Although, the Wehrmacht was slowing before the Russian winter set in. The poor conditions of Russias' roads made advance slow, but it was made even slower with the autumn rains which turned the 'roads' into mudbaths. 


It also was not the order of Hitler to not have them equipped with winter clothing. It was the order of the Ordnance Department. In fact, Hitler was very annoyed when he found out his men were ill-equipped for winter war. 
The majority of German soldiers were equipped by 1942. And those not ususally used Russian clothing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 4, 2004)

> I dont believe that... Alot earlier would have meant alot more Mossies burning on the ground from German attacks....
> 
> Round what time did the Germans change their strategy from airfield bombings and start bombing London and the cities???



i was saying it would be over quicker because mossies would be out destroying the luftwaffe fighters on the ground on their side of the channel..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 4, 2004)

Lanc, while ur statement is true, if the were deployed earlier, the reverse is also true... If the Mossie was around earlier, alot more of them would have been destroyed on the ground, during the initial phase of the BoB...


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 5, 2004)

well why didnt the germans use "dora" to bomb the british.
80cmK (E) Railroad Cannon "Dora" (Heavy Gustav)
Over All Length : 42.97m
Width : 7m
Hight : 11.6m
Weight : 1,350t
Caliber : 800mm
Barrel Length : 32.48m
Barrel Weight : 400t
Max EL Angle of Fire : +53 Degrees
Bullet Weight : 
7.1t (Armor-capped Projectille)
4.8t (High-exprosive Projectille)
1.8 - 2.0t (Propellant)
Bullet Speed : 
720m/sec (Armor-capped Projectille)
820m/sec (High-exprosive Projectille)
Range : 28 - 47 Km


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2004)

They used plenty of rail guns and heavy artillery installations to bombard Britain during the war. They were all only silenced in 1944 after the Allied Invasion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2004)

trouble was getting them accurate, they had a long way to travel and so there was a long time in which they could be effected by wind ect, and even if you do hit, it will only cause limited damage, and also, i don't know what it was like for the german guns, but we had two rather large guns called "winnie" and "pooh", they could lob a shell into france but it was because they were so powerfull the barrels had to be changed after every 50 shots, we decided it wasn't worth the effort and so stopped using them, i only heard this on a TV show ages ago so that's all i know about them, i'd be glad for any extra information anyone can find..............


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2004)

Actually we didn't stop using 'Winnie' and 'Pooh' in fact we built more modern guns to counter the German artillery fire from across the channel.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 5, 2004)

like little billy ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 6, 2004)

> Actually we didn't stop using 'Winnie' and 'Pooh' in fact we built more modern guns to counter the German artillery fire from across the channel.



oh, thanks, do you have any more information??


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2004)

I saw a lot of it on a programme which investigated the old artillery stations. Many are still in exsistance at the South of England. 
I will try and get more information, I think my brother has a book on the over channel artillery war.


----------



## MP-Willow (Oct 20, 2004)

Al this importent battle stuff The east or BoB. Question what bout Hitler's change from bombig the RAF to bombing cities? If the RAF stations Radar particularly would have been hit the meager planes that were going up would not have had the same starting jump. Also if you keep up the bombing then the stations in the North would not be able to take the wounded planes and fix them.

I know you all are not going to like that, but that is a thought for you.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 22, 2004)

whay would we be annoyed?? what you said is true..............

and if hitler hadn't stopped bombing our airfields we proberly would have lost, but not deafinatly....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2004)

99% chance of losing i'd say.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

it would be less than that, that would only gain him airsuperiority, he'd still have to cross the channel and actually land....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

But our army wasnt very strong at that period was it? I dont think we would have been able to hold them off.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

i'd still rate our chances though..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

If the Germans actually mounted an offensive such as what it would have taken to land on British soil, it woulda been over pretty fast for u guys, IF and only if they had air superiority....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Thankyou...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Ur welcome....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

So I should be...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Hehe....


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 24, 2004)

the majoraty of the british army was fighting in africa in thet time no ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

I dont know anything about the African front...


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 24, 2004)

who is Bigbird ? i never saw him posting only posting pics, 90% of the pics are hes posts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

> the majoraty of the british army was fighting in africa in thet time no



the bulk of our army in britain was made up of the british expeditionary force, or the BEF, but they'd just been withdrawn from dunquirk and had little equiptment and there were only 330,000+ left.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

NightHawk said:


> who is Bigbird ? i never saw him posting only posting pics, 90% of the pics are hes posts.



Nobody knows, he is a mystery user...

Not 90%  No way  paulyb102 and itznogood have a fair few to their name you know


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 24, 2004)

I PM'ed him once and got a reply, but that was it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

has he ever actually posted??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

Nope. I have just PM'd him on behalf of all of us though to say thanks for your contributions to the picture album


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

i wonder if he can speek, maybe he communticated with pictures and has been trying to tell us something with every picture he posts, assuming it's a he.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

Well his username suggest he is the large yellow canary thing from Sesame Street


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

did anybody here ever used a pic from the album ???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

For what? Wallpapers? If so then yup. I use lots of pics from the album


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2004)

i almost had one as my avitar....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

I think i might use one as my avatar, im getting bored of this "spam" one


----------



## MP-Willow (Oct 26, 2004)

Nice to know that you all think that Britten would have fallen if Hitler would have stayed the coarse. So why not try to talk more on this? I will look into it if we want. But Lanc is write, the BEF was just handed there ass and they were not ready to go back into action. But Hitler would have had to ready the invasion before and they were to my reading not ready. Also look at the Eastern Front, and what He was determined to do. 

GRG -really like the Porche!


----------



## MP-Willow (Oct 26, 2004)

Opps forgot to say that I have used album pictures for things and work.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

the HE-177 looks like a horsa.ch-53.wallington.bus.lancaster.b-29 all together,


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Nice to know that you all think that Britten would have fallen if Hitler would have stayed the coarse. So why not try to talk more on this? I will look into it if we want. But Lanc is write, the BEF was just handed there ass and they were not ready to go back into action. But Hitler would have had to ready the invasion before and they were to my reading not ready. Also look at the Eastern Front, and what He was determined to do.
> 
> GRG -really like the Porche!



Actually I think that during the BoB the Germans were building up an attack fleet in France, ready for when they won the BoB, Ive seen pictures taken by British spy planes. However they didnt win it, did they. I dont know what they done with everything afterwards though.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 26, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> GRG -really like the Porche!




Why, thankee!


Although I must say it isn't my work, someone from Il2skins photoshopped two pics together for me...


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

look at the he177 it looks like some bagger built it, it looks like parts of planes. choppers.a bus. and a glider all gloued together.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

Errrrrrrm, NH, the 177 was a superb looking plane.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

well i still think it looks like parts gloued together


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

Hmmmmm I disagree.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

well the cockpit looks like it was taken from a ch-53. the fusolage looks like a horsa's fusolage.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

Ummmmmm...why would that be, because its long and straight, like many large planes of the time? 





I fail to see where you're coming from...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

i think it's a beautiful plane.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

The He-177? If so I agree. 

If you mean the Horsa however....


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The He-177? If so I agree.
> 
> If you mean the Horsa however....


you say thet to me ? or to lanc ??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

the lanc 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2004)

both the 177 and the horsa were beautiful planes......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

Yeah I agree actually.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2004)

wow that was a quick chance of decision................


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 29, 2004)

i still think it looks like, some baggers found some scraped planes and put them together,


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

Yeah, on closer inspection of the Horsa it isnt that bad really. And I wouldnt say "beautiful", the words "German/Lufwaffe/Nazi" and "beautiful" do not go together, I would say the 177 looked cool 8)


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 29, 2004)

The he-177 had 2 bomb compartments no ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

Im not sure about that, ill have to look it up 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

it's hard to tell, from what i've found it had one "weapons bay" with a central partition, but there was also provision for a forwards bomb bay but it was very rarely used and often blanked off, there was also provision for underwing hard points..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 1, 2004)

CC -I wil try to lok up about the German planned ivasion of England, and maybe some others can as well and this topic can come back to its roots.
B-24 is a bit better to look at and the art o the nose makes up for the Lberator's looks!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2004)

but the liberator was a brilliant looking plane anyway, the nose art only served to make it look even better.................


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 3, 2004)

Like the Dragon and his Tail, hmm?
I think the most important battle would have been the Battle of Britain. At one stage during the Blitz, a single bomber went off course, dropping its bombs on civillian areas instead of the industrial area. Because of this, Curchill ordered bomb strikes on germany, freeing up fighter command and giving those pilots a chance to rest. If those pilots hadn't got a chance to rest, then morale amungst (don't know how to spell it) the pilots would have dropped abysmally.
If it wasn't for that single bomber...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2004)

What I find most intrguing about the BoB, was that on BoB day, a Dornier Do-17 detatched from its group and set off for buckingham palace. A Hurricane pilot noticed this, and set off in pursuit. He went to fire, but he was out of ammo. So he pulled around and used the wing of his Hurricane to chop the tail section of the Dornier off. The Dornier crew crashed to their doom, but the Hurricane pilot (I forget his name...Ray Charles or something like that I think) managed to bail out and survived thorough the war. He lives to this day, and recently they tried to locate the place where his Hurricane crashed. They cornered off a street in London and dug a huge hole, and they managed to recover the complete engine and lots of other small pieces, once of which included the stick and control panel.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 4, 2004)

I heared something like thet, but i heard he smashed his plane in to the Dornier.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2004)

He did...he used his wing to chop the tail section off...like I said...


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 4, 2004)

AS much as I like the B-24 Lanc it was only a bit more good looking then the Lanc and the Halifax. Yes the Nose art was just icing on the cake and made the war a little more tollerable. 

As for the Collins Foudations B-24 "Dragon and It's Tail" is a nice paint job, but I like the ones from the war, and I have not asked about it. So.

Question any of you know of a B-24 that flew over 100 missions?


----------



## evangilder (Nov 4, 2004)

There were at least 2 B-24s to fly 100+ missions in the 380th Bomb Group, 42-72799 "Male Call" and 42-100209 "Rough Knight". The 380th was part of the 5th AF in the Pacific. Not sure about European theater B-24s. Also check 42-40323 "Frenisi" <free and easy> from the 307th BG (Also Pacific). That one flew 104 missions before returning to the US for a war bond drive. It is rumored that Frenisi never lost a member of her crew.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 4, 2004)

I don't know how you can say THIS nose looks good. UGH! It looks like an aberration. But the nose art is fantastic, I will give you that. It looked much better before they put those turrets in the nose.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 4, 2004)

I agree. I thought that the first version of the B-24 was completely different to those posted above. I think that the later versions were less aerodyanamic than those other ones too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2004)

I dont like the look of any B-24. That one up there just looks...well...the nose is as bad as the Lancasters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 5, 2004)

but the nose is amazing!! on both planes!! but it's better on the lanc................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2004)

You really, REALLY need a reality check!  Its bloody hideous!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 5, 2004)

evangilder said:


> I don't know how you can say THIS nose looks good. UGH! It looks like an aberration. But the nose art is fantastic, I will give you that. It looked much better before they put those turrets in the nose.




I'm gonna want that art painted on my car!






In a discreet way, of course...

Can't make my future E-Type or 911 ugly...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2004)

Theres no need to make the 911 ugly, it already is 

Ah the E-Type... *drool* Youre the first yank I know that doesnt call it the "XKE" which is actually its proper name


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

and i think that's the first time you've called them yanks................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

The 911 is not an ugly car.... The escort was....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

not a big fan of the 911 to be honest............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

Thats a shame....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

no it's not, my opinion means very little to you..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

Ur opinion means more to me than the average bum on the street..... although some of them Bums are quite remarkable....

I met this Bum one time in Izmir Turkey who was wearing nothing but plastic bags over his whole entire body.... He even had one on the top of his head.. I have a pic somewhere....

Truely AMAZING...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

this random guy came and sat next to me in plymouth once and just rambled on about the americans for a while them walked off.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

Was he cursing us or praising???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

cursing.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

He probably came over here, people made fun of his accent, kicked him in the nuts, and threw him back on the plane.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

i'd blame it on his wife actually...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

Hehe...


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 6, 2004)

Ok all before the rant of cars and bums you were talking of the B-24 Nose and that it was as ugly as the Lanc!! Ok Yes, and that true the LB-30 that was designed first for the RAF and then the USAAF did have a smooth "Greenhouse" nose. The war made it clear more arms were needed. Now maybe a real nose turret would have been better then some hacked tail turret.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 6, 2004)

Willow, post this in your siggy area:







That should get your sig to work...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2004)

dude that is what he typed.........................

it should be 






and the nose turret of the B-24 actually loked pretty good...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 7, 2004)

Dude he did not type in the http:// part of the text line....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2004)

oh yeah.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 8, 2004)

Thanks all I Have, I hope, fixed my problum. I am looking around the albums for some good pics, but I have bad luck changing the pics. 

Any one want to coment of this one? As much as I like the B-24, that May West pic was just great!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

I think I prefer the small tractor


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2004)

All the battles were important and it is hard to say but I would have to say either the Battle of Britain or the Battle of the Bulge. If the Battle of Britain had been won by the Germans, it is still hard to say if a german invasion of England would have succeded, however it would have definatly left England wide open if the valient Royal Airforce had been defeated. The Battle of The Buldge ofcourse just because it was the last great German Offensive. If they had defeated the Americans there It would have atleast slowed the war down and lengthened it for the Germans and maybe given them time to get some of there secret weapons into service in time to make an impact. But if you want to go off that kind of consequense you would have to throw in the Battle of The Atlantic. That was a struggle to keep supplies flowing between American and England and if that had gone sour things could have turned out much differently.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 10, 2004)

all good points, but really it has to be the way the battles came together to form the war that has to be the most important part..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

I still maintain BoB...


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 10, 2004)

BoB, but the point of the Battle for the Atlantic was good. We talked about that before. But it was also getting supplies to the Russians.

The Bulge? Maybe if the Germans could have gotten to the Sea and really hit the ports. But they needed the gas first. 

Lanc, I like that you say how things came together! It could have turned for the Germans just as it did the Alies.

What about the Pacific? I would say Coral Sea!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

I dont know much about pacific battles...what was the deal at Okinawa then?


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 10, 2004)

Okinawa! That was big! But what do you want to know? It was needed to have a strong staging area for the big invasion of the home islands. Okinawa and Farmosa are key points to also safe gaurd the airforce. It was as bloody as any of the landings.

I can try to go on more, but will wait. We must have others who are interested in the Pacific!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

Ok, but I wanna know everything  I'm always eager to learn new things 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

I also do not know much about the Pacific theatre but there were some very gallant and large important battles fought there. II think the one that stands out the most for me is the Battle of Guadalcanal. (did I spell that right). The Pacific theatre saw some of the greatest Naval Air Warfair battles of all times. The Pacific paved the way for the Aircraft Carrier to become Queens of the Seas.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2004)

The navy always have been Queens of the sea


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

I am meaning as the carrier as the most dominate ship of a navy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2004)

Yeah I know, it was a failed attempt at a joke  8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2004)

I am sorry, I find it hard to pick up on jokes lately, probably cuz Ive been extra tired.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Never mind mate 8) I think I have some sort of idea what you must be going through


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 12, 2004)

Ok if we really want to talk the Pacific, then it should be on it's own topic and let me have tonight to get some things together.

But please know I am not the only one who posts here that knows the Pacific. And C.C. the P-38 really shinned there


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Yup I know  Shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 12, 2004)

partly because it was inservice longer than all other fighters out there............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

And because It was damn effective - much more durable than the single engined fighters and with better armament. And it was also better than the other fighters...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

An argument could be said there... The Hellcat had the Highest Kill:Loss Ratio of Allied planes in the Pacific...

Commander David McCampbell had 34 Kills while flying the Hellcat, and would have taken the record from Dick Bong if he was allowed another tour of Duty.... 

In one morning sortie, McCampbell had shot down nine enemy planes...

In one combat tour, McCampbell shot down 34 Japanese aircraft.... If he had served a second tour, he may very well have exceeded Dick Bong's total of 40... In recognition of his spectacular accomplishments: leading "Fabled Fifteen," personally accounting for 34 planes, and for his mission on October 24, McCampbell received the Congressional Medal of Honor, presented to him by President Roosevelt... 

If the Pacific War started with the Hellcat in service as opposed to the Wildcat, we'd all be singing a different tune about the Hellcat....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Yeah I agree actually...stil, not to take credit away from the P-38, it done a damn fine job.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

I agree.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

yes it did...............


----------



## evangilder (Nov 13, 2004)

Well said, Les! The Hellcat's contribution in the Pacific was significant. I can't wait for our Hellcat to return to the Museum in January. It has been on temporary assignment in Texas. Ours is painted up as Minsi III, Davis McCampbell's bird.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

man you guys are lucky...............


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 13, 2004)

The Hellcat was very good, but that is not to say the F4F Wildcat could not dance with the IJN. True she was not as nimble or graced as the Zero, but the F4F would do its best to get you home.

AS for the P-38, she was very good and could have been better if the P-47 and P-51 programs did not take the escourt jobs. But if the war went on Grummens two finest Cats were ready, the F7F and the F8F!!!

I hope to have our deadicated Pacific thread ready this weekend, if there are no objections?  

As for this topic, have you concidered what did not hapen? If Japa is convinced not to attack the US by Germany then how long would the US have stayed out?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

With the Hellcat and the Wildcat, it wasnt a matter of a better fighter, just better tactics and using ur aircrafts abilities to destroy enemy fighters.... The Thatch Weave is a perfect example of this....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2004)

Yeah but what about the Corsair. It was quite an aircraft. Compared to the P-38 or the P-40 or the Hellcat it entered the war late but it was a major contributor too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Well said, it appears to have been overlooked

MP-Willow, should I put a poll on the homepage about pacific aircraft? If so what planes shall I include?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2004)

I think you should. I would put the Corsair, P-38, Zero, Hellcat, atleast for starters. There were many more that could follow into that catagory. It is funny though how the aircraft fromt he european theatre seem to get more attention then those of the pacific, atleast that is what it seems like.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I know where your coming from there. I will definately be including those 4, any others?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

The Shiden..... A couple othe Japs planes too maybe....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

how about P-47/P-51/P-40?


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 13, 2004)

P-40!!! C.C any Poll would need to be set up for fighter or Bomber and you would have to say Naval or Land base. To my top fighters would be the A6M, P-40, Ki-43, P-38, F6F, F4U

Also Spitfire, and Hurrcaines were used. So you have lots to lok at. 
Bombers, Betty, B-24, B-24, B-29- This is the one place where the B-17 was removed early in the war 

WE Do need more Pacific dscussion, and yes it is and was always Second fiddle to Europe and as 1944 came along even more so because OVERLORD was so important


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 13, 2004)

Here are my list:

1. Battle of Britain: as this was the first time it 
was proven that the Nazi war machine was not 
unstoppable and did have a weakness.
2. Stalingrad: This marked the high-water mark of 
Nazi expansion across Europe as soon they were 
engaged in retreat.
3. D-Day the storming of the Normandy Beaches which 
pushed the Germans away from their airfields and 
bases in France that they had been using to 
batter Britain.
4. Midway: An important battle which threw the 
Japanese into a head-long battle in which a lot 
of the Japanese High-seas fleet was lost 
including almost the entirity of the Japanese 
High-Seas Fleet.
5. Iwo Jima: This threw the Japanese back towards 
their own home-land from their fortified 
positions in the islands of the Pacific.
6. The Mission to stop the Nazis developing Heavy 
Water for making an Atomic Bomb. This commando 
mission saved America and Britain from the 
prospect of Allied Cities getting decimated by 
the atomic bomb.

These are the five battles that I consider most important out of WW2. These are just my personal list. The sixth one is added as I personally think this is important as Germany had bombers with the range to bomb the US and an atomic bomb would have been added threat in this situation. The Amerika bombers were designed by Germany to have the range to reach America from bases in Germany. So far as I know they did actually carry out bombing raids on the US that didn't do much damage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

> The Mission to stop the Nazis developing Heavy
> Water for making an Atomic Bomb. This commando
> mission saved America and Britain from the
> prospect of Allied Cities getting decimated by
> the atomic bomb.



i saw a program about that and what they did was amazing, operation grouse it was called (proberly not spelled correctly).....................

although interestingly that wasn't the only time we had to destroy german heavy water, after the raid on the factory that made the stuff, they had some left and were shipping it into germany, the only place we could stop it was when it was on the boat so we sunk the boat with the heavy water, the lake was to deep for the germans to dive down and get the heavy water, they had some of the most amazing technology in the world, but they couldn't invent a decent diving suit


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)

Didnt they use Horsas for that mission?


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 14, 2004)

HealsDevo:
Your ist of Battles is a good one, but Midway was much closer then you make it out and stopped Japanese expansion west. It was a head-long battle, but one to bring out the American Carriers. If the Navy had not been able to break the codes and also confirm that it was midway island, as it was never refered to by name, then things would have been very different. 

Iwo, was very importent for the airforce. The air Core needed it as a safe landing place for shot up B-29s. It was on a direct rute to and from the Marianas were the bombers were based. Also from Iwo formosa and the home Islands could be reached by fighters.

In total I like your list. I would say that we should talk of important battles in each Theatere. As the Pacific, Europe, Africa, and The China-Burma-India weer all very different.

Now Wellcome to your little bit of the Internet. Please pull up a chair and hang out your shingle. I have read a bit about the German bomberes but not that they did bomb the US, Japan bobing the Mainland yes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2004)

When I suggested those aircraft up there for a pacific poll it was just a beginning there are so many aircraft to include in that list, the list is endless, just like in the european theatre.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 15, 2004)

I have made the poll and put in the planes I thought most suitable


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2004)

Okay will deffinatly have to go and check it out, maybe I can learn some new stuff about the pacific aircraft I have never really studied them as much as the aircraft from the european theatre


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 16, 2004)

CC, thanks for the pol. Yes the list would go on and on, but i thought I would put in some thought. Now for battles here, What of Dunkirk! If the German's would have used the irpower they had the British and allies would have been sunk in the channel. Any thoughts on that? I have read the Hitler did not let the Airforce go after them


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2004)

I know nothing about Dunkirk...didnt the Brits have air superiority over Dunkirk?


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 16, 2004)

That I will have to read up on, but I do not think they did. It would seem not to be, but I wil read up so should you!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

we didn't have total air superiority, we gave them all the fighter cover we could but stukas did cause allot of damage.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

Ah right 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 17, 2004)

Lanc true, but I was reading that Hitler would not let the generals have a full atack because he thought that England had been beat bad and would ask for peace turms. Well he was wrong and the 330,000 men were brought home to fight again. 

Yes the Stukas did do a lot of damage and nearly 5,000 men were taken POW and some marched as far as Poland, but if the Panzers were to have moved on the beaches, that would have been bad.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

luckily hitler was a jerk and stopped them short of the beaches...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

Yeah...he has to be the dumbest military leader ever....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

cirtainly the dumbest of the 20th century..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

I dont know about that.. Chamberlin was an absoulute moron....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

wasn't so much a military leader though.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

No just a leader of a country..... Still see that pic of him holding up that piece of paper saying he had a truce with Hitler..... LMFAO.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2004)

Actually the Germans had complete air supiority over Dunkirk. It was early in the war. I do not know why Hitler would not allow the Luftwaffe to finish off the british army in dunkirk though, does anyone know why this was?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Nope sorry.

I found out something extremely interesting lastnight; over half the German soldiers in El Alamein were suffering from diahorrea...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

So were many of the Brits. It wasn't uncommon.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Apparently one of the main reasons that Britian hasnt been invaded successfully <19th century is because we were the first country to combat diahorrea. Believe it or not its true


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Sticking a cork in your ass is not considered "Combatting" diahorrea.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2004)

The problem still happens today we have ways to get rid of it now but it sill causes some unwanted problems with soldiers today. Over here we call it "Sadams Revenge"


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Ill tell u what... When I was in the Navy, we ate MRE's all the time, and I never, EVER got diahorrea from eating them.... Usually the water is what get those juices flowing... 

Or some rotten ass Kimchee.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2004)

Yeah but did you ever have to eat MRE's for a whole year and a half? After a couple of months you have to eat at the Defact. MRE's suck man. My wife sends me food in the mail so I can cook it my self and not eat in the Defact or eat MRE's. But then again I am flying all the time and dont get to eat much anyhow.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

MRE's werent that bad for me... I rather enjoyed a couple of em.... Some of em you couldnt trade away they we so nasty.....

I used to carry around cans of Spaghetti O's with me in the field... Alittle extra weight, but man I love them O's..... My Lt. used to think I was a retard for being so obcessed with em...... 
I actually beat the shit outta a Marine Sniper one time in Somolia cause he took 2 cans and wouldnt return em... Needless to say, I got em back....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Sticking a cork in your ass is not considered "Combatting" diahorrea.....



It is in the short term, but I feel sorry when the bugger would remove it


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Explosive Decompression at its most ghastly and horrible example...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2004)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

Yeah there are a couple that are okay. I tend to like the beef stew and the chicken tetrazini. But overall I hate MRE's. So what did you do in the navy?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Those are 2 of the better MRE's...... I ate the hell outta the peanut butter as well..... Great protein there...

I was member of SEAL Team Two, from 1989-1995......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

Pretty cool. I have flown the seals on some operations before in the past mostly training and some stuff in kosovo.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

I have taken a few rides in The Blackhawk before.... Better than those damn Ch-47's.... Lost the rear rotor from enemy fire in Somolia and the pilot managed to land somehow..... He got a medal... I got a new pair or underwear to replace the ones I shiit in.....

I was in Bosnia as well, I think around late '93... Saw some things there I'll never forget.... Unfortunatly..... I was an E-5 (ET2) when I got out....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

Yeah I have been to Bosnia and Kosovo. When I was there the war was over but you could still see the scars from the war and I too will never forget seeing the mass graves and stuff. They are still finding them today. It was the bloodiest war sind WW2.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

The mass graves were what I was referrin to...... We came into one area that was just filled 5 hours before we went in.... The air smelled sickingly like IRON, from all the blood..... There were heads cut off and lye thrown all over the place.... Kids, Women, animals, pets..... Eveything was shot and/or stabbed.... Damn gettin all worked up just thinkin about it...

I still have nightmares every so often..... U will too, probably, once u get out and back into the "Normal" Civilian life.... Hope u dont buddy.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

It changes a man for life and people who have never seen it will never understand it. I completly understand how you feel it is truely terrible.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

SUBJECT: Deployed Personnel Behavioral Abnormalities

TO: Spouses of Desert Shield/Desert Storm Participants

Deployed members returning home from Operation Desert Storm could experience one or several of the following emotional problems due to minor cultural shock. Don't be alarmed. With a little tender loving care your loved one should return to his or her usual self in adequate time. Do not be surprised if your spouse:

Gets up in the middle of the night and urinates in the cat box 
Carries his bed outside to sleep if the air conditioner goes off 
Starts mumbling to himself if you serve him scrambled eggs, rice or Creole 
Searches frantically for his gas mask just to go to the pantry 
Steps outside to smoke a cigarette and then field strips it 
Goes over to the neighbor’s house to take a shower with them 
Walks around inside the house after dark with his flashlight on 
Freaks out if you drive over 35 miles an hour 
Does his laundry with the garden hose and mop bucket 
Calls all stores "Abdul's, Aubi's, or Achmed's 
Stretches a clothesline over your bed 
Puts all his luggage under his bed and lives out of it until he build a dresser out of cardboard 
Stops all buses and asks the driver if he is going to tent city 
Writes "free" on all envelopes to be mailed 
Complains when he can't find a radio station, which plays only oldies, country, and call to prayer five times a day 
Asks every morning "How old is that newspaper?" 
Yells at you for not dispersing your automobile 
Removes the doors off your car 
Brings a shovel, sand bags, and a jug of water when you go to the beach 
Asks your neighbors if they got any mail


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

Yeah we have something like that posted in our CP. A little different though to reflect this war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2004)

Is that a serious list?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Yes...... Well, most of it....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

What the list means, is that when most of us return from a combat zone it takes time to adjust to civilian life or just life at home in general. You are used to certain things and it takes time for things to get back to normal. I remember when I got to take two weeks of leave and go home on R&R from Iraq it was such a wierd feeling I did not know where anything was in the house and I remember diving to the ground when I heard a car backfire thinking it was a mortor round impacting. It is hard to understand unless you have been there.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Amen brother..... My big problem was always checking people out to see if they are a threat.... I was obcessed with my family's security... That and the lack of respect in the Civilian world.... When I had my fatigues on, everyone knew I was a SEAL and respect was shown.... In Civvies, no one cares....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

That is true my friend that is true and also the bond you have with your fellow soldiers is gone. It is so wiered here in the aviation community, when infantry see us talking to our officers like they are buddies they dont understand it and think we are not respectful to our officers but it is a different kind of world. The pilots depend on us and we depend on them and we live and fight like a family. It is a bond that I never will forget. Kind of reminds me of the band of brothers.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

When u get into combat situations, all u can rely on is ur team members.. Thats it... U really do become close, and I still keep in touch and see many of them.... One of my buddies saved my life when I almost hit a trip wire in Iraq... He stopped me and saved my life.... It was a dud 500lb bomb boobytrap.... Bad bad news.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

We see a lot of those here in Iraq today also. They are getting smarter and smarter too how they make there IED's as they like to call them today.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Whoever said "War is Hell" wasnt lying.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

Yeap I agree and it is nothing like the movies.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Pfffftt... Movies... HA!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

There is a SEAL team stationed in Stuttgart, Germany. I have a couple of friends there with them. I even dated the daughter of there commander while I was in Highschool. I was so scared to meet him for the first time, all I could think was that he would be this crazy psycho who would kill me if I tried to get into her panties, but after meeting him and then the others I found they were really great guys, it just sucked that they were all gone all the time.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Dating any officers daughter can be a very complicated situation..... Let alone a Commanding officers daughter.... Most of the Team Members are stand up guys, although there are a couple that are borderline psychotics.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

I can believe it. I knew a couple of army special forces guys and I just thought they were crazy. It was hard to believe they could live outside of the secret squirrel world.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

LoL Squirrel world....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

Yeah thats what we call you guys.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Yea i know that... Just havent heard it in awhile....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

Bring back memories?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Not really, just the humor of the whole Special Warfare Community.... We were always screwin around....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

probably blowing stuff up


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

LMFAO.... Yea we did that...... Primer cord was alot of fun back in the day.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

now we just cook on c4 blocks


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Hehe....


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 22, 2004)

Nice to see this topic a bit highjacked, but that is fine. Anytime I can talk with people is good. The community of Special ops is very tight. And you are very true that people seem to not respect others as much. But in this 20th centery we have truely seen man's inhumanity to man.

Now back to Dunkirk, I read that it was Hitlers deal with Gurrings (Airforce General) to let the airforce have the prize to kill off the BEF. But the RAF would not die! When they did lanch a ground attack the English had removed 330,000 men. When they thought the best they would get was 45,000 or so.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Hiter should have allowed Rommel to move into Dunkirk with his forces and destory them before they had a chance to evacuate. I think this was a huge mistake (obviously it was). I really wonder what was going through that madmans mind at the time.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

Imagine the repercussions if that whole Dunkirk debacle was turned into a huge Nazi victory..... Probably could have changed the War to an extent....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

I still dont think it would have allowed Germany to win the War but it deffinatly would have tipped the scale into there favor for a very long time. The Brits would have effectively been done. I dont think they would have ever sued for peace though, I think they would have kept on trudging and eventually the Americans would have still entered and ofcourse Hitler would have made the grave mistake to attack Russia. So I dont think it would have really change anything just prolonged the war and made it worse.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

You pretty much summed up my feelings on that.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

I wonder what would have happened had the Germans not invaded Russia, now that is something to think about.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 23, 2004)

It certainly would have changed things, Adler. Going back to North Africa and Operation Torch, if Hitler had the resources that were in Russia for North Africa, it certainly would have changed things dramatically. That would have likely given the Germans a victory in North Africa and they would then have access to the oilfields of the middle east. Interesting alternative history study.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

Deffinatly, it is amazing how one event can change the face of history as we know it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

actually in all honesty there was no way the germans coule win the war in nort africa till they had taken malta...................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

They needed to do that to control the supply routs accross the Med.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

that's why they needed to take it.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

yeap


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

But if they werent trying to take on Russia as well they could have put more of their might onto taking Malta...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

That is true.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

well they still had the resorces to take malta, it really wouldn't have taken much...................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

I think it would have been more dificult than that, the isle is very rugged and mountainous. It would have been easy to defend.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

their biggest obstical was the royal navy, but we didn't have a huge number of men there, it would have been easy for them to gain air superiority early on if that task wasn't left to the italians...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

That I can believe but the Royal Navy was pretty much strong everywere, they were the prime naval fleet in the atlantic.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

and the med..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Yeah when I say the Atlantic I mean the whole European Theatre.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

i considder the med to be part of the north african theater............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Well it is, you are right.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

you sound supprised


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

No I am not, I mean you are correct but I would just throw them all into one to make thing easier. To me there was the european war and the pacific war. Yes you can break them down into theatres but I like to keep it simple like that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

i take it you keep asia with the pacific??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

Yeap I sure do.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 26, 2004)

Ok Adler, I agree that Malta was a Problum and a real Thorn for Germany and Italy. Really was Italie's ball and they dropped it poorly. But We have talked about Malta before and from the reading I have done it was a very fine fine deffence of the Island by the British that should be talked about.

AS for Russia, the Germans were ready but now fighting the RAF and should have picked one side to concentrate on.

Lanc, your thought on North Africa and the Oil is interesting. But one other thing, With North Africa you would now have the oil in Polesti better protected, but still Italy was not ready for war or should have stayed out until 1940 or 41.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

> Thorn



...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

As I said a great defence by the Brits and I also said that the Germans should have left the Russians alone.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > Thorn
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i get the feeling i'm the only one that'll get that..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

If anyone else gets it ill be scared...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

i reckon someone'll guess..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Yeah, prolly les


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

na he's nowhere near smart enough, it'd take someone of MH's education to get it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Or someone with brads caliber...


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 27, 2004)

So if the Russians were not invaded, how long would it have been until the Russians just moved west?

They were both thinking of war, and Stalin just needed a bit more time!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2004)

Nope lost me there too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Me too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2004)

I think Stalin would have made is move right around the time that the US and Enland were going to land in France. This would have been the best time for him because the Germans would concentrate there forces to stop the landings and he would not want to the allies to get too much of the land he would get to occupy.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> So if the Russians were not invaded, how long would it have been until the Russians just moved west?
> 
> They were both thinking of war, and Stalin just needed a bit more time!



I would guess Stalin would have made his move no later than Spring 1943.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

or they could take the american attitude, wait for other countries to do the hard work then waltz in at the end..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

No country bashing please...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Yes I think that country bashing is not nice and that goes for you too RG Lunatic in your other posts.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Indeed - you dont like it lanc when people slate the Germans, so what makes you think that people wont feel the same when you slate the Americans?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

It is okay to bash other countries when it is meant in a joking manner I think however I think respect has to be in order.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yep - I mean people make jokes of the French all the time but no harm is meant by it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Exactly but is easy to joke about them.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes I think that country bashing is not nice and that goes for you too RG Lunatic in your other posts.



Where have I "bashed" any country? Cept maybe the French?

Let me tell you about the damn French. When I was about 4 years old my Dad was on assignment from the USN to train NATO pilots to use air-to-air missiles, we were based in England for about 18 months. A couple of months after Kennedy was assasinated my Dad was in France for 6 weeks training their pilots, and because it was so close, my Mom took me and my sister (a toddler) to France to visit. On multiple occasions we (my Mom, myself, and my sister) were accousted by the French, adult French, who said things like "Your Pres. Kennedy got what he deserved". All my Mom would do was say, "do you speak English, can you help me find my way to..." and they would say hateful things in response. This didn't happen once or twice, it happened repeatedly and we cut our visit short.

So maybe you can understand why I don't like the French. Never have and never will.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 29, 2004)

To answer the question of this thread...

I'd say Perl Harbor. That's the day the Axis lost the war!

8) 

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

> Where have I "bashed" any country? Cept maybe the French?



Sorry I was talking to the lanc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2004)

I was just refering to posts you have made in other threads. As for the French I sort of agree with, I have had similar run ins with them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

I dont like France, unless youre nice and near Monaco (or preferably in it)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2004)

I like the French country side. I think it is a beautiful country. I just tend not to like the people. I have met some nice French but most of them I did not get along with. The best ones that I have met were the French Soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo. They were alright from what I could tell, well the junior enlisted and junior officers that is, the higher the rank the more arrogant I found.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2004)

that's proberly true of most armed forces..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2004)

I can deffinatly say that is the way it is my Battalion, the higher up you go it becomes the "I Got Mine" people.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2004)

which is the typical RAF image of the 30's......................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2004)

I always pictured the RAF as the flamboyant rich boy pilots with the thick accent who were arrogant and stuff but had the right to be that way because they would take off into the sky and risk there lives day in and day out.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I like the French country side. I think it is a beautiful country. I just tend not to like the people. I have met some nice French but most of them I did not get along with. The best ones that I have met were the French Soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo. They were alright from what I could tell, well the junior enlisted and junior officers that is, the higher the rank the more arrogant I found.



The French are fine when you are not in France. But once you go there, they treat you like trash. When they are visiting your country, they think they are doing you some kind of favor.

I had a friend who spoke fluent French who studied there for a year. That summer he had his girlfriend and her sister and sister's boyfriend come out to France for vacation. Constantly the French would pull him a side and say "why are you with these <insult of choice" americans?".

But the true colors of the French are now exposed for all to see.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think Stalin would have made is move right around the time that the US and Enland were going to land in France. This would have been the best time for him because the Germans would concentrate there forces to stop the landings and he would not want to the allies to get too much of the land he would get to occupy.



Without the E. Front the US and Brits would not have been considering an invasion of the continent. At least not in 1944.

I don't think there is any way that Hitler would not have invaded Russia by 1942, perhaps 1943 at the latest. So Stalin would have had to strike before that point.

Had Hitler not been forced to war in 1939, the most logical thing would have been for him to strike East right off in 1941, through Poland and into Russia, and hope to appease the West while doing so. He might have claimed he was not invading Poland, just "passing through" 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2004)

The allies would not have waited though they would not have let him do that even if they were already anti communist.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2004)

> The allies would not have waited though they would not have let him do that



actually we were determined to stay out of the war as long as possible, it was only because we pleged that we would help defend belgium if they were invaded thet we came into the war....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2004)

Hi all when was Hitler "forced" to war in 1939?

I agree that Hitler could have waited until 1943, but he hated the Russians as much as the English, or more. 

But the Eastern Front was needed think if all those Fw 190s were to come our over the West, the RAF and USAAF would have been tost 

But as for the bid that Pearl Harbor was the day the Axis lost, I think not


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2004)

the battle of the bulge was the battle when the Germans lost..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)




----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > The allies would not have waited though they would not have let him do that
> 
> 
> 
> actually we were determined to stay out of the war as long as possible, it was only because we pleged that we would help defend belgium if they were invaded thet we came into the war....................



No.

Britain and France had a treaty with Poland, which they honored. When Germany invaded Poland, both Britain and France declared war on Germany. The Germans didn't invade the low countries and France until several months later. Britain did conduct some minor air operations against Germany during this period.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2004)

In Principle the Bulge was a great gamble that the Germans should have been able to do better with. But they ran out of gas and those green and battle fattiged troops held out for all they had. But the Germans did take a lot of POWs. Then the weather broke, the P-47s dove in and Patten turned north to cut them off


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 30, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I like the French country side. I think it is a beautiful country. I just tend not to like the people. I have met some nice French but most of them I did not get along with. The best ones that I have met were the French Soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo. They were alright from what I could tell, well the junior enlisted and junior officers that is, the higher the rank the more arrogant I found.
> ...





So you're basically reinforcing that the world is hating America right now?


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



Not quite.... this happened over 20 years ago. 40 years ago the French treated American visitors rudely. 20 years ago the French treated American visitors rudely. Let's face it, the French just don't like Americans... after all all we did was send many 10's of thousands of young men and boys to die liberating their country that the lost to the German's in just 6 weeks, why should they treat us with an respect or gratitude?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 30, 2004)

I don't think their disdain is limited to Americans.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> I don't think their disdain is limited to Americans.



Probably not. They think they are better than everyone. I just cannot see why they think this?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2004)

Yeah but RG_Lunatic thinks everyone hates Americans, and that everyone owes America there lives. I really hate saying things like this because I am pround of my American citizenship and always will be, but I dont think anyone owes anything to anyone.


----------



## Udet (Dec 1, 2004)

The curious thing going on in World War Two literature is how information which happens to be public domain has been processed in such a manner it will solely serve the interest of the victors, which of course makes the standard procedure for any victor.

With perhaps the exception of a minority who have read and researched further on the issue, the world has the view (the "truth") Germany was the only agressive expansionist beast loose across the European continent.

There was only ONE agressor who wanted to "conquer the world and exterminate all the non-aryan races of the planet". That is the truth in the mind of the majority of the people. And that is enough for the victors even if they know it is untrue. History tellers and writers have the most important client: the mass, and not that small sample of researchers.

While making a dramatic scenario, the sole view of Europe in 1939-1940 is not only distant from reality, it is laughable.

Ever heard of the Molotov-Ribentropp pact?
The soviets joined the attack against Poland a few days after Germany had begun "the rape of Europe" on September 1st., 1939.

Why did no one challenge the USSR? Dont you think it is strange? Why were France and England so bully on Germany but omitted to display a similar challenge toward the soviets?

Now cutties, please move your fingertip across the calendar which followed: after Poland surrendered, whose country´s offensive (agressive) move followed?

Answer: USSR (SURPRISE! which means it was not Germany).

The USSR started what for the Finnish is known as the "Winter War" in late 1939. Finland hardly had 3 million people at the time, while the USSR had some 160-170 million inhabitants.

Yet, the Soviet army in Finland showed its destiny for the future conflict with Germany, would mostly be one of shortcomings, tragedies, disasters and low quality performance.

The ill equipped, tiny but very brave and intelligent Finnish army inflicted the soviets frightful losses in men and war materiel. Only when the terrified soviets brought in more massive numbers of men and material did the Finns had to end their fight.

So see? The soviet attack against Finland is public domain. You can find it on every book making a general view of the war in Europe. Just as I said here, it is how the information is processed.

What about the soviet swallowing of the three Baltic States? What of Bessarabia and Bucovina which were taken away from Romania? Romania?? Have you ever read of the oil issue, which was fundamental in Hitler´s view? Soviets a midnight walk away from the Ploesti oilfields?

So see the list and you will see Germany was not the only agressor. The USSR was more than active, and willing to export its system to as many countries as possible. )

Cheers!

P.S. Hey guys, when will you understand America is a continent and not a sole nation?

The name of that country is United States of America.

Brazilians are Americans.
Mexicans are Americans.
Peruvians are Americans.
Chileans are Americans.

The peoples of Belize, El Salvador, Canada, St. Kitts, Surinam..and a very long list of countries form all a continent known as America.

Perhaps geography lessons are becoming very necessary in the U.S.A.?
)))))))


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2004)

LOL Well said Udet. I agree with you fully on the Soviets. And as for the victor writes the History books you are completely correct unless you are RG_Lunatic and then you right the history books. And you are absolutly correct about Americans. I will correct myself in future posts.


----------



## Udet (Dec 1, 2004)

Hello DerAdler!

:BIG: 

When I first read "why do they hate Americans so much?", my first thought was: "What did they poor Peruvians do to be hated so much? Or the colombians? Or the very poor Argentinians?"

hehehe

DerAdler, reading on some other threads, did I read well? Are you currently in Irak? If so, have you seen combat? Or to what kind of unit do you belong?

Cheers!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2004)

i believe he works with blackhawk helicopters...............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 1, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah but RG_Lunatic thinks everyone hates Americans, and that everyone owes America there lives. I really hate saying things like this because I am pround of my American citizenship and always will be, but I dont think anyone owes anything to anyone.



That's not true.

The only thing I think most other countries owe the USA is respect. However when it comes to Germany, Japan, France, Britain, etc... I think some gratitude is also in order because of US post-war financial generosity. When someone gives you 10's of billions of 1946 dollars that is deserving of gratitude don't you think?

And I think this is magnified with respect to Germany and Japan, because they were our enemies in WWII and we forgave them for their actions immeadiately and rebuilt their countries. You act like we owed this to them for beating them.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Dec 1, 2004)

The USA forgiving Germany for its actions??

May I know what kind of offense Germany conducted against the people of the USA?


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 1, 2004)

Udet said:


> The USA forgiving Germany for its actions??
> 
> May I know what kind of offense Germany conducted against the people of the USA?



Prior to the war Germany sank US shipping. In 1941 Germany declared war on the USA and announced its alliance with Japan. Germany conspired with the Japanese in the Perl Harbor attack.

The USA suffered something on the order of 115,000 soldiers killed and another 375,000 wounded in the ETO. German treatment of POW was frequently brutal.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Dec 1, 2004)

Hello over there RgLunatic:

I do think the things you affirmed in your posting are not true, at all. This is not even the case of disagreeing with the opinions of others.

If you are interested, you can research further on such issues and you will easily discover things did not happen the way you put it here.

First: Germany never ever, at all, conspired with the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. From where did you get such arguments?

Not only the Germans did not conspire with the Japs to destroy the US fleet in Oahu, there is a theory, which might never be proved, that it was President Roosevelt who planned the Japanese attack!

Hitler was totally surprised when knowing of the Japanese attack.

Second: Hitler had issued Admiral Karl Dönitz with extremely strict orders regarding the operations of U-boats in the Atlantic since September 1939; among others, one of such very strict orders was to avoid at all cost any possible confussion while attacking shipping in the Atlantic, they should never ever, under any circumstance, attack US shipping.

Such strict rules were quite difficult to follow in certain combat situations like poor weather, night sighting of possible targets, etc. and in few ocassions US shipping got hit.

Such situations happened due to determined combat conditions where observing Hitler´s rules was nearly impossible, if not completely impossible, rather than to a designed mission to sink US shipping.

Furthermore, vessels of the US navy in the atlantic were providing with escort "services" the British convoys across the ocean, and they harassed U-boats attempting to attack the ships of a declared German enemy: Great Britain.

With this I mean while the U-boats were attempting to attack the ships of beligerant nation (UK) the vessels of a non-combatant nation (USA) were already taking part of the action.

The destroyer USS Reuben James pushed the limits even further and the U-boat skipper had to make his decision: it is either my ship or this one attacking me: the USS Reuben James went down with the majority of her crew well before Pearl Harbor; but really if you read on that specific engagement, any of us, in the shoes of the German skipper, would have fired our torpedoes against such vessel.

To make the long story short, it appears to me it was the USA (the government, not the people of the USA) who was in the urge of provoking Germany to enter the war.

Cheers!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

Udet said:


> First: Germany never ever, at all, conspired with the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. From where did you get such arguments?



Germany had a spy in PH, and it is known that his reports went to Germany and from there directly to the Japanese.



Udet said:


> Not only the Germans did not conspire with the Japs to destroy the US fleet in Oahu, there is a theory, which might never be proved, that it was President Roosevelt who planned the Japanese attack!



The theory (and I believe it) is that Roosevelt knew of the attack from some code breaking, but that either through snafu's or intent, this was not forwarded to the USN at Honolulu. That is not "planning" the attack, but it is significant if it was intentional.



Udet said:


> Hitler was totally surprised when knowing of the Japanese attack.



I don't think this is true. I think he may not have been privy to the details of the attack but I think he knew the Japanese intended to attack the USA in the Pacific. I know that he had tried to convince them to instead attack the British in India, but they refused because they wanted to attack the USA.

As for the U-Boats and sinking of US merchant vessles, I'll respond to that when I have a little more time to look up the facts.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2004)

> In 1941 Germany declared war on the USA



If anything I thought it was the USA declaring war on Germany...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > In 1941 Germany declared war on the USA
> 
> 
> 
> If anything I thought it was the USA declaring war on Germany...



A very common misconception... but it is wrong.

In 1940 Germany and Japan signed a treaty. When the Japanese attacked in Dec. 1941, Hitler honored that treaty and delcared war on the USA. I believe it was on the 10th of December. One of Hitler's more stupid decisions, had he not done so, the "Europe first" policy probably could not have been undertaken, the American people would have demanded we focus on Japan first, and our status vs. the Germans would have been questionable, though we probably would have allied with the British against the Japanese and thus ended up fighting Germany later anyway.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2004)

Ah ok, thanks 8)


----------



## Udet (Dec 2, 2004)

Hi RG Lunatic!

It is a recorded fact:

While the USA was still "neutral", units of the US Navy were not only escorting British convoys across the Atlantic, but also harassing U-boats homing in for the attack; the USA was trying to provoke Germany even though Hitler had issued his orders to the U-boat force forbidding any friction with the USA.

Why did the USA try to provoke Germany? I do not know.

The case of the destruction and sinking of the destroyer "USS Reuben James" was kind of a natural outcome of such harassment policy conducted by the US Navy against German subs.

This is easy to verify on virtually any book that is Battle of the Atlantic related.


Here we can find an interesting issue arising:

All politicians and statemen, of all times, from the most ancient eras to the present-day world, sign pacts which are binding for as long as their interests switch. (i.e. Sadam Hussein was at a specific moment a dear ally of the US until conditions changed, becoming thus an enemy of the USA)

Hitler can not be the exception to such rule. He indeed had a pact with Japan, not very clear as to its scope, but the clearest intention, if you will, implied a probable Japanese involvement in the military campaign against the USSR, so the bolsheviks would find themselves forced to wage a two front war.

Unlike history has depicted the facts, Hitler had no interest placed at all across the Atlantic ocean. His fundamental goal was to destroy the soviet communist system and to expand the Reich eastwards.


When december 7th, 1941 came, any possibility for Japan to attack the soviet union in the far east simply dissapeared.

Why did Hitler "honor" his pact with Japan in view of the circumstances?

Isn´t it very odd, Hitler immediately declared a state of war against the USA, in order to remain loyal to an ally (Japan) from who Hitler himself could now obtain virtually NOTHING?

What kind of advantages and military profit could Germany obtain from Japan once Pearl Harbor was attacked? The answer is ZERO.

So why did such a clever stateman such as Hitler proceed in such a foolish manner?

He was no perfect man, for after all, he was human too, but, that kind of mistake?

Didn´t it sound like it was the right moment for the Führer to declare the German-Japanese alliance terminated?

Hitler feared not the US armed forces as such, after all in many engagements the armed forces of the USA suffered tremendous local defeats against the Germans. 

It was the geography, size and industrial power of the USA which in the end he accounted. But do not forget, Hitler had no interest at all in the USA.

This, in my opinion, will remain a very dark issue of World War Two.
If Hitler had made it clear to his top officers Germany would never ever wage a war against the USA, why did he declare the war right after Pearl Harbor?

The "Hitler was a very complex mind" argument is not sufficient here.

Since I am not a history researcher, I will certainy continue to have all those questions unanswered.

It is registered: Hitler wanted to avoid AT ALL COST any military involvement of the USA in Europe. The


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

Udet said:


> Hi RG Lunatic!
> 
> It is a recorded fact:
> 
> While the USA was still "neutral", units of the US Navy were not only escorting British convoys across the Atlantic, but also harassing U-boats homing in for the attack; the USA was trying to provoke Germany even though Hitler had issued his orders to the U-boat force forbidding any friction with the USA.



No, the "recorded facts" are that Germany sunk 4 US mechants in the last months of 1939, 32 in 1940, and 61 in 1941.



Udet said:


> Why did the USA try to provoke Germany? I do not know.



The USA had a policy of freedom of the Sea. As such it had every right to defend its merchant shipping. But, IIRC, US escorts only went as far as Iceland, after that shipping bound for England was up to the English to protect.




Udet said:


> Here we can find an interesting issue arising:
> 
> All politicians and statemen, of all times, from the most ancient eras to the present-day world, sign pacts which are binding for as long as their interests switch. (i.e. Sadam Hussein was at a specific moment a dear ally of the US until conditions changed, becoming thus an enemy of the USA)
> 
> ...



There are several answers about why Hitler declared war on the USA.

1) He felt that a British-American alliance against the Japanese was inevitable, and that this would in turn put the USA against Germany. If this was going to happen he wanted the Japanese to be "on his side" and thus he had to honor the treaty.

2) Being a staunch racist, and believing the Japanese to be the "master race of Asia", he felt the Japanese would prevail, or at least hold their own, in the War with the US mongrels. He also overestimated, as did the Japanese, the impact of the PH attack.

3) He still had hopes the Japanese would join his war. In fact, they tried to do so in their failed attempt to work their way up through Burma and into India. The belief was that if the Japananese could reach India, that it was ripe to flip sides against the British, and this would add several hundred thousand already equiped and trained soldiers to the Axis side, and this would have double the effect because it would mean an equal number removed from the Allied side.

4) He still hoped the Japanese would attack Russia in the far East.

Finally, Hitler was an idiot! He was a master of decieving people who wanted to be decieved, nothing more. And this certianly included himself. He blundered repeatedly in WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

> Finally, Hitler was an idiot! He was a master of decieving people who wanted to be decieved, nothing more. And this certianly included himself. He blundered repeatedly in WWII.



Amen to that.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)




----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 4, 2004)

This is an argument that is talked about a lot. Rosevelt did everything he could to protect the shipping and try to remaine out of the war. That said USN ships would go after U-boats. But The USA wated to stay out as long as posible, but Lend-Lease would have brought them in soon.

As for Hitler and Pearl Harbor, I have not found any information that supports he knew or asked about it. Yes he wanted the Japanese to fight Russa, the USA wanted Russia to fight Japan, but that did not hapen until 1945.

As for Polesti and Russia, the Soviets had the Pe-2 or Pe-8 that could have reached the oil to protect it, but they were in greater need protecting the russian army. They did help hold off Germany so that Italy could fold and the B-24s could fly over. Tat was one of the most wel prtected sites in Europe.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 4, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> As for Hitler and Pearl Harbor, I have not found any information that supports he knew or asked about it.



All I said about this was that it is known that Germany had one of their top spies in PH, and that his reports went almost directly to the Japanese. This intel was used by them to plan their attack.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 4, 2004)

Midway. By all chances the Japs should have decimated the entire American fleet. Only dumb luck got the Americans the victory. An invasion of Midway would have been followed by an invasion of Hawaii. America would then have been compelled to move all strength towards the pacific, giving the Germans some breathing room.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

well us brits would still be in the atlantic................


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

Cheap Labour said:


> Midway. By all chances the Japs should have decimated the entire American fleet. Only dumb luck got the Americans the victory. An invasion of Midway would have been followed by an invasion of Hawaii. America would then have been compelled to move all strength towards the pacific, giving the Germans some breathing room.



Well, having broken the Japanese code and knowing what they were up to had a lot to do with the US victory. Bad strategy and tactics on the part of Yammamoto also didn't hurt.

I don't think the Japanese would have tried to invade Hawaii. There were too many American soldiers there and it was to well stocked with supplies, and too far from Japan. However, had Midway been taken, the US would have either had to take it back, which would have delayed the pacific campaign another 18 months to 2 years, or it would have had to focus its efforts via Burma in a very bloody war down through SE Asia. I agree it would have taken stress off the Germans.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

funny, they said no-one would be able to attack pearl harbour as it's too far from anyone else, but it happened...............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> funny, they said no-one would be able to attack pearl harbour as it's too far from anyone else, but it happened...............



A sneak attack on the ships in the harbor is a lot different from trying to invade.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

an air strike could have taken out most if the island's defences.............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> an air strike could have taken out most if the island's defences.............



You vastly underestimate the defenses of Perl Harbor and the number of troops defending it by the time of Midway.

There was no way the Japanese were going to stage a successful airstrike on PH at that time either. The entire carrier airpower of the Japanese navy would still have been outnumbered by more than two to one. The entire sealift capability of the Japanese fleet (which was poor throughout the war) would still have left them at the disadvantage in terms of the number of troops. Even at the time of the PH attack in Dec. 41 the Japanese did not think a sneak invasion was viable, but by 1942 it was virtually impossible.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2004)

Yes Udet, I am a Blackhawk Crewchief in Iraq right now at the time and yes I have seen combat. Well it has been a few days since I posted our internet was down but I am back now. I see that I missed a lot. As for the theories on why Hitler declared war on the US I agree with all the things that Lunatic said, however Udet has made some very fine points. As for the reason that the US thought that Pearl Harbor was safe from attack was the fact that most torpedos of that time could not operate in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor however the Japenese redesigned there torpedos to make them work there. I think the one thing we can agree on is the fact that Hitler was a lunatic. And RG_Lunatic just lay off of the rest of world owing the US something. They dont.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

Hitler was an idiot, and he was evil, but he was not a lunatic.

If he'd have have been a lunatic, he'd have used nerve gas, which he had in abundant supply to destroy the Russians in Poland, and might have tried to use it against Britain (though only the V2 could probably have successfully delivered it by the time the had it in sufficient quantities to use). But he knew that if he did so, the odds were very good that the British would use their nerve gas against the German homeland, and he didn't want history to remember him as being responsible for making Germany uninhabitable.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

No was a lunatic aswell as being an idiot and evil. He was even documented as being diagnosed with a mental disorder.


----------



## Udet (Dec 6, 2004)

DerAdler hello!

Thanks a lot for your reply!
One question, if you dont mind, do you ever heard or witnessed of any Iraki air force action against the USAAF?


Some of the things I am having the chance to read here, confirm Hitler is top favorite history character to thrown rotten eggs and tomatoes at.

Fool, idiot, imbecile, demonic, evil, liar, manipulator, murder, insane, megalomaniac and a very vey long bla, bla, bla...

Really, and I mean it, if you continue to see history of WWII in terms of Heavenly Immaculate Archangels vs. sulphurous dark demons, you are likely to miss an important part of the show.

With all due respect, mr. RG_Lunatic, the soldiers of the USA in Europe were not saving the world from anyone or anything. 

Furthermore, the sole idea of the US soldiers fighting in Europe in order to liberate the people of the USA from a "terrible danger" and to maintain the "freedom, liberty and democracy of the U.S.A." could not only be part of the Grimm Fairy Tales: is a laughable choice of arguments.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

During Operation Iraqi Freedom the Iraqi Airforce did not launch any sorties against the USAAF or any of the coalition air forces. As a matter of fact they did not have much of an airforce left after the 1st Gulf War. Please do not take me wrong about my posts here with RG_Lunatic. I do not look at WW2 as a Heavenly Immaculate Archangels vs Sulphurous dark demons. I am deeply interested in History and wanted to major in History before my college funds went dry. When my service with the Army is finished I plan on continueing my education in History primarily European. I just happened to get caught in this argument with RG_Lunatic because he seems to have some grudge against the world. Anyhow you have made some very interesting points to this discussion, Thanks.


----------



## Udet (Dec 6, 2004)

Hello DerAdler!

thanks for your kind remarlks.

Sorry, but I did not put it in a very clear manner: I knew you were just taking it on RG_Lunatic when you said Hitler "was insane, idiot and evil".

I should have figured it out; during the first war in Irak over a decade ago, Hussein´s army was large and powerful; perhaps not up to USA´s standards, but no one can deny it was powerful.

The question should have been: were there any air combats during the first war in Irak? If I recall correctly, there were several Mig29´s in Hussein´s inventory.

)

My point here is I am amazed to read certain comments from people whose knowledge about WWII is, or should be, a bit above the "average".

"On September 1st, 1939, one of the most evil forces humankind has ever experienced unleashed its pure naked dark fury in an attempt to subjugate and exterminate the peoples of the world...."

While such version might please many, I know it was not like that. As I said it is laughable.

You -not you DerAdler )- apparently fail to notice that with 2 guys such as Hitler and Stalin in office, only things like those we know happened could be the outcome.

The soviet communist regime killed and tortured people like no other regime in history; yet to be added are those murdered and tortured in the many countries where such a real piece of jewelry was put to practice.


----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 6, 2004)

Hello all this topic is really getting interesting.

For Midway, the USN had a lot of luck in understanding, breaking, and useing the IJN codes to know where the attack was. But I would not say Yamamoto planned poorly. This was his last great strtke to try and take out the USN. He was a great planner and unlike most of the Military command understood the USA and her industrial ability. Midway could have stil gone either way.

As for Hitler, yes he was evil and very controling, but I think he was smarter then most will admit. His ability to speak to great masses of people, to rebuilt Germany, that has some merit. But he would not or could not stop with that.

Now having Hitler and Stalin in the same decade was just shear doom for Europe. Eastern Europe was doomed to be eaten up and carved anew again it was just time. Chamberland and the west tried to do everything they could to avoid war and even not admit what was hapening. They courted Stalin because he was the slightly lesser Evil of the two, and had not had anounced plans for world domination. In that he as a step above Hitler.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 6, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No was a lunatic aswell as being an idiot and evil. He was even documented as being diagnosed with a mental disorder.




What, Parkinsons?


Being a lunatic and being a cruel sadist are two different things...


Also, he never saw what he was commanding done, thus he could have no real sympathy...


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 6, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> What, Parkinsons?



People aren't sure. Granted, in the famous last bit of film, where he's talking to the Hitler Youth boys you can see that he's shaking like a leaf. However, medical minds say that since he was a stress-monster from an early age, this might have been a physical manifestation of hyper-tension. (which would be understandable!) 

His physician, Dr Morrell, is widely discredited as a quack, and by 1945 was prescribing him enough drugs to fill a chemists. Many of these foul medicines were cocaine based - hense the mood swings between rage and euphoria. In short - what a mess!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 6, 2004)

Yeah, I know about all that, but I think Parkinsons is logical for him...




Anyway, has anyone seen that movie about him?

_Der untergang - Hitler und das ende des III Reichs_



Anyway, speaking of his shaking hand, the bit of film I've seen is the one where he shakes some soldiers' hands, though I'm not sure if they were _Hitlerjugend_...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 7, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No was a lunatic aswell as being an idiot and evil. He was even documented as being diagnosed with a mental disorder.



Who diagnosed it? Please provide a reference so we can see if this is a legitimate diagnosis, or one that serves someone's interests.

In his last years, he was heavily addicted to amphetamines and opiates. But was he "crazy", it depends on your definition. It is not even clear if he was a psychopath, there is no evidence he personally enjoyed killing, Hitler's hatred was largely abstract.

Still, the fact is he had tons of nerve gas which he could certainly have deployed against the Soviets. Had he done so, he would have wiped out most of the Soviet army. However, he knew that if he did so the repercussions for Germany were that it would almost surely become a wasteland and there would be no future Germany at all. When his subordinates were arguing to use the gas, he forbade it. In the end, when all was lost, he put the well being of the German people first.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2004)

The nerve gas was never an arguement here, about why he did and why he did not so I do not understand why you keep argueing that fact. Your personal vendeta here against me seems to be getting out hand. As for the diagnosis, I honestly do not know who and I think I phrased my post wrong it should have been merely that it was thought by modern physicians that he had some kind of mental disorder. Either way the man was crazy just face it RG_Lunatic. You make many great posts here but you seem to have something against me and I think that may be because I am a German citizen and you think that I disagree with you because you hate the Germans so much. That is not the case I disagree with you because I think seeing and Being with modern German people and haveing talked to many German vets I understand them better than you do. But its okay for sake of argument you are know everything man, are you happy.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 7, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Hello all this topic is really getting interesting.
> 
> For Midway, the USN had a lot of luck in understanding, breaking, and useing the IJN codes to know where the attack was. But I would not say Yamamoto planned poorly. This was his last great strtke to try and take out the USN. He was a great planner and unlike most of the Military command understood the USA and her industrial ability. Midway could have stil gone either way.



It was not luck that the USA broke the Japanese (and German) codes, it was skill and hard work.

Yamamoto over planned everything he did. He got away with it at Perl Harbor - but that was a sneak attack. Midway was too complex, involving 7 coordinated battle groups.

What Yamamoto should have done was to simply go in and take the island. He had the following front line warships available:

Carriers: (531 aircraft)
Kaga - 90 aircraft - 28 kt 
Akagi - 91 aircraft - 31 kt
Shokaku - 84 aircraft - 34 kt
Zuikaku - 84 aircraft - 34 kt
Soryu - 71 aircraft - 34 kt
Hiryu - 73 aircraft - 34 kt
Ryujo - 38 aircraft - 29 kt

Battleships:
Yamato, Nagato, Mutsu - 27 kt
Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna - 30 kt

Heavy Cruisers:
Tone, Chikuma, Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, Kumano - 35 kt
Takao, Atago, Maya, Chokai, Myoko, Nachi, Haguro, Ashigara - 34 kt
Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, Kinugasa - 33 kt

Plus about 17 Light Cruisers and 90-100 Destroyers with 33 kt or better speed.

All Yamamoto had to do was assemble these ships, steam toward Midway, and time it so that he would be about 250 nautical miles, from Midway as darkness fell the night before the invasion. This would have put them out of effective range of US attack aircraft. Max range of the dauntless was about 775 miles, but any plane caught 200+ miles from base at dusk in 1942 was a lost plane, and Japanese fighter defenses would have outnumbered any possible US attack by 3:1 or more. Before dawn, the Japanese fleet would have been been shelling Midway, and then the aerial bombardment would have begun. Within a day, two at the most, Midway would have fallen, EVEN IF THE USA WAS NOT SURPRISED!

Some links:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/Midway/MidwayIndex.html
http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/midway.htm
http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm



MP-Willow said:


> As for Hitler, yes he was evil and very controling, but I think he was smarter then most will admit. His ability to speak to great masses of people, to rebuilt Germany, that has some merit. But he would not or could not stop with that.



Actually, his rebuilding of Germany was built on lies. You cannot build a military to spend your way out of depression or recession. It will work for a while, but then inflation rears its ugly head. You are printing money to pay the military and war industries, and they are spending it on bread, so the price of bread rises. In 1937 when faced with imminent hyper-inflation, Hitler chose to rob the Jews, staving it off for another 2.5 years. In 1939, when faced with imminent hyper-inflation, Hitler chose to go to war.



MP-Willow said:


> Now having Hitler and Stalin in the same decade was just shear doom for Europe. Eastern Europe was doomed to be eaten up and carved anew again it was just time. Chamberland and the west tried to do everything they could to avoid war and even not admit what was hapening. They courted Stalin because he was the slightly lesser Evil of the two, and had not had anounced plans for world domination. In that he as a step above Hitler.



The whole Soviet situation is much more complex than that. Stalin was indeed evil, but in a much more insidious and intelligent way than Hitler. It can reasonably be argued that without Stalin, Russia would have fallen to the Nazi's in WWII. Only someone like Stalin would spend lives the way that they needed to be spent to achieve victory.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 7, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The nerve gas was never an arguement here, about why he did and why he did not so I do not understand why you keep argueing that fact. Your personal vendeta here against me seems to be getting out hand. As for the diagnosis, I honestly do not know who and I think I phrased my post wrong it should have been merely that it was thought by modern physicians that he had some kind of mental disorder. Either way the man was crazy just face it RG_Lunatic. You make many great posts here but you seem to have something against me and I think that may be because I am a German citizen and you think that I disagree with you because you hate the Germans so much. That is not the case I disagree with you because I think seeing and Being with modern German people and haveing talked to many German vets I understand them better than you do. But its okay for sake of argument you are know everything man, are you happy.



I have nothing against you at all Alder. I disagree with some of the things you've said, and I've posted a compelling source for you to see concerning the issue. Seriously, I do not hate Germans. I'd be making the same argument if you were trying to argue that the US army in the West at the time of Col. Custer was "honorable", they weren't.

As for Hitler's insanity... he was a gangster who managed to gain control of a country. His only other "insanity" was the depth of his hatred of the Jews. I believe this started as a means to gain a following and power in a time when the German people were vulnerable to immoral politics, and then he began to believe his own lies. He surrounded himself with his own kind, fellow gangsters and corrupt industrialists, and of course they lost the war when they faced professionals.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2004)

No I dont think you understand what I am trying to say. And the German soldiers who fought in World War 2 were doing there job as soldiers for Germany and there is nothing wrong or unhonorable for that. As for committing acts unhonorable, yes things were done and there is no excuse for that but at the same time acts were committed by both sides. I dont expect someone who has never put there life in danger for there country to understand this. There is nothing more honorable than fighting for your country. The average German soldier had nothing to do with Hitlers genocide of the Jews or other people but yet he is considered unhonorable because he was conscripted to fight for his country. An example of this was Rommel is he not honorable because he wore a German uniform? I think not he was quite an honorable man. I have had dinner with his son Manfred on several occasions due to my former ROTC unit's partnership with the Afrika Korps Association and the things he tells about his father are so wonderful. This man was loved by many people even his enemies. If you go to his memorial service near Ulm, Germany every year there are soldiers from England, USA, France, and Germany all in there best uniforms laying wreaths in a wonderful ceremony, does this sound like a dishonorable man? I think not and neither were most of the German soldiers. Most were no different than the allied soldiers 18-25 doing what is expected as a soldier. And as for what I say, it is because I disagree with what you say and nothing again nothing will change my opinion. AND THIS IS NOT A STATE OF DENIAL. I know the facts just like you I just think your perception that all German people are evil and shared Hitlers ideas is wrong and I think most people would agree with that.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 7, 2004)

You (intentionally?) misunderstand what I've said and overstate the points I have made to extreme.

As for acts of brutality being committed on both sides, the German's always started it. Just look at the E. front, the German's started the butchery very early on. Can you point to an instance where the German's were on the recieving end first?

You seem to think I am saying this applies to modern Germans. No where have I made such a statement. Today's German's are no more nor less vulernable to evil than any other Western country. But they certainly are not immune, and neither are we Americans.

Again, the one point I have made, over and over, is that far more WWII Germans knew what the Nazi's were doing than admitted it after the war. That is the denial I refer to.

How do you translate this into that I must hate Germans or that I think German's are lower than others (Americans)?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2004)

No you have stated in many of your posts that Germans owe the United States and have made it very clear that all Germans from 1930 to 1945 were just as evil as Hitler and that after 1945 they just wanted to deny everything that is not true. As for the Germans that lived during the Reich yes they were very easily pursuaded to Hitlers ideas but you try living in a Faschist dictatorship. You could not open your mouth to anything against the party or you simply disapeared along with your family. I dont think you would have done something to stop it had you been in there shoes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 8, 2004)

try to stop it, if he was living in the great depression where you needed a weelbarrow full of money to by a loaf of bread, and someone comes allong and says he'll give you a job an a car, he'd proberly join them...........


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No you have stated in many of your posts that Germans owe the United States and have made it very clear that all Germans from 1930 to 1945 were just as evil as Hitler and that after 1945 they just wanted to deny everything that is not true. As for the Germans that lived during the Reich yes they were very easily pursuaded to Hitlers ideas but you try living in a Faschist dictatorship. You could not open your mouth to anything against the party or you simply disapeared along with your family. I dont think you would have done something to stop it had you been in there shoes.



I would have spoken agains the Nazi's prior to 1933. In 1933, I'd have left Germany, as many of my relatives did.

It is pointless to further argue the ethics of this issue. You have your position and are unwilling to even consider that some of your beliefs might not be correct, and I have mine and feel pretty confident about them as well. I ask you to someday try to watch the documentary "Shoah", just for your own sake. Beyond this, let's just agree to disagree.

As for Germany "owing" the USA. Yes I feel the Germans owe us enough that they should not have stood against us in our response to 911. The USA gave Germany something around $2.6 billion between 1946 and 1951, which amounts to something around $21 billion in todays dollars. And that does not include very low interest loans, some of which were later forgiven, and the huge investment in defending W. Germany from the Soviet block (which pumped $ in the W. German economy).

What has Germany done for the USA in return?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

Shown the World what Women look like on Steroids?????????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2004)

How did Germany go against the USA on 911, they supported the US about 911 they just disagreed with the US about Iraq and what does Iraq have to do with 911? Absolutly nothing. So was Germany wrong with that absolutely no. OK your family left Germany fine mine did not, does that make my family so bad because they loved there homeland so much not to leave. I guess so because your family did that so my family has to be evil nazis then.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

HMMmmmmm.... Someone sounds like they had a nerve struck....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

This argument has been going on for over a week.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

I noticed.. Ive been back reading all yous guys posts since I got back into town..... DerAdler doesnt seem the type (Military) to get all worked up like this, hence the "Nerve" post......


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How did Germany go against the USA on 911, they supported the US about 911 they just disagreed with the US about Iraq and what does Iraq have to do with 911? Absolutly nothing. So was Germany wrong with that absolutely no. OK your family left Germany fine mine did not, does that make my family so bad because they loved there homeland so much not to leave. I guess so because your family did that so my family has to be evil nazis then.



You're mis-stating what I've said about WWII Germans. I've not said they were all "evil nazis", all I've said is they were bystanders and that they did know what was going on and chose, for whatever reasons, to do nothing about it, and that their post-war claims of ignorance are mostly lies.

My Jewish family members who stayed in Germany and the region in general, for the most part, died. My non-Jewish family members turned on their Jewish relations because they "loved their homland so much". Anyway, lets drop that aspect of this discussion okay? I appologize for having offended you, but the whole denial thing is a sore spot with me.

------

If you want to get into a discussion about Iraq and why the USA's position is that it was critical to deal with Iraq as part of dealing with international terrorism, that is another topic. I too have a lot of problems with the war in Iraq, though I do believe Iraq did have to be dealt with eventually, I just dispute the wisdom of having done so now.

The point is that Germany knew what the USA's position was and chose to stand against us. This is something that Germany should not have done. They might have chosen to abstain but they should not have sided with France and Russia.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2004)

If a country does not wish to go to war, there is nothing wrong with it, war is not pretty and I know that first hand. It would have been different if Germany would have been directly threatened by Iraq. As for France and Russia I think we all know why they disagreed, they were selling arms to Iraq throughout the whole sanctions. But still you can not condemn another country for not wishing to go to war. I am sorry you are wrong. Well anyhow for all you to know I guess I am an ignorant lyer in denial because my beliefs are not the same as yours.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 10, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If a country does not wish to go to war, there is nothing wrong with it, war is not pretty and I know that first hand. It would have been different if Germany would have been directly threatened by Iraq. As for France and Russia I think we all know why they disagreed, they were selling arms to Iraq throughout the whole sanctions. But still you can not condemn another country for not wishing to go to war. I am sorry you are wrong. Well anyhow for all you to know I guess I am an ignorant lyer in denial because my beliefs are not the same as yours.



I'm just disappointed that France and Germany forget so quickly who their frends are and lack any gratitude for the past. I think the USA should do the following things:

1) Reduce the American military bases in continental Europe to a size that fits our needs w/o regaurd to economic impacts on the hosting countries. Perhaps remove them altogether.

2) The USA needs to reduce its financing of the UN. Current UN financing levels for the relevant countries are:

USA: 25%
Germany: 9.6%
France: 6.5%
Russia: 2.9%

The USA should cut its UN funding in half.

3) Future European issues should be left to the Europeans to handle. The USA should never again send its military to solve a problem like that in the Balkins in the mid-90's. The USA was not "directly threatened" by that matter, so why should we put our people at risk for a purely European issue?

---

I've never said you were a liar. I've said you refuse to consider that things were not as you think, and provided a source for you to learn the truth of the matter. If you choose not to do so, then yes, you are intentionally avoiding the truth. 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2004)

RG, I agree with most of what u just said...



> I too have a lot of problems with the war in Iraq, though I do believe Iraq did have to be dealt with eventually, I just dispute the wisdom of having done so now.


Yup..... We shoulda concentrated our efforts on Global Terrorism, than Saddam.. Although a threat, not an immediate one...



> 1) Reduce the American military bases in continental Europe to a size that fits our needs w/o regaurd to economic impacts on the hosting countries.


Yup..... Great Idea.....



> 2) The USA needs to reduce its financing of the UN. The USA should cut its UN funding in half.


Yup... Maybe we should just start our own World Relief Conglomerate.....



> 3) Future European issues should be left to the Europeans to handle.



That I do not agree with.... If something big enough happens over there, it affects everyone globally.... Oil.... Industrials.... Economically....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

Okay on pulling forces out of Europe I agree it would save a lot of money. On letting Europe take care of its own problems I agree as long as it is not too serious and does not affect the US because the US has its own problems and needs to take care of itself first. As for the war in Iraq I still do not understand how Germany not partacipating is such a problem with you. Iraq did not threaten Germany at all and was not much of a threat for the US either. So if they do not wish to die in Bush's personal war then so be it. It is there right to decide if they wish to fight in it or not. It has nothing to do with friends or not. I can say this because I am over here in Iraq and I did not vote for Bush. I too do not agree with the war. But being here I see the threat that he posed and it was not much. Yes he needed to go but at this time I dont think so. Yes he would have used chemical weapons again but not at this time. So again if Germany did not want to let its soldiers die in Bush's personal war then let it be. Lastly dont ever tell me that I am intentionally avoiding the truth. I know the truth and lived among Europeans my whole life. I know more about the situation then you think I do!


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 11, 2004)

Nooo! don't leave! Think of the air shows you guys put on here!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

We really cant put on airshows anyhow anymore, eversince we crashed at Rammstein and the Italian crash. I know when my unit flies to airshows we are just allowed to be static displays and nothing more. I know most of my buddies enjoy being stationed in Germany. They enjoy the chance to see Europe however it is costing a lot of money and the attitudes of people like RG_Lunatic just help make the Germans wish we would pull out.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

DerAdler, it wasnt Bush's personal War, it is Americas War; Brits as well.... He had to go, sooner or later.... And some indications and intelligence suggest he was building up and researching certain WMD's.... He may not of had them ready, but he would have.... And he wanted them real bad.... He was saving up vast quantities of gold... Check out the pics below.... If you look at the pallet of gold bars you will see that there are 7 bars in each stack, 4 stacks in each row, and 8 rows. That are 224 bars at about 20 lbs each, which is 4480 lbs or 71,680 ounces. At $350.00 per ounce, that is $25,088,000.00 worth of gold on the pallet. Imagine how much more is inside......

Better to chop off ur pinky, than wait and have to cut off ur whole damn arm.....

I think that Americas Allies should have been just that... Americas Allies.... Germany didnt come through.... Some help would have been appreciated.. Theres freakin Croats helping out in Iraq for cryin out loud....


> So again if Germany did not want to let its soldiers die in Bush's personal war then let it be.


I guess we shouldnt have bothered to sit on ur border with East Germany, looking at all those shiny new Russian Tanks sittin there... Maybe we shouldnt have gotten involved in the European conflict.... If that was the case, the wall would have been broken down a long time ago... 

By an Advancing Soviet Armor Spearhead..... 



> I too do not agree with the war.





> Yes he needed to go but at this time I dont think so.


I agree 100% with u on those points brother.... Theres a time and place for everything... Usama Bin Laden and ALL Terrorism in general should have been #1 priority.. Gather all Nations to fight the cause... 

Who wouldnt join up in a war againt GLOBAL terrorism????

Countries that harbor and promote terrorism.... Those are the first on the list.... Wipeout Terrorism at its roots... Imagine the Strike force the world could combine.... SEALS and Speznatz, and SAS and SF..... 

The intellegence gathering capabilities of the Isrealiies and the US and the Brits and the Germans and the French and the Turkish?????

There would be NOWHERE for terrorists to hide.....

But I dont make US policy so...... 


> I can say this because I am over here in Iraq and I did not vote for Bush.


I was in the first Gulf War and I didnt vote for Bush either... Father or Son... And I have been involved in the Bush policy of War many many times, and have the Purple Hearts to prove it... 

Politics has nothing, NOTHING to do with ur service to our beloved country.. I did what I was told, when and where, and to whoever my Commander in Chief decided I should...... And as u are doing now...... War is ugly and mean and the civilians are the ones that have the worst go.... Some of the crap I saw in Somolia still haunts me.. Some of the things I did in Bosnia still make me sick....

Damn this is a long post....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

Trust me I agree with you on most of your points I believe that he had to go at some point. And dont take me wrong I would have loved it if Germany had joined, but they did not, that does not make them a bad country like RG_Lunatic is making them out to be. When it comes to the Global War on Terrorism, Germany has stood by the US. They are in Afganistan, Djibouti, Somalia, and other locations. German soldiers have died in the GWOT. However the war in Iraq was not the GWOT. And I do agree with you on the serving. I am not a fan of Bush but as a soldier I came to Iraq and I am doing my job no questions asked because it is my job as a soldier.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

I thing RG was being alittle over enthusiastic maybe.... Germany isnt a bad country, but by not backing the US effort, they shunned themselves from our cultural ideas somewhat, and a certain % of the USA population feels strongly about supporting ur allies....

Dont knock him for that.... When I was alot younger, i felt very strong on these issues as well.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

I would not knock him for that if he would get off my back about how I am living in a state of denial because my beliefs are different than his. I do not shun his beliefs and he should not shun mine. I am a German who is blessed to also have American citizenship. I am proud of this but I will never stop being proud of my German people also. Yes some wrongs have been committed but we are a proud people and I am one of them. And my beliefs because of this are not wrong.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

I agree with u on all the points u made....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

Just on the subject of allies, for a second: 

When it comes to Canada's position, don't believe _everything_ you see in the media. I know some months back there was a bit of a pissin' match between the Bush government and some idiot Canadian back-benchers, from parliament. A lot of name calling and other childish horse crap! Our Prime Minister at the time, Jean Cretien, made the statement that we would support the UN decision. Ok, fine.

The simple fact of the matter is, Canada couldn't go even if we wanted to. I don't know if you're aware of the military situation in this country, but it's desperate! What few troops we do have are currently spread between Afghanistan, the Balkans (although they're due to come home), and here, and it's a fact that I and _many, many_ Canadians find both intolerable and embarassing!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

I have served with Canadian soldiers in the Balkans and they are great bunch of guys. Had a lot of fun training and working with them. One of my fellow crewchiefs is from Canada and was in the Canadian army before joining the American. He just left Iraq yesterday to go to Fort Rucker Alabama and bekome a pilot.


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 11, 2004)

Do you guys miss me ??
Proberly not.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

Nope, not one bit actually....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

I was wondering wher you got to NH...

You do keep email spamming me though, its rather annoying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

Sorry didn't get a chance to know you so no did not miss you a bit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

what a warm welcome he got.....................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

Yeah I guess he is one of the old timers here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

yes he's rather well known...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 12, 2004)

BUt he aint an old timer. Hes some kid from Israel somewhere that has no common sense and his grammer was horrible.... Would post pics of modern jets in a thread about the Spitfirre and what not....

U aint missin anything.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

except a good laugh when he tried to worm his way out of a situation............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

Ahh I see, sounds like he had a bad reputation.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

no, just a stupid one...................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

You know back to the other threads about being off topic, I think most of them are.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 12, 2004)

A brief reprise off topic dont hurt anyone, its when they go on incessantly off topic after a topic has run its course....

And Nighthawk was a meatball.. I called him out several times....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

> its when they go on incessantly off topic after a topic has run its course.



baisically one of mine and CCs off topic chats that last several pages........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Most of the topics have gone "incessantly" off topic as you oput it, but they always go back to it at some point. Because there are lots of members on the site now, the times we get off topic have increased. But they always get back to the subject.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

normally when a relative newbie comes on and states something blindingly obvious...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Yup, or when someone find a new piece of information that will bring it to light again.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

it tends not to last that long though..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Now that RG_Lunatic is here it does


----------



## Udet (Dec 13, 2004)

It really impresses me to know of guys who get so freaky only about reading the word "Hitler", but tell nothing when they see Franklin Roosevelt, with his tender grandpa smile, gladly seated by the side of Gold Medalist butcher in history: Iosif V. Stalin!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 13, 2004)

I really don't think you can make this broad statements. At the very least the catergory should be broken down into at least two sides to address the war versus Germany and the war versus Japan.


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 14, 2004)

With the welcom i got, i rather stay off the site.
and i am rather sure thet Les would be very happy.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Yes I would... And I was..... And I will be....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Dont speak to members like that, im sure several people probably have some opinions about you that you rather wouldnt hear.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2004)

i don't think he cares what people think about him.................


----------



## Udet (Dec 14, 2004)

Lightning Guy, hello!

I agree it was a broad statement.
However, I do think you undertood what I meant:

All that freaky attitude, of collective repulsion against Hitler turns out a funny thing when one discovers the USA, as perhaps any other power, will be more than willing to pact with the devil himself in order to reach and/or protect its interest. )

Smiley Dzhugashvili tortured, executed, murdered and plundered far, very far beyond Hitler´s expedient.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Bingo..... No one should care what my opinion of them is, therefore, I care not what others may think of me... Im an arsehole and know it, and it can be confirmed from several sources.... Why should anyone care what my opinion is???

And BTW, dont sit there and tell me how to act with a certain individual... Its not ur place... And I certainly dont need advice from a 15 year old.... Thanks anyways... He was and is a pain in the ass, and he knows it from the way he posted, and I confirmed his suspicions for him....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Im doing my job as a mod, if you wanna get personal send him a PM...

And just cos you dont mind what people think of you it doesnt mean everyone is like that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

les i can see hwere you're coming from but CC's only trying to do his job and keep this place sociable..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

> And just cos you dont mind what people think of you it doesnt mean everyone is like that.


If i cared about hurting other peoples feelings, I'd be in a monestary or something...


> if you wanna get personal send him a PM...


If i was gonna get personal I would have... But since I didnt, whats ur point....


> Im doing my job as a mod


And I'm a mod as well and dont need you to correct me.... If u feel the need to say soemthing like that, U can PM me.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 15, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> If i cared about hurting other peoples feelings, I'd be in a monestary or something...



 Sorry, that was funny!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

Dont be sorry, it was meant to be funny....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

and it was..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

Then atleast I succeeded at something in this miserable life.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 15, 2004)

> And I'm a mod as well and dont need you to correct me.... If u feel the need to say soemthing like that, U can PM me.....



Actually as a moderator Im higher up than you...

And if you didnt want other people to get involved you should have PM'd him, not posted it in a public forum where anyone can reply...

And why should I listen to a random 38 year old who I dont know, I dont give a toss about age difference, it means practiacally nothing in my world...

And if you dont care about other peoples feelings you need some therapy.

Another thing, if you reply saying ive completely contradicted myself I havent, cos up there you said you dont care what people think of you which means you should give a crap what I tell you...


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 16, 2004)

Now relax, i dont want all of this fuss around cuz of me, Its true i dont know jack about planes,but i am here to learn,
He who askes is foolish for 5 min's, and he who dosent is foolish forever,


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

True. I was in the exact same situation as NH when I first joined, and now im capable of holding my own in an argument and im a lot smarter than I was on the subject. NightHawk just needs a little education, after all, I think its good for people to show interest in the subject and wish to learn more, we cant let the memories of these great machines and pilots be forgotten...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2004)

> And if you didnt want other people to get involved you should have PM'd him, not posted it in a public forum where anyone can reply...


Are u outta ur damn mind boy?? Give me a freakin break u puss... I could care less if others get involved... But for u to post all high and mighty like that is a joke.. PM if u feel the need to talk down to me.... Insults are allowed here.... And he deserved to be insulted.... Everyone complained about him and insulted him in the past.... No different now, escepecially when he said "I guess no one misses me"... Just confirming 4 him....


> I dont give a toss about age difference, it means practiacally nothing in my world...


Your world??? Must be a nice place.. When i need a break from reality, Ill come visit..... That was such an immature comment... It shows ur only 15..... Im old enough to be ur Daddy... You show ur Dad and his friends disrespect??? I didnt think so...


> And if you dont care about other peoples feelings you need some therapy.


Therapy and psychological drugs have already been tried.. There is no cure for me short of going and visiting the Dali Lama....


> I think its good for people to show interest in the subject and wish to learn more, we cant let the memories of these great machines and pilots be forgotten...


That was by far one of the gayest and queerest comments I have yet to see on this website.... Please refrain from saying anything further like that.... U may end up warping some innocent childs mind....

Do us both a favor, and the next time u wanna insult me or embarrass me, do it by PM....... Thanks for ur cooperation and please stop by again....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

Dude, it is NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ok to insult someone publicly on the forums...how much did you slip horse to get him to make you a mod...



> You show ur Dad and his friends disrespect??? I didnt think so...


No cos my Dad's family and itd just be retarded to insult him, but when a random guy who thinks insulting people is perfectly ok of whom im never gonna starts insulting people just because they might appear a little simple (sorry NH) then that kinda pisses me off. Generally, im a polite teenager (yes, they do exist) whos a bit quiet and doesnt get involved in things. It take a pretty screwed up person (you on drugs?) to wind me up...



> That was by far one of the gayest and queerest comments I have yet to see on this website.... Please refrain from saying anything further like that.... U may end up warping some innocent childs mind....



Actually I reckon 90% of the people here would agree with me on that...hell I followed that statement nearly a year back and im glad I have a new interest.



> Everyone complained about him and insulted him in the past.... No different now, escepecially when he said "I guess no one misses me"... Just confirming 4 him....



Yeah thats true, but then I asked him to to cool it off a bit and he did - credit to him. I know he aint the sites most perfect member but hes far from being a prat. And I get the feeling when he said "I guess no-one misses me" he was actually joking...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

And it aint just now either - you been like this in the past too...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 16, 2004)

Les and CC, could you guys please take this offline. You guys are both moderators and should know better than make your quarrels public.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

I know, its not very mature of us...The simple fact of the matter is though that Les insulted someone, being a mod I told him not to and he threw a tiff about it...

Stopping now though, lets get this back on topic 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 16, 2004)

I think Perl Harbor was the most important with the BOB a close second.

The BOB is critical because it was esential in fighting Germany not only location but the Brits attitude was too.

PH was important because it brought the US together in a common purpose the whole package Manufacturing included anything less would not have done the job. I think resorces/manufacturing more than any other single factor won WWII.

I ran accross a program about some of Hitlers papers - The World was his plan. Had he taken Brittan before he went after Russia he might have made it with the Isolationist bull that America was living at the time.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2004)

> but when a random guy who thinks insulting people is perfectly ok of whom im never gonna starts insulting people


MInd showing me where I insulted him.... All I did was answer a question or 2 for him....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

> He was and is a pain in the ass



There, now stop pretending youve done nothing wrong and lets keep on topic...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

BoB to keep us in the war, El Alamian to start turning the tide in our favour, BoTB to seal our victory........


----------



## Smokey (Dec 17, 2004)

The most important battles of World War 2 were;

1) *The Battles for Yugoslavia and Greece*
Mussolini attacked Greece without telling Hitler. After Mussolini's attack attack on Greece failed, Hitler launched Operation Marita, the attack on Yugoslavia and Greece. This delayed Operation Barbarossa by two months(!) and the prescence of German troops in Yugoslavia made Soviet leaders suspicious. 
So Mussolini may singlehandedly have lost the Axis the war!
http://www.feldgrau.com/greecewar.html

2) *The Battle for Moscow*
After Operation Barbarossa was delayed by two months, the German army reached Moscow in November, where it was beaten back by the armies of Zhukov and Panfilovec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

Also the *submarine war in the atlantic*; if Hitler had allowed more U-boats to be made prior to the war, the Britain could have been starved into surrender by 1940/1941. However, if Britain had surrendered in 1940/early 1941, then Stalin would feel very nervous because the Soviet Union would be the only major power left in Europe apart from the Third Reich. So in fact it was in Hitlers advantage for Britain to remain undefeated before the launch of Operation Barbarossa to keep Stalin guessing about whether it was Britain or the Soviet Union which would be attacked next. 
It is also interesting to find out how crucial the Allied convoys to the Soviet Union were. For example, the Soviet counterattack depended on American trucks to carry the Red Army troops and supplies.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

a very good first post, welcome to the site, may we call you smoke?? most members have shorter names, for exaple "the lancaster kicks ass" is a bit of a mouthfull so people cal me the lanc............


----------



## Smokey (Dec 17, 2004)

lol ok, as long as everyone knows my name is nothing to do with the lame film Smokey and the Bandit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Hello and welcome mate, hope you enjoy many happy months of posting 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

My cat's name is Smokey.  
Cool, huh?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

shall we place bets on how long he can resist the temptation to spam??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Not really


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 17, 2004)

I agree there are many important battles and many brave men who fought in them. My contention is this.

In 42 the US produced 45,000+ aircraft, in 43 it was 85,000, in 44 it was 96,000+ in 45 it was 48,000+ (only half a year). Liberty ships by the hundreds. There were more than a hundred aircraft carriers at wars end. Without these materials the war simply could not be fought. Without the unifing effect of PH this would not have happened.

No ships, planes and radar the battle for the atlantic would have been won by the Germans just for instance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 17, 2004)

> He was and is a pain in the ass
> 
> There, now stop pretending youve done nothing wrong and lets keep on topic...



THATS considered an insult to u??? Boy, wait until u actually get out in the real world..... Wake up call at 4:30 AM....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 18, 2004)

So what does Smokey have to do with if not the movie?

Wmaxt makes a very interesting argument with the attack on Pearl Harbor. America's entrey into the war (and the resulting influx of manpower and industry) was a huge boost to the Allied effort. Again, I think selecting one battle is virtually impossible as very compelling arguments can be made for the BoB, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Stalingrad and numerous others.


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 18, 2004)

9 mil germen army was fighting on 2 fronts, and its no wouner thet america "won" the war.theyer mainland was not attacked, they had a huge amount of man and equpmint thet use as cannon fodders to swarm the germens, and the US 8th airforce and bomber command bombed germany back to the stone age.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Again, I think selecting one battle is virtually impossible as very compelling arguments can be made for the BoB, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Stalingrad and numerous others.



I quite agree with this, but it's interesting to see the points of view of so many different people.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

> No ships, planes and radar the battle for the atlantic would have been won by the Germans just for instance.



i hope you're not giving america the cradid for the radar??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2004)

Uh-oh! I sense another pissin' match on the way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

sorry but i hate it when the americans take credit for our achivements............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2004)

I can understand that, m8.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

it'll be interesting to see where CC stands on this one..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> > He was and is a pain in the ass
> >
> > There, now stop pretending youve done nothing wrong and lets keep on topic...
> 
> ...



Its not the worst insult in the world but its still an insult...



Why will it be interesting lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

because you always have a go at me for being patriotic, will you be??


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 18, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> sorry but i hate it when the americans take credit for our achivements............


your not alone,


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Well the Yanks have invented a lot of good things over the years but sometimes they do try and take credit for things they didnt do. 
You can be a tad _too_ patriotic sometimes though.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 18, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well the Yanks have invented a lot of good things over the years but sometimes they do try and take credit for things they didnt do.



Yeah... Like the Canadian Army in Holland in 44/45. They completly forgot we were there when, in fact, WE were asked to go there by the exiled Dutch government THEMSELF.

According to a Royal 22nd Regiment veteran of D-Day (who also fought in Holland), Canada and Holland had a long "friendly history". And he told us a little story...

When the Queen of Holland (who was pregnant) came here a while back (I think it was well before WW II), she had to give birth during her trip. Like, in Holland, a prince/princess can't be crowned if he/she is born outside of Dutch territory, the Canadian government decided that the Queen's room in the hospital would become a Dutch territory until she gave birth and left the hospital. Then the room came back as a Canadian territory.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

The Dutch empire, consisting of a Hospital room somewhere in Canada


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 18, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > No ships, planes and radar the battle for the atlantic would have been won by the Germans just for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> i hope you're not giving america the cradid for the radar??



No I'm not. I'm pointing out that it took more than just P-38's or just the Free French. But it took Rosie the Riveter as well. It's also a fact that it took the resouces and manufacturing and man power of the US to win that war. I'm not saying this to wave the flag or most emphaticaly not to diminish any other nations contribution in the war. I'm NOT sure that the US could have done it on her own, neither could it have been won without the US and maybe not then without the unification brought on by PH. The victory we had would have been a lot less likely had PH not brought the entire country to one focus. Beyond that one point there were many, many important battels that were far more important than PH as a win/loss. It took everyone to win WWII.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

I hope that Lanc isn't giving America the "cradid" for screwing up the English language


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Nice one


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

well they should get the credit, i mean "harbor"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Didnt you get his joke? 

Nah Im all for the American spellings - Its easier to write because they have less letters. And the offending 'u' is pointless


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

yes i got the joke, it was rather good as it happens...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 19, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I hope that Lanc isn't giving America the "cradid" for screwing up the English language



 
Yeah, the American spellings _do_ tend to make more sense.
But I shall continue to champion the "u", "gh", and all the useless silent letters because that's just how I was taught to spell, damn it! 
('O Canada' begins to play, followed by 'God Save the Queen')

 Sorry, that was all rather pointless. Please carry on.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> Yeah, the American spellings do tend to make more sense.



Yeah which is strange because a lot of the people dont


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

English spellings are far superior to the american spellings of words.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Nah...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

they are...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Nah...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> they are...........


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 19, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Yeah, the American spellings _do_ tend to make more sense.
> But I shall continue to champion the "u", "gh", and all the useless silent letters because that's just how I was taught to spell, damn it!
> ('O Canada' begins to play, followed by 'God Save the Queen')
> 
> Sorry, that was all rather pointless. Please carry on.



Memo from Halsubcomlant:

Transfer of N.S to Ottawa Guards for overt display of Canadian Patriotism effective immediate.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

it makes more sence with that quote..............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 19, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> Memo from Halsubcomlant:
> 
> Transfer of N.S to Ottawa Guards for overt display of Canadian Patriotism effective immediate.



 Oh crrrrrap!! 
Oh well. On the up side, I'll get to see more of my sister in Ottawa.  

Or was that a bad thing?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)




----------



## wmaxt (Dec 19, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > Yeah, the American spellings do tend to make more sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah which is strange because a lot of the people dont



I've noticed a lot of the spellings here are shall we say "creative" (mine included) it must be the time limit!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Yup  I think the lanc makes the most blunders, Normally im pretty accurate. But I still make the odd mistake


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

And you people once thought I had no sense of humor . . .


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

Is that where youve been all this time, at humour rehab?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2004)

i don't make the most mistakes................


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 20, 2004)

One idea is to cut and paste what you write into word, spell check it, and post it back into the text box - I've seen some weird and wonderful spellings of words like; 'squadron' 'necessary' and even 'important'! 

I hope I don't sound like an old woman, but really, if you've got an important point to make, you really ought to try and keep an eye on the spelling, grammar, and punctuation. 

Nobody is going to be giving you marks out of ten or covering your posts with red biro - it's just for your own credibility.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2004)

proberly from me............


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 20, 2004)

Nah, you're not the worst offender by a long chalk.  

Anyway, although I would never dream of changing what was written, I can iron out some of the gaffes, provided people would like me to.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> One idea is to cut and paste what you write into word, spell check it, and post it back into the text box - I've seen some weird and wonderful spellings of words like; 'squadron' 'necessary' and even 'important'!
> 
> I hope I don't sound like an old woman, but really, if you've got an important point to make, you really ought to try and keep an eye on the spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
> 
> Nobody is going to be giving you marks out of ten or covering your posts with red biro - it's just for your own credibility.



My mum does that, I think its a wee bit sad. 

However, the site does now have a new *Spellcheck* feature which you can use


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 20, 2004)

Okay, fair enough.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 20, 2004)

On the issue of spelling....

I try to spell correctly, but I also tend to write long posts. I type very fast (nearly as fast as many people speak), but sometimes I make spelling errors. In a forum like this one, I don't worry about it too much, as long as it does not detract from the content.

The new spell checker feature is nice, but problamatic if there is a lot of quoted text.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

I havent used it yet


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 20, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> On the issue of spelling....
> 
> I try to spell correctly, but I also tend to write long posts. I type very fast (nearly as fast as many people speak), but sometimes I make spelling errors. In a forum like this one, I don't worry about it too much, as long as it does not detract from the content.
> 
> ...



I'm a quadriplegic and type with 1 finger - not a big deal but I find myself several words ahead of what I'm typing. Oh Well!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

I type with about 3 fingers - My left index and my right index and middle. When pressing the enter key, I use my right ring finger, and I use my right little finger for pressing the shift key.

Why did I just say that?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 20, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> I type with about 3 fingers - My left index and my right index and middle. When pressing the enter key, I use my right ring finger, and I use my right little finger for pressing the shift key.
> 
> Why did I just say that?



Welcome to the club - try hitting the shift key with the same hand your typing with. It helps keep the replies reasonable.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 20, 2004)

My mum taught me to touch type when I was a kid. It stopped me from driving her mad on rainy days!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

Where I've been is graduate school. But now that school is closed down I have a bit more time to waste online. Also, there are a few more discussions worth responding to.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 21, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > I type with about 3 fingers - My left index and my right index and middle. When pressing the enter key, I use my right ring finger, and I use my right little finger for pressing the shift key.
> ...



Yep thats just what I do - hence occasionally I end up with 2 capital letters at the beginning of words


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

i just don't bother with the shift key, or spelling...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

It kinda shows...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

Ah, back to the ways that persuaded me to take a vacation from this site.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Hahah. We all know you sensed I was about come back...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Sorry LG, you musnt leave again!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

yeah you're alright..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

What?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

i was talking to LG, saying he's alright............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

You coming on to him or something?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

he wishes............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

I dont think he does. Youve probably scared him off now


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 3, 2005)

Let me say something on the subject... (I've spent about an hour to read all this stuff and I think that I deserve it...)
I was reading about the British fortification on Gibraltar and there was a reference of a German plan of taking control of Gibraltar which was very important to take control over Mediterannean sea. (I don't remember the operation's name but I will post some details in another post in another thread...)
The writer commented that the whole operation was called off because of the Italian invasion in Greece. This offensive was a pretty good reason for the brits to help Greece defend herself so England would be able to use Greek islands in the med. So it was in vain taking conrol of Gibraltar when the brits had allready Greek isles and Malta. Med cotrol was lost.
This helped a lot allied forces in North Africa.

What I want to say is that there are many events that could have been avoided and bring Germany one step closer to vicory.
I don't now whether Hitler was an idiot or had mental problems what I do know is that he had no chance wining the war when he got the command of the German army. Hitler might have been very good politician but he sucked as a military leader. Many of his decisions were just foolish.


I believe that there have been a chance that Germany would have won the war.

If I had to choose some battles these would have been BoB, Battle of Kursc and if BoB would have won the only thing needed would have been to repel any landings in Europe or England -which would be very difficult since there would an Atlantic to cross not just the channel.


----------



## Udet (Jan 3, 2005)

Very interesting opinion rebel.

The codename of the German operation for seizing Gibraltar was "Felix", and it apparently would have been commanded by Generalfeldmarschall Walter von Reichenau.

In my opinion, perhaps the battle that "decided" the outcome of WWII was the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The entrance of the USA in the war meant a big country, with a big population, with a massive military industrial capability and with access to large natural resources was a combatant on the allied side.

I am convinced Germany could more than deal with all European enemies; with England i see a stalemate (British so damned lucky to have the channel).


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

It would have been interesting if Germany had invaded Britain. As it is, I think Germany may have been able to launch Sealion in September of 1940 as planned. The RAF was not as powerful over the channel as some would suppose (look at the success of the Channel Dash as an example).


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> It would have been interesting if Germany had invaded Britain. As it is, I think Germany may have been able to launch Sealion in September of 1940 as planned. The RAF was not as powerful over the channel as some would suppose (look at the success of the Channel Dash as an example).



The channel dash was a totally different thing, which succeeded because of some British incompetance and a lot of luck. But that was an "instantanous" type thing, it did not have to be sustained like an invasion would have required.

I think that Sea Lion would have been suicide. The RN would have moved in at night, using spotters on the shore, and wiped out any beacheads the German's were able to establish during the day. Without total air-superiority it was impossible, and even with it the RN would have stood a good chance of wiping out any German beacheads, without which the whole force would have been doomed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

Again it is hard to say. The RN's reach was effectively limited to 20 miles. With most of the British Army's heavy equipment sitting on the shores of France and nothing comparable to the Atlantic Wall, the Germans might have been able to move beyond that reach relatively quickly. Plus U-boats had already demonstrated the vulnerability of the British BB's (Royal Oak). I'm not saying the attack would have succeeded. But it does make for a very interesting 'what-if.'


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

Udet said:


> Very interesting opinion rebel.
> 
> The codename of the German operation for seizing Gibraltar was "Felix", and it apparently would have been commanded by Generalfeldmarschall Walter von Reichenau.
> 
> ...



Hitler was a fool to declare war on the USA. This sealed his fate. Had he not done so, he probably would not have faced D-day until sometime in 1945.

I'm not sure the German's would have taken the Russians regaurdless of the USA's entrance into the war, as long as the USA provided "lend-lease" support to Russia which was likely in any event. The only way Hitler could have defeated the Russians would have been to make a deal with the Ukrainians, who had been waging a seperatist movement for decades and hated Stalin. But it was beyond Hitler to make such a deal with an "inferior" slavic peoples. Had he done so, Turkey may well have joined the Axis, opening the door to the Mid-East and making the capture of the Suez canal all but a foregone conclusion.

As for taking Gibralter, I don't think this was possible w/o being able to wage the attack from Spain. From Spain, again it is almost a forgone conclusion that Gibralter would have fallen within at most 6 months, though it would probably have been a costly battle.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Again it is hard to say. The RN's reach was effectively limited to 20 miles. With most of the British Army's heavy equipment sitting on the shores of France and nothing comparable to the Atlantic Wall, the Germans might have been able to move beyond that reach relatively quickly. Plus U-boats had already demonstrated the vulnerability of the British BB's (Royal Oak). I'm not saying the attack would have succeeded. But it does make for a very interesting 'what-if.'



Britain would certainly have suffered losses from the U-boats, but the U-boats would have been wiped out in the process. Mines would also have taken a toll.

I think you are not understanding what is needed to pull off such an invasion. You cannot invade and just send your forces 20+ miles inland to get them out of range of RN guns, they need to be supplied or they are finished.

The German's had no invasion capability, they were relying on the use of towed barges to get troops and heavy equipment to Britain. This would have required that they use airborne troops to secure a port, then move equipment into that port, off load it and support it, all within 12-14 hours, which is impossible. Even if they succeeded, that night the RN and RAF would move in and blast the port to rubble, making it useless as a supply point.

If Germany had been serious about Sea Lion, they would have needed to build some kind of amphibious landing fleet of significance starting years in advance. Alternatively, they'd have had to have developed a huge air-lift capability and had half their army trained as airborne units.

Germany's chances of succeeding with Sea Lion were at best slim, at worst non-existant. And failing at any serious attempt would have finished Germany right then and there. The entire invasion force, at least 500,000 troops and probably twice that, would have been lost.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

For once I agree with RG. Once the Luftwaffe had lost to the RAF invasion of Britain would have been impossible. Had the Germans attempted, they'd have been slaughtered on the beaches and ports. 

As for Russia, Germany could have beaten Russia if it had been left to the military high command to give orders - as it was in June 1941. It all started to go down hill in the winter of 1941 on the outskirts of Moscow when, after Tula, Guderian requested to fall back to dug-in positions to sit out the winter and launch a strike in the Spring. Hitler refused to give up land and ordered Guderian, and his XXIV Panzer Corps, had to sit on frozen ground waiting to be hit in the flanks. 
Still, even after that the Germans nearly exhausted Russian manpower in 1942. Without Hitler taking command of the Army, Germany could have won with its own manpower...with Hitler taking command, even with the 400,000 Russians/East Europeans wanting to join the fight, they still would have lost.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

I really doubt the German's would have beaten the Soviets because I doubt even had Stalingrad fallen the Soviet's would have capitulated. Stalin had moved the Soviet industry east in 1940 and the first half of 1941, so they could afford to loose even major cities and still not have been beaten. Russia was just too large a nut for Germany to crack given the nature of the "all or nothing" war they'd presented them with. The Russian's pretty much knew what it meant if they lost, which is a big part of why they were so willing to die to fight the Nazi's.

To beat the Soviets, Hitler had to instigate rebellion within their ranks. Otherwise, they were simply not going to give up.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

For the Germans to win, Hitler had to keep his nose out of military actions. The German high command had the right idea in late 1941 on the gates of Moscow. Guderian requested to move back from captured land to sit on the east side of Smolensk, easily defendable. Then strike at Moscow in Spring 1942. Hitler forbid this, which allowed the XXIV Panzer Corps to be pushed away from Moscow. 

Taking big cities, such as Moscow and Stalingrad was not to crush the moral of the Russians. The German High Command recognised these cities because of their military importance. Moscow - the rail and road center with large industrial base. Stalingrad - a sizable garrison for guarding the Caucasus oilfields. Another large industrial city, which would provide a good area of oil refinement and factories. Far from the reaches of Western bombing. 

Germany could have beaten the Russians because they never did want all of Russia, they wanted it up to the Urals. A Russian defence line on the Urals would have been a last stand that the Germans would have left because they had no need to cross the Urals. 
The Germans were in the face of victory in 1941 but Hitler took it away by ordering "Not one inch of ground must be lost without spilt blood" foolish, extremely foolish.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

The weather was also an ally to Russia. Many German soldiers froze to death because they were not equipped with cold weather gear. I don't know if it was Hitler or the high command that was confident of vistory before the winter set in, but either way those poor guys had a high incidence of freezinig to death.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2005)

and the T-34 took to the cold far better than the german tanks..............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Hitler was ed and appalled that his troops were ill-equipped for winter warfare. The Ordance Department failed to issue the clothing even with several requests from the commanders in the field. 
During the winter of 1941/42 Guderian met Hitler to personally request (and complain about) winter clothing. Hitler was angry at Guderian for not making the request earlier - Guderian had done so twice before the meeting - and was made even angrier when Guderian told him that he had. Hitler was embarassed and frustrated when bringing up the supply officer, which in front of both Guderian and Hitler had to admit that the request had been given but the request denied. You can imagine the red Hitler would have been seeing. 

On the weather and winter, the Germans were not actually killed by the winter much more than the Russians. What came to Russias aid was their 'roads' which were little more than dirt tracks, autumn rains which turned 'roads' into mudbaths and winter which froze the ground, made tanks and supply slip and make digging in nearly impossible. By 1942 the Germans were most equipped with winter clothing, those that weren't mostly used Russian winter coats. Of course, this did not stop the suffering but curbed it. The Germans took a lot of time building metal roads to keep their supply rolling. 

The T-34 in 1941 didn't really do much except cause a few shocks when troops encountered it for the first time. It wasn't used effectively and swept from the field by the greater tactics of German Panzer Divisions. I would also like to point out that the T-26 (Improved Vickers 6 ton) was the majority tank in Soviet armoured forces in 1941. 
A lot of people don't know that the first T-34s were not good in cold weather at all. They actually stalled often and took a lot to start, if they started at all. This problem was realised during their march from Russia to the Winter War (which they never actually served in) - luckily for the Soviets they found this out before Barbarossa, or they would have been screwed when the 'worlds greatest tank' couldn't even handle it's mother countries winter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

I think all of you have made very good points in all of your posts. Yes Hitler should have left the Military to his military commanders and stuck to being a polition. I do agree with Lunatic that in order to invade England, Germany would have had to set up a better amphibious plan and ways to supply the invasion force. The logistics for a force of that size is tremendous. I do however believe that Germany could have defeated Russia if they had stuck to original plan and not let Hitler interfere with his stupid policies. Russia was on the brink of falling. I think more then likely though it would have ended up being a armistance signed between Germand and Russia and eventually war would have broken out again between the 2 countries.


----------



## Udet (Jan 4, 2005)

Very interesting and illustrative points by the very many of you!

I do think Hitler did not launch Seelowe simpy because he was not interested very much in doing so.

Yes, the Luftwaffe did not have air superiority, but the RAF was not in the very best of the shapes as well.

Had the invasion been launched I can not tell of an accurate outcome; perhaps it could fail.

However, I see one thing unavoidably happening: the Royal Navy takes frightful losses, especially from the Luftwaffe. Losses so high only God or the Devil could tell what could have happened after that, even if the German assault wave had failed in establishing a beachhead.


As to the eastern front, I have been convinced on this for a good while now: without the US in the war in Europe, the USSR is doomed.

It appears to me like many many forget what the German army did to the Red Army during 1941.

Yeah, yeah, we have many excuses and explanations coming from the Russians: "we were caught by surprise.." (sure, so when it serves your interest your intelligence services were taking a nap, to then, when serving the current interest as well, your intelligence becomes the most efficiente and godlike net of the world); "we were in the middle of a modernization program..." yeah sure.

An army does not recover from such an insanely massive and overwhelming blow (1941) without foreign/allied help friends. The way the Red Army recovered could have never been such without British and USA material aid.

However the Ruskies will never ever admit it: they won the war by themselves, with ther own material resouces; at Kursk they destroyed "thousands" of German tanks; they "effectively" destroyed the Luftwaffe fighter force; the outcome of the strategic bombing campaign of the USAFF and RAF did not contribute in any way to help the soviet war effort; the LAND LEASE was a "tiny" help, that happened to include lots of crap they did not like or they already had available in their stock with an even superior quality; all that and a very very long BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....   

But, you have to understand them.

The British Expeditionary Force got gutted, overran and smashed by the Germans; it was Hitler that simply allowed the bulk of the British soldiers to flee the mainland; still, they arrived in England virtually wearing only their trousers; absolutely all their war material was lost.

How was it they recovered to return in June 6, 1944?
The beloved channel, which prevented their ground forces to remain in constant combat; the material aid of the USA and the new horizons Hitler sought after 1940.

Take away any of those elements, and the British army simply needs a decade to recover from the blow of 1940.

Last but not least, it was the courage and determination of the British people with of course contributed to their coming back!
Cheers!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Good points and I agree with what you said to all points.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 4, 2005)

''The real importance of the Air War consisted in the fact that it opened a second front long before the invasion of Europe.
That front was the skies over Germany.
The fleets of bombers might appear at any time over any large German city or important factory. The unpredictability of the attacks made this front gigantic; every square metre of the territory we controlled was a kind of front line. Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition all over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who in addition had to stay in postition by their guns, often totally inactive, for months at a time. As far as I can judge from the accounts I have read, no one has yet seen that this WAS the greatest lost battle on the German side. The losses from the retreats in Russia or from the surrender of Stalingrad were considerably less. Moreover, the nearly 20,000 anti-aircraft guns stationed in the homeland could almost have doubled the anti-tank defences on the Eastern Front...''

-from ''Spandau: The Secret Diaries'' by Albert Speer ...

Stumbled on this in my reading, which seems to be from one of the ''Horse's mouth's''.....

I am incidentally, a 'one-finger' typist, not fore-finger/trigger finger, but the next one , ''the lady's delight'.......
- Never learned how to type, but being a Signwriter/Signartist by trade, spelling mistakes are simply unacceptable, and I always have a dictionary handy....but thanks for the 'Spellcheck', it will be useful to some....
- I do feel that if one does have something worth writing, correct grammar etc. is also a reflection of one's commentary....if one is too lazy to write correctly, it will become a bad-habit and it DOES reflect on the author.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

The airwar over Europe was the single most important thing the Germans lost I believe also. Due to the fact that they were not able to keep control of the skies they allies were able to concentrat on the ground war. Germany had to worry about both.


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 4, 2005)

Dunkirk could have been a great slaughter for the brits... it was a very stupid movement by Hitler who believed that after that England would be eager ti sign a peace treaty. There would be great trouble for England the loss of 300000 troops

When BoB was over both sides where at the limits of their strength as far as pilots are concerned noone knows what would have happened if the battles continued.

A great what if for me is Germany not attacking Russia and avoiding battles in North Afrika instead taking command of Iraq (which was friendly to Germany and tking conrol of Medit and of course a great invasion in England after a good preparation.

USSR would have crumbled if the japs had left US to live in peace and attacked from behind when the Germans where actually parading in the eastern front.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

I think that the invasion of England could not have been held off for too long because the US was supplying England and then England would have gotten too strong. As for the USSR I dont think they could have fought a 2 front war. They had eneough trouble fighting the Germans and would have lost to them had there not been deadly mistakes made on the part of Hitler.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 4, 2005)

''The real importance of the Air War consisted in the fact that it opened a second front long before the invasion of Europe.
That front was the skies over Germany.
The fleets of bombers might appear at any time over any large German city or important factory. The unpredictability of the attacks made this front gigantic; every square metre of the territory we controlled was a kind of front line. Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition all over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who in addition had to stay in position by their guns, often totally inactive, for months at a time. As far as I can judge from the accounts I have read, no one has yet seen that this WAS the greatest lost battle on the German side. The losses from the retreats in Russia or from the surrender of Stalingrad were considerably less. Moreover, the nearly 20,000 anti-aircraft guns stationed in the homeland could almost have doubled the anti-tank defences on the Eastern Front.''

-from ''Spandau: The Secret Diaries.'' by Albert Speer

...Stumbled on this in my reading, and seems to be from one of the ''horse's mouth's''.......

... Also, I feel that if one has something worth writing, it is worth writing well, and good grammar etc. does reflect that.....
I am a 'one-finger' typist, never having being trained in the art....However, I am a Signwriter/Signartist by trade, and spelling mistakes are simply unacceptable - I always have a dictionary handy... The new Spellcheck is a great idea, and will be useful to some.......


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 4, 2005)

Something wrong with the Apache server there....I had to rewrite all that, and then find it went-up anyway.....f**xntg!!!!... - sorry 'bout that.......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

I once read, "Hitler built a fortress around Europe, but he forgot to put a roof on it."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

That is funny but it is true. The airwar over Europe ulitmatly sealed Hitlers fate.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

The Russians could have kept the Japanese at bay with ease. The Japanese got slaughted in Manchuria by the Soviets, they were out-classed in open field. Plus, the Japanese still had to get through China for any other way into Russia. 

Albert Speer was an extremely smart man, even with increased Allied bombing he still increased German production right up until 1945. Imagine though had the Allied bombing wasn't happening, the newly created Panzer divisions at the end of the war would have actually been fully equipped. 
When a German Panzer Corps managed to surround three Soviet Armies in 1943, Gen. Balck only had to fall back because of lack of equipment. Allied bombing certainly caused that lack of equipment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

Yes it did. The continuous strategic bombing of Germany kept Germany from maximizing the full potential of its military forces.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2005)

yet right up til the end of the war german production just kept growing.............


----------



## Udet (Jan 5, 2005)

PlanD:

I do not think the soviets slaughtered the Japs on the battlefield. You are referring to the Khalkhin Gol river battle in Mongolia in 1939, which ended in a clear soviet victory; still it appears like casualties for both sides were very high and not precisely a "minimum casualty raid" for the Red Army. I read one of Zaloga´s books, and a few others, where such battle is commented.

It is of course known the Japs did never develop the kind of armor and of artillery the soviets did, however I do not think it would have been easier at all for the soviets to fight against the mighty Wehrmacht in the westernmost areas of the USSR and the Japanese army in the soviet far east.

The power of the German attack was so mean, it was not a very necessary thing to have a "top" quality Japanese allied army attacking the USSR in the far east.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Albert Speer was an extremely smart man, even with increased Allied bombing he still increased German production right up until 1945.



This was because the German economy was not fully mobilized (80%) for war production until 1944. They had a lot of non-war capacity to be converted. It took the USA just 9 months to reach a 90% war capacity (90% of GDP was devoted to the war), where Germany didn't reach this level till 1945.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yet right up til the end of the war german production just kept growing.............



The German war economy as a % of GDP did it match the % of GDP of the USA until finally in the last 2 months of the war when there was no domestic production at all which made war production 100%, but actual production was tiny at that point anyway.

One of the big failures of Germany in WWII was their failure to take the war seriously and fully devote their economy to winning. As late as 1943 the average standard of living in Germany was still on the rise, and War production was less than 60% of GDP.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

I dont think you can say they did not take the war seriously. Maybe they did not expect the war to be as difficult as it was. But to not take a war seriously?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont think you can say they did not take the war seriously. Maybe they did not expect the war to be as difficult as it was. But to not take a war seriously?



No, they didn't take the war seriously. By that, I mean they didn't take their opponents seriously, and underestimated all beyond those which immeadiately bordered Germany.

It is not taking a war seriously when, in the 4th year of that war (1943) the standard of living of your people is still rising. This means the people themselves are not only not sacrificing for the war effort, they are actually benefiting from it. The economy is still producing more and more domestic goods. In Russian, Britain, and the USA, this was not the case. 

In the USA, rationing was instituded almost immeadiately, and most goods were extremely limited. For instance you could only buy one pair of shoes per child per year and one coat every 2 years, and adults got less. Meat, eggs, and dairy products were also rationed, along with rubber, gasoline, etc... Automobile production halted. By the end of summer 1942, 90% of the US GDP was devoted to the war effort. The 10% that remained was the minimum that could reasonably sustain the domestic population.

And in Britain it was far worse, and in Russia even worse still. In Britain, war product came genrally came first and only surplus went to the public. Often this left people hungry.

In Russia, a lot of people did starve, while working to produce war product. At Tankograd for instance, the daily ration for workers was 200 grams of bread a day, and often they didn't even get this. I used to have a link (now it directs to a all russian language site) which had a "thank you" letter from a woman who'd worked at tankograd. The letter said the American workers (not the government) who packed the lend-lease crates had been told of how hard things were for the Russian workers recieving them. They were on the brink of starvation when lend-lease started. Then when the crates arrived, every spare nook and cranny was crammed with canned meats and warm clothing. If it had not been for this, she said she would have starved and/or froze to death, and for that reason she always liked Americans no matter what the government said after the war was over. In Russia, 100% or even more of the economy was devoted to the war effort almost immeadiately - if civilians starved that was acceptable to Stalin!

So from a relative point of view, no the German's did not take the war seriously until it was too late.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

One of the reasons that German production continued to grow was that the American forces switched much of their attention to the oil industry. I am not saying Speer didn't do an incredible job but the respite the German industries received played its part. But all of that was for naught since the Germans didn't have the oil to run anything. By the end of the war Germain oil production was down to 25%. That was a huge difference to the German war effort.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2005)

It was Speer that got the German economy on to war effort, possibly the only man who realised. So, he was a smart man. Would you take your opponents seriously if you'd crushed all of Europe and swept Russia's 'mighty' tank arm of 28,000 down to 1506?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It was Speer that got the German economy on to war effort, possibly the only man who realised. So, he was a smart man. Would you take your opponents seriously if you'd crushed all of Europe and swept Russia's 'mighty' tank arm of 28,000 down to 1506?



Any time you are at war with half the known world, yes you have to take it seriously until its actually finished. Hitler was not willing to do so because his support was based upon the improving living standard of the German people, so he had to leave about a minimum of 1/3rd of the German economy to produce domestic goods.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2005)

The reason that happened was because Hitler was drunk on victory after the crushing defeats he inflicted on his enemies in 1940-'41. I think a lot of people would be same, a lot of people are fools and don't realise it's over until it's over.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think you can say they did not take the war seriously. Maybe they did not expect the war to be as difficult as it was. But to not take a war seriously?
> ...



Okay now that you put it that way I will agree with you. Hitler did not take his enemies seriously. Wheather it was he believed that the so called "Arian Race" was so much better and could defeat anyone or it was because of the way he crushed the first countries he overan is no excuse. You can never underestimate your enemies. Right now we are a shining example of that here in Iraq still fighting and dieing every day against an enemy that we can not seem to figure out, because we underestimated the Iraqi's. This has been shown over and over through out history, even in the Revolutionary War. The British underestimated the Colonists. So yes I will agree with you and this was a major mistake by Hitler.

Whether this be true or not I am not sure but one reason about the economy and the standard of living rising among Germans could be the reason that is how Hitler came to power. He promised the Germans many things which won there hearts and minds. Now that still is not excuse for not bringing up the economy for the war effort he could have just taken it all away from them and used everything for the war effort but well he did not. I dont know if this a reason why but it could be an answer to it.


----------



## Udet (Jan 6, 2005)

DerAdler:

You just made very strong points there.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Add the Japanese to your list of "victory-drunk" people.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

That is true too. The Japanese literally spread themselves way to thin by taking over small islands and countries that really had no way to defend themselves. They had an extremely powerful navy and after Pearl Harbor was probably the strongest and if not only second to the British Royal Navy. (atleast until the US Navy got up and running again) They thought they could stop anyone.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

At least Yamamoto understood that they didn't get the carriers. Down, but not out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Yeap, Yamamoto was in my opinion a great Naval officer and you are correct atleast he knew that they would not be out for long because they did not get the carriers.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

What would have happened if they DID get the Carriers at Pearl????

Reprecussions?????


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

It definitely would have delayed an American response. Hard to say how we would have recovered from it. The other important target missed at Pearl was all the fuel tanks. They were not bombed either. If they had hit those, we would have been in serious trouble. That was a bulk of the fuel for the Pacific fleet!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

I dont think it would have changed the overall outcome but it would have made the war more difficult at first for the US. Hell without the carriers they would not have even been able to do the Doolittle raid. I think that it would have just been a slow start for the US in the pacific but in time they would have built the carriers again and the outcome would not have changed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Good point to evenglider, but at the same time there were plenty of oil reserves on the Mainland and you cant forget about Alaska, though I dont know if they were drilling for oil in Alaska yet.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

I agree, but they would have had to get it to Pearl Harbor while conserving what was left on the ships that were already in the Pacific. There was alot of oil stockpiled there and it would have taken quite an effort to build up that much under wartime conditions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Agreed but they would have figured it out somehow.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

Yes, they would have figured it out, but it would have been a tough challenge. I dojn't think it would have changed the final outcome, but it would have prolonged it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

And that is why I think if they had gotten the carriers it would have atleast prolonged and made it more of an uphill battle to fight.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

I agree with you on that point as well. A surface fleet without air cover is a sitting duck. Plus the scout aircraft help to find the enemy ships.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2005)

The Japanese also missed the dry docks. The loss of all three Dry docks, Oil/oil storage and carriers would have been terrible. Their goal at that time was Australia which was as reported by Mac Aurther as "wide open" the vast majority of their troops being in N. Africa at the time. Austraila was a major staging point in the Pacific. Without the carriers we could not have stopped them at Corral Sea and without the dry docks we would have been out of the battle of Midway. Without the oil both would have been diecy. The allies would not have been a threat to the Japanese for a year or more.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



That is exactly the answer to it. Hitler's power was bought by promising and giving the German people a better life. He was afriad if they saw that "better life" start to fade their confidence in him would faulter.

When Hitler decided to invade Russian in the Summer of 1941 (after stupidly delaying to help Mousilini in the Spring), he needed to get serious about the war effort and turn the entire German economy toward that effort. Certainly he should have done so when the USA came into the war at the start of 1942. He did not, and as a result, by 1943 the war was really lost already.

As for Iraq, I think we simply mis-undertand the Islamic culture. We assume they want what we want, and that they will embrace a Western style democracy, and that they can put aside their ethnic/relgious differences for the "greater good". I don't believe these assumptions are at all true. In the end I'm almost certain Iraq will devolve into very bloody civil war, and if this happens we will probably see civil war in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and perhaps several other Arab states.

The only way we can achieve "peace" in Iraq is by using an iron fist just like Saddam did, in which case we would become worse than Saddam's dictatorship. And even this would probably not work in the long run.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

As for the carriers at Pearl Harbor... here is a very nice essay on "what if the USA lost the battle of Midway", which assumes all 3 US carriers were lost and no Japanese carriers were lost in that battle. If this had happened, it would have effectively been the same as had the Japanese got three carriers at Perl.



> ...
> In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity! Not only that, but with her newer, better aircraft designs, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed not only a substantial numeric, but also a critical qualitative advantage as well, starting in late 1943. All this is not to say that losing the Battle of Midway would not have been a serious blow to American fortunes! For instance, the war would almost certainly have been protracted if the U.S. had been unable to mount some sort of a credible counter-stroke in the Solomons during the latter half of 1942. Without carrier-based air power of some sort there would not have been much hope of doing so, meaning that we would most likely have lost the Solomons. However, the long-term implications are clear: the United States could afford to make good losses that the Japanese simply could not. Furthermore, this comparison does not reflect the fact that the United States actually slowed down it's carrier building program in late 1944, as it became increasingly evident that there was less need for them. Had the U.S. lost at Midway, it seems likely that those additional carriers (3 Midway-class and 6 more Essex-Class CVs, plus the Saipan-class CVLs) would have been brought on line more quickly. In a macro-economic sense, then, the Battle of Midway was really a non-event. There was no need for the U.S. to seek a single, decisive battle which would 'Doom Japan' -- Japan was doomed by it's very decision to make war.
> http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm



It is really worth reading the whole page, I just cut and pasted the synopsis for focus.

The whole Combine Fleet site is worth reading and downloading key pages from. The Battleship comparison is very interesting and goes into increadible depth.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

In 1941 the IJN had the edge on the Royal Navy (at least IMO). The only significant RN advantage was in the number of BBs and in 1941 that was a rather tedious advantage. The British had nothing to match the numbers or capabilities of the IJN and no carrier aircraft to match the Zero, Kate, or Val.

Had the Japanese destroyed the 3 Pacific carriers the war would have been prolonged but nothing really would have changed. The US still had the Atlantic Carrier force that wasn't doing a whole lot. Essex class ships would be rolling out like crazy in a relatively short time. Also, there was no way for the Japanese to invade and maintain an assault against the US (regardless of the early war fears). If the Wermacht would have had a tough time crossing the English Channel, there was no chance of the Japanese sustaining an attack clear across the Pacific.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

In the Pacific the IJN had an advantage over the Royal Navy. In late 1941/early '42 after Pearl Harbour, Nagumo with 5 of the 6 carriers used at Pearl Harbour strode over to the CBI and gave the Royal Navy hell. All they had on their carriers were Swordfish, although the IJN did pull away and go back on to bothering the USN some months after the RN were in tatters. 
Although, 11 Sqn. Blenheims did manage to get a few hits on the Akagi (Nagumos flagship) little else was done against the IJN. It took Britain (and most of the world) to get their heads around how good the Japanese and Germans were. They were underestimated, and that's where the initial shock came from. Once the Western Allies started to think, economy brought into play...Germany and Japan had no real chance (talking around 1943 here). How can you beat the economy of the British Empire, the US and Soviet Union combined?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I agree with the underestimation. I think that, the Americans anyway, most underestimated the Japanese. There was alot of ignorance about the Japanese people and culture (Sound familiar? Have we learned anything?). Because of this, alot of the higher brass were in for some surprises and a rude awakening. Fortunately, once they did get it, they were able to counter the Japanese.

_How can you beat the economy of the British Empire, the US and Soviet Union combined?[\i]

Excellent point!_


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't think that one can compare production of US to that of Germany or England. The two last were hammered every day by bomb raids but America was untouched until the end of the war. This a great difference.

Evangilder you sound like been playing Axis and Allies lately!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Evan, Britain certainly underestimated the Japanese too. In Burma (You can tell I'm reading a book about it, can't you?) the British, Indians and Ghurkas were constantly told to attack even when severely under-strength. Alexander seemed to think that the Japanese would cave in (or something) under pressure, it wasn't until 1942 that he realised Burma was lost and ordered the retreat (with Slim and Stilwell in agreement). 
It was the same in Singapore and in the Indian Ocean. The British were thinking the IJN was nothing compared to the Royal Navy, how wrong they were. 

Rebel, the British Empire wasn't just England. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, [Parts of] Africa, India, Burma, Hong Kong all were part of the British empire. And the biggest contributers (Canada and the ANZACs were not touched, except Darwin was bombed a few times).


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 7, 2005)

You are right in that. I just did not figured that out...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

That is pretty much what I was saying. I dont think if the Japanese had gotten the carriers it would have changed the outcome of the war. There was also never a real threat of invasion to the United States by Germany or Japan. There was no way that the Germans or the Japanese could logistically sustain fighting in all the way across both oceans. I do believe as most of you have posted that the British and the US underestimated the Japanese at first. After a few defeats they began to change the way they thought about things. I also believe that the Germans were underestimated by the French and the British in 1939. Then the French tucked there tails and ran when the Blitz Krieg came and the British almost lost there whole army in Dunkirk. I believe this may have hurt there egos, as they were thinking of a quick defeat of the Germans. Not to say that the British are egotistical I just think that they thought it would be a quick swipe to Berlin and the war would be over in 1940. After the defeat on the mainland they quickly changed there views of Germany capability and better prepared themselves. I think this at the same time kept the United States from underestimating the Germans because they had seen what they were capable of and it helped them better prepare for the invasion of Normandy as well as help the British prepare. At the same time as I said in my other posts I believe that Germany underestimated the US, England, and Russia. Well actually it is a fact.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

Rebel, I have never played axis and allies. SOunds like mayeb I should?

Adler, good points there. The British and the French provided plenty of intel about Germany to America before America's entry, so the underestimation by the US or Germany was reduced. I think both the Japanese and the Germans underestimated how much the US could produce. Having no attacks coming certainly gave the Americans free run to produce away. 

I don't think any Army of the time could have taken all of America, the geographical separation and the sheer size would have been too monumental of a task.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Rebel, I have never played axis and allies. SOunds like mayeb I should?
> 
> Adler, good points there. The British and the French provided plenty of intel about Germany to America before America's entry, so the underestimation by the US or Germany was reduced. I think both the Japanese and the Germans underestimated how much the US could produce. Having no attacks coming certainly gave the Americans free run to produce away.
> 
> I don't think any Army of the time could have taken all of America, the geographical separation and the sheer size would have been too monumental of a task.



Post war studies show that Allied bombing had surprisingly little effect on German production. Typically, even after being hit pretty hard, German factories were back at nearly full production within a week, 2 at the most. The exception was bombing of oil refineries, but German synthetic plants were very hard to hit.

What really seems to have crippled Germany was not the heavy bomber raids, but when the USAAF turned the fighters loose on targets of opportunity, particularly transportation and communications facilities. German transport ground to a halt, and this crippled production. Often all the parts needed to put a tank on the ground or a plane in the air existed, but they could not be brought together to get the thing operational. With 20/20 hindsight, these kind of raids should have been carried out earlier, and perhaps what was needed was many thousands of light attack planes rather than a few thousand heavy bombers.

Something like the F7F Tigercat, with one 300 gallon drop tank, 2 x 1000 lbs bombs and 8 x 5" HVARS, along with its 4 x .50's and 4 x 20mm's would have been totally devestating to Germanies transport industry, and a good match against German fighters when clean. The P-38 might also have conducted such attacks, but I think the liquid cooled engines make it too vulnerable to small arms.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The British and French inaction in 1939 sealed their fate. They probably could have ended it in 1939 but were too scared of the West Wall. Which, although portrayed as impregnable, was an easy obstacle to overcome. Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin after the war admitted the bunkers could be destroyed by long range artillery with no threat to the attacking artillery from German guns because the positions were so ill-prepared. 

Germany certainly under-estimated the Russians. I don't think they under-estimated the British, they just didn't want to accept war with a country they so greatly respected until the BoB. By then, there wasn't enough time to prepare.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The British and French inaction in 1939 sealed their fate. They probably could have ended it in 1939 but were too scared of the West Wall. Which, although portrayed as impregnable, was an easy obstacle to overcome. Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin after the war admitted the bunkers could be destroyed by long range artillery with no threat to the attacking artillery from German guns because the positions were so ill-prepared.
> 
> Germany certainly under-estimated the Russians. I don't think they under-estimated the British, they just didn't want to accept war with a country they so greatly respected until the BoB. By then, there wasn't enough time to prepare.



I agree. In fact, Hitler had already ordered that if the French and British drove into Alsaice-Lorraine (sp?) while Germany was occupied in Poland the Germans were to pretty much capitulate and seek peace terms. It was a huge gamble, Germany had only token defenses in the west at this time.

Also, I don't think it is fair to say the French "laid down" when the Germans attacked. They were outflanked because they bet the farm on the Maginot line stupidity, and Hitler just went around it through the low-land countries. The French had somehow stupidly not considered this possiblity and were totally unprepared for it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Rebel, I have never played axis and allies. SOunds like mayeb I should?
> 
> Adler, good points there. The British and the French provided plenty of intel about Germany to America before America's entry, so the underestimation by the US or Germany was reduced. I think both the Japanese and the Germans underestimated how much the US could produce. Having no attacks coming certainly gave the Americans free run to produce away.
> 
> I don't think any Army of the time could have taken all of America, the geographical separation and the sheer size would have been too monumental of a task.



You should deffinatly play Axis and Allies it is a great game and lots of fun if you have patience and lots of time. As for an invasion of the US, just like you said just the fact that it was separated by thousands of miles of great salt water that we call the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans pretty much negated any threat there could have been.



RG_Lunatic said:


> What really seems to have crippled Germany was not the heavy bomber raids, but when the USAAF turned the fighters loose on targets of opportunity, particularly transportation and communications facilities.



I agree with you on this. A lot of German Tansportation was based on the use of trains. (this is still true today, you can get anywhere by using the Bundesbahn [sounds like a commercial, doesn't it?]). The allied fighters with there orders to attack targets of oppurtunity would hit these trains. The trains were limited to being used at night under blackout conditions and this still did not help and lenghtened the time needed to get supplies and troops to locations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I agree. In fact, Hitler had already ordered that if the French and British drove into Alsaice-Lorraine (sp?) while Germany was occupied in Poland the Germans were to pretty much capitulate and seek peace terms. It was a huge gamble, Germany had only token defenses in the west at this time.
> 
> Also, I don't think it is fair to say the French "laid down" when the Germans attacked. They were outflanked because they bet the farm on the Maginot line stupidity, and Hitler just went around it through the low-land countries. The French had somehow stupidly not considered this possiblity and were totally unprepared for it.
> 
> ...



Just a note on the French and there Maginot Line and how they believed in it so much. I was watching the World At War series which I think is one of the best documentaries on the war as a whole. Well anyway they were showing an interview with a French General at the Maginot Line and in the back ground there were German soldiers playing football (soccer to the Americans). The reporter asked the French General why they were not shooting at the Germans if they were at war with them and he responded with "They are not shooting at us, if they shoot at us we will shoot at them." Well as we all know the Germans went around and not directly at the line.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

You do know the Germans did attack the line head on some way into the campaign? The thrust through the Ardennes was only the beginning, German 1st Armee did attack the Maginot Line on the 14th June. They found it to be a pityful defensive structure, with limited local protection. Even attacking it head-on proved easy because the bunkers were not equipped for all-round defence and one man could easily get to the blindside and destroy them with a flamethrower or grenades. 
It also lacked depth, and German artillery ripped it up before 197th Infantry Division made the first thrust - which broke through.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Yes but the main attack came through the low countries (I believe that is how they are called: Belgium, Netherlands, even though I am probably wrong with what they are called together).


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The diversion attack went through Holland. The main attack went through Luxembourg and the Ardennes forest (Belgium). The attack into Holland was to be made as loud and fantastic as possible to confuse the Allied High Command into thinking it was the main attack.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Well it certainly was loud.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

It was. It worked perfectly too. The German thrust through - 'impassable tank terrain' - the Ardennes forest caught the BEF on the move into Belgium to cover the Dutch-Belgian border. By the time they reached Antwerp, they were already flanked. 

9th Panzer Division attacked Holland.
6th Army - Pz. Corps Hoppner (3rd and 4th Panzer Division) moved into Belgium. These are only Panzer divisions I'm mentioning. Those three were the diversion.

The main attack - 4th Army - Pz. Corps Hoth (5th and 7th [Rommels Phantom] Panzer Divisions flanked south of Brussels. 
12th Army - Pz. Corps Reinhardt (6th and 8th Panzer Divisions) - Pz. Corps Guderian [the creator of Blitzkrieg and Panzer formations] (1st, 2nd and 10th Panzer Divisions) plus Wietersheims Motorised Corps with 5 (Motorised) Infantry Divisions. 12th Armee would thrust through the Ardennes and force a crossing at Sedan. 16th Armee would cover their left flank, the northern flank of the Maginot line.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Rommel was a genius in battle field tactics, though the thing that gets me the most about him is the way his troops and people loved him. Every year I go to his memorial service and there are troops from many nations, Germany, France, England, the US as well as former Afrika Korps members in there uniforms at the service. It really is somber and a memorable experience. The man was truely a soldiers General and a great man.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

He truly was a gentleman, and the Last Knight is a perfect title for the man. However, his tactical ability is constantly blown out of proportion because he is famous. 
His defence of France 1944 was flawed to the extreme, he should have listened to Guderian. His greatest feats were in North Africa but he was very lucky in many circumstances. Extremely lucky that the British were too cautious. 

I would advise reading Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin if you are really interested. He was Ic to Rommel in the desert. As well as serving as the Ia with 197th Infantry Division in France, he also served in Russia with Gen. Balck (Probably the greatest Panzer General of the war) and served with Army Group G in France/Germany 1944.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

I think the major thing in Normandy was not giving Rommel control over the SS Panzer division in Normandy.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I agree about the bombing of factories versus transportation and communications hubs. During the battle of the bulge preparations, the Germans still had very good rail transport and were able to move alot of equipment towards the area that way. Keep in mind that alot of the bombardment and attack plans were pretty experimental in their time. Before WWII, no one would have thought of doing daylight bombing. When it was initally proposed, the Brits thought the Americans nuts. More than half of the Americans thought it was foolhardy as well. It was all a "Big experiment" (I think it was Robert Morgan who said that). Fortunately, we won, but at tremendous cost.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

The main reason the trains were able to supply the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge was because of the poor weather that kept the allied aircraft from flying. As for my other post before this one, one reason I think of the poor planning for the defence of Normandy was the fact that Rommel had poor intelligents and the fact that the allies fed false intelligents to the Germans about where the invasion would take place. Considering all this I think he did the best he could with what he had.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

No, no he didn't - I'm sorry to say. Guderian advised Rommel to move his Panzer Divisions to the coast so they could react quickly to any attack, wherever on the coast it happened. Rommel, being afraid of the Allied air power, kept all his Panzer divisions back and also allowed two Panzer divisions to be in the south of France. 
If Guderian had been Commander in the West then the Western Allies would have had a much harder time. Air power was great but Rommel was too scared of it to think clearly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Well that may have been because the Luftwaffe had already lost air superiority, the allied aircraft could pretty much fly wherever they wanted on D-Day.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

He shouldn't have been so scared of them though. Guderian was right but Rommel refused to listen.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

You are correct with that.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> He shouldn't have been so scared of them though. Guderian was right but Rommel refused to listen.



That is easy to say now with 20/20 hindsight. But had Guderian prevailed, the Panzers been moved up, and wiped out by Allied air attacks before D-Day, you'd be singing the opposite tune right?

Once moved forward it would have been much easier to pin them and prevent them from going where they were needed.

The real flaw was that Hitler had to authorize the movements of those Panzers. He was sleeping and no one dared wake him so they were not able to react to D-Day until it was a done-deal.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

That is true, I had read about that no one wanted to wake Hitler and get permission to bring them forward. That was a great flaw.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

No, I wouldn't be saying anything different because that wouldn't have happened. Had the Panzer Divisions been waiting behind the beach then Caen De Canal bridge wouldn't have been a problem and 21st Panzer Division would have been sweeping the beach heads before Allied armour even came ashore. 

I can say it would have worked now, and Guderian said it would have worked then. He was right, Rommel should have listened but didn't. He made a mistake, it is unfortunate Rommel cannot give his post-war opinion on things such as Guderian did. 

The thing about Hitler not being awoken, wouldn't have been a problem and Rommel moved the Panzers forward before D-Day. We're not talking June preparations, this was weeks before D-Day even happened. Rommel was mistaken in his thinking, Guderian was right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Yes but Rommel still did not have control of the Panzers.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Rommel was in command of the Atlantic Wall, sub-ordinate only to Von Runstedt. Guderian confronted Von Runstedt, who was willing to move the Panzers forward until Rommel disagreed. Von Rundstedt then changed sides and went with Rommel. 
It was Rommels flawed thinking that sealed D-Day. Don't get me wrong, he was a great military mind that made a mistake. As I said, it's unfortunate he cannot reflect on the war. Guderian made some mistakes too, and he got to admit them in Panzer Leader (1957).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

I dont know I always thought he could not move them because he did not have control over them, only Hitler did and he was sleeping.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

You're talking 6th June here. I'm talking weeks before. On 6th June, Rommel was in Germany visiting his wife for her 50th birthday. He wasn't even at his post. He couldn't have expected an invasion on that day though. 

It's a huge credit to the Allied forces that they practically caught the Germans with their pants down.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No, I wouldn't be saying anything different because that wouldn't have happened. Had the Panzer Divisions been waiting behind the beach then Caen De Canal bridge wouldn't have been a problem and 21st Panzer Division would have been sweeping the beach heads before Allied armour even came ashore.
> 
> I can say it would have worked now, and Guderian said it would have worked then. He was right, Rommel should have listened but didn't. He made a mistake, it is unfortunate Rommel cannot give his post-war opinion on things such as Guderian did.
> 
> The thing about Hitler not being awoken, wouldn't have been a problem and Rommel moved the Panzers forward before D-Day. We're not talking June preparations, this was weeks before D-Day even happened. Rommel was mistaken in his thinking, Guderian was right.



So you are suggesting that the Germans should have positioned their Panzers near the beaches all over the coasts of France? Or are you suggesting they knew in advance the Allied attack would be in Normandy rather than in Calaise as we know they really expected?

And had they been positioned as you describe, what would have saved them from Allied bombing? The Allies would surely have known exactly where they were and would have pulverized them with heavy bomber strikes.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

The Germans thought that the invasion was to come at Calaise. The diversion army that Patton was in command of in England with the rubber and wooden tanks and stuff helped with that and the fact that the allies fed German agents with false intelegence.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

10 Panzer Divisions were in France in June 1944. There is a road network running right across the northern coast of France, giving access to everywhere from Cherbourg to Calais. 
Place those 10 Panzer Divisions behind the beaches, with easy access to the road network. Have you just tried to tell me that heavy bomber raids would be used on a Panzer division? Do you think I mean actually right behind the beaches? What makes you think they'll know about the 10 Panzer Divisions? They failed to pay attention to two SS Panzer Divisions in Holland September 1944. 

I don't think you've read up on this. Only from the Allied point of view, if at all. I advise you to read Panzer Leader - Guderian and Panzer Battles - Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin (Ia to Rommel in Africa) both talk of D-Day and the German preparations. Both agree in the claim that Rommel was wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

I am not arguing that Rommel was wrong, but the fact that Rommel did not have control over his tanks. As for right behind the beaches probably not on the day of the invasion that would be too risky to the landing forces however if you put them there too far out in advance they would be an easy target out in the open. The Germans would not have been able to do so anyhow, they did not know exactly where the invasion was going to be.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The thing is, I'm saying right behind the beaches. I don't actually mean right there, behind the beaches over looking them. I mean easy access to the road network, 5 miles behind the beaches. No matter where the attack happened, the tanks could react in an instant. Instead on 6 June 21st Panzer Division had to drive several miles north, only to find the Caen De Canal (Pegasus) bridge had been captured by the British 6th Airborne. So, they had to turn back and go around the river and north past Caen itself. Had the tanks been behind the beaches in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. On top of that, two Panzer divisions were in teh South of France. They shouldn't have been there. Leave one for the supposed invasion, not two. 
Rommel and Runstedt should have realised an invasion in the south was too risky over that distance. Guderian realised it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Yes an to cover and invasion from the south was a mistake. I agree that the Panzer divisions should have been closer and yes that was a mistake whether it by Rommel or not but it still does not change the fact that Rommel did not have direct control over them in the first place.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

It was his say to move them forward or not, before the invasion. If it wasn't, then Guderian wouldn't have gone to him. Rommel had control before 6th June, he had the chance to move them forward. 
Hitler had control on the day but you can't move men OUT of combat when they would have been drawn into it by the Allies attack. So, Hitlers control would mean nothing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Well I am not argueing that Rommel made a mistake, it is very clear that he did.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Okay. I think he was a great commander, certainly one of the greatest in World War 2. But like all great men, he made mistakes. His mistakes are never brought to light because he is so famous. 
Gen. Balck was probably the best panzer commander of the war, he rose from regimental commander to Army Group commander in just 4 years. When in command of the XLVIII Panzer Corps in Russia he encircled three Russian Armies before retreating due to lack of supply and reinforcment. 

Other greats of the German military are Guderian, Manstein, Hoth, von Paulus.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 10 Panzer Divisions were in France in June 1944. There is a road network running right across the northern coast of France, giving access to everywhere from Cherbourg to Calais.
> Place those 10 Panzer Divisions behind the beaches, with easy access to the road network. Have you just tried to tell me that heavy bomber raids would be used on a Panzer division? Do you think I mean actually right behind the beaches? What makes you think they'll know about the 10 Panzer Divisions? They failed to pay attention to two SS Panzer Divisions in Holland September 1944.
> 
> I don't think you've read up on this. Only from the Allied point of view, if at all. I advise you to read Panzer Leader - Guderian and Panzer Battles - Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin (Ia to Rommel in Africa) both talk of D-Day and the German preparations. Both agree in the claim that Rommel was wrong.



Allied intel about German movements in France immeadiately prior to D-Day was excellent. The French resistance provided extreme detail. If the Panzer's had positioned themselves as you say, they would have immeadiately become prime targets for massive allied bombing.

As for those roads... Allied fighter bombers would have wiped out any Panzer's moving along them during the day, and probably they would have dropped motion sensitive bombs all along the roads to prevent German tank movements to Normandy. The smart thing to do was to hold them back where they were realtively safe form Allied bombing and the number of alternative routes to wherever the invasion was were much larger.

However... when the invasion started the tanks had to roll. They didn't and even if they'd have been where you say, they'd still have been fixed in position until Hitler woke from his post drug binge drug induced sleep to release them.

I really think that had the Panzers been stationed near the coast within Spitfire range, and within the heavy loaded range of the B-17 and Lancaster, they'd have been wiped out long before the invasion by massive carpet bombing.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

You think so, huh? The Panzers would have been wiped out during the day, just like the 21st Panzer Division was wiped out on 6th June when moving to the beaches?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It was his say to move them forward or not, before the invasion. If it wasn't, then Guderian wouldn't have gone to him. Rommel had control before 6th June, he had the chance to move them forward.
> Hitler had control on the day but you can't move men OUT of combat when they would have been drawn into it by the Allies attack. So, Hitlers control would mean nothing.



The tanks would mostly have been stationed up near Calaise, where the invasion was expected. They could certainly have been ordred to hold that position. Hitler's orders would still have been in effect, the tanks would have stayed where they were.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

See, that is where you're wrong. The idea, of Guderian, was not to send all 10 Divisions to Calais. He said all 10 Divisions had to have access to the coast road. This meant they would be station all along the northern coast, CAPABLE of reacting to the situation with speed as it came.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You think so, huh? The Panzers would have been wiped out during the day, just like the 21st Panzer Division was wiped out on 6th June when moving to the beaches?



Between June 6th and June 8th 1944, 54 of 124 PzKw IV's had been lost to allied air attacks. By August 1 they were down to 42 vehicles (all tanks?). They didn't make contact with troops until August 10th. By Aug. 25th they were down to 12 tanks.

Had they been moved up prior to D-Day, they'd have been primary targets, and many would have been lost before the invasion even started.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

You think 21st Panzer Division was only equipped with Pz. IVs? And 12 tanks due to losses beyond air attacks. Maintenance and enemy ground action. Do you honestly believe all 10 Panzer Divisions could have been wiped out?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 7, 2005)

But by your own argument not all 10 panzer divisions would have had to have been wiped out, at least not all at once. With the panzers spread out all along the coast of France only a franction of that force would have been able to react immediatedly. And there was no way Hitler was moving anything out of the Calais area.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You think 21st Panzer Division was only equipped with Pz. IVs? And 12 tanks due to losses beyond air attacks. Maintenance and enemy ground action. Do you honestly believe all 10 Panzer Divisions could have been wiped out?



No other tank types were listed in the commander's report.

I think they could have been very seriously hurt. The German's had no idea how long it might be before the Allies invaded, and stationing large numbers of tanks within 5 miles of the coast would have subjected them to constant air attacks. Let's say they'd moved the tanks up in early April... that would have given Allied airpower 2 months to work on them. Then, when the invasion did come, they'd have been heading along those coastal roads, prime targets for Allied air strikes.

All I'm saying is that puttining the tanks near the coast would have probably improved the German defense much less than was originally implied. Those forces that were within 20-25 miles of the invasion beaches might have had some significant impact, those that were further away probably would not have. And most of those forces would undoubtedly have been deployed up in Calaise, not down in Normandy.

Besides, according to what I've read (which is still minimal), it was Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt that wanted to hold German forces in a central position, not Rommel.



> Opinions on the best method of defeating the Allies differed greatly. Rundstedt and others advocated a central reserve that would be used to repel the invaders after their intentions were known. Rommel challenged that plan because he believed that Allied air superiority would prevent the central reserve from conducting an effective counterattack. The time to defeat the invasion force, Rommel believed, was when it first hit the beaches. To that end, he worked to have the strongest units stationed along the coastline and built coastal batteries and strongpoints, augmented by thousands of anti-invasion obstacles and millions of mines.
> http://www.historynet.com/wwii/blmightyhost/



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

The Panzere were under direct control from Hitler. He was reluctant and the fact that Rommel was on leave did not help the situation.



> Meanwhile, the German high command, in the absence of Rommel, who was home on leave, began to respond. Hitler was initially unwilling to release the armoured divisions for a counterattack. When he relented after midday, elements of the 21st Panzer Division drove into the gap between the British 3rd and Canadian 3rd divisions at Sword Beach and Juno Beach and almost reached the sea. Had they done so, the landings might have failed. Fierce resistance by British antitank gunners at Périers-sur-le-Dan turned the tide in late evening.
> http://search.eb.com/normandy/week2/invasion.html



Here is some of the mistakes made and the Panzer divisions are listed in them:



> There was no German counterattack. Rommel's plans for fighting the D-Day battle were never put into motion. There were many reasons.
> 
> First, German surprise was complete. The Fortitude operation had fixed German attention on the Pas-de-Calais. They were certain it would be the site of the battle, and they had placed the bulk of their panzer divisions north and east of the Seine River, where they were unavailable for counterattack in Normandy.
> 
> ...



Here is an arguement that states that it was Rundstedt who wanted the Panzers to be kept in reserve:



> By June 1944, the number of German divisions positioned in Western Europe stood at fifty-eight, an increase of twelve since the previous fall. Some were bodenständige (earth-rooted or static) divisions without motorized transport, filled with men in their late thirties and with former prisoners of war from the Eastern Front who had volunteered for service in the German army. Others were training divisions, containing the underage and unfit. That still left some thirty divisions of adequate strength in France to oppose any Allied landing. Twelve of these divisions lined the Channel coast, backed by a reserve of ten panzer and panzer grenadier divisions. The size and tank strength of these divisions varied greatly, but all contained a nucleus of battle-experienced veterans.
> 
> Direct responsibility for the defense of the Channel coast fell to Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, commander of Army Group B (Armed Forces Netherlands, Fifteenth, and Seventh armies). The defense of southern France, both Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts, was the responsibility of Army Group G, commanded by General Johannes Blaskowitz. Both he and Rommel reported to sixty-eight-year-old Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief West (OB West). However, the chain of command between von Rundstedt and Rommel was muddled by the quasi-independent nature of Rommel's command and by their fundamental disagreement over the appropriate strategy to repel the expected invasion. Rommel, because of his disastrous North African experience with Allied air superiority, believed that the invasion would have to be turned back on the beaches, within forty-eight hours, if it was to be defeated at all. He therefore argued forcefully for personal command of all mobile reserves under OB West and for the positioning of those reserves well forward so that they could counterattack quickly. Von Rundstedt and his panzer group commander disagreed. They wished to hold the mobile panzer and panzer grenadier divisions in deep reserve, to be committed to battle only after the strength and axis of the invasion had been ascertained. In March 1944, a compromise was reached whereby Hitler gave Rommel control of three panzer divisions, the 2d, 21st, and 116th, while holding four others-Panzer Lehr, 1st SS Panzer, 12th SS Panzer, and 17th SS Panzer Grenadier-in reserve under the command of OKW, the Armed Forces High Command.
> http://www.history.rochester.edu/mtv/overview.htm



And just to clarify things here is the breakdown of some of the Panzer divisions in Normandy:



> 2. Panzer Division
> 
> The division was depleted after prolonged fighting on the eastern front and during the winter 1944 it was transferred to France for refitting. Since it had arrived in France early in 1944, the division was at full strength in most respects. It had also had time to train its replacements. Already on 1 April, the division was 573 men above authorized strength.
> The panzer regiment was strong. It had 94 operational Panzer IV in the II. Abteilung, plus 2 in workshops on 31 May. The I. Abteilung reported 73 Panthers operational and 6 in workshops on 5 June. Most likely the division recieved no tank replacements during the fighting in Normandy.
> ...



I believe the 2nd, 9th, and 10th SS Panzer Divisions were also somewhere in France during the invasion.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

Who said about putting them there in April? 

On 6th June, 1944 - 48 Infantry Divisions. 10 Panzer and panzergrenadier Divisions. 
1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte 'Adolf Hitler'
2nd Panzer Division in Amiens - Abbeville
116th Panzer Division east of Rouen
12th SS Panzer Division Hitler Jugend in Lisieux
21st Panzer Division in Caen area
Panzer Lehr Division in Le Mans-Orleans
17th SS Panzergrenadier Division in Saumur
11th Panzer Division in Bordeaux
2nd SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich' in Tolouse
9th Panzer Division in Nimes-Arles

"No matter how one may admire the great exertions made, it is nevertheless a matter of considerable regret that Rommel failed to understand the need for possessing mobile reserves. A large scale land operation - which in view of our hopeless inferiority on the sea and in the air offered us the only chance of success - he held to be impossible and he therefore neither wanted nor tried to organise one" Heinz Guderian - 1957 - Inspector of Armoured Forces and head of OKH. 

It also mentions that Rommel believed the only landing place was going to be North of the Somme. He made no preparations for any other alternative landing sites, Guderian urged him to think differently.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

Well anyways it would not have mattered in the long run any how.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Who said about putting them there in April?



When you say they should have been forward deployed prior to D-day you must pick a date well before D-day. The German's had no idea when the invasion might be. It could have been in May, it could have been in June, or it might have been in Sept.

The point is, whenever they were "moved up", the Allies would have known about it and known exactly where they were and planned accordingly. The huge advantage of good intel vs. bad intel, and total air superiority.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

I have to agree with Lunatic on this.


----------



## Pertsajakilu (Jan 8, 2005)

Sorry to bring You the disappointement. 

Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Parliament: "It is the Russian Army that has done the main work of ripping the guts out of the German Army . . . :

When Germans started Barbarossa they had 3 miilion solidiers in that operation. I could not think what those trained troops had done in Normandy. Hollywood bullshit have created totally wrong picture of WWII

Russian front was the bitter front where the German force was killed. US has all the golry, buth in eastenf forn all of the US casualties suffered in whole war was happenig in single battle.

Petsajakilu


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

No it was Hitler that ripped the guts out of Wehrmacht by invading Russia. He should have left the Russians alone atleast until he was done with the British. What I dont understand is how you can say the US suffered all its casualties in a single battle. They fought North Africa, they fought in Italy, they fought in Normandy, The Netherlands, the rest of France, Belgium, and Germany just to name some of the places in Europe. There were thousands of battles fought and that does not include the air war, thousands of Americans lost there lives in the air war. The victory in Europe owes a lot to everyone, the US, England and the Commonwealths, Russia and many more.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I am curious if Pert thinks the Soviets could have continued to stand up to the Wermacht if German industry wasn't being pounded to ruins? Or if the Luftwaffe wasn't required to base countless fighter units in France to fight off the American and British bombers? And if the Russians were doing so well, why was Staling screaming for a second front?


----------



## Pertsajakilu (Jan 9, 2005)

Ahem... Sorry my wording was very bad!  These damned electrical forums. I rarely wrote forums like this and it is sooo easy to sound rude. I apologize my previous post. Let try it again.

Imortance of Russian front is many times ignored when talking about WWII. If we look at war movies or TV it never existed ( few exeptions ). Many people live in believe that western allies did all the important job. US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war. By the time of Normandy German was beaten and quality of its troops were rapidly decreasing.

I doubt that in US public opinion in would have accepted losses of million or more men. And that it would have been without Russian front. It would have been job for an A-bomb like in Japan.

Ex Natzi generals often accuse Hitler of loosing war but that is only excuse for defending themselves.

Pertsajakilu


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

Dont worry Pertsajakilu, you did not sound rude and no offense was taken. I agree the Ost Front was a meat grinder and that the Wehrmacht as a whole was decreasing in quality by the time Normandy cam but 5 years of fighting will do that to you. However if the Germans had been able to concentrate there whole efforts on the Russians, Russia would not have stood a chance. As for the Nazi Generals, yes they have a pivotal role in the defeat of Germany but Hitler pretty much sealed Germanys fate.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 9, 2005)

> US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.


UMmmmmmm.....


> In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.


Do u have any idea what u are saying????? The #'s involved here???


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 9, 2005)

What would have happened if the Allies never landed on Europe?
Could the Russians take out the Germans - and conquer Europe themselves?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.
> 
> 
> UMmmmmmm.....
> ...



I hope we are all just misunderstanding his writing because yes it does sound crazy what he is saying. As for the next post, if the allies had not invaded Russian I think both parties would have fought until they were completely expended. I do think Germany would be able to defeat Russia but even if the Russians defeated Germany then, I dont think they would be in any position to conquer the rest of Europe, they would have been militarily spent.


----------



## Pertsajakilu (Jan 9, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.
> 
> 
> UMmmmmmm.....
> ...



Yes I am!

And again I am very sorry of my first post. It was very bad and I am ashamed. I am not trying to dishonore or underestimate any allies deeds and what they have done. All allied soldiers who died or fought in WWII are respected. And I believe that many German soldiers fought without Nazi views but in believe of fatherland. But still in one single battle eg. Stalingrad hundreds of thousands soldiers perished. "Uncle Joe" and Mr. Hitler created battles which are huge and unbelievably costly to both sides. Can You imagine single battle where 300 000 US, British or any other allied soldiers have perished. Meat grinder was in eastern front and there was two leaders who did not care about casualties. Stalin later learned, but his paranoid mentality was ( mildly saying ) an unfortunate for Soviet people.

I am glad that Allies won and Finland survived. Last year I buried with my family WWII veteran ( my uncle ) and I have known several of them. So don't feel offended of my opinions I am not trying to offend anybody, winners or loosers of WWII. And I think that we all won after defeat of Germany and Japan.

Pertsajakilu


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

Dont worry no offense was taken but what about D-Day where 7000 allied soldiers died on a beach (my numbers may be wrong, actually I am pretty sure they are way off), and the Battle of the Bulge. How about the air war over western Europe, thousands upon thousands of US and British airmen died. You have to account into a whole here, neither front was pretty. I do agree that the East Front was far more brutal then the west but war is hell no matter what.


----------



## Pertsajakilu (Jan 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont worry no offense was taken but what about D-Day where 7000 allied soldiers died on a beach (my numbers may be wrong, actually I am pretty sure they are way off), and the Battle of the Bulge. How about the air war over western Europe, thousands upon thousands of US and British airmen died. You have to account into a whole here, neither front was pretty. I do agree that the East Front was far more brutal then the west but war is hell no matter what.




They did not died for nothing. What the airmen did saved a lot of Allied soldiers later in the war and shortened the war and the invasion of course. Also the very important help of US food and trucks accelerated Soviet victory consiredably.


What I was trying to say was that Russian part of the war is often forgotten. And for the Hollywood media usually gives us totally single sided view what happened. I do not care, but many people believe that view ( like new version of Pearl Harbour). And I believe that Western Allies were not ready to took such a casualties of war than the Russians. This is why I believe that the war was won in eastern front. Somebody had to took German juggernaut and bleed it to death. I believe that no one nation in the world could have done it. The scope of casualties are totally different in eastern front. I just don't get it, because it was so huge. But I admit that speculation of facing 3 000 000 men against invasion of Normandy is stupid. 

Normandy without eastern front is just speculation without any reality. Stalin would have started a war against Germany because he was waiting for it but not in 1941.


I am not saying that soldiers of the western front soldiers died for nothing. Russian front is forgotten and it saved a lot of dead US, British, Canadien, French....etc troops. Likewise US material help helped a lot of Russians. German fighting force was decimated in Russia. Bah..... Why I coudn't say that before..... because it's my simple opinion  . Argh... think too much at the same time. Good bye... better watch looney tunes and forgot this forum. 


Pertsajakilu


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

And the Eastern Front without Normany is just speculation. 

Honestly, I think the Western Allies would have had a better chance. They had the strategice bombing which was grinding down the German war machine in its own right (to which the Soviets added nothing - not rude, just a fact). Also, the Western powers didn't typically approach a problem merely by throwing more soldiers into the "meat grinder." Soviet commanders often viewed there me as commodeties to be spent and that was a major reason for their high casualty figures.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

The German war machine hadn't been spent until the Ardennes Offensive (1944), it was only then that they lost their last ounce of offensive strength. 
Factually the Germans lost the majority of their troops on the Eastern front. However, without the Western Lend-Lease (Yes, 14% of British war production was for the Soviet Union) the Soviet Union would have caved in. Mobility was provided by the 500,000 trucks, jeeps and APCs provided by the USA (Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa [sp?]. If anyone knows Russian..then they'll laugh). 

The German war machine was kept from reaching its full potential by Western bombing campaigns. German shipping (from Norway, Sweden to Germany) was prevented by the Royal Navy. Vital oil fields in North Africa were deprived by the British. Romanian oil fields were bombed to dust by the USAAF and RAF. Tiger tanks that would otherwise smash Soviet tanks to dust were deprived of fuel by Western powers. 

I know no one power could have won it alone. The meat grinder in the East was terrible but it'd have certainly been in favour of the Germans without the West. And the beach landings in Normandy would have never worked had their been no Ost Front. 

And Germany invaded Russia with 4.5 million people. 10,000 were lost on Omaha beach, alone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

I agree with you fully Plan D. The whole war was a collective effort by the allies. If the US and England had not supplied Russia then Russia certainly would have capitulated they were no more ready for the German Invasion then the Germans were. At the same time if there had been no Eastern Front I dont think the western powers could have done the Normandy invasion. Germany would have been able to put her whole military might in France and stop the invasion before it left the beaches however I do not think the allies would have been foolish eneough to invade at that time then. So as you see the both the US and England relied on the Russians and Russia relied on the western allies to open up a second front.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

I too agree, it was a combine effort.

Had Russia folded, I'm virtually sure the war would have finally ended with a combination of anthrax and nuclear bombs being dropped on Germany over a very short period in an attempt to obliterate them before they could respond in kind.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

That is a possibility. I dont think the allies would have wanted to get stuck fighting a German army that was not fighting two or more fronts. We can not forget about Italy.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

I think we all agree that it was a combined effort and everyone contributed and bled for the cause. I also think that most of us know that a bulk of what Hollywood churns out is factually incorrect and sensationalized with a distinctly US favor. There are exceptions, but a few horribly inaccurates are Pearl Harbor, U-571 (entertaining, but that was a BRITISH operation, not US). Saving Private Ryan was better and held better to the horrible realities of war. 

As an aside, when we were preparing the Battle of Britain exhibit, I was asked to gather names of Americans that fought in the battle. After a cursory look, I opted to not include them as there were a small handful of Americans that actually fought in the BoB and the glory belonged to the British airmen. I understand that the Americans that did fight are a small part and I wanted to focus to be on Britain, not America. In the end, there was no list of Americans that fought in the BoB and it was a nice display with the basic fact and no slant. In other words, No Hollywood!

The WWII veterans that saw a pre-screening of the Pearl Harbor movie all poo-poo'd it and several boycotted the film.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

I agree with you on that and I comend you for leaving out the list of Americans in the BoB. It did not need to be there. Yes there contributions were just as good but the BoB was Englands finest hour and they needed to be celebrated for it.


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 10, 2005)

Mind you - The Americans who fought in the BoB were volunteers to a man. You have to have total respect for people who realised that something had to be done to stop Hitler, and went and did something about it off their own bat, rather than waiting to be moved along by events. 

Anyway, on the topic of films, if you want to see something that's as far away from Hollywood as you can get, Joseph Vilsmaier's film 'Stalingrad' is a good one to go for. Ryan has nothing on this one for total nihilistic brutality. Like Ryan, it has it's fair share of gore, but its the way that it grinds its way to the depressing and inevitable conclusion that puts it at the top of my war horror list.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

I understand your intentions, Evan, but I believe the Americans who died for what they believed in the BoB should be commended. I agree with what has been said that it was "Britain's finest hour" but something should be done to acknowledge the contributions of the Americans, French, Poles, and Cechs who were involved in the same battle. I guess the trick, with this whole conversation, is giving proper honor to each nation and man without detracting from the others. I am open to suggestions on how to do that . . .


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 11, 2005)

Everyone bow ur head for 10 seconds after reading this post, to pay respect to all the military personel from many different countries, who gave their time and lives for the preservation of democracy in Britian.....


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

evangilder said:


> As an aside, when we were preparing the Battle of Britain exhibit, I was asked to gather names of Americans that fought in the battle. After a cursory look, I opted to not include them as there were a small handful of Americans that actually fought in the BoB and the glory belonged to the British airmen. I understand that the Americans that did fight are a small part and I wanted to focus to be on Britain, not America. In the end, there was no list of Americans that fought in the BoB and it was a nice display with the basic fact and no slant. In other words, No Hollywood!



And in so doing you are just as guilty of revisionist history as Hollywood is!

Pilots of the Eagle Squadrons:

No. 71 Squadron Roster (81 pilots)
James K. Alexander
Charles F. Ambrose
Luke E. Allen
Newton Anderson
Paul R. Anderson
Stanley M. Anderson
Thomas J. Andrews
Rodger H. Atkinson
John Butler Ayer
Charles E. Bateman
Wayne A. Becker
Duane W. Beeson
Ernest R. Bitmead
Vernon A. Boehle
Victor R. Bono
Robert A. Boock
William O. Brite
Raymond C. Care
Lawrence A. Chatterton
Walter M. Churchill
James A. Clark
Oscar H. Coen
Gilmore C. Daniel
Gregory A. Daymond
Arthur G. Donahue
Forrest P. Dowling
William R. Driver
John DuFour
William R. Dunn
Jack E. Evans
Hillard S. Fenlaw
Morris W. Fessler
William M. L. Fiske III
John F. Flynn
Victor J. France
C. O. Galbraith
Don Geffene
William D. Geiger
Humprey T. Gilbert
James A. Gray
William I. Hall
James C. Harrington
Joseph F. Helgason
Howard D. Hively
Walter J. Hollander
Alfred H. Hopson
William T. Humphrey
William B. Inabinet
Joseph M. Kelly
Byron F. Kennerly
Vernon C. Keough
Stanley M. Kolendorski
Phillip H. Leckrone
John F. Lutz
John J. Lynch
Nat Maranz
Robert L. Mannix
Harold F. Marting
Sam Mauriello
George S. Maxwell
Ben F. Mays
Carroll W. McColpin
Thomas P. McGerty
James L. McGinnis
Richard D. McMinn
Michael G. McPharlin
Stanley T. Meares
Henry L. Mills
Edward T. Miluck
Richard A. Moore
W. Brewster Morgan
William H. Nichols
Leo S. Nomis
Virgil W. Olson
Edwin E. Orbison
William T. O'Regen
Wendell Pendleton
Chesley G. Peterson
Steve N. Pisanos
Eugene M. Potter
Robert L. Prizer
Peter Provenzano
Arthur F. Roscoe
Gilert C. Ross
Dean H. Satterlee
Ross O. Scarborough
Anthony J. Seaman
Robert S. Sprague
Hubert L. Stewart
Harold H. Strickland
R. H. Tann
Kenneth S. Taylor
William D. Taylor
William E. G. Taylor
George Teicheira
Eugene Q. Tobin
Reginald Tongue
Charles W. Tribken
Murray S. Vosburg
Thomas C. Wallace
Rufus C. Ward
Jack W. Weir
Gordon H. Whitlow
Henry Woodhouse
Frank G. Zavakos

No. 121 Squadron Roster (81 pilots)
Thomas W. Allen
Fred E. Almos
Frederick C. Austin
Ernest D. Beatie
Leon M. Blanding
Carl O. Bodding
Douglas E. Booth
Frank R. Boyles
Robert V. Brossmer
John I. Brown
John A. Campbell
George C. Carpenter
Norman R. Chap
Howard M. Coffin
Forrest M. Cox
William J. Daley
Bruce C. Downs
Joseph E. Durham
Selden R. Edner
Paul M. Ellington
Roy M. Evans
Gene B. Fetrow
Frank M. Fink
Phillip J. Fox
Ralph W. Freiberg
Frederick A. Gamble
Jack D. Gilliland
James E. Griffin
Chester P. Grimm
Gilbert O. Halsey
James R. Happel
Charles A. Hardin
Kenneth R. Holder
William L. Jones
Jack L. Kearney
William P. Kelly
Hugh C. Kennard
Loran L. Laughlin
Jackson B. Mahon
Clifford H. Marcus
Clarence L. Martin
Earl W. Mason
Joseph G. Matthews
Richard E. McHan
Donald W. McLeod
Collier C. Mize
John. J. Mooney
Herbert T. Nash
Lyman D. O'Brien
Julian M. Osborne
Cadman V. Padgett
Vernon A. Parker
Richard F. Patterson
James E. Peck
Peter R. Powell
Lawson F. Reed
Donald H. Ross
James M. Sanders
Warren V. Shenk
Nicholas D. Sinetos
Leroy A. Skinner
John T. Slater
Bradley Smith
Fred C. Smith
Fonzo D. Smith
Kenneth G. Smith
Frank J. Smolinsky
Aubrey C. Stanhope
Malta L. Stepp
Benjamin A. Taylor
James L. Taylor
Clifford R. Thorpe
Reade F. Tilley
Thaddeus H. Tucker
Fred R. Vance
Vivian E. Watkins
Royce C. Wilkinson
W. Dudley Williams
Donald K. Willis
Donald A. Young
Norman D. Young

No. 133 Squadron Roster (79 pilots)
Richard L. Alexander
William A. Arends
Henry J. Ayres
William H. Baker
Charles S. Barrell
Richard N. Beaty
Joe L. Bennent
Edwin H. Bicksler
Donald J. Blakeslee
Richard G. Braley
Edward G. Brittell
Hugh C. Brown
George R. Bruce
Charles A. Cook
James G. Coxetter
Stephen H. Crowe
Ben P. DeHaven
Eric Doorly
Wilson V. Edwards
Grant E. Eichar
David R. Florance
William K. Ford
Tony A. Gallo
Donald S. Gentile
James A. Goodson
Leroy Gover
Dick D. Gudmundsen
Harry C. Hain
Fletcher Hancock
Carter W. Harp
Robert D. Hobert
Marian E. Jackson
H. A. Johnston
Karl K Kimbro
Coburn C. King
Donald E. Lambert
Lyman S. Loomis
Andrew Mamedoff
Joseph G. Matthews
Hugh H. McCall
Carrol W. McColpin
Cecil E. Meierhoff
George H. Middleton
Carl H. Miley
Ervin L. Miller
Denver E. Miner
George E. Mirsch
John Mitchellweis
Moran S. Morris
Robert S. Mueller
Don D. Nee
James C. Nelson
Gene P. Neville
Gilbert I. Omens
Kenneth D. Peterson
Robert L. Pewitt
Hiram A. Putnam
Chesley H. Robertson
Leonard T. Ryerson
Seymour M. Schatzberg
Fred R. Scudday
William C. Slade
Glen J. Smart
Dennis D. Smith
Robert E. Smith
Walter G. Soares
George B. Sperry
Andrew J. Stephenson
Roy N. Stout
Edwin D. Taylor
Eric H. Thomas
William R. Wallace
John W. Warner
Vivian E. Watkins
Samuel F. Whedon
William J. White
Walter C. Wicker
Roland L. Wolfe
Gilbert G. Wright

A mighty big "handful" don't you think?

That's 242 Americans who flew for Britain prior to the USA joining the war and about another 6 months after the USA did enter the war. If I read and count correctly, one was killed in 1940, 32 in 1941, and 41 in 1942, all while serving the RAF defending Britain!

Eagle Squadron History <--- well worth the read

And you European's wonder why the genral feeling in the USA is that you don't appreciate the sacrifices made by Americans on your behalf in WWI and WWII ???

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 11, 2005)

Oh, I don't think anyone is trying to deny or diminish the contributions of the Eagle Squadrons in the RAF, but wasn't that formed _after_ what is generally considered to be "The Battle of Britain"?

There certainly _were_ American volunteer pilots in RAF squadrons during the BoB, like (as has been mentioned) Czechs, Poles, French, Norwegians, and the list goes on. All deserve their due credit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

I dont think anyone here is trying to take away from the US contributions RG_Lunatic. All evan was trying to say is that he did not want the display at the museum to take away from the British pilots, he wanted the focus on it to be the British pilots. Is that so wrong. We all know that the Eagle Squadrons were a major part in BoB. And we all know that what these American pilots did was a great sacrifice in the defense of Europes freedom, and they all should be commended but I think you are misunderstanding evanglider. He is in no way trying to take away from them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

oops that posted twice for somereason.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont think anyone here is trying to take away from the US contributions RG_Lunatic. All evan was trying to say is that he did not want the display at the museum to take away from the British pilots, he wanted the focus on it to be the British pilots. Is that so wrong. We all know that the Eagle Squadrons were a major part in BoB. And we all know that what these American pilots did was a great sacrifice in the defense of Europes freedom, and they all should be commended but I think you are misunderstanding evanglider. He is in no way trying to take away from them.



71 sqaudron was flying during the BoB proper. The others came in at the end of it, but they were training during it. They had offered up their lives when they were most needed and the danger was at its peak.

I can understand emphasizing the British participants. However I find it inappropriate to _totally omit_ the Eagle squadron pilots.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

I dont think anyone totally omited the Eagle Squadron. I think you are reading to much into it.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

The Eagle Squadrons formed in September 1940, that is after the BoB. I've read in several places that only 7 Americans actually served on frontline service during the brunt of the BoB. 
The problem with people like you, RG, is that you assume Europeans try to discredit Americans for their bravery when this is obviously not true. What Europeans try and do is beat Hollywood and let people know the Europeans fought too!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

I agree with you on this Plan D.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 11, 2005)

Yes, Plan_D is absolutely correct. The Eagle Squadrons you listed RG were AFTER the BoB. There were a grand total of 7 AMericans in the BoB. We have plenty of other reasons to be proud of. I did not want people to focus on the Americans in the BoB because the contribution, while important is but a tiny fraction of the effort. The focus should be on the RAF, they were the ones that did the fighting and dying. We did not put any focus on nationalities, but the efforts of the British high command and the RAF as a whole. There is already way too much emphasis on the US efforts here with very little shown about the other countries that were involved. Our goal is to provide the facts without favoritism or slant. Focusing on the US, Polish or any of the host of others for that battle shows favoritism that is not warranted. Everyone who served in the RAF for the BoB did a tremendous job, regardless of nationality. End of story.

You may want to check your facts before you accuse me of historical revisionism.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

Very well said!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 11, 2005)

TY


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

No problem I just agree with you.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Again, thanks. We try to be balanced and unbiased at our museum and I think we are doing a good job of it. We do have an English (Spitfire Mk. XIV) and an A6M3 Zeke in our stable. We were supposed to get an Me-109, but it got sold, unfortunately. The guy that owned it and the Hurricane sold them both at the same time. We never got the 109 in because the owner was scared to death to fly it. Amazing that someone can spend that much money on something and be afraid of it!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

Okay, I can accept that. Sorry, I was mistaken.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Okay, it is a common misconception that there were many Americans in the BoB. Before I started the display project, I though there were more as well. Then I discovered it was only 7. That is when I thought that we should just focus on the RAF, regardless of nationality. It seems more balanced to me and people can take it for what it was, a great battle fought by brave men. Brave warriors come from all over and bravery doesnt not have geographical boundaries.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Brave warriors come from all over and bravery doesnt not have geographical boundaries.



Very well said, I dont think it could be said better than that. WW2 was fought by many brave men and one can not single out anyone because they are from a single nation no matter how small it was. A lot of people forget this but what they do not realize is that all the nations relied on each other and they all contributed to the victory.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

Even the French?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Yes, I don't quite get that one either...why not the...erm...ah...help me out here...ah, Chileans flag would be more suitable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah I dont know I did not paint the poster, but I thought it was a good poster. But hey the French Resistance did keep fighting the Germans though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 13, 2005)

While de Gaulle stayed safely in Ireland. :-"
Until it was time for the big victory parade through Paris, that is.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Erm...Frances mere existance meant Germany would have to waste time invading them before they got to us...they gave us "a bit" more time to prepare


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

The French were just preperation and training for the Germans.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm glad the 101st US Airborne commander told De Gaulle to piss off! That twat wanted to be the first into the Eagles Nest, 101st weren't having any of it. The US Divisions should have done that to Paris too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

You know its said that Hitler managed to take Poland so easy because his army walked in backwards and the Polish thought he was leaving...

 I love that one...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Ha, Ha that is funny.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

> Frances mere existance meant Germany would have to waste time invading them before they got to us...they gave us "a bit" more time to prepare



well even then in was british soldiers of the BEF that won us the most time................


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

True, the only defeat suffered by the Germans during Fall Gelb was at the Battle of Arras. The BEF counter-attacked at Arras


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Well either way the whole victory in WW2 was accomplished by many different nations and there contributions.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Yes. Yes it was


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Good we finally agree on this topic, well atleast until RG posts again.


----------



## Udet (Jan 13, 2005)

DerAdler:

One thing is, in my opinion, crystal clear and would hardly admit any doubts or questions:

The entrance of the USA into the war is perhaps the definitive event of the war.

Not because its army was the best. After all, and I usually repeat this, on the first ground clash between Germans and USAers, the German troops taught the GIs a very very harsh and tough lesson, inflicting them a smashing defeat.

The central issue lies on the size of the country, its number of inhabitants, industrial capability and geography -far away enough to not be raided, attacked, bombed or savotaged-.

Any reasonable doubts on this? The military build up of the USA on both theathers: Pacific and Europe is proof more than clear and enough to validate this point.

The poor USSR was absolutely uncapable of conducting similar operations in the dimension displayed by the USA. Against Germany -and I digress: with the essential help of the Lend Lease- they conducted a massive effort throwing everyone and everything to the battlefield. Had Japan, however, attacked the USSR with its large but modestly equipped army from the far east the USSR would certainly had been placed in a coffin ready to be nailed and sent below the ground.

Let´s say of a scenario where the USA remains neutral to death. In such event Germany and the UK reach a stalemate (lucky sods to have the channel and the Royal Navy), but the USSR is brought down to its knees, forced by Germany to sign an armnistice and the Reich is certainly expanded eastwards for good.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

Similar posts have been made before.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Lucky to have the Royal Navy. Not really luck when it built the thing up from the dawn of its Empire. The Royal Navy was the first official arm of the English armed forces, it's the senior service. 

And you're forgetting the RAF, they stopped Hitler not the Royal Navy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2005)

I will agree with you on those points Udet. Yes the US entering the war was the definitive point and I think the way may have turned out a little bit different had they not, however I still stress the point that all the allies contributed to the whole victory in one way or another.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good we finally agree on this topic, well atleast until RG posts again.



No, even I agree with this statement


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

but at the same time america would be useless without the british, where else are you gonna launch an invasion from??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Luxembourg...


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

Well, if the USA were inclined to do so after the fall of Britain, the answer would be Africa. First you'd take Africa and then maybe Spain. From there you'd launch an invasion anywhere along the south med. coast, or perhaps to the south part of western France.

Of course, this would only be doable if the Germans were badly hurt in conquering Britain (which I think is a given), and were not able to defend Africa or respond to Spain. It would also probably depend a lot on the disposition of British forces, would the RN and foriegn deployed British forces have gone "Free British" or become "Vichy British"?

My guess is Churchil would have fled to the USA and carried on the fight, and the British would have fought on till none were left... can you imagine the Brits as partisans? The Brits are a very stubborn peoples, I doubt they'd ever have given up.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Jan 14, 2005)

You got to be kidding.

If the Germans had launched Seelowe having as outcome an established beachhead with a reasonable number of men and war materiel, England is very likely to go down the toilet. 

Even if the Germans would have sustained heavy losses of men and material while crossing the channel -the Royal Navy and the RAF surely take frightful losses as well- what did the British Army had available to launch any significant offensive against an established beach head?
Perhaps the shocked guys from Dunkirk resorting to harsh language?

They virtually had no artillery and no tanks.

Or do you think HMS Rodney, Nelson and the other heavy weights of the Home Fleet would have been allowed by the Luftwaffe to shell the beach head?

The BEF fled the continent arriving in England only in their trousers: absolutely all their war material was lost!!!

I am not a clairvoyant; Seelowe might have failed as well.

Assume that during the crossing of the channel by the invasion force, the Royal Navy launches the entire Home Fleet to intercept and destroy the enemy; the Luftwaffe launches virtually all its bombers and dive bombers to interdict the action of the Home Fleet units... I see a hell burning in the ensuing battle!

What would have happened to the British army if Htiler had ordered the panzer divisionen to slaughter the BEF around and in Dunkirk?

The RAF was a tough enemy and they made a brave stand; yet the RAF was not in best of the shapes during mid 1940 either.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 14, 2005)

What about Greenland as a base to re-invade the Home Islands? Assuming Sealion was pulled off that is? To me that would be a more logical starting place than Africa.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2005)

Udet said:


> You got to be kidding.
> 
> If the Germans had launched Seelowe having as outcome an established beachhead with a reasonable number of men and war materiel, England is very likely to go down the toilet.
> 
> ...



Ummm... the Luftwaffe' was not effective at night. Neither were submarines against fast moving warships.

Facing the invading Germans were:

2 Territorial Divisions 
1 Brigade from India 
1 Brigade from new Zealand 
1 Armoured Division 
1 Canadian Division 
1 Army Tank Brigade

And for Naval forces:

RN - 5 capital ships, 11 cruisers, 53 destroyers, 23 destroyers on convoy duty

Kriegsmarine - 1 capital ship, 1 cruiser, 10 destroyers, 20-30 submarines 

As for the Luftwaffe' -



> The strength of the Luftwaffe at the point of Sealion was about 750 bombers and 600 Me109 fighters. The Germans estimated the strength of Fighter Command at 300 planes, of which 100 were not available to the RAF.
> 
> In fact, 11 Fighter Group had 672 planes, of which 570 were Spitfires and Hurricanes.
> 
> ...




Please read this analysis of the farcical German fantasy called "Seelowe" (<--- click here). See what you think of Hitler's plan.

If it did succeed losses would have been staggering. By the time the Germans did establish an operational beachhead they'd be hard pressed to continue the fight much past that point. And their beachhead would be attacked ferociously every night by the RN and RAF, so functional "operational" status would be highly doubious. The Germans would have had a very hard time landing any heavy equipment (like tanks).

I seriously doubt Seelowe had any chance of success. In fact, I think it is very likely it would have failed without any British intervention whatsoever. And all it would take would be a few destroyers or other fast RN boats to break into the area of the barges during the night and they'd have easily swamped them just by creating wakes. In the meantime, the German soldiers on the barges, ordered to defend themselves against unidentified vessels would have probably opened up on each other finishing the job.

SeeLowe was a German fantasy, nothing more.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Jan 15, 2005)

Give me a break.

As I said before, Htiler did not launch Seelowe simply because he was not interested in doing so and not because he came to his senses and realized chances of success were very limited.

Actually the British army got gutted by the Germans everywhere with the exception of (i) El-Alamein, due more to the very little interested placed by the German High Command in the African theather of operations and (ii) their return to the continent in 1944 -not without nasty local defeats though-.

The British record:

Fall Gelb in 1940, having the BEF arriving shocked in trousers to England.

Norway? Good bye British army.

Greece? Another complete defeat.

Crete? What were the odds of the German fallschirmjager armed mostly with light weapons against the very well stocked British commonwealth/Greek garrison? The outcome was a smashing German victory.

The RAF even when making a tough brave stand over England during 1940, got smashed by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and in North Africa. 

What was the treatment the Royal Navy received from Wolfram von Richtofen´s stuka fliegerkorps during Merkur?

Rommel on his initial arrivial in North Africa with a very small korps smashing and routing the British Army...

So I have no idea if Seelowe was a fantasy; my point is, the German army proved to be a far better army than the British counterpart, and in 1940 the Germans kept, by far, the upper hand. Had Seelowe been launched boldly by the Germans, whatever the cost might be, the blackest scenario certainly falls upon England.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2005)

now that's what you call a bias post.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2005)

He has some good points though. Most of what he said I agree with but I do however am not sure the Germans would have been able to logisticaly sustain an invasion force in England. It take quite a bit to feed, resupply with ammo, equipment and such. I dont think they would have been able to sustain that. In an all out battle though I think the British forces would have put up one hell of a fight but at the time as Udet said the German forces were better equiped and a better fighting force. Wheather it could have succeeded though I dont know either.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2005)

yes but he didn't even mention the fact that we beat the luftwaffe in the BoB and blames the germans for loosing El Alemain, not giving us credit for winning it...............


----------



## Udet (Jan 15, 2005)

Hello Lancaster Kicks Ass:

That is not correct. I am not a biased individual and can say my brain is free of that crap or of any other kind of preconceived ideas.

Perhaps you did not enjoy my post because you are a British guy? I am half British as well, and it is not my intention to offend or the like!

Now, do you think any of the events I pointed are untrue?

As I recall someone saying "in love just as in war, everything is valid..." and that´s precisely what Great Britain -and all nations involved- did, to take advantage of all resources and circumstances which might favor the country!

It was not England´s fault Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to stop and let the British go away, when everything was ready to close the jaws and to chew the BEF beyond recognition, but, they were thoroughly defeated on the battlefield!!

The same applies for Norway, Greece, Crete and the initial stages of the North African campaign, where is the bias here Lanc?

From Hitler´s orders the British simply took the benefits, very valid to do.

Isn´t of interest to notice that while the RAF was having a slight advantage over the Luftwaffe in British skies in 1940, they were getting obliterared out of the skies by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and North Africa?

Could that lead to the question of what would have happened over England in 1940 if the range Bf109 had been much greater? 

The thing is the BF109 did not have sufficient range to stay from a good deal time in the battle zone over England, and from that the RAF simply took the benefits. Again, very valid!

For sensitive guys, what the RAF pilots did during 1940 deserves all due honors. However, I do think their performance has been some what over inflated. Why do I say this?

My relatives in England include one cousin who happens to be a WWII buff. He told me, for instance, the radar system of the RAF during the Battle of Britain if indeed was of help, was not what it has been depicted. A very large percent of the times, the British fighter pilots taking off to intercept enemy formations, following the guidance of radar operators, simply found nothing. He explained me those were the very initial stages of radar and it was not duly interpreted by its operators most of the times. (there is a similar incident with radar issues when the Japs struck Pearl Harbor if I recall correctly).

Bf109 pilots running out of fuel over England or over the channel were as common as dogfight losses; sometimes the urge of staying there for some more little time lead to the loss of the plane: it ran out of fuel.

Seriously speaking Lanc, i am open to discussing everything and i digress, i am not biased.

Cheers!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2005)

That's BS Udet.

Sure the German's beat the Brits when they had at least equivalent logistics, air superiorty, tank support, or all of these factors in their favor. But that was not going to be the case for Seelowe. The German army on the beaches would only have had light arms, no vehicles of any kind, and extemely limited logistical support if any. They'd have come ashore after 30 hours of sitting in barges, which means most of them would be very sick from the get-go. They'd have been scattered along the shoreline at night with no communciations and no officer core to lead them.

And that's the ones who made it to shore. Most would not have. Most would have drowned in the channel. To prevail the Germans would have had to get at the very least a few hundred thousand men onshore within the first two weeks, and to do this, they'd have suffered at least twice that number of losses, probably more, and Britain would still need to be conquered. This would have pretty much taken the heart out of Germany's ability to fight elsewhere for at least a couple of years.

German success was based upon superior mechanization, superior logistical support, superior command and control, and air-superiority. They lacked all of these things for Seelowe.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 15, 2005)

Udet, you haven't a clue on about the ground battles. Obviously. 

Fall Gelb - 350, 000 BEF acting as support to the European armies. The BEF were the only ones to defeat the Germans in the Battle of Arras. Collapsing flanks from the French and Belgians, plus lack of equipment forced a withdrawal. 

Norway, outstanding victories by the British. Capturing Narvik and keeping the ore supplies from Sweden rolling. Pulled out because of Germanys attack on France. 

Greece, few British troops sent out. Purely to aid the Greeks in fighting the Italians. This is after the Greeks had allowed it. Evacuated after a numercial superior German force attacked. 

Crete, an under-equipped, battered, tired British and Greek staging point for a trip back to England. Three AA batteries to cover the entire island. First German Naval attack wave, obliterated. German paratroopers suffer over 25% losses even with air superiority after the RAF pulled out. 

Britain held the Med. Fighting against the Luftwaffe, Regina Aeronautica, Italian and French navies. Malta never fell, and the Royal Navy constantly disrupted Afrika supply lines. 

Rommels initial arrival to Africa made good use of the British stretched lines, after smashing the 6:1 advantage Italians while capturing 130,000 with a loss of 1200 men dead or injured. Rommel was lucky on countless occasions, and failed three times to take Tobruk. 

The German Army had a numerical superiority in all thearters, against the British, they engaged in. The Germans did have superior tactics but even against those odds the British held on. 
The fight across the channel is far different from the armour operations across France, Greece and North Africa. You have to get the tanks to Britain first, how? The Royal Navy could easily destroy the Kreigsmarine and invasion fleet. For a start, the Royal Navy had aircraft carriers something the Germans did not have. The Germans would have been slaughtered on the beaches, full stop.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2005)

Honestly, I don't see how they'd ever have gotten to the beaches. The river barges and rafts they intended to use were unable to withstand anything above stage 2 seas, ie: 10 knots and 2 foot waves. They could only move at 2-3 knots in a current 5 knots strong. They were to be released far to the north of the target beaches, and then over 30 hours cross 65-85 miles through the channel.

First off, the chances were good that after launching this flotilla in seas calm enough to do so, the conditions of the channel which are known to change without warning would simply have swamped them sometime along their 30 hour journey, resulting in a near total loss. Second, all it would take would be one or two fast moving destroyers or torpedo boats to get in amongst the barges and their wakes would swamp them, again resulting in a near total loss.

The Luftwaffe' could not defend them, they could not operate effectively at night against naval vessels. U-boats cannot stop fast moving surface ships at night either. The Kreigsmarine surface fleet was badly outnumbered, they could never have stopped them either.

I really think the whole thing was a fantasy to start with and had no chance of success. But, if we want to discuss a "what if" scenario where it somehow did succeed, we have to assume the only way it could do so would be if the Germans simply kept throwing bodies into the Sea until they somehow succeeded. 

Finally, had such a thing happen I'm pretty sure FDR would have entered the war and sent troops to England as fast as possible.

One thing I am absolutely sure of is that the British would have found a way to make Hitler pay dearly for every inch of British soil.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 16, 2005)

The British plans to turn the invasion beaches into flaming wrecks would have been murderously effective as well. IMO, the Wermacht was far superior to the British Army in 1940. The Royal Navy was far superior to the Kriegsmarine. And the RAF had (at worst) fought the Luftwaffe to a stand still. Personally, I think the Germans would might have had some success had they landed a sizable force on the English shores. That being said, I think there is little chance of the Germans supplying that force considering the bulk of the RAF and RN would be doing everything they could to deny that. And in the event the Germans managed to take England, they would have been left far to weak to fend off any other opponent.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2005)

LG,

All I can say is read the details of Seelowe:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

How were they going even get troops ashore in force to start with?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 16, 2005)

thanks for banking me up guys


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The British plans to turn the invasion beaches into flaming wrecks would have been murderously effective as well. IMO, the Wermacht was far superior to the British Army in 1940. The Royal Navy was far superior to the Kriegsmarine. And the RAF had (at worst) fought the Luftwaffe to a stand still. Personally, I think the Germans would might have had some success had they landed a sizeable force on the English shores. That being said, I think there is little chance of the Germans suppyling that force considering the bulk of the RAF and RN would be doing everything they could to deny that. And in the event the Germans managed to take England, they would have been left far to weak to fend off any othe opponent.



I pretty much agree with what you are saying but at I also agree with RG_Lunatic that it would have been very difficult to get the troops required to England (and with the plan they had using barges more then likely impossible) and had they been able to do so, the almost impossible task of logistics and resupply. I also think though had Germany launched Sealoewe und succeded that Stalin would have siezed the opportunity and invaded Germany and there would have been no chance of Germany fighting off the Russians then.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 16, 2005)

Is anyone forgetting the paratroops that could have been dropped in prior to invasion??? Its not like the coast of England was heavily defended.....

Drop the paras in behind lines at key communications and control centers and effectivly cut Englands coastal heart.... Distract Britians attention from a seaborne attack....

It could happen.... ANother big what if...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2005)

Very good point, but that still does not solve the logistical problem.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 16, 2005)

And you've obviously never watched Dad's Army...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2005)

whose army?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Is anyone forgetting the paratroops that could have been dropped in prior to invasion??? Its not like the coast of England was heavily defended.....
> 
> Drop the paras in behind lines at key communications and control centers and effectively cut England's coastal heart.... Distract Britain's attention from a seaborne attack....
> 
> It could happen.... Another big what if...



Germany didn't have nearly enough paratroopers, nor enough planes to deliver them. And they would have been facing:

2 Territorial Divisions 
1 Brigade from India 
1 Brigade from new Zealand 
1 Armoured Division 
1 Canadian Division 
1 Army Tank Brigade 

The British had the forces above all within the immediate vicinity of the invasion region. That's almost 5 divisions not counting militia and reservists. They had more in other parts of Britain.

I think that qualifies as "heavily defended", don't you?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 16, 2005)

Going on the lessons from Crete, where only 3 AA batteries guarded the whole island, you have to recognise the massive losses the Luftwaffe would have taken to their Ju-52s. The paratroopers on Crete suffered over 25% losses, some stats reaching 50%...imagine that against a well dug-in army...ready to defend every inch! The Fallschirmjager would have been slaughtered. 

PLUS, the Germans had nothing to destroy the Matilda except the 88. So, they would have had to be one of the first things ashore or Matilda IIs would have been sweeping away any German armour. The 88 was the only thing that stopped the British on so many occassions in Africa. 

And I doubt FDR would have sent troops, if Britain had suffered defeats, that's a waste of manpower and they would have never reached Britain in time anyway. But I'll let you keep to your fantasy that America is the saviours...  

LG, you are correct that the British Army was tactically inferior on the divisional level. However British equipment was, on a whole, superior to German equipment and the British soldier was just as good a warrior as a German man. 
Look at the campaign in North Africa in detail, Rommel on many occasions was extremely lucky to not be destroyed by British forces. On a few occasions he was encircled but British caution got the better of them. I don't think the Germans would have been able to take Britain because, unlike in Fall Gelb, Britain would be in overall command. There would be no joint command.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2005)

I think FDR would have sent troops immeadiately upon hearing a German invasion of Britain was imminent. FDR was commited to saving the British, and if he'd had to thow away re-election possibilities in 1944 he'd have done so. The USN could have had ships in place to support the RN almost immeadiately if the Germans had been staging for an invasion. It's not a savior fantasy, you can see FDR's intentions in his writings of the time.

88's? The German's had no way to deploy 88's until they captured a functioning port. You cannot send 88's ashore on barges and rafts!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 16, 2005)

I know FDR was a great man, with a lot of sense. As with China, he saw Britain as a line of defence before Americas borders. It's not a case of getting the men ashore, it's a case of keeping them well supplied. Plus a raw recruit army against an experienced force would not stand much of a chance. The American forces had a lot of time to prepare for D-Day, they'd have had no time to prepare for the defence of Britain. Plus the amount of time to get them to Britain in the first place, in large numbers, would be too long. It's a fantasy. 

I know. That's ANOTHER reason why the German invasion plan would fail, only their 88s would be capable of stopping British armour. But there would be no way of bringing it ashore. That was my point!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 16, 2005)

Another thing with the paratroops, if a sea-borne invasion without air-superiority is full-hearty, an air-borne invasion without it is suicide. The Ju-52 was a fine transport, but, like most transports, it was hardly suited to an actuall air battle. And then how would you supply them?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 17, 2005)

U would have to establish air superiority first.... This plan is contingent upon winning the BoB in the air, with no change to civilian targets.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Yes there would have been no way for the Germans to even launch Seeloewe unless they had won the BoB. Without air supremecy it deffinatly would have failed.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I know FDR was a great man, with a lot of sense. As with China, he saw Britain as a line of defence before Americas borders. It's not a case of getting the men ashore, it's a case of keeping them well supplied. Plus a raw recruit army against an experienced force would not stand much of a chance. The American forces had a lot of time to prepare for D-Day, they'd have had no time to prepare for the defence of Britain. Plus the amount of time to get them to Britain in the first place, in large numbers, would be too long. It's a fantasy.
> 
> I know. That's ANOTHER reason why the German invasion plan would fail, only their 88s would be capable of stopping British armour. But there would be no way of bringing it ashore. That was my point!



Troops on British soil was not even necessary. FDR had the US Navy at his command. That was: 15 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers, 37 cruisers, 185 destroyers, 64 submarines, 19 PT boats, and 36 mine warfare ships. 

The British had moved into Iceland in 1940 after the fall of Denmark, to prevent the German's from taking it. All they had to do was hand this over to the USA (which they did anyway in 1941) and FDR could have stationed several warships at this base, just 1000 miles north-northwest of Dover, and then US ships would have patrolled to the south of that point, putting them within easy striking distance of any German invasion. Just their presence would have been enough to prevent Hitler from invading, the USA would not even have had to officially enter the war.

And, as you know, I agree - the German's had no way to deploy any heavy equipment of any kind until after they secured an operation port. Since the British would surely have destroyed such a port before leaving it, and probably mined the waters near it, and the RN could shell it at night rather easily, it would have taken a long time for the Germans to establish an operational port.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Jan 17, 2005)

Plan_D:

Thank you very much for showing who the real dazzed lost individual is.


The Germans were defeated at the Battle of Arras? No kidding!
It is funny you mention a local setback suffered by the Germans to attempt proving I have no clue on the battlefield facts!! 

What was the benefit of the so called British "victory" at the Battle of Arras, when the bulk of the BEF arrived to England in shock and in trousers, escaping simply because Hitler allowed them to do so?

You can have your lollypop when you ve beaten nearly to death, with both your eyes deeply bruised and badly swollen lips. 

Very funny Plan_D!!!!

Are you trying to suggest the British/Greek garrison at Crete did not have superior firepower to combat the German fallschirmjager?
Well mister, that is your very own problem.

Furthermore, no one ever said the German paratroopers did not have very high casualty rates; still those who touched the ground and unloaded their weapons were better lead, smarter and ferocious enough to bring the British and their allies down on their knees.

The German paratroopers had a very high casualty rate "even when the Luftwaffe had air superiority"? What does that have to do with anything at all?

The allied soldiers shot many paratroopers while they were hanging in their parachutes and several Ju52s were hit by antiaircraft fire while being loaded with the troopers.

So there is no connection AT ALL, between the high casualty rate of the German paratroopers in Crete and the air superioriy of the Luftwaffe in the area.

Since you believe you are very good at statisctics, can you tell the losses of the Royal Navy during Crete? How many cruisers and destroyers were destroyed by the Luftwaffe, plus those with several degrees of damage?

You trying to suggest Crete was only a minor issue for the British in terms of casualties?

Malta never fell? What about that?
Did the Germans ever try to seize it? They just ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb it, and during such time, the island experienced a very black period.

The German army had numerical superiority over the British everywhere they clashed??? This deserves a monument Plan-D. So you are suggesting during Fall Gelb the Germans outnumbered the allies?

As I said before, just like the British enjoyed the benefits of the very short range od the Bf109 during the Battle of Britain, the Germans enjoyed the benefits of each battlefield were they clashed with the British. The rule also applies for Germany.

The arguments you displayed make no point in taking substance to my comments and are only explanations to justify the British defeats.

I did say Seelowe was not launched because Hitler was not interested in doing so; if you read well, I also said, Seelowe, if launched, might well have failed.

Hitler´s fundamental interest was placed EAST, and would not waste valuable men in such a venture.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes there would have been no way for the Germans to even launch Seeloewe unless they had won the BoB. Without air supremecy it deffinatly would have failed.



Even with air-supremacy it is highly doubtful. The Luftwaffe's very limited time on target and the long transit times between missions would have made it relatively ineffective as "airborne artillery" to support the invasion. During the day the German ground forces might have made some gains, but at night they'd be left unprotected and the RN would come in and shell the crap out of them. Without a port through which to unload heavy equipment such as tanks and artillery peices and provide supply, the forces on the ground would be ill equipt to fight off the available British ground forces operating at night.

For Seelowe to work the German's needed air-superiority AND they needed to neutralize the RN. And even then there is a very good chance the channel would have wiped out their invasion force on the first night anyway!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > I know FDR was a great man, with a lot of sense. As with China, he saw Britain as a line of defence before Americas borders. It's not a case of getting the men ashore, it's a case of keeping them well supplied. Plus a raw recruit army against an experienced force would not stand much of a chance. The American forces had a lot of time to prepare for D-Day, they'd have had no time to prepare for the defence of Britain. Plus the amount of time to get them to Britain in the first place, in large numbers, would be too long. It's a fantasy.
> ...



No offense but at the time I think the Germans would have been more scared of the Royal Navy then the US Navy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Udet said:


> Plan_D:
> 
> Thank you very much for showing who the real dazzed lost individual is.
> 
> ...



I am not going to get involved with your little arguement but as for the Royal Navy losses at Crete and Malta here is what I have found:



> Supporting the army had not been a gentle task for the navy. Each of the army's failures had exacted a heavy toll on the navy. In Norway, at Dunkirk, Greece, Crete and North Africa with it's effects on Malta, all of these operations required the utmost sacrifice of the navy.
> 
> It was in the Mediterranean that the Royal Navy really learned to fear the Luftwaffe. The aircraft carrier Illustrious was badly damaged by air attack, the cruiser Southampton was sunk. In the withdrawal from Crete the cruisers Naiad and Carlisle were damaged, while the cruisers Gloucester and Fiji were sunk. The battleship Warspite was also damaged by air attack. The entire operation saw 2 battleships, an aircraft carrier, six cruisers and seven destroyers damaged, while three cruisers and six destroyers were sunk, all of this by air attack. Crete was a very expensive operation for the Royal Navy.
> 
> ...



As for the actuall invasion of Crete this though my friend does pretty much say that even though the British lost Crete they put up a great defence with what they had:



> 20 May
> Operation Merkur (Mercury): the German invasion of the island of Crete, begins with an airborne assault by the Luftwaffe's 7th Parachute Division. Although Allied ground units on Crete, and naval vessels in the surrounding waters, fight tenaciously, the defenders are forced to withdraw from the island during the period 28 May to 1 June.
> 
> 18,000 British and Commonwealth troops are evacuated by the Royal Navy - 2,000 men are killed during the battle for Crete and a further 12,000 taken prisoner. Royal Navy losses around the island are also extremely heavy. However, the defenders, for their part, inflicte heavy casualties on the Luftwaffe paratroop and airlift units that take part in the assault - over 4,000 men are killed, mostly from 7th Parachute Division and 220 of the 600 Junkers Ju52 transport aircraft used in the operation are destroyed. Mercury was to be the last large-scale airborne operation mounted by the Luftwaffe during the Second World War.
> http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/british_military/1941_3.html


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

Udet,

If Seelowe had been launched, I think it is more accurate to say it almost surely would have failed.

Odds are it would have failed in the channel without the British having to even fire a shot.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

I too do not think it would have succeded but I think RG_Lunatic that you underestimate the German fighting machine quite a bit. With a little more planning the Germans could have succeded in Seeloewe. And I think most would agree. It would have come with very heavy losses and the British would have never stopped fighting as they were a very superb fighting force but they were already beaten and on there knees after Dunkirk. Once they recovered they again fought on with great skill as the British always have and could match anyone but in the state that the British forces were in if the Germans had planned more, and succeded in the BoB it could have succeded. Please dont take me wrong I too think it would have failed but I do not underestimate what the German military could have done.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No offense but at the time I think the Germans would have been more scared of the Royal Navy then the US Navy.



Perhaps so, but we arn't talking about one or the other, we are talking about BOTH!  

While Hitler may have thought the Luftwaffe' and Kriegsmarine might somehow deal with the RN, he certainly would not have believed that they could have dealt with the RN AND the USN.

And I'm not sure why you think this. Let's suppose FDR sent:

4 Battleships, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers, and 12 mine warfare ships, and 25 submarines, and possibly 1 or 2 Carriers (~75 planes each).

This would have effectively doubled the naval threat to any invasion.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I too do not think it would have succeded but I think RG_Lunatic that you underestimate the German fighting machine quite a bit. With a little more planning the Germans could have succeded in Seeloewe. And I think most would agree. It would have come with very heavy losses and the British would have never stopped fighting as they were a very superb fighting force but they were already beaten and on there knees after Dunkirk. Once they recovered they again fought on with great skill as the British always have and could match anyone but in the state that the British forces were in if the Germans had planned more, and succeded in the BoB it could have succeded. Please dont take me wrong I too think it would have failed but I do not underestimate what the German military could have done.



A little more planning?

For God sakes, look at the plan they had put together. Every aspect of it is pure crap.

I'm not underestimating them. THEY HAD NO AMPHIBIOUS INVASION CAPABILITY! NONE! Their entire plane rested on the belief that somehow they were going to be able to make do by putting land soldiers onto rafts and river barges and towing them across the channel. That was the extent of it.

What Germany would have had to do to make SeeLowe viable would have been to spend over a year buidling an invasion fleet of some kind. They'd have needed landing craft capable of crossing the channel and delivering troops right onto the beaches and some means of getting heavy equipment ashore without having to secure an operational British port. Then they'd have needed to spend at least 3 months (probably 6 months) practicing making landings on safe beaches. Finally they'd have had to not only win the airwar against the RAF but also figure out how they were going to deal with the RN, something they had no capacity to do.

Until you can explain some way that Hitler was going to overcome these issues, the whole idea of a successful Seelowe is ludicrous. The German's had no experiance in amphibous operations and the Seelowe plan exemplifies this.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I too do not think it would have succeded but I think RG_Lunatic that you underestimate the German fighting machine quite a bit. With a little more planning the Germans could have succeded in Seeloewe. And I think most would agree. It would have come with very heavy losses and the British would have never stopped fighting as they were a very superb fighting force but they were already beaten and on there knees after Dunkirk. Once they recovered they again fought on with great skill as the British always have and could match anyone but in the state that the British forces were in if the Germans had planned more, and succeded in the BoB it could have succeded. Please dont take me wrong I too think it would have failed but I do not underestimate what the German military could have done.
> ...



I dont need to, you just did. As I said more planning and what you just said comes down to more PLANNING!  (I can do that too you see).
So please take your attitude someplace else I dont need it.

As for the Royal Navy and the US Navy yes together they would have made a fleet that would have been very very frightening but again you were talking about the US coming to the rescue of the British (which you always imply that the US had to do), and this case the US Navy having to rescue the British Navy. I dont really think so the British Navy would have done fine all by themselves. Sorry the Brits did not need the US as you always imply.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont need to, you just did. As I said more planning and what you just said comes down to more PLANNING!  (I can do that too you see).
> So please take your attitude someplace else I dont need it.
> 
> As for the Royal Navy and the US Navy yes together they would have made a fleet that would have been very very frightening but again you were talking about the US coming to the rescue of the British (which you always imply that the US had to do), and this case the US Navy having to rescue the British Navy. I dont really think so the British Navy would have done fine all by themselves. Sorry the Brits did not need the US as you always imply.



Grrrr... sorry didn't mean to offend you.

I just don't see that as "planning". Planning implies no additional resources or accomplishements needed to be met first, only the right "plan" was needed. This was not the case.

As for the Brit's not needing the USA, of course they did. Without US supplies they'd have starved and been unable to fight.

As for the RN having been sufficient all by themselves, I would agree I think they would have been. However, had the USA positioned part of its fleet in a threatening position, it would have been yet another factor Hitler would have had to consider, making the likelyhood of an invasion almost nil. And again, the USA would not even have had to declare war, simply having 4 BB's, 10 cruisers, and maybe 40 destroyers within easy reach of an invasion would have been enough.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 17, 2005)

Udet, you make me laugh. 

The British victory at Arras proves that the British could fight against the Germans, and could beat them. The Wehrmacht was no unstoppable, Arras proved it. The British arriving back home did suffer greatly from the excellent tactics of the Germans but, again, Arras proved they were not unbeatable. Many of the British setbacks were not due to German supremcy but to lack of British supplies. A lot of the times they were firing smoke shells because all shells had run out. Tanks were running out of ammo, many were abandoned because of no fuel. 

The British garrison on Crete was inferior in firepower to the Germans. Those 40,000 on Crete were not a garrison but had just been evacuated from Greece. Many were unarmed after leaving their weapons behind. The overall firepower was superior to the Fallschirmjager but the evacuated troops were tired, battered and low on morale. 
The Fallschirmjager did not take the island on their own. The Germans sent in three waves of landing troops to help when the paras had landed. The first of which was oblitered, a long with the Italian escort Destroyer Luzo. 

There isn't a connection with German high losses and air superiority. And that's not what I said. The MAIN reason the Germans won Crete was due to their air superiority. Ju-87s made good use of this by bombarding British positions to dust before the German landings. 

Malta did have a black period while under siege, but it was a much bigger black spot on the German operations in the Med. The Med never fell to the Germans or Italians, the Royal Navy held it. 

Can you read English? I said the BRITISH were out numbered. The Allies in Fall Gell amounted to 57 divisions with 4.6 million (if my memory serves me perfectly) the British contingent was 350,000 men. The Germans attacked with 3.3 million. The Germans out-numbered the British. Fool.

All those points show the clear, to normal people, fact that the German invasion would have failed. Imagine Crete without German air superiority, effective AA cover and a proper determined garrison. Germany would have been slaughtered.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

> I just don't see that as "planning". Planning implies no additional resources or accomplishements needed to be met first, only the right "plan" was needed. This was not the case.
> 
> As for the Brit's not needing the USA, of course they did. Without US supplies they'd have starved and been unable to fight.
> 
> ...




Yes it was planning. If there had been more planning, they would have had a better way to transport the forces including tanks, everything needed. They would have a better plan to obtain air superiority (not bomb the shit out of cities but take out factories and air bases), they would have had a more realistic plan in place. 

I think you took me wrong about England needing the US. Yes I agree that England did need supplies from the US. I completly agree with you but the Brits were a very capable fighting force that did not need to be rescued by the US on the battle field as it seems that you sometimes imply. Dont take me wrong I admire your patriotism, it is very noble but the Brits were not a second rate military and did not need the US military to fight off the Germans. 

And yes as I said before if the US and the Brits had combined fleets it would have been an amazing fleet but at the time of the proposed Seeloewe there was no fleet better then the Royal Navy.[/quote]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Imagine Crete without German air superiority, effective AA cover and a proper determined garrison. Germany would have been slaughtered.



One thing is for sure, just the terrain of Crete would have made it very very difficult to take. If the British forces there had been fresh troops with good moral and well supplied it very well may have been different.

Wow you two really are starting to go at it!  I wonder how much I can sell tickets for.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 17, 2005)

I snuck in for free!


----------



## Udet (Jan 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic:

While you make some good points all I can tell you is that just like it can not be affirmed Seelowe if launched would have succeeded, likewise it can not be affirmed it would have failed.

I stick to my conclusion Hitler did not launch it, because his interest was placed in the east. He of course knew it would have been a terrible fight; Hitler even offered peace to Great Britain.

But do not forget that at the moment, those feeling the hard going were the British and not the Germans; the badly battered side was England after Fall Gelb. Do you disagree on this Lunatic?

Plan_D:

You are particularly funny. If you belong in the category of people who used to believe the Wehrmacht was a flawless, perfect, invincible machine, that is your problem.

I never bought such stuff.

You are diverting the discussion to places I am not interested in going.
I did never say the Wehrmacht was invincible.

The myth regarding the "easy German victories" happens to be an allied invention, and not a German one. All campaigns included mishaps, setbacks and nasty local surprises.

No German victory was easy, at all. That their victories were very fast in some cases is 100% true, but that does not imply they were easy. Ï bet anything you did not know Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt praised the bravery of the Polish soldiers on September 1939.

Poland was not easy; Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and the clashes with the BEF were not easy fights.

German victories were fast because of better tactics; the best officers and NCOs in Europe. There were even cases when the German equipment was not precisely superior: like the French tanks in 1940 which were in some cases better and more powerful than the German panzers; it was the French who doomed their tanks using them on the battlefield quite in the old fashion.

You say the British were defeated in some places because they ran out of supplies? Whose fault would that be? I can assure it was not Germany´s.

It is just like if i´d say the Luftwaffe did not erase the RAF from British skies during 1940 simply because the Bf109 did not have the range to stay in the fight for greater time.

Or if I say, had the 6th Army at Stalingrad received proper supplies the soviets would have never forced them surrender.

Each one of your comments has counter point, and do not fool me. I can read English better than you can assess the recorded facts of the war.

I am done with this mister. I have no furhter use of this poster.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 17, 2005)

> the Brits were not a second rate military


I totally agree.....


> and did not need the US military to fight off the Germans.



That I disagree with.... There was no way that a small tiny Island Nation could forstall the innevitable Juggernaught of Nazi Germany for very long without a US military presence...... Dont think a landing in Normandy coulda been done by the Brits themselves...

Although, looking at your statement, it could mean that England didnt need USA to fight their battles for them, just help them out.........

If thats what u meant, then I agree with u...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 17, 2005)

Let's not have this stop, this is a thread about battles. 

Fall Weiss - 'The Polish movements fitted into the German plan like a glove' Is it me, or does that give the sense that this was easy? Reading Panzer Battles and Panzer Leader, both written by Germans. I can safely say on many occasions, from divisional level upwards, the German army considered those victories easy. 

I know of many German officers who praised the bravery of the Polish. The same German officers also stated that bravery doesn't stop superior tactics and machinery though. 

You are completely missing the point of my posts. They all point back to a possible German invasion of Britain. The British would have been supplied in Britain (My comment about them not being supplied in France, points to this). 
Arras point shows that the British would have a distinct advantage and that the Wehrmacht would have been slaughtered. 
Crete points show that the Germans only won because of air superiority over Crete. Something they never achieved over Britain. Again, they would have been slaughtered. 
The Royal Navy holding the Med pointed towards the Royal Navy would slaughter the Kriegsmarine.
Britain being out-numbered pointing towards they would not be out-numbered on British soil. 

les, the British could have held off the Germans without US military presence. The thing that kept Britain afloat was the supplies, and then the Lend-Lease in starting from 1941. Certainly, D-Day would have never happened if America had not been there. The war would have stopped at the Channel had America never got involved


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 17, 2005)

Ok . . .if I may sum up the situation . . . 

In order for Sealion to have been succesful . . . 
1. German high command would have had to have avoided the blunders made duing the BoB (namely shifting to London instead of RAF targets)
2. The RAF would have had to have been effectively neutralized
3. The RN would have had to have been virtually anihilated
4. Germany would have had to have developed landing craft suitable for open water
5. Some form of large amphibious ship would have had to have been developed in order for Wermacht heavy equipment to be landed ashore
6. The US would have had to have remained completely neutral
7. The German forces would have had to have sustained a massive logistical operation by air and sea
8. The most determined foe yet faced by Germany would have had to have been defeated defending its own turf

All of these (or at least most of them) would have had to occur for there to have been any chance of success. And of course all of that is irrelevant if German losses are so high that the Eastern border with the Soviet Union is left exposed.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes it was planning. If there had been more planning, they would have had a better way to transport the forces including tanks, everything needed. They would have a better plan to obtain air superiority (not bomb the s**t out of cities but take out factories and air bases), they would have had a more realistic plan in place.
> 
> I think you took me wrong about England needing the US. Yes I agree that England did need supplies from the US. I completly agree with you but the Brits were a very capable fighting force that did not need to be rescued by the US on the battle field as it seems that you sometimes imply. Dont take me wrong I admire your patriotism, it is very noble but the Brits were not a second rate military and did not need the US military to fight off the Germans.
> 
> And yes as I said before if the US and the Brits had combined fleets it would have been an amazing fleet but at the time of the proposed Seeloewe there was no fleet better then the Royal Navy.



First, what you are talking about as "planning" is really "preperation". German industry would have had to be building a large invasion fleet way back in early 1939. But had they done so, the British would have noticed and reacted. Churchill would probably have attained power as a result, and the whole war would have gone differently. Quite possibly the RN would have shelled the German shipyards. And such a re-focusing of industry would have reduced either the level of mechanization of the German Army and/or the strength of the Luftwaffe' as well.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying the British needed the USA to defend it at this point, but rather I think had it looked even possible that the Germans might successfuly invade Britain FDR would have taken action to prevent it. Especially action which did not involve declaring war, such as staging US ships to be in range of such an invasion and making sure Hitler was aware of this.

And I disagree about the fleets. By Summer 1940 the US fleet was a fair bit superior to the British fleet, both in numbers and quality.


==================================

Udet,

Given that Dunkirk occured in May and the earliest possible Seelowe invasion might have been in mid to late Sept., I think the British had had pleanty of time to recover and prepare for an invasion. They'd already mined the beaches and set up defenses of various kinds and positioned forces for counterattacks.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Ok . . .if I may sum up the situation . . .
> 
> In order for Sealion to have been succesful . . .
> 1. German high command would have had to have avoided the blunders made duing the BoB (namely shifting to London instead of RAF targets)
> ...



4 and 5 would have required German industry to focus on such craft at over a year earlier. Craft they had no experiance in building. This would have seriously detracted from other parts of the German military machine, most notably armor and aircraft. A huge investment in a weapon that is only useful IF France falls easily, and which significantly diminishes the likelyhood of that happening.

I don't think Germany had the industrial capacity to build such an invasion fleet, it was all already used building tanks and aircraft.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > the Brits were not a second rate military
> 
> 
> I totally agree.....
> ...



Yes I agree with you fully. What I mean is the Royal Navy would not have needed help from the US Navy. The Royal Navy at the time was the most grand fleet the world had ever seen. Maybe only surpassed by the Royal Navy of the Dreadnaught days.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Ok . . .if I may sum up the situation . . .
> ...



And with this I agree fully. I agree with every point you just made Lighting Guy and I dont think Germany could have achieved all of these things. 1 and 2 could have been attained had the Germans not screwed up the BoB by trying to destroy London. 3 I think would have completely unattainable and even Hitler new this, he was scared to commit his ships even the Bismark and the Tirpitz to battle with the Royal Navy. 4 and 5 could have been attainable however as RG_Lunatic said they would have required planning and building years before the invasion was to take place and this would have required it being done before the war even started and I think Hitler was hoping for peace with England as was stated by several people. With 6, as stated by RG_Lunatic I dont the US would have stayed completely Neutral, but I dont think it would have come to this because the British would not have needed the US based on the facts taht 1 through 5 were not obtained. With 7 as I have stated in other posts, I dont think the logistical problems ever could have been solved especially with the Royal Navy and the RAF still in operation. Lastley with 8 that would have been the biggest problem if they had even reached the shores. The British fighting for there homeland on there home turf would have been fierce and an extremely tough foe. Soldiers protecting there homeland have something to fight for and are fighting with heart. The Germans would not have had this, they would have just been invading a country like the others they had done.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 18, 2005)

Well, there are some exceptions to defending home turf (the French in 1940 and the Italians in 1943). But I don't think the British would have been in this catergory. Churchill's "you can always take one with you possibly" certainly summed up the outlook of the British population. Had the Germans invaded England, they most likely would have faced a situation not unlike that awaiting American troops had they invaded the Japanese mainland.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 18, 2005)

to damn right!!! we've become rather accustomed to not being inavaded, we don't take kindly to invasions, every man able to weild a gun (including some trained soldiers from WWI) would be sitting on the coast, waiting for the germans, then burst out laughing as the few that made it across climbing out of their civillian barges getting shot at and bombed by the RAF, being torn apart by the RN and getting cut to shreads by barbed wire...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Well, there are some exceptions to defending home turf (the French in 1940 and the Italians in 1943). But I don't think the British would have been in this catergory. Churchill's "you can always take one with you possibly" certainly summed up the outlook of the British population. Had the Germans invaded England, they most likely would have faced a situation not unlike that awaiting American troops had they invaded the Japanese mainland.



I agree with you fully. The French completley underestimated the Germans and put to much emphasis on the Maginot Line (my spelling is terrible i think). The Italians on the other hand were pretty much fed up with Mussolini and wanted the Germans out. If the Germans had made it into England the British would have been able to stop it, and then the Stalin would have invaded from the East and it would have all been over.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> to damn right!!! we've become rather accustomed to not being inavaded, we don't take kindly to invasions, every man able to weild a gun (including some trained soldiers from WWI) would be sitting on the coast, waiting for the germans, then burst out laughing as the few that made it across climbing out of their civillian barges getting shot at and bombed by the RAF, being torn apart by the RN and getting cut to shreads by barbed wire...............



Wow a lot of bottled up anger in there isn't!


----------



## Udet (Jan 18, 2005)

Lancaster Kick Ass:

Sure you are entitled to your opinion, still it appears like you have an over-inflated view of the situation of England right after the fall of France.

For one moment it would seem you speak like if the losing side during 1940 was Germany and not England.

The Luftwaffe certainly never gained air superiority over England but the RAF was not in the best of the shapes either, they had sustained important losses as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

That is true that the Brits were not in that good of shape but I still dont think the Germans would have succeded in Seleowe, there were too many things standing against them.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

The RAF was battered, yes. However the RAF was producing planes without any trouble from Luftwaffe bombing, the RAF was bombing France and Germany. The RAF had gained complete air superiority over Britain, the Luftwaffe would not have been able to stop the RAF bombing the invasion fleet. 

Do you think Normandy would have been it's amazing success if the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority over the Channel and Northern France. I can assure you, it would have not been. The LSTs would have been blown out the water before the troops even got ashore. 

It may seem Lanc is getting over-excited but he's right. Britain was not going to lay down and die, Churchill had already prepared men for guerilla warfare when the Germans occupied their villages. There were like 5 men in each village trained for guerilla wafare, guns, explosives, knives, stealth they were all trained in.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 18, 2005)

Yes, the Brits would have given the Germans a heck of a time. One proper motivation for an attack on German by partisans would go something like this:

Hey Trevor, see those Jerries over there?
Uh huh
They said <insert local favorite football club team> sucks
Those dirty bastards...

Then you'd see a field of dead Germans.


----------



## Erich (Jan 18, 2005)

The GErman Army did not have enough landing craft acquisitioned so it would not of worked. Besides the UFO's were not ready to be launched as they had not gone through the proper flight trials for medium altitude......


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

If you said that to them, evan. They'd go over to Germany and cause a riot.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 18, 2005)

I didn't say how big that field was! hehe


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 18, 2005)

THe RAF's numbers were less and less of a problem once the Luftwaffe started focusing on London. As I noted earlier, the RAF fields, factories, and command centers would have had to have been continually hit for the Luftwaffe to attain air superiority. Since this didn't happen, air superiority over England was fairly well assured by late '41 early '42. Yes the Luftwaffe killed alot of civilans, but they certainly were crippling the RAF which was flying more and more offensive sorties by this point in the war.

Plan_D's mention of Normandy brings up some interesting thoughts as well. The Allied forces enjoyed . . . strategic surprise over the Germans, complete air superiority over the beaches, major naval support, a properly equipped amphibious force and still received heavy casualties. How would the Germans have faired trying to invade England without any of these advantages?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> THe RAF's numbers were less and less of a problem once the Luftwaffe started focusing on London. As I noted earlier, the RAF fields, factories, and command centers would have had to have been continually hit for the Luftwaffe to attain air superiority. Since this didn't happen, air superiority over England was fairly well assured by late '41 early '42. Yes the Luftwaffe killed alot of civilans, but they certainly were crippling the RAF which was flying more and more offensive sorties by this point in the war.
> 
> Plan_D's mention of Normandy brings up some interesting thoughts as well. The Allied forces enjoyed . . . strategic surprise over the Germans, complete air superiority over the beaches, major naval support, a properly equipped amphibious force and still received heavy casualties. How would the Germans have faired trying to invade England without any of these advantages?



If the Germans had continued to hit the tactical targets, the RAF would have retreated to lick their wounds so as not to get so weak they could not respond to an invasion. This was the RAF plan but it never had to be implimented.

The answer is - miserably! Again, I think had the German's attempted Seelowe, as planned, the odds are better than not that the first invasion flottila would have been swamped in the channel, they'd have suffered tremendous losses, and it would have been called off without the British having had to fire a single shot. The channel is known for unpredictability and high swells. The odds of getting two strait days of calm are practically nil.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The RAF was battered, yes. However the RAF was producing planes without any trouble from Luftwaffe bombing, the RAF was bombing France and Germany. The RAF had gained complete air superiority over Britain, the Luftwaffe would not have been able to stop the RAF bombing the invasion fleet.
> 
> Do you think Normandy would have been it's amazing success if the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority over the Channel and Northern France. I can assure you, it would have not been. The LSTs would have been blown out the water before the troops even got ashore.
> 
> It may seem Lanc is getting over-excited but he's right. Britain was not going to lay down and die, Churchill had already prepared men for guerilla warfare when the Germans occupied their villages. There were like 5 men in each village trained for guerilla wafare, guns, explosives, knives, stealth they were all trained in.



Dont take me wrong, I agree with you fully on all of this. I was just making a joke about Lancs overexitedness. Britain would never have laid down and died. They would have fought valiently and they would have won, I will not deny this and everyone else knows this too. Just as even posted you threaten a Brits football team and his favorite pub you are going to die.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2005)

Or his favorite beer. Even though I hate the stuff. 

(private joke.)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

I love beer! I really enjoy the taste of a good Hefeweizen, Kristalweizen or Pils bier. I am sure that even RG_Lunatic can not argue that the Germans are masters of making beer. I would kill for one right now, just one! When I get home after I take a long bath and make (probably quick  ) love to my wife I am going to pour myself a cold glass of German Bier and drink it as slow as possible to savour it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2005)

Oh, I love beer too! Just not the same beer plan_D does. 
Sorry about that, it was one of those "you had to be there" kind of things.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

Oh my bad. I love beer from all over the world but not too much the US beers even though I have found a few that I do like. (No RG_Lunatic this is not because they are brewed in the US but because they use too many preservatives in them). But I love a good German Bier, or a Guiness or Kilkenny and even a Czech Budweiser.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

Well, it was one of those things that he had to be there for but not you NS, 'cos I'm going to KILL YOU!  

I'm a fan of German beer more than any other country, but all of Europe has good beer. American beer is shite, everyone knows that.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2005)

Most big brand Canadian beer is shit too, but not the stuff I like. 

Btw, I love German beer!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

I agree about the American beer it all tastes the same and is too light. The Europeans especially the Germans have been making beer for thousands of years and really have it down to an art. What I like most about it in Germany is every town down to the smallest village has its brewery and whenever I go and visit one I like to taste them all. About a 20 minute drive from my house in Ansbach is a monestary. The monks there still brew there beer the way they did hundreds of years ago and you can buy it in small wooden kegs. It really is great tasting and one of the best beers I have ever had.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 10, 2016)

haven't read the thread fully, but for me the most important single battle of the war was also the longest. The battle of the Atlantic. without victory there, nothing else was possible. something the germans were far less aware of than the allies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Feb 21, 2019)

Anonymous said:


> .
> 
> As for the Brit's not needing the USA, of course they did. Without US supplies they'd have starved and been unable to fight.


What a load of BS.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2019)

Freebird said:


> What a load of BS.





Lunatic, still managing to piss people off years later...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Feb 22, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lunatic, still managing to piss people off years later...


I was doing a search and ended up finding that post you quoted, I just realized it's a really old thread. 

Although since his forum name was "Lunatic", i guess its hard to be surprised if the posts seem deranged...


----------



## Freebird (Feb 22, 2019)

NightHawk said:


> what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
> 1.Stalingrad
> 2.Normandy
> 3.El alamain
> ...



BoB, El Alamein/Torch and Stalingrad are all very important to the Allies. 
I'd say BoB is the most critical, as if Britain throws in the towel in 1940 then the Soviets can't survive Barbarossa.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 22, 2019)

Freebird said:


> I'd say BoB is the most critical, as if Britain throws in the towel in 1940 then the Soviets can't survive Barbarossa.



Or if they do, it means the Iron Curtain falls over most of Europe once Nazi Germany is defeated, primarily by the USSR. To the victor, the spoils.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 22, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Or if they do, it means the Iron Curtain falls over most of Europe once Nazi Germany is defeated, primarily by the USSR. To the victor, the spoils.



The Soviets cannot survive Barbarossa if Britain isn't in the war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 22, 2019)

Without Britain, Germany wouldn't have it's resources drawn into North Afrika and suffering losses both in men and material.

So that means that all those resources (including Rommel) would be available, not to mention all that fuel that was consumed just getting supplies over to the DAK.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 22, 2019)

what help can Britain provide the USSR in 1941?

To what degree can the garrisons in western Europe be denuded without risk

What logistical support is available to feed move and supply the additional troop[s that might be assumed as possible reinforcements into Barbarossa?

The problems are far more complex than you are assuming.

Germany did not lack for troops in 1941 (at least troop numbers were not the major constraint). The shortages she faced related ultimately to the shortages of raw materials she laboured under, and this would be no different with the British isles under occupation or not. Unless you are thinking Britain was going to abjectly capitulate all her overseas empire following Halifax as well, and her fleet. Only the total defeatists wanted that and in any event most of the RN and other escaping armed forces as well as all the independent dominiions would have disobeyed any such directive from London anyway. india and other imperial holdings are not so certain, but Im inclined that the majority would follw the defiant Churchillians over the weak Halifaxians, no matter what happened in the home islands

The bomber offensive was totally ineffectual in 1941. Western Europe was garrisoned by just two fighter wings and one bomber wing. fighting on the southern flank would continue with increase effort by the dominions.


No additional transport, rail net just as overstretched as always. one million extra hungry useless mouths to feed. 


You gotta be kidding.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Without Britain, Germany wouldn't have it's resources drawn into North Afrika and suffering losses both in men and material.
> 
> So that means that all those resources (including Rommel) would be available, not to mention all that fuel that was consumed just getting supplies over to the DAK.



Sorry, but this just makes me very angry. Britain was not planning to surrender its fleet. it was not planning to surrender its foreign armies. 80% of the forces in the middle East werent even British. There were more than twelve divisions in the dominions and india, almost ready for depployment in 1941, but held back because of shortages in shipping. With no north atlantic run to worry about, where do you think the britiah might employ all that (14 million tons approximartely) of shipping? Less than a million had been allocated for support of the WDF up to that time. With 14 times the logisitc support, the Allies in the med are goinbg to rampage like hell. rommel will not be holidaying in Southern Russia, I can assure you.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 22, 2019)

If Russia can withstand Barbarossa with British "support" in 1941, they can just as likely withstand it without so called british "support". what the Russians cant do on their own is win the war. 


There was never the slightest hope of the germans winning the 1941, from the strategic position they began in in mid 1941. Fundamental changes, dating back to the mid 1930's would have been needed, most important of which would be changes to their motor vehicle industry and fuel supply situation for them to have any hope of overpowering Russia.


It is doubtful that hitler would even want to invade Russia if Britain was out of the picture, even despite hios manifesto intentions. hitler was an inveterate liar, and the ultimate opportunitist. He went after Russia, not because he said he would in 1923, he did because he could not cow the British...…...With Britian out of the equation, he, like you guys would incorrectly6 assume an opportunity had arisen that he needed to takie advantage of. That no such advantage existed is immaterial. 
,


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 22, 2019)

Freebird said:


> BoB, El Alamein/Torch and Stalingrad are all very important to the Allies.
> I'd say BoB is the most critical, as if Britain throws in the towel in 1940 then the Soviets can't survive Barbarossa.


I tend to agree. I think the Battle of Britain was probably the most important of the war if forced to pick just one. Maybe followed closely by Midway and Stalingrad.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 23, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Sorry, but this just makes me very angry. Britain was not planning to surrender its fleet. it was not planning to surrender its foreign armies. 80% of the forces in the middle East werent even British. There were more than twelve divisions in the dominions and india, almost ready for depployment in 1941, but held back because of shortages in shipping. With no north atlantic run to worry about, where do you think the britiah might employ all that (14 million tons approximartely) of shipping? Less than a million had been allocated for support of the WDF up to that time. With 14 times the logisitc support, the Allies in the med are goinbg to rampage like hell. rommel will not be holidaying in Southern Russia, I can assure you.


Well, be angry all you want.
The statement I made was in regards to Britain not being engaged in war with the German Reich. No war with Britain (regardless of how it was accomplished) meant that there was nil chance of Italy getting their ass kicked in North Africa, which in turn meant that Germany didn't need to go down there and bail them out.

In regards to this statement:


parsifal said:


> It is doubtful that hitler would even want to invade Russia if Britain was out of the picture, even despite hios manifesto intentions. hitler was an inveterate liar, and the ultimate opportunitist. He went after Russia, not because he said he would in 1923, he did because he could not cow the British...…...With Britian out of the equation, he, like you guys would incorrectly6 assume an opportunity had arisen that he needed to takie advantage of. That no such advantage existed is immaterial.


Hitler may have been a liar, but his hatred of Jews trumped every single bit of rationality the man may have possessed.
Add to that, his firm belief that Marxism was a Jewish invention and you have your reason why Hitler lied to Stalin and attacked him in violation of their non-aggression pact.
Hitler's ultimate goal was to restore Germany to it's pre-WWI borders and eradicate anything Jewish - Communists included.
A herald of this intention would have been in 1935 during negotiations with the British that his rearmament was important to Europe because he was safeguarding them from Communism.
And again, in 1939, when Hitler told in his conversation with Carl Burckhardt, Switzerland's League of Nations representative, that his efforts were aimed at the Soviet Union and "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union." and referred to Operation Barbarossa as "the chosen Aryan people against Jewish Bolsheviks."

It is perhaps western history's greatest stroke of luck that Britain held firm and didn't buckle to Hitler, because without Britain's resolve, the Allies would have been in for some very difficult years.
That being said, without Britain being at war with Germany:
There would not have been strategic manpower and equipment placed in France and the Low Countries.
There would have no been the loss of tens of thousands of vehicles in North Africa.
There would not have been the loss of thousands of AFVs in North Akrica.
There would have not been the loss of hundreds of thousands of personnel (KIA, POW, MIA) in North Africa.
There would have not been the loss of thousands of fighters, bombers and transports in North Africa.
There would have not been AFVS, aircraft, munitions and supplies to the Soviet Union.
There would have not been a lend-lease pact brokered (by Britain) between the US and the USSR.

And all those German non-losses would have been poised at the Soviet Union, who is not getting any support from the UK or US.
The full might of Germany would fall on Russia unhindered, with all of of it's Axis Allies, who were also unhindered by non-British intervention and Russia would have to fend for itself without benefit of any AFVs, Aircraft, Munitions or food from the UK or the US.

That's not going to end well for Uncle Joe...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 23, 2019)

So, not having Britain in the war does not mean that Britain is in any way defeated. That would require, if we wound the scenario back to where is neds to start that:


1) There was no attack on Britain by germany
2) There were no attacks on Belgium or the Netherlands, since Britain had given gurantees to both countries for their security. In the case of Belgium, those gurantees went back for more than a century.
3) Bit of an open question on Yugoslavia, but with France and low countries still in the fight, im going to toss a coin and say that the Yugoslavs stay with the western alliance .
4) You have not mentioned the rather inconvenient issue of Greece. I dont know where you are headed with this, apart from a definite move south in a very unpleasant way, but if italy is at war with Greece and there is no German intervention, because they arent at war with the British, Im going to go for a very bad ending for italy in that TO.
5) If the Germans aren't at war with the British because they didn't attack Belgium, Holland France and the Scandinavian countries, they also need to not attack Poland, to avoid war with Britain. Britain had guaranteed the security of all these nations, so Im at a loss as to exactly how Germany is going to avoid war with Britain and then get at the Russians. Beyond this, with France still in the war, Rumania will remain a pro French client, and will give preference to the west over the Axis. Two thirds of her oil will go to the west over Germany. 


The only way Germany can deal with Russia is if she deals wirth the west first, and if she does that, she will run foul of Britain. To suppose otherwise is to live in a fantasy land. We used to call it the "Axis wet dream.....a united alliance of European nations against Russia. That was never going to happen once Hitler was in power. 

So apart from the fantasy scenario of everybody against Russia under the shining light of german leadership, we have instead the prospect of an isolated and weakened Germany blocked by Poland, not helped by Rumania, not involved in the MTO, not helping or helped by the Italians, with limited supplies of fuel, trying to prosecute a war against russia. 


All I can say is...good luck with that. 

Or do you want to explain further this dream scenario of yours


----------



## Glider (Feb 23, 2019)

If Germany had not attacked the Europeans and had turned its attention to attacking Russia Britain France etc would have done little if anything to assist Russia as Stalin was loathed by all these states. 
Taking that to the next step, Russia would have fallen and I believe that would have been big enough to keep Germany occupied. Running an area that size, rebuilding the economic infrastructure would be a major job.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Feb 23, 2019)

parsifal said:


> .
> 
> Unless you are thinking Britain was going to abjectly capitulate all her overseas empire following Halifax as well, and her fleet. Only the total defeatists wanted that and in any event most of the RN and other escaping armed forces as well as all the independent dominiions would have disobeyed any such directive from London anyway. india and other imperial holdings are not so certain, but Im inclined that the majority would follw the defiant Churchillians over the weak Halifaxians, no matter what happened in the home islands
> .





parsifal said:


> Or do you want to explain further this dream scenario of yours



OK, so let's set the parameters (for the sake of hypothetical) what a British "Loss" (or capitulation) in the BoB might look like, most likely a negotiated settlement.
I think we can both agree that the chance for Germany to successfully invade is virtually nil.
In fact IMO they cannot "win" in the BoB, they lost more aircraft than the British in every week of the battle, vs. an Allied force that produced more pilots & aircraft than the Axis.
So basically the only way to "lose" the BoB is for the British to lose their nerve, and capitulate.

Suppose Halifax is the PM instead of Churchill in 1940, and he decides to cut a deal with Hitler instead of continue fighting a war that his cabinet tells them they can't win, (ie. Liberate Europe) and will likely see the British cities bombed into rubble. Britain can't defend Egypt and East Africa colonies vs overwhelmingly superior Italian forces, and risks the Asian ones too. They also face a crippling U-boat onslaught.

Since we're discussing the BoB specifically, let's assume that Britain decides to seek armistice at the beginning of Aug, 1940
So suppose Halifax signed an armistice, what might the terms be?

1. Britain ceases fighting, keeps her colonies & navy, but ends any blockade or embargo.
2. Axis powers are free to ship or transport without restriction.
3. The Kings of Norway, Denmark, Belgium & Netherlands are restored, governments are free, but are neutral, disarmed and Germany has a veto over their foreign policy.
4. The Axis powers will declare war on the Soviets, after which a free Poland (1914 borders) will be allowed.
5. Britain agrees not to hinder the war against the Soviets or interfere in Eastern Europe. 
6. The League of nations mandate for Palestine & Lebanon is transferred to Italy.
7. Djibouti is transferred to Italy, but Italy withdraws from all other British colonies, agrees to a non-aggression pact with Britain.

What would Britain get?
They'd avoid a costly and devastating war, restore the governments of conquered European nations, and avoid any loss of colonies. (Except for one minor one.)


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 23, 2019)

Glider said:


> If Germany had not attacked the Europeans and had turned its attention to attacking Russia Britain France etc would have done little if anything to assist Russia as Stalin was loathed by all these states.
> Taking that to the next step, Russia would have fallen and I believe that would have been big enough to keep Germany occupied. Running an area that size, rebuilding the economic infrastructure would be a major job.




Not sure how that works, Germany is not going to leave Poland alone. The Whole Polish Corridor/Danzig thing.

_IF _they leave Poland alone the attack route into the Soviet Union is from Romania.






Which certainly cuts down the area the Russians have to guard/defend (assuming the Germans respect Polish neutrality) and the Dnieper river is a bigger obstacle because it is harder to go around it?


----------



## parsifal (Feb 23, 2019)

_Not sure how that works, Germany is not going to leave Poland alone. The Whole Polish Corridor/Danzig thing.

IF they leave Poland alone the attack route into the Soviet Union is from Romania._


And if they attack through Rumania, a French client in 1939 also bankrolled by Britain and given gurantees of protection like all the other minor European neutrals , they run foul of th franco british alliance. After the gurantees given to Poland (which was in effect even before the formal announcement), Germany will be at war with Britain and France. If you want to rewind history to before munich, whare are you going to go????? This is a pointless and very silly line of argument to be pursuing in my view...…..how does a Tiger lose its stripes?

We are right back where we started

After Munich nobody trusted germany, and nobody was prepared to make any more concessions. Hitlers lying and bullying wewre catching up with him. Stalin entertained a revival of the old entente with the west, which was initially ignored but at the last minute Britain wanted to revive as well. By the time the aallies woke up to the possibilities of a Russian alliance it was too late, and the Russians had made separate (and catastrophicv) arrangements with the germans

Germany was seen as public enemy number 1, the USSR was an annoying distraction a backwater essentially. Any attack on Russia has to go through neutral states.....the Baltic is covered by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all of whom sought some form of solace from the allied powers. 


Germany after Munich is an isolated state. She was winning, but this 'victory came at the cost of being isolated, and worse on an ustoppable collision course with France and Britain. Everybody knew it was coming though different nations reacted in different ways. The US hoped to saty out of it, and profit by selling guns to everyone, the neutral formed a separate bloc, seeking the protection of the remaining great power supporters of the League, but feigniing neutrslity to avoid war at all costs. They couldn't, mostly because at various times they found themselves in the way. Britain spent most of the time in the lead up to war, runningaround Europe writing cheques she could not honour, playing for time, and making valiant attempts to contain Germany. The aim was no longer appeasement with a road to peace, it was delay with a road to war, and anyone who wouold side with Britain to stop the germans were friends of the British.


Any other appraisal of this is living in a dreamworld.


----------



## Glider (Feb 24, 2019)

parsifal said:


> _Not sure how that works, Germany is not going to leave Poland alone. The Whole Polish Corridor/Danzig thing._
> 
> _IF they leave Poland alone the attack route into the Soviet Union is from Romania._
> 
> ...


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 24, 2019)

parsifal said:


> _Not sure how that works, Germany is not going to leave Poland alone. The Whole Polish Corridor/Danzig thing._
> 
> _IF they leave Poland alone the attack route into the Soviet Union is from Romania._
> 
> ...





Well, Germany did attack through Poland, although, at the time, Germany and the USSR had a non-aggression pact, and both countries pretty much simultaneously attacked Poland: neither Germany nor the USSR* had any use for an independent Poland.

For Hitler to have kept the UK out of the war, he'd have to forego attacking Poland. Since destruction of Poland was a historical goal of both Germany (and Prussia before that) and the USSR (and Russia before that), that wasn't going to happen. While anti-bolshevism was a third cornerstone of nazi ideology, I suspect, had the USSR was seen as more militarily competent*, Hitler would have stopped before crossing into Soviet-controlled areas.


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

* Would Hitler have attacked the USSR had it been able to quickly conquer Finland? I suspect the answer would have been "no."


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2019)

The claim being made at the beginning of this side siscussion was that Germany could concentrate on Ruaaia and not attack Britain. That is effectively impossible after Munich.

So now we are facing a slight variation to that. Firstly the pursuers of the German wet dream for WWII are saying 'just attack poland, then push onto the SU. All sorts of problems arise from that. The first is that Britain and france by definition have to be in the war under that scenario. Germany cannot attack Poland without bringing into the war France and Britain after munich. I will concede that hitler had a very outside, remote chance of succeeding over the Danzig corridor issue without full scale war breaking out, but there simply is no way that Germany can unleash a steamroller on Poland without drawing into the war France and Britain. France and Britain

So an attack into Poland in the late summer of 1939 will lead to a two front war for Germany. In 1939 she has 50 front line divisions in the east and 15 2nd and 3rd line divisions in the west. She has the hoax known as the Siegfried line and a neutral Belgium temporarily blocking the northern corridor to the Ruhr. She has shortages of oil (very reduced oil from Rumania until the fall of france), limited other strategic materials 9none being shipped by the SU) and a strong liklehood of action by the western allies. France intended to launch major offensives in early 1941…..with the SU in the mix it can be expected they will bring this forward at least a year. Belgium was interested in joining the allies but was looking for security assurances from the French and british. These could be provided by the Summer '40.

Germany has no hope of winning a two front war in 1939/40. The whole reason for her success in 1940 was her ability to concentrate forces which she could not do with Russia in the war. in her much weakened military position, she would be facing at least 200 Soviet Divisions and not nearly enough raw materials, MT or munitions to finish the job. 


There are all sorts of problems with an attack in 1939 or 1940


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2019)

Bottom line....Germany was boxed in after munich and war with the west a foregone conclusion. She lacked the means in 1939 to fight a two front war. She lacked the means to fight a one front war in the east.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 24, 2019)

"She lacked the means to fight a one front war in the east."

For a hopeless, hamstrung, misguided nation, Germany certainly did an remarkable job of out-fighting Russia for most of the war in the East.

Parsifal, since you're so knowledgeable about German shortcomings, , I would appreciate hearing whether or not you think Germany, _unencumbered by the war with Russia,_ could have been defeated by Britain and the USA ... without recourse to the A bomb.
Germany and Russia bound by the 1939 M-R Pact ... Germany has resources for $$$ and technology.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 24, 2019)

IMO, the most important battle in Europe was the Battle of Moscow December-January 1941-42

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2019)

Germany in 1939 lacked the divisions, the MT and the AFVs to take on Russia. The conquest of France Belgium and the BEF yielded more than 100000 vehicles to the German armed forces, and between june 1940 and june 1941, French and Dutch motor vehicle factories delivered more than 40000 soft skinned vehicles to the heer. Im not 100% sure of wastage in that time, but about 50000 vehicles would seem a reasonable guess

On top of that German domestic production was in the order of 80000 vehicles in that period 1939-40 iirc. 

Overall, the German motor transport park grew by about 180-200000 vehicles, 80% of which ended up in military service. When it is considered that about 600000 truck were committed to Barbarossa, the importance of this delay comes home in spades. 

There were other areas that needed to be critically expanded and improved.....the ones that call to mind immediately include the expansion and modernisation of the tank arm. Railways management was another area the germans needed to address before they could make any deep penetrations into Russia. Even after 22 months of constant expansion the German railways management (i forget the title of this ministry) could still only manage three main axes of advance, and these could only advance to the minsk/riga/Kiev lines in the first 6 months of the real campaign. The advance to Riga was the easiest component, because of the similarities of the Baltic states railnet to the german system 

The A-Bomb didn't produce outright victory in any theatre all on its own, so I cant see it winning outright in the ETO either just by itself.

The biggest problem facing the western allies against Germany unencumbered by a war in the East, was manpower. The british were running out of men entirely by Normandy. the problem for the US was slightly more nuanced. They had plenty of men as such, but they lacked trained manpower. its hard to see the Americans working up the mass army strategy in time to defeat the Germans in time, and I cant see how a nuclear strategy will deliver complete victory either

however I also don't see the Russians as single handedly being able to win either. It was a coaltion of nations that defeated the Germans


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> For a hopeless, hamstrung, misguided nation, Germany certainly did an remarkable job of out-fighting Russia for most of the war in the East.



Take out the massacres carried out by the germans and the loss rates still favour the germans, but not by much when you consider who was on the attack most. German and Russian losses in military operations, as opposed to all causes is still hotly debated, but I believe Russian military casualties are between 9 and 12 million. German East Front casualties have been qioted as low as 2 million, but many reject that number. most settle on a figure of about 5 million for the germans.

As far as the germans outfighting the Russians, what are you basing that on? Germany was on the attack for a total of 10 months (not contiguously) during the campaign, whilst Russian was on the offensive for a total of 24 months, the remainder i would consider in a condition of stalemate. not bad for a nation being consistently and decisively outfought.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

A problem with a lot of these comparisons is that there are several things you need to wage war, man power is a big one and not all divisions are the same. Some are divisions in name only and might be more properly described as regiments (or even battalions on occasion). Both Germany and Russian were guilty of this at times. 
Industrial might comes into play, using steel simply because I have the figures. The US was No 1 not only by a large margin but it produced more steel per year than the rest of the world put together and still had a large margin. The US from 1942 to 1945 produced 80.6 to 86.6 million tons of steel per year. Germany was No 2 with (excluding 1945) a low of 21.5 anda high of 30.6 million tons. The UK was 3rd with just around 12-13 million tons per year, The Russians started good with a claimed 17.9 million tons in 1941 but it took until 1944 to get over 8.5 million tons. Japan never got over 8.8 million tons and Canada, after 1940 pretty much equalled Italy, Hungary and Romania put together. 
Effective use of the weapons (actual tactics/combat performance) is also important, It was here that the Germans shined, although brighter in some spots than others (some spots are better described as black holes). But good tactics/discipline can only do so much in the face of fuel and ammunition shortages. 

Germany may have had the power to take on England _ or _Russia, it did not have the power to take on both. Once the US entered the war it was game over. Even without A bombs. 
The British, American and Russian armies could artillery fire their way across the German held areas, Not elegant, or smart but if you can fire many times the artillery shells your enemy can he has to be awful clever to make up for it. British, American and Russian field communications were getting better too, more radios per division allowing for better coordination (in general , there will always be foul ups).

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2019)

It would be far from all beer and skittles for the allies. If there is no war in Russia, germany has the opportunity to normalise its workforce, which will lift production in all areas, including steel.

Moreover, massive amounts of American steel were needed to replace and build up shipping losses. 7 million tons of shipping were built in 1942 and 14 million in 1943. In terms of raw steel consumption to make those ships, ive read that the allies expended 10 tons of steel to make 7 tons of shipping. That means that straight away, of that 30 million tons 20 million of it is earmarked for non-combat purposes. Massive proportions of US forces never left the continental US, and there were reasons for that. One of the reasons was the shortages of shipping. until the shipping issue was solved, buidup of US forces was going to be very limited. After a year of effort at building up their forces for TORCH, the US was able to commit the equivalent of a single corps. Hardly the stuff of a ramaging army. After 3 years of continuous buildup, the US effort amounted to less than 70 divs. This was a finitie limit for the americans, no matter what they did they could not expand any faster than that.....They struggled against the 40 or so german divs deployed in the west, with British and Canadian help. What would have happened if there were 100+ frontline German divs to face them ?

A war against germany unfettered by the Russian front was unwinnable for the allies.

I have good friends in this debate. it was napoleon who said "victory does not always belong to the big battalions" . The American penchant to rely on firepower and numbers will not always work im afraid

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

It certainly wouldn't be beer and skittles but the Germans also have limits on manpower and raw materials 
One web site claims in 1943 only 42% of the iron ore used was produced in Germany, 38% was from Sweden and 20% was fro occupied territories (mosty France?) 
germans were getting Manganese from the ukraine, tin and tungsten (ores) from Portugal and Chrome ore from turkey. Once the German empire starts to collapse material shortages are going to start showing up.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2019)

Another issue to consider are the reasons for Germany's attack on Russia in the first place. it has been suggested this arose primarily because of hitlers insane hatred of the jews and Slavic peoples. Certainly true to an extent, but there were more immediate reasons in the road to war with the USSR

Firstly, Germany saw the Russian occupation of the Baltic states as a betrayal of a prior understanding between the two nations. germany viewed these states as German clients, and no agreement had been reached with respect to allowing the Russians to occupy them.

Secondly, the Soviet aggression against Rumania was seen as a blow to a vital German interest. As was Stalins overall and stated intent to bring the whole of the Balkans under his control.

Thirdly was the consistent refusal by the russianss to move South rather than SE. These revelations all occurred about the time hitler was making his decisions in the latter part of 1940. Virtually none of hitlers thinking processes and decisions had much to do with continued British resistance, though I don't disagree that he should have paid far more attention to this when making his decision. Hitler correctly surmised that England was "on the canvas" after Dunkirk and wouldn't be any problem to him for some time to come. He believed he could use blitzkrieg to knock out Russia before any of that mattered. He was wrong.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It certainly wouldn't be beer and skittles but the Germans also have limits on manpower and raw materials
> One web site claims in 1943 only 42% of the iron ore used was produced in Germany, 38% was from Sweden and 20% was fro occupied territories (mosty France?)
> germans were getting Manganese from the ukraine, tin and tungsten (ores) from Portugal and Chrome ore from turkey. Once the German empire starts to collapse material shortages are going to start showing up.


 I agree the gerans have their share of problems. For them to contiinue resistance effectively it would be necessary for them to have conitued access to Russian resources, as well as Swedish iron ore etc. 

You can probably draw some rough parallels with WWI here.....with Russia knocked out of the war in 1918, it still took the combined efforts of Britain, France, the Empire the US and a bunch of other small nations to achieve victory. in this scenario we have missing France and Russia, and the efforts of the dominions is much reduced comparatively, mostly because of the PTO. A small portion of USGFs are also tied up in the far east. 

I think in this scenario the allies would make their way through Spain rather than a cross channel attack

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 25, 2019)

"... Germany saw the Russian occupation of the Baltic states as a betrayal of a prior understanding between the two nations. germany viewed these states as German clients, and no agreement had been reached with respect to allowing the Russians to occupy them."
Parsifal, are you saying the Secret Protocols of the August, 1939, Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact are _fiction_?? Sounds like it!

Hitler knew very well what he agreed to, granted he did NOT appreciate Stalin's opportunistic greed in taking all of Lithuania and Bukovina, however he also knew he would occupy those areas soon enough ... AND HE DID.

I base my claim (with the exception of Bagration, in 1944) of Germany outfighting the Soviets to the long fighting _retreat_ and the successful breakouts that the Germans achieved ... they were as formidable in defense as in attack. For the most part they made the Russians pay more dearly to retake the ground than Germany had paid to take it in the first place.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 25, 2019)

"... A war against germany unfettered by the Russian front was unwinnable for the allies."
Damn hard to do.

"... It was a coalition of nations that defeated the Germans"
More like a coalition of _ideologies_


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2019)

I believe that England alone (and I include the commonwealth) could not have done it. England and America probably could have but it would have take longer (several years) and cost many more Commonwealth and American lives. 

as far as raw manpower goes, in 1939 Germany had around 80 million people (that included Austria and the Sudetenland) and the Americans had 132 million. 
turing raw manpower into combat divisions is a bit different 

The UK had about 46 million, commonwealth had ???? India being a huge question mark as how many Indian soldiers could you raise to go fight in Europe? 

The Soviet population in 1937 was 170 million but that number was manipulated to match Stalin's number in a report to the All-Union Communist Party, doesn't really matter if it is off by 10 million or so. 

The Problems with turning large populations into large armies is weapons production and training. There were stories ( I don't know how true) of Russian 3rd wave troops being issued no rifle but just a few 5 round clips of ammunition, before being sent forward to attack, they were expected to pick up a rifle from a dead or wounded soldier from the 1st or 2nd wave. This was in some of the darkest days and things certainly got better as the war went on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Feb 25, 2019)

parsifal said:


> The claim being made at the beginning of this side siscussion was that Germany could concentrate on Ruaaia and not attack Britain. That is effectively impossible after Munich.


Parsifal, I think you are misunderstanding my post.
I didn't say that there was a viable strategy "Germany could concentrate on Ruaaia and not attack Britain" the point I was making _*Without Britain in the war, the Soviets can't survive Barbarossa. *_



parsifal said:


> So now we are facing a slight variation to that. Firstly the pursuers of the German wet dream for WWII are saying 'just attack poland, then push onto the SU. All sorts of problems arise from that. The first is that Britain and france by definition *have to be in the war *under that scenario.



Well no, not necessarily.
We are talking July of 1940 here, so Poland is already occupied, and France is no longer in the war.

The question is, would Britain be successfully invaded (unlikely in the extreme) or would they seek an armictice and exit the war. (Possible but unlikely, given the personalities involved)

There WAS a discussion during Dunkirk, with some members of the British cabinet in favour of asking Italy to mediate a deal with Germany, and Hitler himself being in favour of some deal with Britain.
May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis - Wikipedia
Obviously the two sides were miles apart, with each side unwilling to concede anything close to what the other would accept, nevertheless there was a possibility of a negotiated settlement (however remote)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2019)

For Russia alone in 1941 (France already out and British negotiate a peace of some sort) things get real iffy.

Yes Russia has roughly twice the manpower, however after the German gains of the summer/fall of 1941 Russian steel production drops to about 1/2 of what it was before the German invasion and is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of German steel production. 

Without lend lease Russia's survival may be iffy in 1942. Russia's ability to go the offensive in 1943 will be pretty much non-existent. 
Worst case is Russians loose, best case is a years long stalemate. 

A lot depends on how the lend lease is valued and how much the lend lease substituted for Russian production and when. For instance when you simply compare lend lease tanks to total Russian production the argument can be made that Russia didn't depend on lend lease
But one book on Russian tanks says 1941 production of Russian tanks was 6,274 of which 1.907 were light tanks (T-40s and T-60s mostly) with no assault guns. Production in 1942 was 24,639 tanks ( (9,553 of the light tanks, now with T-70s) and 51 assault guns while 1943 saw 19,949 tanks (3,463 of them light) with 4,047 assault guns. Some of the tanks were better models so 1000 1943 tanks had more fighting value than 1000 1941 models. 

How much or how well lend lease tanks helped fill in the gaps in the winter of 1941/42 or into the spring I don't know (some members here claim up to 20% in certain battles) 

Lend lease also covered thousands of tons steel, alloys for making high grade steel, explosives for filling shells, propellent powder for both artillery and small arms and brass/copper for making small arms cartridges. I am not saying the Russians could not make quantities of their own but a Russian army in 1942-44 with even 20% less ammo and supplies would be in a much harder position trying to go over on the offensive. 
It gets really difficult trying to assess the impact that lend lease had as a lot of the impact was behind the scenes so to speak.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 25, 2019)

Freebird

Sorry, but that is different to the scenario put to me firstly by Grau Geist and then a variation to that by yourself. This later permutation of what is now well and truly a moving feast, is that Britain will somehow bow out in July1940......well no they didn't, and by july with churchills power well and truly established, it was never going to happen. The change point comes just prior to the French capitulation, by which time Italy is already in the war, with all the problems that entails.

If Italy were to be enticed into the role of honest broker, Britain would be looking for concessions from the Italians before they made their plunge. in reality that was never going to happen, but in my opinion, any chance of that occurring is with the Italians joining the Allies in 1940 and France accepting the Union with great Britain offer made by Churchill. The idea that the British would simply meekly submit to German demands was never going to happen once Winston was in the drivers seat.

Now, the next thing is, whether Russia could withstand Barbarossa without british help. in the longer term, as SR says, things get iffy for Russia without the alliance, but in 1941, assistance from the british to Russia was so minute as to be inconsequential. The logistics realities for the germans meant that additional men they might be able to bring to bear has no benefit to them in 1941. They cant supply them beyond the frontiers, and the frontiers are not where the battle was decided. At least until the end of 1942 that situation would remain the dominant controller of operations in the East. There were no additional resources in the logistics field. Some might argue that the MTO could be "shut down" without being specific as to how that might be achieved, but even if that was temporarily a necessity, an event like the greek invasion, or worse an invasion of Russia is not going to see the british just standing idly by. There will be a reaction.

So no I don't accept this version of alternate history either. Its essentially a straw man argument in my view


----------



## Freebird (Feb 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> For Russia alone in 1941 (France already out and British negotiate a peace of some sort) things get real iffy.
> 
> Without lend lease Russia's survival may be iffy in 1942. Russia's ability to go the offensive in 1943 will be pretty much non-existent.
> Worst case is Russians loose, best case is a years long stalemate.
> ...



US Lend Lease is not that big a factor is Soviet survival up to Stalingrad, though the lack of Lend Lease (especially trucks) would play a big factor in the post-Kursk offensives and Red army mobility.

However there is a good chance that the war won't last that long

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2019)

I have posted this before, many people focus on a few things , like trucks or tanks or P-39 airplanes.

How about things like

Armor plate, no alloy, not fabricated 39,283,679 lbs.
Ferrochrome 7,820,3l3 lbs. 
Ferromolybdenum 5,357,500 lbs. 
Ferrovanadium 1,074,190 lbs.
Welding rods & wire, excl. electric 8,088,498 lbs.
Steel bars, cold finished 425,331,742 *tons*
Lathes 2,644
Turret lathes 3,073
Engine lathes & bench type 999
Engine, incL tool-room lathes 3,340 
Electric locamotives railway mining 87
Steam turbine generator sets 991
Cars, railway, freight, over 10 ton 9,029

in the section for 1945
Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 31,831,984 lbs.

The trucks were important but they were part of the visible lend lease.
The behind the scenes stuff allowed the Russians to fabricate a lot of their own weapons from materials supplied to them.

Please spend some time going through the list, there is some fluff or items that would not make a lot of difference but there is an awful lot of stuff that helped the Russians build the quantity of materials (tanks, trucks, guns, shells) that rolled out of their own factories.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 25, 2019)

none of which were available to the USSR in any quantity from overseas sources. 

You can count the number of ships arriving in the USSR on one hand in 1941. 

I'm intrigued to have explained how and why the USSR will collapse well before Stalingrad.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 25, 2019)

At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).
Given the disruption to Soviet production and Red Army losses, the Soviet Union was understandably eager to put British armor into action as soon as possible. According to Biriukov’s service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on November 28, 1941. Simultaneously,  a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists. British tanks, which far outweighed any US assistance at the time,

The tanks reached the front lines from mid December, and were certainly useful. Researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 10 to 20 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of January 1942, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 266 tanks out of the 750 promised. but this was still just a drop in the ocean. And it is worth noting that deliveries of tanks and aircraft were afforded high priority for shipments to the USSR. 

The British Military Mission to Moscow noted that by December 9, about 50 British tanks had already been in action with Soviet forces. The first of these units to have seen action seems to have been the 138th Independent Tank Battalion (with 12 British tanks), which was involved in stemming the advance of German units in the region of the Volga Reservoir to the north of Moscow in late November. In fact the British intercepted German communications indicating that German forces had first come in contact with British tanks on the Eastern front on November 26, 1941.

The exploits of the British-equipped 136th Independent Tank Battalion are perhaps the most widely noted in the archives. It was part of a scratch operational group of the Western Front consisting of the 18th Rifle Brigade, two ski battalions, the 5th and 20th Tank Brigades, and the 140th Independent Tank Battalion. The 136th Independent Tank Battalion was combined with the latter to produce a tank group of only twenty-one tanks, which was to operate with the two ski battalions against German forces advancing to the west of Moscow in early December. Other largely British-equipped tank units in action with the Western Front from early December were the 131st Independent Tank Brigade, which fought to the east of Tula, south of Moscow, and 146th Tank Brigade, in the region of Kriukovo to the immediate west of the Soviet capital.

While the Matilda Mk II and Valentine tanks supplied by the British were certainly inferior to the Soviets’ homegrown T-34 and KV-1, it is important to note that Soviet production of the T-34 (and to a lesser extent the KV series), was only just getting seriously underway in 1942, and Soviet production was well below plan targets. And though rapid increases in tank firepower would soon render the 40mm two-pounder main gun of the Matilda and Valentine suitable for use on light tanks only, the armor protection of these British models put them firmly in the heavy and medium categories, respectively. Both were superior to all but the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 in armor, and indeed even their much maligned winter cross-country performance was comparable to most Soviet tanks excluding the KV-1 and T-34.

A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 8 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.

Lend-Lease aircraft deliveries were also of significance during the Battle of Moscow. While Soviet pilots praised the maneuverability of the homegrown I-153 Chaika and I-16 Ishak fighters—still in use in significant numbers in late 1941—both types were certainly obsolete and inferior in almost all regards to the British-supplied Hurricane. The Hurricane was rugged and tried and tested, and as useful at that point as many potentially superior Soviet designs such as the LaGG-3 and MiG-3. There were apparently 463 LaGG-3s in the Soviet inventory by the time of the Moscow counteroffensive, and it was an aircraft with numerous defects. At the end of 1941 there were greater numbers of the MiG-3, but the plane was considered difficult to fly. The Yak-1, arguably the best of the batch, and superior in most regards to the Hurricane, suffered from airframe and engine defects in early war production aircraft.

A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941. Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.


A significant, but not critical effort for the early part of the conflict. That came much later.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2019)

parsifal said:


> none of which were available to the USSR in any quantity from overseas sources.
> 
> You can count the number of ships arriving in the USSR on one hand in 1941.
> 
> I'm intrigued to have explained how and why the USSR will collapse well before Stalingrad.



Please Parsifal, I expect better from you. 

1941 Operation Dervish arrives 31 August 1941 with 6 freighters carring wool, rubber and tin and 15 crated Hurricanes, 24 more are flown off the carrier Argus but two are damaged. 

Convoy PQ 1 arrives Oct 11th 1941. 11 merchantmen loaded with raw materials, 20 tanks and 193 crated hawker hurricane fighter aircraft.

Convoy PQ 2 arrives Oct 30th 6 merchantmen according to some sources but this site says 11 ships Arnold Hague convoy database - PQ convoys

Convoy PQ 3 arrives Nov 22 1941, 8 merchant ships according to wiki, 7 ships according to Arnold Hague

Convoy PQ 4 arrives Nov 30th with 8 merchant ships (both sources) 

Convoy PQ 5 arrives Dec 13th with 7 merchant ships (both sources)

and finally PQ 6 arrives Dec 20th with 8 merchant ships (both sources) 

convoys PQ 7A and 7B had both sailed before the year ended but would not arrive until Jan 11th and 12th. 7A had two merchants one of which was sunk and 7B had 9 merchant ships all of which made to Russia

Not counting PQ 7a & 7b that gives 54 (or 59?) merchant ships arriving in 1941 which is certainly not a lot as later things went but certainly a nice boost for the Russians. a further 135 ships made it 1942 although 59 (or more?) are lost. 

This is pretty much the extent of it, as the southern route is not in operation yet, ships are arriving but unloading is slow and the transfer of cargo from the ports to Russia can only with the greatest charity even be called a trickle.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 26, 2019)

shoulda said number of convoys....my error. It still does not alter the insignificance of lend lease in 1941. Lend Lease became a factor in the winter counterattacks, but not before. Soviet defence was achieved with virtually no outside help.

Hyperwar provides some useful details on the US Lend lease aid packages to various countries. The breakdown in dollar value of the aid is as follows (in millions of dollars)

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html

1941: $20

1942: $1,376

1943: $2,436 (by deduction)

1944: $4074

1945: $2, 764


British aid in 1941 was approximately 10x that number. But even at $200m the extent of aid in 1941 was just a spit in the bucket. 1942 was significant, but after the debacle of PQ17 it was scaled back until the winter....after stalingrad

The Arctic convoys were the main access route to the USSR until mid 1943, after that, until the end of the war, the main supply routes became the rail connection through Iran and the Pacific access route.

The arctic convoys ran in two series, following the first convoy, code-named Operation Dervish, which sailed at the end of August 1941.

The first series, PQ (outbound) and QP (homebound), ran from September 1941 to September 1942. These convoys generally ran twice monthly, but were interrupted in the summer of 1942 when the series was suspended after the disaster of PQ17 and again in the autumn after the final convoy of the series, PQ18, due to lengthening daylight hours and the preparations for Operation Torch, which sucked out all available shipping from the allies.

The second series of convoys, JW (outbound) and RA (homebound) ran from late December 1942 until the end of the war, though with interruptions in the summer of 1943 and again in the summer of 1944. These interruptions were quite lengthy.

A lot has been written about the importance of the Pacific link, but in reality this route was quite minor until 1943. The Arctic route was the shortest and most direct route for lend-lease aid to the USSR, and until 1943 by far the most important. It was also the most dangerous. Some 3,964,000 tons of goods were shipped by the Arctic route; 7 percent was lost, while 93 percent arrived safely. This constituted some 23 percent of the total aid to the USSR during the war.

The Persian corridor was the longest route, and was not fully operational until mid-1943. Thereafter it saw the passage of 4,160,000 tons of goods, 27 percent of the total. The Pacific route opened in August 1941, but was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the Western allies. After December 1941, only Soviet ships could be used and as Japan and the USSR observed a strict neutrality towards each other, only non-military goods could be transported. Nevertheless, 8,244,000 tons of goods went by this route, 50 percent of the total which was impressive. The Pacific route was generally ice bound as only a few cargoes used the port of Vladivostock. More northern Pacific ports were usually icebound in winter.

. From July through December 1942 small Soviet convoys assembled in Providence Bay Siberia to be escorted north through the Bering Strait and west along the Northern route by Icebreakers. A total of 452,393 tons passed through this route in 1942…..a very small proportion of the total 1942 effort. A significant part of this supply was fuel and provisions for the airfield construction crews building the air and road links bridge between Alaska and Siberia (these were paid for under lend lease). Provisions for the airfields were transferred to river vessels and barges on the estuaries of large Siberian rivers. Remaining ships continued westbound and were the only seaborne cargoes to reach Archangel while J W convoys were suspended through the summers of 1943 and 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 26, 2019)

Later in the war Lend Lease came to be a very significant factor for the Russians, but in the context of the defensive battles of 1941, it was a marginal issue at best. Armies on the attack need anything from 3 to 6 times the logistic support compared to a force operating on the defence. Lend Lease became important once the SU swung over to the offensive. This was true from the earliest days of the Eastern Front. Germany should have switched to a defensive footing far earlier than she did. Because she did not she ended up losing. Manstein exercised an interesting variation to the classic defensive/offensive posture. The problem with pure defence is that it forfeits initiative which at times can be critical. Mansteins mobile defence, or offense/defence strategy offered an interesting variation to those traditional concepts, that may well have paid some dividends had Hitler relinquished his crushing insistence on micromanaging everything at the front.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 28, 2019)

.... following Kursk the German found themselves in a critical bind ... the Soviets were now able to advance faster than the Heer could retreat .... Lend-Lease mobility. To say L-L aid was not crucial to survival before Kursk is probably correct but Matilda tanks _were_ in the Battle of Moscow, Valentines later, and Churchill tanks at Kursk. The mere appearance of 'aid' was a signal to Germans that the USSR was not fighting _alone_. That's a powerful message.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 28, 2019)

One can say that the British were not sending very good tanks to the Russians, but that has to looked at in context too. 
One book claims the Russians built 6274 tanks in 1941, however "only" 3,014 of them were T-34s which is still a good number.
1818 of them were T-60 light tanks





It weighed about 6 tons, had a 70hp engine and was worth considerable less than German MK II tank as a fighting vehicle. It really bad conditions (snow/mud) they sometimes had to be towed by the T-34s. The 20mm cannon used the same ammo as the 20mm aircraft gun (it was just the aircraft gun slightly modified) but was considerably less powerful than the German 20mm gun.
Even a few hundred Matildas/ Valentines were a considerable increase in fighting power compared to a similar number of these tin cans. 
The Russians would build another 4,474 of these things in 1942 to try to tide them over the shortage of tanks The same book claims the Russians lost 15,000 tanks in 1942 compared to the Germans losing 2,648 (on all fronts) 
The Russians in 1942 alos built 4,883 T-70 light tanks.




Still a two man tank (one man in the turret) with lousy vision, a lousy rate of fire and/or engagement, no radio.

If the British lend lease tanks were not up to T-34 standards they certainly beat the heck out of these things. So the British supplied tanks may not have been decisive but were a welcome addition to the Soviet Forces

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Long Rangers (Feb 5, 2021)

evangilder said:


> There were at least 2 B-24s to fly 100+ missions in the 380th Bomb Group, 42-72799 "Male Call" and 42-100209 "Rough Knight". The 380th was part of the 5th AF in the Pacific. Not sure about European theater B-24s. Also check 42-40323 "Frenisi" <free and easy> from the 307th BG (Also Pacific). That one flew 104 missions before returning to the US for a war bond drive. It is rumored that Frenisi never lost a member of her crew.


307th BG 44-40587 "Susie" also flew 100+ combat missions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 5, 2021)

NightHawk said:


> what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
> 1.Stalingrad
> 2.Normandy
> 3.El alamain
> ...



The Battle of the Atlantic. Soldiers can’t fight if they can’t eat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 5, 2021)

The BoB meant a war of attrition (Battle of the Atlantic, CBO) in the West for Germany. The Battle of Moscow meant a war of attrition in the East for Germany. Everything else is grapes fallen off the vine, to my thinking. Germany could not fight two battles of attrition at one time.


----------



## Glider (Feb 5, 2021)

The most important battle was the Battle of the Atlantic. 

If lost the UK would have had to capitulate or at best withdraw from active combat. There would be no Second Front and no Lend Lease supplies to Russia with the significant chance that Russia would have fallen.

Its almost true to say that the only battle that the Allies couldn't afford to lose, was the Battle of the Atlantic

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> The most important battle was the Battle of the Atlantic.
> 
> If lost the UK would have had to capitulate or at best withdraw from active combat. There would be no Second Front and no Lend Lease supplies to Russia with the significant chance that Russia would have fallen.
> 
> Its almost true to say that the only battle that the Allies couldn't afford to lose, was the Battle of the Atlantic


What is the meaning of ''if lost " ?
That there would be no Second Front if Britain was out, is probable but not certain .
That without LL the USSR would have fallen is unlikely and also improbable .
Besides, the ''loss '' of the Battle of the Atlantic would not mean that the USSR would not receive LL supplies : LL supplies went also to Russia through the Pacific (50 % )and via the ME (27 % ).


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 8, 2021)

I got to go with Glider. The Battle of the Atlantic was the most important battle.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 8, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I got to go with Glider. The Battle of the Atlantic was the most important battle.


I doubt that there was something in WWII that could be rated as the most important battle .Besides, the ''battle ''of the Atlantic started on September 3 1939 and stopped on May 8 1945 ,which means that it is questionable to talk about the Battle of the Atlantic, or the Northern Atlantic: battles do not last 6 years .
WWII was ,as WWI, a war of attrition, the outcome of which was known on September 1939/for WWI on August 1 1914, and separate battles had only a minor importance .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 8, 2021)

This battle did last for six years.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 8, 2021)

'Battle of Atlantic' is probably a misnomer. 'The Atlantic campaign' is probably a better name for what was going on during all these dark months and years, and consisted of many fights and battles. 
Just like we will not call the fighting - that also took maky months/years - in Pacific as a 'Battle of Pacific'. Or the 'North-Afican Campaign', instead of 'Battle of North Africa'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 8, 2021)

The words ''Battle of ..''were invented by the tabloids( written and other ones ) because their readers/lookers had not the patience to read/listen to complicated explanations, and because it was /is too difficult for the average journalist to write/tell such stories .
Since 100 years people hear nothing else than blahblah about the Battle of the Marne, of the Somme, 1st,2nd and third Ypres, the Battle of France, of Britain, of the Atlantic, of Berlin,etc,etc .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The words ''Battle of ..''were invented by the tabloids( written and other ones ) because their readers/lookers had not the patience to read/listen to complicated explanations, and because it was /is too difficult for the average journalist to write/tell such stories .
> Since 100 years people hear nothing else than blahblah about the Battle of the Marne, of the Somme, 1st,2nd and third Ypres, the Battle of France, of Britain, of the Atlantic, of Berlin,etc,etc .


Not true, Blenheim palace was named after a battle, it has a different name in German and French because the Germans were near Hochstadt not Blindheim. Battle of Blenheim - Wikipedia The *Battle of Blenheim* (German: _Zweite Schlacht bei Höchstädt_; French: _Bataille de Höchstädt_; Dutch: _Slag bij Blenheim_) 

My wife was born in Inkerman street, all the streets there were named after Crimean war battles. Many football stands have a "kop" in UK because they were built at the time of battles in South Africa Liverpool FCs stand's full name is Spion Kop, this was by the people at the time not tabloids. See the origins and history of Liverpool's famous Spion Kop in photos 

In Churchills speech 18 June 1940 he said "

*“What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation..” *so they were both named by senior figures not tabloids.

Many gates and railway stations are named after battles in Paris and one in London that I know of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2021)

Pretty sure the phrase "Battle of..." has been in use far longer than that:
"Battle of Phillippi"
"Battle of Thermopylae"
"Battle of Kalinga"
"Battle of Actium"
"Battle of Zama"
"Battle of Carchemish"
"Battle of Cannae"
"Battle of Plataea"

All of the above occurred in antiquity and are written about in contemporary texts and are referred to as "battles" with the event's name following.

It is an old term.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Pretty sure the phrase "Battle of..." has been in use far longer than that:
> "Battle of Phillippi"
> "Battle of Thermopylae"
> "Battle of Kalinga"
> ...


What is Latin for tabloid?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 8, 2021)

I'd be a little embarrassed if it turns out to be tabloid.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What is Latin for tabloid?



You need to go back farther. The English word you need is “bard” or the Norse “skáld*”*


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What is Latin for tabloid?


"Acta Diurna"
(officially published from 59 b.c. onward)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2021)

Taking your comments one at a time



ljadw said:


> What is the meaning of ''if lost " ?
> That there would be no Second Front if Britain was out, is probable but not certain .


Its an absolute certainty. For the second front to come from anywhere but the UK is beyond the realms of possibility. For the invasion the whole of the UK was an armed camp with millions of servicemen and heaven only knows how much military equipment. It simply couldn't have come from anywhere else


> That without LL the USSR would have fallen is unlikely and also improbable .


 The war in Russia was a desperately close run conflict. With the German forces reinforced by those that were not needed in Europe. These reinforcements alone could easily tip the balance. The volume of LL given to the Russians was prodigious. In many ways the Russian conflict was similar to the Pacific in that logistics played a massive part and without the vehicles, trucks, railroad stock, Railroad engines, track, raw materials of Aluminium and other metals Russia would have been in deep trouble. The tanks and in particular British Matilda's and Valentines were not up to the standard of the T34 granted, but they became available while the Russian factories were being moved and were at least as good as the obsolete tanks the Russians still had in service, in considerable numbers.


> Besides, the ''loss '' of the Battle of the Atlantic would not mean that the USSR would not receive LL supplies : LL supplies went also to Russia through the Pacific (50 % )and via the ME (27 % ).


 If the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost then there wouldn't have been any route through the ME. If the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost and the UK out of the fight there may well not have been any LL to Russia. America was rightly proud of it being the Arsenal of Democracy, and Russia was far from being a democracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 8, 2021)

I've read about lend lease and frequently some of the Western Allies equipment gets knocked compared to Soviet equipment. That's because folks who are interested in this usually focus on tanks and planes. Overlooked are trucks, trains, WIRE, yes wire, and the other items Glider mentioned. Things that Soviet industry could "bypass" and get on with the manufacture of tanks, planes, etc. I can't see Stalin, or anyone in his government who wished to live, give any credit to the Decadent Capitalists for LL equipment. This would explain the lack of coverage by the Soviet press. I admit my opinion might be based on hearsay.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2021)

Here is a good source. *Its a Russian report *on the Lend Lease material supplied by the USA to Russia

df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf (histrf.ru)

A couple of Highlights

Armor steel had a special place in these shipments, especially in the production of tanks, self-propelled guns and other equipment. Mobilization reserve of armored steel in the Soviet Union before the war was small and did not cover even 6-month industry needs. According to some data, 525.4 thousand tons of rolled steel of all types was delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease. Every month, the country received about half of average amount of Soviet production of armored steel. Special steel for gun barrel drifting was also delivered

Moreover, copper deficiency in our country decreased largely due to the imports of communications equipment from the United States. For example, the USSR received 956.7 thousand miles of field telephone cable, 2.1 thousand miles of marine cable and 1.1 thousand miles of underwater cable. A lot of radio stations, receivers and radars, produced from copper, were also stationed

During the war, 622 thousand tons of rails were delivered under LendLease. This represents about 56.5% of the total domestic production of rails from mid-1941 to the end of 1945. If excluding narrow gauge rails that were not supplied under lend-lease, then the American supplies made 83.3% of the total production of the Soviet broad gauge rails. Thus, more than half of rails used on Soviet railways during the war came from the United States. The sharp decline in the production of rails in Soviet industry allowed to send extra power and resources of steel to produce weapons (in 1945, rails production made 13% from the 1940 level, and in 1944 - only 5.4%). Lend-Lease supplied not only the rails with armature, but also rolled railway wheels and axles. At that time the USSR did not have technology and capacity to fabricate them, so it had to produce them of cast iron or steel.

Marshal Zhukov gave an assessment of metal supply in the USSR. His remarks given in 1963, which were stored in the Central Archives of the Russian Defense Ministry, are listed below: «Right now they say that the Allies never helped us... But you cannot deny that Americans drove many materials, without which we would not be — 120 — able to form our reserves and could not continue the war ... And how much steel they supplied! Could we quickly establish the production of tanks, if not for American aid? And now they show it in a way that we had plenty of sources.»

The following is a statement from the USA included in the report which the Authors say 'It differs from our data, but in general, provides a comprehensive picture.'

By November 30, 1944, the Soviet Union was supplied with the following number of arms and equipment: 12,200 aircraft (the largest number in comparison with other countries), 135,000 machine guns, 294,000 tons of explosives, 6,000 tanks, 1,800 self-propelled guns, 13,000 pistols, 3,300 armored personnel carriers, 8,200 guns of different calibers (including antitank), 5,500 artillery tractors. In addition, the USSR received 1,300,300 tons of oil and 638,000 tons of chemicals. With the help of Lend-Lease, the problem of uniform for Soviet troops was solved. It earlier emerged as a result of the loss and destruction of many factories. By November 1944, 11 million pairs of combat boots, 97 million yards of cotton fabric, and 50 million yards of woolen goods were delivered to the Soviet Union.»

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> Taking your comments one at a time
> 
> 
> Its an absolute certainty. For the second front to come from anywhere but the UK is beyond the realms of possibility. For the invasion the whole of the UK was an armed camp with millions of servicemen and heaven only knows how much military equipment. It simply couldn't have come from anywhere else The war in Russia was a desperately close run conflict. With the German forces reinforced by those that were not needed in Europe. These reinforcements alone could easily tip the balance. The volume of LL given to the Russians was prodigious. In many ways the Russian conflict was similar to the Pacific in that logistics played a massive part and without the vehicles, trucks, railroad stock, Railroad engines, track, raw materials of Aluminium and other metals Russia would have been in deep trouble. The tanks and in particular British Matilda's and Valentines were not up to the standard of the T34 granted, but they became available while the Russian factories were being moved and were at least as good as the obsolete tanks the Russians still had in service, in considerable numbers. If the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost then there wouldn't have been any route through the ME. If the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost and the UK out of the fight there may well not have been any LL to Russia. America was rightly proud of it being the Arsenal of Democracy, and Russia was far from being a democracy.


Already before Pearl Harbour, the Marines were in Iceland and from Iceland, they could go to the Shetland Islands and Inverness .
And, even without Overlord,US would be able to win by nuking the German cities .
The loss of the Battle of the Atlantic (which was out of the question )would not prevent LL goods to go to the ME and the Caucasus .
The war in Russia was never a close run conflict : at the end of the summer of 1941 ,the conclusion was that Germany had lost and that the Soviets would be in Berlin .Without or with LL .
Last point : US did not fight for democracy,or for Britain, but against Nazism and Germany . 
They were already helping the Soviets BEFORE PH .


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Already before Pearl Harbour, the Marines were in Iceland and from Iceland, they could go to the Shetland Islands and Inverness .


If you believe that the Shetland Islands is a substitute for the UK then I can only suggest you do some research. While your at it, you might want to look up where Inverness is


> And, even without Overlord,US would be able to win by nuking the German cities .


 If that's your get out of jail card then it applies to anyone


> The loss of the Battle of the Atlantic (which was out of the question )would not prevent LL goods to go to the ME and the Caucasus .


 Pease tell me how you get to the Med without crossing the Atlantic?


> The war in Russia was never a close run conflict : at the end of the summer of 1941 ,the conclusion was that Germany had lost and that the Soviets would be in Berlin .Without or with LL


. I would love to know where you got that conclusion from.


> Last point : US did not fight for democracy, or for Britain, but against Nazism and Germany .
> They were already helping the Soviets BEFORE PH


 But if the UK was out of the fight would they?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> Here is a good source. *Its a Russian report *on the Lend Lease material supplied by the USA to Russia
> 
> df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf (histrf.ru)
> 
> ...


One point : the legend of the boots :do you know what was the production of boots by the Soviets and what was their stock on June 22 1941 and do you know how many boots the Red Army needed and got ?the 11 million LL boots were less than 10 % of the boots used by the Red Army .
It is the same for the 6000 LL tanks : in June 1941 the Soviets had 22000 tanks and they produced another 60000 during the war . And: 13000 pistols is less than one pistol for 2000 soldiers .
About Zhukov : we can easily ignore what he said,as , before LL started, he had already been fired as chief of staff,and as one of a lot of front commanders, he had no information about LL deliveries .
Barbarossa had already failed before the first LL deliveries arrived in the USSR .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> If you believe that the Shetland Islands is a substitute for the UK then I can only suggest you do some research. While your at it, you might want to look up where Inverness is
> If that's your get out of jail card then it applies to anyone Pease tell me how you get to the Med without crossing the Atlantic? . I would love to know where you got that conclusion from. But if the UK was out of the fight would they?


Distance Inverness-Shetland islands : 224 km .
And when the Marines and the Free British Legion were in Inverness ,who would stop them in their advance to London ?
To go to the ME (NOT the Mediterranean ) ,it was not needed to cross the Northern Atlantic .
Till September 1943 LL convoys did not use the Mediterranean ,because of the Italian danger : they took the long route thru SA.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2021)

I knew you would pick on the pistols and boots but to leave them out would have been misleading.

You may want to think about how many tanks Russia could have produced with less than 50% of the available armour plate, a similar loss of aluminium for aircraft and engines for the tanks and a massive reduction in the rail network to move the material across the vastness of Russia. 

I am still waiting to hear who stated that '_Barbarossa had already failed before the first LL deliveries arrived in the USSR_' Certainly Stalin applied a huge amount of pressure to get additional supplies and aircraft, in particular Spitfires and P39's.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I've read about lend lease and frequently some of the Western Allies equipment gets knocked compared to Soviet equipment. That's because folks who are interested in this usually focus on tanks and planes. Overlooked are trucks, trains, WIRE, yes wire, and the other items Glider mentioned. Things that Soviet industry could "bypass" and get on with the manufacture of tanks, planes, etc. I can't see Stalin, or anyone in his government who wished to live, give any credit to the Decadent Capitalists for LL equipment. This would explain the lack of coverage by the Soviet press. I admit my opinion might be based on hearsay.


Don't forget "Roosevelt Sausage".


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Don't forget "Roosevelt Sausage".


There was so much more you could add, from food to modern Radar, which Russia was almost totally dependent on Lend Lease and everything in between.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Distance Inverness-Shetland islands : 224 km .
> And when the Marines and the Free British Legion were in Inverness ,who would stop them in their advance to London ?
> To go to the ME (NOT the Mediterranean ) ,it was not needed to cross the Northern Atlantic .
> Till September 1943 LL convoys did not use the Mediterranean ,because of the Italian danger : they took the long route thru SA.



A fleet of U Boats would do that.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> A fleet of U Boats would do that.


Personally I like the idea that the Shetland Islands population about 15,000 has the infrastructure to support literally millions of servicemen and their equipment. Have you seen the weather in the Shetlands!!


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> Personally I like the idea that the Shetland Islands population about 15,000 has the infrastructure to support literally millions of servicemen and their equipment. Have you seen the weather in the Shetlands!!


For nine months I used to drive from Teesside to Wick which takes you through Inverness, it is great fun in winter. Inverness was a fishing port, not much of a port or harbour there at all.

Having spent a winter in Wick and another in Tain I have a good idea of what its like in the Shetlands


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> For nine months I used to drive from Teesside to Wick which takes you through Inverness, it is great fun in winter. Inverness was a fishing port, not much of a port or harbour there at all.
> 
> Having spent a winter in Wick and another in Tain I have a good idea of what its like in the Shetlands


Than you know exactly what I am talking about

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> Than you know exactly what I am talking about


There is a good reason why the Romans and English never went there, few Scots did either. The weather in 1940-45 was atrocious.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 8, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I've read about lend lease and frequently some of the Western Allies equipment gets knocked compared to Soviet equipment. That's because folks who are interested in this usually focus on tanks and planes. Overlooked are trucks, trains, WIRE, yes wire, and the other items Glider mentioned. Things that Soviet industry could "bypass" and get on with the manufacture of tanks, planes, etc. I can't see Stalin, or anyone in his government who wished to live, give any credit to the Decadent Capitalists for LL equipment. This would explain the lack of coverage by the Soviet press. I admit my opinion might be based on hearsay.



America sent fifteen million pair of combat boots via LL to the USSR. That speaks volumes about our hopes and aims for keeping the Red Army in the field and moving. That's not counting the trucks, or the various fuels for equipment. The wire is another easily-overlooked contribution.

That sums up the value that both nations put upon logistics -- hardly surprising given the enormous size of the Eastern Front.

I do think Stalin paid the odd compliment to LL, but from what I've read he wasn't much prone to giving compliments anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2021)

Khrushchev also made a few positive remarks about LL (which, like Stalin, was rare)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2021)

ljadw said:


> One point : the legend of the boots :do you know what was the production of boots by the Soviets and what was their stock on June 22 1941 and do you know how many boots the Red Army needed and got ?the 11 million LL boots were less than 10 % of the boots used by the Red Army .
> It is the same for the 6000 LL tanks : in June 1941 the Soviets had 22000 tanks and they produced another 60000 during the war . And: 13000 pistols is less than one pistol for 2000 soldiers .
> About Zhukov : we can easily ignore what he said,as , before LL started, he had already been fired as chief of staff,and as one of a lot of front commanders, he had no information about LL deliveries .
> Barbarossa had already failed before the first LL deliveries arrived in the USSR .




last first.





Yep, The summer of 1942 German offensive is a western fiction invented to justify the legend that LL save Russia.

Pistols are one of the least effective weapons of war. In some western armies more troops were shot in accidents than enemy troops shot in combat. They were used as badges of office, for battlefield discipline and sometimes by troops whose primary weapon was something that needed horses or a truck to move.

_ 6000 LL tanks : in June 1941 the Soviets had 22000 tanks and they produced another 60000 during the war._

This is a real case of looking at the forest and missing the trees. In June of 1940 the Soviets had 22-24,000 tanks, sources differ, in part because the Russians never threw anything away (scrapped). Again sources differ but some say that only about 1/2 of those tanks were "runners", that is able to move under their own power. Some may have been waiting for parts, others were being used as source of parts and would never run again.
From Wiki "On 1 June 1941, the Red Army had 10,268 T-26 light tanks of all models on their inventories, including armoured combat vehicles based on the T-26 chassis." How many of twin turret early T-26s were left at this point I don't know. There were also several thousand T-37.T-38 and T-40 light tanks armed with a single machine gun each.
Many of the tanks the Russians "lost" were sitting in depots when the Germans over ran the areas.
Russian tank production in 1941 was 6,274 of which 1907 were light tanks, all but 50 of which were significantly inferior to the German MK II.
In 1942 Russian tank production was 24,690 of which 9,553 were light tanks, almost 4900 of them were armed with the 45mm gun but and one man turrets and very few had radios.

In 1941 the western Allies shipped 487 Matildas, Valentines and Tetrachs from Britian and 182 M3A1 Stuarts and M3 mediums. By the end of 1942 Britain had shipped a "total" of 2487 tanks and the US had shipped 3023. The 6000 tank number underplays the Western contribution as almost 21,000 armored vehicles reached Russia almost 2,000 more were lost enroute.

Broken down the western allies contributed about 16% of Russian tank production, 12% of the SP gun production and 100% of the APC production (half tracks) which were extensively used as gun tractors. In the critical year of 1942 the Western allies supplied close to 20% of the production of Soviet tanks.
What was being supplied shifted with time. Fewer actual tanks and more steel to build them, more fuel, and more components/raw materials for ammunition. Also more electrical components for radios.
Doesn't matter how many T-34s the Russians had if they didn't have enough ammo.

One source claims "The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition. "

Other materials included nitrocellulose propellent (smokeless powder).

The Soviet Union produced roughly 2/3rds the amount of steel in 1941 that Germany did. In 1942 and 43 they produced less than 1/3 the amount of steel. things got a bit better in 1944 and 1945. Without LL the Soviets had little hope of out producing the Germans. 


The crucial years were 1941 and 1942 and 1943.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 9, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> last first.
> View attachment 626703
> 
> Yep, The summer of 1942 German offensive is a western fiction invented to justify the legend that LL save Russia.
> ...


A map of Blau does not indicate that the Germans had still any chance to defeat the Soviets in the Summer of 1941 .It is the opposite : it not only indicates, but proves that Barbarossa,which was planned as a short and fast campaign to be successful before the Autumn of 1941, had definitely and irrevocably failed .
And, even if Blau was successful, the result would still be the Soviets in Berlin,because they were not depending on the oil of the Caucasus .The Soviets arrived in Berlin with an oil production that was lower than the pre war production .During the planning of Blau,the German oil experts warned that there was no indication at all that the loss of the Caucasus oil would force the Soviets to give up .
And about steel : WHY would it be needed for the Soviets to outproduce the Germans ? How much of the German steel was used for the war in the East ?How much steel was needed for the war in the East ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 9, 2021)

Just curious, but how could Soviet oil production be lower during the war than pre-war?
The demand of tens of thousands tanks, tens of thousands of aircraft, thousands of trucks as well as warships engaging in combat requires fuel.
How is it that the Soviet Union was able to sustain a total war with diminished oil production?
The answer to this just may help our current energy demands, by the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And about steel : WHY would it be needed for the Soviets to outproduce the Germans ? How much of the German steel was used for the war in the East ?How much steel was needed for the war in the East ?


 You are, of course, joking. 


Many people focus on the visible weapons of war. Total number of tanks or aircraft and miss the when. 5000 LL tanks in 1942 is much more important than 5000 LL tanks in 1944/45 for example. 

Many people don't get to the 2nd area of weapons/supplies. 

The Western allies supplied about 1/3 of all the explosives used by the Soviet Union. 
The Western allies supplied about 55% of all the Aluminum used by the Soviet Union.
The Western allies supplied about 80% of all the copper used by the Soviet Union.
The Western allies supplied about 1/3 of all the aviation gasoline used by the Soviet Union.

even fewer get to the 3rd area.
How many lathes, milling machine, drills, drill bits and other machinery to equip Russian factories so they could achieve the production totals they did. The Russians could have made their own but machine tools that are being used to build new machine tools are not making product, like tanks, trucks, aircraft engines or even rifles. 

Food is another area. A number like 10% (illustration sake) may seem insignificant but when it is compared to Russian actual food consumption, Many factory workers and families were on near starvation diets, 10% more calories can be the difference between life and death.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 9, 2021)

The facts remain the facts .
The Soviet oil production was 30 million ton in 1940 and 20 million in 1945 .
Consumption ?
Before WWII less than production, the surplus was used as reserve or sold .
During WWII ,the consumption remained inferior to the production (Source : Germany and WW 2) and, only a part of the consumption was by the military .
Tanks and trucks do consume oil only when they are used, and they do not last very long :tanks a few months .If every day 5000 tanks were driving 100 km ( which is very optimistic ) and consumed 500000 liters, that is a daily consumption of 500 ton ,which is yearly 180000 ton,which is less than 1 % of the production .
Warships moved only exceptionally .
Aircraft : everyday a few hundred.
Before the war most oil was used by the industry,only a small part by the military . During the war it was the opposite ,with the difference that the military used less oil during the war than the civilians before the war .
I will search for the exact production figures from 1940 to 1945


Shortround6 said:


> You are, of course, joking.
> 
> 
> Many people focus on the visible weapons of war. Total number of tanks or aircraft and miss the when. 5000 LL tanks in 1942 is much more important than 5000 LL tanks in 1944/45 for example.
> ...


That the Western allies supplied 1/3 of the explosives used by the Soviets,does not mean that without these explosives,the Soviets would have used 1/3 less explosives .
It is the same for the aluminium,copper and avgas.
About the food : the real Soviet food consumption was much higher than what the official stats indicated, it was the same for the Germans, French, British ,etc .Not only during the war ,but also before and after the war . Even today .
At the beginning of the war, the Soviet authorities declared that they could not feed the population and that people had to feed themselves .And people did it . They did feed themselves ( most of the Soviet population in 1941 lived in the country or had ties with the country ),what they received from the state and from LL was nothing more than a supplement .
The Soviet agriculture was never totally nationalized: a big part remained privatized , til the end .
In 1966 the private sector of the Soviet agriculture produced 64 % of the potatoes, 40 % of the meat,43 % of the vegetables .
Source : John W.de Pauw :the Private Sector in Soviet Agriculture .
During the war, every one in Belgium was peasant, every one in the UK, in Germany, in the USSR, in......


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2021)

I have to say that you are very good at ignoring questions that are difficult or impossible to answer, using the age old tactic of just asking more questions.

I am waiting for a response to the question.

_You may want to think about how many tanks Russia could have produced with less than 50% of the available armour plate, a similar loss of aluminium for aircraft and engines for the tanks and a massive reduction in the rail network to move the material across the vastness of Russia_.

Do you believe that this would have hindered in any way the ability of Russia to defend itself?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 9, 2021)

This is a genuine question...so please be patient with me. 

I understand the UK got about 25% of its wartime material via Lend Lease. I also know that Churchill and others were extremely worried about the trans-Atlantic supply route. However, how much did the UK really NEED supplies from the US? Bearing in mind the UK provided a fair amount of Lend Lease materiel to the USSR, it strikes me that, had the UK focused on its own needs, interruption of supplies from the States probably wouldn't have brought the country to its knees.

What am I missing?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2021)

Personally I think there were two things that stand out. Food and Fuel. Fuel we didn't need the USA for as we were pretty well covered from other sources but if control of the sea had been lost then we would have been like Japan.

Food was the big problem. Again to a large degree there were other sources but the USA were a major source and again losing control of the sea would have stopped supplies

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 9, 2021)

Yes, but sea power is rather like air power....it's somewhat transitory. It was highly unlikely that the UK would lose sea power completely. Temporarily at a given location? Yes. Permanently across the entire Atlantic? Highly doubtful. The Kreigsmarine simply didn't have the vessels to do that. 

I just haven't found any reliable data on the quantity of goods carried that weren't strictly war materiel (nor, for that matter, raw materials like steel or copper) coming to the UK from the US. I'm just not convinced that "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic was ever really on the cards (no matter what the concerns in Whitehall)...and even if there had been disruption, I'm not sure it would have kicked the UK out of the War completely.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 9, 2021)

Battle for Berlin and the dropping of the atomic bombs.

Soviet invasion of Manchuria.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> This is a genuine question...so please be patient with me.
> 
> I understand the UK got about 25% of its wartime material via Lend Lease. I also know that Churchill and others were extremely worried about the trans-Atlantic supply route. However, how much did the UK really NEED supplies from the US? Bearing in mind the UK provided a fair amount of Lend Lease materiel to the USSR, it strikes me that, had the UK focused on its own needs, interruption of supplies from the States probably wouldn't have brought the country to its knees.
> 
> What am I missing?


The UK could have survived but very difficult to see how it could have taken the war to Germany.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 9, 2021)

I imagine that the primary need would have been food. Rationing in the UK was tight, even after the war ended. It would've taken a lot of food to supply the English Army. The war was one of attrition. England, still in debt from the Great War, could use all the help it could get. It had to have been a big help. 
They may have been old but I'm sure those 50 destroyers helped too. Might not be part of lend lease but I just like those old "flush deck" destroyers.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I imagine that the primary need would have been food. Rationing in the UK was tight, even after the war ended. It would've taken a lot of food to supply the English Army. The war was one of attrition. England, still in debt from the Great War, could use all the help it could get. It had to have been a big help.
> They may have been old but I'm sure those 50 destroyers helped too. Might not be part of lend lease but I just like those old "flush deck" destroyers.


Rationing was tight but for a substantial part of the population the diet improved. My grandmother lived in the countryside in Yorkshire in a small holding (couple of pigs and chickens and a plot of land), she got two evacuees from Londons east end. They had never eaten so well in their lives. They remained pen pals with my mother until they died, both said it was a life changing experience for the better.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 9, 2021)

Seeing as how that happened on a farm with pigs, you got a bacon.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Seeing as how that happened on a farm with pigs, you got a bacon.


Not exactly a farm, it was a big ramshackle house in a beautiful village. She lived there till I was 5 and I just remember it, she had got rid of the pigs by then but still had the chickens. Although they ate better than most because she had pigs and chickens and grew some veg. For the same boys if they were just on the minimum rations that would be better than what they had pre war, the situation of the poor in the east end of London was desperate, both boys were flea ridden and emaciated when they arrived, they were soon cleaned up and fattened up in typical Yorkshire fashion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 9, 2021)

Nice to hear about something good that happened to those kids.


----------



## Ovod (Jun 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> This is a genuine question...so please be patient with me.
> 
> I understand the UK got about 25% of its wartime material via Lend Lease. I also know that Churchill and others were extremely worried about the trans-Atlantic supply route. However, how much did the UK really NEED supplies from the US? Bearing in mind the UK provided a fair amount of Lend Lease materiel to the USSR, it strikes me that, had the UK focused on its own needs, interruption of supplies from the States probably wouldn't have brought the country to its knees.
> 
> What am I missing?



Sticking with aircraft only:

British industry may somehow have covered the needs of the RAF during the war, especially if several thousand Hurricanes and Spitfires hadn't been sent to the Soviet Union - but that would not have been true for the RN FAA - just as many Martlets, Hellcats and F4U Corsairs were supplied to the RN as were Sea Hurricanes and Seafires, not to mention all those "Tarpons". The RAF might have been able to be equipped with British industry sourced aircraft - but what about the Commonwealth partners, Australia, NZ and South Africa?
Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall the US supplied the UK and Commonwealth with around 42,000 aircraft - or what was the figure?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Nice to hear about something good that happened to those kids.


There were lots of stories like that, one I saw recently:- the laws applied to everyone even to China town in London, a big group of British Chinese were evacuated to one village, its the stuff movies are made of, as with my mother, they remained friends for life, a few got married etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 0311isawesome (Jun 9, 2021)

NightHawk said:


> what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
> 1.Stalingrad
> 2.Normandy
> 3.El alamain
> ...


No midway :/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2021)

ljadw said:


> That the Western allies supplied 1/3 of the explosives used by the Soviets,does not mean that without these explosives,the Soviets would have used 1/3 less explosives .
> It is the same for the aluminium,copper and avgas.



Then where do these things come from if not the Western allies? Who was in a position to provide hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives.

Accounts are all over the place, from claiming the soviets were saved in 1941/42 by lend lease to the other side saying that without lend lease the Soviets would have taken only a few month to a year and half to defeat the Germans even without the western allies let alone lend lease.

We have statements like this.
"No doubt statistics can be massaged to support any point of view".
followed by
" Lend-lease supplied the USSR with 1.9% of all artillery, 7% of all tanks, 13% of all aircraft, 5.4% of transport in 1943, 19% transport in 1944 and 32.8% in 1945. Lend-lease deliveries amounted to 4% of Russia’s wartime production."

which certainly tends to down play the role of lend lease but the very same article says.
" The list of other supplies, equally vital to the Soviet supply effort, is impressive – 57.8 per cent of aviation fuel requirements, *53 per cent of all explosives*, almost half the wartime supply of copper, aluminium and rubber tyres. "

Bolding by me. Without the LL explosives and propellents a large part of the Soviet artillery production would have been useless. Likewise tanks do not always fight tanks, they are often used to support infantry but with few HE shells per tank and less machine gun ammo having large numbers of tanks with 1/2 filled ammo bins doesn't contribute that much. (more targets for German anti-tank equipment?)
So which is it? Lend lease supplied little in the way of combat equipment or Lend-lease supplied large amounts of material/supplies that allowed the Soviet troops to perform at a much higher level?

Steel has already been mentioned. Without lend lease rails and wheel sets how well would the soviet rail system have held up?
Armor steel for tanks.
38,000 machine tools for armaments factories. You don't make tanks in blacksmith shops.

Some writers seem to have a skewed view.

from earlier in the article I have quoted several times.

"The aluminum and other alloys, the metallurgic technology, the locomotives, the radios and other smaller items, the foodstuffs, all these items helped to strengthen the USSR in their struggle against Germany and her Allies. There is no question. But to state bluntly that without them the USSR would have collapsed is simply untrue, and this is the perspective most often put forward in English-speaking lands. The USSR is/was a great country, with enormous resources, and the Russian people are among the most resilient in the world. With or without Lend-Lease, Germany would sooner or later have been defeated, simply because such a small country could never sustain a war against one so large and so wealthy. The Second World War was a war of attrition, and Germany simply did not have the resources to outlast the USSR. Once German troops were stopped before Moscow, it was only a question of time. "
Now it is quite true that the USSR had enormous resources but Iron ore, coal and oil in the ground, while perhaps counting towards a country's wealth and resources do little good if you can't get them out of the ground in a timely fashion AND process them into the needed items/equipment. The USSR had resources, it lacked the manufacturing capacity to match the Germans in a war of attrition. If you are only making 1/2 to 1/3 of the steel per year of your opponent due to the capacity of your steel mills it doesn't matter how much iron ore you have in the ground.
A quick example, a single Russian 122mm howitzer, firing 2 rounds per minute will fire about 1 ton of steel in 25 minutes. Four such guns firing at that rate for 3 hours will have launched the equivalent of a T-34 tank towards the enemy. If you have thousands of artillery pieces you can use up a lot of steel very quickly. And this is finished steel. A number of pounds of shavings/swarf will be on the shop floor for each shell made until collected and sent back to the steel mill. Artillery shells, while not armor steel are a high quality steel.

Steel production was a rough indicator of a countries manufacturing capability. Not all of a country's industries were in proportion but it was the easiest measurement.
Unfortunately for the Soviet Union the numbers for 1940-41 for number of things changed dramatically in the last half of 1941. The Soviets did not evacuate ALL factories. They may have lost some sources of supply. They certainly lost around 40% of their agricultural lands, which put a real crimp in food production, back yard potato patches not withstanding.
They also lost a large percentage of their farm machinery.
Soviet steel production in 1942 was less than 1/2 of what was in 1941, it barely reached about 2/3rds in 1945. If your railroads are moving troops and equipment and raw materials to factories they are not moving food stuffs around the country. Rails wear out. Steel wheels on railroad cars wear out. Locomotives wear out.
Every ton of railroad rail supplied by Lend Lease freed up a Russian ton of steel for armament production. 

The Lend lease was small in effect and didn't change much argument rarely looks deep into what was really going on. 
They also get somethings wrong. It is often claimed that the Soviets blended LL aviation fuel with their own fuel to make higher octane, which may be true to some extent. However the Allies also supplied large amounts of anti-knock compound which was a much more efficient way of raising the octane rating of Soviet fuel.
Mix one gallon of 100 octane with one gallon of 80 octane to make two gallons of 90 something octane? Or add 2-3 CCs of anti knock compound to the gallon of soviet 80 octane to make 90 octane or above? Which is easier to ship?

Why ship small arms ammo when you can supply a Soviet factory with Brass (or copper to make brass ) and propellent and let the soviets provide the other materials, and labor.

The US supplied the Soviet union with 140 million tons of smokeless powder.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 10, 2021)

Glider said:


> I have to say that you are very good at ignoring questions that are difficult or impossible to answer, using the age old tactic of just asking more questions.
> 
> I am waiting for a response to the question.
> 
> ...


About the rail network : at the start of the war,the Soviets had a big reserve of unused rail material..
It is not on me to give the number of tanks the Soviets could have produced without LL armour plate,the same for aluminium for aircraft and tank engines .
If you want to convince people, it is on you, not on me,to prove your claim .
This means: how many aluminium was available for the Soviets ?: stock and production .
How many aircraft could they produce with their aluminium ?
How many aircraft were produced with LL aluminium ?
How many of this second group were used ?Aircraft without pilots and support units are useless .
Is there a proof that without LL supplies,the Soviets had only less than 50 % of armour plate available ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 10, 2021)

If you claim that the available number are different, then it is up to YOU to provide the figures and sources of the contrary numbers.
Otherwise, in an academic environment, those fantastic contrary claims are viewed as...well...to put it bluntly: bullshit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 10, 2021)

About the number of LL locs sent to the USSR ( was it 350 , or 2000 ,or another number ? ),were these US locs or Soviet locs made in the US ?Could US locs operate in the US ?The Soviet railways were different :in width and a lot of them were using wood during the war .If the LL locs had to be build following the Soviet norms, how long would it take to build one ? Were these locs steam,or diesel locs ?
As the outcome of the war was decided in the Summer of 1941,when no US LL deliveries had arrived, it is very doubtful that without LL supplies the USSR would have collapsed .
Maybe the Soviet advance would be slower,but it is doubtful that the speed of the Soviet advance was depending on LL trucks : there were in June 1941 almost no decent roads in the USSR . The speed of he Soviet advance was also depending on what the Germans could and would do .It took the Soviets 2 months to go from Smolensk to Warsaw (operation Bagration ) ,would it take them longer if they had no LL trucks ?


----------



## Graeme (Jun 10, 2021)

How Lend-Lease Spam helped solve Soviet urinary frequency on the Russian Front. 







(The Taste of War)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 10, 2021)

Graeme said:


> How Lend-Lease Spam helped solve Soviet urinary frequency on the Russian Front.
> 
> View attachment 626845
> 
> ...


I know all of this ,but you start from the unproved and unlikely assertion that every thing Stalin asked for and received was with the intention to use it .There are no figures about the % of spam that was used by the Red Army .It is not because X tons of spam was arriving ( I will look at Moskoff for the exact figures ) that X tons of spam were used .
A part was used , but another part ( maybe bigger ) was not used and was kept in reserve .
Before the war,and maybe during the war,the Soviets produced more oil than they consumed and after the war, they bought more food from the West than they were using .
We are talking about a society ( several societies,because in a lot of Western societies the situation was not much different ) of EIGHTY years ago,a society where people never knew how many food would be available the next day; there had been in less than 50 years 3 very big famines in Russia ,famines who could reappear every day ,this means that the regime needed to have a big food reserve for the population of the cities and for the army (not only the 6 million front troops ) . The peasants would feed themselves .
LL food was essentially used as a reserve in case there was a food crisis ,meanwhile the army would live of the land ,as armies always do .
There was no affluent society in 1941 in the USSR, neither in 1990 .


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I know all of this ,but you start from the unproved and unlikely assertion that every thing Stalin asked for and received was with the intention to use it .There are no figures about the % of spam that was used by the Red Army .It is not because X tons of spam was arriving ( I will look at Moskoff for the exact figures ) that X tons of spam were used .
> A part was used , but another part ( maybe bigger ) was not used and was kept in reserve .
> Before the war,and maybe during the war,the Soviets produced more oil than they consumed and after the war, they bought more food from the West than they were using .
> We are talking about a society ( several societies,because in a lot of Western societies the situation was not much different ) of EIGHTY years ago,a society where people never knew how many food would be available the next day; there had been in less than 50 years 3 very big famines in Russia ,famines who could reappear every day ,this means that the regime needed to have a big food reserve for the population of the cities and for the army (not only the 6 million front troops ) . The peasants would feed themselves .
> ...




There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start. 

Few modern armies lived off the land. It was quite possible in the middle ages or even in into the 1800s. Battle of Waterloo had about 73,000 French vs 118,000 for the British and allies. 
Depending on the size of your divisions the French force was equal to 5-8 WW II Divisions. Many armies _supplemented_ their rations by taking local food stocks/resources which is somewhat different. It also varies enormously depending on local climate and land. Living off the land in North Africa is obviously impossible, but then expecting tens of thousands of troops to live off the land for months during a Russian winter is also impossible. 
If you expect your troops to live off the land as they advance (or even march through your on territory to the front) the routes much be chosen that run in parallel a sufficient distance apart (sometimes limited by geography) or else the leading troops get all the good stuff close to the line of march and the following troops have to search further and further from the line of march to find sufficient food. Which delays the arrival of the troops at the back of the line of march. 
This was all well known to staff officers well before the 20th century. 
Front line troops cannot live off the land. They can steal a few chickens or eggs or whatnot but thousands of troops within a few Kilometers of the enemy cannot wander around the countryside looking for food stuffs that are going to wind up being further and further way everyday. 

It appears your contention is that the Russians stopped the Germans in 1941 and then took 4 years to advance on Germany while taking the vast majority of lend lease aid and throwing it in warehouses for post war use. 

It is no good for the Soviets to 'produce' oil if they cannot refine it or get it where they need it. Mostly rail transport and a few pipelines. What was the quality of Russian oil? 
Not a dig at the Russians, US oil varied from field to field. It seems to run east to west. Poor quality in the east (Pennsylvania) and high quality in the west (California) with the middle of country having somewhat middle 'quality' When using 1920s refining technology Pennsylvania crude yielded about 40 octane gasoline while California crude yielded about 70 octane. 
US refining got much better but there were still marked differences as to amount of gasoline you could get from a barrel of crude from different areas. 
Back to steel for a moment, The US introduced a new refining technique (or new additive, not lead), I forget which at the moment that saved them the amount of steel needed to build 15 destroyers to get the same yield of high octane gas from existing oil supply stocks. Improved infrastructure requires steel. 

US Locos sent to Russia would have the wheels space appropriately for the Russian tracks. Not a problem. Lend lease Locos had very little to do with stopping the Germans (like nothing) as they arrived too late. They did help with the advance in 1944-45. The Russians may have been able to save a fairly large number of the pre war locomotives during the evacuations. These are going to wear out, The US railroads were in much worse shape in 1945 than they were in 1941 due to aging locomotive fleets and lack of maintenance on the rails/roadbeds. British railroads also suffered. 

Burning wood in a coal locomotive is possible but is a sign of true desperation. Wood has nowhere near as much heat value per pound or cubic ft as coal and a locomotive designed for wood burning has a much bigger firebox for the same power. Heck, the fireboxes for locomotives burning different types of coal varied considerably. You can move the coal burner using wood, just don't expect to go very fast or pull anywhere near as many cars. Which means you need a crap load more wood burning locomotives to move the same cargo as far, as fast. 
US used Locomotive shops to build tanks in the early part of the war. AS did the Canadians and I believe the British. 
Large locomotives can only be built in specialty shops although crude repairs can sometimes be carried out with rather primitive equipment. 

Once again, you cannot look at war totals and form any sort of valid conclusion. You have to look at what arrived in aid when, what were the Soviet stocks of their own equipment of the time and so on. Lend lease tanks formed the largest percentage of the Soviet tank park in 1942 that they ever did. While deliveries continued the importance of lend lease tanks did diminish as the war went on. Using end of war totals doesn't show the importance in 1942/43.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

I was wondering how the quantity of Lend Lease material sent to the Soviet Union compared to the amount of material produced by the Third Reich. How much steel/oil/railroad equipment/etc. was sent to the USSR compared to how much steel/oil/railroad equipment/etc. Germany produced?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.
> 
> Few modern armies lived off the land. It was quite possible in the middle ages or even in into the 1800s. Battle of Waterloo had about 73,000 French vs 118,000 for the British and allies.
> .


Napoleons armies lived off the land, it is great for logistics because you dont need a wagon train to supply you however it has two huge disadvantages. If you have to retreat you do so across land you just pillaged with people who have nothing because you took it and hate you for making them starve. Living off the land in Spain made the Spanish so hostile to the French that Wellington beat them with an army about a tenth of the size. Even in France they found themselves booted out for free loading when Wellington was paying for food.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

The problem with food is moving it and keeping it. Every small holding in Russia may have had some surplus, but collecting it and transporting it to the front is a task bigger than its worth. Most meat is kept in the shape of an animal, if you transport the animal it dies long before you get it anywhere. To make it transportable needs equipment. Everyone would prefer beef and pork to Spam and corned beef, until the beef and pork is a week old in summer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

In chronological order.
1 BoB
2 Moscow
3 Midway
4 Stalingrad
5 Okinawa

First 4 because if the result was reversed the consequences would have been disastrous, Okinawa because the death toll over one small island led (in my opinion) to the bomb being used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 10, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.
> 
> Few modern armies lived off the land. It was quite possible in the middle ages or even in into the 1800s. Battle of Waterloo had about 73,000 French vs 118,000 for the British and allies.
> Depending on the size of your divisions the French force was equal to 5-8 WW II Divisions. Many armies _supplemented_ their rations by taking local food stocks/resources which is somewhat different. It also varies enormously depending on local climate and land. Living off the land in North Africa is obviously impossible, but then expecting tens of thousands of troops to live off the land for months during a Russian winter is also impossible.
> ...


About living of the land : the Japanese lived of the land in WWII, the Germans did , not only front troops, but also occupation forces .And not only in Russia .They planned to feed the WM with food from Russia .
That using wood is less efficient is true, but that is not the point : the point is that during WWII the Soviet railways used more wood because of production and transport problems of coal .
About the ''quality '' of oil , this is subordinate : the Soviet Air force was not more efficient when it used avgas from the US .
About the importance of LL : a lot of people in the US are still claiming, 80 years after the facts ,that the Soviets would have lost without LL and this for the reasons we know .They ignore/hide that Barbarossa was planned as a short and fast campaign that would be decided after a few weeks and would be finished after a few months . The reason for this was that the Germans knew that Barbarossa could succeed only if it was a fast and short campaign . We all know that during Barbarossa I and Barbarossa II (Taifun ) there was no LL arriving in the USSR . That there were LL tanks in 1942 is irrelevant because with or without LL the Germans had no possibility to defeat the Soviets in 1942 or in 1943 or in 1944 .
The only thing one can say (and even this is dubious ) is that without LL the Soviets would not be in Berlin on May 1 1945 but later .
And why dubious ? Because the importance of trucks, tanks and oil 80 years ago in Russia is much exaggerated : both armies fought in a destroyed country without decent roads ,with few drivers, technicians, with only few spare parts .
Did the Soviets use LL deliveries ? Yes, but only very sparingly : it is not that because half of their explosives were LL deliveries ,that half of the used explosives were LL deliveries .
An increase of production does not mean an increase of consumption .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

I'm aware some of the larger campaigns in Russia. During the siege of Leningrad and at the gates of Moscow, how did troops live off the land?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 10, 2021)

My mother's uncle became a nervous wreck delivering petroleum to Russia via the Arctic convoys. His tanker was never hit but he lost plenty of shipmates a tanker of refined oil is a floating bomb and not many crew survived the blast of a torpedo, bomb or shell. If they survived the blast they had only minutes to be rescued before the cold water killed them.

I am sure he would have been sore to know that the fuel wasn't needed and that the Soviet Union was awash with warehouses of supplies that were being kept for the post war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm aware some of the larger campaigns in Russia. During the siege of Stalingrad and at the gates of Moscow, how did troops live off the land?


Leningrad is the most severe example I think Siege of Leningrad - Wikipedia


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Leningrad is the most severe example I think Siege of Leningrad - Wikipedia


I just logged on to change that post. 
Yes, I meant Leningrad.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

I had a senior moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I just logged on to change that post.
> Yes, I meant Leningrad.


I remember seeing the documentary series "World at War" narrated by Laurence Olivier when I was young, it had an episode that was in part on The Siege of Leningrad, its a hard watch but was a great series. (episode 11 if you have access to it)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 10, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Sticking with aircraft only:
> 
> British industry may somehow have covered the needs of the RAF during the war, especially if several thousand Hurricanes and Spitfires hadn't been sent to the Soviet Union - but that would not have been true for the RN FAA - just as many Martlets, Hellcats and F4U Corsairs were supplied to the RN as were Sea Hurricanes and Seafires, not to mention all those "Tarpons". The RAF might have been able to be equipped with British industry sourced aircraft - but what about the Commonwealth partners, Australia, NZ and South Africa?
> Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall the US supplied the UK and Commonwealth with around 42,000 aircraft - or what was the figure?



The aircraft provided to the Commonwealth did not have to transit the trans-Atlantic supply chain. My question is not about the validity or significance of Lend Lease. It's about the Battle of the Atlantic being the most important battle of WW2.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The aircraft provided to the Commonwealth did not have to transit the trans-Atlantic supply chain. My question is not about the validity or significance of Lend Lease. It's about the Battle of the Atlantic being the most important battle of WW2.


To me it was vital that it was won, it was the only thing that kept Churchill awake at night. In hindsight we now know that although losses were huge it wasnt close to actually being lost. It could have been though, suppose Enigma wasnt broken and SONAR and airborne RADAR was harder to develop it could have been much harder than it was historically or even forced a change in policy. How many troop ships and ships full of aircrew/ground crew would the USA stand losing before something changed? Admittedly its a "what if", at the time they didnt know what came next on either side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> To me it was vital that it was won, it was the only thing that kept Churchill awake at night. In hindsight we now know that although losses were huge it wasnt close to actually being lost. It could have been though, suppose Enigma wasnt broken and SONAR and airborne RADAR was harder to develop it could have been much harder than it was historically or even forced a change in policy. How many troop ships and ships full of aircrew/ground crew would the USA stand losing before something changed? Admittedly its a "what if", at the time they didnt know what came next on either side.



Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
 2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.


I didnt have the battle of the Atlantic on my list, it was equally important but not close to being lost in my opinion. It could be argued that the BoB wasnt close to being lost either, but included in the BoB is having Churchill as leader, it only takes a different politician to lose that battle simply by not wanting to fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2021)

ljadw said:


> About the rail network : at the start of the war,the Soviets had a big reserve of unused rail material..


 A big statement without any evidence to support it.


> It is not on me to give the number of tanks the Soviets could have produced without LL armour plate,the same for aluminium for aircraft and tank engines .


 A convenient approach. The logical starting point would be that if you have half the armour plate, then you have half the tanks.


> If you want to convince people, it is on you, not on me,to prove your claim .


 My evidence is the Russian report that I gave a link to. If you could support your position I would be very interested to read it.


> This means: how many aluminium was available for the Soviets ?: stock and production .


 Partly correct. If you have approx 60% less aluminium then logically you can only produce 60% less material


> How many aircraft could they produce with their aluminium ?
> How many aircraft were produced with LL aluminium ?


 To the best of my knowledge the aircraft were not stamped with 'Made from LL material'.


> How many of this second group were used ?Aircraft without pilots and support units are useless .


 I really cannot see the logic of this posting. What on earth has the training and support units got to do with the material that built the aircraft


> Is there a proof that without LL supplies, the Soviets had only less than 50 % of armour plate available ?


 Once again I have supplied the Russian Report making these statements, if you have something different I an no doubt others would like to see your supporting material

PS I take you have dropped your theory that the Shetland Islands can support the Invasion Fleet, Air Fleets let alone the armies needed for a second front?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 10, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> My mother's uncle became a nervous wreck delivering petroleum to Russia via the Arctic convoys. His tanker was never hit but he lost plenty of shipmates a tanker of refined oil is a floating bomb and not many crew survived the blast of a torpedo, bomb or shell. If they survived the blast they had only minutes to be rescued before the cold water killed them.
> 
> I am sure he would have been sore to know that the fuel wasn't needed and that the Soviet Union was awash with warehouses of supplies that were being kept for the post war.


This is an old tactic : answering to something that has not been said,to avoid answering to something that was said .
I never said that the USSR was awash with warehouses of supplies that were being kept for the post war . I said that it is not so that the population of the non occupied parts of the SU would have perished without LL food,as since 80 years has been claimed .
About the oil : the Soviets received 2,7 million ton of LL oil.Compare this to the 80/90 million ton of oil the Soviets produced during the war .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 10, 2021)

Glider said:


> A big statement without any evidence to support it. A convenient approach. The logical starting point would be that if you have half the armour plate, then you have half the tanks. My evidence is the Russian report that I gave a link to. If you could support your position I would be very interested to read it. Partly correct. If you have approx 60% less aluminium then logically you can only produce 60% less material To the best of my knowledge the aircraft were not stamped with 'Made from LL material'. I really cannot see the logic of this posting. What on earth has the training and support units got to do with the material that built the aircraft Once again I have supplied the Russian Report making these statements, if you have something different I an no doubt others would like to see your supporting material
> 
> PS I take you have dropped your theory that the Shetland Islands can support the Invasion Fleet, Air Fleets let alone the armies needed for a second front?


It was very possible for the US Marines who were present at Iceland already before PH to go to the Shetland Islands and from there to the Highlands and to London . Who would stop them ?
I never said that the Shetlands would replace Liverpool .
Besides: why would a second front be necessary to defeat Germany ? The US could easily nuke Germany ,starting from an airfield in the Highlands .
About the LL aircraft :even if X aircraft were produced with LL material, this would not mean X operational aircraft ,as aircraft can not fly without pilots and the pilots would not be trained by LL .


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2021)

ljadw said:


> This is an old tactic : answering to something that has not been said,to avoid answering to something that was said .
> I never said that the USSR was awash with warehouses of supplies that were being kept for the post war . I said that it is not so that the population of the non occupied parts of the SU would have perished without LL food,as since 80 years has been claimed .
> About the oil : the Soviets received 2,7 million ton of LL oil.Compare this to the 80/90 million ton of oil the Soviets produced during the war .



A thought about the oil, I certainly don't claim much knowledge on this. Generally speaking Russian oil wasn't as refined as Western European oil. I do know that the German army had a lot of difficulties when using captured Russian stocks. Russia did get and used a fair amount of American and British equipment and that equipment was designed to use highly refined fuel.
The importance of the LL fuel may well have more to do with the importance of the fuel to the American and British equipment, than the actual quantity. Not that 2.7 million tons is to be sniffed at.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 10, 2021)

Glider said:


> A thought about the oil, I certainly don't claim much knowledge on this. Generally speaking Russian oil wasn't as refined as Western European oil. I do know that the German army had a lot of difficulties when using captured Russian stocks. Russia did get and used a fair amount of American and British equipment and that equipment was designed to use highly refined fuel.
> The importance of the LL fuel may well have more to do with the importance of the fuel to the American and British equipment, than the actual quantity. Not that 2.7 million tons is to be sniffed at.


This is moving the goalposts to a discussion what was ''better '' US/British aircraft and oil or Soviet aircraft and oil .
And I doubt that there is something as a better aircraft,because the qualities of an aircraft depend also on the qualities of the pilots and the technicians .
An other thing about LL aircraft : the importance of X LL aircraft depend also on the number of trained Soviet pilots and I would not be surprised if during a lot of months these LL aircraft remained idle on the ground because there were no pilots and technicians for them .
It is the same for the tanks .
About the Soviet loc reserve I will search ,I remember that some one at the AHF has given the figures .


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It was very possible for the US Marines who were present at Iceland already before PH to go to the Shetland Islands and from there to the Highlands and to London . Who would stop them ?
> I never said that the Shetlands would replace Liverpool .
> Besides: why would a second front be necessary to defeat Germany ? The US could easily nuke Germany ,starting from an airfield in the Highlands .
> About the LL aircraft :even if X aircraft were produced with LL material, this would not mean X operational aircraft ,as aircraft can not fly without pilots and the pilots would not be trained by LL .


This is simply priceless.

The original premise is that the UK is out of the fight because the British lost the Battle of the Atlantic. No UK = no using Inverness, or Liverpool, or any part of the UK, or even the Shetland Islands as the last time I looked the Shetland Islands were in the Atlantic.

Why was a second Front needed? because Russia may well have folded if the Germans could use the forces in Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 10, 2021)

The U.S. Marines were sent to Iceland to prevent it being taken by Germany for a weather station and to provide security for the air assets. There weren't enough of them to invade Europe, Where would you park the supplies that are needed for invasion? The Marines , though, might say they could do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I remember seeing the documentary series "World at War" narrated by Laurence Olivier when I was young, it had an episode that was in part on The Siege of Leningrad, its a hard watch but was a great series. (episode 11 if you have access to it)


Seen it! It was a long time ago. I remember my friends and I commenting about the “bread”.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Seen it! It was a long time ago. I remember my friends and I commenting about the “bread”.


I was 13-14 when it was shown first, many parts were shocking, but I was fascinated, enthralled, engrossed in it. (hard to find the proper word)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 10, 2021)

I haven't used the ignore button in a long time. Good to know it still works 😌

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> I haven't used the ignore button in a long time. Good to know it still works 😌


I can still see you though

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I remember seeing the documentary series "World at War" narrated by Laurence Olivier when I was young, it had an episode that was in part on The Siege of Leningrad, its a hard watch but was a great series. (episode 11 if you have access to it)



All 26 episodes are on YT. Great series, indeed.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Don't disagree but if the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.



Had the Battle of the Atlantic been lost, how fruitful might the Battle of Britain actually have been? 

Don't get me wrong -- winning the BoB was necessary, but not in itself sufficient for winning the war.


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2021)

ljadw said:


> This is moving the goalposts to a discussion what was ''better '' US/British aircraft and oil or Soviet aircraft and oil .
> And I doubt that there is something as a better aircraft,because the qualities of an aircraft depend also on the qualities of the pilots and the technicians .
> An other thing about LL aircraft : the importance of X LL aircraft depend also on the number of trained Soviet pilots and I would not be surprised if during a lot of months these LL aircraft remained idle on the ground because there were no pilots and technicians for them .
> It is the same for the tanks .
> About the Soviet loc reserve I will search ,I remember that some one at the AHF has given the figures .



Actually it isn't, I was only trying to identify a theory (no more than that) as to why the LL would include fuel if Russia had sufficient of its own. In other words I was trying to find a theory that supported your statement that Russia had enough fuel for its needs

In 1939 most if not all the airforces in the world used 87 octane fuel, or similar. By roughly May 1940 the UK had converted all its fighters to 100 octane fuel which increased the power of the Merlin engine by almost 30 percent up to approx 15,000 ft. Only the UK and the USA had this fuel, even the Germans were only using captured stocks during the summer of 1940, although they were developing their own higher grade fuel. Indeed Germany never had enough higher octane fuel to make it a standard. Japan was in a similar situation. As the war progressed the British / American 100 octane fuel was developed further.

Russia had quite a large selection of fuel but had to rely on mixing additions to the fuel to increase the octane levels, but to the best of my knowledge didn't have have any 100 octane fuel.

Whatever you think of them, Russia did receive a lot of P39, P40, Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft and if you were going to make the most of those aircraft and have them operating at peak efficiency, then you would have needed fuel that Russia didn't have. That in turn would be a reason for importing fuel when if you look at the volume figures they should have had enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2021)

ljadw said:


> This is moving the goalposts to a discussion what was ''better '' US/British aircraft and oil or Soviet aircraft and oil .
> And I doubt that there is something as a better aircraft,because the qualities of an aircraft depend also on the qualities of the pilots and the technicians .
> An other thing about LL aircraft : the importance of X LL aircraft depend also on the number of trained Soviet pilots and I would not be surprised if during a lot of months these LL aircraft remained idle on the ground because there were no pilots and technicians for them .
> It is the same for the tanks .
> About the Soviet loc reserve I will search ,I remember that some one at the AHF has given the figures .




A lot of rather twisted logic. 

Not enough pilots or ground crew for Lend lease aircraft and tanks but enough for Russian built equipment? 

Sources for that please. 

There was nothing wrong with Russian petroleum products for Russian equipment. There is a difference between petroleum *products *and petroleum as it comes from the ground. 
The Best Soviet aviation fuel was about 95/96 octane. It needed a fair amount of lead added, about 4cc per kilogram. It use in Lend lease combat planes would limit performance at the very least. it's use in transports might have worked OK. 
I may have inadvertently created some confusion earlier. In some accounts they claim that the Soviets mixed lend lease fuel with Soviet fuel to raise the octane rating of the soviet fuel.
I tried to point out that this was not a very efficient way of doing it. The US sent 558,766 gals. of Ethyl fluid to Russia as part of lend lease. at 3-4 CCs per Kilogram of fuel that is a lot of high octane fuel for Russian engines. Shipping something over 500,000 gallons of additive is a lot more efficient in raising Soviet base stock fuel than shipping millions of gallons of high octane fuel to be mixed with Soviet fuel. Which probably wouldn't work anyway. Aviation gasoline is a lot more complicated that most people think. 

Soviets had about 13 class of steam locomotives built from 1925 on, not counting very small batches and experimentals. There were quite a number of older models which were still around. Some of the larger ones would be very hard to fire with wood. Some were already using oil firing. Some used mechanical stokers with coal. I don't doubt that the soviets resorted to wood firing on occasion. But it is a lousy way to try and move large loads long distances. 

You might want to to look at : Complete List of Lend Lease to Russia including atomic materials

for a complete list of materials sent by the US to Russia, not including combat vehicles and planes. You might not.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 10, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Had the Battle of the Atlantic been lost, how fruitful might the Battle of Britain actually have been?
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- winning the BoB was necessary, but not in itself sufficient for winning the war.



Few individual battles were sufficient for winning a war. You can apply that to any of the battles we listed. 

The whole gist of my Post #790 is asking the same question you are. I'm not convinced "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic would have knocked the UK out of the war. Yes, we got a lot of materials, food and materiel from the States and the UK's ability to wage war would have been reduced...but it wouldn't have been stopped completely. 

It's not clear what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" would mean. Does it mean no supplies at all getting to the UK? Frankly, I just don't see that as a realistic outcome. As noted, Germany didn't have sufficient vessels to do that. Germany might have gained (in fact it did gain) temporary superiority. However, it couldn't achieve maritime supremacy over the RN let alone the combined efforts of the RN and USN. 

If someone's willing to better define what winning the Battle of the Atlantic looks like, I may reconsider. However, for now, I still vote for the BoB as the most significant battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Few individual battles were sufficient for winning a war. You can apply that to any of the battles we listed.
> 
> The whole gist of my Post #790 is asking the same question you are. I'm not convinced "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic would have knocked the UK out of the war. Yes, we got a lot of materials, food and materiel from the States and the UK's ability to wage war would have been reduced...but it wouldn't have been stopped completely.
> 
> ...



I guess we'd have to define "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic, yeah. If we're talking production falling behind losses for a given period, that might not be fatal at all. If we're talking replacements being sunk as they come off the shipways, that's another story.

I definitely agree with you that no one battle won WWII. There were decisive moments, and a solid school of thought that depicts the five Allied victories in the last half of 1942 (Midway, El Alamein, Guadalcanal, Stalingrad, and Torch) that depicts those six months as crucial. But I don't think any one or two of those lost (except Torch, because rebuffed invasions are horribly expensive) would alone be decisive. The Allies had both the land, production, and manpower to afford defeats better than the Axis.

I certainly regard the BoB as vital, because without it, no other benefits would flow for the Western Allies. But that doesn't to my mind mean that it was decisive. Shit could still have gone very south in 1941, depending on where the Bohemian corporal turned his gaze next. That he looked East was his biggest mistake, to me; but that's not a decisive battle, that's just bad decisionin'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I can still see you though



Damn must have pressed the wrong button 🤪

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 11, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of rather twisted logic.
> 
> Not enough pilots or ground crew for Lend lease aircraft and tanks but enough for Russian built equipment?
> 
> ...


I did not say that there were enough pilots/ground crew for Russian built equipment,the reality is that it took more time to train pilots/ground crew than to build aircraft/tanks and that it took more time to train pilots/ground crew for foreign aircraft /tanks than for Russian aircraft/tanks : there was a language barrier, you know.There were only few Russians with English knowledge : such people had always at night a suitcase ready for the probability that the Cheka would knock at 3 PM for a vacation in the Gulag .
Instructors and trainees would need a knowledge of English . 
That's why the sudden appearance of Western tanks (Matilda ) and aircraft can not be translated as an increase of the strength of the Soviet army and air force .
The same for the deliveries of US fuel : could Soviet aircraft use US fuel ? And if so ,what was the effect on the ''accomplishments '' of Soviet pilots ? Did they shoot more German aircraft ?
There were not that many aircraft-to aircraft - fights in the East (and elsewhere ) : relatively most aircraft losses were non combat causes . Idem for tank losses .
US aircraft losses : operational 53000/non operational 42000
Soviets : operational 46000/non operational : 60000 !


----------



## ljadw (Jun 11, 2021)

Glider said:


> Actually it isn't, I was only trying to identify a theory (no more than that) as to why the LL would include fuel if Russia had sufficient of its own. In other words I was trying to find a theory that supported your statement that Russia had enough fuel for its needs
> 
> In 1939 most if not all the airforces in the world used 87 octane fuel, or similar. By roughly May 1940 the UK had converted all its fighters to 100 octane fuel which increased the power of the Merlin engine by almost 30 percent up to approx 15,000 ft. Only the UK and the USA had this fuel, even the Germans were only using captured stocks during the summer of 1940, although they were developing their own higher grade fuel. Indeed Germany never had enough higher octane fuel to make it a standard. Japan was in a similar situation. As the war progressed the British / American 100 octane fuel was developed further.
> 
> ...


As the Western aircraft were only a small minority of the total aircraft number of the Soviets,this means that the importance of the avgas for these aircraft should not be exaggerated .
Other point : 100 octane fuel was needed for the Spitfires to fly in Russia, but it was not enough ther things were needed,as pilots , Russian pilots, and there was always a big shortage of pilots .
An increase of the power of the Merlin engine by 30 % was NOT sufficient to make a Spitfire operating at ''peak efficiency ''. And ,even if this was possible, that would not make the Russian pilot to shoot German aircraft or more German aircraft than an other pilot using a Russian fighter . : the situation at the Eastern front was totally different : there was no air battle of the SU : mostly German and Soviet aircraft did not see an opponent when they were patrolling .


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2021)

ljadw said:


> .There were only few Russians with English knowledge : such people had always at night a suitcase ready for the probability that the Cheka would knock at 3 PM for a vacation in the Gulag .



I guess most of the ones with any knowledge of English had been shot in 1937-38? many large factories had been design by western companies and built in Russia with a large amount of western supervisions (hundreds of westerners on site). Of course the fact that there were literately several dozen languages and dialects used in the Soviet Union itself didn't help any. 



ljadw said:


> That's why the sudden appearance of Western tanks (Matilda ) and aircraft can not be translated as an increase of the strength of the Soviet army and air force .


 It was a matter of 6-8 weeks from landing the Matildas in Murmansk to their appearance near Moscow. Granted in small numbers and perhaps for propaganda? Yes it took longer to aircraft into service. However the Hurricane Squadron/s at Murmansk were manned by the British while training went on. 



ljadw said:


> The same for the deliveries of US fuel : could Soviet aircraft use US fuel ? And if so ,what was the effect on the ''accomplishments '' of Soviet pilots ? Did they shoot more German aircraft ?


Soviet aircraft could use US fuel, it didn't increase the power any. Increasing the boost on the engine to take advantage of the fuel could very well lead to a broken engine very quickly and the engine would run hotter when using the increased boost, depending on weather and conditions soviet aircraft tended to run hot or at least had little margin for "improved" engines with existing cooling systems. 
However a plane sitting on the ground because it has no fuel isn't shooting down anything. 
In reverse British and American aircraft trying to use Soviet fuel could fly, they just couldn't use full throttle. 

My own believe is that some people confuse US fuel (the actual gasoline) with the additives I mentioned earlier. 
With each gallon of additive able to treat hundreds of gallons of fuel the shipments of Ethyl fluid made a huge difference to the Russian fuel supply. 
Running Yaks on 95 octane instead of 80 octane fuel did make a huge difference. 80 octane is what they used in PO-2s.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 11, 2021)

About the importance of LL locs and wagons for the Soviets : at the start of the war the Soviets had more than 20000 locs and 500000/650000 wagons. Source : Lend-Lease on Wiki .
They received from LL 1911 locs (5,5% of their stock ) and 11225 wagons (5,3 % ) and this over a period of 4 years .
Thus, it is very dubious to claim that the Soviet railways would have collapsed without the LL deliveries .


----------



## Marcel (Jun 11, 2021)

As you guys still seem to keep this thread active, I think I should move it back to WW2 general


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2021)

ljadw said:


> About the importance of LL locs and wagons for the Soviets : at the start of the war the Soviets had more than 20000 locs and 500000/650000 wagons. Source : Lend-Lease on Wiki .
> They received from LL 1911 locs (5,5% of their stock ) and 11225 wagons (5,3 % ) and this over a period of 4 years .
> Thus, it is very dubious to claim that the Soviet railways would have collapsed without the LL deliveries .



The question is collapsed when? 

You are back to trying to spread out the LL contribution and compare it to the total production of the Soviet Union averaged out for the entire war. 
US actually sent the vast majority of the locomotives in 1944-45, perhaps a few in 1943? not sure about the wagons.
Soviet Production of locomotives seems to have pretty much stopped in 1942. 

The collapse of the Soviet Railways in 1943-44 would not have been due to lack of locomotives (or at least locomotives already built) and wagons but due to lack of rails, wheels, axles. 

Railway car wheels, excl. locomotive ......................................44,532,719 lbs. 
Railway car tire & locomotive wheels ...................................46,138,050 lbs. 
Railway car axles, without wheels .......................................69,818,310 lbs. 
Railway car axles, with wheels .........................................................45,900,258 lbs. 
Railway locomotive car axles with- 
out wheels ..........................................................................................1,632,615 lbs. 
Railway locomotive car axles with 
wheels.......................................................................................................2,190,959 lbs.


Some of the railway supplies that the US provided, Boiler tubes were listed separately, and there were some categories that just lumped a bunch of things together. 

One item was 28,500 tons of railroad spikes, Not a particularly sophisticated item (junior apprentice blacksmith stuff) but it wasn't just locomotives and rail cars. 

Again, with the US supplying this kind of stuff the Soviets could concentrate on weapons. 

The US did not save the Russian railways in 1942-43 (and I never claimed they did) but the Russian railways ability to support any major advances in 1944 45 without US aid is also dubious. 

Unless we go back to the argument that the soviets didn't need this stuff, they just asked for and threw it in warehouses to be used later? 

Please look at the link I posted, the list is around 26-27 pages and is supposed to be what the Soviets _received_ not what was shipped.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> 80 octane is what they used in PO-2s.



And lawnmowers....same engine, you see!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2021)

ljadw said:


> An increase of the power of the Merlin engine by 30 % was NOT sufficient to make a Spitfire operating at ''peak efficiency ''.



The following may help from Wiki

_From late 1939, 100-octane fuel became available from the U.S., West Indies, Persia, and, in smaller quantities, domestically,[53] consequently, "... in the first half of 1940 the RAF transferred all Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons to 100 octane fuel."[54] Small modifications were made to Merlin II and III series engines, allowing an increased (emergency) boost pressure of +12 pounds per square inch (183 kPa; 1.85 atm). At this power setting these engines were able to produce 1,310 horsepower (977 kW) at 9,000 ft (2,700 m) while running at 3,000 revolutions per minute_.


*Merlin II* _(RM 1S)_
_1,030 hp (775 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 5,500 ft (1,676 m) using + 6 psi boost (41 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 144 kPa or 1.41 atm); used 100% glycol coolant. First production Merlin II delivered 10 August 1937.[14] Merlin II used in the Boulton Paul Defiant, Hawker Hurricane Mk.I, Supermarine Spitfire Mk.I fighters, and Fairey Battle light bomber.__[98]_


*Merlin III* _(RM 1S)_
Merlin III fitted with "universal" propeller shaft able to mount either de Havilland or Rotol propellers.[99] From late 1939, using 100-octane fuel and +12 psi boost (83 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 184 kPa or 1.82 atm), the Merlin III developed 1,310 hp (977 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 9,000 ft (2,700 m);[55] using 87-octane fuel the power ratings were the same as the Merlin II. Used in the Defiant, Hurricane Mk.I, Spitfire Mk.I fighters, and Battle light bomber.[98] First production Merlin III delivered 1 July 1938.[14] 

My contention is that any aircraft with an engine producing 1,310 horsepower is going to have a significant advantage over one with a 1,030 hp engine and for that you nee the 100 octane fuel



> And ,even if this was possible, that would not make the Russian pilot to shoot German aircraft or more German aircraft than an other pilot using a Russian fighter . : the situation at the Eastern front was totally different : there was no air battle of the SU : mostly German and Soviet aircraft did not see an opponent when they were patrolling .



First of all it clearly it was possible.
Secondly you are simply wrong if you believe that there was no air battle of the SU. The P39 was chosen for the Russian forces because the IL2 GA needed cover from fighters


----------



## ljadw (Jun 12, 2021)

Glider said:


> The following may help from Wiki
> 
> _From late 1939, 100-octane fuel became available from the U.S., West Indies, Persia, and, in smaller quantities, domestically,[53] consequently, "... in the first half of 1940 the RAF transferred all Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons to 100 octane fuel."[54] Small modifications were made to Merlin II and III series engines, allowing an increased (emergency) boost pressure of +12 pounds per square inch (183 kPa; 1.85 atm). At this power setting these engines were able to produce 1,310 horsepower (977 kW) at 9,000 ft (2,700 m) while running at 3,000 revolutions per minute_.
> 
> ...


You are ignoring the human role = the role of the pilot, of the crew,of the ground crew .
There was an air battle of Britain, but no air battle of the Soviet Union .
The importance of aviation in the German- Soviet war was much less than in the German-Wallies war , one of the reasons ( main reason? ) was the length of the front ,which was several thousands of km , and the almost absence of targets for the air forces. The Soviet war industry was safe at the Urals. The LW never attacked Magnitogorsk .The Douhet doctrine did not apply and was not tried in the USSR .
And, about the role of the fighters : it was, on both sides, subordinated to the bombers .
The chance that short range fighters would meet long range bombers,was very small .
About the P 39 : it remained an unknown ,alien aircraft for Soviet pilots, as would remain Soviet fighters for US pilots .
And, who did chose the P 39 for the East ? Soviets who had no knowledge of the P 39 or Americans,who had no knowledge of the East ?
What were the losses of the P 39 (combat/non combat ) ? Were they higher /lower than the combat/non combat losses of Soviet fighters ? And ,why ?
Is it not so that it was easier to train Russian pilots on Soviet aircraft than on Western aircraft? And that it was easier for Soviet pilots to fly Soviet aircraft than Western aircraft ?
The RAF did not like its P 39 and they were sent to the Soviets .
4719 P 39 fighters were sent to the Soviet Union,1030 were lost ( we don't know why so few were lost , maybe they were not much used ) We also don't know how many were lost by the German Flak and how many German aircraft were lost by the P 39 s.
Losses 1942 : 49
1943 : 305
1944 : 486 
1945 : 190


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I guess we'd have to define "losing" the Battle of the Atlantic, yeah. If we're talking production falling behind losses for a given period, that might not be fatal at all. If we're talking replacements being sunk as they come off the shipways, that's another story.
> 
> I definitely agree with you that no one battle won WWII. There were decisive moments, and a solid school of thought that depicts the five Allied victories in the last half of 1942 (Midway, El Alamein, Guadalcanal, Stalingrad, and Torch) that depicts those six months as crucial. But I don't think any one or two of those lost (except Torch, because rebuffed invasions are horribly expensive) would alone be decisive. The Allies had both the land, production, and manpower to afford defeats better than the Axis.
> 
> I certainly regard the BoB as vital, because without it, no other benefits would flow for the Western Allies. But that doesn't to my mind mean that it was decisive. Shit could still have gone very south in 1941, depending on where the Bohemian corporal turned his gaze next. That he looked East was his biggest mistake, to me; but that's not a decisive battle, that's just bad decisionin'.



The thing is, Hitler's move west against France in 1940 was simply a "necessary evil" which attempted to avoid a two-front war. Hitler's goal all along was the establishment of lebensraum (living space) for the "superior" Germanic peoples at the expense of the "inferior" Slavic peoples. Attacking Russia wasn't an afterthought; it was the central pillar of Hitler's policies going all the way back to Mein Kampf. 

Hitler felt he had to knock the Western European Allies out of the war first because he still feared being surrounded by treaties between the USSR and the Western Allies. Remember that France and the Soviet Union had signed a Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1935 that, in theory, was still in force in 1940 (although in practical terms it was as dead as a doornail). 

The title of the thread is the "most important battle of WW2." I still say that was the BoB. If Britain had followed France and pulled out of the war, there would have been no second front against Hitler. There would be no jumping-off point for an Allied invasion force, and hence America would have been standing alone against both Germany and Japan (and it could do precious little militarily to the former except keep trying to funnel arms and material to the USSR). Nazi Germany may still not have prevailed against the USSR but that would simply mean Western Europe swapping Nazi oppression for Soviet oppression. 

Lose the BoB and the entire future of the western world would have been very different, and very much worse, with no moving "forward into broad, sunlit uplands" that Churchill so longed to see. For me, it was the defining moment, the first time, when democracy stood up against autocratic regimes and prevailed. There can be no more important emblem for liberty and freedom. You can't say that about any of the other battles we've discussed on this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 12, 2021)

Hitler didn't have to invade France in 1940. He choose it.

One aspect of war history is the use of the words compelled or forced or had to. And it drives me up the wall.

Hitler wanted war. He chose war. He liked it. He was good at it. He was alive.

It is crystal clear with plenty evidence that Hitler wanted war. And war he got.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 12, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The aircraft provided to the Commonwealth did not have to transit the trans-Atlantic supply chain. My question is not about the validity or significance of Lend Lease. It's about the Battle of the Atlantic being the most important battle of WW2.



More basic than tanks or aircraft: Britain was not self-sufficient in food. The Battle of the Atlantic was a very long action to prevent the siege of the UK.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are ignoring the human role = the role of the pilot, of the crew,of the ground crew .
> There was an air battle of Britain, but no air battle of the Soviet Union .
> The importance of aviation in the German- Soviet war was much less than in the German-Wallies war , one of the reasons ( main reason? ) was the length of the front ,which was several thousands of km , and the almost absence of targets for the air forces. The Soviet war industry was safe at the Urals. The LW never attacked Magnitogorsk .The Douhet doctrine did not apply and was not tried in the USSR .
> And, about the role of the fighters : it was, on both sides, subordinated to the bombers .
> ...




Stalin asked for more P-39s at some point. He didn't want P-40s. The P-63 was built mostly for Russia. 
You are correct, Britain unloaded the P-39s they didn't want on the Soviets. However this was just before and during losing Singapore and Malaysia having used a small number of Buffaloes to defend the area, Britain didn't have lot of good choices for aircraft to send. 
During most of 1941 and early 1942 the I-16 was the most common Soviet fighter. Soviets also had thousands of biplane fighters. P-39 might not have looked so bad? 

we may be having a language barrier. "and the almost _absence of targets for the air forces_."

The Russians built around 36,000 IL-2s during the war, I am assuming they used them on something, some sort of target? 
The Russians also used just under 11,000 PE-2s and got about 3000 A-20s lend lease (of course these were immediately placed in storage and not used in combat, right?) 
Russians built around 5,000 IL-4s from 1941 on, not counting existing DB-3s.

Granted there was not a lot of long range bombing going on but there were plenty of targets for for the Air Forces on both sides.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> More basic than tanks or aircraft: Britain was not self-sufficient in food.



Yes, and as I've said earlier in the thread, if Britain lost the Battle of Britain, then the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.

I've asked a couple of times about the quantities of food and other non-military supplies but I've yet to find/receive any really solid answers. Bear in mind that Britain was still receiving supplies from across the Empire, not just from the U.S. Again, Germany simply did not have a sufficient fleet size to stop all the various supply routes, even though we often focus on supplies from the U.S. 

According to this website, Britain was importing 20 million tons of food per year at the start of WW2. That amount was halved during the war due to rationing and aggressive action by the British Government through various means to increase agricultural production (e.g. Dig for Victory). Despite that 50% reduction, food consumption only reduced by 10% overall. Also, these changes didn't negatively impact the population: infant mortality in Britain actually reduced from 58 per thousand to 45 per thousand.

If we can quantify how much food was actually needed/received across the Atlantic bridge, we might be able to make a more informed evaluation as to the real importance of the Battle of the Atlantic. I still don't really understand what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" would look like, given that completely halting supplies crossing the Atlantic seems impossible.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 12, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The thing is, Hitler's move west against France in 1940 was simply a "necessary evil" which attempted to avoid a two-front war. Hitler's goal all along was the establishment of lebensraum (living space) for the "superior" Germanic peoples at the expense of the "inferior" Slavic peoples. Attacking Russia wasn't an afterthought; it was the central pillar of Hitler's policies going all the way back to Mein Kampf.
> 
> Hitler felt he had to knock the Western European Allies out of the war first because he still feared being surrounded by treaties between the USSR and the Western Allies. Remember that France and the Soviet Union had signed a Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1935 that, in theory, was still in force in 1940 (although in practical terms it was as dead as a doornail).
> 
> ...


That's the old traditional but wrong POV :Hitler was not going west because he feared a coalition of the Wallies and the Soviets . This coalition was created by Hitler himself on June 22 1941 .Hitler went west because of the simple fact that the Wallies had declared war on him on September 3 1939 .
And, there is no proof that if Britain had given up , Hitler would have attacked the USSR .Besides,if Britain had given up , Hitler would be weaker in the east ( he would need 40 more divisions in the west ) .And if the SU had defeated Hitler on its own, it would not have occupied western Europe, for the simple reason that it had not the means to do it .It had already the greatest problems to occupy eastern Europe .
Last point : loosing the Battle of Britain was impossible and also irrelevant,because even if the LW won the Battle of Britain, Sealion remained totally impossible : the Germans had no transport fleet for their invasion force and no war ships to protect the transport fleet .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2021)

ljadw said:


> That's the old traditional but wrong POV :Hitler was not going west because he feared a coalition of the Wallies and the Soviets . This coalition was created by Hitler himself on June 22 1941 .Hitler went west because of the simple fact that the Wallies had declared war on him on September 3 1939.



And the Western Allies declared war because of Germany's attack on Poland, the population of which included Slavs and other "lower" populations. Hitler's policy was rooted in what he saw as the failure of Germany to support its armed forces during the Great War. A key challenge for Germany during WW1 was the lack of self-sufficiency in food and materials, made worse by the Entente Powers' blockade. Hitler didn't want that happening again so he sought to achieve that self-sufficiency (autarky) by taking neighbouring lands away from "lesser" peoples. 

Hitler didn't want a two-front war and so he sought to avoid that by attacking France. Thankfully, because Britain held out alone, it simply ended up ensuring there was a two-front war...which would ultimately seal Nazi Germany's doom.




ljadw said:


> And, there is no proof that if Britain had given up , Hitler would have attacked the USSR .Besides,if Britain had given up , Hitler would be weaker in the east ( he would need 40 more divisions in the west ).



Really? Have you actually studied the origins of WW2? Have you read ANY of the Nazi writings about lebensraum and the need for pure, Germanic peoples to take over the lands occupied by "lesser" populations like the Slavs? Hitler was going to attack Russia, period. It was the entire ethos of his "grand plan".




ljadw said:


> .And if the SU had defeated Hitler on its own, it would not have occupied western Europe, for the simple reason that it had not the means to do it .It had already the greatest problems to occupy eastern Europe.



With Britain out of the war, who on earth was there to stop the USSR from steamrollering into Western Europe? Please explain. I'd be delighted to hear. Are you suggesting that the USSR, yet another autocratic regime, would simply give Western Europe it's freedom? Sorry, I just don't buy that.




ljadw said:


> Last point : loosing the Battle of Britain was impossible and also irrelevant,because even if the LW won the Battle of Britain, Sealion remained totally impossible : the Germans had no transport fleet for their invasion force and no war ships to protect the transport fleet .



You don't need to invade to knock an adversary out of the war. Had 11 Group been forced to retreat, exposing London, it's entirely possible that Parliament would have initiated a no-confidence vote in Churchill's leadership. Replace Churchill with an appeaser, and Britain is out of the war with no need for invasion.

We've discussed this several times on other threads, and it would take a lot of focus and luck to achieve this aim....but losing the Battle of Britain was a possibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 12, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, and as I've said earlier in the thread, if Britain lost the Battle of Britain, then the Battle of the Atlantic becomes irrelevant.
> 
> I've asked a couple of times about the quantities of food and other non-military supplies but I've yet to find/receive any really solid answers. Bear in mind that Britain was still receiving supplies from across the Empire, not just from the U.S. Again, Germany simply did not have a sufficient fleet size to stop all the various supply routes, even though we often focus on supplies from the U.S.
> 
> ...


I would advise as source :
German submarine blockade,overseas imports and British military production in WW II ( by Erin Weir , a Canadian )
ONE example (Table 11 ):the home production of potatoes went up from 5,218 million ton in 1939 to 9,791 million in 1945 . This compensated the decrease of meat imports .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I would advise as source :
> German submarine blockade,overseas imports and British military production in WW II ( by Erin Weir , a Canadian )
> ONE example (Table 11 ):the home production of potatoes went up from 5,218 million ton in 1939 to 9,791 million in 1945 . This compensated the decrease of meat imports .



Many thanks for that pointer. Some really great data in that paper.


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are ignoring the human role = the role of the pilot, of the crew,of the ground crew .
> There was an air battle of Britain, but no air battle of the Soviet Union .
> The importance of aviation in the German- Soviet war was much less than in the German-Wallies war , one of the reasons ( main reason? ) was the length of the front ,which was several thousands of km , and the almost absence of targets for the air forces. The Soviet war industry was safe at the Urals. The LW never attacked Magnitogorsk .The Douhet doctrine did not apply and was not tried in the USSR .
> And, about the role of the fighters : it was, on both sides, subordinated to the bombers .
> The chance that short range fighters would meet long range bombers,was very small .


Interestingly, I agree with a lot of the above, there was no set piece air battle for Russia in the same way there was a set piece Battle of Britain. There were plenty of targets for the airforces but the length of the front line did stretch out all forces including the airforces and neither side had heavy bombers.


> About the P 39 : it remained an unknown ,alien aircraft for Soviet pilots, as would remain Soviet fighters for US pilots .
> And, who did chose the P 39 for the East ? Soviets who had no knowledge of the P 39 or Americans,who had no knowledge of the East ?


Russia chose the P39, it was used extensively and was often modified to meet the requirements of the Russan airforce. To believe that the P39 was an unknown alien aircraft to the Russian pilots is so far off the mark it's unbelievable.

As for who asked for it, no less a person than Stalin as shown in the following document that I copied in the UK National Archives

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 12, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> And the Western Allies declared war because of Germany's attack on Poland, the population of which included Slavs and other "lower" populations. Hitler's policy was rooted in what he saw as the failure of Germany to support its armed forces during the Great War. A key challenge for Germany during WW1 was the lack of self-sufficiency in food and materials, made worse by the Entente Powers' blockade. Hitler didn't want that happening again so he sought to achieve that self-sufficiency (autarky) by taking neighbouring lands away from "lesser" peoples.
> 
> Hitler didn't want a two-front war and so he sought to avoid that by attacking France. Thankfully, because Britain held out alone, it simply ended up ensuring there was a two-front war...which would ultimately seal Nazi Germany's doom.
> 
> ...


Autarky : this would only be needed if Germany was involved in a big war with the Wallies+ the Soviets (or without the Soviets ) and, it was Hitler who created this big war .
The shortage of food was not the cause of Barbarossa, but the result of Barbarossa .There was no food shortage in December 1940 when Hitler approved Barbarossa .
There was no two fronts war when Hitler attacked in the West on May 10 1940 .The Soviet Union was never a danger for Hitler .
Lebensraum : this had nothing to do with the outbreak of WWII . You make the mistake by assuming that Hitler's foreign policy was dictated by Mein Kampf (written in 1925 ! ).There was nothing special with Hitler's foreign policy and every knew this : it was the policy of the Weimar Republic with as aim to undo the Treaty of Versailles .
Hitler was convinced that in the FUTURE there would be a war with the Soviets, but when ? He didn't know .
We know very well the reasons for Barbarossa : it was not Lebensraum,Lebensraum would be the result of a successful Barbarossa, but not the cause .
The reason for Barbarossa was the failure to force Britain to give up .Hitler was convinced that Britain continued the war because it hoped on the aid of the US and the Soviets.As he could do nothing against the US, he decided to eliminate the Soviets,hoping that this would strengthen the position of Japan and prevent the US from interfering in the war with Britain .If Britain had given up , there would be no reason to attack the USSR.
What Hillgruber may say : Hitler had no grand plan . He reacted to the events .
About the Soviets steamrolling Western Europe in 1945 : not only they had not the means to do it, but they had no reason to do it .WHY would they invade Western Europe ?The result would be only an additional burden for the SU.
They had already the greatest difficulty to impose law and order (their law and order ) in Eastern Europe (some 100 million people ) when in 1948 Tito seceded , Stalin did nothing . Why ? Because he had not the means to do something against Tito . 
The occupation of Western Europe ( 150 million people ) would demand an occupation army of 1 million men. Stalin had not this additional 1 million men available .And, how long could he trust his occupation forces in Western Europe ,who would be contaminated by democracy and capitalism ?
About the Battle of Britain,there is no proof at all for the assumption that Britain would give up if Group 11 was forced to withdrawn to the north .Hoare would never have a majority in the Commons : the Tories followed Chamberlain (till his death Britain was directed by the duo Chamberlain/Churchill and Chamberlain was a supporter of war to the end .) ,neither are there proofs that Hoare was still an appeaser in the Summer of 1940 .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Autarky : this would only be needed if Germany was involved in a big war with the Wallies+ the Soviets (or without the Soviets ) and, it was Hitler who created this big war.



You make a big claim about the need for autarky but offer no sources.

I'd recommend reading RIchard Overy "Misjudging Hitler" in "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered" regarding the central role of autarky in Hitler's thinking. In August 1936, Hitler issued a memorandum tasking Goering with developing a series of plans, one of which was later known as the "Four Year Plan" which sought to mobilize the entire economy, within the next four years, and make it ready for war: maximizing autarchic policies, even at a cost for the German people, and having the armed forces fully operational and ready at the end of the four years period.

Also take a look at William Carr's "Arms, Autarky and Aggression" (Edward Arnold, 1972) which observes that Hitler's 1936 "Four-Year Plan Memorandum" predicated an imminent all-out, apocalyptic struggle between "Judeo-Bolshevism" and German National Socialism, which necessitated a total effort at rearmament regardless of the economic costs, much in alignment with Overy.

Yes, Hitler started the war...because he wanted lebensraum for the German people so they could become self-sufficient and demonstrate their "inherent superiority" over other races which, ultimately, would guarantee their emergence as the victors.





ljadw said:


> The shortage of food was not the cause of Barbarossa, but the result of Barbarossa .There was no food shortage in December 1940 when Hitler approved Barbarossa .
> There was no two fronts war when Hitler attacked in the West on May 10 1940 .The Soviet Union was never a danger for Hitler .
> Lebensraum : this had nothing to do with the outbreak of WWII . You make the mistake by assuming that Hitler's foreign policy was dictated by Mein Kampf (written in 1925 ! ).There was nothing special with Hitler's foreign policy and every knew this : it was the policy of the Weimar Republic with as aim to undo the Treaty of Versailles .
> Hitler was convinced that in the FUTURE there would be a war with the Soviets, but when ? He didn't know.



Again, lots of big claims with no sources or data to back them up. As noted in my comments above in this post, Hitler initiated planning for a war against the Soviet Union (and other lower races, including Jews, Romany races etc) in 1936. Mein Kampf set up his vision of Germany as the supreme race which was entitled to land that was occupied by inferior races. That land was necessary to provide self-sufficiency so that there would be no repeat of the mistakes he perceived as causing Germany's downfall during the Great War.





ljadw said:


> We know very well the reasons for Barbarossa : it was not Lebensraum,Lebensraum would be the result of a successful Barbarossa, but not the cause .
> The reason for Barbarossa was the failure to force Britain to give up .Hitler was convinced that Britain continued the war because it hoped on the aid of the US and the Soviets.As he could do nothing against the US, he decided to eliminate the Soviets,hoping that this would strengthen the position of Japan and prevent the US from interfering in the war with Britain .If Britain had given up , there would be no reason to attack the USSR.



Can we have some sources for this please? I'd love to see what you're basing these bold claims on when war studies historians all disagree with you.




ljadw said:


> What Hillgruber may say : Hitler had no grand plan . He reacted to the events .



Hitler had a vision and he leveraged events to achieve that vision. It was not a grand plan laid out on a timetable...but to suggest that he didn't want to crush Communism is laughable. The Nazi-Soviet pact was sheer opportunism to buy time so Hitler could keep pushing forward with his vision and get his forces to a sufficient level (again, started in 1936 remember!) so they could successfully invade Russia.




ljadw said:


> About the Soviets steamrolling Western Europe in 1945 : not only they had not the means to do it, but they had no reason to do it .WHY would they invade Western Europe ?The result would be only an additional burden for the SU.The occupation of Western Europe ( 150 million people ) would demand an occupation army of 1 million men. Stalin had not this additional 1 million men available .And, how long could he trust his occupation forces in Western Europe ,who would be contaminated by democracy and capitalism ?



I suggest you read up on the Comintern. Soviet Communists had dreams of world domination and, if there's nobody to stop them, they'd press ahead and take Western Europe with all its factories and farmland and resources that Communism could plunder. There were active communist groups in every country in Europe, and they would readily recruit more. With no local military to stop the Soviet Army, it would be a fait accompli before the Western nations could do anything about it.




ljadw said:


> About the Battle of Britain,there is no proof at all for the assumption that Britain would give up if Group 11 was forced to withdrawn to the north .Hoare would never have a majority in the Commons : the Tories followed Chamberlain (till his death Britain was directed by the duo Chamberlain/Churchill and Chamberlain was a supporter of war to the end .) ,neither are there proofs that Hoare was still an appeaser in the Summer of 1940 .



Not sure how anyone can prove a hypothetical. However, I strongly recommend Lukacs' book "Five Days in May in London 1940" which makes it clear that there was a significant proportion of the establishment, both in Government and in other positions of power, that didn't want another world war. A subset of the powerful wanted Edward VIII to return because they felt George VI wasn't up to the job of being the Monarch. The traditional story of plucky Britain standing, united but alone, to face the onslaught of Nazi Germany is, I'm afraid, something of a post-BoB myth. In May/June 1940 things were much less clear-cut. The Army had lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk. Another retreat by 11 Group, exposing the seat of power for the UK, could well have tipped the balance in favour of appeasers like Halifax. He was far from alone.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 12, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You make a big claim about the need for autarky but offer no sources.
> 
> I'd recommend reading RIchard Overy "Misjudging Hitler" in "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered" regarding the central role of autarky in Hitler's thinking. In August 1936, Hitler issued a memorandum tasking Goering with developing a series of plans, one of which was later known as the "Four Year Plan" which sought to mobilize the entire economy, within the next four years, and make it ready for war: maximizing autarchic policies, even at a cost for the German people, and having the armed forces fully operational and ready at the end of the four years period.
> 
> ...


About the strength of the Army : the Home Forces were strong enough to eliminate the few Germans that could land in Britain : few Germans, because on the first day only a few thousand could land without heavy weapons,and these would be faced by the Canadian division .
And the number of Germans that could land on the following days would even be lower than on the first days .
About the reasons for Barbarossa : the Anglo-Saxon media and historians have a low reliability . I have not much faith in Lucacs .He writes fiction .German historians are better : see Christian Gerlach "Operative Planungen der Wehrmacht für den Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion .
And Gerlach writes the following : 
''Auf lange Sicht hielt man einen Krieg imOsten für unvermeidlich. Doch nicht deswegen fiel 1940 der Entschluss zum Angriff . Stattdessen geriet das Deutsche Reich in eine Sackgasse,als England nicht zum politischen Einlenken zu bewegen warund der Angriff auf die britischen Inseln scheiterte . ''
Translation : 
Berlin was convinced that in the long run,war with the SU was inevitable .But this was not the reason for the decision in 1940 to execute Barbarossa .Germany was in a dead end, as Britain refused a peace of compromise and as the attacks on the UK had failed .
Hitler said several times that Russia was Britain's continental sword ( it was so in 1812 and 1914 ) .If there was a coalition of US,UK and SU. Germany was doomed . The only thing he could do was to try to prevent the USSR from joining the coalition . He could do nothing against the US .In August 1940,after the GOP convention,war with Germany was inevitable and nearing very fast.
About the SU : there was nothing in the SU that Germany needed or could use .Germany did not need Lebens raum . To colonize the USSR, Germany would need at least 50 million colonists, and there were even not 500000 Germans willing to live in the East .
There was no famine in Germany in June 1941 ,and during the war the occupied parts of the USSR delivered only 10 % of Germany's food imports .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 12, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Hitler had a vision and he leveraged events to achieve that vision. It was not a grand plan laid out on a timetable...but to suggest that he didn't want to crush Communism is laughable. The Nazi-Soviet pact was sheer opportunism to buy time so Hitler could keep pushing forward with his vision and get his forces to a sufficient level (again, started in 1936 remember!) so they could successfully invade Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The question is not what Hitler wanted, but what he could do : to attack the SU,he needed 
a the agreement of Poland and Romania, which they would refuse and if he attacked them ,this would mean war with the Wallies .
b the agreement of the Wallies : if they refused,Barbarossa was impossible .
If the Wallies, Romania and Poland said yes and he could defeat the SU , he would be in a weaker position against the Wallies 
If he defeated the Wallies, he would be to weak to defeat the Soviets .
And, Hitler knew it : before the war he paraded as the defender of the Christian civilization against the communists to prevent the Wallies to unite with the SU . Stalin, on the other hand, paraded as the defender of the Western civilisation against ''fascism '' (we know that there was a big difference between nazism and fascism ) to prevent the Wallies to ally with Hitler against the SU .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2021)

ljadw said:


> About the strength of the Army : the Home Forces were strong enough to eliminate the few Germans that could land in Britain : few Germans, because on the first day only a few thousand could land without heavy weapons,and these would be faced by the Canadian division .
> And the number of Germans that could land on the following days would even be lower than on the first days .
> About the reasons for Barbarossa : the Anglo-Saxon media and historians have a low reliability . I have not much faith in Lucacs .He writes fiction .German historians are better : see Christian Gerlach "Operative Planungen der Wehrmacht für den Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion .
> And Gerlach writes the following :
> ...



Since you're clearly not bothering to read anything that I write, I'll just leave you with a suggested reading list and let you either (a) get the books, read them, and learn, or (b) give them a stiff ignoring (as you're doing to me) and remain in your blissful echo-chamber. You keep talking about German "need" but it wasn't "need" that was driving Germany's war aims; it was outright racism, a twisted version of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and an unshakeable belief in German superiority.

One of the defining traits of the Axis powers in WW2 is that every time they had an option to de-escalate and consolidate, they declined that opportunity and charged on with further expansion of the war. However, invading Russia just because the German military didn't have anything else it could do is a pretty poor justification for anything. Hitler's rabid hatred of Communism and eastern European races and, yes, the desire for lebensraum were the driving factors. Hitler wanted a "super race", hence the intense interest the Nazi party put into breeding programmes. Evacuating eastern lands would provide the room for that extra population and provide a buffer against any attack against the Fatherland itself.

Anyhoo...here's the list of books, in case you're interested: 

P.M.H. Bell "The Origins of the Second World War in Europe"
Richard Overy "Misjudging Hitler: AJP Taylor and the Third Reich" in "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered", edited by Gordon Martel
Richard Overy "The Road to War"
Richard Overy "Hitler's War Plans and the German Economy" and Esmonde M. Robertson "German Mobilization Preparations and the Treaties Between Germany and the Soviet Union of August and September 1939", both in "Paths of War: New Essays on the Origins of the Second World War" edited by Robert Boyce and Esmonde M. Robertson
Christian Lentz "Nazi Germany" and Alan Cassels "Ideology", both in "The Origins of World War Two: The Debate Continues", edited by Robert Boyce and Joseph A. Maiolo
Ian Kershaw "Nazi Foreign Policy: Hitler's 'Programme' or Expansion Without Object'" in "The Origins of the Second World War", edited by Patrick Finney

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2021)

Wouldn't the Soviet Union by the Eallies?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 12, 2021)

Yeah, _Drang Nach Ost_ and _Lebensraum _were laid out in _Mein Kampf_. Germany didn't _need_ either, but under _Der Fuhrer_ they certainly pursued both. It should have been no surprise to anyone, except folks didn't take the corporal at his word.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 13, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Since you're clearly not bothering to read anything that I write, I'll just leave you with a suggested reading list and let you either (a) get the books, read them, and learn, or (b) give them a stiff ignoring (as you're doing to me) and remain in your blissful echo-chamber. You keep talking about German "need" but it wasn't "need" that was driving Germany's war aims; it was outright racism, a twisted version of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and an unshakeable belief in German superiority.
> 
> One of the defining traits of the Axis powers in WW2 is that every time they had an option to de-escalate and consolidate, they declined that opportunity and charged on with further expansion of the war. However, invading Russia just because the German military didn't have anything else it could do is a pretty poor justification for anything. Hitler's rabid hatred of Communism and eastern European races and, yes, the desire for lebensraum were the driving factors. Hitler wanted a "super race", hence the intense interest the Nazi party put into breeding programmes. Evacuating eastern lands would provide the room for that extra population and provide a buffer against any attack against the Fatherland itself.
> 
> ...


You forget 
Rhodes James who wrote in 1986 a book about Eden and said on P 126-127 the following about Eden :
On March 23 1933 , Eden said : French disarmament is needed to secure for Europe that period of appeasement which is needed .
You also forget 
Hartmut Schustereit who writes the following in VABANQUE P12 :
Am 20.Juni 1940 Fromm befahl : Das Ersatzheer wird baldmöglichst aufgelöst .
Translation : The Reserve Army will be disbanded as soon as is possible .
Why would the commander of the Reserve Army (Fromm ) order to disband the Reserve Army ? 
Very simple : because Hitler ordered it .
And why did Hitler order it ?
Because on that day Hitler was convinced that war was over and that there would be no war with the Soviets, thus that there was no longer any need for a Reserve Army .
This debunks your claim that Hitler wanted war with the USSR after the fall of France .
And, about Autarky , you forget that Autarky was only needed IF there was war ,but that the aim of autarky was not to make war possible .
You also forget that autarky implies imports ,but that imports are only possible if there are exports .
In 1938, Hitler imported from Poland ( a country of hostile Slaves ) for 140 million RM and exported for 155 million .And the same year he exported for 350 RM from Britain and imported 282 million .
Source : A low dishonest decade by Paul N. Hehn .
The aim of autarky was to make Germany stronger if there was a war, not to make war possible .
And at the start of the war Germany imported still 20 % of its food and 33 % of its raw materials .Autarky implies international trade ,it is not a substitute for international trade .
About the Anglo-Saxon media/ historians : they still propagate 80 years after the events,the old Churchillian myths of the hero Churchill and the villain Chamberlain .
But they ignore or hide unpleasant facts as 
Eden being an appeaser
Churchill promoting disarmament of Britain ( 10 year rule ) 
Austin Chamberlain saying that Dantzig was not worth the bones of a British grenadier 
Neville Chamberlain starting British rearmament in 1932 
that being an appeaser does not mean that one wanted to become a British Quisling : in 1938 Neville Chamberlain would have declared war if Hitler had attacked the Czechs .Austin Chamberlain (appeaser ) wanted to accelerate British rearmament, Lloyd George (appeaser ) wanted in 1939 an alliance with the USSR .Thus ,mentioning and insinuating that this was the reason,that Halifax was an appeaser and wanted to capitulate to Hitler in May 19440 , is not only wrong from Lucacs but also totally unfair .
All British PMs and Foreign Secretaries between 1919 and 1939 were appeasers .
Appeasement was to prevent a new war (general or local ) in Europe,because Britain would be involved in such a war,would win him,but at the cost of the end of the Empire .
There was such a war in May 1940 and thus appeasement had failed and had disappeared .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 13, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yeah, _Drang Nach Ost_ and _Lebesraum _were laid out in _Mein Kampf_. Germany didn't _need_ either, but under _Der Fuhrer_ they certainly pursued both. It should have been no surprise to anyone, except folks didn't take the corporal at his word.


Mein Kampf did not dictate Hitler's Foreign Policy .It was not even a book : it was a written collection of Hitler's speeches (and he spoke about everything ,from Drang nach Osten to the danger of Syphilis ) :Hitler was an orator, not a writer .
Besides : Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum were subjects about which people talked a lot already before 1914 . They were not invented by Hitler .
Hitler did not attack the SU to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .He used the opportunity to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .
The reason for Barbarossa was to destroy Britain's continental sword( =the Soviets ) before the US were ready .
He said it openly several times during his meetings with his military advisers .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You forget...You also forget



I'm glad you know so well what I remember and what I forget....and it's particularly nice of you to remind me of things I've forgotten. Being a mind-reader must be a useful skill to possess!

I'll deal with your comments about Hitler's plans for Russia first, then move onto your statements about autarky, and then delve into the tangled topic of appeasement.




ljadw said:


> Hartmut Schustereit who writes the following in VABANQUE P12 :
> Am 20.Juni 1940 Fromm befahl : Das Ersatzheer wird baldmöglichst aufgelöst .
> Translation : The Reserve Army will be disbanded as soon as is possible .
> Why would the commander of the Reserve Army (Fromm ) order to disband the Reserve Army ?
> ...



Firstly, the Replacement Army (Ersatzheer) was NOT disbanded. Fromm remained in charge from 1 September 1939 thru 20 July 1944. "As soon as possible" is not a timeline. A phrase familiar to military planners that has the same meaning is "as soon as conditions permit." The simple fact is that the Replacement Army remained intact. You can't take an event that did NOT happen (the disbandment of the "Reserve Army") and use it as proof of anything regarding Hitler's intent towards Russia.

Your statements are also highly selective and ignoring all the evidence that contradicts your view. For example, Plan Otto, which started as the annexation of Austria, had a second component dealing with how to invade Russia. Planning for that second part of Plan Otto commenced in July 1940. In December 1940 Plan Otto was renamed Operation Barbarossa. In short, straight after the conquest of France, Hitler orders planning to commence for the invasion of Russia....and yet you're trying to convince me that he had no intention of invading Russia? Sorry, I call BS on that.

Also, let's go back to my previous post about Hitler's early planning for invading Russia. Back in August 1936, he tasked Goering to develop the "Four Year Plan" for the invasion of Russia. Fast forward 4 years EXACTLY and, surprise of surprises, Hitler orders planning for the invasion of Russia. There's no point doing operational planning if you don't have sufficient forces for the task. Hitler recognized that in 1936. The Four Year Plan was designed to expand the German military so that it had the resources to invade Russia. With that plan successfully executed, and with what were perceived as sufficient forces, Hitler embarked on the operational planning (Plan Otto) to invade. 

Interestingly, Plan Otto called for the annihilation of 240 Soviet divisions with a planning assumption that the USSR could only generate 60 new divisions in the timeframe. During Operation Barbarossa, the German Army actually destroyed 248 Soviet divisions...but the USSR regenerated 220 new divisions. This highlights Hitler's key flaw....he failed to adapt his plans to changing circumstances. Fall Gelb sought to knock the Western Allies out of the war so that Germany could focus on the Communist threat to the east. When Britain unsportingly refused to be cowed, Hitler had the option of doubling down to remove Britain from the war or proceeding with his plan to turn east. He chose the latter. As I noted previously, whenever Hitler had the chance to consolidate, he instead chose escalation. It was that key attribute that most led to the downfall of the Third Reich by May 1945.





ljadw said:


> And, about Autarky , you forget that Autarky was only needed IF there was war ,but that the aim of autarky was not to make war possible .
> You also forget that autarky implies imports ,but that imports are only possible if there are exports .
> In 1938, Hitler imported from Poland ( a country of hostile Slaves ) for 140 million RM and exported for 155 million .And the same year he exported for 350 RM from Britain and imported 282 million .
> Source : A low dishonest decade by Paul N. Hehn .
> ...



Autarky is the establishment of economic independence and self-sufficiency and hence it is the exact opposite of international trade. Yes, Germany participated in international trade in 1938 because it had not yet achieved autarky. Again, let's go back to the Four Year Plan which started in 1936 with a goal of achieving autarky in 1940. Hitler was more than ready to use whatever tools were available to achieve his goals, which is why other world leaders came to so mistrust him. He would say one thing and then weeks or months later would do the exact opposite. Just look at the treaty signed with the USSR in 1939, accomplished to give Germany some additional breathing room. Hitler had no love of the USSR but he leveraged that treaty to buy space and time so he could finish his "grand plan." Hitler traded with the outside world in 1938 because he had to in order to keep his Four Year Plan moving forward. 

The problem is Germany lacked the resources to be self-sufficient. A key shortfall was oil but there were also needs for additional arable land, raw materials, and even extra factory-based production capacity. You can't magically create those things inside a nation with finite geographic and resource limitations without fundamentally altering the make-up of the country...and, even then, you can't magically generate oil if your nation doesn't have that resource. The entire scope of Hitler's offensives can be traced back to the need for autarky. In other words, he didn't want to trade with the international community. He wanted to occupy those lands that had useful resources and pillage them for Germany's benefit. Hence the drive for autarky was the propelling idea that resulted in the war.




ljadw said:


> Rhodes James who wrote in 1986 a book about Eden and said on P 126-127 the following about Eden :
> On March 23 1933 , Eden said : French disarmament is needed to secure for Europe that period of appeasement which is needed .
> 
> About the Anglo-Saxon media/ historians : they still propagate 80 years after the events,the old Churchillian myths of the hero Churchill and the villain Chamberlain .
> ...



I will agree that appeasement is the effort to avoid a war and that once war starts, appeasement is indeed dead. HOWEVER...once that war has commenced, if a country feels it can no longer prevail in the conflict, then it will sue for peace. It is the suing for peace in 1940 that is possible if the Battle of Britain had been lost. The arch-appeasers prior to 1939 would have been among the most vocal in trying to secure peace terms if that's what Parliament decided.

You should note that I don't see appeasement prior to 1939 as a negative thing. Britain needed time to rearm. In 1938, Britain was in no position to do ANYTHING about the German invasion of Czechoslovakia. Likewise, it could do nothing to prevent the invasion of Poland a year later. However, by then, the British Government felt it had sufficient forces on-hand, and rearmament was progressing at sufficient pace, to allow the country to prevail IF war broke out. 

Losing most of the Army's heavy equipment in France was a major operational blow. Losing France as a key ally was a major strategic blow. It's entirely conceivable that further operational setbacks during the Battle of Britain could have resulted in the British Government suing for peace. There WERE calls within Parliament in May 1940 for Britain to negotiate terms with Hitler. Those calls would have been amplified if 11 Group had withdrawn, thus denuding London of up-threat defences. 

Again, if you read what I wrote previously, I freely admitted the fallacy of the idea that Churchill led a plucky Britain that was united in standing alone against Germany. There were many contrary voices, hence why continued British involvement in the war was anything but a foregone conclusion. 

As to rearmament, yes the "10-Year Rule" was abandoned in 1932 but that did not mean that Britain immediately started building up its armed forces. The economy in the early 1930s simply wasn't up to the task of sustaining a massive rearmament programme. The following lists the size of the British Army during the 1930s (the numbers are in thousands)

1930: 317.30
1931: 319.10
1932: 316.80
1933: 316.40
1934: 317.40
1935: 320.80
1936: 339.30
1937: 352.40
1938: 384.80
1939: 1,068.85

It's abundantly clear that, through most of the 1930s, the size of the British Army flat-lined, with only slight increases starting in 1936 and the really big jump only coming after the Munich Crisis. Again, appeasement was necessary because Britain simply wasn't ready for another major war in the 1930s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Mein Kampf did not dictate Hitler's Foreign Policy .It was not even a book : it was a written collection of Hitler's speeches (and he spoke about everything ,from Drang nach Osten to the danger of Syphilis ) :Hitler was an orator, not a writer .
> Besides : Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum were subjects about which people talked a lot already before 1914 . They were not invented by Hitler .
> Hitler did not attack the SU to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .He used the opportunity to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .
> The reason for Barbarossa was to destroy Britain's continental sword( =the Soviets ) before the US were ready .
> He said it openly several times during his meetings with his military advisers .



Again, you're being selective in offering punchlines as evidence to support your theory. The only reason the USSR became Britain's "continental sword" is because Britain refused to sue for peace in 1940. As explained previously, Hitler had been planning to invade Russia for at least 4 years by that point in time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 13, 2021)

I am really enjoying this thread.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 13, 2021)

NightHawk said:


> what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
> 1.Stalingrad
> 2.Normandy
> 3.El alamain
> ...


I would argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor was the most important battle of WWII since it brought America's economic might into the war on the side of those nations fighting against Germany and it's allies. American logistical support was an important factor in all of the above battles. True, the BoB happened before that, but the U.S. was already providing support to England surreptitiously before lend lease became official in March 1941. Such support allowed England to allot more industrial resources towards aircraft production along with other areas of defense that were of important advantage during the BoB. While such support throughout the war might not have been decisive, it was helpful to a degree that allowed Britain, Russia et al. to pursue their aims more advantageously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2021)

Akuma said:


> I would argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor was the most important battle of WWII since it brought America's economic might into the war on the side of those nations fighting against Germany and it's allies. American logistical support was an important factor in all of the above battles. True, the BoB happened before that, but the U.S. was already providing support to England surreptitiously before lend lease became official in March 1941. Such support allowed England to allot more industrial resources towards aircraft production along with other areas of defense that were of important advantage during the BoB. While such support throughout the war might not have been decisive, it was helpful to a degree that allowed Britain, Russia et al. to pursue their aims more advantageously.



Not sure what point you're making here. Yes, Lend Lease did help the other Allies to pursue their war aims but it wasn't a decisive factor in and of itself. The only substantive support offered by the U.S. prior to 1941 was the, somewhat misleadingly titled, Neutrality Patrol which greatly favoured the British. That said, I'm not sure it freed up much in the way of British resources to prosecute the war. Certainly all the materiel procured by Britain from the U.S. prior to March 1941 was paid for in cash, resulting in the massive depletion of Britain's gold reserves.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2021)

Its always important to remember that Hitler was a barking mad rabble rouser with no experience of doing anything, most of the people around him were the same.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 13, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Not sure what point you're making here. Yes, Lend Lease did help the other Allies to pursue their war aims but it wasn't a decisive factor in and of itself. The only substantive support offered by the U.S. prior to 1941 was the, somewhat misleadingly titled, Neutrality Patrol which greatly favoured the British. That said, I'm not sure it freed up much in the way of British resources to prosecute the war. Certainly all the materiel procured by Britain from the U.S. prior to March 1941 was paid for in cash, resulting in the massive depletion of Britain's gold reserves.


Along with the patrol the U.S. was quietly overhauling and otherwise servicing RN ships which freed up industrial sources in the UK.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2021)

Akuma said:


> Along with the patrol the U.S. was quietly overhauling and otherwise servicing RN ships which freed up industrial sources in the UK.



Again, not a massive benefit to Britain's war effort given the number of bases available to the RN across the British Empire. Certainly Stateside refits would be beneficial for Atlantic operations...but, again, I doubt the overhauls/servicing were provided free of charge (although I'm happy to be proved wrong).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 13, 2021)

I'd imagine the Neutrality Patrol would free up quite a few ASW assets for the RN.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 13, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Again, not a massive benefit to Britain's war effort given the number of bases available to the RN across the British Empire. Certainly Stateside refits would be beneficial for Atlantic operations...but, again, I doubt the overhauls/servicing were provided free of charge (although I'm happy to be proved wrong).


I do not know how important this might be as to the help that was 'free of charge'. I've read some histories that occasionally included private comments by U.S. military personnel where they all said that the degree of assistance was far in excess to that which was officially declared (or paid for).


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Its always important to remember that Hitler was a barking mad rabble rouser with no experience of doing anything, most of the people around him were the same.



Not quite. He had mad ideas but he also had the personal charisma, ruthlessness and plain cunning to carry them through. He was surrounded by sycophants who were happy to hang on to his coat tails and do his bidding for personal power and gain irrespective of what was the best for the people of the country.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 13, 2021)

Glider said:


> Not quite. He had mad ideas but he also had the personal charisma, ruthlessness and plain cunning to carry them through. He was surrounded by sycophants who were happy to hang on to his coat tails and do his bidding for personal power and gain irrespective of what was the best for the people of the country.


Does this ring any bells regarding global current events??

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2021)

Glider said:


> Not quite. He had mad ideas but he also had the personal charisma, ruthlessness and plain cunning to carry them through. He was surrounded by sycophants who were happy to hang on to his coat tails and do his bidding for personal power and gain irrespective of what was the best for the people of the country.


I agree but that mainly just helped him get power and hold onto it. Most of the German military's achievements were in spite of him not because. When he seriously intervened in a situation it usually brought disaster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I agree but that mainly just helped him get power and hold onto it. Most of the German military's achievements were in spite of him not because. When he seriously intervened in a situation it usually brought disaster.


Exactly the same could be said of course for Stalin from both of us

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2021)

I'm not going there

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 13, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm glad you know so well what I remember and what I forget....and it's particularly nice of you to remind me of things I've forgotten. Being a mind-reader must be a useful skill to possess!
> 
> I'll deal with your comments about Hitler's plans for Russia first, then move onto your statements about autarky, and then delve into the tangled topic of appeasement.
> 
> ...


About the Ersatzheer : the fact that it was not disbanded is not a good argument :the point is that Hitler gave the order on June 20 to disband it, which means that on that day ,Hitler was not thinking on an attack against the Soviets .That he later changed his opinion is proving what I said : that the Barbarossa decision was not a free ideological decision but a decision forced upon Hitler because he saw no other possibility to finish the war with Britain before the US would intervene .
About Plan Otto : plans do not prove intentions : in the twenties US had plans for war with Britain ,but not intentions .Besides , the war against Britain had til the autumn priority in armament questions . The Wiki article about Plan Otto is totally unreliable .
The Four Year Plan had not as meaning to make Germany ready for war with the USSR .
There is no proof that Fall Gelb wanted to eliminate the Wallies to give Hitler the possibility to focus on the communist threat in the East ,because : there was NO such threat and Hitler knew it and admitted it .
About the autarky : Germany was totally self-sufficient in oil.In September 1939 its imports from South America disappeared, but they were simply replaced by synthetic produced oil.
Germany had in 1939 8,3 million tons of oil (import/production ) of which 5,2 million from imports .
In 1940 6,9 million ,of which 2,1 million imports and the German war machine did not stop.
About appeasement : there were no peace terms for Britain, only capitulation .And we have the proof that the chief of the appeasers (Chamberlain ) opposed capitulation . British position was not bad in June 1940, even better than that of Germany : the only thing Britain had to do was to continue the fight til the US intervened . 
About British rearmament : this had nothing to do with appeasement which was born immediately after the Treaty of Versailles .
Britain could not help CZ in 1938, neither could it help Poland in 1939 , but the fact remains that Britain mobilized in 1938 and that Chamberlain told the population that,except a miracle, there would be war in a few days .The only reason why there was no war between Britain and Germany in 1938 ,was that there was no war between Germany and the Czechs in 1938 .
About a possible retreat of Group 11 to airfields north of London : this would not improve Germany's position as Group 11 would still be able to attack the German bombers .And, a bigger destruction of London than happened in the HTL,would also not force Britain to give up : during the Battle of Berlin,a big part of Berlin was destroyed by BC,but Germany did not give up . Thus why would Britain give up ?
About British rearmament : the small increase of the army is not a proof for the claim that there was only a small rearmament ,because there was no need for a big increase of the army .
Priority was given to the LoC with the Empire and thus for the Navy . On the second place came the RAF and the AA Defense to protect the UK against a sudden air attack ( The Douhet Doctrine had a lot of influence ) .The Army came on the last place,and justifiedly ,because Poland would fall before France and Britain could launch an offensive to Berlin . And, even if they could, they would not do it , as the war was not about Poland, but about Germany .
Chamberlain told his sisters the following in 1938 : we can not save, not help CZ, we can only wage a war of revenge which will destroy Europe and the Empire and which will make of CZ a Soviet satellite .
It was the same for Poland .
Britain and France were better off without Poland and CZ,and these were better off without the Wallies .The war was fought for a moral principle ,which was that war was bad and evil and that who started a war was a criminal . ( The Briand-Kellogg Pact ) which outlawed war .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2021)

ljadw said:


> About the Ersatzheer : the fact that it was not disbanded is not a good argument :the point is that Hitler gave the order on June 20 to disband it, which means that on that day ,Hitler was not thinking on an attack against the Soviets .That he later changed his opinion is proving what I said : that the Barbarossa decision was not a free ideological decision but a decision forced upon Hitler because he saw no other possibility to finish the war with Britain before the US would intervene .
> About Plan Otto : plans do not prove intentions : in the twenties US had plans for war with Britain ,but not intentions .Besides , the war against Britain had til the autumn priority in armament questions . The Wiki article about Plan Otto is totally unreliable .
> The Four Year Plan had not as meaning to make Germany ready for war with the USSR .
> There is no proof that Fall Gelb wanted to eliminate the Wallies to give Hitler the possibility to focus on the communist threat in the East ,because : there was NO such threat and Hitler knew it and admitted it .
> ...



You're big on making bold statements but the "evidence" you provide doesn't align with the actual chain of events. 

Just how long do you think it takes to plan an operation of the scale of Barbarossa? For the record, I currently support planning of military operations and I can tell you that it would take many months to develop a viable operational plan. Thus the timeline from Otto being initiated in July 1940 until the execution of Barbarossa in June the following year makes perfect sense. However, you seem to think that Hitler just decided to invade Russia on a whim, ordered it and made it happen all in the summer of 1941. I'm afraid that's just not practical and doesn't align with how military operations are planned or executed.

I'm giving up responding to you. Your mind is clearly made up and no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade you from your beliefs. You keep jumping around within disconnected, cherry-picked anecdotes but your "evidence" lacks coherence, nor does it fit all the available historiography.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 13, 2021)

How's this for a scenario? One of the German electronics boffins succeeds in convincing Goering of the strategic importance of the British radar and fighter direction network, resulting in an all out campaign that "blinds" the RAF. This allows an intense campaign against RAF facilities and AAA everywhere within the reach of bombers and drop tank equipped MEs, establishing air superiority and an umbrella for _Sealion _and, in conjunction with Uboats and Eboats, a potent opposition to any naval forces that sortie from Scapa Flow or other bases to interdict the invasion. London blitz never occurs, British historical icons are not threatened or damaged, and Churchill and the warhawks are toppled from power. Hitler has a full year to prepare for _Barbarossa _with the industrial resources of western Europe at his disposal, while Japan is incentivized to go north and west for the resources she needs rather than into SE Asia. Stalin, rather than Hitler, is confronted with a two-front war with huge logistical issues, and "America first!" reigns supreme in the western hemisphere.
This makes BoB the decisive battle, and renders the others moot.
(And sets the stage for Orwell's _1984_)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You're big on making bold statements but the "evidence" you provide doesn't align with the actual chain of events.
> 
> Just how long do you think it takes to plan an operation of the scale of Barbarossa? For the record, I currently support planning of military operations and I can tell you that it would take many months to develop a viable operational plan. Thus the timeline from Otto being initiated in July 1940 until the execution of Barbarossa in June the following year makes perfect sense. However, you seem to think that Hitler just decided to invade Russia on a whim, ordered it and made it happen all in the summer of 1941. I'm afraid that's just not practical and doesn't align with how military operations are planned or executed.
> 
> I'm giving up responding to you. Your mind is clearly made up and no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade you from your beliefs. You keep jumping around within disconnected, cherry-picked anecdotes but your "evidence" lacks coherence, nor does it fit all the available historiography.


In Bungays "The Most Dangerous Enemy" he says that during the Battle of Britain Adolf eyes had already turned to planning invading Russia.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 13, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Does this ring any bells regarding global current events??


Alas, yes. "Demogogue" is a very common role in politics: Modi, Berlusconi, Le Pen, Ugo Chavez, Putin, and it's frequently associated with racism, antisemitism, hypernationalism, and other unsavory isms.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> How's this for a scenario? One of the German electronics boffins succeeds in convincing Goering of the strategic importance of the British radar and fighter direction network, resulting in an all out campaign that "blinds" the RAF. This allows an intense campaign against RAF facilities and AAA everywhere within the reach of bombers and drop tank equipped MEs, establishing air superiority and an umbrella for _Sealion _and, in conjunction with Uboats and Eboats, a potent opposition to any naval forces that sortie from Scapa Flow or other bases to interdict the invasion. London blitz never occurs, British historical icons are not threatened or damaged, and Churchill and the warhawks are toppled from power. Hitler has a full year to prepare for _Barbarossa _with the industrial resources of western Europe at his disposal, while Japan is incentivized to go north and west for the resources she needs rather than into SE Asia. Stalin, rather than Hitler, is confronted with a two-front war with huge logistical issues, and "America first!" reigns supreme in the western hemisphere.
> This makes BoB the decisive battle, and renders the others moot.
> (And sets the stage for Orwell's _1984_)


They only need to destroy and keep destroyed 4 Chain Home stations on the coast of 11 group, to give a path in to all of Park's airfields and a route into London.


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> About the Ersatzheer : the fact that it was not disbanded is not a good argument :the point is that Hitler gave the order on June 20 to disband it, which means that on that day ,Hitler was not thinking on an attack against the Soviets .


This is such rubbish I am disappointed in you. Hitler had the ultimate power and anyone who disagreed with him payed a huge price. If he had meant the order, the only thing you can be sure of is that it would have been carried out. He was a master of playing political games and I am as confident as I can be that this order was meant for an outside audience, namely the USA.



> That he later changed his opinion is proving what I said : that the Barbarossa decision was not a free ideological decision but a decision forced upon Hitler because he saw no other possibility to finish the war with Britain before the US would intervene .


 Its quite possible that severe tension between Germany and Russia could be seen as an inevitable prelude to war, however its equally possible that tension could be high without war. After all its clear that Stalin would agree to almost everything to avoid war.



> About Plan Otto : plans do not prove intentions : in the twenties US had plans for war with Britain ,but not intentions .Besides , the war against Britain had til the autumn priority in armament questions . The Wiki article about Plan Otto is totally unreliable .


 As ever a big statement supported by what ?


> About the autarky : Germany was totally self-sufficient in oil.In September 1939 its imports from South America disappeared, but they were simply replaced by synthetic produced oil.
> Germany had in 1939 8,3 million tons of oil (import/production ) of which 5,2 million from imports .
> In 1940 6,9 million ,of which 2,1 million imports and the German war machine did not stop.


 I strongly disagree with the belief that Germany was self sufficient in oil. It made huge and very expensive investments in the production of synthetic oil but it was never sufficient. Until the day war broke out against Russia they were still importing oil. The shortage of oil is a common theme throughout the history of the war and there is a strong case for saying that if Hitler had concentrated solely on gaining the oilfields the outcome of the conflict would have been radically altered.



> About appeasement : there were no peace terms for Britain, only capitulation .And we have the proof that the chief of the appeasers (Chamberlain ) opposed capitulation . British position was not bad in June 1940, even better than that of Germany : the only thing Britain had to do was to continue the fight til the US intervened .


 Because your opposed to capitulation doesn't mean that your not in favour of appeasement in the form of a negotiated settlement. A simple offer after the fall of France, along the lines of 'We will cease all offensive operations against the United Kingdom and its Empire and the UK ceases any offensive operations against Europe' would have been taken seriously by a lot of people.
It would also have scared the hell out of Russia as they would be facing the resources of Europe not just Germany.



> About British rearmament : this had nothing to do with appeasement which was born immediately after the Treaty of Versailles.


 Rearmament was to do with the preparations for war. You clearly don't know the steps the UK took to prepare for war which were far more extensive that just increased the size of the armed forces.


> Britain could not help CZ in 1938, neither could it help Poland in 1939 , but the fact remains that Britain mobilized in 1938 and that Chamberlain told the population that,except a miracle, there would be war in a few days .The only reason why there was no war between Britain and Germany in 1938 ,was that there was no war between Germany and the Czechs in 1938 .


 The reason why there was no war in 1938 and the UK was unable to help CZ was that we were not yet ready for it, Geographically it was too far and France was against anything that would trigger Germany. 


> About a possible retreat of Group 11 to airfields north of London : this would not improve Germany's position as Group 11 would still be able to attack the German bombers .And, a bigger destruction of London than happened in the HTL, would also not force Britain to give up : during the Battle of Berlin, a big part of Berlin was destroyed by BC,but Germany did not give up . Thus why would Britain give up ?


 To a degree this is the only part where you have a point but I should remind you that we have the advantage of hindsight. If you had told Hitler that Berlin and the other cities would suffer the level of damage they did and yet the country would continue to operate, almost certainly they wouldn't have believed you.

A general point. You seem to have a certainty that the USA would partake in the war. This was far from certain and there were many voices in the USA that were against it. If there had been a negotiated settlement between the UK and Germany then they would have stayed out of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2021)

To the point about Bomber Command's (and 8th AF's) campaign against Berlin, the geographic, political, strategic and operational contexts for that campaign were entirely different than those facing Britain in May/June 1940.

My theory for a potential way for Britain to lose the BoB does not involve Germany bombing Britain into submission. It's about Germany demonstrating that it could attack Britain at will be neutralizing the key front-line defences of Fighter Command. Such a chain of events, coming on the back of the ignominious retreat from Dunkirk, and acknowledging that the British Army left most of its heavy equipment behind in France, could have have resulted in tectonic political shifts in Whitehall.

In 1944, Germany still had a substantial army and its factories were still producing massive quantities of war materiel. Although the Allies were advancing, Germany proper was still not under immediate threat of invasion, and still posed a substantial threat. The political environment was also entirely different. The Fuhrer was a dictator, and killing him was the only way to remove his grip on power. He couldn't be reasoned with, couldn't be voted out of power, and he steadfastly refused to change his mind, even when events didn't go as planned.

For all these reasons, and more, we can't compare the response of Germany to the Allied bombing campaign with Britain's potential response to a retreat by 11 Group in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2021)

Glider said:


> To a degree this is the only part where you have a point but I should remind you that we have the advantage of hindsight. If you had told Hitler that Berlin and the other cities would suffer the level of damage they did and yet the country would continue to operate, almost certainly they wouldn't have believed you.



This is a key point. In the summer of 1940, the RAF's heavy bomber was the Wellington. The Lancaster hadn't flown yet, the B-24 was only just entering production and wouldn't enter into service for another year, and the B-17 was only available in very small numbers (perhaps 50-100). A strategic bombing campaign of the scale ultimately delivered by the Allies was a pipe dream. The true effectiveness of bombing and its impact on civilian morale were still largely unknown.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You're big on making bold statements but the "evidence" you provide doesn't align with the actual chain of events.
> 
> Just how long do you think it takes to plan an operation of the scale of Barbarossa? For the record, I currently support planning of military operations and I can tell you that it would take many months to develop a viable operational plan. Thus the timeline from Otto being initiated in July 1940 until the execution of Barbarossa in June the following year makes perfect sense. However, you seem to think that Hitler just decided to invade Russia on a whim, ordered it and made it happen all in the summer of 1941. I'm afraid that's just not practical and doesn't align with how military operations are planned or executed.
> 
> I'm giving up responding to you. Your mind is clearly made up and no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade you from your beliefs. You keep jumping around within disconnected, cherry-picked anecdotes but your "evidence" lacks coherence, nor does it fit all the available historiography.


YOU were using Lukacs as a source for your arguments .
But, what did I find when I googled John Lukacs?

'' In Lukacs's view, Barbarossa was not inspired by anti-Communism or any long-term plan to conquer the Soviet Union,but it was rather an ad hoc reaction forced on Hitler in 1940-1941 by Britain's refusal to surrender .''
And the article on Wiki gives as source :The Hitler of History, P 133 & 149-150 .
Thus, even Lukacs is disagreeing with you . And Kershaw was going in the same direction .
Other point : you are unable to understand that a plan ( not Otto ) being ''initiated'' in July 1940,does not mean that the political leadership had decided to execute this plan .
FYI :
there were several ''plans '' not ONE plan ,and the final plan was composed of elements of these several plans .
There were (and the list is not exhaustive )
Operationsentwurf Ost (5 August ) by Marcks who estimated the Soviet strength on 119 divisions and 28 brigades and expected a campaign of 9-17 weeks .
There was also the Operationsstudie Ost from Lossberg (15 September )
And Paulus also was involved (29 )ctober ) 
On December 18 Hitler signed the Barbarossa Weisung, but even then,the preparations continued:
On January 31 1941 the OKH presented its Aufmarschanweisung Barbarossa .
Hitler did not decide in July 1940 to attack the SU ,but at the end of 1940, always with the caveat that if Britain capitulated before the start of Barbarossa, this would make Barbarossa not only unnecessary , but also impossible :
140 combat divisions were committed for Barbarossa and 10 Security divisions who would kill Jews and potential partisans . Bit if Britain gave up, Germany would need at least 40 divisions for the occupation of the British Islands (including Ireland ).As there were no 40 divisions available in Germany, the only solution would be to take away 40 divisions from the Ostheer .which would make Barbarossa impossible .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

Glider said:


> The shortage of oil is a common theme throughout the history of the war and there is a strong case for saying that if Hitler had concentrated solely on gaining the oilfields the outcome of the conflict would have been radically altered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shortage of oil was, till the Autumn of 1944, not caused by production problems but by transport problems .
And the German experts doubted very much that the capture of the Caucasian oil could make a difference .Because it was impossible to transport this oil to Germany and because the SU could continue the war without this oil .
Source : Germany and WWII Tome 6 P 808 (German edition ) 
And we know that the Soviets arrived in Berlin,while the Caucasian oil production was in 1945 only the half of that in 1940 .
About US War Plans against Britain : see War Plan Red .
Plans do not indicate intentions.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> How's this for a scenario? One of the German electronics boffins succeeds in convincing Goering of the strategic importance of the British radar and fighter direction network, resulting in an all out campaign that "blinds" the RAF. This allows an intense campaign against RAF facilities and AAA everywhere within the reach of bombers and drop tank equipped MEs, establishing air superiority and an umbrella for _Sealion _and, in conjunction with Uboats and Eboats, a potent opposition to any naval forces that sortie from Scapa Flow or other bases to interdict the invasion. London blitz never occurs, British historical icons are not threatened or damaged, and Churchill and the warhawks are toppled from power. Hitler has a full year to prepare for _Barbarossa _with the industrial resources of western Europe at his disposal, while Japan is incentivized to go north and west for the resources she needs rather than into SE Asia. Stalin, rather than Hitler, is confronted with a two-front war with huge logistical issues, and "America first!" reigns supreme in the western hemisphere.
> This makes BoB the decisive battle, and renders the others moot.
> (And sets the stage for Orwell's _1984_)


The importance of Radar in 1940 is much overestimated


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I agree but that mainly just helped him get power and hold onto it. Most of the German military's achievements were in spite of him not because. When he seriously intervened in a situation it usually brought disaster.


This only proves the strength of the propaganda of the defeated German generals .Hitler did not cause the defeat of Germany : the responsibles of the defeat of Germany were FDR, Churchill and Stalin .
Liddell Hart, Guderian and Halder have been proved to be liars .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Its always important to remember that Hitler was a barking mad rabble rouser with no experience of doing anything, most of the people around him were the same.


As were/are most politicians .
But all this does not prove that Hitler was responsible for the defeat of Germany .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Again, you're being selective in offering punchlines as evidence to support your theory. The only reason the USSR became Britain's "continental sword" is because Britain refused to sue for peace in 1940. As explained previously, Hitler had been planning to invade Russia for at least 4 years by that point in time.


Explained, but not proved .The only reason Hitler attacked the USSR was that it was Britain's continental sword .If both the US and the USSR openly had said that they would not support Britain, Britain would probably have given up .
Besides, what is important is NOT what Hitler planned to do,but what he had the intention to do and what he could do .


----------



## The Basket (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Explained, but not proved .The only reason Hitler attacked the USSR was that it was Britain's continental sword .If both the US and the USSR openly had said that they would not support Britain, Britain would probably have given up .
> Besides, what is important is NOT what Hitler planned to do,but what he had the intention to do and what he could do .


Er.....I write total bilge. But even I in all my stupid glory can't match this.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

Glider said:


> A general point. You seem to have a certainty that the USA would partake in the war. This was far from certain and there were many voices in the USA that were against it. If there had been a negotiated settlement between the UK and Germany then they would have stayed out of it.


After the GOP convention of August 1940,war with Germany was a fact , and it was nearing : very fast .
Willkie was as anti-German as FDR and supported also the New Deal .On a lot of points he was more to the left than FDR .
Thus the American electors had the choice between Roosevelt and Roosevelt .
There were also other things (supported by the GOP establishment ) as 
conscription in peace time
a two ocean fleet 
Lend Lease 
the Atlantic Fleet chasing the German U Boats .
Britain would fight as long as it could expect US support and a negotiated settlement was out of the question .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> As were/are most politicians .
> But all this does not prove that Hitler was responsible for the defeat of Germany .


It is just that with Adolf, his mad ramblings are treated as well thought out policies and facts when they are actually ideas that came into his head from nowhere in particular.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> To the point about Bomber Command's (and 8th AF's) campaign against Berlin, the geographic, political, strategic and operational contexts for that campaign were entirely different than those facing Britain in May/June 1940.
> 
> My theory for a potential way for Britain to lose the BoB does not involve Germany bombing Britain into submission. It's about Germany demonstrating that it could attack Britain at will be neutralizing the key front-line defences of Fighter Command. Such a chain of events, coming on the back of the ignominious retreat from Dunkirk, and acknowledging that the British Army left most of its heavy equipment behind in France, could have have resulted in tectonic political shifts in Whitehall.
> 
> ...


There is no proof that if Group 11 retreated, the German bombers could drop more bombs on London .
About the claim that the British army left most of its heavy equipment behind in France : it was the BEF who did this, and the army was more than the BEF. Besides, the Home Forces would need less heavy equipment to stop Sealion than the BEF to stop Fall Gelb,the Canadian division was strong enough to do it,thus the equipment losses of the BEF had no influence on the success of Sealion .
Much too importance is given to the front line defenses of FC.
Last point : the retreat from Dunkirk was not ignominious.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It is just that with Adolf, his mad ramblings are treated as well thought out policies and facts when they are actually ideas that came into his head from nowhere in particular.


His criminal ( not mad ) ramblings did not come from nowhere, their origin was to find in the ideas that were supported by a big part of the populations of Britain, US, Germany in the 19th and 20th century .
Hitler executed what a lot of people ( people as G.B. Shaw and Churchill ) were talking about .
Euthanasia, racism, eugenics,antisemitism did not appear on April 20 1889


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> His criminal ( not mad ) ramblings did not come from nowhere, their origin was to find in the ideas that were supported by a big part of the populations of Britain, US, Germany in the 19th and 20th century .
> Hitler executed what a lot of people ( people as G.B. Shaw and Churchill ) were talking about .
> Euthanasia, racism, eugenics,antisemitism did not appear on April 20 1889


Well they are mad as well as criminal, Adolf and Goebbels talking of a master race is like dogs proclaiming the superiority of cats. I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about his pronouncements on situations and events. He may have thought he had the most fearsome airforce and army in the world, that didnt make it a fact, he didnt have the capacity to beat the RAF and only had the resources to conquer a quarter of Russia, so he declared war on the USA to leave the world in no doubt about his stupidity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> As were/are most politicians .



Hardly. Most politicians are quite well-connected to reality, frequently more so than their critics. Some politicians are blinded by their ideology; some are blinded by their narcissism. Some forget that politics is not quite the same as running an army or a business (especially a sole proprietorship handed from a parent) and start expecting obedience instead of argument.

Nor was Hitler "barking mad"; he would not have been dangerous had he been just that. He read the German _zeitgeist_ of the time very well, neutralized (not entirely by murder) his opposition, corrupted the judiciary into his tool, co-opted the bulk of the military and industrial leadership, and somehow convinced multiple world governments that he was not a threat well into his military expansion _despite publicly saying that he intended to "restore" past German glory, which would entail invading and conquering, among other countries, Poland.
_


ljadw said:


> But all this does not prove that Hitler was responsible for the defeat of Germany ..



Hitler was responsible for starting WW2 in Europe, so he (and his minions and toadies) were responsible for all the resulting bloodshed. Hitler's sole role in Germany's defeat was starting the war in the first place.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Well they are mad as well as criminal, Adolf and Goebbels talking of a master race is like dogs proclaiming the superiority of cats. I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about his pronouncements on situations and events. He may have thought he had the most fearsome airforce and army in the world, that didnt make it a fact, he didnt have the capacity to beat the RAF and only had the resources to conquer a quarter of Russia, so he declared war on the USA to leave the world in no doubt about his stupidity.


You can call his DOW a stupidity, but the reality is 
a he could not remain idle while US would destroy Japan 
b PH would inevitably result in a US DOW on Germany 
c It took more than one year for US army units fighting against Germans . In Tunisia .
Thus, his DOW on December 11 was not that important .


----------



## Akuma (Jun 14, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No offense but at the time I think the Germans would have been more scared of the Royal Navy then the US Navy.


Just happened to come across your answer. Not only the Germans, but everyone else that saw the RN as a potential adversary was scared of them. The Japanese did not feel confident in their plans to attack the US Navy unless the RN was otherwise tied down in another conflict. As for those that saw the Royal Navy as a potential ally; I've read contemporary accounts of senior USN officers praising the RN and saying that the USN could do well in adopting more of it's features.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You can call his DOW a stupidity, but the reality is
> a he could not remain idle while US would destroy Japan
> b PH would inevitably result in a US DOW on Germany
> c It took more than one year for US army units fighting against Germans . In Tunisia .
> Thus, his DOW on December 11 was not that important .


I am referring to his speech when he declared war, as part of his "European Crusade" on 11 December 1941

Quote "Today I am at the head of the strongest Army in the world, the most gigantic Air Force and of a proud Navy. Behind and around me stands the Party with which I became great and which has become great through me. "

If he wasnt aware that his airforce was not gigantic at all let alone the most gigantic it shows how daft and ill advised he was. At the time of his lengthy rant, his "strongest army in the world" was starting to die of cold and was eating its means of transport. Far too much respect is shown for this buffoon.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 14, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One thing is for sure, just the terrain of Crete would have made it very very difficult to take. If the British forces there had been fresh troops with good moral and well supplied it very well may have been different.
> 
> Wow you two really are starting to go at it!  I wonder how much I can sell tickets for.


There are a number of histories on the Battle of Crete as well as others that have chapters on it. I once came across a history of intelligence operations in WWII written by an English author who included a chapter on Crete and said the following. British intelligence had uncovered information on the upcoming German invasion of Crete and knew how, when and where the German forces would be operating. British forces that were to be sent to other areas under their control for rest and refit were instead, rerouted to Crete. They were then given the supplies to the maximum then readily available to counter the invasion. As a consequence they were able to affect terrible losses on the German forces, especially the Fallschirmjager. I do not know how accurate this author was but even if partly true this would be another reason for those losses.


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Shortage of oil was, till the Autumn of 1944, not caused by production problems but by transport problems .


I am sorry but you are wrong. There are two types of fuel shortage 1) Quantity and 2) Quality

Quantity you have a point but the shortage started to bite from mid 43 onwards. However it wasn't able to supply the Italians who had a desperate shortage. Additional fuel would certainly have helped.
Quality you are far off the mark. Until the end of the war the Luftwaffe never had enough C4 fuel which was the equivalent of 100 Octane, any cursory research you do will support that. As mentioned in an earlier post this can make a huge difference to the performance of an aircraft.

On other topics


> The importance of Radar in 1940 is much overestimated


 Are you serious about this, really!! Please give any evidence to support this, from any source or any example.



> Liddell Hart, Guderian and Halder have been proved to be liars


 Please tell me where and when these people were proved to be liars



> Willkie was as anti-German as FDR and supported also the New Deal .On a lot of points he was more to the left than FDR .


 True but the majority of Americans were against getting involved and Willkie only just scraped through as the other candidate. This definitely didn't make it a certainty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2021)

Glider said:


> I am sorry but you are wrong. There are two types of fuel shortage 1) Quantity and 2) Quality
> 
> Quantity you have a point but the shortage started to bite from mid 43 onwards. However it wasn't able to supply the Italians who had a desperate shortage. Additional fuel would certainly have helped.
> Quality you are far off the mark. Until the end of the war the Luftwaffe never had enough C4 fuel which was the equivalent of 100 Octane, any cursory research you do will support that. As mentioned in an earlier post this can make a huge difference to the performance of an aircraft.
> ...


In 1944 the Germans had difficulty transporting their oil from behind Russian lines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I am referring to his speech when he declared war, as part of his "European Crusade" on 11 December 1941
> 
> Quote "Today I am at the head of the strongest Army in the world, the most gigantic Air Force and of a proud Navy. Behind and around me stands the Party with which I became great and which has become great through me. "
> 
> If he wasnt aware that his airforce was not gigantic at all let alone the most gigantic it shows how daft and ill advised he was. At the time of his lengthy rant, his "strongest army in the world" was starting to die of cold and was eating its means of transport. Far too much respect is shown for this buffoon.


Words,only words .
Would you expect him to say : I am at the head of an Army that had failed in Russia, of an Air Force that failed in the skies of Britain and of a small U Boat force that has failed in the Atlantic Ocean ,with an admiral who failed to admit that it was better to sink one oil tanker than 10 merchant vessels transporting food ?
He was not daft and ill advised,but was not that stupid to tell the truth .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Words,only words .
> Would you expect him to say : I am at the head of an Army that had failed in Russia, of an Air Force that failed in the skies of Britain and of a small U Boat force that has failed in the Atlantic Ocean ,with an admiral who failed to admit that it was better to sink one oil tanker than 10 merchant vessels transporting food ?
> He was not daft and ill advised,but was not that stupid to tell the truth .


If he had considered and tried to find out the truth he would have realised even then the situation was hopeless, instead he carried on like a petulant child, telling millions to fight to the death, something he himself famously didnt do.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

Glider said:


> I am sorry but you are wrong. There are two types of fuel shortage 1) Quantity and 2) Quality
> 
> Quantity you have a point but the shortage started to bite from mid 43 onwards. However it wasn't able to supply the Italians who had a desperate shortage. Additional fuel would certainly have helped.
> Quality you are far off the mark. Until the end of the war the Luftwaffe never had enough C4 fuel which was the equivalent of 100 Octane, any cursory research you do will support that. As mentioned in an earlier post this can make a huge difference to the performance of an aircraft.
> ...


Once the LW aircraft had passed the Radar installations, no one knew what their direction was : London, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool ?
The Radar could only tell that German aircraft were crossing the Channel . Nothing more .The Radar did not say what city would be attacked .
About Liddell Hart : look at what Mearsheimer said of him .He was an imposter who lectured the military hierarchy before the war, while his military career lasted only 4 years . He left as a captain .He did not hesitate to ask after the war Guderian ( an enemy ) to say that the theory of the Blitzkrieg was inspired by him , Liddell Hart ,and Guderian , a Nazi, said yes , of course .Frau Rommel received the same question,but refused . She had some dignity .
It were Guderian and Liddell Hart who were spreading after the war the myth that the escape of the BEF was made possible by the Halt Order and that this order was given by Hitler and that the generals protested .
It was Guderian who said that the only thing that was important in a Panzer Division,was the number of tanks, proving his incompetence .( Panzer Leader P 139 ) In 1943 he wanted to restore Panzer Divisions with 400 tanks ,proving that he was a fool .
It was Guderian who was looking in 1943 in occupied Poland for an estate . He found one, the owner of which had been murdered by the SS . But that was no problem for the friend of Liddell Hart .

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> YOU were using Lukacs as a source for your arguments .
> But, what did I find when I googled John Lukacs?
> 
> '' In Lukacs's view, Barbarossa was not inspired by anti-Communism or any long-term plan to conquer the Soviet Union,but it was rather an ad hoc reaction forced on Hitler in 1940-1941 by Britain's refusal to surrender .''
> ...



I sourced Lukacs' book about the political disagreements in Parliament about whether to continue the war or sue for peace in May 1940. That does not mean I agree with everything he has ever written. 

Interesting that you call me out for citing Lukacs when, in post #862 you said "I have not much faith in Lucacs .He writes fiction." So, which parts of Lucaks' writings are fiction/ Is it the stuff about London in May 1940 or his views on Barbarossa and anti-Communism.

FWIW, I'm glad to see you're citing Wikipedia instead of actually reading the scholarly works for yourself. It's a great way to win an argument. 





ljadw said:


> Other point : you are unable to understand that a plan ( not Otto ) being ''initiated'' in July 1940,does not mean that the political leadership had decided to execute this plan .
> FYI :
> there were several ''plans '' not ONE plan ,and the final plan was composed of elements of these several plans .
> There were (and the list is not exhaustive )
> ...



Some observations on military planning:

1. Military planning precedes the commander's decision which directs the action. You don't decide and then plan; you plan in order to make smart, informed decisions. The commander directs the planning to start because (a) he expects to conduct operations, or (b) he's developing a contingency plan in case of operations.
2. Planning typically involves the development of multiple courses of action (COAs) which are presented to the commander who decides which COA, or combination of COAs, will be executed.
3. Planning is not a linear activity. It is highly iterative as new information and new senior leader direction is received. 
4. Planning NEVER starts with a blank sheet of paper. You ALWAYS start with an existing plan as a jumping-off point. The planning effort may integrate components from multiple prior plans. 

Again, I will stress that I do this stuff for a living. I know of what I speak. To give you an example of the amount of time it takes to plan major operations, we have an existing OPLAN on the shelf that is massive in scope. Updates to it take at least 3 months to complete...and it's far less complex than Barbarossa. 

If Hitler had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union, then all the planning for Barbarossa was nothing more than a contingency plan. Bell has the following to say, which I've transcribed for you, that tallies well with my comments above (P.M.H. Bell "The Origins of the Second World War in Europe", 2nd Ed pp.323-324): 

_Not all plans are carried out - the directive of November 1940 for an attack on Gibraltar, for example, came to nothing. The absolute certainty of an attack on the Soviet Union cannot, therefore, be assumed on the basis of the military plans alone. But the scale of the military preparations, and the time and energy devoted to them, put the planning for Barbarossa in quite a different category from that of Gibraltar. Certainly from December 1940 onwards it was clear that this was no mere contingency plan, but, short of something extraordinary, would be put into effect. The question is why?_

_One answer is that it was the fulfilment of a long-formed intention. Alan Bullock concluded firmly in his biography of Hitler that: 'Hitler invaded Russia for the simple but sufficient reason that he had always meant to establish the foundation of his thousand-year Reich by annexation of the territory between the Vistula and the Urals.' Other motives, at most, only reinforced a decision he had already reached. This conclusion has been widely shared and evidence for it may be found throughout Hitler's writings and talks to Nazi and service leaders over a long period. His mind appeared to be firmly set in this mould by the 1920s and the longer his dictatorship lasted the less open he was to new ways of thought._

_By 1940 it is probable that the mould was unbreakable. Hitler took up other ideas - an invasion of Britain, a move through Spain, a Mediterranean Campaign, a grand alliance to include the USSR - but he dropped them again. To an attack on the Soviet Union he constantly returned._

The bottom line is that Hitler ordered planning to start for an invasion of Russia. The scale of effort and level of preparation strongly suggests that this was no mere contingency plan. Once planning was complete, 5 months later (a not-unreasonable amount of time given the complexity of the plan), Hitler directed that the plan be executed. 





ljadw said:


> Hitler did not decide in July 1940 to attack the SU ,but at the end of 1940, always with the caveat that if Britain capitulated before the start of Barbarossa, this would make Barbarossa not only unnecessary , but also impossible :
> 140 combat divisions were committed for Barbarossa and 10 Security divisions who would kill Jews and potential partisans . Bit if Britain gave up, Germany would need at least 40 divisions for the occupation of the British Islands (including Ireland ).As there were no 40 divisions available in Germany, the only solution would be to take away 40 divisions from the Ostheer .which would make Barbarossa impossible .



Again, you're assuming that a British capitulation would require occupation of the British Isles by German forces. That is an entirely false assumption to make. If a Parliamentary vote of no-confidence went against Churchill and he was replaced by someone who was willing to agree peace terms with Hitler, then it's far more likely that Britain would adopt a neutral stance, particularly if the constituent parts of the British Empire were no longer under threat of German attack. As I've said all along, the loss of the Battle of Britain didn't need to be an all-out military defeat followed by invasion and occupation. Hitler's aims of knocking Britain out of the war could have been achieved by influencing Parliament to replace Churchill with a more peace-minded alternative.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Once the LW aircraft had passed the Radar installations, no one knew what their direction was : London, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool ?
> The Radar could only tell that German aircraft were crossing the Channel . Nothing more .The Radar did not say what city would be attacked .



You don't wait for the enemy to cross your coast to intercept them; you engage them as far out as possible. Once you have defending fighters engaging the enemy formation, you don't need radar any more...you can just talk direct to the defending pilots. Thus, if you can guide your fighters to an early intercept, courtesy of radar, then you can have a much better means of track-following to their target, with more fighters engaging en route. 

The primary objective of blasting a hole in the radar screen would be to reduce British warning of an incoming raid to little more than the human eye. That won't give defending fighters time to scramble and intercept, unless the defenders mount standing patrols but that's incredibly wasteful in machines (e.g. you need an entire squadron to maintain a combat air patrol of just 4 fighters, which means you won't have reserves to launch once a raid is detected). Neutralizing the British radar would greatly enhance the operational success of any formation pushing through the gap. If that attacking formation went on to attack airfields then even more chaos would be sown in 11 Group's turf.

Once again, though, you're focusing on the Luftwaffe attacking British cities when the whole premise of the RAF losing the BoB is the withdrawal of 11 Group from its airfields in the southeast of England.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Once the LW aircraft had passed the Radar installations, no one knew what their direction was : London, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool ?
> The Radar could only tell that German aircraft were crossing the Channel . Nothing more .The Radar did not say what city would be attacked .


 I think this response more than most shows how shallow your reading and research is. Radar warns you about the initial build up of the forces, this gives you time to ready your defences. It tells your the direction the forces are coming in from and an estimate of the numbers involved. It gives you a good idea which are fighters and those that are bombers which need more concentration so you can concentrate your forces. It enables you to intercept the incoming forces before they reach the coast and once past the radar installations the Observer corps took over and generally did a good job. Few, very few raids reached their target without warning.
I shouldn't have to say this as its basic A, B, C, stuff of radar and its use. Someone who says so much would have known this and I find it disappointing.


> About Liddell Hart : look at what Mearsheimer said of him .He was an imposter who lectured the military hierarchy before the war, while his military career lasted only 4 years . He left as a captain .He did not hesitate to ask after the war Guderian ( an enemy ) to say that the theory of the Blitzkrieg was inspired by him , Liddell Hart ,and Guderian , a Nazi, said yes , of course .Frau Rommel received the same question,but refused . She had some dignity.


As for his military career, you do know that he was badly gassed in combat and had two mild heart attacks probably the result of his injuries. Was he perfect, No, did he blow his own trumpet, yes so did others, Montgomery, Patton, Clark, MacArthur, to name but a few and I have no doubt that others could easily be added to the list. Were they all incompetent, no.
You can look at what Mearsheimer said about him and you could also look at what Richard M. Swain said about those comments.
Did Liddell get everything right, No, did he get more right than he got wrong, I would argue yes.


> It were Guderian and Liddell Hart who were spreading after the war the myth that the escape of the BEF was made possible by the Halt Order and that this order was given by Hitler and that the generals protested .
> It was Guderian who said that the only thing that was important in a Panzer Division,was the number of tanks, proving his incompetence .( Panzer Leader P 139 ) In 1943 he wanted to restore Panzer Divisions with 400 tanks ,proving that he was a fool .


 Calling a man who served well and with considerable success a fool is a strong statement. Interestingly it was one of Liddells main theories that infantry should be carried in protected vehicles with the tanks, which is a basic structure of nearly all modern units Excepting specialised units. Not bad for an im,poster in the 1930's

If you are talking fools, you might want to consider your comments about the US Marines starting from the Shetland Islands, invading Scotland, marching onto London and starting a second front. All the time on the presumption that the Battle of the |Atlantic had been lost.
You have heard the phrase, 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 14, 2021)

I don’t know much about armor (or much of anything else) but this is the first time I’ve read of Guderian being called a fool.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2021)

I suppose it would be futile to point out that Goering convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could finish off the BEF at Dunkirk, thus the ground forces were held back so the Fat Bastard could get the credit.
Obviously the idiot either didn't realize the Luftwaffe had been reduced in numbers from the recent battles or wouldn't admit it, and thr Luftwaffe failed to deliver on his promise.
Had the "fool" Guderian been unleashed on Dunkirk, history would have quite different...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I sourced Lukacs' book about the political disagreements in Parliament about whether to continue the war or sue for peace in May 1940. That does not mean I agree with everything he has ever written.
> 
> Interesting that you call me out for citing Lukacs when, in post #862 you said "I have not much faith in Lucacs .He writes fiction." So, which parts of Lucaks' writings are fiction/ Is it the stuff about London in May 1940 or his views on Barbarossa and anti-Communism.
> 
> ...


Hitler would have been a complete idiot if he would not demand the occupation of Britain : a neutral Britain could always become again a hostile Britain .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I don’t know much about armor (or much of anything else) but this is the first time I’ve read of Guderian being called a fool.


Some one who wanted in 1943 to reconstitute Panzer Divisions with 400 tanks was a fool .The Soviets had in 1941 a big number of tank divisions with between 200 and 400 tanks and these fell immediately apart : divisions with 400 tanks can not operate .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I suppose it would be futile to point out that Goering convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could finish off the BEF at Dunkirk, thus the ground forces were held back so the Fat Bastard could get the credit.
> Obviously the idiot either didn't realize the Luftwaffe had been reduced in numbers from the recent battles or wouldn't admit it, and thr Luftwaffe failed to deliver on his promise.
> Had the "fool" Guderian been unleashed on Dunkirk, history would have quite different...


The initial Halt Order was issued by Rundstedt, thus Guderian, Halder and Liddell Hart were lying when they blamed Hitler for the Halt Order .
And, the capture of the British Forces at Dunkirk would not have made any difference : the strength of the BEF (including RAF ) was 400000,of whom 190000 escaped at Dunkirk and 140000 from harbours in Western France (operation Aerial ) ,the rest were losses .

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

Glider said:


> I think this response more than most shows how shallow your reading and research is. Radar warns you about the initial build up of the forces, this gives you time to ready your defences. It tells your the direction the forces are coming in from and an estimate of the numbers involved. It gives you a good idea which are fighters and those that are bombers which need more concentration so you can concentrate your forces. It enables you to intercept the incoming forces before they reach the coast and once past the radar installations the Observer corps took over and generally did a good job. Few, very few raids reached their target without warning.
> I shouldn't have to say this as its basic A, B, C, stuff of radar and its use. Someone who says so much would have known this and I find it disappointing.
> As for his military career, you do know that he was badly gassed in combat and had two mild heart attacks probably the result of his injuries. Was he perfect, No, did he blow his own trumpet, yes so did others, Montgomery, Patton, Clark, MacArthur, to name but a few and I have no doubt that others could easily be added to the list. Were they all incompetent, no.
> You can look at what Mearsheimer said about him and you could also look at what Richard M. Swain said about those comments.
> ...


Who would stop the Marines if they landed at Inverness ? Only the Germans, but for this an occupation army would be needed and this army could not be at two different points : if it was in Britain, the Ostheer would be amputated by 40 divisions .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Hitler would have been a complete idiot if he would not demand the occupation of Britain : a neutral Britain could always become again a hostile Britain .



It all depends on the terms of the peace treaty, and the nature of punitive measures if either side broke the treaty. I have to question the required total of 40 divisions to occupy Britain when occupied France only had a total of 100,000 German soldiers as of 1941 (that's 4-8 divisions depending on the actual personnel allocations).


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The initial Halt Order was issued by Rundstedt, thus Guderian, Halder and Liddell Hart were lying when they blamed Hitler for the Halt Order .
> And, the capture of the British Forces at Dunkirk would not have made any difference : the strength of the BEF (including RAF ) was 400000,of whom 190000 escaped at Dunkirk and 140000 from harbours in Western France (operation Aerial ) ,the rest were losses .


Rundstedt called the halt because his elements were strung out, playing catch-up. They needed consolidating before pushing into the defenders.
Hitler sanctioned the order on 24 May and then lifted it on 26 May.

You seem to be a bit confused. 338,000+ allies escaped Dunkirk *because* of the halt.

These would have been severe losses to Britain and the Allies (no W) had they been killed/captured.
Let's take a look at the British Army's strength by the end of 1939, why don't we?
227,000 men in regular service.
204,000 men in territorial service.
That's 431,000 men.

Bear in mind that Britain had troops across the globe like India and the far East, so that total number was not representative of what Britain had available for Europe, plus, they were soon to lose a substantial number to the Empire of Japan.

So the potential of losing nearly half that number in one fell-swoop would have been a disaster. Even losing a quarter of that number would have been a disaster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Rundstedt called the halt because his elements were strung out, playing catch-up. They needed consolidating before pushing into the defenders.
> Hitler sanctioned the order on 24 May and then lifted it on 26 May.
> 
> You seem to be a bit confused. 338,000+ allies escaped Dunkirk *because* of the halt.
> ...


The biggest part of the BEF arrived in France in 1940. And you forget the existence of the Home Forces which were numerically stronger than the BEF .
The 190000 British and 140000 Allied soldiers ( most French ) did not escape because of the Halt Order.They would also have escaped without the Halt Order, a lot of them were already evacuated before the Halt Order,and the others were evacuated after the Halt Order was rescinded .
They were evacuated because of the resistance of the French and because the Panzer Divisions were to weak to go to Dunkirk without the help of the infantry : they had advanced too fast .It was the second time that they failed : the first time was when they tried to capture Warsaw .
On the day of the Halt Order,the nearest German forces to Dunkirk,were elements of the 1st PzD,who were in the region of Gravelines ,some 30 km from Dunkirk , and it was out of the question that a few tanks ( a lot were immobilized because of non combat reasons ) without artillery and infantry could have captured Dunkirk.
When the Halt Order was cancelled the Germans were unable to prevent the evacuation of the BEF, thus why would they have done it without Halt Order ?
The Dunkirk Myth has been created during the war to fortify the moral of the population and was after the war blindly accepted by the traditional historiography, as a lot of other myths.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> It all depends on the terms of the peace treaty, and the nature of punitive measures if either side broke the treaty. I have to question the required total of 40 divisions to occupy Britain when occupied France only had a total of 100,000 German soldiers as of 1941 (that's 4-8 divisions depending on the actual personnel allocations).


It was more , much more : the strength of AG D (France and the Low Countries ) was 43 divisions and 509000 men for a population of 25 million (France ) and 20 million ( Low Countries ) .
Source : Nigel Askey Operation Barbarossa Volume II B P 86


----------



## ljadw (Jun 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You don't wait for the enemy to cross your coast to intercept them; you engage them as far out as possible. Once you have defending fighters engaging the enemy formation, you don't need radar any more...you can just talk direct to the defending pilots. Thus, if you can guide your fighters to an early intercept, courtesy of radar, then you can have a much better means of track-following to their target, with more fighters engaging en route.
> 
> The primary objective of blasting a hole in the radar screen would be to reduce British warning of an incoming raid to little more than the human eye. That won't give defending fighters time to scramble and intercept, unless the defenders mount standing patrols but that's incredibly wasteful in machines (e.g. you need an entire squadron to maintain a combat air patrol of just 4 fighters, which means you won't have reserves to launch once a raid is detected). Neutralizing the British radar would greatly enhance the operational success of any formation pushing through the gap. If that attacking formation went on to attack airfields then even more chaos would be sown in 11 Group's turf.
> 
> Once again, though, you're focusing on the Luftwaffe attacking British cities when the whole premise of the RAF losing the BoB is the withdrawal of 11 Group from its airfields in the southeast of England.


To intercept the enemy in the Channel was not wise, as it would demand to much fuel : British and German fighters could not long remain operational ,the farther the German fighters were going, the less they could protect the bombers .
And I disagree that the premise of the RAF losing ''The Battle of Britain '',another WWII myth,was the withdrawal of 11 Group from its airfields in the southeast .
The ''Battle of Britain '' would not be won if FC could shoot more German fighters than it lost ,and even if the Battle of Britain was won by the LW, Sealion would remain impossible .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It was more , much more : the strength of AG D (France and the Low Countries ) was 43 divisions and 509000 men for a population of 25 million (France ) and 20 million ( Low Countries ) .
> Source : Nigel Askey Operation Barbarossa Volume II B P 86



Wow...can you move goalposts any quicker? 

I gave a number for France but then you add on Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The total occupied area for those countries is roughly double that of the UK....and yet you persist in your belief that it needed 40 divisions to occupy the UK? 

Also, what's the date for Askey's number? Does it coincide with preparations for Sea Lion perhaps? Forgive the skepticism but you have a habit of removing the context for many of your quotes and assertions. Just trying to understand the true details behind your headline figure.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The biggest part of the BEF arrived in France in 1940. And you forget the existence of the Home Forces which were numerically stronger than the BEF .


I didn't forget anything.
I gave you the total manpower of the entire Royal Army - worldwide.
Which, by the way, would include Britain proper.
Britain is part of the world, in case you weren't aware.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> To intercept the enemy in the Channel was not wise, as it would demand to much fuel : British and German fighters could not long remain operational ,the farther the German fighters were going, the less they could protect the bombers .
> And I disagree that the premise of the RAF losing ''The Battle of Britain '',another WWII myth,was the withdrawal of 11 Group from its airfields in the southeast .
> The ''Battle of Britain '' would not be won if FC could shoot more German fighters than it lost ,and even if the Battle of Britain was won by the LW, Sealion would remain impossible .



And there you go again ignoring what I've written. I'm more than happy for you to disagree with me...but simply re-stating the same things which don't address my arguments is getting boring. You've disagreed with everything from the benefits of radar to the point at which intercepts could take place. Your comment about interceptions over the Channel using "too much fuel" is entirely bogus given that Fighter Command actively engaged in offensive sweeps into occupied Europe in 1941. 

To be honest, I really can't understand the point you're making with this statement "The ''Battle of Britain '' would not be won if FC could shoot more German fighters than it lost". Can you explain please?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2021)

I'm sure FC "shot" a great many Luftwaffe aircraft.
Which would be a bit different than how many were shot down.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Wow...can you move goalposts any quicker?
> 
> I gave a number for France but then you add on Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The total occupied area for those countries is roughly double that of the UK....and yet you persist in your belief that it needed 40 divisions to occupy the UK?
> 
> Also, what's the date for Askey's number? Does it coincide with preparations for Sea Lion perhaps? Forgive the skepticism but you have a habit of removing the context for many of your quotes and assertions. Just trying to understand the true details behind your headline figure.


The goings on of the daft Austrian corporal provide no end of amusement. Once you occupy somewhere by force the people there dont like it and you yourself have to defend it. Apart from considerations like Sea Lion and D-Day you need a force to defend the 500+ miles of coast or the pesky British may try to capture a port or an airfield or steal a RADAR, destroy a dry dock etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Who would stop the Marines if they landed at Inverness ? Only the Germans, but for this an occupation army would be needed and this army could not be at two different points : if it was in Britain, the Ostheer would be amputated by 40 divisions .



There are so many holes in this short sentence I spent some time wondering if it was worth writing an essay.

So instead I invite you to ask yourself this question and let us know what your answer is.

*Question* - If the War in the Atlantic has been lost, How are the Marines and the vast quantity equipment needed for an invasion, going to get to the Shetland Islands (which is in the Atlantic) in the first place?

I, in fact probably all of us await your response with interest.



> The initial Halt Order was issued by Rundstedt, thus Guderian, Halder and Liddell Hart were lying when they blamed Hitler for the Halt Order .



Back to that lying word again. Ask yourself another question

*Question - *Do you really think Rundstedt would have issued the order without Hitler's agreement.



> To intercept the enemy in the Channel was not wise, as it would demand to much fuel : British and German fighters could not long remain operational ,the farther the German fighters were going, the less they could protect the bombers .


I find your almost total lack of understanding of the very basics of the control and command of Air Combat almost staggering. Bombers cruise at approx 200mph, it varies a bit naturally but that's a fair average. Intercept them say twenty five miles out and within eight minutes your over UK land. Where exactly is the fuel problem for the defenders?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2021)

ljadw said:


> To intercept the enemy in the Channel was not wise, as it would demand to much fuel : British and German fighters could not long remain operational ,the farther the German fighters were going, the less they could protect the bombers .
> .


What does this mean? It is 31 miles from Hawkinge to Calais, if you take off from Hawkinge and fly to Calais you will be over the French coast before you reach 25,000ft.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 15, 2021)

Not that I agree with 
L
 ljadw
's argument, but von Rundstedt was sacked from command of AG South in Dec 1941 for refusing to execute an order from Hitler to stop retreating in the face of the Russians. His words were along the lines of "If you wish this order to be followed, you must find someone else to do so."

Hitler promptly fired him. Semi-retirement for a couple of years until recalled to active duty in 1944.

Rundstedt was, I think, confident enough in himself to issue a halt order in front of Dunkirk without reference to Hitler's approval. I don't know, and am not arguing, that that actually happened; just pointing out that vR didn't seem overawed by AH.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

Rundstedt's order was supposed be temporary - long enough for the lines to consolidate.
Uncle Adolph got involved and as we all know, anytime the Corporal got his fingers in the pudding, things went to sh*t.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 15, 2021)

I remember reading along those lines.

I think a mistake that big (and that's how I see it from what I've read) has enough blame to pass around.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Not that I agree with
> L
> ljadw
> 's argument, but von Rundstedt was sacked from command of AG South in Dec 1941 for refusing to execute an order from Hitler to stop retreating in the face of the Russians. His words were along the lines of "If you wish this order to be followed, you must find someone else to do so."
> ...


One point : the semi-retirement of Rundstedt lasted only a few months : in 1942 he became OB West,succeeding Witzleben who was out for a cancer operation .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What does this mean? It is 31 miles from Hawkinge to Calais, if you take off from Hawkinge and fly to Calais you will be over the French coast before you reach 25,000ft.


Fighters could only be operational during a short time ,thus, one can argue that it was better to attack the German bombers over Britain, not in the Channel.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

Glider said:


> There are so many holes in this short sentence I spent some time wondering if it was worth writing an essay.
> 
> So instead I invite you to ask yourself this question and let us know what your answer is.
> 
> ...


A British fighter pilot lost over Britain could be saved, while if he was lost over the Channel.....
And it was better to shoot a German bomber over Britain than over the Channel:if he was shot over land, he was lost,while if he was shot over water, the Germans could save him .
Other point : why would FC attack the LW before it was over land ? As long it was over the Channel,it was no danger and as long it was over the Channel,it could be a trap for FC.
Radar did not give direction, height, speed, number of aircraft, or even if the aircraft were bombers or fighters .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Fighters could only be operational during a short time ,thus, one can argue that it was better to attack the German bombers over Britain, not in the Channel.


That is the advantage of Radar, you send aircraft up to meet the opposition not to wait around. It was preferable to meet over land and pilots were told not to chase the LW out to sea because they probably wouldnt be rescued.


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 15, 2021)

Hey ljadw:

re "Radar did not give direction, height, speed, number of aircraft, or even if the aircraft were bombers or fighters"

Chain Home radar gave direction, approximate height, approximate speed, and allowed an estimate of numbers in the formation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Wow...can you move goalposts any quicker?
> 
> I gave a number for France but then you add on Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The total occupied area for those countries is roughly double that of the UK....and yet you persist in your belief that it needed 40 divisions to occupy the UK?
> 
> Also, what's the date for Askey's number? Does it coincide with preparations for Sea Lion perhaps? Forgive the skepticism but you have a habit of removing the context for many of your quotes and assertions. Just trying to understand the true details behind your headline figure.


The date for Askey's numbers is June 1941 .
The Germans used 43 divisions to occupy 45 million French ,Belgian and Dutch . How many would they need to occupy 49 million people in the UK and Ireland ?
They would not let Cork without defense .
The area of the UK + Ireland is some 300000 square km . 
Occupied France + the Low Countries is not 600000 square km ,but the whole of France (550000 square km ) + the Low Countries is 610000 square km .Occupied France was some 60 % of France .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The date for Askey's numbers is June 1941 .
> The Germans used 43 divisions to occupy 45 million French ,Belgian and Dutch . How many would they need to occupy 49 million people in the UK and Ireland ?
> They would not let Cork without defense .
> The area of the UK + Ireland is some 300000 square km .
> Occupied France + the Low Countries is not 600000 square km ,but the whole of France (550000 square km ) + the Low Countries is 610000 square km .Occupied France was some 60 % of France .


And these numbers didnt change with the invasion of Russia, involvement in Africa and Italy? Surely you are aware of Hitler's directives 51 and 52?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> And these numbers didnt change with the invasion of Russia, involvement in Africa and Italy? Surely you are aware of Hitler's directives 51 and 52?


The point was that if in June 1941 the UK + Ireland were occupied, this would demand additional forces, which Germany did not have .
The same can be said about a defeat and occupation of the SU : the forces needed for this would make an invasion of Britain impossible .
The stronger Germany was in the West, the weaker it would be in the East .
It was the same in 1914 : Aufmarschanweisung Ost would make a successful Schlieffen Plan impossible and a successful Schlieffen Plan would make a successful war in the East impossible .
That these numbers changed after June 1941 is irrelevant .
The point is that the more countries you occupy,the more forces are tied .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That is the advantage of Radar, you send aircraft up to meet the opposition not to wait around. It was preferable to meet over land and pilots were told not to chase the LW out to sea because they probably wouldnt be rescued.


This had nothing to do with radar .Radar did not indicate the direction ,the height, the speed, the number,..of incoming aircraft .
Besides, it was from a military POV not needed to send aircraft to meet the opposition . 
Dowding could have chosen as strategy to hold back FC til the day of the invasion , thus ,no Battle of Britain, but this would create political problems .
On the other hand, there were those who wanted a decisive air battle, but Dowding chose the middle way : a battle of attrition which would gain time til the weather would make Sealion impossible .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

Glider said:


> There are so many holes in this short sentence I spent some time wondering if it was worth writing an essay.
> 
> So instead I invite you to ask yourself this question and let us know what your answer is.
> 
> ...


The Marines were already present in Iceland and would be able to land on the Shetlands and the Highlands and no one would stop them if they were going from Inverness to London . No one said that after the liberation of London, the Marines would start Overlord .
The only who could stop them from liberating Britain would be the German occupation forces .
And about the Halt Order from Rundstedt : it was issued without Hitler's knowledge .Jodl wrote in his diary on May 25 :Führer leaves decision to AGA . (Source : The Blitzkrieg Legend P 295 )
The OKH was angry and annulled the order AND took away half of AG A from Rundstedt to give it to Bock . Also without Hitler's knowledge .And Hitler was angry especially because the OKH had totally changed Fall Gelb. without informing him .
The whole question was : who would be Hammer and Anvil at Dunkirk ? Normally the Hammer would be Rundstedt and the Anvil Bock, but now, Halder, who was hostile to Rundstedt, took away all PzD from AGA and gave them to Bock . (Blitzkrieg Legend P 294 : Rundstedt's temporary disempowerment ).
No wonder that Hitler was angry .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> This had nothing to do with radar .Radar did not indicate the direction ,the height, the speed, the number,..of incoming aircraft .
> Besides, it was from a military POV not needed to send aircraft to meet the opposition .
> Dowding could have chosen as strategy to hold back FC til the day of the invasion , thus ,no Battle of Britain, but this would create political problems .
> On the other hand, there were those who wanted a decisive air battle, but Dowding chose the middle way : a battle of attrition which would gain time til the weather would make Sealion impossible .


I have already posted the link to the Radar pages web site which explains what Chain Home could do and how it did it, also the limits of what it could do. Its sensitivity and resolution was far better than the Germans thought possible, especially because it combined information from adjacent stations to form a plot, this was all part of the Dowding system. If it couldnt indicate height what was Chain Home Low about? If two adjacent stations detect a force then their position can be found by simple trigonometry, plotting their position over time gives speed. The number in a force is a question of operator experience and proximity to the station. Please read these The Radar Pages - Chain Home and stop posting your internet "facts" they are completely incorrect, the only thing that is true about them is that they are on the internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> This had nothing to do with radar .Radar did not indicate the direction ,the height, the speed, the number,..of incoming aircraft .
> Besides, it was from a military POV not needed to send aircraft to meet the opposition .
> Dowding could have chosen as strategy to hold back FC til the day of the invasion , thus ,no Battle of Britain, but this would create political problems .
> On the other hand, there were those who wanted a decisive air battle, but Dowding chose the middle way : a battle of attrition which would gain time til the weather would make Sealion impossible .


You got be trolling bro.
Trollbot 3000 over here.
Political problems like British civilians been killed in air raids. That's a political problem and no doubt.

If you give Luftwaffe air supremacy over southern England then it makes Sealion more likely and not less.

The whole point of the RAF and the reason it came into existence is due to area bombing in ww1. If Dowding moved all fighters to Scotland waiting for winter then he would have been ran out of town.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

The Basket said:


> You got be trolling bro.
> Trollbot 3000 over here.
> Political problems like British civilians been killed in air raids. That's a political problem and no doubt.
> 
> ...


My mother had a similar strategy with shoes, she left them in the box until she got used to them.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

The Basket said:


> You got be trolling bro.
> Trollbot 3000 over here.
> Political problems like British civilians been killed in air raids. That's a political problem and no doubt.
> 
> ...


Who is talking about Scotland ?
retreating Group 11 to the North is not giving the LW air supremacy over southern England and air supremacy over southern England is not making Sealion more likely : FYI : the first condition for a successful Sealion was the possibility to transport the needed forces to southern England,and the Rhine barges could not do it .There are at least 5 other needed conditions and if ONE of them was absent, Sealion was out of the question .
Civilian casualties could become a major political problem as the tabloids would whine that the government abandoned the population .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> One point : the semi-retirement of Rundstedt lasted only a few months : in 1942 he became OB West,succeeding Witzleben who was out for a cancer operation .



Thank you for the correction.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljadw:
> 
> re "Radar did not give direction, height, speed, number of aircraft, or even if the aircraft were bombers or fighters"
> 
> Chain Home radar gave direction, approximate height, approximate speed, and allowed an estimate of numbers in the formation.


Estimates ?
When they passed the CH radar, the enemy aircraft could change direction,height, speed . The Radar could not look back .
The pivotal role of radar in the defeat of the LW during the Battle of Britain, is a myth .
From the RAF Museum : Radar the battle winner ?
''Once German bombers crossed the coastline, they were unsighted by radar and the Observer Corps had to plot enemy aircraft formations .''
In other words : enemy aircraft who had crossed the coast could go to London, or to Coventry, or to Liverpool, or to Manchester, ...... And no one could know it .


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Estimates ?
> When they passed the CH radar, the enemy aircraft could change direction,height, speed . The Radar could not look back .
> The pivotal role of radar in the defeat of the LW during the Battle of Britain, is a myth .
> From the RAF Museum : Radar the battle winner ?
> ...



You really need to take the time to educate yourself on Britain's early WW2 radar abilities, and the observer corps, among other subjects.
Right now your post are just providing comic relief for the forum.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

tyrodtom said:


> You really need to take the time to educate yourself on Britain's early WW2 radar abilities, and the observer corps, among other subjects.
> Right now your post are just providing comic relief for the forum.


I see that you can not refute what I was saying .
I ask again : could the CH radar tell which British city would be attacked by the LW ? 
Yes or no .

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I see that you can not refute what I was saying .
> I ask again : could the CH radar tell which British city would be attacked by the LW ?
> Yes or no .


Dear me, are you going to persist with this? You tell us where and on which date any LW aircraft were *unintercepted* and free to roam towards any city, which city was attacked? It did happen a few times, but rarely in 11 or 12 group. If what you are saying is true the battle was different to historical records, again, just by posting things doesnt make them facts.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 15, 2021)

There was a lot more than just Chain Home in the warning system.
Like I already posted, educate yourself .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 15, 2021)

Clearly this guy's never flown an airplane, operated a radar, or been in the service. And been pretty selective in his reading.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Clearly this guy's never flown an airplane, operated a radar, or been in the service. And been pretty selective in his reading.



But he knows 2 key things: (1) he's right, and (2) the rest of us are idiots.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

An idea of how much thought and planning went into the Dowding system is shown in this. The plotting clock, showed people looking at the plot how old the information they were looking at was, updated every 5 minutes.







Information received by the Group Operations Room concerning the* height, bearing and strength *of approaching hostile aircraft would be plotted on large table maps. Group would then alert the most appropriate or its subordinate Sector Operations Rooms, who would take charge of the local aerial activity once their squadrons had been "scrambled".
Work in the Group Ops Rooms was hectic. Numerous incoming messages had to be sorted, prioritised and disseminated at speed; late information could send a precious squadron of Hurricanes or Spitfires looking for hostile targets on bearings and at altitudes long since vacated by an enemy raid, which in August 1940 would often be heading for the fighter stations themselves. An instant method of weeding out stale information from current reports was therefore devised.
All fresh reports would be colour coded either red, yellow or blue according to the time they were received, using this special clock which had its dial painted with the trio of colours at five-minute intervals in succession around the dial.
The colour indicated by the minute hand at the time the report was received would be the colour given to the message and plotted on the Operations Room table map.
Thus ensuring that the Controller remained in full command of the developing battle."
Miscellanea

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> A British fighter pilot lost over Britain could be saved, while if he was lost over the Channel.....
> And it was better to shoot a German bomber over Britain than over the Channel:if he was shot over land, he was lost,while if he was shot over water, the Germans could save him .


So if an RAF pilot was shot down over the channel he was lost but the LW could rescue THEIR pilots shot down over the channel? Why do the Germans get to save their pilots but not the British? Clearly you haven't read much about the BoB.



ljadw said:


> Other point : why would FC attack the LW before it was over land ? As long it was over the Channel,it was no danger and as long it was over the Channel,it could be a trap for FC.


If a strike is inbound over the channel it surely isn't going to bomb the fish so clearly it IS a "danger", or is your definition of the word different than mine?

Also please to explain how it could be a trap for FC?



ljadw said:


> Radar did not give direction, height, speed, number of aircraft, or even if the aircraft were bombers or fighters .


Uh... what?
Lastly I think you need to do some research on what radar (even CH in 1940) could and could not do as clearly you have a lot to learn on that subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Dear me, are you going to persist with this? You tell us where and on which date any LW aircraft were *unintercepted* and free to roam towards any city, which city was attacked? It did happen a few times, but rarely in 11 or 12 group. If what you are saying is true the battle was different to historical records, again, just by posting things doesnt make them facts.


Interceptions of German bombers did not happen because of CH radar .
Are you saying that the RAF Museum was wrong when it said that the CH Radar could not follow enemy aircraft after these crossed the coastline ?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> An idea of how much thought and planning went into the Dowding system is shown in this. The plotting clock, showed people looking at the plot how old the information they were looking at was, updated every 5 minutes.
> 
> View attachment 627470
> 
> ...


The Controller in the Communication Room did not remain in full command of the developing battle .This was done by the German/British local commander in the air .The Controller in the Communication Room was not present in the area where the fighting took place and he did not know how the battle was developing .
The air battles in 1940 (81 years ago ) were not games directed by people in a room using a computer .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Interceptions of German bombers did not happen because of CH radar .
> Are you saying that the RAF Museum was wrong when it said that the CH Radar could not follow enemy aircraft after these crossed the coastline ?


This is ridiculous, are you saying the British built and manned an early warning system and then sat back to see what happens if you dont use the information? Interceptions happened BEFORE the attack crossed the coast, after passing the line of CH stations they were reported by the Observer Corps. The information from both was combined by the operations filter room AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Controller in the Communication Room did not remain in full command of the developing battle .This was done by the German/British local commander in the air .The Controller in the Communication Room was not present in the area where the fighting took place and he did not know how the battle was developing .
> The air battles in 1940 (81 years ago ) were not games directed by people in a room using a computer .


I know, that is what the link says, describing what was done in 1940, it wasnt done by any "local commander in the air" you can have your own opinion but not your own facts. You are completely ignoring anything and everything posted that doesnt suit your view, or historical facts and realities.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 15, 2021)

Is there a brick wall anywhere close ?
I think I need to bash my head against one !!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> So if an RAF pilot was shot down over the channel he was lost but the LW could rescue THEIR pilots shot down over the channel? Why do the Germans get to save their pilots but not the British? Clearly you haven't read much about the BoB.
> 
> 
> If a strike is inbound over the channel it surely isn't going to bomb the fish so clearly it IS a "danger", or is your definition of the word different than mine?
> ...


British pilots lost over the Channel became POWs or died, because the LW had air superiority over the Channel ,because the fighting over the Channel was closer to the French coast .FC was that wise not to chase retreating Germans over the Channel and the LW was that wise not to chase single British fighters who went back to England .In both cases there was always the danger of a group of enemy fighters waiting for the prey to come close .
British Fighters could only operate during a small time, thus they would not wast time and fuel to chase retreating German aircraft outside Britain or attack German bombers before they were crossing the coast .
And in a lot of cases German fighters (Me 109 ) could not protect German bombers when these entered British air space .
For all fighters the radius of action was very limited, which was a gain for the RAF.

An incoming group of German bombers could be a trap to lure FC in a battle with a superior German fighter force .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

Airframes said:


> Is there a brick wall anywhere close ?
> I think I need to bash my head against one !!!!


Is the right room for an argument?
I've told you once.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
When?
Just now.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
No, you didn't.
Excuse me. Is the five minute argument or the half hour?
Oh, just the five minute.
Thank you. Anyway, I did tell you.
No, you most certainly did not.
Let's get one thing straight: I most definitely told you.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
This isn't an argument!
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't. It's just contradiction.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. You just contradicted me.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did.
No, no, no.
You did just then.
That's ludicrous.
Oh, this is futile.
No, it isn't.
I came in here for a good argument.
No, you didn't. You came in here for an argument.
Well, argument isn't the same as contradiction.
Can be.
No, it can't.
An argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you. I must take a contrary position.
But it isn't just saying No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't. Argument's an intellectual protest,
Contradiction just the automatic opposite of any statement the other person makes.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
Not at all.
Now, look-- (Bell dings)
Good morning.
What?
That's it. Good morning.
I was just getting interested.
I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
That was not five minutes.
I'm afraid it was.
Oh, no, it wasn't. (Argument professional looks around the room)
I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
What?
If you want to go on arguing you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
But that was not five minutes, just now. (Professional whistles) Oh, come on.
If you want to continue arguing, you must pay for another five minutes.
Oh, fine. Here.
Thank you.
Well?
Well what?
That was not five minutes, just then.
I told you, you have to pay.
I just paid.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
No, you didn't.
I don't want to argue about that.
Well, you didn't pay.
Ah, but if I didn't pay, why are you arguing? Aha! Got you.
No, you haven't.
Yes, I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
Oh, I've had enough of this.
No, you haven't.
Oh, shut up!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
6 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> British pilots lost over the Channel became POWs or died, because the LW had air superiority over the Channel ,because the fighting over the Channel was closer to the French coast .FC was that wise not to chase retreating Germans over the Channel and the LW was that wise not to chase single British fighters who went back to England .In both cases there was always the danger of a group of enemy fighters waiting for the prey to come close .
> British Fighters could only operate during a small time, thus they would not wast time and fuel to chase retreating German aircraft outside Britain or attack German bombers before they were crossing the coast .
> And in a lot of cases German fighters (Me 109 ) could not protect German bombers when these entered British air space .
> For all fighters the radius of action was very limited, which was a gain for the RAF.
> ...


You just made that up. Both sides could have pilots POW or drowned, no one had air superiority over the channel, that is what the battle was all about. Anyone parachuting or ditching into the Channel is in danger of drowning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

tyrodtom said:


> There was a lot more than just Chain Home in the warning system.
> Like I already posted, educate yourself .


Yes there was a lot more, but I replied not to what was not said,but to what was argued and to those who used the CH radar as argument .
The RAF Museum said clearly the following : once the German bombers crossed the coastline,they were unsighted by radar . 
This debunks the claims of the pivotal importance of radar .
If you disagree with what the RAF Museum said , you have to give your reasons why the RAF Museum was wrong and not to use attacks ad hominem .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> British pilots lost over the Channel became POWs or died, because the LW had air superiority over the Channel ,because the fighting over the Channel was closer to the French coast .FC was that wise not to chase retreating Germans over the Channel and the LW was that wise not to chase single British fighters who went back to England .In both cases there was always the danger of a group of enemy fighters waiting for the prey to come close .
> British Fighters could only operate during a small time, thus they would not wast time and fuel to chase retreating German aircraft outside Britain or attack German bombers before they were crossing the coast .
> And in a lot of cases German fighters (Me 109 ) could not protect German bombers when these entered British air space .
> For all fighters the radius of action was very limited, which was a gain for the RAF.
> ...



Pretty much every statement in that post is complete and utter garbage. The Luftwaffe NEVER had air superiority over the Channel. They were never able to operate freely over the Channel except close to the French coast. 

Regardless, what does air superiority over the Channel have to do with the UK's ability to rescue downed pilots? Have you ever heard of these things - apparently they were rather successful:







You say there was danger for British fighters being bounced over the Channel...but that's EXACTLY where the UK's "useless" radar was looking, and the air defence network could warn any formation before being bounced. 

Radius of action for British and German fighters may have been limited (compared to the later P-51, for example) but it wasn't so short that operations couldn't be maintained over the Channel.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

It's a pity that the RAF wasn't able to send their fighters across the channel into France.
Just imagine if they had a combat radius that was more than 50-60 miles - those pesky Germans would have been in big trouble!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Yes there was a lot more, but I replied not to what was not said,but to what was argued and to those who used the CH radar as argument .
> The RAF Museum said clearly the following : once the German bombers crossed the coastline,they were unsighted by radar .
> This debunks the claims of the pivotal importance of radar .
> If you disagree with what the RAF Museum said , you have to give your reasons why the RAF Museum was wrong and not to use attacks ad hominem .



The RAF Museum "soundbite" debunks NOTHING. You're the one stating that interceptions should have happened after the Luftwaffe formations were over the UK. That is NOT the way Fighter Command responded to incoming raids. They intercepted as far out as possible. 

The whole purpose of radar is to provide warning of an incoming raid, with sufficient location and height information so that the integrated air defence system (IADS) could direct fighters to the intercept. Radar was a pivotal part of the entire IADS set-up which, as others have noted, included the Control Rooms and the Observer Corps. It was an INTEGRATED SYSTEM because that works better than relying on just one technology. 

You really need to stop spouting this nonsense!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It's a pity that the RAF wasn't able to send their fighters across the channel into France.
> Just imagine if they had a combat radius that was more than 50-60 miles - those pesky Germans would have been in big trouble!


Didnt the RAF operate a protective screen around Dunkerque? Didnt the RAF bomb invasion barges in France and Belgium? Asking for a friend.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 15, 2021)

Debunks the claims of the pivotal importance of radar ??!!!
What a load of b*ll*cks !
I would respectfully suggest that you study the _*entire*_ layout, function and operation of the "Dowding System", including the role of the Observer Corps ( late Royal Observer Corps, in recognition of their skilled and highly important work during the BoB), and also take in _*context*_ the statement(s) made by the RAFM.
If the British CH Radar and early warning system was so useless, then why has it formed the basis of _*every *_early warning system still in use today, across the World ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
 1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Yes there was a lot more, but I replied not to what was not said,but to what was argued and to those who used the CH radar as argument .
> The RAF Museum said clearly the following : once the German bombers crossed the coastline,they were unsighted by radar .
> This debunks the claims of the pivotal importance of radar .
> If you disagree with what the RAF Museum said , you have to give your reasons why the RAF Museum was wrong and not to use attacks ad hominem .


You are deliberately miss quoting the RAF museum to support your series of contradictions. A chain home station was a collection of electronic devices, the Dowding system combined all the information from all sources to coordinate defence. You are as confused about the situation now as Goering was in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

BTW, I just found out today by re reading the RADAR pages that the CH stations could detect inland. The first task of an operator when detecting a new echo was to verify which side of the aerials it came from. Those on the land side were ignored.

Quote 
The routine of establishing a new track was quite complex. If the operator noticed a new echo, which would first show as a tiny break in the noise, she would at once 'sense' it to determine that it was in fact in front of the station before announcing 'I have a new echo at such and such a range'. She would then sense again, to determine whether the target was north or south of the 'line of shoot'. She would then attempt, by swinging the gonio for a minimum, to take a bearing, and then a height.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Hitler would have been a complete idiot if he would not demand the occupation of Britain : a neutral Britain could always become again a hostile Britain .



Originally, Hitler thought that the UK would become a "reliable" neutral; when its government decided that Germany was an existential threat, and the UK seriously resisted, Hitler's new policy was closer to extermination.



Peter Gunn said:


> So if an RAF pilot was shot down over the channel he was lost but the LW could rescue THEIR pilots shot down over the channel? Why do the Germans get to save their pilots but not the British? Clearly you haven't read much about the BoB.



I've read that the _Luftwaffe_ had a much better-organized search-and-rescue service, at least initially, but the British got better fairly quickly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Didnt the RAF operate a protective screen around Dunkerque? Didnt the RAF bomb invasion barges in France and Belgium? Asking for a friend.


Let me check Wikipedia...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

I like this guy. I never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I like this guy. I never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.



Please show me the good narrative. I'm still hunting for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

I never said his narrative.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Yes there was a lot more, but I replied not to what was not said,but to what was argued and to those who used the CH radar as argument .
> The RAF Museum said clearly the following : once the German bombers crossed the coastline,they were unsighted by radar .
> This debunks the claims of the pivotal importance of radar .
> If you disagree with what the RAF Museum said , you have to give your reasons why the RAF Museum was wrong and not to use attacks ad hominem .


Interestingly no one has denied that once the Luftwaffe had got past the radars they were not visible on the radar screens. What we have all said is that once they were past the radar the observer corps picked them up and they were tracked.

Your logic is very simple and priceless in its ignorance. 

*Question* If the radar was useless and the Germans could pick targets at will, Why did they lose?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> BTW, I just found out today by re reading the RADAR pages that the CH stations could detect inland. The first task of an operator when detecting a new echo was to verify which side of the aerials it came from. Those on the land side were ignored.
> 
> Quote
> The routine of establishing a new track was quite complex. If the operator noticed a new echo, which would first show as a tiny break in the noise, she would at once 'sense' it to determine that it was in fact in front of the station before announcing 'I have a new echo at such and such a range'. She would then sense again, to determine whether the target was north or south of the 'line of shoot'. She would then attempt, by swinging the gonio for a minimum, to take a bearing, and then a height.


Clearly you (and the RADAR pages re: CH) are wrong! Don't believe me? I have it on good authority... here... let me quote my source...



ljadw said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Radar did not give direction, height, speed, number of aircraft, or even if the aircraft were bombers or fighters .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

Glider said:


> Interestingly no one has denied that once the Luftwaffe had got past the radars they were not visible on the radar screens. What we have all said is that once they were past the radar the observer corps picked them up and they were tracked.


What surprises me is the constant stating that CH RADAR didnt give speed and bearing. No RADAR does, it is a calculation, today the calculation is instantaneous, but it is still calculated from successive readings. Same with size of the force, modern RADARs have much better resolution, but I doubt they would state exactly what a Red Arrows formation was at 100 miles.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Clearly you (and the RADAR pages re: CH) are wrong! Don't believe me? I have it on good authority... here... let me quote my source...


Don't you know that RADAR is only good for warming leftovers from dinner last night?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Don't you know that RADAR is only good for warming leftovers from dinner last night?


I use it to warm up my tin foil hat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

The aliens stole my tinfoil hat....or maybe it was the government.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The aliens stole my tinfoil hat....or maybe it was the government.


Just get a microchip, you'll be fine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Just get a microchip, you'll be fine.



I've had my COVID jabs so I think I have the microchip covered...and the resultant "magnetic arm syndrome."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I've had my COVID jabs so I think I have the microchip covered...and the resultant "magnetic arm syndrome."


Happily, my chip has some PDF files on Chain Home, its a real win-win

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

Not dropping any names, but this is the image I conjure while learning all this "new and amazing" information about British radar...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Not dropping any names, but this is the image I conjure while learning all this "new and amazing" information about British radar...
> 
> View attachment 627488



HEY!!!! How did you find that photo of me at my 6th birthday? Enquiring minds want to know!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Pretty much every statement in that post is complete and utter garbage. The Luftwaffe NEVER had air superiority over the Channel. They were never able to operate freely over the Channel except close to the French coast.
> 
> Regardless, what does air superiority over the Channel have to do with the UK's ability to rescue downed pilots? Have you ever heard of these things - apparently they were rather successful:
> 
> ...





pbehn said:


> This is ridiculous, are you saying the British built and manned an early warning system and then sat back to see what happens if you dont use the information? Interceptions happened BEFORE the attack crossed the coast, after passing the line of CH stations they were reported by the Observer Corps. The information from both was combined by the operations filter room AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD.


After August 18 interceptions did not happen before the attack crossed the coasts , because on August 19 Dowding himself restricted interceptions to targets inland or within gliding distance of the coast.
Source : Eagle in Flames P 16 .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> After August 18 interceptions did not happen before the attack crossed the coasts , because on August 19 Dowding himself restricted interceptions to targets inland or within gliding distance of the coast.
> Source : Eagle in Flames P 16 .



Who frigging cares? "Within gliding distance" is still over the sea, and even if the interceptions were over land, Fighter Command still needed to know the attack was coming, which depended heavily on radar.

For pity's sake, give up this nonsense.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Originally, Hitler thought that the UK would become a "reliable" neutral; when its government decided that Germany was an existential threat, and the UK seriously resisted, Hitler's new policy was closer to extermination.
> 
> 
> 
> I've read that the _Luftwaffe_ had a much better-organized search-and-rescue service, at least initially, but the British got better fairly quickly.


Until late August,the British had no air-sea rescue operation.( Eagle in Flames P 16 )


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> After August 18 interceptions did not happen before the attack crossed the coasts , because on August 19 Dowding himself restricted interceptions to targets inland or within gliding distance of the coast.
> Source : Eagle in Flames P 16 .


Yes, that was his decision, because pilots are more important than planes, he also instructed pilots not to chase the LW back to France. The 18 August is known as "the hardest day" having the biggest losses on both sides. Within gliding distance of the coast is a long way at 25,000ft.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Until late August,the British had no air-sea rescue operation.( Eagle in Flames P 16 )


When did German Air-Sea rescue start?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> When did German Air-Sea rescue start?





pbehn said:


> When did German Air-Sea rescue start?


I'm guessing you kind of already know.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm guessing you kind of already know.


I could look it up, I do know that the Battle of Britain was started before either side had it, but the Germans had more need for it they were most likely to run out of fuel. There was an issue with the RAF shooting down rescue planes. The Germans also had tethered buoys that a pilot could get into off the French coast.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Pretty much every statement in that post is complete and utter garbage. The Luftwaffe NEVER had air superiority over the Channel. They were never able to operate freely over the Channel except close to the French coast.
> 
> Regardless, what does air superiority over the Channel have to do with the UK's ability to rescue downed pilots? Have you ever heard of these things - apparently they were rather successful:
> 
> ...


If there was no German air superiority over the Channel, why were the Merchant Fleet and the RN expelled from the Channel ?On 8 August even the coastal traffic in the Channel was stopped .In July and August 1940 the LW did sink 35 British merchant vessels ( 100000 GRT ) in the Home Waters ( Eagle in Flames P 43 )
Til August 19 British fighters attacked the LW over the Channel when it came back from mission as did the LW 3 years later when BC returned to Britain .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

I think the issue with the RAF intercepting LW SAR planes was, although plainly marked, the LW planes seemed to be more reconnaissance than rescue.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Yes, that was his decision, because pilots are more important than planes, he also instructed pilots not to chase the LW back to France. The 18 August is known as "the hardest day" having the biggest losses on both sides. Within gliding distance of the coast is a long way at 25,000ft.


A long way divided by two,because the aircraft had to retrurn to Britain .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

Even I see the flaw in that logic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

I wasn't aware that Horsa gliders were used in an aerial interception role.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If there was no German air superiority over the Channel, why were the Merchant Fleet and the RN expelled from the Channel ?On 8 August even the coastal traffic in the Channel was stopped .In July and August 1940 the LW did sink 35 British merchant vessels ( 100000 GRT ) in the Home Waters ( Eagle in Flames P 43 )
> Til August 19 British fighters attacked the LW over the Channel when it came back from mission as did the LW 3 years later when BC returned to Britain .



You need to look up the definition of air superiority. The Luftwaffe also dropped bombs on British cities. Does that mean the Luftwaffe had air superiority over the UK? Just because ships were sunk and measures were taken to protect coastal traffic does not imply the Luftwaffe had air superiority.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If there was no German air superiority over the Channel, why were the Merchant Fleet and the RN expelled from the Channel ?On 8 August even the coastal traffic in the Channel was stopped .In July and August 1940 the LW did sink 35 British merchant vessels ( 100000 GRT ) in the Home Waters ( Eagle in Flames P 43 )
> Til August 19 British fighters attacked the LW over the Channel when it came back from mission as did the LW 3 years later when BC returned to Britain .


You dont understand the term air superiority and supremacy, how many planes did the LW lose to achieve that? If the Germans had Air Superiority how come the RAF were destroying landing barges and shooting down rescue planes. Dowding didnt want to trade boats for planes and pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

The USAAC didn't have air superiority over Japan in 1942 but Tokyo was bombed. Sometimes the bomber does get through.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

This is a good read


Air Sea Rescues (ASR) Services – Battle of Britain

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Until late August,the British had no air-sea rescue operation.( Eagle in Flames P 16 )



Again, that's just not true. The British failure was a lack of integration between the various organizations that were involved in rescue at sea, which included the RNLI and even down to local fishing boats. It certainly was suboptimal and resulted in more aircrew dying than perhaps should have done...but that still doesn't equate to "no air-sea rescue operation."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm guessing you kind of already know.


Civilian or Military?

Yes, this is a serious question 

(Hint: Seenotdienst)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Civilian or Military?
> 
> Yes, this is a serious question
> 
> (Hint: Seenotdienst)


I know. I read your post on it a while back. Very informative. I'm just getting into the spirit of this thread, "Everything We Know is Wrong".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I know. I read your post on it a while back. Very informative. I'm just getting into the spirit of this thread, "Everything We Know is Wrong".


Agreed on the thread name.

Or perhaps the thread, "History according to random people" would be a better fit?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 15, 2021)

Since I can't access my books easily, I checked on the internet (Not Wiki) and found Iceland was occupied against invasion by 30,000 British troops and U.S. Marines. Hardly enough to recapture a captured Britain or invade Europe. The reason the Marines were called was because Britain needed her troops back. The total max at the high point of occupation was 30,000 combined men.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

special ed said:


> Since I can't access my books easily, I checked on the internet (Not Wiki) and found Iceland was occupied against invasion by 30,000 British troops and U.S. Marines. Hardly enough to recapture a captured Britain or invade Europe. The reason the Marines were called was because Britain needed her troops back. The total max at the high point of occupation was 30,000 combined men.


The Shetlands also had a garrison of about 20,000

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 15, 2021)

ljadw said:


> A long way divided by two,because the aircraft had to retrurn to Britain .


Divided by two?? Where did you learn about gliding? A clean monoplane like a Spit or a Hurri should have glide ratio of about 12-15:1. Let's say 13 just for grins. Out of fuel at 25,000 feet, and let's say lose 500 feet in the turn back home, and we want to cross the English coast at 2500 feet to reach an airfield, so that we have 22,000 feet or 4.16 miles of altitude to glide off. 4.16 times 13 = 54.17 miles gliding range to cross the coast at 2500 feet. How wide is the Channel on the track LW typically used?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Divided by two?? Where did you learn about gliding? A clean monoplane like a Spit or a Hurri should have glide ratio of about 12-15:1. Let's say 13 just for grins. Out of fuel at 25,000 feet, and let's say lose 500 feet in the turn back home, and we want to cross the English coast at 2500 feet to reach an airfield, so that we have 22,000 feet or 4.16 miles of altitude to glide off. 4.16 times 13 = 54.17 miles gliding range to cross the coast at 2500 feet. How wide is the Channel on the track LW typically used?


Thanks I always wondered how far away from UK a P-51 could run out of fuel and glide in. 

Much of the talk of air sea rescue ignores the important issues. The German planes were equipped with inflatable life rafts, and they did have some float planes and e boats to perform rescues. They needed them, on the Hardest day The Hardest Day - Wikipedia There were almost 1000 sorties by the LW across the Channel, very few by the RAF, most combat over water was in the Thames estuary. 
RAF lost 27-34 planes in combat 10 pilots killed 11 wounded too severely to return to combat in the BoB itself. =21
LW lost circa 70 aircraft 134 killed or captured with 25 wounded =159

On 15 September Battle of Britain Day - Wikipedia 
RAF 40 destroyed or damaged 30 killed or wounded 1 captured =31
LW 80 destroyed or damaged 146 killed or captured 21 missing 31 wounded =198

If you were shot down over water you had only a 20% chance of surviving, Air sea rescue efforts at the time only improved that slightly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 15, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> But he knows 2 key things: (1) he's right, and (2) the rest of us are idiots.



He ably demonstrates an aphorism I hold near and dear: _Certitude is the surest obstacle to learning._

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

I thought the "Lobster Pots" was a great idea and gave air crew better odds for survival (providing they were downed near one).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I thought the "Lobster Pots" was a great idea and gave air crew better odds for survival (providing they were downed near one).


Anything is a help, but from what I read if you ditch a fighter it sinks in seconds and if you parachute, the thing that just helped you float down then tries to kill you. Its also very difficult to see someone in the water from a boat unless the sea is flat calm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Anything is a help, but from what I read if you ditch a fighter it sinks in seconds and if you parachute, the thing that just helped you float down then tries to kill you. Its also very difficult to see someone in the water from a boat unless the sea is flat calm.


And that's also assuming the pilot wasn't injured by enemy gunfire and/or got their face hammered by the gunsight when the aircraft hit the water.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> And that's also assuming the pilot wasn't injured by enemy gunfire and/or got their face hammered by the gunsight when the aircraft hit the water.


And his Mae West wasnt burned or punctured. The way this is discussed and reported in various articles is suggestive of all RAF pilots drowning while all LW pilots just had to get within 20miles of France and they survived. It was a fact that RAF pilots who chased LW fighters across the channel frequently got shot down, this is what Dowding was keenest to avoid. It was a war off attrition and good pilots had to be preserved.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 15, 2021)

Gentlemen, I would suggest that continuing this ridiculous... er .... "debate" with our obviously very ill-informed and certainly opinionated "friend" is totally fruitless.
His failure to address facts presented, and his continuing rebuttal of all the _*documented *_evidence in answer to his on-going juvenile tirade would indicate that he is, basically, a waste of rations, and, perhaps, at some point in the (probably) distant future, he may actually grow up - although current evidence would indicate that he's a total ****wit, so that's doubtful !
Meanwhile, I wish him the best of luck in his dream world ..........................................

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 15, 2021)

Airframes said:


> His failure to address facts presented, and his continuing rebuttal of all the _*documented *_evidence in answer to his on-going juvenile tirade would indicate that he is, basically, a waste of rations, and, perhaps, at some point in the (probably) distant future, he may actually grow up


More like he'll grow up to be a proud boy.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2021)

The one benefit of this "exchange" would be a generous amount of facts presented in response to the fiction, which might be found useful to others who have either been following the thread or will someday come upon it.

To add to that, I actually learned some things about Chain Home I wasn't aware if, so even I came away with something useful - of course the information I'm referring to was in the factual replies, not by the "fiction master".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Thanks I always wondered how far away from UK a P-51 could run out of fuel and glide in.


The P51's aerodynamic advantages are mostly associated with powered flight. It's L/D in glide is probably notably less than a BoB Spitfire, and it's greater weight means best L/D will come at a significantly higher speed. If the engine is for sure not available, then the prop must be stopped as that big four bladed windmill will kill glide performance. Slowing to just above a stall and waiting patiently for it to spin down should do the trick. I've done this in several different aircraft (with *RELIABLE *starters) in the days of young and foolish. It works.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 15, 2021)

Airframes said:


> Gentlemen, I would suggest that continuing this ridiculous... er .... "debate" with our obviously very ill-informed and certainly opinionated "friend" is totally fruitless.
> His failure to address facts presented, and his continuing rebuttal of all the _*documented *_evidence in answer to his on-going juvenile tirade would indicate that he is, basically, a waste of rations, and, perhaps, at some point in the (probably) distant future, he may actually grow up - although current evidence would indicate that he's a total ****wit, so that's doubtful !
> Meanwhile, I wish him the best of luck in his dream world ..........................................



I blocked him about a week ago for his arguing that the Japanese Navy had simply no way (in late 1941) of estimating fuel use in a wartime condition -- as if they didn't have ship-mileage information, and distance-information from war plans, and couldn't do what is basically simple math -- because the Americans might do something different. Well of course we did, and that's why _all_ militaries build in reserves in their equations. They planned and projected, but not quite well enough.

My blocking is usually only a few days long, until my annoyance passes, and so it is that I'm reading his horseshit here in this thread. Holding onto dear views, refusing to look at the records of events (no RAF fighters over the Channel? lol!) and not listening to any views which don't agree with his own.

Again, it goes back to someone being so sure in their knowledge that they're unable to learn anything more. As Pa Thump used to say: _You've got two ears and one mouth for a reason. Use them in that order._

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 15, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Again, it goes back to someone being so sure in their knowledge that they're unable to learn anything more.


The old adage about minds and parachutes comes to mind?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 15, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The old adage about minds and parachutes comes to mind?



Funny enough -- at 54 years as I write this -- _and_ as a Zappa fan -- I've never heard this saying; I had to Google it, heh. But yeah, that's really what the old man was getting at, in his staff-sergeant (E-6 variety, thank you!) way. You only learn when you're open to learning. Once you're convinced you _know_ something, you've started to fossilize.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 15, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Once you're convinced you _know_ something, you've started to fossilize.


Call me T Rex.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 15, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Call me T Rex.



I am too -- in my own field of "expertise", music. But I still pay attention to the whipper-snappers, because those little a-holes are really happy to pole and prod.

I'm just a lot slower now ... hmph.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 16, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

Is this the article at the RAF Museum website you are referencing?

"StackPath"

I think you would find this companion article on the same RAF Museum website interesting. It describes how the CH and CHL radar network was used to determine direction/bearing and altitude.

"StackPath"

I do not know why the first article is written the way it is, or why it has been allowed to stay up for as long as it has, but it should be modified or taken down until whoever wrote it is more interested/capable in giving a more complete & less ambiguous description.

The ranges were determined by looking at the location of the spike versus the scale on the CRT 'A' scope (some times referred to as 'R' scope).





Below is an actual photographic image of a Chain Home 'A' scope as used in 1940:




Also, the radars - when coupled with trained and experienced operators - were capable of determining incoming numbers to a large degree. Admittedly they estimated the numbers, and often used terms like like 'large', 'medium', and 'small' for the size of the 'raid', but they were effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Pretty much every statement in that post is complete and utter garbage. The Luftwaffe NEVER had air superiority over the Channel. They were never able to operate freely over the Channel except close to the French coast.
> 
> Regardless, what does air superiority over the Channel have to do with the UK's ability to rescue downed pilots? Have you ever heard of these things - apparently they were rather successful:
> 
> ...


From Eagle in Flames


pbehn said:


> Thanks I always wondered how far away from UK a P-51 could run out of fuel and glide in.
> 
> There were almost 1000 sorties by the LW across the Channel, very few by the RAF


Which proves that it was the LW who had air superiority over the Channel .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Which proves that it was the LW who had air superiority over the Channel .



What about Bomber Command's sorties during the BoB? They flew a great many missions to attack invasion barges and port facilities, not to mention longer-range sorties into Germany itself. The image below is dated 10 August 1940 and shows Le Bourget being added to a list of recent targets attacked by the Blenheims of 110 Sqn (Source: IWM):






How was this possible if the Luftwaffe had air superiority over the Channel?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From Eagle in Flames
> 
> Which proves that it was the LW who had air superiority over the Channel .


You have absolutely NO clue as to WTF you're talking about.
But the comic value of your posts are priceless and I am enjoying every bit of it, so please carry on.

By the way, you really need to be over at the Reddit or War Thunder forums, they'd adore your bullshit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> What about Bomber Command's sorties during the BoB? They flew a great many missions to attack invasion barges and port facilities, not to mention longer-range sorties into Germany itself. The image below is dated 10 August 1940 and shows Le Bourget being added to a list of recent targets attacked by the Blenheims of 110 Sqn (Source: IWM):
> 
> View attachment 627523
> 
> ...


The attacks of Bomber Command had nothing to do with the Battle of Britain .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The attacks of Bomber Command had nothing to do with the Battle of Britain .


Sort if like the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with the Battle of Britain either, right?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The attacks of Bomber Command had nothing to do with the Battle of Britain .



Excuse me but come again? They were air operations conducted in the same theatre at the same time as the assets directly involved in the BoB. They were flying through the same airspace. 

Again, how can the Luftwaffe have obtained air superiority over the Channel if Bomber Command aircraft were operating there? 

Answer that question instead of making yet more nonsense statements.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

Chain Home was a fixed, non rotational system that could not see beyond its sixty-degree transmission arc or behind it once the targets had flown overhead and so raid plotting over land was down to ground observers .
Neither could CH guess what would be the target of the incoming German aircraft .
Other point : plotting over land did not indicate where and when the German aircraft would be, it could only give a vague indication where the Germans could be at a certain point .
Last point : I see that there are still some people who are unable to grasp the essence of the Battle of Britain :the burden was with the LW ,not with RAF: the LW had to eliminate FC, or to prevent FC to intervene if/when Sealion would be started (which it never could be ) ,FC could always avoid this by retreating to the north,where it was save from the LW .
What the Germans need was not air superiority over southern England before Sealion, but air superiority over southern England at the start of Sealion and during the buildup of Sealion(which would take months ).
The Battle of Britain was not a battle that would decide the outcome of the war, but only a necessary tool (one of the many ) to make Sealion possible, not to make Sealion successful .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Excuse me but come again? They were air operations conducted in the same theatre at the same time as the assets directly involved in the BoB. They were flying through the same airspace.
> 
> Again, how can the Luftwaffe have obtained air superiority over the Channel if Bomber Command aircraft were operating there?


Thus you are saying that during the Baby Blitz in 1944 the RAF had lost air superiority over England ? Or that the attack on the Dortmund-Ems canal on 12/13 August 1940 by BC means that the LW had lost air superiority in that area ?
BC was not operating in the Channel .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Thus you are saying that during the Baby Blitz in 1944 the RAF had lost air superiority over England ? Or that the attack on the Dortmund-Ems canal on 12/13 August 1940 by BC means that the LW had lost air superiority in that area ?
> BC was not operating in the Channel .



You're the one who's confused over the meaning of air superiority. You claimed that the Luftwaffe gained air superiority over the Channel in 1940 because the RAF was only operating over land. My point is that the RAF WAS operating over the Channel in the form of BC...so how can the Luftwaffe have achieved air superiority there?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Which proves that it was the LW who had air superiority over the Channel .


When all aircraft cross the channel twice on a sortie, you have air superiority. When a lot dont come back, you dont.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Chain Home was a fixed, non rotational system that could not see beyond its sixty-degree transmission arc or behind it once the targets had flown overhead and so raid plotting over land was down to ground observers .
> Neither could CH guess what would be the target of the incoming German aircraft .
> Other point : plotting over land did not indicate where and when the German aircraft would be, it could only give a vague indication where the Germans could be at a certain point .
> Last point : I see that there are still some people who are unable to grasp the essence of the Battle of Britain :the burden was with the LW ,not with RAF: the LW had to eliminate FC, or to prevent FC to intervene if/when Sealion would be started (which it never could be ) ,FC could always avoid this by retreating to the north,where it was save from the LW .
> ...


Wrong on every count, the LW needed air supremacy, to eliminate the RAF because they needed to defend their ports and support a landing. CH was a radar system, it doesnt guess anything, neither did the Observer Corps, all information was put together to tell those on control what was happening.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Last point : I see that there are still some people who are unable to grasp the essence of the Battle of Britain


You seem to have no clue how an integrated air defense system really works. When the Cuban missile crisis began in 1962, Civil Air Patrol cadet squadrons all across the state were inducted into the Air Observer Corps. We had to learn aircraft identification, reporting format and proper phraseology, altitude estimation, and rudimentary weather observation, and we stood assigned watches, mostly relief periods for adult observers for breaks and meals. We were students and had homework to do, so we weren't expected to stand full shifts except on weekends. We called in every aircraft we saw with type, altitude and direction of flight, which was kind of a joke most ot the time, as there wasn't much air traffic out here in the sticks. Mostly Pipers and Cessnas, but there was a nearby SAC low level navigation route and we got treated to the occasional B47, BUFF, or tanker.
Our calls went to a filter center that plotted the tracks and compared them with tracks on the repeaters that they had from air defense radars. Suspicious tracks were investigated by the Air National Guard's F89s. Woe betide any flock of bears that chose to trespass; those Scorpions toted nuclear tipped Genie missiles. Between the radar, the observer corps, and the Scorpions, our section of the northern border was locked down pretty tight.
Our effort was thrown together pretty quickly, so we barely got it figured out when Khrushchev blinked and the crisis was over. The Brits, OTOH, had plenty of time and plenty of practice and got really good at it.
One other point. In the Navy I maintained and ran a radar interception and tactics trainer for the F4, so I have a bit of an idea what it's about. If you wait til you know the target before you send your fighters up, you've already lost the battle. You meet them beyond the edge of your airspace and you peck away at them all the way to the target and back. If you're flying especially short ranged point defense interceptors you send them up in relays and you land them as transients at the nearest airstrip to refuel and rearm, then launch them again to tackle the bad guys as they're egressing after the raid. If their escorts are toting drop tanks, tackle them as far out as you can and make them drop their extra fuel. Now you may soon have unescorted bombers to pick on. Don't worry, you won't lose track of them after they've come past the radar; there'll be so much commotion going on overhead, people on the ground will keep you informed. That, my friend is how it was done.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 16, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

re "Chain Home was a fixed, non rotational system that could not see beyond its sixty-degree transmission arc or behind it once the targets had flown overhead and so raid plotting over land was down to ground observers ."

Part of the reason for the name Chain Home ( CH aka AMES type 1) was that the radar stations formed an interlinked zone of coverage, hence the Chain part of the name. The individual stations did not have to see more than 60 degrees because the next station/link in the chain would take over. The CH radars could detect targets from +1 to +60 degrees in the vertical, and perform height finding from +1.5 to +15 degrees via lobe switching.

Chain Home Low (CHL aka AMES type 2, in service on the SE coast by the beginning of the BoB) was a rotating system, with a beam narrow in azimuth, and wide in the vertical. The CHL radars could detect/track targets from <0 to +60 degrees in the vertical. The horizontal beam width was 20 degrees, with pointing being done mechanically through 360 degrees in azimuth, and centering via signal strength. It should be noted that versions of the AMES type 2 were used to track the high flying Ju86 recon aircraft.

re "Neither could CH guess what would be the target of the incoming German aircraft ."

I am not sure why you keep saying this. Until the advent of modern heuristic computer algorithms, there was no electronic, mechanical, or electro-mechanical system that could 'guess' where a raid would go.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Thus you are saying that during the Baby Blitz in 1944 the RAF had lost air superiority over England ? Or that the attack on the Dortmund-Ems canal on 12/13 August 1940 by BC means that the LW had lost air superiority in that area ?
> BC was not operating in the Channel .


During the Baby Blitz the RAF lost 28 aircraft, half in offensive operations over German controlled airspace, the LW lost over 400 aircraft over UK controlled airspace, most of which were twin engined types. There is no doubt who had air superiority there, German losses also amounted to most of what it had remaining as a bomber force.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 16, 2021)

Just a note going back to ASR, I was reading (years ago) and damned if I can remember who it was, but he was an Eagle Squadron (4th FG) jock whose Thunderbolt went down in the Channel. As memory serves he was floating, probably in his Mae West or a dingy when his squadron mates circled him waiting for ASR to get to him. The thing that struck me most was he was firing off a couple of flares to let them know where he was and at one point his mates were pretty low so he was actually trying to hit one of the Thunderbolts with a flare. He thought it great fun. On returning to Debden later, virtually none of the circling P-47's saw either him or the flares.

The ocean, or even the Channel can be a big place.

Just wish I could remember where I read that and who it was, effing memory, hell, maybe a shot of Scotch will help...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Chain Home was a fixed, non rotational system that could not see beyond its sixty-degree transmission arc or behind it once the targets had flown overhead and so raid plotting over land was down to ground observers .
> Neither could CH guess what would be the target of the incoming German aircraft .
> Other point : plotting over land did not indicate where and when the German aircraft would be, it could only give a vague indication where the Germans could be at a certain point .
> Last point : I see that there are still some people who are unable to grasp the essence of the Battle of Britain :the burden was with the LW ,not with RAF: the LW had to eliminate FC, or to prevent FC to intervene if/when Sealion would be started (which it never could be ) ,FC could always avoid this by retreating to the north,where it was save from the LW .
> ...


Wow, I haven't laughed this hard since the [REDACTED] thread.

[A...I...R...A...C...O...B...R...A]

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> One other point. In the Navy I maintained and ran a radar interception and tactics trainer for the F4, so I have a bit of an idea what it's about. If you wait til you know the target before you send your fighters up, you've already lost the battle. You meet them beyond the edge of your airspace and you peck away at them all the way to the target and back. If you're flying especially short ranged point defense interceptors you send them up in relays and you land them as transients at the nearest airstrip to refuel and rearm, then launch them again to tackle the bad guys as they're egressing after the raid. If their escorts are toting drop tanks, tackle them as far out as you can and make them drop their extra fuel. Now you may soon have unescorted bombers to pick on. Don't worry, you won't lose track of them after they've come past the radar; there'll be so much commotion going on overhead, people on the ground will keep you informed. That, my friend is how it was done.


Completely true as a general principle. For Dowding and his system the situation was complicated by geography, every map showing Chain home coverage is different, below is the most extreme I can find in terms of range. Much of the LW in France and Belgium was actually in radar range of Chain Home, perhaps only at a certain altitude and with poor resolution/direction. However certainly in the Pas de Calais a large number of fighters and bombers were parked up at night within 40 miles of the Kent coast, there were a large number of planes taking off and landing all the time but many were test flights, plane movements transport flights etc. Not a boxing match of jabs and hooks but fighting inside, in the clinch. I dont know if the USA has ever defined what its airspace means in terms of range, I am sure 40 miles would be within it.








XBe02Drvr said:


> You seem to have no clue how an integrated air defense system really works. When the Cuban missile crisis began in 1962, Civil Air Patrol cadet squadrons all across the state were inducted into the Air Observer Corps. We had to learn aircraft identification, reporting format and proper phraseology, altitude estimation, and rudimentary weather observation, and we stood assigned watches, mostly relief periods for adult observers for breaks and meals. We were students and had homework to do, so we weren't expected to stand full shifts except on weekends. We called in every aircraft we saw with type, altitude and direction of flight, which was kind of a joke most ot the time, as there wasn't much air traffic out here in the sticks. Mostly Pipers and Cessnas, but there was a nearby SAC low level navigation route and we got treated to the occasional B47, BUFF, or tanker.
> Our calls went to a filter center that plotted the tracks and compared them with tracks on the repeaters that they had from air defense radars. Suspicious tracks were investigated by the Air National Guard's F89s. Woe betide any flock of bears that chose to trespass; those Scorpions toted nuclear tipped Genie missiles. Between the radar, the observer corps, and the Scorpions, our section of the northern border was locked down pretty tight.
> .


Again true. The problem for CH was its radars were limited ( I know you know this) it was good at finding range, quite good with altitude, estimation of size but wasnt very good at bearing. The CH stations linked together continuously reported the following . By taking two or more reports you get a triangulation.

The message to be transmitted to the filter room was of the form of 10592 AB123C XY1234 N12 46 where

10592 was the time in hours, minutes and tenths of minutes.
ABJ23C was the raid designation for the raid under consideration.
XY1234 was the map reference.
N was the type of aircraft, i.e. hostile or friendly.
12 was the number of aircraft.
46 was the height in thousands of feet.

The result of this is that the people in the filter room had very good information to "hang" the Observer corps reports on when a raid crossed the coast.
Miscellanea

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I thought the "Lobster Pots" was a great idea and gave air crew better odds for survival (providing they were downed near one).


Seems to me there was a movie about a couple of LW and RAF guys sitting in one of those rescue pods made in about 1942, damn now I gotta' Google that.

*EDIT*


*AHA!!!*

One of Our Aircraft Is Missing - Wikipedia

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 16, 2021)

I had a somewhat similar argument with an "expert" who tried to convince me that all the wings installed on car trunks were upside down. He believed they should have the curved surface of the airfoil on top to reduce the weight of the car allowing it to go faster. Even with drawings demonstrating aerodynamic forces and the idea of tire (or tyre) traction, he remained unconvinced and the world was wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I dont know if the USA has ever defined what its airspace means in terms of range, I am sure 40 miles would be within it.


Barely inside the inner edge of the offshore coastal ADIZ. The ADIZ would stretch several hundred miles further out. The EC121s used to patrol 100 miles out and beyond. More than once they caught a Bear hovering in the wake of an inbound airliner. One of my uncles, who was an electrician on the REW birds, had a photo taken from overhead of a Bear tucked right up under the tail of a BOAC Stratocruiser inbound to Boston. They scrambled F86s from Otis to break up that little party, and I don't think the BOAC pax ever knew anything happened.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Wow, I haven't laughed this hard since the [REDACTED] thread.
> 
> [A...I...R...A...C...O...B...R...A]



I'm particularly confused by the following rather tangled skein of logic:

"What the Germans need was not air superiority over southern England before Sealion, but air superiority over southern England at the start of Sealion and during the buildup of Sealion(which would take months )."

So, per our "expert", the LW needed to achieve air superiority so that Sea Lion could commence....but the timing needed to be so good that the required degree of air superiority was achieved right at the start of the Sea Lion operation. Errrr....so, during Desert Storm, the Coalition was wasting its time achieving air superiority before the land forces went in?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Errrr....so, during Desert Storm, the Coalition was wasting its time achieving air superiority before the land forces went in?


Desert storm? What's that?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 16, 2021)

Short bus rider?


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> More like he'll grow up to be a proud boy.



Or a Politician


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm particularly confused by the following rather tangled skein of logic:
> 
> "What the Germans need was not air superiority over southern England before Sealion, but air superiority over southern England at the start of Sealion and during the buildup of Sealion(which would take months )."
> 
> So, per our "expert", the LW needed to achieve air superiority so that Sea Lion could commence....but the timing needed to be so good that the required degree of air superiority was achieved right at the start of the Sea Lion operation. Errrr....so, during Desert Storm, the Coalition was wasting its time achieving air superiority before the land forces went in?


We are talking about 81 years ago , not about Desert Storm and Desert Storm was not Sealion .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> We are talking about 81 years ago , not about Desert Storm and Desert Storm was not Sealion .


Desert Storm was real, Sealion was proposed.

Sealion failed for several reasons:
1) Germany failed to gain air superiority over England.
2) Germany failed to destroy (or cripple) Britain's ability to manufacture aircraft.
3) Germany failed to destroy or incapacitate RAF/FAA fields.
4) Germany failed to destroy/incapacitate English infrastructure.
5) Germany did not have control of the English channel's waters.
6) Germany did not have adequate surface vessels suitable for transporting and landing troops "en masse" along with the needed material and vehicles.

Real history's a bitch, isn't it?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> We are talking about 81 years ago , not about Desert Storm and Desert Storm was not Sealion .



But the principles of air power persist through time. You don't wave a magic wand and suddenly declare air superiority. It is a campaign-level effort to progressively degrade an adversary's ability to defend within the air domain. It takes time, it takes planning, and it must be integrated with other domains (land, sea, etc) to ensure the air campaign adapts to changing requirements. 

Your assertion that German air superiority over Britain wasn't needed prior to Sea Lion is nonsense. If the decision to launch Sea Lion was at all dependent on German air superiority, then that superiority MUST be achieved BEFORE the decision is made to execute Sea Lion.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You seem to have no clue how an integrated air defense system really works. When the Cuban missile crisis began in 1962, Civil Air Patrol cadet squadrons all across the state were inducted into the Air Observer Corps. We had to learn aircraft identification, reporting format and proper phraseology, altitude estimation, and rudimentary weather observation, and we stood assigned watches, mostly relief periods for adult observers for breaks and meals. We were students and had homework to do, so we weren't expected to stand full shifts except on weekends. We called in every aircraft we saw with type, altitude and direction of flight, which was kind of a joke most ot the time, as there wasn't much air traffic out here in the sticks. Mostly Pipers and Cessnas, but there was a nearby SAC low level navigation route and we got treated to the occasional B47, BUFF, or tanker.
> Our calls went to a filter center that plotted the tracks and compared them with tracks on the repeaters that they had from air defense radars. Suspicious tracks were investigated by the Air National Guard's F89s. Woe betide any flock of bears that chose to trespass; those Scorpions toted nuclear tipped Genie missiles. Between the radar, the observer corps, and the Scorpions, our section of the northern border was locked down pretty tight.
> Our effort was thrown together pretty quickly, so we barely got it figured out when Khrushchev blinked and the crisis was over. The Brits, OTOH, had plenty of time and plenty of practice and got really good at it.
> One other point. In the Navy I maintained and ran a radar interception and tactics trainer for the F4, so I have a bit of an idea what it's about. If you wait til you know the target before you send your fighters up, you've already lost the battle. You meet them beyond the edge of your airspace and you peck away at them all the way to the target and back. If you're flying especially short ranged point defense interceptors you send them up in relays and you land them as transients at the nearest airstrip to refuel and rearm, then launch them again to tackle the bad guys as they're egressing after the raid. If their escorts are toting drop tanks, tackle them as far out as you can and make them drop their extra fuel. Now you may soon have unescorted bombers to pick on. Don't worry, you won't lose track of them after they've come past the radar; there'll be so much commotion going on overhead, people on the ground will keep you informed. That, my friend is how it was done.


The technology of 1940 was millions of light years away of the technology of 1962
And the situation was also totally different .
The air campaign was started by the Germans for two reasons 
1 Air supremacy was ONE (maybe not the most important ) of the needed ,but not sufficient reasons for Sealion .But it had no influence on the possibility of Sealion being successful .
2 Air supremacy could maybe,maybe, become a replacement for Sealion ,if air supremacy would convince the British people that the war was lost .But there was no chance for this .
In the first case (Sealion needed air supremacy ) the air supremacy was needed not in July or August but on the day of the start of Sealion and during the buildup . But here also there was no chance to obtain it,because FC could always retreat to the north where the German fighters could not attack them and could always with full strength intervene on the start of Sealion .
The first week of Sealion,Germany could land only one division which would be destroyed by the Home Forces .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> But the principles of air power persist through time. You don't wave a magic wand and suddenly declare air superiority. It is a campaign-level effort to progressively degrade an adversary's ability to defend within the air domain. It takes time, it takes planning, and it must be integrated with other domains (land, sea, etc) to ensure the air campaign adapts to changing requirements.
> 
> Your assertion that German air superiority over Britain wasn't needed prior to Sea Lion is nonsense. If the decision to launch Sea Lion was at all dependent on German air superiority, then that superiority MUST be achieved BEFORE the decision is made to execute Sea Lion.


Wrong : there are no principles of air power that persist through time .
And an air superiority achieved weeks before the landing is not a guarantee for air superiority the day of the landing .Such air superiority would not last .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Desert Storm was real, Sealion was proposed.
> 
> Sealion failed for several reasons:
> 1) Germany failed to gain air superiority over England.
> ...


As I expected : you forgot the principal reason : THE WEATHER.
And also 3 other reasons :
8 Bomber Command
9 The Royal Navy 
10 The Home Forces


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Wrong : there are no principles of air power that persist through time .
> And an air superiority achieved weeks before the landing is not a guarantee for air superiority the day of the landing .Such air superiority would not last .


If you wish to learn about air superiority and it's ability to sway a landing, then read about the Dieppe Landings.

The Allies did NOT have air superiority and the Luftwaffe (who DID have air superiority) massacred the Allied troops as they were trying to gain a beach head.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> In the first case (Sealion needed air supremacy ) the air supremacy was needed not in July or August but on the day of the start of Sealion and during the buildup .



No, no, no and NO. If the DECISION to execute Sea Lion is dependent on air supremacy, then that supremacy must be achieved BEFORE the decision is made. To do otherwise risks the invasion forces embarking without adequate air superiority, which would result in a bloodbath. 

Again, I do military operations planning. You don't decide to execute and hope that you'll achieve the preceding required objectives. Prior to ANY decision mid-operation, the HQ staff and decision-makers will perform a conditions check to ensure that the required pre-requisites have been achieved so that the next phase of operations can commence.

You can keep repeating these statements but you are DEAD WRONG. That's not how military operations are planned.





ljadw said:


> But here also there was no chance to obtain it,because FC could always retreat to the north where the German fighters could not attack them and could always with full strength intervene on the start of Sealion .



So FC retreats, and hence fails to defend the prime target in the UK....London. Just how long do you think ANY political leader would survive under those conditions? It would be a gross abdication of responsibility. And yet you simply dismiss the idea with a wave of the hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> As I expected : you forgot the principal reason : THE WEATHER.


I wish you told us that 81 years ago, we have always had lots of weather, loads of it, what type do you want?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> As I expected : you forgot the principal reason : THE WEATHER.
> And also 3 other reasons :
> 8 Bomber Command
> 9 The Royal Navy
> 10 The Home Forces


As expected, you possess zero clues nd the ability to read.

I stated that the Germans did not have command of the channel's waters.

I stated that the Luftwaffe failed to incapacitate RAF/FAA installations (which would include catching aircraft on the ground)

So, now what?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Wrong : there are no principles of air power that persist through time .



Bullshit! Every element of air power doctrine existed and was understood during WW1: CAS, OCA, DCA, strategic bombing, SEAD, ISR, counter-ISR, transportation and logistics, air-to-ground and ground-to-air communication. All of it was there...and yet you're claiming that principles of air power don't persist over time. Please show me a doctrinal air power concept that hasn't persisted.




ljadw said:


> And an air superiority achieved weeks before the landing is not a guarantee for air superiority the day of the landing .Such air superiority would not last .



Correct but not achieving air supremacy beforehand increases overall risk to the operation. It's down to the commander to determine what level of risk he/she is willing to bear. No commander that I've ever met would launch an operation without the preconditions being met. 

If the air campaign is being properly led and managed, then air superiority can and should be persisted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

Well, this has been interesting.

Junior seems to lack the ability to even stay focused on their fantastical spin on military events and doctrine.

So I can either wait here for more sci-fi gems to amaze and astound or I can go clean the cat's litter box.

Well, that was a tough decision...to the litterbox we go.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Wrong : there are no principles of air power that persist through time .
> And an air superiority achieved weeks before the landing is not a guarantee for air superiority the day of the landing .Such air superiority would not last .


The LW didnt need air superiority they needed complete air supremacy look up the difference. That is complete control of the air over southern England and the midlands at least. During the actual battle Bomber Command was given equal credit in radio broadcasts, "wreaking havoc" on assembled landing barges in France and Belgium. The fight as it was would be as nothing compared to an actual landing. Then every plane with a turret or guns and every person with a license to fly would be used. There was no need to retreat because the RAF was not getting weaker, numerically it had more fighters and pilots than at the start throughout the battle, finishing 200 stronger, though pilot quality wasnt so good.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The technology of 1940 was millions of light years away of the technology of 1962
> And the situation was also totally different .
> .


Do you read? Xb02s post that you replied to stated the exact opposite. I guarantee that the British system in 1940 was better than the part that Xb02 worked on in 1962 because one had been worked on for years and the other thrown together in weeks. The Observer Corps in UK was founded in 1925, it became the Royal Observer Corps during the war. During D-Day all US Liberty flak ships had two ROC air observers seconded to them to identify aircraft and call down fire where needed, my uncle was one of them. The job is nowhere near as easy as you think it is. Royal Observer Corps - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Wrong : there are no principles of air power that persist through time .



Boelcke might have an argument with this statement. 

Just as pertinent to this discussion of the BoB, "First look, first shot, first kill" is also something that has stood the test of time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> So FC retreats, and hence fails to defend the prime target in the UK....London. Just how long do you think ANY political leader would survive under those conditions? It would be a gross abdication of responsibility. And yet you simply dismiss the idea with a wave of the hand.



I think it might be possible to defend London from the north, but it depends on how many fighters FC has, how many CH radars might be maintained or repaired, and whether the populace of the city could withstand it.

You're right that it would be a political nightmare, and Churchill was far too canny to allow such a thing. Any guy saying "We will fight on the beaches ..." is probably not going to countenance 11 Gr retreating to leave civilians to their fate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2021)

I gave up when the proposal was for the German army to invade Russia and live off the land. Negating hundreds of years of studies of logistics by general staffs of a number of European armies. Knowledge and practice going back several hundred years. 

Never let minor details get in the way of a new/improved concept.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 16, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I gave up when the proposal was for the German army to invade Russia and live off the land. Negating hundreds of years of studies of logistics by general staffs of a number of European armies. Knowledge and practice going back several hundred years.



Scorched-earth tactics were no secret on the Eastern Front. Even without them, 700+ miles is going to be a supply-hog.


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 16, 2021)

Just another tidbit on the Chain Home network:

"Direction can be determined by comparing the way in which the returning signal is received by two aerials set at right angles to each other. The Chain Home receiver display uses a calibrated dial. It is turned until the ‘blip’ in the trace on the screen disappears, and the bearing can then be simply read off the scale."

The 2nd RAF Museum article I linked to upthread "StackPath" used some wording lifted directly out of the WWII "general" section of the Chain Home descriptive manual, just reworded for the past tense.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 16, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From Eagle in Flames
> 
> Which proves that it was the LW who had air superiority over the Channel .


Or it proves the RAF didn’t need to have as many sorties over the Channel.


Thumpalumpacus said:


> Scorched-earth tactics were no secret on the Eastern Front. Even without them, 700+ miles is going to be a supply-hog.



Stalin certainly knew enough history to notice how well living off the land worked for Napoleon when faced with a scorched earth policy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 16, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

re "As I expected : you forgot the principal reason : THE WEATHER."

Why do you think the weather was the principal reason?

The reason I ask is that I do not see how the weather, be it clear and sunny or dark and stormy, would matter if the Germans do not have air superiority, and control (naval) of the English Channel. If they did not control both there is no way they would survive (intact) the crossing.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think it might be possible to defend London from the north, but it depends on how many fighters FC has, how many CH radars might be maintained or repaired, and whether the populace of the city could withstand it.
> 
> You're right that it would be a political nightmare, and Churchill was far too canny to allow such a thing. Any guy saying "We will fight on the beaches ..." is probably not going to countenance 11 Gr retreating to leave civilians to their fate.


Why would London be the prime target ?
Besides, the populace of London did withstand the Blitz,thus why could the populace of London not withstand air attacks in the Summer ?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Why would London be the prime target ?
> Besides, the populace of London did withstand the Blitz,thus why could the populace of London not withstand air attacks in the Summer ?



The people of London withstood the blitz because they knew Fighter Command was between them and the enemy, and that RAF squadrons were going up multiple times each day to try and protect them. Pull those defending fighters north, and the mindset of the Londoners may change markedly, with the greatest concern being the lack of defences. Be careful of applying hindsight and assuming that outcomes will continue as they did even if circumstances change.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljadw,
> 
> re "As I expected : you forgot the principal reason : THE WEATHER."
> 
> ...


Because there are 2 meanings of Sealion : 
the traditional , in reality wrong meaning : an invasion of Britain 
and the real one , the only one which was possible = the occupation of Britain .
After 15 September an invasion of Britain was impossible because of the weather .The barges transporting men and supplies would not survive the Autumn storms .
It is even probable that an invasion would not be possible in August, as an invasion would require a long buildup .It would take months to occupy Britain by fighting and months of transports that had to cross the Channel .
A fighting Sealion was impossible without air supremacy and impossible with air supremacy .The same for naval supremacy .
Goering hoped that an early victory in the Battle of Britain would force the UK government to negotiate ( which means : capitulate )WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR AN INVASION . (my emphasis ) . Source :Stephen Bungay . But the hope of Goering was self-deceit.
No one proposed to execute Overlord in the Autumn,thus why would Sealion (with a weak Germany ) be possible in the Autumn ?
General time was Germany's biggest enemy ,and Germany could do nothing against general time .
The only way an occupation of Britain could be possible was if,when, after Britain was giving up .
A successful invasion of Britain in 1940 had the same chance of success as a successful invasion of Japan in 1942 .
Britain did not capitulate during the Blitz ,when every night countless civilians were killed/wounded , thus what Goering hoped was an illusion .
Occupation after invasion was impossible .
Occupation without invasion : idem ,with the exception of the US declaring publicly that they would not help Britain. But since August 1940 (GOP convention ) this was excluded .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljadw,
> 
> re "As I expected : you forgot the principal reason : THE WEATHER."
> 
> ...


Since weather was the principle reason, why not hold this game at a different venue, like Malta?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Because there are 2 meanings of Sealion :
> the traditional , in reality wrong meaning : an invasion of Britain
> and the real one , the only one which was possible = the occupation of Britain .
> After 15 September an invasion of Britain was impossible because of the weather .The barges transporting men and supplies would not survive the Autumn storms .
> ...


Why would Germany believe they had to occupy a whole country to win? They hadnt with France Poland or the Netherlands? The daft lad in charge considered the Channel to just be a wide river crossing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Because there are 2 meanings of Sealion :
> the traditional , in reality wrong meaning : an invasion of Britain
> and the real one , the only one which was possible = the occupation of Britain .
> After 15 September an invasion of Britain was impossible because of the weather .The barges transporting men and supplies would not survive the Autumn storms .
> ...



You're very big on making direct correlations where they don't exist. Negotiation does NOT equal capitulation. Also, just because the UK secured a negotiated peace does not mean that Germany had to invade in the summer of 1940. 

Now, it's entirely plausible that Nazi influence over the UK would increase over time. In the short term, and assuming a more pliable British Government than Churchill's cabinet, some combination of trade, Anglo-German military coordination committees, and perhaps a force of German observers in the UK, could suffice to assuage German fears that the UK may change its mind in the future. The more ties established between the 2 countries, the less chance there was of the UK reneging.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I gave up when the proposal was for the German army to invade Russia and live off the land. Negating hundreds of years of studies of logistics by general staffs of a number of European armies. Knowledge and practice going back several hundred years.
> 
> Never let minor details get in the way of a new/improved concept.





buffnut453 said:


> Bullshit! Every element of air power doctrine existed and was understood during WW1: CAS, OCA, DCA, strategic bombing, SEAD, ISR, counter-ISR, transportation and logistics, air-to-ground and ground-to-air communication. All of it was there...and yet you're claiming that principles of air power don't persist over time. Please show me a doctrinal air power concept that hasn't persisted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


''should '' = handwaving .
And air supremacy on 1 September does not mean that there will be air supremacy on 15 September, because you make the traditional mistake of thinking that air supremacy is gained,is done by the winner only and that it will last .You forget the role of the other party (here FC ) . It was very well possible for Dowding to retreat to the North on 1 September to spare FC for the deciding day of 15 September and against this decision,the LW could do nothing .
Achieving air supremacy depends as much, or some times more , on what the opponent would do 
And,what is air supremacy ? Is it to prevent the opponent during a certain time to interfere ,or to eliminate him totally, or to prevent him to interfere on the D Day ?
What would be more important for Britain : to withhold FC for the day of invasion or to use/wast FC to defend the civilians of London before the invasion ?
This would be a decision on which the Germans had no influence .
During the Battle of the Atlantic, U Boats targeted merchant vessels, hoping that an escort would come to save the survivors and that they could thus attack the escort .But it was very well possible for the convoy commander to order to abandon the survivors.
To have and conserve air supremacy it is needed to find, fight and defeat the opponent, but if the opponent refuses to fight ?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

Why are you discussing Fighter command retreating, Park didnt even abandon Manston which is so close to the sea and to France it is easier to attack than defend. If Dowding and park withdrew forces they would lose Radar so the position of defending London becomes more difficult not easier.


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 17, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

Thanks for the answer re weather, makes more sense now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You're very big on making direct correlations where they don't exist. Negotiation does NOT equal capitulation. Also, just because the UK secured a negotiated peace does not mean that Germany had to invade in the summer of 1940.
> 
> Now, it's entirely plausible that Nazi influence over the UK would increase over time. In the short term, and assuming a more pliable British Government than Churchill's cabinet, some combination of trade, Anglo-German military coordination committees, and perhaps a force of German observers in the UK, could suffice to assuage German fears that the UK may change its mind in the future. The more ties established between the 2 countries, the less chance there was of the UK reneging.


NO : to negotiate from a weaker position always result in capitulation .
The German ''negotiations '' in November 1918 resulted in the German capitulation of June 1919 .
You only negotiate if you are losing .
In June 1940 the Germans told the French : these are our demands . Accept them or war will continue .
It was the same for the Allies in November 1918 and June 1919 .
UK would not renege only if it was occupied .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> ''should '' = handwaving .
> And air supremacy on 1 September does not mean that there will be air supremacy on 15 September, because you make the traditional mistake of thinking that air supremacy is gained,is done by the winner only and that it will last .You forget the role of the other party (here FC ) . It was very well possible for Dowding to retreat to the North on 1 September to spare FC for the deciding day of 15 September and against this decision,the LW could do nothing .
> Achieving air supremacy depends as much, or some times more , on what the opponent would do
> And,what is air supremacy ? Is it to prevent the opponent during a certain time to interfere ,or to eliminate him totally, or to prevent him to interfere on the D Day ?
> ...



I'm not assuming anything. Again, remember I'm very familiar with military planning. Based on your pronouncements, I think I understand air superiority and air supremacy better than you. 

Yes, an adversary does have a say in how any battle progresses...but the advantage is ALWAYS with an attacking force that can pick the time and place of its operations. Defenders are, by nature, responsive. Removing radar warning and hammering the Sector Stations would leave Fighter Command really struggling to mount any kind of credible defence. The best option available would be to mount standing patrols...but do you know how expensive that is in terms of aircraft?

What would the people of Britain say if Fighter Command refused to fight? Do you think they'd be in favour of that approach? Also, how far north would squadrons have to withdraw to be out of range of the Luftwaffe? There were Luftwaffe bombing raids in 1940 against Coventry, Sheffield, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc. Fighter Command would have to pull a VERY long way back to avoid being attacked.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

And air supremacy on 1 September does not mean that there will be air supremacy on 15 September, because you make the traditional mistake of thinking that air supremacy is gained,is done by the winner only and that it will last .

I have no idea what your point is, the LW never got close to air superiority let alone supremacy.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : to negotiate from a weaker position always result in capitulation .
> The German ''negotiations '' in November 1918 resulted in the German capitulation of June 1919 .
> You only negotiate if you are losing .
> In June 1940 the Germans told the French : these are our demands . Accept them or war will continue .
> ...


What is a weaker position? Switzerland is always in a weak position, it just lets it be known that the cost of an attack would be huge.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : to negotiate from a weaker position always result in capitulation .
> The German ''negotiations '' in November 1918 resulted in the German capitulation of June 1919 .
> You only negotiate if you are losing .
> In June 1940 the Germans told the French : these are our demands . Accept them or war will continue .
> ...



Again, you're making a lot of connections and assertions that aren't backed up by facts. 

The armistice on 11 November 1918 came after 4+ years of the bloodiest conflict the world had seen. The situation in May/June of 1940 was considerably less developed. Indeed, the desire for peace was often motivated by the memories of the Great War. 

In 1940 the French were losing...but only part of France was occupied by German forces. Vichy France continued with self-government so hardly a complete capitulation. Sweden and Switzerland were both militarily much weaker than Germany...and yet neither were invaded during WW2. Why was that? 

I think a negotiated peace in May/June 1940 was possible, as did many in senior British Government positions at the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I think a negotiated peace in May/June 1940 was possible, as did many in senior British Government positions at the time.


Churchills first job was to get rid of or silence them from wiki "However, Churchill outmanoeuvred Halifax by calling a meeting of his 25-member Outer Cabinet, to whom he delivered a passionate speech, saying, "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground",[40]​ convincing all who were present that Britain must fight on against Hitler whatever the cost. Churchill also obtained the backing of Neville Chamberlain, who was still Conservative Party leader.[30]​

Churchill told the War Cabinet that there would be no negotiated peace. Halifax had lost. A few weeks later, in July 1940, Halifax rejected German peace offers presented through the Papal Nuncio in Berne and the Portuguese and Finnish prime ministers." Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax - Wikipedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Churchills first job was to get rid of or silence them from wiki "However, Churchill outmanoeuvred Halifax by calling a meeting of his 25-member Outer Cabinet, to whom he delivered a passionate speech, saying, "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground",[40]​ convincing all who were present that Britain must fight on against Hitler whatever the cost. Churchill also obtained the backing of Neville Chamberlain, who was still Conservative Party leader.[30]​
> 
> Churchill told the War Cabinet that there would be no negotiated peace. Halifax had lost. A few weeks later, in July 1940, Halifax rejected German peace offers presented through the Papal Nuncio in Berne and the Portuguese and Finnish prime ministers." Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax - Wikipedia



Exactly...but if 11 Group retreats, causing a no-confidence vote in Churchill's leadership, what then? Would a negotiated peace be back on the table? I suspect the answer is yes.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Exactly...but if 11 Group retreats, causing a no-confidence vote in Churchill's leadership, what then? Would a negotiated peace be back on the table? I suspect the answer is yes.


I dont really know how this part of the discussion came about, if 11 Group pulled back behind London they could still defend London but not really defend the Kent coast or Chain home. As far as I am aware any discussion of it was "worst case scenario" possibilities, the only airfield that was seriously discussed being abandoned was Manston. If the LW forced 11 group out of Kent and landed, an army marching on London may have forced surrender, but that was nowhere near happening.


In a winner takes all fantasy scenario, you could have the RAF withdrawing to invite an invasion, allow a beach head to be established and then attack, forcing Adolf to commit his Navy and Airforce to rescue a stranded army. (it worked for William at Hastings in 1066)


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> ''should '' = handwaving .
> And air supremacy on 1 September does not mean that there will be air supremacy on 15 September,


True, air supremacy is something that is fluid unless, like 1944-45 the USAAF and RAF are simply too powerful even separately for the LW to handle.



ljadw said:


> because you make the traditional mistake of thinking that air supremacy is gained,is done by the winner only and that it will last .You forget the role of the other party (here FC )


I doubt buffnut made any "traditional mistake of thinking" or forgot the role of FC, he's pretty sharp and knows WTF he's talking about. Sometimes it's better to listen than to speak, just sayin'.



ljadw said:


> It was very well possible for Dowding to retreat to the North on 1 September to spare FC for the deciding day of 15 September and against this decision,the LW could do nothing .


Why would Dowding do this again? In case it escaped you, by September the RAF was holding the line very nicely, bloody but they were wearing down the LW and winning the production battle of airframes produced as well. 11 group was bearing the brunt but were holding up so why move them north again?



ljadw said:


> Achieving air supremacy depends as much, or some times more , on what the opponent would do
> And,what is air supremacy ? Is it to prevent the opponent during a certain time to interfere ,or to eliminate him totally, or to prevent him to interfere on the D Day ?
> What would be more important for Britain : to withhold FC for the day of invasion or to use/wast FC to defend the civilians of London before the invasion ?
> This would be a decision on which the Germans had no influence .


I think this has already been answered more than once.



ljadw said:


> During the Battle of the Atlantic, U Boats targeted merchant vessels, hoping that an escort would come to save the survivors and that they could thus attack the escort .But it was very well possible for the convoy commander to order to abandon the survivors.
> To have and conserve air supremacy it is needed to find, fight and defeat the opponent, but if the opponent refuses to fight ?


Studied my share of U-Boat history, one of the last things they wanted to do was tangle with a RN or USN destroyer. I can see them taking on a target of opportunity but to actively seek out going mano a mano with a ship designed to kill them? Ludicrous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2021)

Convoy tactics/operations varied over the years. 
U-boats carried a rather limited number of torpedoes.

Sink large freighter or tanker vs sinking a Flower class corvette, trawler, 20 year old destroyer? 
Sometimes there were one or two ships designated as "rescue" ships. Usually small (difficult target) and with sufficient speed to catch up to the convoy. 
Since even the fast convoys had ships that ran at 9-13 knots it didn't take a lot of speed to catch up. Rescue ship might be able to cut the corners on the zig zag route also. 

U-Boat commanders were usually rated on tonnage sunk.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2021)

It's a shame that D-Day was called off due to bad weather, the war would have been over much sooner.

Oh, wait...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It's a shame that D-Day was called off due to bad weather, the war would have been over much sooner.
> 
> Oh, wait...


Those Mulberry harbours were over rated, one blew away in a summer breeze (second internet fact of the day).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Why would London be the prime target ?
> Besides, the populace of London did withstand the Blitz,thus why could the populace of London not withstand air attacks in the Summer ?



Did I say they wouldn't?

It'd be nice if for once you read for comprehension rather than contradiction.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Convoy tactics/operations varied over the years.
> U-boats carried a rather limited number of torpedoes.
> 
> Sink large freighter or tanker vs sinking a Flower class corvette, trawler, 20 year old destroyer?
> ...


There have been several cases where escorts were forbidden to leave their role ,which was to protect the convoy, to rescue the crew of a sinking merchant vessel .
And that U Boat commanders were usually rated on tonnage sunk was a very big mistake of Doenitz .

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Again, you're making a lot of connections and assertions that aren't backed up by facts.
> 
> The armistice on 11 November 1918 came after 4+ years of the bloodiest conflict the world had seen. The situation in May/June of 1940 was considerably less developed. Indeed, the desire for peace was often motivated by the memories of the Great War.
> 
> ...


To negotiate you need two sides . And no German would be that stupid to negotiate with Britain ,because negotiations would mean giving Britain the opportunity to restart the war .After negotiations without occupation, there would be elections in the Autumn of 1940 and the anti-Germans would win .
France did in fact capitulate : its army was almost totally disbanded : only 100000 men remained .
Britain would suffer more .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Those Mulberry harbours were over rated, one blew away in a summer breeze (second internet fact of the day).


They were not overrated, they were needed .
That one of them was destroyed by a Summer storm does not mean that they were overrated .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not assuming anything. Again, remember I'm very familiar with military planning. Based on your pronouncements, I think I understand air superiority and air supremacy better than you.
> 
> Yes, an adversary does have a say in how any battle progresses...but the advantage is ALWAYS with an attacking force that can pick the time and place of its operations. Defenders are, by nature, responsive. Removing radar warning and hammering the Sector Stations would leave Fighter Command really struggling to mount any kind of credible defence. The best option available would be to mount standing patrols...but do you know how expensive that is in terms of aircraft?
> 
> What would the people of Britain say if Fighter Command refused to fight? Do you think they'd be in favour of that approach? Also, how far north would squadrons have to withdraw to be out of range of the Luftwaffe? There were Luftwaffe bombing raids in 1940 against Coventry, Sheffield, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc. Fighter Command would have to pull a VERY long way back to avoid being attacked.


The attacks you mention are night attacks during the Blitz. Daily attacks on airfields north of London by bombers were impossible as the fighters could not protect the bombers north of London .
And, it would not be the tabloids who would decide the strategy of Dowding .
Everything depended on Britain, not on the Germans . 
And, to mount a defence was not needed for FC, it was he LW who had to force FC to fight . Not the opposite. FC had the strongest ally in the world : general time .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> To negotiate you need two sides . And no German would be that stupid to negotiate with Britain ,because negotiations would mean giving Britain the opportunity to restart the war .After negotiations without occupation, there would be elections in the Autumn of 1940 and the anti-Germans would win .
> France did in fact capitulate : its army was almost totally disbanded : only 100000 men remained .
> Britain would suffer more .





Why would there be elections?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> They were not overrated, they were needed .
> That one of them was destroyed by a Summer storm does not mean that they were overrated.


Just a jest based on assumptions of Channel weather, since Germany didnt have the same weather forecasting capability, mounting an invasion at the perfect time of year could lead to the whole force being wiped out. I have been in Calais harbour with a rise and fall of waves that would sink any barge, the moored Ro-Ro ferry was pitching so much loading was stopped.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The attacks you mention are night attacks during the Blitz. Daily attacks on airfields north of London by bombers were impossible as the fighters could not protect the bombers north of London .
> And, it would not be the tabloids who would decide the strategy of Dowding .
> Everything depended on Britain, not on the Germans .
> And, to mount a defence was not needed for FC, it was he LW who had to force FC to fight . Not the opposite. FC had the strongest ally in the world : general time .



Please show me a single instance, anywhere and at any time in the history of air power, when defensive fighters have been solely operated from BEHIND the key target they're supposed to be defending. You don't defend a location by putting your military forces behind it. Defensive fighers belong up-threat to try and prevent the adversary getting to the target. 

Tabloids wouldn't decide the strategy of Dowding but Parliament, the elected leadership of the country, would and did. Application of military force is accomplished at the direction of the civilian government, and when that application of military force doesn't work the way it was intended, the Government tends to change. Look what happened to Chamberlain. The Norwegian Campaign wasn't progressing as intended, there was lack of confidence in his leadership and, despite surviving a vote of no confidence, he resigned because it was recognized he had lost the support of Parliament...or, in other words, the support of the people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Why would there be elections?



And how can we be so certain that "anti-Germans" (in reality anti-Nazis) would win?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> And how can we be so certain that "anti-Germans" (in reality anti-Nazis) would win?


There was no need to have an election, who would call it. The UK had a "national government" until 8 May 1940. Churchill headed a coalition government from 10 May. The last election before the war was 1935, the scheduled election of 1940 was postponed because of the war, the next election was after VE day 5 July 1945. The UKs constitution, such as it is has almost unlimited scope to change its rules. I dont think it would be a question of anti Germans or Anti Nazis but pro or Anti War, who would call an election to decide if you go to war or not, whichever way it went would result in the losers being imprisoned.








National Government (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





On 7 and 8 May 1940, a two-day debate took place in Parliament, known to history as the Norway Debate. Initially a discussion of what had gone wrong in that field, it soon turned into a general debate on the conduct of the war with fierce criticism expressed by all sides of the House. The government won the debate, albeit with a reduced majority, but over the next two days it became increasingly clear that Labour and the Liberals would have to be brought into government and that Chamberlain was unable to achieve this. On 10 May 1940, Germany invaded the Low Countries and Chamberlain finally bowed to pressure and resigned, bringing the life of the National Government to a close. It was succeeded by an all-party coalition headed by Winston Churchill.[17]​

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> And how can we be so certain that "anti-Germans" (in reality anti-Nazis) would win?


Further to previous post between 1935 and 1945 there were 219 by elections, that is an election for an individual seat. List of United Kingdom by-elections (1931–1950) - Wikipedia.

From what I remember of Churchills memoirs, in WW2 the cabinet decided to to declare war on Germany and Parliament was presented with the fact, many things were debated, but not the declaration itself.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Further to previous post between 1935 and 1945 there were 219 by elections, that is an election for an individual seat. List of United Kingdom by-elections (1931–1950) - Wikipedia.
> 
> From what I remember of Churchills memoirs, in WW2 the cabinet decided to to declare war on Germany and Parliament was presented with the fact, many things were debated, but not the declaration itself.



Yes, and if Churchill is removed by a vote of no-confidence, then it's almost certain that an anti-war faction would come to power and present the negotiation of terms as a fait accompli. Or the new Government would work to silence/convince the war hawks to flip sides before holding a somewhat symbolic vote in Parliament. Regardless, a no-confidence vote against Churchill WOULD have changed the course of the war entirely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : to negotiate from a weaker position always result in capitulation .
> The German ''negotiations '' in November 1918 resulted in the German capitulation of June 1919 .
> You only negotiate if you are losing .
> In June 1940 the Germans told the French : these are our demands . Accept them or war will continue .
> ...


So wrong, so very wrong. 

You can still negotiate even if your losing, if you have something the other side needs and doesn't have. For the UK the Navy and its merchant fleet, plus its industrial power in the north.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

Glider said:


> So wrong, so very wrong.
> 
> You can still negotiate even if your losing, if you have something the other side needs and doesn't have. For the UK the Navy and its merchant fleet, plus its industrial power in the north.



And don't forget access to resources from the British Empire.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, and if Churchill is removed by a vote of no-confidence, then it's almost certain that an anti-war faction would come to power and present the negotiation of terms as a fait accompli. Or the new Government would work to silence/convince the war hawks to flip sides before holding a somewhat symbolic vote in Parliament. Regardless, a no-confidence vote against Churchill WOULD have changed the course of the war entirely.


I agree, but there were much darker days after 1940, there were two motions of no confidence in 1942 and he survived them both.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I agree, but there were much darker days after 1940, there were two motions of no confidence in 1942 and he survived them both.



Yes, but by then the threat of invasion was gone, Britain had survived the worst of the onslaught...and Britain had Allies. None of those things were known in the summer of 1940.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, but by then the threat of invasion was gone, Britain had survived the worst of the onslaught...and Britain had Allies. None of those things were known in the summer of 1940.


In the summer of 1940 we were just taking the cane out of the cabinet to give Hitler and his poodle a damned good thrashing. I agree with what you say about the principle, but in fact the LW didnt come close to forcing such a situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Please show me a single instance, anywhere and at any time in the history of air power, when defensive fighters have been solely operated from BEHIND the key target they're supposed to be defending. You don't defend a location by putting your military forces behind it. Defensive fighers belong up-threat to try and prevent the adversary getting to the target.
> 
> Tabloids wouldn't decide the strategy of Dowding but Parliament, the elected leadership of the country, would and did. Application of military force is accomplished at the direction of the civilian government, and when that application of military force doesn't work the way it was intended, the Government tends to change. Look what happened to Chamberlain. The Norwegian Campaign wasn't progressing as intended, there was lack of confidence in his leadership and, despite surviving a vote of no confidence, he resigned because it was recognized he had lost the support of Parliament...or, in other words, the support of the people.


Parliament is not the people, besides Chamberlain remained in the Cabinet and could destroy Winston at any moment .The Tories remained faithful to Chamberlain and disliked Winston .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, but by then the threat of invasion was gone, Britain had survived the worst of the onslaught...and Britain had Allies. None of those things were known in the summer of 1940.


Britain had an ally in May 1940 : US.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Britain had an ally in May 1940 : US.


No it didnt. You cannot call the relations between USA and UK in May 1940 that of allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Parliament is not the people, besides Chamberlain remained in the Cabinet and could destroy Winston at any moment .The Tories remained faithful to Chamberlain and disliked Winston .



I have a donkey that still has both its hind legs...perhaps you'd like to argue one of them off?

Parliament REPRESENTS the people. They serve at the will of the people. Despite their dislike of Churchill, he held onto power because, overall, he got the big decisions right. A seriously bad decision, like pulling FC back north of London, would have had political consequences.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Parliament is not the people, besides Chamberlain remained in the Cabinet and could destroy Winston at any moment .The Tories remained faithful to Chamberlain and disliked Winston .


Chamberlain died of bowel cancer on 9 Nov 1940 which limits his chances of destroying Churchill more than just a little.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> There have been several cases where escorts were forbidden to leave their role ,which was to protect the convoy, to rescue the crew of a sinking merchant vessel .
> And that U Boat commanders were usually rated on tonnage sunk was a very big mistake of Doenitz .


Everyone was forbidden from picking up survivors when a convoy was attacked, it is as suicidal as using a match to find a sniper.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I have a donkey that still has both its hind legs...perhaps you'd like to argue one of them off?
> 
> Parliament REPRESENTS the people. They serve at the will of the people. Despite their dislike of Churchill, he held onto power because, overall, he got the big decisions right. A seriously bad decision, like pulling FC back north of London, would have had political consequences.


Constitutionally parliament is appointed by the crown to give the best advice to the crown, over time this has gone from certain lords to all lords to to various people elected from a limited electorate to what we have now (actually pretty much in line with the level of people with a basic education). Churchill is a strange case, my mother loved him no matter what, but she was a schoolgirl during the war, my father hated him but wouldnt have had any other leader during the war. I cant think of Churchill losing an election during WW2 but it was no surprise that he lost after VE day, he was a war time leader, when you dont have a war, you dont need a war time leader.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2021)

I believe Sir Winston Churchill persuaded Neville Chamberlain to stay on in Churchill's government. Who had made Sir Winston First Lord of the Admiralty? Was it Chamberlain?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I believe Sir Winston Churchill persuaded Neville Chamberlain to stay on in Churchill's government. Who had made Sir Winston First Lord of the Admiralty? Was it Chamberlain?



It was.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2021)

Doesn't seem like they were trying to kill each other.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Doesn't seem like they were trying to kill each other.



C'mon now...let's not allow reality to impose on the fantasies and certainties being expounded in this thread.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> C'mon now...let's not allow reality to impose on the fantasies and certainties being expounded in this thread.


You're right. I never have before.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I believe Sir Winston Churchill persuaded Neville Chamberlain to stay on in Churchill's government. Who had made Sir Winston First Lord of the Admiralty? Was it Chamberlain?


The second time yes, the first time was 1911-1915. It makes good sense to have Chamberlain involved, he had been involved for so long. Much is made about his "peace in our time" agreement, but he was doing his job buying time, the aircraft of fighter command, bomber command and things like Chain Home and the Dowding system were all created on his watch. In my opinion history gives him a bad rap, he was a seriously ill man doing the best he could in an impossible situation. everything in UK military development after 1935 he had a hand in 1935-37 as Chancellor (finance minister) and 1937 onwards as Prime Minister.

from wiki 
Defence spending​Defence spending had been heavily cut in Chamberlain's early budgets.[62]​ By 1935, faced with a resurgent Germany under Hitler's leadership (see German re-armament), he was convinced of the need for rearmament.[63]​ Chamberlain especially urged the strengthening of the Royal Air Force, realising that Britain's historical bulwark, the English Channel, was no defence against air power.[64]​

In 1935, MacDonald stood down as Prime Minister, and Baldwin became Prime Minister for the third time.[65]​ In the 1935 general election, the Conservative-dominated National Government lost 90 seats from its massive 1931 majority, but still retained an overwhelming majority of 255 in the House of Commons. During the campaign, deputy Labour leader Arthur Greenwood had attacked Chamberlain for spending money on rearmament, saying that the rearmament policy was "the merest scaremongering; disgraceful in a statesman of Mr Chamberlain's responsible position, to suggest that more millions of money needed to be spent on armaments."[66]​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Doesn't seem like they were trying to kill each other.



'course not. When the police roll up on a domestic dispute, the husband and wife drop their own argument and pay Hell to the cops, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The second time yes, the first time was 1911-1915. It makes good sense to have Chamberlain involved, he had been involved for so long. Much is made about his "peace in our time" agreement, but he was doing his job buying time, the aircraft of fighter command, bomber command and things like Chain Home and the Dowding system were all created on his watch. In my opinion history gives him a bad rap, he was a seriously ill man doing the best he could in an impossible situation. everything in UK military development after 1935 he had a hand in 1935-37 as Chancellor (finance minister) and 1937 onwards as Prime Minister.
> 
> from wiki
> Defence spending​Defence spending had been heavily cut in Chamberlain's early budgets.[62]​ By 1935, faced with a resurgent Germany under Hitler's leadership (see German re-armament), he was convinced of the need for rearmament.[63]​ Chamberlain especially urged the strengthening of the Royal Air Force, realising that Britain's historical bulwark, the English Channel, was no defence against air power.[64]​
> ...



Entirely agree. As I stated earlier in the thread, appeasement has become a dirty word but it was absolutely critical to give Britain time to catch up militarily with Germany. Your observations about re-equipment of the RAF, including the new generation of fighters plus Chain Home are bang-on. Also, let's not forget the massive increase in airfield construction that was necessary. The late-30s pattern RAF stations were a testament to the efficient and effective build-up of capability.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Entirely agree. As I stated earlier in the thread, appeasement has become a dirty word but it was absolutely critical to give Britain time to catch up militarily with Germany. Your observations about re-equipment of the RAF, including the new generation of fighters plus Chain Home are bang-on. Also, let's not forget the massive increase in airfield construction that was necessary. The late-30s pattern RAF stations were a testament to the efficient and effective build-up of capability.


Germany was the aggressor and so stole a march on everyone, the UK caught and passed Germany in most areas, apart from just numbers of people, in or around 1940 that is down to Chamberlain more than Churchill. Churchills time as First Sea Lord is significant, it was before he adversary even thought of his main role as WW1 corporal, the difference in background to be a war leader couldnt be more stark.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 17, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Parliament is not the people, besides Chamberlain remained in the Cabinet and could destroy Winston at any moment .The Tories remained faithful to Chamberlain and disliked Winston .



Parliament is the representatives of the people. No government -- even the most autocratic -- doesn't long survive without at least the tacit support of most of the people.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Just a jest based on assumptions of Channel weather, since Germany didnt have the same weather forecasting capability, mounting an invasion at the perfect time of year could lead to the whole force being wiped out.


Germany did have weather stations and they were fairly good at working with it.
A good example would be the Ardennes offensive.
However, they failed miserably when it came to history lessons.
A good example would be Napoleon's folly with a Russian winter.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Parliament is the representatives of the people. No government -- even the most autocratic -- doesn't long survive without at least the tacit support of most of the people.


One : NO
Two : yes


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Chamberlain died of bowel cancer on 9 Nov 1940 which limits his chances of destroying Churchill more than just a little.


Winston was PM by the grace of Chamberlain .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Why would there be elections?


Without war, elections could no longer be delayed : elections were scheduled for November 1939, but war prevented this .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Why would Germany believe they had to occupy a whole country to win? They hadnt with France Poland or the Netherlands? The daft lad in charge considered the Channel to just be a wide river crossing.


The Netherlands and also Belgium were totally occupied by the Germans .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You're very big on making direct correlations where they don't exist. Negotiation does NOT equal capitulation. Also, just because the UK secured a negotiated peace does not mean that Germany had to invade in the summer of 1940.
> 
> Now, it's entirely plausible that Nazi influence over the UK would increase over time. In the short term, and assuming a more pliable British Government than Churchill's cabinet, some combination of trade, Anglo-German military coordination committees, and perhaps a force of German observers in the UK, could suffice to assuage German fears that the UK may change its mind in the future. The more ties established between the 2 countries, the less chance there was of the UK reneging.


Without German military help, a Quisling regime would not long survive .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What is a weaker position? Switzerland is always in a weak position, it just lets it be known that the cost of an attack would be huge.


Switzerland was not at war , Britain was . Thus the comparison is weak .Russia accepted the peace of Brest-Litowsk in 1918,because there was a German ultimatum to continue the war .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> If you wish to learn about air superiority and it's ability to sway a landing, then read about the Dieppe Landings.
> 
> The Allies did NOT have air superiority and the Luftwaffe (who DID have air superiority) massacred the Allied troops as they were trying to gain a beach head.


The Allied forces at Dieppe were not massacred by the LW AND the Allies needed air superiority the days of the landing,not weeks before .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> One : NO



Please explain.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljadw,
> 
> re "As I expected : you forgot the principal reason : THE WEATHER."
> 
> ...


And if they had air and naval superiority, the weather would still make a fighting SL impossible after September 1940.
The Allies had air and naval superiority but did not land in the Autumn of 1944 .
The weather was already bad enough in June 1944 .
And, if Britain had given up, air and naval superiority would not be needed to land .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Without German military help, a Quisling regime would not long survive .



Based on what facts? You keep saying Britain would go back to war but what is your evidence for that? It's been pointed out numerous times that Britain was not entirely sold on a second war with Germany in the May/June 1940 timeframe. So, please, what's your evidence for the assertion you're making?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The people of London withstood the blitz because they knew Fighter Command was between them and the enemy, and that RAF squadrons were going up multiple times each day to try and protect them. Pull those defending fighters north, and the mindset of the Londoners may change markedly, with the greatest concern being the lack of defences. Be careful of applying hindsight and assuming that outcomes will continue as they did even if circumstances change.


NO : the RAF was not between them and the enemy during the night attacks in the Autumn and Winter,but still the Londoners withstood the blitz .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : the RAF was not between them and the enemy during the night attacks in the Autumn and Winter,but still the Londoners withstood the blitz .



Yes it was. Chain Home was still providing warning of incoming raids, giving civilians time to get to their shelters. Imagine a scenario where CH is neutralized so there's no warning of a raid. How would civilians feel then?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Boelcke might have an argument with this statement.
> 
> Just as pertinent to this discussion of the BoB, "First look, first shot, first kill" is also something that has stood the test of time.


First look, first shoot, first kill is a generalization: if the opponent refuses to fight,first look,first shot, first kill is worthless .
The initiative does not always belong to the enemy .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Allied forces at Dieppe were not massacred by the LW AND the Allies needed air superiority the days of the landing,not weeks before .


You are so full of shit.

You really need to sit down and be quiet when adults are talking.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Based on what facts? You keep saying Britain would go back to war but what is your evidence for that? It's been pointed out numerous times that Britain was not entirely sold on a second war with Germany in the May/June 1940 timeframe. So, please, what's your evidence for the assertion you're making?


Quisling would not survive without German help, neither would Mussert in the Netherlands, neither were the governments of Eastern Europe when the Soviets were leaving .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> First look, first shoot, first kill is a generalization: if the opponent refuses to fight,first look,first shot, first kill is worthless .
> The initiative does not always belong to the enemy .



No, the initiative belongs with the attacker who decides the time and location of his attack. If the defenders don't fight, then the attacker has a much better chance of achieving his objectives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Quisling would not survive without German help, neither would Mussert in the Netherlands, neither were the governments of Eastern Europe when the Soviets were leaving .



I said nothing about a Quisling regime. You raised that. I'm talking about the elected British Government winning the ballot on the case that continued war with Germany was not in the country's best interests. What evidence is there to suggest that such a scenario would fail?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> But the principles of air power persist through time. You don't wave a magic wand and suddenly declare air superiority. It is a campaign-level effort to progressively degrade an adversary's ability to defend within the air domain. It takes time, it takes planning, and it must be integrated with other domains (land, sea, etc) to ensure the air campaign adapts to changing requirements.
> 
> Your assertion that German air superiority over Britain wasn't needed prior to Sea Lion is nonsense. If the decision to launch Sea Lion was at all dependent on German air superiority, then that superiority MUST be achieved BEFORE the decision is made to execute Sea Lion.


Air superiority before does not mean air superiority at the D Day .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> No, the initiative belongs with the attacker who decides the time and location of his attack. If the defenders don't fight, then the attacker has a much better chance of achieving his objectives.


NO :if the defender (here FC ) avoids the fighting and thus remains intact the chance for the attacker to achieve his objective is very small .
To have air superiority,you must prevent the opponent to intervene on D Day ,and to do this you must eliminate or seriously weak him .You can only do this with his consent: if he withdraws to a region where he is save,you can't destroy him or seriously weak him .
Germany was the weaker one in both wars and thus it was condemned to search for victory by waging a short war with decisive battles .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Air superiority before does not mean air superiority at the D Day .



The air campaign in the weeks and months running up to your target date is what provides air superiority. Properly executed, an air campaign neutralizes the adversary's ability to mount a credible defence over your point of invasion. The Luftwaffe failed in this regard because they didn't maintain a focus on destroying 11 Group. If they'd done so, it would have been a major political blow. Why is this so hard for you to understand? 

And PLEASE don't say that 11 Group can just retreat because you've been told numerous times of the operational and political consequences of such a decision. I'm still waiting for you to show me an example when defending fighters operated solely from behind a key target they were trying to protect.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO :if the defender (here FC ) avoids the fighting and thus remains intact the chance for the attacker to achieve his objective is very small .
> To have air superiority,you must prevent the opponent to intervene on D Day ,and to do this you must eliminate or seriously weak him .You can only do this with his consent: if he withdraws to a region where he is save,you can't destroy him or seriously weak him .
> Germany was the weaker one in both wars and thus it was condemned to search for victory by waging a short war with decisive battles .



And what are the political consequences of FC not fighting. Imagine Churchill saying "We will fight them on the beaches but the RAF will retreat before the enemy landing.". Just how well will that go down in Parliament and with the people?

You're also ignoring the attitude of the pilots. They were literally defending their own families and you're telling them to pull back before the invasion? How would that affect morale?

Finally, with CH neutralized, how will you know where and when the enemy raids are arriving? How can defending fighters north of London do their job without CH to give an initial track as the raid approaches the coast? Look at what happened to airfields in Poland and France without radar warning. You can't rely on the Observer Corps unless they're cued by radar for a general area where to look. The sky is a big place and constantly searching without a cue to know where and when to pay attention is NOT a recipe for success.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> One : NO



And still waiting an explanation of this.


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Air superiority before does not mean air superiority at the D Day .


Actually in many ways it does.

Just for some fun I researched the definition of Air Superiority

Air Superiority That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.

D Day wasn't just a one day event. The forces had to be transported to the embarkation ports, the ships had to be loaded, transported to the landing zones. The harbours built the forces landed and supplied/supported after the landing.
The defending forces had to be pinned down, communications disrupted, Headquarters and command and control destroyed, radars destroyed or jammed, defences worn down or neutralised.

These tasks took many weeks and it was because of them the Air Superiority on the day was almost guaranteed. I would argue that when the day came it was impossible for the Germans to seriously contest the war in the air on D Day because the allies had air superiority before the day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The air campaign in the weeks and months running up to your target date is what provides air superiority. Properly executed, an air campaign neutralizes the adversary's ability to mount a credible defence over your point of invasion. The Luftwaffe failed in this regard because they didn't maintain a focus on destroying 11 Group. If they'd done so, it would have been a major political blow. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> And PLEASE don't say that 11 Group can just retreat because you've been told numerous times of the operational and political consequences of such a decision. I'm still waiting for you to show me an example when defending fighters operated solely from behind a key target they were trying to protect.


You are waiting for an answer on a wrong question that is based on the unproved claim that the mission of FC was to protect London,which was a military target where were living a lot of civilians .
The main mission of Dowding was NOT to protect London,but to conserve FC intact so that it could be used when its intervention was needed = on the start day of Sea Lion .
Your major political blow is an invention : there was no major political blow when Coventry or Liverpool were attacked or when London suffered very big during the night attacks in the Autumn and Winter .
If the Germans had a strategic air reserve in the Winter of 1943,they would not have used it to defend Berlin against the attacks from BC, but they would have spared it to use it on June 6 1944 .
And, there was no major political blow on 29 December when the City was attacked and strongly hurt .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are waiting for an answer on a wrong question that is based on the unproved claim that the mission of FC was to protect London,which was a military target where were living a lot of civilians .
> The main mission of Dowding was NOT to protect London,but to conserve FC intact so that it could be used when its intervention was needed = on the start day of Sea Lion .
> Your major political blow is an invention : there was no major political blow when Coventry or Liverpool were attacked or when London suffered very big during the night attacks in the Autumn and Winter .
> If the Germans had a strategic air reserve in the Winter of 1943,they would not have used it to defend Berlin against the attacks from BC, but they would have spared it to use it on June 6 1944 .
> And, there was no major political blow on 29 December when the City was attacked and strongly hurt .



Wrong! The job of Fighter Command was to protect the UK from air attack. Period. That was it's sole role and purpose.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2021)

58 pages and this idiot is still blathering on with nonsense after hijacking the hell out of this thread...


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Wrong! The job of Fighter Command was to protect the UK from air attack. Period. That was it's sole role and purpose.


NO : this is wrong .
The job of FC was to do what the political and military leadership would order to do and this was depending on the military situation .
In May 1940 Dowding refused to send additional FC squadrons to France because he wanted to keep FC intact .
Would it not be so that the use of FC as an air force in being was better ( in the situations we discuss ) than to wast it in a decisive air battle or in an air campaign of attrition?
The Tirpitz never was fighting against the Home Fleet,but that does not mean that it was useless .Would the Bismarck not have been more useful if it did not leave the German harbours ?
A British fighter lost in an air battle over southern England could not participate in an attack on the German invasion fleet .
An intact FC on SL day would tie a big part of the LW ,resulting in more losses for the German invasion fleet .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Winston was PM by the grace of Chamberlain .


But he died in November, you said Chamberlain would be there to oppose him, a new leder is not dependent on the old, read the link.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Netherlands and also Belgium were totally occupied by the Germans .


Not before they surrendered.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Without war, elections could no longer be delayed : elections were scheduled for November 1939, but war prevented this .


What is your argument or is it just a series of contradictions? There was a war because Germany invaded Poland, are you now saying Germany doesnt invade Poland? Why?


----------



## ARTESH (Jun 18, 2021)

depends on your definition of "Importance"! IMO, All of them were important!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : this is wrong .
> The job of FC was to do what the political and military leadership would order to do and this was depending on the military situation .
> In May 1940 Dowding refused to send additional FC squadrons to France because he wanted to keep FC intact .
> Would it not be so that the use of FC as an air force in being was better ( in the situations we discuss ) than to wast it in a decisive air battle or in an air campaign of attrition?
> ...


Now you are just making stuff up, Dowding didnt refuse, he couldnt, he advised strongly against it and also advised the consequences.

Quote ‘I believe that if an adequate fighter force is kept in this country, and if the Fleet remains in being, and if the home forces are suitably organised to resist invasion, we should be able to carry on the war single-handed for some time, if not indefinitely. But if the home defence force is drained away in desperate attempts to remedy the situation in France, defeat in France will involve the final, complete, and irremediable defeat of this country.’

On 19 May, Churchill issued a minute stating that no more squadrons should be sent to France. Dowding had got the tap turned off.









Dowding and Park: air war’s greatest commanders? | Military History Matters


The British had the most sophisticated air-defence system in the world, constructed and directed by a master strategist of modern industrialised warfare.




www.military-history.org

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : this is wrong .
> The job of FC was to do what the political and military leadership would order to do and this was depending on the military situation .
> In May 1940 Dowding refused to send additional FC squadrons to France because he wanted to keep FC intact .
> Would it not be so that the use of FC as an air force in being was better ( in the situations we discuss ) than to wast it in a decisive air battle or in an air campaign of attrition?
> ...



Sorry but no. Military leaders are issued Terms of Reference that define their area of responsibility. TORs always close with a catch-all that says "and other orders as directed" but that's an AND statement not an INSTEAD OF statement. Those "other orders" must be accomplished in addition to the primary direction being provided to the officer. In Dowding's case, his primary responsibility was air defence of the UK, hence why he refused to send more fighters to France (air defence of France was France's problem to solve, not Dowding's).

Your suggestion to pull back north of London would be an abrogation of Dowding's responsibility to defend the UK. No military leader ignores their primary mission on the off-chance of some future "what if" possibility. You fight tonight with the forces that you have - you don't hold back and wait just in case. Holding back and waiting cedes the initiative to the adversary, and you risk having your forces picked off.

Not sure where you're going with the Tirpitz thing but its only real contribution was as a resource sink for the Allied bombing effort. It represented a potential threat that had to be neutralized. FC, or at least 11 Group's defensive area, still had to be neutralized regardless of where the aircraft were located.

You can't guarantee that FC would remain intact. That is a MASSIVE assumption that isn't borne out by the facts of air combat. You have yet to answer how FC will defend its airfields north of London if the Luftwaffe takes out a sizeable chunk of CH? Again, look at Poland, the Low Countries and France where, without radar, airfields were incredibly vulnerable. How could FC protect its airfields if it doesn't know German attacks are even coming their way? The Observer Corps might be of some use but the amount of warning they could provide would be minimal. There's a real risk that much of FC would get caught on the ground or still be struggling to climb to height when the Luftwaffe arrived overhead. That's not a recipe for a winning strategy. It's very likely that FC would suffer greater losses than was the case in the BoB as it played out.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Your major political blow is an invention : there was no major political blow when Coventry or Liverpool were attacked or when London suffered very big during the night attacks in the Autumn and Winter .
> If the Germans had a strategic air reserve in the Winter of 1943,they would not have used it to defend Berlin against the attacks from BC, but they would have spared it to use it on June 6 1944 .
> And, there was no major political blow on 29 December when the City was attacked and strongly hurt .



No, it's not. Coventry, Liverpool, London etc all happened while Fighter Command was doing its job to the best of its abilities. It wasn't perfect but the population recognized FC was doing its best and supported The Few. The situation would fundamentally change if FC retreats and doesn't fight, or if CH is neutralized and FC can't effectively fight because it lacks early warning. That change of popular view about The Few would be particularly felt if either of those situations comes up early in the BoB, hard on the heels of the disaster that was Dunkirk.

Your point about a German strategic air reserve is nonsense. Military forces are scaled to meet the threats that are present today. No military force has ever been created with such an excess of capacity that it can lounge about for a year waiting for "something to happen". You're applying one of the biggest retrospectroscopes that I've ever seen if you think, somehow, German leadership would have the foresight to hold back forces for D-Day a year before it happened.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry but no. Military leaders are issued Terms of Reference that define their area of responsibility. TORs always close with a catch-all that says "and other orders as directed" but that's an AND statement not an INSTEAD OF statement. Those "other orders" must be accomplished in addition to the primary direction being provided to the officer. In Dowding's case, his primary responsibility was air defence of the UK, hence why he refused to send more fighters to France (air defence of France was France's problem to solve, not Dowding's).


It is possible to theorise about a commander acting without authority. For example Rommel could have moved the panzer reserves to Normandy after D-Day, he would have faced the consequences though. With the RAF they were completely dependent on the UK state for everything except pilots. Without Churchills permission Dowdings airfields would have no power, no fuel no new planes or spares and few staff.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> First look, first shoot, first kill is a generalization: if the opponent refuses to fight,first look,first shot, first kill is worthless .
> The initiative does not always belong to the enemy .



lol, it's like you can't help yourself.

Here, I'll help you out:



> Doctrine is a body of carefully developed, sanctioned ideas which has been officially approved or ratified corporately, and not dictated by any one individual. Doctrine establishes a common frame of reference including intellectual tools that commanders use to solve military problems. It is what we believe to be true about the best way to do things based on the evidence to date.
> 
> [...]Rather, good doctrine is somewhat akin to a good commander’s intent: it provides sufficient information on what to do, but does not specifically say how to do it. Airmen should strive to be doctrinally sound, not doctrinally bound.





https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/Doctrine_Primer/A%20Primer%20on%20Doctrine%208%20Oct%2020%20v2.pdf



_First look, first shot, first kill_ is USAF doctrine, and it has its roots going all the way back to biplanes diving out of the sun in order to remain unseen while attacking (although the phrase wasn't formulated until the 1970s).

I'm not sure how you can pack so much fail into so few words, but I must confess a sort of respect for your economies of error.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 18, 2021)

I'm just waiting to see when it beats the Groundhog Day Thread. I'm wondering what color he would paint the British planes.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm just waiting to see when it beats the Groundhog Day Thread. I'm wondering what color he would paint the British planes.



Fear not -- if this thread gets closed, I'll go revive that one.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Fear not -- if this thread gets close, I'll go revive that one.



You're a very bad man!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 18, 2021)

This has been worth the price of admission. Keep up the good work!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You're a very bad man!



Why, yes, I'm afraid so, I am.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> lol, it's like you can't help yourself.
> 
> Here, I'll help you out:
> 
> ...


Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .
Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> No, it's not. Coventry, Liverpool, London etc all happened while Fighter Command was doing its job to the best of its abilities. It wasn't perfect but the population recognized FC was doing its best and supported The Few. The situation would fundamentally change if FC retreats and doesn't fight, or if CH is neutralized and FC can't effectively fight because it lacks early warning. That change of popular view about The Few would be particularly felt if either of those situations comes up early in the BoB, hard on the heels of the disaster that was Dunkirk.
> 
> Your point about a German strategic air reserve is nonsense. Military forces are scaled to meet the threats that are present today. No military force has ever been created with such an excess of capacity that it can lounge about for a year waiting for "something to happen". You're applying one of the biggest retrospectroscopes that I've ever seen if you think, somehow, German leadership would have the foresight to hold back forces for D-Day a year before it happened.


The Few is a myth .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Few is a myth .


Is there anything in your world that isnt a myth? You know less than someone who has just watched The Battle of Britain.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Few is a myth .



I mentioned "The Few" because it was a reference Churchill made, just like Churchill used the phrase "we will fight them on the beaches" which I also referenced in the same post. 

How about actually answering questions that have been asked of you instead of such nit-picking idiocy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .



Wrong again. Doctrines are guiding principles. Reread what I quoted above from the USAF's own source material.



ljadw said:


> Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...



Well, duh, Capt Obvious ... although orders to attack weren't always necessary. None of that, however, rebuts my objection to this idiotic claim:



ljadw said:


> Wrong : there are no principles of air power that persist through time .



Principles -- i.e., _doctrine_ -- are persistent precisely because while the tools may change, best practices usually don't.

You're entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry but no. Military leaders are issued Terms of Reference that define their area of responsibility. TORs always close with a catch-all that says "and other orders as directed" but that's an AND statement not an INSTEAD OF statement. Those "other orders" must be accomplished in addition to the primary direction being provided to the officer. In Dowding's case, his primary responsibility was air defence of the UK, hence why he refused to send more fighters to France (air defence of France was France's problem to solve, not Dowding's).
> 
> Your suggestion to pull back north of London would be an abrogation of Dowding's responsibility to defend the UK. No military leader ignores their primary mission on the off-chance of some future "what if" possibility. You fight tonight with the forces that you have - you don't hold back and wait just in case. Holding back and waiting cedes the initiative to the adversary, and you risk having your forces picked off.
> 
> ...


Sigh : only bombers could attack airfields north of London IF,IF they were protected by fighters .And London was the limit for the German fighters . Thus the airfields north of London were safe even without CH .
And the defense of Britain against air attacks was not the mission of FC only : after the war the BC lobby said that the 40000 civilian deaths from the Blitz were the responsibility of the politicians who refused to give more money to BC .The BC lobby said that if BC was strong enough in 1940 to destroy German cities the LW would not have attacked British cities : something as the MAD doctrine of the Cold War .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I mentioned "The Few" because it was a reference Churchill made, just like Churchill used the phrase "we will fight them on the beaches" which I also referenced in the same post.
> 
> How about actually answering questions that have been asked of you instead of such nit-picking idiocy.


Irrelevant : you mentioned something that was a myth : Britain was not saved by a few fighter pilots .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .
> Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...



So, in your world, the Battle of Britain doesn't really happen because FC retreats and refuses to fight and the Luftwaffe doesn't go after them. Sounds something like this:

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> But he died in November, you said Chamberlain would be there to oppose him, a new leder is not dependent on the old, read the link.


Chamberlain made Winston PM .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Sigh : only bombers could attack airfields north of London IF,IF they were protected by fighters .And London was the limit for the German fighters . Thus the airfields north of London were safe even without CH .
> And the defense of Britain against air attacks was not the mission of FC only : after the war the BC lobby said that the 40000 civilian deaths from the Blitz were the responsibility of the politicians who refused to give more money to BC .The BC lobby said that if BC was strong enough in 1940 to destroy German cities the LW would not have attacked British cities : something as the MAD doctrine of the Cold War .



Why would Luftwaffe bombers need to be protected by fighters if FC is stuck on the ground because it doesn't know the raid is coming? Without radar, the Observer Corps have no idea where or when a raid might develop. Their ability to spot raids would be greatly diminished. How, then, would FC stations be alerted that a raid was incoming?

Please answer me that.

P.S. BC never had a mission to defend British airspace. FC did have that mission. Deterrence is not defence...deterrence is a preventative measure seeking to avoid attack, defence is an active measure required in case of attack. Stop your tortured twisting of soundbites.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Chamberlain made Winston PM .


No he didnt, you keep stating your latest idea as a fact. It is extremely tiresome. You never back anything up with any facts, you just state another baseless idea, you just found out when Chamberlain died yesterday.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Irrelevant : you mentioned something that was a myth : Britain was not saved by a few fighter pilots .



In your tortured opinion. However, you've yet to answer a number of key questions asked of you. So put up or shut up. Either start answering questions with reason and facts rather than restating your opinions and absolute statements that entirely lack evidence.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .



Wrong again. Doctrines are guiding principles. Reread what I quoted above from the USAF's own source material.



ljadw said:


> Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...



Well, duh, Capt Obvious ... although orders to attack weren't always necessary. None of that, however, obviates my rebuttal to the stupid claim that no principles of air power have stood the test of time.



ljadw said:


> Chamberlain made Winston PM .



I'm pretty sure the King made Winston PM.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> In your tortured opinion. However, you've yet to answer a number of key questions asked of you. So put up or shut up. Either start answering questions with reason and facts rather than restating your opinions and absolute statements that entirely lack evidence.


World War Two and powered flight are myths.... discuss.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 18, 2021)

Captain Obvious commanded the FC retreat from London. Takka takka takka. FACT!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What is your argument or is it just a series of contradictions? There was a war because Germany invaded Poland, are you now saying Germany doesnt invade Poland? Why?


Sigh : even a student of the LSE would understand this .
1 There were elections in 1935 won by the Tories but with a smaller majority than in 1931
2 Elections were planned for November 1939,but it was dubious that the Tories would win them ,
3 Because of the DOW, these elections were delayed
4 If the war was over in September 1940 because of a British surrender, there would be no longer a reason to delay the elections and the Commons would be dissolved .
5 No one could predict the outcome of these elections.
6 Germany would not take the risk that the new government would be hostile to Germany and would demand a dictatorial government .
7 As such a government could not survive without German support,a German army of occupation would be needed .
QED .


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2021)

Doctrine/s are not absolutes, at least they shouldn't be.

They are, in an ideal world, guidelines or best practices should be able to be violated by a junior officer *IF* the junior officer has good and sufficient reason/s for doing so and can state the existing doctrine and why the junior officer felt it didn't apply in the particular situation. Just saying he didn't fell like it is not good enough. 

Unfortunately in an imperfect world doctrine sometimes becomes Dogma. 
In the RAF Bomber Command had their own Dogma which they held to both during and after the war. It resulted in a lot of deaths of British service men (and merchant seamen) and lost battles which BC stubbornly refused to admit any fault. Anything BC said at the time or in the years after WW II needs a very careful examination as they were in full blame shifting mode.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Sigh : even a student of the LSE would understand this .
> 1 There were elections in 1935 won by the Tories but with a smaller majority than in 1931
> 2 Elections were planned for November 1939,but it was dubious that the Tories would win them ,
> 3 Because of the DOW, these elections were delayed
> ...



And it would be a lot better if you'd stop making such bald assumptions. The following numbers offer alternative interpretations to your "statement = fact" nonsense:

#4: A negotiated peace settlement is not the same as surrender...as you've been told numerous times.
#5: That's your assumption. If the war went so badly that Churchill was removed from power, it's entirely possible that the election results COULD be predicted. 
#6: There's a fair amount of distance between dictatorial and compliant...and both government options were viable.
#7: Again (as has been pointed out repeatedly), this all depends on the peace negotiations and whether German demands essentially forced Britain into a treaty that supported Nazi war aims. If this was presented as the only viable option other than invasion, it's entirely possible that Parliament and the people would have gone along with the plan (reinstating Edward VIII was also on the table to help ensure Britain's compliance).


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Sigh : even a student of the LSE would understand this .
> 1 There were elections in 1935 won by the Tories but with a smaller majority than in 1931
> 2 Elections were planned for November 1939,but it was dubious that the Tories would win them ,
> 3 Because of the DOW, these elections were delayed
> ...


So the British surrender and then hold an election, if Germany gives them permission? Can you spend more than 2 seconds on these theories. The declaration of war was more significant to the UK than it was to Germany, with that declaration the UK government took almost unlimited powers, including those on the constitution. The Emergency Powers Act was passed on 24 August 1939 in reaction to Nazi Soviet pact. After Sept 3 1939 the UK had and used far more powers over its people than Germany did. I am getting a bit irked by people who dont know the UK constitution or its history glibly lecturing me on it. No one "makes" a British prime minister, after an election the monarch invites a member to form a government. 









Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> No one "makes" a British prime minister, after an election the monarch invites a member to form a government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hence why reinstating Edward VIII would be a canny move by Germany.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Hence why reinstating Edward VIII would be a canny move by Germany.


They wouldnt get the chance. I dont know where the conversation came from or is going, the LW couldnt eliminate the RAF or force it to pull back, the navy was perfectly able to defeat any invasion without air cover but losses would be high and Germany couldnt cut UK supply lines. It is a scenario based on the UK just laying down its arms to see what happens next.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> They wouldnt get the chance. I dont know where the conversation came from or is going, the LW couldnt eliminate the RAF or force it to pull back, the navy was perfectly able to defeat any invasion without air cover but losses would be high and Germany couldnt cut UK supply lines. It is a scenario based on the UK just laying down its arms to see what happens next.



So you agree with our argumentative friend that the Battle of Britain was irrelevant?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> So you agree with our argumentative friend that the Battle of Britain was irrelevant?


I havnt a clue what he is getting at. It seems the RAF was formed to make vapour trails over London prior to welcoming Goering in Pall Mall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2021)

Sigh...

Groundhog v. 2.0


----------



## special ed (Jun 18, 2021)

Oh, I don't know. I've just learned Chamberlain died yesterday.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

special ed said:


> Oh, I don't know. I've just learned Chamberlain died yesterday.


Many people are not aware that he died in November 1940 having resigned on 22 September before the BoB officially ended.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 18, 2021)

special ed said:


> Oh, I don't know. I've just learned Chamberlain died yesterday.


Died yesterday? Wow, that's a pretty long life, 1869 to 2021! And could there be a more fitting epitaph than to succumb to cancer of the poop chute?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Died yesterday? Wow, that's a pretty long life, 1869 to 2021! And could there be a more fitting epitaph than to succumb to cancer of the poop chute?


It is a deliberate miss quote, yesterday a poster here was advancing the argument that Chamberlain would be a problem for Churchill in a November election, in reality he was dead.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 18, 2021)

That would make campaigning tough.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> That would make campaigning tough.


Lost in the history of WW2 is that his funeral was on 19th November 1940 his ashes interred in Westminster abbey Churchill delivered this eulogy three days after his death, the Queen of the day (todays queen mother) arrived by armoured car for the funeral.


> Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.[218]​








neville chamberlain funeral - Bing video







www.bing.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

special ed said:


> Oh, I don't know. I've just learned Chamberlain died yesterday.



Wait. Did he just die yesterday, or did you just learn yesterday? The world wonders.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> That would make campaigning tough.



Depends if you're Chamberlain or Churchill, doesn't it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 18, 2021)

It was a lame attempt at humor. Now you know why I'm Special Ed. All those confused, now say in unison, "Now ain't that special". It is just like being back at work.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

special ed said:


> It was a lame attempt at humor. Now you know why I'm Special Ed. All those confused, now say in unison, "Now ain't that special". It is just like being back at work.



At least we know it ain't the Mandela Effect at work!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

special ed said:


> It was a lame attempt at humor. Now you know why I'm Special Ed. All those confused, now say in unison, "Now ain't that special". It is just like being back at work.


Oh, I got and get the humour but we do have someone who knows the far end of a fart about convenient facts but nothing about inconvenient facts. This results in dead people contesting imaginary elections, which to me is "funny as"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2021)

*sigh*

I thinking that by this point, junior is just trolling us. His position flip-flops more than a trout in the bottom of a boat.

*sigh*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> *sigh*
> 
> I thinking that by this point, junior is just trolling us. His position flip-flops more than a trout in the bottom of a boat.
> 
> *sigh*


Or he has never had his ideas questioned and historic realities, like people dying of natural causes introduced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 18, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> *sigh*
> 
> I thinking that by this point, junior is just trolling us. His position flip-flops more than a trout in the bottom of a boat.
> 
> *sigh*



I actually think he's trolling himself. He's so wedded to his own ideas that he can't admit error.

His "points" are easy to rebut. He's expending much more energy defending them -- and sinking further into incoherence doing so.

"You know, you might have a point there" would be so much easier to write, but it requires an ego that can admit error.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 18, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Wait. Did he just die yesterday, or did you just learn yesterday? The world wonders.


"Turkey trots to water". Ask the turkey.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 18, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> "You know, you might have a point there" would be so much easier to write, but it requires an ego that can admit error.


And a personality that's not binary: on/off, yes/no, right/wrong, all/nothing, fact/fiction, black/white. Makes shades of gray a pretty threatening concept.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> So the British surrender and then hold an election, if Germany gives them permission? Can you spend more than 2 seconds on these theories. The declaration of war was more significant to the UK than it was to Germany, with that declaration the UK government took almost unlimited powers, including those on the constitution. The Emergency Powers Act was passed on 24 August 1939 in reaction to Nazi Soviet pact. After Sept 3 1939 the UK had and used far more powers over its people than Germany did. I am getting a bit irked by people who dont know the UK constitution or its history glibly lecturing me on it. No one "makes" a British prime minister, after an election the monarch invites a member to form a government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was Chamberlain who designated his successor, not the King . If Chamberlain said : not Churchill, Churchill would not be PM.And if Chamberlain said : Churchill out, Churchill would cease as PM . The Tories had the majority in the Commons and they followed Chamberlain and accepted, unwillingly as PM some one who started as Conservative, became a Liberal,became Conservative again ,but tried to unseat the Conservative leader (Baldwin ).For a lot of Conservative MPs,Winston was a renegade. And for a lot of left wingers,he was a crypto fascist .
And,when the war was over, the Emergency Powers Act would be over .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It was Chamberlain who designated his successor, not the King . If Chamberlain said : not Churchill, Churchill would not be PM.And if Chamberlain said : Churchill out, Churchill would cease as PM . The Tories had the majority in the Commons and they followed Chamberlain and accepted, unwillingly as PM some one who started as Conservative, became a Liberal,became Conservative again ,but tried to unseat the Conservative leader (Baldwin ).For a lot of Conservative MPs,Winston was a renegade. And for a lot of left wingers,he was a crypto fascist .
> And,when the war was over, the Emergency Powers Act would be over .


*sigh*
Actually Arthur, son of Uther intervened and relieved Chamberlain and installed Churchill because Chamberlain did not have a suitable single scotch in his cabinet and Churchill did, plus Churchill had robust cigars with a maduro wrapper that was more enjoyable with the single malt.
This in turn lent a strong message to Hitler, who did not enjoy smoking and couldn't condone Ribbentrop's socializing with the Russians and their Vodka and it made him angry. So Hitler attacked Russia because they drank vodka instead of beer and Churchill got mad at Hitler because grown men need to have a drink and a smoke in the evenings but Mussolini didn't know what the hell was going on and messed up Hitler's plans to take away the Russians' alcohol and meanwhile Churchill was intent on making the Germans appreciate Scotch which the Germans didn't want any part of and then the Japanese, who enjoy crap rice wine got the Americans involved, who smoke cigarettes while drinking the worst beer on the planet and Hitler lost his shit and said a great deal of bad words.

*sigh*

How many times must this be retold to you before it sinks in to your microscopic brain, FFS?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2021)

1. As a human being and someone with a sense of humor, the above post has me laughing. Almost spit my beer out. Thanks for the good laugh. 

2. However, per Chapter 367, Section 57.6, Page 12,547, Paragraph 43, Figure 523 of “The Moderator Manual 2678th Edition” I am required to intervene and inform you to please refrain from the personal attacks and insults.

3. That’s all, carry on...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2021)

Oops - was I too harsh on the American's passion for nasty beer?

My apologies!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Oops - was I too harsh on the American's passion for nasty beer?
> 
> My apologies!



Oh that part was partially accurate.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It was Chamberlain who designated his successor, not the King . If Chamberlain said : not Churchill, Churchill would not be PM.And if Chamberlain said : Churchill out, Churchill would cease as PM . The Tories had the majority in the Commons and they followed Chamberlain and accepted, unwillingly as PM some one who started as Conservative, became a Liberal,became Conservative again ,but tried to unseat the Conservative leader (Baldwin ).For a lot of Conservative MPs,Winston was a renegade. And for a lot of left wingers,he was a crypto fascist .
> And,when the war was over, the Emergency Powers Act would be over .


As per the link I posted the debate on Norway turned into a vote of no confidence, having lost a no confidence vote Chamberlain dosnt appoint a successor, in fact also as per the link that was the end of the National government, Churchill formed a coalition.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 19, 2021)

And Churchill was uniquely positioned because he'd previously flip-flopped between Conservative and Labour parties. He wasn't really liked or trusted by anyone in Parliament but he was at least a compromise that both sides could agree on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 19, 2021)

Senior moment. Posted in error.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 19, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And a personality that's not binary: on/off, yes/no, right/wrong, all/nothing, fact/fiction, black/white. Makes shades of gray a pretty threatening concept.



Nuance is more difficult to address, and to some people it's actually frightening. It also requires thinking, and raises the possibility of being -- _gasp_ -- wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As per the link I posted the debate on Norway turned into a vote of no confidence, having lost a no confidence vote Chamberlain dosnt appoint a successor, in fact also as per the link that was the end of the National government, Churchill formed a coalition.


Wrong : Chamberlain remained de facto PM in a National Government ;there was no National Government before May 1940 .Chamberlain could have vetoed the nomination of Churchill as PM . Without the support of Chamberlain, Winston had no majority .That's why Churchill appointed Chamberlain Lord President of the Council in the new government and why he was very obsequious to Neville ,who remained party leader til October 1940 .
Those who criticized the government about Norway were not partisans of Churchill.
Besides :Chamberlain conserved his majority : 281 against 240 .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 19, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Wrong : Chamberlain remained de facto PM in a National Government ;there was no National Government before May 1940 .Chamberlain could have vetoed the nomination of Churchill as PM . Without the support of Chamberlain, Winston had no majority .That's why Churchill appointed Chamberlain Lord President of the Council in the new government and why he was very obsequious to Neville ,who remained party leader til October 1940 .
> Those who criticized the government about Norway were not partisans of Churchill.
> Besides :Chamberlain conserved his majority : 281 against 240 .



You could also say that Churchill depended on Attlee, who also could have vetoed the nomination of Churchill, to remain in power. and It was Attlee as much as Chamberlain who "made" Winston the PM. But wait, there's more. Churchill made Attlee the Deputy PM. Has all the hallmarks of an Attlee-led conspiracy, if you ask me (and, yes, that latter part was sarcasm).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Wrong : Chamberlain remained de facto PM in a National Government ;there was no National Government before May 1940 .Chamberlain could have vetoed the nomination of Churchill as PM . Without the support of Chamberlain, Winston had no majority .That's why Churchill appointed Chamberlain Lord President of the Council in the new government and why he was very obsequious to Neville ,who remained party leader til October 1940 .
> Those who criticized the government about Norway were not partisans of Churchill.
> Besides :Chamberlain conserved his majority : 281 against 240 .


There was Chamberlain's War ministry which included a war cabinet. Chamberlain war ministry - Wikipedia. Obsequious is not the term I would use, Churchill knew he was a very sick man, close to death. In that age, people from different parties did respect each other even if they didnt agree with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bdefen (Jun 19, 2021)

NightHawk said:


> what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
> 1.Stalingrad
> 2.Normandy
> 3.El alamain
> ...


Any battles in the Pacific applicable here? Or is this a strictly ETO question?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2021)

bdefen said:


> Any battles in the Pacific applicable here? Or is this a strictly ETO question?


It is a question, what would be your 5 most important?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 19, 2021)

bdefen said:


> Any battles in the Pacific applicable here? Or is this a strictly ETO question?


Midway was mentioned.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There was Chamberlain's War ministry which included a war cabinet. Chamberlain war ministry - Wikipedia. Obsequious is not the term I would use, Churchill knew he was a very sick man, close to death. In that age, people from different parties did respect each other even if they didnt agree with them.


Were only it were true today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bdefen (Jun 19, 2021)

Battle of Britain, Midway, Stalingrad, Normandy, Kursk

I hadn't seen that Midway had been mentioned.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 19, 2021)

bdefen said:


> Battle of Britain, Midway, Stalingrad, Normandy, Kursk
> 
> I hadn't seen that Midway had been mentioned.


I hadn’t actually checked but I “fat fingered” the reply button accidentally. I’m on my iPhone.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Were only it was true today.


There are rules of behaviour and address in the British house of commons. A member or former member of the privy council is referred to as "right honourable" other MPs being "honourable member". All Prime ministers are automatically a member of the Privy council and so are "right honourable" for the rest of their time in Parliament.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There was Chamberlain's War ministry which included a war cabinet. Chamberlain war ministry - Wikipedia. Obsequious is not the term I would use, Churchill knew he was a very sick man, close to death. In that age, people from different parties did respect each other even if they didnt agree with them.


It was Churchill who asked Chamberlain to become a member of the war cabinet, because otherwise Chamberlain could be very dangerous .
Churchill defended Chamberlain during the Norway debate .
And that politicians respected those who had other opinions? 
Who wrote : Guilty men ?
Who said before the war that Churchill was a crypto fascist ?
Who said during the 1945 elections that Labour would impose a Marxist dictatorship ?
Lloyd George attacked Neville Chamberlain personally .
Winston said in November 1940 when the LW had attacked the factories of Baldwin : the Germans are ungrateful.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It was Churchill who asked Chamberlain to become a member of the war cabinet, because otherwise Chamberlain could be very dangeous .


Churchill hoped that he could look after the home front as it was called, it was Chamberlain who got Churchill in as first sea lord. I have no idea where you are going with this or why. At his funeral Churchill was a pall bearer and gave a eulogy. They may have been political rivals, they were both patriots. Churchill had enough experience by then to know he couldnt do everything himself, Chamberlain would have been a good choice to look after the home front.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 19, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You could also say that Churchill depended on Attlee, who also could have vetoed the nomination of Churchill, to remain in power. and It was Attlee as much as Chamberlain who "made" Winston the PM. But wait, there's more. Churchill made Attlee the Deputy PM. Has all the hallmarks of an Attlee-led conspiracy, if you ask me (and, yes, that latter part was sarcasm).


Attlee became deputy PM because otherwise Labour would not be in the war cabinet Nothing for free ..And Attlee accepted Churchill because the alternative was Halifax . 
Chamberlain was to ill to remain PM .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Attlee became deputy PM because otherwise Labour would not be in the war cabinet Nothing for free ..And Attlee accepted Churchill because the alternative was Halifax .
> Chamberlain was to ill to remain PM .


That is your thought of the day, yet more baseless conspiracy theory, I really cant be bothered anymore. Now you know he was ill, you weave it into your tale, he wasnt ill at the time that he was replaced, not that anyone knew anyway it wasnt until July when he had surgery that his terminal condition was known, 

From Wiki "Chamberlain had long enjoyed excellent health, except for occasional attacks of gout,[63]​ but by July 1940 he was in almost constant pain. He sought treatment, and later that month entered hospital for surgery. Surgeons discovered that he was suffering from terminal bowel cancer, but they concealed it from him, instead telling him that he would not require further surgery.[212]​ Chamberlain resumed work in mid-August. He returned to his office on 9 September, but renewed pain, compounded by the night-time bombing of London which forced him to go to an air raid shelter and denied him rest, sapped his energy, and he left London for the last time on 19 September, returning to Highfield Park in Heckfield.[213]​ Chamberlain offered his resignation to Churchill on 22 September 1940. The Prime Minister was initially reluctant to accept, but as both men realised that Chamberlain would never return to work, Churchill finally allowed him to resign. "

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 19, 2021)

I suspect Chamberlain was ousted because the contrast between his "Hitler missed the bus" comment and the Allies being hustled out of Norway made him look out of touch.

Amery's "Speak for England, Arthur!" outburst, and his speech in Commons attacking the Chamberlain government's prosecution of the war, seem to be pretty important in giving voice to the misgivings Parliament had concerning Chamberlain's leadership.

Churchill on assuming office had a coalition to lead, and he had to mollify its constituent parties. Compromise, especially in coalition politics, is a fact on the ground, and it is no criticism to say so. He likely kept Chamberlain in an official position 1) out of respect for the man, whom Churchill lauded in his memoirs when he could have thrown NC under the bus; and 2) because in June of 1940 what the UK needed more than anything, outside of more fighters and heavy weaponry for defense against invasion, was unity. That political exile for Chamberlain would perhaps work to undermine the drive for unity (in Churchill's view) is my guess.

So -- I suspect that Chamberlain was ousted over dissatisfaction with the state of the war at the time; and I suspect he was retained in government because he still had contributions to make, including helping to weld over any potential political fractures that might undermine the ongoing efforts.

I know very little about Attlee and cannot offer any useful comments on his status.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Doctrine/s are not absolutes, at least they shouldn't be.
> 
> They are, in an ideal world, guidelines or best practices should be able to be violated by a junior officer *IF* the junior officer has good and sufficient reason/s for doing so and can state the existing doctrine and why the junior officer felt it didn't apply in the particular situation. Just saying he didn't fell like it is not good enough.



As I quoted and linked above:



> Rather, good doctrine is somewhat akin to a good commander’s intent: it provides sufficient information on what to do, but does not specifically say how to do it. Airmen should strive to be doctrinally sound, not doctrinally bound.



Doctrine is guidance based upon principle. It is not operational orders, and isn't intended to be.

The last sentence of that quote is the key to understanding the place of doctrine in military operations, I think. Keep in mind the larger principles, and apply them as they fit into a tactical or operational situation. 

Doctrine is absorbed so that it guides decisions, but that doesn't mean all decisions are doctrinal. Exigencies can and do call for disregarding it -- but you'd better be right.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2021)

Doctrine has its roots in religion, if it is proved correct by history it is seen as genius and if it isnt it is seen as folly 

Doctrine ;- a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

Merriam-Webster said:


> Definition of _doctrine_
> 
> *1a: *a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief *: *DOGMA
> *b: *a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
> ...











Definition of DOCTRINE


a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma; a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations; a principle of law established through past decisions… See the full definition




www.merriam-webster.com





Like any word, it has a particular set of meanings based on context. I didn't think I needed to spell out that the context here was military.

If you look at the etymology of the word, it is based on the Latin _doctor_, for "teacher".


----------



## ljadw (Jun 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That is your thought of the day, yet more baseless conspiracy theory, I really cant be bothered anymore. Now you know he was ill, you weave it into your tale, he wasnt ill at the time that he was replaced, not that anyone knew anyway it wasnt until July when he had surgery that his terminal condition was known,
> 
> From Wiki "Chamberlain had long enjoyed excellent health, except for occasional attacks of gout,[63]​ but by July 1940 he was in almost constant pain. He sought treatment, and later that month entered hospital for surgery. Surgeons discovered that he was suffering from terminal bowel cancer, but they concealed it from him, instead telling him that he would not require further surgery.[212]​ Chamberlain resumed work in mid-August. He returned to his office on 9 September, but renewed pain, compounded by the night-time bombing of London which forced him to go to an air raid shelter and denied him rest, sapped his energy, and he left London for the last time on 19 September, returning to Highfield Park in Heckfield.[213]​ Chamberlain offered his resignation to Churchill on 22 September 1940. The Prime Minister was initially reluctant to accept, but as both men realised that Chamberlain would never return to work, Churchill finally allowed him to resign. "


That only in July his terminal condition was known, is not a proof that he was not sick in May .
It is the opposite : his condition did not become terminal suddenly in July : he was sick already before July .You do not become terminal sick in a few days .
And Wiki is wrong : Churchill did not allow him to resign,Chamberlain decided to resign and there was nothing Winston could do against this decision .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I suspect Chamberlain was ousted because the contrast between his "Hitler missed the bus" comment and the Allies being hustled out of Norway made him look out of touch.
> 
> Amery's "Speak for England, Arthur!" outburst, and his speech in Commons attacking the Chamberlain government's prosecution of the war, seem to be pretty important in giving voice to the misgivings Parliament had concerning Chamberlain's leadership.
> 
> ...


NO : Chamberlain was the leader of the Tories, not Churchill ,and if he was not in the war cabinet,Churchill would not have remained PM for longer than a few days .
Other point : Chamberlain did not laud him in his memoirs . The memoirs of Churchill had as aim to convince the population that all bad things that happened before and during the war were the responsibility of Baldwin and Chamberlain and that WW 2 would not have happen if they had listen to him .
Other point : the allies were not hustled out of Norway at the start of May .
Even without Norway, Chamberlain would not have remained PM .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : Chamberlain was the leader of the Tories, not Churchill ,and if he was not in the war cabinet,Churchill would not have remained PM for longer than a few days .
> Other point : Chamberlain did not laud him in his memoirs . The memoirs of Churchill had as aim to convince the population that all bad things that happened before and during the war were the responsibility of Baldwin and Chamberlain and that WW 2 would not have happen if they had listen to him .
> Other point : the allies were not hustled out of Norway at the start of May .
> Even without Norway, Chamberlain would not have remained PM .


No idea what point you are making. It is just your thought of the day, who was or wasnt lauding whom, and when?


ljadw said:


> That only in July his terminal condition was known, is not a proof that he was not sick in May .
> It is the opposite : his condition did not become terminal suddenly in July : he was sick already before July .You do not become terminal sick in a few days .
> And Wiki is wrong : Churchill did not allow him to resign,Chamberlain decided to resign and there was nothing Winston could do against this decision .


Tendering your resignation was common in that era, as a point of honour, it then becomes a discussion of what to do next. Since Chamberlain wasnt told of his condition Churchill may have assumed Chamberlain would be able to return later at some point, when this was not the case he accepted the resignation. He didnt have to, Chamberlain could have held the post until death. Being an MP only became a "job" in 1911, prior to that they received no pay, which is why its traditions are not like a normal work place.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : Chamberlain was the leader of the Tories, not Churchill ,and if he was not in the war cabinet,Churchill would not have remained PM for longer than a few days .
> Other point : Chamberlain did not laud him in his memoirs . The memoirs of Churchill had as aim to convince the population that all bad things that happened before and during the war were the responsibility of Baldwin and Chamberlain and that WW 2 would not have happen if they had listen to him .
> Other point : the allies were not hustled out of Norway at the start of May .
> Even without Norway, Chamberlain would not have remained PM .



There you go again.

1) I was addressing why Chamberlain lost the PM office but stayed in government. As noted above, Chamberlain had already lost the confidence of Parliament, and that included a significant number of Tories who voted to oust him.

(See also from the same article):



Spoiler






> To the surprise of many, during Churchill’s service in Chamberlain’s government he adhered to a position of personal loyalty to the Prime Minister. This was most evident in the crucial debate of 7–8 May 1940 that followed the failure to prevent the German conquest of Norway, in which the closing speech was Churchill’s vigorous defence of the government. The sharp fall in its normal majority, however, forced Chamberlain to resign as Prime Minister. His preferred successor was Lord Halifax, partly because he would be more acceptable than Churchill not only to Conservative MPs but also to the Labour Party, whose entry into a reshaped government was now essential. At their crucial meeting on 9 May, Chamberlain attempted to secure this outcome by asking Churchill directly whether he would serve under Halifax; the ensuing silence led Halifax to withdraw his claim, and on the following day Churchill became Prime Minister.






2) Churchill most certainly did laud him in his memoirs. He also criticized him for the policy of appeasement. That dos not mean he didn't praise NC as well. In fact, Churchill supported Chamberlain's accession to the office in the first place. You really should base your replies on facts.

3) The Allies were in full retreat from Norway but early May. The Norwegian government was already fleeing to England, and the _Glorious_ was already evacuating RAF planes.

Once more, I suggest you read for conversation rather than contradiction. You radiate more heat than light -- and that is not a compliment.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And Wiki is wrong


Out of all of your countless posts, this breath-taking epiphany is the only factual contribution you've made so far.

You are to be commended.

*slow clap*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Definition of DOCTRINE
> 
> 
> a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma; a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations; a principle of law established through past decisions… See the full definition
> ...


I was referring to military doctrine. Like the bomber doctrine, and everything associated with it. The bomber will always get through. Heavily armed bombers will provide mutual defence to reach the target. Precision high altitude bombing will remove strategic industries and end the war. Escorting of bombers with single engine fighters isnt possible. etc etc.

It was a doctrine with little evidence to support it and people clung to it in spite of all evidence to the contrary. "The bomber will always get through" needs a huge paragraph of disclaimers and conditions to make it remotely realistic, and when the bomber gets through there is no guarantee it can see the target let alone hit it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I was referring to military doctrine. Like the bomber doctrine, and everything associated with it. The bomber will always get through. Heavily armed bombers will provide mutual defence to reach the target. Precision high altitude bombing will remove strategic industries and end the war. Escorting of bombers with single engine fighters isnt possible. etc etc.
> 
> It was a doctrine with little evidence to support it and people clung to it in spite of all evidence to the contrary. "The bomber will always get through" needs a huge paragraph of disclaimers and conditions to make it remotely realistic, and when the bomber gets through there is no guarantee it can see the target let alone hit it.



Sure. I was referring to formal doctrine, and thought that could stand to be clarified.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Sure. I was referring to formal doctrine, and thought that could stand to be clarified.


So was I, the proponents of Bomber doctrine clung to it with religious conviction, magnifying the small positive results and ignoring anything negative. It was the same with Leigh Mallory and his big wing theory, which only ever showed the massive level of overclaiming you get with a big wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> So was I, the proponents of Bomber doctrine clung to it with religious conviction, magnifying the small positive results and ignoring anything negative. It was the same with Leigh Mallory and his big wing theory, which only ever showed the massive level of overclaiming you get with a big wing.



Not all doctrine is held with religious fervor.

A any rate, my point was and is that air doctrines have been passed down through time, contrary to ljdw's claim. I'm uninterested in semantical nits.


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2021)

ljadw said:


> That only in July his terminal condition was known, is not a proof that he was not sick in May .
> It is the opposite : his condition did not become terminal suddenly in July : he was sick already before July .You do not become terminal sick in a few days .
> And Wiki is wrong : Churchill did not allow him to resign,Chamberlain decided to resign and there was nothing Winston could do against this decision .


I keep suggesting to you that you try some research.

The following is a quote from the NHS Website on Bowel Cancer

*The symptoms of bowel cancer can be subtle and do not necessarily make you feel ill. However, it's worth trying simple treatments for a short time to see if they get better.

Some of the symptoms mentioned in the site ware also symptoms of stress*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2021)

Glider said:


> I keep suggesting to you that you try some research.
> 
> The following is a quote from the NHS Website on Bowel Cancer
> 
> ...


He had enjoyed good health throughout his life, no one who feels unwell or has a stomach ache has the first thought "I have cancer and will be dead soon".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

The idea that Chamberlain's medical condition had anything to do with his unseating is historically unsupported. He was unseated because his conduct of the war provoked doubts about his ability to lead the nation through the war. It seems he recognized that himself and stepped down, and with Attlee putting his weight behind Churchill rather than Halifax sealed the deal.

Is this the most important battle of the war?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The idea that Chamberlain's medical condition had anything to do with his unseating is historically unsupported. He was unseated because his conduct of the war provoked doubts about his ability to lead the nation through the war. It seems he recognized that himself and stepped down, and with Attlee putting his weight behind Churchill rather than Halifax sealed the deal.
> 
> Is this the most important battle of the war?


Losing a no confidence vote is reason to step down, Thatcher won a no confidence vote and then stepped down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Losing a no confidence vote is reason to step down, Thatcher won a no confidence vote and then stepped down.



Right. And then after that sort of rebuff, Chamberlain still had the heart to serve in a different government, under the leadership of his main rival. I think that says a lot good about him; he didn't seem to cling to butthurt, but put his nation ahead of himself.

I can respect that even if I disagree with his policies or thinking. As Churchill said, he died in harness. What's not to admire about that -- flaws and all?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right. And then after that sort of rebuff, Chamberlain still had the heart to serve in a different government. I think that says a lot good about him; he didn't seem to cling to butthurt, but put his nation ahead of himself.
> 
> I can respect that even if I disagree with his policies or thinking.


It was perfectly normal at the time, he didnt see himself as a war time leader, he was a social reformer who became Chancellor and then Prime Minister in the era of Adolf. I take exception to the introduction of the booklet "Guilty Men" (not by you), one of the authors was Michael Foot, who later became Leader of the opposition and was thrashed in a general election by Thatcher. He was clueless about what had been spent or done, everything Churchill saw when he visited Uxbridge to see the Battle of Britain first hand had been ordered commissioned or paid for on Chaimberlain's watch. History has been very unkind to Chamberlain, I dont really know what else he could have done with the cards he was dealt, he could certainly have done a lot worse.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It was perfectly normal at the time, he didnt see himself as a war time leader, he was a social reformer who became Chancellor and then Prime Minister in the era of Adolf. I take exception to the introduction of the booklet "Guilty Men" (not by you), one of the authors was Michael Foot, who later became Leader of the opposition and was thrashed in a general election by Thatcher. He was clueless about what had been spent or done, everything Churchill saw when he visited Uxbridge to see the Battle of Britain first hand had been ordered commissioned or paid for on Chaimberlain's watch. History has been very unkind to Chamberlain, I dont really know what else he could have done with the cards he was dealt, he could certainly have done a lot worse.



I have in my own thinking been unkind to Chamberlain over the years, for my having supped at the plate of common history.

It's only as I've grown older and really tried to understand what a mess he dealt with that I started to understand that whether I agree with his decisions or not, I can see that he tried as best he could.

I still detest appeasement, but it's easier now to see that in 1938 the options were limited, and not only for short-sightedness.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2021)

There is a school of thought (or a few authors) that seems to go with the idea that he sold out Czechoslovakia not because it "secured peace in our time"
But because it bought Britain (and France) more time to rearm. 

But you can't step out of the airplane into a news conference, and wave a peace of paper and say that is what you did.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 20, 2021)

I have said it before on this forum ... there are two wars .... they can't be measured by the same yardstick, but, IMO, Midway was the pivotal Pacific battle; and in Europe, Moscow, December, 1941 - January, 1942. The Moscow BATTLE came short days after Stalin had gambled on his October Revolution parade (it could have been a disaster) - filmed and distributed around the world. Russia would fight; and Russia fought. 

By December 1941 Lend Lease, not yet named had begun to flow from Britain. A fore taste of what was to come.

Had Moscow collapsed, the front line would have shifted to the Urals,IMO, behind which an administration could regroup, and the whole dynamic of the eastern campaign would be changed for Germany: Caucus's oil - easy pea see. Grain plantations in Ukraine and western Siberia, same story.
Russia's situation in this scenario, would be very similar to China's after the commencement of the second Sino-Japan war. 1935. Huge swathes of China including major cities were in Japanese hands and considerable portions of the BUSINESS class was not displeased by the stability and shit-scared approach the Japanese used.

Re-taking the USSR would have been a very different story

So Moscow matters to everybody. the Britsh, the Americans, and the Soviet citizens

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Losing a no confidence vote is reason to step down, Thatcher won a no confidence vote and then stepped down.



If he didn't step down after losing a motion of no confidence he surely would have been sacked by the King soon after?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 20, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a school of thought (or a few authors) that seems to go with the idea that he sold out Czechoslovakia not because it "secured peace in our time"
> But because it bought Britain (and France) more time to rearm.



That's much of what I've read, and I think there's some truth to it.



Shortround6 said:


> But you can't step out of the airplane into a news conference, and wave a peace of paper and say that is what you did.



That was probably a bad move on the level of "Hitler missed the bus"; when you're dealing with a sonofabitch, it's best not to crow. But I suppose Chamberlain had a populace to mollify, so he had to say something, right? You can't come back from Munich and say, "Well, it's not all really sorted, sorry, chaps."


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

Glider said:


> I keep suggesting to you that you try some research.
> 
> The following is a quote from the NHS Website on Bowel Cancer
> 
> ...


Feeling ill and being ill are two different things .
I stick to my point that you do not become terminal ill in a few days .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

wuzak said:


> If he didn't step down after losing a motion of no confidence he surely would have been sacked by the King soon after?


He did not lose a motion of no confidence : the result of the motion was 281 for Chamberlain and 200 against Chamberlain .
And a British King did not sack a PM .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a school of thought (or a few authors) that seems to go with the idea that he sold out Czechoslovakia not because it "secured peace in our time"
> But because it bought Britain (and France) more time to rearm.
> 
> But you can't step out of the airplane into a news conference, and wave a peace of paper and say that is what you did.


He did not sell out CZ : Britain had no obligations to the Czechs .He had mobilized to prevent Hitler from attacking CZ and he would have fought if Hitler had attacked CZ , but NOT to help the Czechs. No one cared about them . He told his sisters :we can do nothing to help the Czechs, we can only wage a war of revenge which will destroy Europe and the Empire and CZ will not remain the same .
Whatever the result of the war , CZ would cease to be an independent state .
His aim was not to buy time, because he was convinced that Britain was save and the French told him that they were save .
And why should he not wave a peace of paper ? There was no war .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Losing a no confidence vote is reason to step down, Thatcher won a no confidence vote and then stepped down.


He did NOT lose a non confidence vote .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The idea that Chamberlain's medical condition had anything to do with his unseating is historically unsupported. He was unseated because his conduct of the war provoked doubts about his ability to lead the nation through the war. It seems he recognized that himself and stepped down, and with Attlee putting his weight behind Churchill rather than Halifax sealed the deal.
> 
> Is this the most important battle of the war?


He was NOT unseated .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Feeling ill and being ill are two different things .
> I stick to my point that you do not become terminal ill in a few days .


What is your level of comprehension??

The symptoms of Chamberlain's affliction was similar to gastrointestinal distress. He was terminal before they diagnosed it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> He was NOT unseated .


He *WAS* indeed unseated by the Tories.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

I find it interesting that this ljadw person has had the same confrontations at Feldgrau and Axishistory forums, too.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> There you go again.
> 
> 1) I was addressing why Chamberlain lost the PM office but stayed in government. As noted above, Chamberlain had already lost the confidence of Parliament, and that included a significant number of Tories who voted to oust him.
> 
> ...


From the man who continues to claim that because Chamberlain won a non confidence vote with 281 for him and 200 against him,he lost the confidence of Parliament , that is a good one .
And the Norway Campaign (for which was responsible Churchill ) did last to 10 JUNE .
Besides the importance of the Norway Campaign was not big .
The failed Tories who voted against Chamberlain wanted a big and fast victory ,while the strategy of Chamberlain and Daladier was to fight as little as possible and to wait til Germany succumbed to her economic difficulties .
His opponents lived in the past ,Chamberlain and Daladier knew better .
The occupation of Norway was hurting Germany during the war, the benefits were insignificant .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From the man who continues to claim that because Chamberlain won a non confidence vote with 281 for him and 200 against him,he lost the confidence of Parliament , that is a good one .
> And the Norway Campaign (for which was responsible Churchill ) did last to 10 JUNE .
> Besides the importance of the Norway Campaign was not big .
> The failed Tories who voted against Chamberlain wanted a big and fast victory ,while the strategy of Chamberlain and Daladier was to fight as little as possible and to wait til Germany succumbed to her economic difficulties .
> ...



"From the man who continues to claim that because Chamberlain won a non confidence vote with 281 for him and 200 against him,he lost the confidence of Parliament , that is a good one" - But Chamberlain DID lose the confidence of Parliament, or at least he felt he had lost it sufficiently to make his continuance as PM impossible. In modern, particularly American, politics, a win is a win...but Chamberlain saw things differently. He recognized that Britain couldn't win if the voices in Parliament could not be united. He felt unable to accomplish that goal and so he resigned. 

"Besides the importance of the Norway Campaign was not big" - The Norway Campaign was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. There was considerable dissatisfaction in certain quarters over how the war was being prosecuted. 

"The failed Tories who voted against Chamberlain wanted a big and fast victory ,while the strategy of Chamberlain and Daladier was to fight as little as possible and to wait til Germany succumbed to her economic difficulties." - It sounds like your answer to every problem is to just sit back and do nothing (not unlike your response to direct questions on this forum). Unfortunately, leaders can't always do that. Sitting back passively will only get you so far. At some point, you have to stand up and be counted, particularly if you want to wrest the advantage from the adversary. Again, I think your "wait til Germany succumbed to her economic difficulties" comment is based on hindsight. At the time, it was felt that Britain HAD to act or risk being overwhelmed...but, then again, you seem to think that those concerns weren't present in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I find it interesting that this ljadw person has had the same confrontations at Feldgrau and Axishistory forums, too.



Wonder if he assiduously failed to answer direct questions on those forums? He's consistently failed to respond here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> He *WAS* indeed unseated by the Tories.


Proof ? 
Winning by 281 against 200 is not being unseated .
We have a PM who won a non confidence debate and was supported by the cabinet ( no one resigned, even not Winston ) and resigned .
He resigned because of his health AND because Labor did put its own interests before the interests of the country .
In 1915 Bonar Law accepted a coalition with Asquith notwithstanding their mutual hostility before the war .
In 1940 Labor refused a coalition with Chamberlain,because he was a social reformer and thus an obstacle to a Labor victory in the coming elections .Cripps and the other Marxists would never accept a coalition with a man who was more dangerous for them than Hitler .
Chamberlain wanted a coalition for the best of the country and sacrificed himself .
There were only two other candidates :
Halifax,with the obstacle of being a peer and ,following Chamberlain,unfit as war leader .Halifax was another Baldwin .
Churchill : hated by the Tories as a renegade and intriguer: they did not forget what he did to Baldwin, to Lord Derby and his role in the abdication crisis .But Chamberlain considered Churchill as a better candidate for the post of war PM .
It was Chamberlain who made Churchill PM,if he had said : it will be Halifax, Attlee would have agreed .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It was Chamberlain who made Churchill PM,if he had said : it will be Halifax, Attlee would have agreed .



Why would Attlee agree to Halifax?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> "From the man who continues to claim that because Chamberlain won a non confidence vote with 281 for him and 200 against him,he lost the confidence of Parliament , that is a good one" - But Chamberlain DID lose the confidence of Parliament, or at least he felt he had lost it sufficiently to make his continuance as PM impossible. In modern, particularly American, politics, a win is a win...but Chamberlain saw things differently. He recognized that Britain couldn't win if the voices in Parliament could not be united. He felt unable to accomplish that goal and so he resigned.
> 
> "Besides the importance of the Norway Campaign was not big" - The Norway Campaign was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. There was considerable dissatisfaction in certain quarters over how the war was being prosecuted.
> 
> "The failed Tories who voted against Chamberlain wanted a big and fast victory ,while the strategy of Chamberlain and Daladier was to fight as little as possible and to wait til Germany succumbed to her economic difficulties." - It sounds like your answer to every problem is to just sit back and do nothing (not unlike your response to direct questions on this forum). Unfortunately, leaders can't always do that. Sitting back passively will only get you so far. At some point, you have to stand up and be counted, particularly if you want to wrest the advantage from the adversary. Again, I think your "wait til Germany succumbed to her economic difficulties" comment is based on hindsight. At the time, it was felt that Britain HAD to act or risk being overwhelmed...but, then again, you seem to think that those concerns weren't present in 1940.


It is not based on hindsight : it was the official allied policy . The alternative was another Passchendaele . The certain quarters who were not satisfied,had no other solution . Time was running for France and Britain .
British politics are not American politics .
And, Chamberlain did NOT search for a coalition government because McMillan, Keyes, Amery and other losers had voted against him ,but because he was convinced that such a government was the best solution for the country .Already before Norway, Chamberlain was already looking for a National Government . Both (Norway and the talks with Labor ) are not related .
The war was going well for the Allies but would last months or years .


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It is not based on hindsight : it was the official allied policy . The alternative was another Passchendaele . The certain quarters who were not satisfied,had no other solution . Time was running for France and Britain .
> British politics are not American politics .
> And, Chamberlain did NOT search for a coalition government because McMillan, Keyes, Amery and other losers had voted against him ,but because he was convinced that such a government was the best solution for the country .Already before Norway, Chamberlain was already looking for a National Government . Both (Norway and the talks with Labor ) are not related .
> The war was going well for the Allies but would last months or years .



If the war was going well, why on earth was there a no-confidence vote? You're bouncing all over the place...and you still haven't answered the direct question of why Attlee would agree to Halifax as the PM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From the man who continues to claim that because Chamberlain won a non confidence vote with 281 for him and 200 against him,he lost the confidence of Parliament , that is a good one .


To win a no confidence vote you need a massive majority not just a majority. Thatcher won a leadership challenge by 204 to 152 and stood down.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> He did NOT lose a non confidence vote .


The *Norway Debate*, sometimes called the *Narvik Debate*, was a momentous debate in the British House of Commons during the Second World War from 7 to 9 May 1940. It has been called the most far-reaching parliamentary debate of the twentieth century. At the end of the second day, there was a division of the House[a]​ for the members to hold a vote of no confidence which was won by the government, but with a drastically reduced majority. That led, on 10 May, to Neville Chamberlain's resignation as prime minister and the replacement of his war ministry by a broadly based coalition government which, under Winston Churchill, governed the United Kingdom until after the end of the war in Europe in May 1945.






Norway Debate - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

Sorry...replied in error. Nothing to see. Move along.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

wuzak said:


> If he didn't step down after losing a motion of no confidence he surely would have been sacked by the King soon after?


The King may theoretically have that power but it would be like getting a dog and barking yourself. It is a mistake to view the numbers in a commons vote just as "numbers". Everyone knows everyone. It is perfectly possible to vote for someone on the understanding that he steps down. That means he doesnt have the humiliation of losing, remember he was Tory leader as well as PM, publicly voting against him is an act of disloyalty, which most would want to avoid.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And the Norway Campaign (for which was responsible Churchill ) did last to 10 JUNE .



Did I write anywhere that it ended by the beginning of May?

This pettifoggery of yours is sad. Your need to be Right-Online® is even sadder. Chamberlain's government mismanaged the war, and he was losing the confidence of Parliament. Even though he won the vote, he still understood, unlike you, that his goose was cooked.

It won't be long before you're reduced to pointing out spelling errors.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2021)

The bacon was for pettifoggery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2021)

This has been a a great thread. When one poster refuses to be convinced of something and others post information showing the fallacy of that position, I sure learn a lot. 
Mr. Chamberlain, I apologize.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Feeling ill and being ill are two different things .
> I stick to my point that you do not become terminal ill in a few days .


You can be terminally ill and not feel ill, or more likely in this case, the symptoms are so small and easily misinterpreted you do not know you are seriously ill. In which case as you and those around you will not take actions because they believe you are seriously ill.
There are conditions, a number in fact where you can become terminally ill in a few days


pbehn said:


> Is there anything in your world that isnt a myth? You know less than someone who has just watched The Battle of Britain.


I think you got this the wrong way around. Everything in his world is a myth, what is missing is any reality.

Remember this is the person who

a) Believes a handful of US Marines in Iceland can take the Shetland islands, Invade Scotland, take the rest of the UK, build up the resources to launch a second front all without control of the Atlantic.
b) That the Russian forces didn't need the LL to survive and beat the Germans. That the LL aircraft would be too much for the Soviet Union to train pilots and engineers to fly and maintain them, despite the fact the rather obvious fact, that they did train the pilots to fly and engineers to maintain them.
c) That no one was asking for the P39 as they wouldn't be needed as the front line was so vast there was little air to air combat. To be fair after the memo from the British Archives showing that Stalin was personally asking for P39's and Spitfires, he did stop talking about that
d) That Russia's admittedly prodigious efforts to build armoured vehicles wouldn't have been impacted buy the loss of LL, despite LL supplying half of the armoured plate
e) That Marshal Zhukov views can be ignored as he clearly had no idea of what he was talking about
f) That radar in the BOB had a grossly exaggerated importance because it pointed out to sea, whilst ignoring all the other benefits of Radar and the existence of the Observation Corp and ignoring any half way decent history of the BOB arguably the most researched and documented air battle ever.
g) Is now a medical expert who knows about terminal illness, its effects and when people are aware of it. The one statement of his that came close to really annoying me as I am a counsellor and regularly have clients who are terminally ill, including two who have had Bowel Cancer.
h) feel free to add your own as there are plenty of other examples

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

Glider said:


> feel free to add your own as there are plenty of other


H) the fallacy of Air Superiority
J) Weather...
K) Luftwaffe had no bearing on Dieppe Raid
L) *sigh*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> H) the fallacy of Air Superiority
> J) Weather...
> K) Luftwaffe had no bearing on Dieppe Raid
> L) *sigh*


A modern re make of the Battle of Britain would have Spitfires doing aerobatics in Yorkshire, in the rain.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The bacon was for pettifoggery.



+1. Simply OUTSTANDING use of the word. Thank you, 

 Thumpalumpacus
and 

 SaparotRob
for making me smile in this frustrating thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2021)

Glider said:


> Remember this is the person who
> 
> a) Believes a handful of US Marines in Iceland can take the Shetland islands, Invade Scotland, take the rest of the UK, build up the resources to launch a second front all without control of the Atlantic.
> b) That the Russian forces didn't need the LL to survive and beat the Germans. That the LL aircraft would be too much for the Soviet Union to train pilots and engineers to fly and maintain them, despite the fact the rather obvious fact, that they did train the pilots to fly and maintain them.
> ...


At least he *sometimes *comes back after criticism of his assertions with more detailed "information" attempting to gloss over his earlier errors, indicating he must be doing *at least some* remedial reading. This is not a bad thing; maybe a decade or two of this could lead to some revelations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> At least he *sometimes *comes back after criticism of his assertions with more detailed "information" attempting to gloss over his earlier errors, indicating he must be doing *at least some* remedial reading. This is not a bad thing; maybe a decade or two of this could lead to some revelations.



Well, after countless posts filled with shifting positions (ad nauseam), we were treated to this startling revelation:


ljadw said:


> And Wiki is wrong


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, after countless posts filled with shifting positions (ad nauseam), we were treated to this startling revelation:


Sadly, on that particular occasion Wiki was correct, I just couldnt be bothered to argue the point.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> At least he *sometimes *comes back after criticism of his assertions with more detailed "information" attempting to gloss over his earlier errors, indicating he must be doing *at least some* remedial reading. This is not a bad thing; maybe a decade or two of this could lead to some revelations.


Get a large piece of paper (A roll of wallpaper might suffice) and do the following

i) On the left hand side list the things where he has modified his statements, or thoughts
ii) Book a week off work
iii) on the right hand side write the things down where he hasn't modified his thoughts, statements, supplied evidence, simply stopped commenting on a something he has clearly said or stated

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Did I write anywhere that it ended by the beginning of May?
> 
> This pettifoggery of yours is sad. Your need to be Right-Online® is even sadder. Chamberlain's government mismanaged the war, and he was losing the confidence of Parliament. Even though he won the vote, he still understood, unlike you, that his goose was cooked.
> 
> It won't be long before you're reduced to pointing out spelling errors.


You were saying that the Allies were hustled out of Norway .And, this is not correct : they were not hustled out of Norway during the Norway debate .
Chamberlain did not mismanage the war, everything went good .
The fact that he won the vote meant that his goose was not cooked .


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, after countless posts filled with shifting positions (ad nauseam), we were treated to this startling revelation:


"And Wiki is wrong."

Well, so is a well ballasted ship that rolls 32° in a typhoon, but does it stay wrong? No, it rolls back upright again. And like a well ballasted ship, Wiki has self-righting tendencies built in. It's the nature of open source information sources.
I was aghast to see that the airport I soloed at in 1970 came into being in 1972 according to Wiki. So I submitted a revision. Asked for documentation, I sent a photocopy of the appropriate page in my logbook "marked with circles and arrows pointing to the evidence of the crime" (Thank you Arlo Guthrie!)
Revision denied due to "insufficient and possibly fabricated evidence". I was asked to provide verifiable published or public record citations to back my claim. Eventually a citizen of the county the airport was located in provided records of a change from municipal to county ownership and a name change that would have registered the earlier history of the airfield undetectable to the uninformed internet searcher.
"Slowwly...slowwwly up she rises" and returns to an even keel. But much too slowly for some impatient souls.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

Glider said:


> You can be terminally ill and not feel ill, or more likely in this case, the symptoms are so small and easily misinterpreted you do not know you are seriously ill. In which case as you and those around you will not take actions because they believe you are seriously ill.
> There are conditions, a number in fact where you can become terminally ill in a few days
> 
> I think you got this the wrong way around. Everything in his world is a myth, what is missing is any reality.
> ...


Who would stop the Marines ,if there was no German occupation army ? Maybe the Bobbies ?
The Russian airforce did not better with LL aircrraft than without LL aircraft .
Zhukov was not chief of staff when the LL deliveries arrived,he had been fired for incompetence following Stalin .
Russia had also reserves of armoured plate


----------



## ljadw (Jun 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The *Norway Debate*, sometimes called the *Narvik Debate*, was a momentous debate in the British House of Commons during the Second World War from 7 to 9 May 1940. It has been called the most far-reaching parliamentary debate of the twentieth century. At the end of the second day, there was a division of the House[a]​ for the members to hold a vote of no confidence which was won by the government, but with a drastically reduced majority. That led, on 10 May, to Neville Chamberlain's resignation as prime minister and the replacement of his war ministry by a broadly based coalition government which, under Winston Churchill, governed the United Kingdom until after the end of the war in Europe in May 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Norway debate did not cause the resignation of Chamberlain .


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2021)

Glider said:


> Get a large piece of paper (A roll of wallpaper might suffice) and do the following
> 
> i) On the left hand side list the things where he has modified his statements, or thoughts
> ii) Book a week off work
> iii) on the right hand side write the things down where he hasn't modified his thoughts, statements, supplied evidence, simply stopped commenting on a something he has clearly said or stated


It's lopsided, I know, I was just trying to point to the *possibility *of some future redemption.
Our mission, if we chose to accept it, is to defang trolls, offer them a path to re-education, and *perhaps, *to redemption.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Norway debate did not cause the resignation of Chamberlain .


He just resigned the next day, pure coincidence?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> He just resigned the next day, pure coincidence?


I think it shook his faith in his power to successfully steer the ship of state through stormy seas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jun 21, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "And Wiki is wrong."
> 
> Well, so is a well ballasted ship that rolls 32° in a typhoon, but does it stay wrong? No, it rolls back upright again. And like a well ballasted ship, Wiki has self-righting tendencies built in. It's the nature of open source information sources.
> I was aghast to see that the airport I soloed at in 1970 came into being in 1972 according to Wiki. So I submitted a revision. Asked for documentation, I sent a photocopy of the appropriate page in my logbook "marked with circles and arrows pointing to the evidence of the crime" (Thank you Arlo Guthrie!)
> ...


Arlo Gunthrie references earn you a Bacon!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think it shook his faith in his power to successfully steer the ship of state through stormy seas.


That is what it was all about, the vote gave him faint praise, not a ringing endorsement.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Who would stop the Marines ,if there was no German occupation army ? Maybe the Bobbies ?
> The Russian airforce did not better with LL aircrraft than without LL aircraft .
> Zhukov was not chief of staff when the LL deliveries arrived,he had been fired for incompetence following Stalin .
> Russia had also reserves of armoured plate





ljadw said:


> The Norway debate did not cause the resignation of Chamberlain .


All of these "facts?" to be taken at face value without supporting evidence or credible citations? Methinks I smell a credibility gap here.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2021)

Dash119 said:


> Arlo Gunthrie references earn you a Bacon!


"Good morning, America, where are ya?
Pass around the paper bag holds the bottle;
penny a point, ain't no one keeping score?"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2021)

Dash119 said:


> Arlo Gunthrie references earn you a Bacon!


I gave him a bacon for the ship’s inclinometer reference. A Renaissance Man fer shure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Russian airforce did not better with LL aircrraft than without LL aircraft .


LMAO!!!



ljadw said:


> Russia had also reserves of armoured plate



LMAO!!

Oh My God - these two comments simply blow me away.

These are so far into the realm of "absolutely not true" that they can easily fall into the "made up bullshit in order to impress uninformed people on social media" category.

Just stop, FFS.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> LMAO!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Steel plate is a natural by product of mining treacle, the Siberian treacle wars of the 1920-30s left huge reserves, internet FACT.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Steel plate is a natural by product of mining treacle, the Siberian treacle wars of the 1920-30s left huge reserves, internet FACT.


Didn't the countries of Borduria and Syldavia get involved in that debaucle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Didn't the countries of Borduria and Syldavia get involved in that debaucle?



No, no, NO...it was Elbonia:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Who would stop the Marines ,if there was no German occupation army ? Maybe the Bobbies ?
> The Russian airforce did not better with LL aircrraft than without LL aircraft .
> Zhukov was not chief of staff when the LL deliveries arrived,he had been fired for incompetence following Stalin .
> Russia had also reserves of armoured plate


1) This is a question you have been asked before. 
Question - If you have lost control of the sea, how do the vast forces needed to control the UK let alone a second front get to the UK?

2) The Russian airforce didn't need LL aircraft. This leads to question 2
Question - If the Russian airforce didn't feel the need for LL aircraft, Why did Stalin himself press for the delivery of P39 and Spitfire aircraft?

3) Zhukov was removed as Chief of Staff correct. He also was responsible for the defence of many Russian cities, the planning and execution of major key battles such as Kursk and the Battle for Berlin amongst many others. Stalin recognised that he had such an influence on the war that he chose him to accept the German surrender. This leads to question 3
Question - Now if I had to choose between his views on a Russian military topic or yours, tell us all why we should listen to you? 

4) Russia had reserves of armour plate. I admit to being surprised that even you cannot see how false this statement is. However I certainly could be wrong on this so I ask this question
Question - Can you tell me what the reserves were that would enable Russian industry to operate for four years of war. 
PS I did supply a Russian source for my original comments on the volume of raw materials and its only fair that we ask you to supply similar evidence for your comments.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 21, 2021)

This goober insists that the Marines could invade the Shetlands, occupy Britain and invade the continent. Upon further research (which he could do), I have found the number of Marines in Iceland was 3908 while they were accompanied by 2659 Canadians. If we add these to the 22,000 British also on the island, why.... I don't see any reason we couldn't begin the invasion immediately.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

Glider said:


> 4) Russia had reserves of armour plate. I admit to being surprised that even you cannot see how false this statement is. However I certainly could be wrong on this so I ask this question
> Question - Can you tell me what the reserves were that would enable Russian industry to operate for four years of war.
> PS I did supply a Russian source for my original comments on the volume of raw materials and its only fair that we ask you to supply similar evidence for your comments.


The best thing to do with armour plate is to stockpile it. If you build tanks out of it you would have tanks and no stockpile of out of date metal that is the wrong thickness, as Napoleon said, an army sits on its stockpiles.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 21, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You were saying that the Allies were hustled out of Norway .And, this is not correct : they were not hustled out of Norway during the Norway debate .



I stand corrected on that.



ljadw said:


> Chamberlain did not mismanage the war, everything went good .



I disagree with this.



ljadw said:


> The fact that he won the vote meant that his goose was not cooked .



Chamberlain read the tea-leaves differently, obviously, because he resigned the day after that division took place. I think his judgement trumps yours in this matter.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2021)

All allied troops had been withdrawn from Norway on 8th June. The debate in the commons was called as "conduct of the war", the titles Norway debate and Narvik debate are unofficial.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2021)

There are several possible scenarios for the US Marines advancing through Scotland. None good.

1. In an attempt to "live off the land" (a favorite of this poster) the US marines encounter Haggis and beat a hasty retreat back to Iceland.

Alternative.
While "living off the land" the US marines stop at Scottish pubs and attempt to out drink the locals. The Marine force simply fades away doing the equivalent of a 240 mile pub crawl. 
The ones that have traded their rifles for Scotch whisky wind up married to the local girls.  

Marines take 20% casualties trying to beat the Scots at caber tossing

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 21, 2021)

Good one!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> 1. In an attempt to "live off the land" (a favorite of this poster) the US marines encounter Haggis and beat a hasty retreat back to Iceland.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 22, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The fact that he won the vote meant that his goose was not cooked .


The only thing nastier than raw goose is... *Haggis!*​

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 22, 2021)

special ed said:


> This goober insists that the Marines could invade the Shetlands, occupy Britain and invade the continent. Upon further research (which he could do), I have found the number of Marines in Iceland was 3908 while they were accompanied by 2659 Canadians. If we add these to the 22,000 British also on the island, why.... I don't see any reason we couldn't begin the invasion immediately.


FYI : I did NOT say that they could occupy Britain ( they would liberate Britain ) ,neither did I say that the US Marines would invade the continent .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 22, 2021)

Glider said:


> 1) This is a question you have been asked before.
> Question - If you have lost control of the sea, how do the vast forces needed to control the UK let alone a second front get to the UK?
> 
> 2) The Russian airforce didn't need LL aircraft. This leads to question 2
> ...


The Allies never lost the control of the sea .
Stalin asked IN 1941 ! for delivery of P 39 and Spitfires (did he receive Spitfires ? )on the advice of his generals and he got P 39 because 
a they were available
b Britain wanted to get rid of them .
c because in the Summer of 1941 the Red Air Force had suffered big losses .
But that does not mean that without these aircraft the USSR would have lost the war :
aircraft had only a subordinate role in the East
fighters were subordinated to bombers .
What Zhukov said about LL is worthless,because when the military LL deliveries arrived, Zhukov was no longer chief of staff .He was chief of staff during 6 months only . 
Only his successors (Shaposhnikov and Vasilevsky ) could know the importance of LL .Zhukov was a front general, as Montgomery , and Montgomery also had no knowledge of the military LL deliveries to UK.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> He just resigned the next day, pure coincidence?


He resigned because he wanted, already before the debate, a coalition with Labour ,and because Labour accepted such a coalition, only on the condition that he should resign .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 22, 2021)

Churchill became PM faute de mieux . See the review by Overy of Six Minutes in May .
And, the position of Chamberlain was still that strong that Churchill was obliged to include him in the War Cabinet and Chamberlain remained party leader and the favorite of the party : when he entered the Commons on May 13, he was cheered and applauded by the Tories,whose reactions on the speeches of Churchill were very cold .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Churchill became PM faute de mieux . See the review by Overy of Six Minutes in May .
> And, the position of Chamberlain was still that strong that Churchill was obliged to include him in the War Cabinet and Chamberlain remained party leader and the favorite of the party : when he entered the Commons on May 13, he was cheered and applauded by the Tories,whose reactions on the speeches of Churchill were very cold .


Is this a personal recollection?
Were you there?

Pictures or it never happened.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Churchill became PM faute de mieux . See the review by Overy of Six Minutes in May .
> And, the position of Chamberlain was still that strong that Churchill was obliged to include him in the War Cabinet and Chamberlain remained party leader and the favorite of the party : when he entered the Commons on May 13, he was cheered and applauded by the Tories,whose reactions on the speeches of Churchill were very cold.


Oui faute de mieux, for want of someone better, obviously Churchill was seen as better than Chamberlain, it is not in the role of Westminster to decide a party leader. As already stated Churchill wanted him to look after the home front.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Oui faute de mieux, for want of someone better, obviously Churchill was seen as better than Chamberlain, it is not in the role of Westminster to decide a party leader. As already stated Churchill wanted him to look after the home front.


Churchill was seen as better than Halifax .Chamberlain could have remained PM of a conservative government, but sacrificed himself for the interest of the country .
And why did Churchill want Chamberlain to look after the home front ?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Churchill was seen as better than Halifax .Chamberlain could have remained PM of a conservative government, but sacrificed himself for the interest of the country .
> And why did Churchill want Chamberlain to look after the home front ?


All you are demonstrating is that day by day you learn a little more about how the UK parliament works. The "conduct of the war" debate has to be proposed and scheduled. As soon as it is scheduled people not only think about what they will say but also what they will do, and what it all means. From that you get all sorts of horse trading. I dont have to read up on the ins and outs of this particular debate, it happens all the time in Westminster, thats how Westminster works. No one will ever know all about it because it relies on memoirs, not everyone writes them, not everything is put in them and recollections vary. The vote had a three line whip, yet a quarter of Tory MPs voted with the opposition or abstained, that is very significant regardless of the vote outcome, maybe that could be todays topic for you to read into, to come up with your next version of events.

To help you, this is what wiki says about a three line whip 

A _three-line whip_ is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party's position, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission to not attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances, and even to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply.[_citation needed_]​ The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary among parties and legislatures.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Is this a personal recollection?
> Were you there?
> 
> Pictures or it never happened.


Churchill and Orwell ,The fight for Freedom ( By Thomas E.Ricks )
''When he entered the House of Commons for the first time as PM on 13 May 1940 , Churchill received less applause than did Chamberlain . ''
Churchill would recall : ''In the early weeks,it was from the Labour benches that I was mainly greeted .''
James M. Lindsay : the Water's Edge remembers :Churchill.s Blood, Toil,Tears and Sweat :
'' Few MPs clapped. Many grumbled . They still preferred Chamberlain . ''


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Churchill and Orwell ,The fight for Freedom ( By Thomas E.Ricks )
> ''When he entered the House of Commons for the first time as PM on 13 May 1940 , Churchill received less applause than did Chamberlain . ''
> Churchill would recall : ''In the early weeks,it was from the Labour benches that I was mainly greeted .''
> James M. Lindsay : the Water's Edge remembers :Churchill.s Blood, Toil,Tears and Sweat :
> '' Few MPs clapped. Many grumbled . They still preferred Chamberlain . ''


It is actually seen as very bad behaviour to clap in the commons so I cant see how few doing it is given a comment, maybe the writer is just clueless, whatever it is he certainly fooled you. In the weeks months and years after Churchill took over, can you tell me why anyone would be in a mood to cheer or clap about anything?









Why are MPs banned from clapping?


The SNP's MPs were told to stop clapping in the Commons - when did this rule come in and what's the point of it?



www.bbc.co.uk




"The rules are laid out in the Parliamentary etiquette bible Erskine May, which says: "Members must not disturb a Member who is speaking by hissing, chanting, clapping, booing, exclamations or other interruption."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 22, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Allies never lost the control of the sea .



In your hypothetical German victory, how would the Marines be able to cross any stretch of the Atlantic now that Britain is subdued and well over half of all Allied naval assets are neutralized by your hypothetical armistice?

You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Churchill and Orwell ,The fight for Freedom ( By Thomas E.Ricks )
> ''When he entered the House of Commons for the first time as PM on 13 May 1940 , Churchill received less applause than did Chamberlain . ''
> Churchill would recall : ''In the early weeks,it was from the Labour benches that I was mainly greeted .''
> James M. Lindsay : the Water's Edge remembers :Churchill.s Blood, Toil,Tears and Sweat :
> '' Few MPs clapped. Many grumbled . They still preferred Chamberlain . ''



Basing one's opinion of Churchill just on his WW2 work as PM gives a very different view of him than that seen by his pre-WW2 contemporaries. He changed parties at least twice (from Liberals to Conservatives, then back to Liberal, then to Conservative), then further damaged his credibility with the Tories by breaking with their policy to grant some level of home rule to India. He also was one of the persons most strongly pushing for the Dardanelles Campaign. In a couple of places I've seen (I'll try to find sources), the RN's response to "Winnie's back!" wasn't so much joy and cheer but "O, crap."

Churchill may have been the best possible PM for Britain during WW2, but his pre-war record wouldn't necessarily show that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 22, 2021)

Churchill was consistently tenacious - a Bulldog.
Not the brightest breed dog, trainable - with experience - but consistently tenacious.
Churchill had deep pedigree. John Churchill of Blenheim, arguably Britain's greatest military commander ever.
When it came to India, the man was as cold-hearted over famine there, as Stalin, in the Ukraine had been.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2021)

michaelmaltby said:


> Churchill was consistently tenacious - a Bulldog.
> Not the brightest breed dog, trainable - with experience - but consistently tenacious.
> Churchill had deep pedigree. John Churchill of Blenheim, arguably Britain's greatest military commander ever.
> When it came to India, the man was as cold-hearted over famine there, as Stalin, in the Ukraine had been.


The famine there was in Bengal which is now Bangladesh, there is a reason why they separated, just as there is a reason why India and Pakistan have been fighting a low level war over Kashmir and have nukes pointed at each other.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 23, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> In your hypothetical German victory, how would the Marines be able to cross any stretch of the Atlantic now that Britain is subdued and well over half of all Allied naval assets are neutralized by your hypothetical armistice?
> 
> You can't eat your cake and have it, too.


The only way to prevent the US Marines to liberate Britain, would be to occupy Britain, and the occupation of Britain would make Barbarossa impossible .


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 23, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The only way to prevent the US Marines to liberate Britain, would be to occupy Britain, and the occupation of Britain would make Barbarossa impossible .


Balderdash! If Britain agrees to a negotiated peace, neutral status, and a mutual non-aggression pact with Germany in 1940, the US is in no position to "liberate" (ie, invade) the island. We weren't at war then, and at least half, and possibly a majority of Americans wanted *nothing* to do with *another European war!!*
Come Dec 10, 1941 and Germany declares war on the US, the battle of the Atlantic will be moot. Britain and her navy are out of the picture, Afrika Korps is unopposed, Suez and the Med are Axis waterways, and Lend Lease to Russia is restricted to the Alaska/Siberia route.
Hitler has all his divisions available for Barbarossa, and Japan is free to send its massive Kwantung Army into Siberia, tying up Stalin in a two front war, and complicating US Lend Lease efforts.
With no effective British resistance in the middle east, the Axis gain access to Iranian oil, and with no Royal Navy to interfere, there's no blockade of Axis merchant shipping, and Germany can acquire all the raw materials needed for technologically advanced weapons. Meanwhile, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of the Japanese is looking pretty attractive to oppressed people in European colonies throughout east and south Asia, who welcome the Japanese with open arms. British colonial government in Malaya, Burma, and India is ousted and replaced with Japanese-supported native leadership, and the long anticipated link between the Asian and European Axis is established. Similar scenarios transpire in Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. A beleaguered US and USSR (and ANZ) stand alone against the rest of the world.

PS: The one prerequisite for all of this Japanese success to happen is that somebody has to assassinate Col Masanobu Tsuji, a racist, ultranationalist, brilliant, planning officer in IJA HQ, (god of operations), who went to extreme lengths (including insubordination) to enforce a policy of harsh treatment of (inferior) conquered peoples. His actions made enemies of native peoples who the Co-Prosperity Sphere was grooming to become allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 23, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Balderdash! If Britain agrees to a negotiated peace, neutral status, and a mutual non-aggression pact with Germany in 1940, the US is in no position to "liberate" (ie, invade) the island. We weren't at war then, and at least half, and possibly a majority of Americans wanted *nothing* to do with *another European war!!*
> Come Dec 10, 1941 and Germany declares war on the US, the battle of the Atlantic will be moot. Britain and her navy are out of the picture, Afrika Korps is unopposed, Suez and the Med are Axis waterways, and Lend Lease to Russia is restricted to the Alaska/Siberia route.
> Hitler has all his divisions available for Barbarossa, and Japan is free to send its massive Kwantung Army into Siberia, tying up Stalin in a two front war, and complicating US Lend Lease efforts.
> With no effective British resistance in the middle east, the Axis gain access to Iranian oil, and with no Royal Navy to interfere, there's no blockade of Axis merchant shipping, and Germany can acquire all the raw materials needed for technologically advanced weapons. Meanwhile, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of the Japanese is looking pretty attractive to oppressed people in European colonies throughout east and south Asia, who welcome the Japanese with open arms. British colonial government in Malaya, Burma, and India is ousted and replaced with Japanese-supported native leadership, and the long anticipated link between the Asian and European Axis is established. Similar scenarios transpire in Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. A beleaguered US and USSR (and ANZ) stand alone against the rest of the world.
> ...


This is not correct at all .
1 Germany would not propose a negotiated peace or a neutral status : a neutral Britain could/would become a hostile Britain .
2 Isolationism in the US was dead in September 1940 and war with Germany was unavoidable and imminent : the November elections were between two interventionist candidates who were hostile to Germany :FDR and the Republican FDR (Willkie ).Conscription in peacetime, Lend Lease, the Atlantic Fleet : all measures directed against Germany .The WASPs who dominated the US would never accept a German domination of Europe .
3 WHY would there be an Afrika Korps if Britain was out of the picture ??
4 If Britain was out of the picture, there would be no need for Barbarossa .
5 The occupation of Britain would tie at least 500000 men resulting in a Ostheer of 2,5 million thus no Barbarossa .
5 There was no reason for Japan in the HTL to attack the USSR, thus why would there be a reason to do it in the ATL? Japan would attack the USSR only if the USSR was defeated ,and then,its attack would be senseless and stupid .There was nothing to gain in Siberia .
6 There was no need for Germany to have he Iranian oil,besides how would this oil be transported to Germany ?
7 The Greater East-Asia co-Prosperity Sphere was a myth .
8 Germany did declare war on the US only because of the Japanese DOW .
9 If Britain was out and Japan occupied its Asian colonies, why would Japan attack the US ?
10 Japan was already saddled up with a war in China which it could not win, not lose, not continue . Attacking the USSR would only worse the situation of Japan .
11 The Eastern Soviet forces ( wrongly called the Siberian forces ) were strong enough to defeat the Kwantung Army ,while he Western Soviet forces had already in the Summer of 1941 checkmated the Wehrmacht .
12 The reasons for Barbarossa and PH were the same : Germany and Japan were desperate : they were involved in wars against Britain and China which they could not win,not lose,not continue . Germany attacked the USSR hoping that the fall of the USSR would force Britain to give up . Japan attacked the US hoping that a defeat of the US would force China to give up .Both knew that the catastrophe was looming,without PH and Barbarossa they were lost . PH and Barbarossa only fastened their collapse ,which was inevitable even if they won against US and the USSR .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2021)

ljadw said:


> This is not correct at all .
> 1 Germany would not propose a negotiated peace or a neutral status : a neutral Britain could/would become a hostile Britain .


Why do you always consider your thought of the day to be an absolute truth. You cannot know what Germany would do because it largely depended on the daft corporal. He already had a hostile Britain, anything negotiated would be better than that, if only to avoid using Berlins air raid shelters when Molotov visited Berlin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2021)

ljadw said:


> This is not correct at all .
> 1 Germany would not propose a negotiated peace or a neutral status : a neutral Britain could/would become a hostile Britain .
> 2 Isolationism in the US was dead in September 1940 and war with Germany was unavoidable and imminent : the November elections were between two interventionist candidates who were hostile to Germany :FDR and the Republican FDR (Willkie ).Conscription in peacetime, Lend Lease, the Atlantic Fleet : all measures directed against Germany .The WASPs who dominated the US would never accept a German domination of Europe .
> 3 WHY would there be an Afrika Korps if Britain was out of the picture ??
> ...


1 Germany was more than happy to accept a negotiated settlement with the UK. We had the one thing the German forces didn't have, a Navy
2 No it wasn't and besides why would the USA declare war on Germany if the UK have reached a settlement with them. Pro German feeling was strong in the USA
3 To take control of the oil
4 If the UK was out of the picture and no longer a threat, then Germany could concentrate all its efforts on Russia.
5 There would be no need for an invasion force. Having lost control of the Battle in the Atlantic Germany could easily starve the UK into obedience
6 I would suggest the same way everyone else transported oil around, by sea. The Russian Navy was no threat to anyone.
7 No it wasn't
8 It would be very unlikely that Germany would declare war on the USA as there would be no need. Even if it did then there is no way the USA could make a meaningful attack on Germany without the UK who are out of the picture
9 This is the one point where you do have some logic. With a surplus of oil Germany could supply Japan.. 
10 Why would Japan attack Russia when thee was a risk. Wait for Russia to be on the point of failure then attack
11 Possibly at the start but once they have been weakened by the German offensive, anything could happen
12 Wrong. Barbarossa was done with ambition and a lust to take over the vast fields of grain and oil. PH was done out of esperation

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The only way to prevent the US Marines to liberate Britain, would be to occupy Britain, and the occupation of Britain would make Barbarossa impossible .



So you don't think the Germans could get forty thousand troops together without threatening Barbarossa?

Remember, now that the Germans have defeated the British in your scenario, there is no Afrika Korps. The mainland European coast will need less in the way of defensive manning, too.

And without U-boats attacking British merchant vessels, I'm betting there'll be a lot less than 30,000 US Marines by the time they land in the UK.

Look, I've got nothing but respect for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, but in terms of doctrine and equipment, they were neither trained nor equipped for attacking such a large island, much less conquering it, in the face of, say, three German divisions. I think you're excluding a lot of factors from your calculus.

1) If the USMC wants air-support, it'll have to come from carriers. But remember, the US Navy was staring at Japan as well. Especially given range considerations of the a/c aboard USN carriers, the Marines will likely be without air support while Fliegerkorps X could be deployed to Scotland without weakening Barbarossa.

2) U-boats can either attack the invasion fleet directly, or attack its 3,000-mile supply chain, meaning that the invasion's offensive power will either be reduced directly or indirectly.

3) American admirals were loath at the time to risk precious flat-tops in close waters as would be required to provide air-support. I'm skeptical they'd want to put Standard Battleships in sub-infested waters, as well, so goodbye gunfire support.

4) Germany could reinforce any units in the UK much faster than the Americans could -- and any amphibious invasion is a build-up battle. With the UK subdued and both Denmark and Holland complaisant, troops therein could be sent across the North Sea faster than American reinforcements and supplies would arrive after a dangerous journey that would likely see quite a few losses.

These are some of the reasons that even with greatly expanding the American presence in Iceland, I doubt my country would be able to successfully launch the invasion you envisage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With no effective British resistance in the middle east, the Axis gain access to Iranian oil, and with no Royal Navy to interfere, there's no blockade of Axis merchant shipping, and Germany can acquire all the raw materials needed for technologically advanced weapons.



Be it known as well that the Shah of the time had German leanings and would not have been averse, I think, to selling his oil to them, if the Germans had or found the tankers to bring it to Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 23, 2021)

ljadw said:


> 1 Germany would not propose a negotiated peace or a neutral status : a neutral Britain could/would become a hostile Britain .


With WC out of Downing Street and more autocratically inclined people in charge, especially if this occurs before too much civilian death and destruction from the LW, the "daft corporal" could heave a sigh of relief and, with the RN at anchor and a non aggression pact in place, turn his eyes eastward. He thought of the Anglo Saxons as "fellow Aryans" and was uncomfortable about making war on them when he should be busy liquidating Slavs.


ljadw said:


> 2 Isolationism in the US was dead in September 1940 and war with Germany was unavoidable and imminent : the November elections were between two interventionist candidates who were hostile to Germany :FDR and the Republican FDR (Willkie ).Conscription in peacetime, Lend Lease, the Atlantic Fleet : all measures directed against Germany .The WASPs who dominated the US would never accept a German domination of Europe .


That is a major misreading of American politics. The WASPs had the finances and the party machinery, but they had only a tenuous grasp on middle America, thousands of miles from any ocean, and where the votes are. Those millions of people, not feeling any threat, were not going to sanction any hostilities without a galvanizing event like PH.



ljadw said:


> 3 WHY would there be an Afrika Korps if Britain was out of the picture ?


The AK was originally sent to bail out Il Duce, who got himself in trouble in Ethiopia. With no RN on the scene, why not grab Suez along the way?



ljadw said:


> 4 If Britain was out of the picture, there would be no need for Barbarossa .


WHAT?? All those Slavs and other untermenschen just begging to be liquidated to make Aryan lebensraum? And all that grain and oil can't be allowed to go to waste, can it?


ljadw said:


> 5 The occupation of Britain would tie at least 500000 men resulting in a Ostheer of 2,5 million thus no Barbarossa .


No need to occupy Britain. Neutral, neutralized, and non aggressive, remember?



ljadw said:


> There was no reason for Japan in the HTL to attack the USSR, thus why would there be a reason to do it in the ATL? Japan would attack the USSR only if the USSR was defeated ,and then,its attack would be senseless and stupid .There was nothing to gain in Siberia .


Japan had a cultural and historical antagonism with Russia dating back a half century or more. Ever hear of the Russo-Japanese War? Besides, the Kwantung Army got badly spanked in the Siberian border skirmishes of 1939, and their honor demanded redress. They were convinced there were large resources of coal, iron ore, and esoteric minerals just across the border.




ljadw said:


> 6 There was no need for Germany to have he Iranian oil,besides how would this oil be transported to Germany ?


Certainly you jest? Maintaining a Uboat fleet, a surface navy, a merchant marine, an air force, and a mechanized army and all the training establishments to keep them at a high caliber requires oil, LOTS of it! With Suez and the Med in Axis hands, a sea route for deliveries would not be difficult, and once the Wehrmacht was deep enough into Ukraine, overland directly from Iran would be doable.



ljadw said:


> 7 The Greater East-Asia co-Prosperity Sphere was a myth


You must be suffering from AIDS (Allaround Information Deficit Syndrome)! The myth that GEAcPS was a myth is itself a myth. Far from "rank propaganda", it was a series of conferences and assemblies in which representatives of the various native peoples "liberated" by the Japanese hammered out a framework for "Asia for the Asians", independent of the white man, and protected by Japan. At first it was a thing, but as these representatives began returning home they kept discovering that IJA occupation troops inspired by Col Tsuji were continuing to treat their people as conquered slaves. The army had no concept of "honorable allies", just unruly subjugated vermin.



ljadw said:


> 8 Germany did declare war on the US only because of the Japanese DOW .


True enough, and probably would not have until the eventual collision of Japanese ambitions and US territorial interests occurred. This collision was inevitable and had been foreseen and trained for by IJN and USN since before WWI. Japanese military doctrine was spring-loaded to the "ATTACK" position.



ljadw said:


> 9 If Britain was out and Japan occupied its Asian colonies, why would Japan attack the US ?


See above.



ljadw said:


> 10 Japan was already saddled up with a war in China which it could not win, not lose, not continue . Attacking the USSR would only worse the situation of Japan .


Japan already held the economically lucrative portions of China. Expanding their holdings required lots of manpower, just holding them, not so much. With Malaya, Burma, and India down, Chiang Kai Shek, deprived of supplies, would wither on the vine, as would Mao tse Tung.



ljadw said:


> 11 The Eastern Soviet forces ( wrongly called the Siberian forces ) were strong enough to defeat the Kwantung Army ,while he Western Soviet forces had already in the Summer of 1941 checkmated the Wehrmacht .


Hitler's stronger, better equipped, trained, and supplied forces would perform better than they historically did due to better concentration of resources, and Stalin would need to draw down his eastern forces more than he historically did.



ljadw said:


> 12 The reasons for Barbarossa and PH were the same : Germany and Japan were desperate : they were involved in wars against Britain and China which they could not win,not lose,not continue . Germany attacked the USSR hoping that the fall of the USSR would force Britain to give up . Japan attacked the US hoping that a defeat of the US would force China to give up .Both knew that the catastrophe was looming,without PH and Barbarossa they were lost . PH and Barbarossa only fastened their collapse ,which was inevitable even if they won against US and the USSR .


This assertion fails to take into account all the "adjutments" to history that have just been discussed. You seem to be unable to envision any sequence of historical events other than the one you cling to. Open your eyes and your mind. Good Luck!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 23, 2021)

Dude, I think it's a robot.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2021)

.


SaparotRob said:


> Dude, I think it's a robot.


No, it's a revisionist who trolls other WWII sites with this garbage, too.

The interesting thing is that after a certain point is contested with an avalanche of hard facts, they shift their stance and go on to other points in the hopes of camouflaging their shift.

All this nonsense has long since hijacked the thread and is tiresome.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Dude, I think it's a robot.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> .
> 
> No, it's a revisionist who trolls other WWII sites with this garbage, too.
> 
> ...


This has turned into a great thread for me. I've gotten far greater insight to the workings of Parliament in the early days of the Second World War. I may have judged NC more harshly than deserved. The delineation and refutation of various errors brought back knowledge I've long forgotten. Thanks guys. I appreciate your patience with this poster. I enjoyed all the "will you answer the d**n question already" questions too.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It is actually seen as very bad behaviour to clap in the commons so I cant see how few doing it is given a comment, maybe the writer is just clueless, whatever it is he certainly fooled you. In the weeks months and years after Churchill took over, can you tell me why anyone would be in a mood to cheer or clap about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I saw some footage of said parlemiant. Someone should tell the rules to them.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With WC out of Downing Street and more autocratically inclined people in charge, especially if this occurs before too much civilian death and destruction from the LW, the "daft corporal" could heave a sigh of relief and, with the RN at anchor and a non aggression pact in place, turn his eyes eastward. He thought of the Anglo Saxons as "fellow Aryans" and was uncomfortable about making war on them when he should be busy liquidating Slavs.
> 
> That is a major misreading of American politics. The WASPs had the finances and the party machinery, but they had only a tenuous grasp on middle America, thousands of miles from any ocean, and where the votes are. Those millions of people, not feeling any threat, were not going to sanction any hostilities without a galvanizing event like PH.
> 
> ...


These adjudments are IFS,and IFS in a discussion about WW2 are only used to make a German victory possible .
India down is such an IF,as valid as an invasion of the Martians : Japan could never occupy India.
About the oil of Iran : saying that this oil could be transported to Germany through Ukraine is nonsense : it could not be done ,because of the distances,because the Russian railways could not do it ,because there were no railways connecting Iran with the Caucasus .
Point .
And,after a defeat of the USSR (which was impossible ) Germany would need less oil .Why would Germany need the oil of Iran if it was at peace ( no war with Britain and the USSR = peace ) when it was at war with these countries, its oil needs were solved by the synthetic oil production .Half of its oil was coming from the synthetic production,20 % from domestic crude production , only 30 % from imports .
Why would Germany's Ostheer be better trained,equipped and supplied ?
The role of the Siberian forces in the Battle of Moscow was insignificant : a few divisions only were used in this battle .
Proof that the Japanese were convinced that there were a lot of coal and iron ore in Siberia and that they would attack the USSR for this reason ? And,it is obvious that you don't know that a few months before Barbarossa, Japan signed a non aggression treaty with the Soviets .
About the Wasps : the reality is that in November 1940 the Americans had to chose between two Wasp candidates .
The grain of the Ukraine is an other myth : Germany did not need this grain in WW2,there was no famine in Germany in 1941 as there was a small one in 1918 .And, it would be impossible to produce this grain and transport it to Germany .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> These adjudments are IFS,and IFS in a discussion about WW2 are only used to make a German victory possible .
> India down is such an IF,as valid as an invasion of the Martians : Japan could never occupy India.
> About the oil of Iran : saying that this oil could be transported to Germany through Ukraine is nonsense : it could not be done ,because of the distances,because the Russian railways could not do it ,because there were no railways connecting Iran with the Caucasus .
> Point .
> ...


Nice try, but nope.
Oil from Iran or Iraq (yes, that was a possibility) coukd EASILY be shipped across the Black Sea or from ports in Turkey ((yes that was also possible) to ports in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and so on. Germans used Soviet rail systems to transport material where possible, too.
Regarding Ukranian grain stocks, yes, they would have most certainly used (and did use) any available food sources. Transporting ANYTHING from the Ukraine to Germany simply meant using the existing highway or rail system in place through Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc.
Just for a refresher - getting grain from the Ukraine to Germany was easier than getting troops and armor from Germany to the Ukraine...which obviously was the case. On a massive scale.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Nice try, but nope.
> Oil from Iran or Iraq (yes, that was a possibility) coukd EASILY be shipped across the Black Sea or from ports in Turkey ((yes that was also possible) to ports in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and so on. Germans used Soviet rail systems to transport material where possible, too.
> Regarding Ukranian grain stocks, yes, they would have most certainly used (and did use) any available food sources. Transporting ANYTHING from the Ukraine to Germany simply meant using the existing highway or rail system in place through Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc.
> Just for a refresher - getting grain from the Ukraine to Germany was easier than getting troops and armor from Germany to the Ukraine...which obviously was the case. On a massive scale.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

L
 ljadw
- what's that?
Did facts catch you off guard?
No problem, I'll wait while you do a wiki search and cherry-pick random info for a reply


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

Who would produce this grain ? And, in the HTL,its importance was insignificant :Germany's food imports came for 90% outside of the USSR .
About the oil : Germany had 8,5 million tons in 1941, 9,4 million in 1942, 10,4 million in 1943 , and it would take at least 10 years before 1 million ton could be transported to Germany . Who would produce the oil of the Caucasus ?
And why would Germany need the oil of the Caucasus if there was peace ?
In most developed countries the economy was running on COAL, not on oil , including the US :
From the EIA (US Energy Information Administration ) US Primary Energy Consumption in 1940 ( in Quadrillion Btu)
Coal : 12.535
Natural gas : 2.665
Oil : 7.760
Total :25.205
And the importance of oil for the European economies was even lower .Till in the sixties .
Barbarossa happened not 10 years ago, but 80 years ago ! In an other society ,that was as different of ours as was the society of Gettysburg .
During the war Soviet trains used wood because there was a shortage of coal, not a shortage of oil . The Soviets had more oil than they needed .The Germans consumed in 1941,1942,1943 less oil than they produced/imported .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Who would produce this grain ? And, in the HTL,its importance was insignificant :Germany's food imports came for 90% outside of the USSR .
> About the oil : Germany had 8,5 million tons in 1941, 9,4 million in 1942, 10,4 million in 1943 , and it would take at least 10 years before 1 million ton could be transported to Germany . Who would produce the oil of the Caucasus ?
> And why would Germany need the oil of the Caucasus if there was peace ?
> In most developed countries the economy was running on COAL, not on oil , including the US :
> ...


LMAO!!!

Oh My God, you are hilarious.
The info you post is SO skewed, it's comical.

I do appreciate a good laugh, so my thanks to you for the comic relief.

In regards to the historical application of the crap you posted, not a single bit ofnit is factual, except for perhaps the names of the countries you mentioned. Those were real, so at least you somehow managed to get that right.

After reading all your posts, I seriously feel you have a future writing for CNN or any of the other new outlets - they would appreciate your "talent".

But here, not so much...


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> I saw some footage of said parlemiant. Someone should tell the rules to them.


They did the SNP havnt done it since, I originally posted this link about that Show some respect! Furious Bercow rebukes clapping SNP MPs but changed it to one that contained the rule in Erskine May. Another time I remember was when Blair stood down and gave his final speech.

It is a big chamber with hundreds in it, just one or two people clapping can make it impossible to hear the person speaking, especially in the days before microphones.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

duplicates.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The role of the Siberian forces in the Battle of Moscow was insignificant : a few divisions only were used in this battle .


A few divisions of troops trained and equipped to operate in winter were significant not only operationally but psychologically too. When they were deployed Germany started to realise this battle is no where near over, or close to being over. From when they were deployed the German army never got closer to Moscow, that is significant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> This has turned into a great thread for me. I've gotten far greater insight to the workings of Parliament in the early days of the Second World War. I may have judged NC more harshly than deserved. The delineation and refutation of various errors brought back knowledge I've long forgotten. Thanks guys. I appreciate your patience with this poster. I enjoyed all the "will you answer the d**n question already" questions too.


We have had some moments of levity, like the carefully woven theory of Chamberlain opposing Churchill in November elections crashing at the news that the poor guy was dead from natural causes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> L
> ljadw
> - what's that?
> Did facts catch you off guard?
> No problem, I'll wait while you do a wiki search and cherry-pick random info for a reply


Coming from the man who imagine that food and oil would be transported from the east to Germany on highways,this is a very good one .
FYI ( Not : for your imagination ) :Germany ( including ) had 3,800 km of non completed highways,thus ....
Germany had only few trucks that could transport oil .Oil transport was done by ship (inland waterways) or by rail, not by road .
Have you any idea how many trucks would be needed to transport every month 80000 ton of oil from Warsaw to Berlin/ the Ruhr ? 
Of course not . 
Thus ..
The Red Ball Express (using trucks ) failed to supply the advancing US Armies in France, thus how could trucks supply the German economy in oil during WW2 ?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Coming from the man who imagine that food and oil would be transported from the east to Germany on highways,this is a very good one .
> FYI ( Not : for your imagination ) :Germany ( including ) had 3,800 km of non completed highways,thus ....
> Germany had only few trucks that could transport oil .Oil transport was done by ship (inland waterways) or by rail, not by road .
> Have you any idea how many trucks would be needed to transport every month 80000 ton of oil from Warsaw to Berlin/ the Ruhr ?
> ...


I find that food and oil are like RADAR, over rated and unnecessary from a revisionist point of view. Did the German armies construct a water way in their wake (see what I did there) to transport fuel?

PS Ever heard of railways?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

There's nothing wrong being an iconoclast, but I've never seen anyone so attached to that outlook that virtually everything in history that we've all read is "wrong."

If I wrote "The Sun rises in the East", he would probably argue that, first with "The sun doesn't rise, the Earth rotates" pedantry, then by explaining that "East is really West if you go far enough".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I find that food and oil are like RADAR, over rated and unnecessary from a revisionist point of view. Did the German armies construct a water way in their wake (see what I did there) to transport fuel?
> 
> PS Ever heard of railways?


I think that I may say that I know more than anyone here about the role,situation and importance of the German railways and water ways during WW2 . I have in my possession 
The Collapse of the German War economy 1944-1945 ( Mierzejewski )
Die Reichsbahn im Ostfeldzug (Pottgiesser )
Die Eisenbahnen im Zeiten Weltkrieg (Kreidler ) 
About the water ways :
ONE example (From Mierzejewski)
In 1940/1941 Germany produced 485 million ton of hard and brown coal,of which 34 million ton were transported by inland waterways (rivers and canals ).There was a fleet of 19000 ships sailing in the water ways with a tonnage of 8,2 million ton, This fleet transported in 1943 82 million ton of freight (37 % was coal ) and Berlin was the biggest harbor and handled 13,5 million ton of freight .
The railways consumed 32 million ton of hard coal .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Coming from the man who imagine that food and oil would be transported from the east to Germany on highways,this is a very good one .
> FYI ( Not : for your imagination ) :Germany ( including ) had 3,800 km of non completed highways,thus ....
> Germany had only few trucks that could transport oil .Oil transport was done by ship (inland waterways) or by rail, not by road .
> Have you any idea how many trucks would be needed to transport every month 80000 ton of oil from Warsaw to Berlin/ the Ruhr ?
> ...


So I'm guessing that the Soviet Union needed a lot of trucks to supply its troops as well. If only the Soviet Union could have leased or be loaned trucks from somewhere. The EAllies might have won.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I think that I may say that I know more than anyone here about the role,situation and importance of the German railways and water ways during WW2 . I have in my possession
> The Collapse of the German War economy 1944-1945 ( Mierzejewski )
> Die Reichsbahn im Ostfeldzug (Pottgiesser )
> Die Eisenbahnen im Zeiten Weltkrieg (Kreidler )
> ...


Wow, have you read any of them or just parsed them for the quotes you need.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> So I'm guessing that the Soviet Union needed a lot of trucks to supply its troops as well. If only the Soviet Union could have leased or be loaned trucks from somewhere. The EAllies might have won.


They could have used some locomotives too, but who made locos and trucks at the time. The pipe mill I worked at in Russia was at a site that made railway wagon wheels, for the whole of Russias railways, Ive never seen so many fffing wheels in my life, incredible.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> They could have used some locomotives too, but who made locos and trucks at the time. The pipe mill I worked at in Russia was at a site that made railway wagon wheels, for the whole of Russias railways, Ive never seen so many fffing wheels in my life, incredible.
> View attachment 629673


That picture made me very nostalgic. Looks like one of the floors at the Hillside maintenance facility of the LIRR.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> That picture made me very nostalgic. Looks like one of the floors at the Hillside maintenance facility of the LIRR.


My father worked on the railways in UK at one of their biggest maintenance facilities but Russia and China are something else, stuff we despatched in China arrived two to three weeks later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> So I'm guessing that the Soviet Union needed a lot of trucks to supply its troops as well. If only the Soviet Union could have leased or be loaned trucks from somewhere. The EAllies might have won.


You are comparing apples and oranges : the oil that was needed in Germany is not the same as the oil that the Red Army needed. Trucks were used for short distances only and needed roads .
The oil used by the economy in Germany was transported by rail and by waterways,because these were more efficient than trucks . The oil of the Red Army was transported by the Russian rail,almost to the front and not by trucks because of the distances and the almost total shortage of decent roads in the USSR .
The roads in Germany were better but still worse than the waterways and railways . One example : it would be stupid to transport the crude oil produced in NW Germany to the Ruhr or to Silesia by truck: a truck could transport some 3 ton,a train 400 ton,and ships 800 ton . 
The Soviets also used trains to send oil to the front and to the plants .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

There's something about your post about shipping oil. I just can't put my finger on it.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> There's nothing wrong being an iconoclast, but I've never seen anyone so attached to that outlook that virtually everything in history that we've all read is "wrong."
> 
> If I wrote "The Sun rises in the East", he would probably argue that, first with "The sun doesn't rise, the Earth rotates" pedantry, then by explaining that "East is really West if you go far enough".


The sun does not rise, the earth rotates . And California is the west of the US for people living in NY, but it is the east for the Japanese .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

And no matter where you go, there you are.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are comparing apples and oranges : the oil that was needed in Germany is not the same as the oil that the Red Army needed. Trucks were used for short distances only and needed roads .
> The oil used by the economy in Germany was transported by rail and by waterways,because these were more efficient than trucks . The oil of the Red Army was transported by the Russian rail,almost to the front and not by trucks because of the distances and the almost total shortage of decent roads in the USSR .
> The roads in Germany were better but still worse than the waterways and railways . One example : it would be stupid to transport the crude oil produced in NW Germany to the Ruhr or to Silesia by truck: a truck could transport some 3 ton,a train 400 ton,and ships 800 ton .
> The Soviets also used trains to send oil to the front and to the plants .


Congratulations on your new discovery, the train. Used to shift cargo in UK from 1825 and in Germany since 1835. To have a road network you need cars and trucks but the first cars and trucks obviously had to be able to go on unmetalled roads (dirt tracks) The roads in Russia still are still rough and ready because the country is so big.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> There's something about your post about shipping oil. I just can't put my finger on it.


In 1933 1,084,571 ton of petroleum was transported on the Rhine Source Petroleum Tanker Shipping on German inland waterways P 5
In 1970 1,342,000 ton of petroleum arrived in West Berlin by Tankers . (Same source : P 9 )
In 1938 the Germans started the construction of the Westhafen Canal (3,1 km ) from Spandau to Charlottenburg. The construction was interrupted in 1939 .
A canal between Spandau and Charlottenburg was better than a railway or a road .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> There's something about your post about shipping oil. I just can't put my finger on it.


If you make locomotives in England and have to deliver one to Nuremburg in Germany, how do you get it there, bearing in mind they dont yet have railways? This is a great tale Adler (locomotive) - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

Most of the Romanian oil for Germany also was transported by ship,through the Danube . The French made plans in December 11939 to interrupt these transports .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> In 1933 1,084,571 ton of petroleum was transported on the Rhine Source Petroleum Tanker Shipping on German inland waterways P 5
> In 1970 1,342,000 ton of petroleum arrived in West Berlin by Tankers . (Same source : P 9 )
> In 1938 the Germans started the construction of the Westhafen Canal (3,1 km ) from Spandau to Charlottenburg. The construction was interrupted in 1939 .
> A canal between Spandau and Charlottenburg was better than a railway or a road .


Are you pulling our legs Spandau to Charlottenburg canal is 2 miles long and connects a river to a ship canal. You can only construct such a canal when you already have a river and a ship canal 2 miles apart.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Most of the Romanian oil for Germany also was transported by ship,through the Danube . The French made plans in December 11939 to interrupt these transports .


Why didnt the French just put Danubes all over France?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

Ok, so originally, rail was either non-existant or not used. Now rail was essential because roads were unreliable.
The shifting emphasis now seems to be special rivers all over Europe for transporting oil, because trucks can only drive short distances.

Then there's this new revelation that German oil is different than Soviet oil - so what was the difference? The writing on the label perhaps?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, so originally, rail was either non-existant or not used. Now rail was essential because roads were unreliable.
> The shifting emphasis now seems to be special rivers all over Europe for transporting oil, because trucks can only drive short distances.
> 
> Then there's this new revelation that German oil is different than Soviet oil - so what was the difference? The writing on the label perhaps?


German oil isn't as Cyrillic, you need the viscosity. sulphur content and ignition temperature of Cyrillic oils to use the Soviet transport system (a set of facts I just invented)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are comparing apples and oranges : the oil that was needed in Germany is not the same as the oil that the Red Army needed.



Please explicate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The sun does not rise, the earth rotates . And California is the west of the US for people living in NY, but it is the east for the Japanese .



That's great. Now if you could just explain how historians great and small over the years got along without your insights.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That's great. Now if you could just explain how historians great and small over the years got along without your insights.


However, they clearly don't realize that to a Californian bearing 090 degrees, Japan is due east...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> However, they clearly don't realize that to a Californian bearing 090 degrees, Japan is due east...



Geographers too must come to a reckoning with our resident genius.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> German oil isn't as Cyrillic, you need the viscosity. sulphur content and ignition temperature of Cyrillic oils to use the Soviet transport system (a set of facts I just invented)


But would Soviet oil work in short distance American trucks the Soviets used on the few roads they had, and would the oil have to be changed to German oil once the truck crossed the German border (after being transported by boat on the canal system)?

Asking for a friend, of course.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But would Soviet oil work in short distance American trucks the Soviets used on the few roads they had, and would the oil have to be changed to German oil once the truck crossed the German border (after being transported by boat on the canal system)?
> 
> Asking for a friend, of course.



Pretty sure you're going to have to distill it further somewhere west of Warsaw to boil off the vodka additives, 'cause, Russian oil.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

I would be more than a little surprised if Japan is due east or west of anywhere in the USA. When I flew from London to Anchorage on the way to Narita we flew exactly due north. We live on a globe not a A4 Landscape rectangle that is easy to print.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But would Soviet oil work in short distance American trucks the Soviets used on the few roads they had, and would the oil have to be changed to German oil once the truck crossed the German border (after being transported by boat on the canal system)?
> 
> Asking for a friend, of course.


American trucks could cope with the extremes of Cyrillic and Teutonic oil compositions, that's wot wun the war.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I would be more than a little surprised if Japan is due east or west of anywhere in the USA. When I flew from London to Anchorage on the way to Narita we flew exactly due north. We live on a globe not a A4 Landscape rectangle that is easy to print.



Tokyo is at 35° latitude, Los Angeles is at 34° latitude. Plenty of due-East/due-West between Okinawa, Hokkaido, San Diego, and Seattle.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> American trucks could cope with the extremes of Cyrillic and Teutonic oil compositions, that's wot wun the war.


But what oil do the boats use while they're carrying the trucks?
Has he considered that?
I bet he hasn't.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But what oil do the boats use while they're carrying the trucks?
> Has he considered that?
> I bet he hasn't.


I suspect you are like me, I just dont take this discussion seriously at all. The surprise is how many books have been read without learning anything at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Tokyo is at 35° latitude, Los Angeles is at 34° latitude. Plenty of due-East/due-West between Okinawa, Hokkaido, San Diego, and Seattle.
> 
> View attachment 629707


As I said, London and Anchorage Alaska are exactly due north of each other, we live on a globe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I suspect you are like me, I just dont take this discussion seriously at all. The surprise is how many books have been read without learning anything at all.


To be honest, I think junior is loosely paraphrasing and tossing in citations in an attempt to make his statements legitimate.
He clicks the [x] in a wiki artical, grabs the book/author (and sometimes even an accompanying page number) and then posts it in his fantasy rant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But what oil do the boats use while they're carrying the trucks?
> Has he considered that?
> I bet he hasn't.


Boats use coal when carrying oil so all the oil gets to the destination. 
Germany has plenty of coal. 

Unpowered oil barges towed by coal fired tugs, see, it all works out 😄


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> To be honest, I think junior is loosely paraphrasing and tossing in citations in an attempt to make his statements legitimate.
> He clicks the [x] in a wiki artical, grabs the book/author (and sometimes even an accompanying page number) and then posts it in his fantasy rant.


It has a child like innocence about it. The Danube was used as a transport system but it had been for hundreds of years. The cities on the Danube are there because of the Danube, almost always because you could put a bridge there and so you have an intersection for trade. You cant build "Danubes" as a transport system, within the limits of geography you can build canals and with less limits you can build railways. Roads are much less limited and walkways have almost no limits. As with many other discussions here we are just discussing the very basics of geography, parliament or electro magnetic characteristics or any other subject.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Boats use coal when carrying oil so all the oil gets to the destination.
> Germany has plenty of coal.
> 
> Unpowered oil barges towed by coal fired tugs, see, it all works out 😄


This is a antediluvian, post truth, Faustian pact, debating society nightmare.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Tokyo is at 35° latitude, Los Angeles is at 34° latitude. Plenty of due-East/due-West between Okinawa, Hokkaido, San Diego, and Seattle.
> 
> View attachment 629707


Try this

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> However, they clearly don't realize that to a Californian bearing 090 degrees, Japan is due east...


I lived there.. GrauGeist is correct.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> This is a antediluvian, post truth, Faustian pact, debating society nightmare.


It's about time someone said it! We were all thinking it.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Boats use coal when carrying oil so all the oil gets to the destination.
> Germany has plenty of coal.
> 
> Unpowered oil barges towed by coal fired tugs, see, it all works out 😄


Europe didnt need to transport anything until 1939, the whole "thing" about transport was a completely new subject, same for USA and Russia if truth be told. Those stones at Stonehenge just worked their own way across land and into the ground.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

The things one learns here.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> It's about time someone said it! We were all thinking it.


I agree with your earlier post, it has thrown up all sorts of interesting info but not from the party that thinks he knows it all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The things one learns here.


That is why Stonehenge is important, not because humans transported those things from wherever 5,000 years ago, but that the gods of stone persuaded the stones to move themselves, it was the basis of internet, flat earth, no proof required, theory.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

He won't be dissuaded from his beliefs, unless of course he's just screwing with us, and will not learn. I, however, have picked up a lot of knowledge in areas I otherwise wouldn't have looked and have learned. Did any of you guys know there's an INDIAN Ocean?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Did any of you guys know there's an INDIAN Ocean?


As a Brit I dont consider that a serious question. There is an Ocean we know as the Indian Ocean but it isnt actually an ocean it is a body of water south of India.

I first read the name as a kid in a book about the Battle of the River Plate and the Graf Spee which went there









German Raiders in the Indian Ocean - Pacific Eagles


Through 1940 and 1941, several German surface raiders operated in the Indian Ocean where they were up against Allied warships attempting to hunt them down.




pacificeagles.net




German merchant raiders were even more active in the Indian Ocean than they were in the Pacific. The first Kriegsmarine surface vessels to reach the Indian Ocean was the pocket battleship _Admiral Graf Spee_, which made a brief foray into the Indian Ocean at the end of October 1939. The _Graf Spee_ made a short detour during her cruise in the South Atlantic, intending to confuse the British as to her plans. She had little success at this stage of her career, finding and sinking the tanker _Africa Shell_, but finding little else worthy of her 11-inch main guns. After spending two weeks in the Indian Ocean she returned to the Atlantic, where she eventually met her fate after the Battle of the River Plate.​

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

Since being here I've read about a lot about the other theatres than the usual PTO stuff that grabs my attention. This is so I can keep up with the discussions here. I've learned about the Polish invasion of Germany. I've read up on topics only casually mentioned by the Forum members. The Admiral got me studying up on that theater (American spelling this time). Vague generalizations have been fleshed out with facts (mind numbing sometimes). I had knowledge about Lend Lease but not at the level I have now. I've learned more than I'll ever admit about aeronautics from the groundhog threads. I've just gained more insight about the attack on Pearl Harbor from ThomasP's post. Being nominally a battleship, I'm quite familiar with KMS Graf Spee's adventures and some eerie parallels it has with Von Spee's activities in the prior war. Even the Altmark. Yeah, I was joking. Just playing on the supposed provincialness of Americans. I'm also quite aware now of Britain's MAJOR contributions to naval aviation. I just can't understand why the FAA's planes were so goofy.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As I said, London and Anchorage Alaska are exactly due north of each other, we live on a globe.



As I implied earlier, we can define cardinal points any way we feel, which seems to be the _modus operandi_ of our interlocutor.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Since being here I've read about a lot about the other theatres than the usual PTO stuff that grabs my attention. This is so I can keep up with the discussions here. I've learned about the Polish invasion of Germany. I've read up on topics only casually mentioned by the Forum members. The Admiral got me studying up on that theater (American spelling this time). Vague generalizations have been fleshed out with facts (mind numbing sometimes). I had knowledge about Lend Lease but not at the level I have now. I've learned more than I'll ever admit about aeronautics from the groundhog threads. I've just gained more insight about the attack on Pearl Harbor from ThomasP's post. Being nominally a battleship, I'm quite familiar with KMS Graf Spee's adventures and some eerie parallels it has with Von Spee's activities in the prior war. Even the Altmark. Yeah, I was joking. Just playing on the supposed provincialness of Americans. I'm also quite aware now of Britain's MAJOR contributions to naval aviation. I just can't understand why the FAA's planes were so goofy.


But do you know where the German sea is?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

I was always impressed how sailors were able to navigate the world when it was a Mercator Projection.

Talk about incredible skill!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I was always impressed how sailors were able to navigate the world when it was a Mercator Projection.
> 
> Talk about incredible skill!!


Truth to tell a lot of the time they didn't, that's why we now have insurance companies, clocks and telescopes


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> But do you know where the German sea is?


I can proudly answer NOPE!


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

....and I'm not looking it up either. So there!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

Everyone knows where the German sea is, but how many know where the Holy See is?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As I said, London and Anchorage Alaska are exactly due north of each other, we live on a globe.



As I implied earlier, we can define cardinal points any way we feel, which seems to be the _modus operandi_ of our interlocutor. But there's an agreed-upon standard.



pbehn said:


> Truth to tell a lot of the time they didn't, that's why we now have insurance companies, clocks and telescopes



A really good read on this topic is _The Discoverers_ by Daniel Boorstein, Librarian Emeritus of the US Library of Congress. He delves specifically into the intersection of nautical navigation and the development of the clock and sextant, among many other developments produced by the age of exploration (compass, the adoption of lateen sails for tacking, and so on).

We still need insurance companies, though, in this age of GPS, because now as always, s**t happens.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Everyone knows where the German sea us, but how many know where the Holy See is?


ooohhhh ooohhh I actually know this one!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

Okay, I looked it up. Why didn't they call it "Liberty Ocean"?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, so originally, rail was either non-existant or not used. Now rail was essential because roads were unreliable.
> The shifting emphasis now seems to be special rivers all over Europe for transporting oil, because trucks can only drive short distances.
> 
> Then there's this new revelation that German oil is different than Soviet oil - so what was the difference? The writing on the label perhaps?


I did not say that German oil is different than Soviet oil . Try to read what I said . 
I said that the oil that was needed in Germany was different than the oil the Red Army needed .And , that is not what you are claiming what I said .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Please explicate.


The oil that was needed in Germany was used for the LW ( Synthetic produced oil ),for the KM and for the economy . The oil needed by the Ostheer was different, the same for the oil needed by the Soviet economy and by the Red Army .
Gasoline is not the same as diesel .
AND, the distances in Germany were much shorter than those in the USSR .It took a long time for trains to transport fuel from the Russian refineries to the Red Army over more than thousand km.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Why didnt the French just put Danubes all over France?


?????


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I did not say that German oil is different than Soviet oil . Try to read what I said .
> I said that the oil that was needed in Germany was different than the oil the Red Army needed .





ljadw said:


> The oil that was needed in Germany was used for the LW ( Synthetic produced oil ),for the KM and for the economy . The oil needed by the Ostheer was different, the same for the oil needed by the Soviet economy and by the Red Army .
> Gasoline is not the same as diesel .
> AND, the distances in Germany were much shorter than those in the USSR .It took a long time for trains to transport fuel from the Russian refineries to the Red Army over more than thousand km.


It apoears that you have no idea about machine lubrication regardless if it was a Volkswagen engine or a Fw190 engine. The Germans were developing synthetics because of natural oil supply shortages.
They required standard oil viscosities just like a Soviet, British or American engine REGARDLESS of the application.
The lubricating grease viscosities were the same, the crank-case viscosities were the same, there was no difference.

The crankcase oil of a Tiger tank is comparable to the crankcase oil of a Bf109...no difference. None. Period.

And adding that "Gasoline is different than Deisel" is rather ridiculous, as every one here is well aware of that, so it was a waste of time both for you to type it and for us to read it.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> ....and I'm not looking it up either. So there!


The old name for the North Sea, changed before WW1. (Also German Ocean was used).


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It apoears that you have no idea about machine lubrication regardless if it was a Volkswagen engine or a Fw190 engine. The Germans were developing synthetics because of natural oil supply shortages.
> They required standard oil viscosities just like a Soviet, British or American engine REGARDLESS of the application.
> The lubricating grease viscosities were the same, the crank-case viscosities were the same, there was no difference.
> 
> ...


The German avgas was almost totally synthetic oil , not domestic or imported natural oil .This was not so for the Allies .
And the Germans used gasoline for their tanks, the Soviets diesel .
And, what is comparable is different . Identical things can not be compared .
Besides, allied aircraft used different fuel than German and Soviet aircraft .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Besides, allied aircraft used different fuel than German and Soviet aircraft .


What about the "allied" aircraft and tanks made in USA and UK that were used by the Russians. Did they use plastic gloves or something?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

German jets used diesel.
US jets used JP-4 = 1/2 gasoline and 1/2 kerosine .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> German jets used diesel.
> US jets used JP-4 = 1/2 gasoline and 1/2 kerosine .


How many US jets were in service in WW2?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> There's nothing wrong being an iconoclast, but I've never seen anyone so attached to that outlook that virtually everything in history that we've all read is "wrong."


I see that you don't know that everything we have learned about WWI,the interwar period, WWII and what happened after 1945 is swarming,for obvious reasons,with omissions, inventions,exaggerations, lies and propaganda . From all sides . 
I could cite dozens of examples .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I see that you don't know that everything we have learned about WWI,the interwar period, WWII and what happened after 1945 is swarming,for obvious reasons,with omissions, inventions,exaggerations, lies and propaganda . From all sides .
> I could cite dozens of examples .


Are they omitted omissions or forgotten omissions? Are there any that only you know about?


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Are they omitted omissions or forgotten omissions? Are there any that only you know about?


ONE example : FDR giving away Eastern Europe at Yalta .
FDR could NOT give away Eastern Europe,because he did not own Eastern Europe .
A Second example : the miracle of Dunkirk for which the Bohemian corporal (Adolf ) was responsible : there was no such thing .
And a third one : the coward and inept Italians : who believes this ? The fans of Allo Allo and the goose-steppers .
A Fourth One : the turning points of WWII : every Homo Sapiens knows that there can be only one turning point


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> ONE example : FDR giving away Eastern Europe at Yalta .
> FDR could NOT give away Eastern Europe,because he did not own Eastern Europe .
> A Second example : the miracle of Dunkirk for which the Bohemian corporal (Adolf ) was responsible : there was no such thing .
> And a third one : the coward and inept Italians : who believes this ? The fans of Allo Allo and the goose-steppers .
> A Fourth One : the turning points of WWII : every Homo Sapiens knows that there can be only one turning point


No idea what you are talking about. You seem to be the only person with all the answers to the questions only you ask.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The oil that was needed in Germany was used for the LW ( Synthetic produced oil ),for the KM and for the economy . The oil needed by the Ostheer was different, the same for the oil needed by the Soviet economy and by the Red Army .
> Gasoline is not the same as diesel .
> AND, the distances in Germany were much shorter than those in the USSR .It took a long time for trains to transport fuel from the Russian refineries to the Red Army over more than thousand km.



That doesn't answer my question. Explain why Soviet machinery needed different oil than German machinery.



ljadw said:


> the oil that was needed in Germany is not the same as the oil that the Red Army needed.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I see that you don't know that everything we have learned about WWI,the interwar period, WWII and what happened after 1945 is swarming,for obvious reasons,with omissions, inventions,exaggerations, lies and propaganda . From all sides .
> I could cite dozens of examples .



I know that history has errors in it. What I think is funny is that you think you're correcting them.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 25, 2021)

For the record I’m a fan of Allo Allo. 
“Allo London, this is Nighthawk calling.“

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> German jets used diesel.
> US jets used JP-4 = 1/2 gasoline and 1/2 kerosine .


JP4 was a post-war blend used from the 1950's through the 1990's, so nope - wrong.

WWII German jet engines used diesel or kerosene, depending on the engine.
Most HeS engines used kerosene, most Jumo and BMW engines used diesel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2021)

Ever notice how our resident "historian" never quickly replies to posts?

This is called the "wikipause", which is a period of time consumed by frantic google searches using a specific combination of keywords that favor/support their position, then sifting through the results for bits and pieces that can then be used as a seemingly authorative response...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 25, 2021)

That’s why I thought it a robot. Never directly responded to a specific question.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> No idea what you are talking about.


I will correct this one :it should be : I have no reply to what you are saying .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That doesn't answer my question. Explain why Soviet machinery needed different oil than German machinery.


I did not say that Soviet machinery needed different oil than German machinery : I said that the Red Army used different oil than the German economy .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I know that history has errors in it. What I think is funny is that you think you're correcting them.


History has not errors in it : history of WW2 as is it is told since 80 years is mostly lies, exaggerations, omissions, chauvinism, idiocies,etc .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I will correct this one :it should be : I have no reply to what you are saying .


No, all of the points you posted are only truths in your head, no one else's.

I have never read anyone sensible saying FDR gave away eastern Europe, Dunkerque was a sort of miracle, who was responsible for what is still discussed, but the daft lad from Austria was in charge and took credit for everything else. The Italian campaign in North Africa was certainly inept, no other word for it. As for turning points, try climbing a mountain turning only once. Try sailing a boat into a wind, turning only once.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> History has not errors in it : history of WW2 as is it is told since 80 years is mostly lies, exaggerations, omissions, chauvinism, idiocies,etc .


You are confusing events with the written and other record of those events which is "history" the "story" part of the word gives a strong clue. There was something idiotic about your fantasy scenario that had Chamberlain fighting elections after his death, and stating repeatedly that RADAR was not important in the Battle of Britain. Then you forgot the rail system as a means of transport. I have never met a poster so consistently wrong on all topics, maybe thats why you are convinced everything is lies, omissions, idiocies etc?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> History has not errors in it : history of WW2 as is it is told since 80 years is mostly lies, exaggerations, omissions, chauvinism, idiocies,etc .



Really? So most historians are liars who deliberately exaggerate, omit information, are chauvinists and idiots? That's what you're saying.

Have you had any historical studies published to set the record straight?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I did not say that Soviet machinery needed different oil than German machinery : I said that the Red Army used different oil than the German economy .


Yes you did. Twice.

Now you're deflecting because you've been called out.

By the way, the German economy operated on Reichsmarks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2021)




----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2021)

Well, there is a big difference between OIL as it comes out of the ground (called crude oil) and OIL PRODUCTS. 
Crude oil can vary considerably depending on which oil field it comes from in regards to what percentage of different products you can per ton and for certain products it can make a big difference in the products also. Like 40 octane gas to 70 octane after simple distilling.
When it comes to the products they have to meet certain standards regardless of source. Going back to aviation fuel, 87 octane product is pretty much 87 octane fuel regardless of source. It not only has to pass the octane test, it needs to have a certain heat value, it needs to evaporate at a certain temperature and specified rate. It has to have a certain vapor pressure and gum residue limit. Different countries can have slightly different limits but they have to be close or the fuel won't work properly at different temperatures or altitudes. It doesn't matter if the fuel is made from coal or crude oil, it has to work in the engines desired.
Same for lubricating oil or diesel fuel. Russian diesel isn't going to be much different than German diesel.
Ships that weren't diesel ran on bunker fuel which is pretty much crude oil with some of the good stuff taken out and with most of the lumps also taken out (joke) but bunker needs to be heated to flow even at normal temperatures. 
Oil products can cover quite a range and sometimes sources just use "oil" as shorthand for oil products so it can be a bit confusing.
However, aside from needing more frequent fuel filter changes, one country's Diesels should run just fine on another country's diesel fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, there is a big difference between OIL as it comes out of the ground (called crude oil) and OIL PRODUCTS.
> Crude oil can vary considerably depending on which oil field it comes from in regards to what percentage of different products you can per ton and for certain products it can make a big difference in the products also. Like 40 octane gas to 70 octane after simple distilling.
> When it comes to the products they have to meet certain standards regardless of source. Going back to aviation fuel, 87 octane product is pretty much 87 octane fuel regardless of source. It not only has to pass the octane test, it needs to have a certain heat value, it needs to evaporate at a certain temperature and specified rate. It has to have a certain vapor pressure and gum residue limit. Different countries can have slightly different limits but they have to be close or the fuel won't work properly at different temperatures or altitudes. It doesn't matter if the fuel is made from coal or crude oil, it has to work in the engines desired.
> Same for lubricating oil or diesel fuel. Russian diesel isn't going to be much different than German diesel.
> ...


Even when all quality issues are sorted out there can still be problems. After the various issues of high and low aromatic fuels were sorted as far as engine performance goes they then discovered that the high aromatic fuels would find a leak point the others wouldnt. Easily resolved in the factory but a pain in the ass to replace connectors on fuel systems in the field.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2021)

High aromatic fuels also tended to dissolve US rubber gaskets and self sealing fuel tank liners. The first caused leaks, the second tended to plug lines and filters. 
It was solved fairly soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> High aromatic fuels also tended to dissolve US rubber gaskets and self sealing fuel tank liners. The first caused leaks, the second tended to plug lines and filters.
> It was solved fairly soon.


I agree, but my point was there were all sorts of problems that people obviously never imagined could be problems. Fuel is fuel isnt it? What you talking about viscosity and permeability an all that stuff?
Regarding your previous post on oils, I worked on the Elgin Franklin project which produces very sour (high in sulphur) oil at extremely high temperatures. The only places that had the equipment to run the required tests were actually in universities and research establishments, they didnt have the certification to run production tests. I went to all sorts of exotic locations seeing "tests" on lash up equipment that just passed "muster" on the technical requirements but it was a hard job to reject what was presented because everyone knew there was no where else to do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 25, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I did not say that Soviet machinery needed different oil than German machinery : I said that the Red Army used different oil than the German economy .



You might want to read up on fractional distillation, then. You can produce almost any fuel or lubricant needed from any raw-oil source. 

Did the Soviets reject Lend-lease tanker-loads on the basis that it was the wrong oil?

You clearly don't know your ass from third-base about this stuff.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Ever notice how our resident "historian" never quickly replies to posts?
> 
> This is called the "wikipause", which is a period of time consumed by frantic google searches using a specific combination of keywords that favor/support their position, then sifting through the results for bits and pieces that can then be used as a seemingly authorative response...



To be fair, many of us don't. I've got a life too, haven't replied since this morning, and between then and now have put 600 miles on my truck.

Not that I think Alphabet is earnest -- he's clearly an oxygen-hog -- but there are plenty of reasons for delays that have nothing to do with the internet.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> JP4 was a post-war blend used from the 1950's through the 1990's, so nope - wrong.
> 
> WWII German jet engines used diesel or kerosene, depending on the engine.
> Most HeS engines used kerosene, most Jumo and BMW engines used diesel.


And auxiliary jets on B36s, KC97s, C23s, and P2Vs used 115/145 avgas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2021)

Gas turbines are not very fussy about fuel. If there is enough vapor pressure for ignition and the impurities don't mung up the hot end, hey can tolerate quite a lot. To give an idea, when I worked at Lycoming, there was a civil T-55 (LTC4) running on peat.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> he's clearly an oxygen-hog


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 26, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Gas turbines are not very fussy about fuel.



Conversely, the same goes for Toyota Surfs and other diesel trucks! When we used to do fuel drains some of the guys used to take the used fuel home in canisters and chuck it in their cars, but it was stopped because some - there's always some, were double-dipping. There was one guy when I worked on Hueys who hadn't fuelled his truck in years because he relied on fuel drain supplies!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Conversely, the same goes for Toyota Surfs and other diesel trucks! When we used to do fuel drains some of the guys used to take the used fuel home in canisters and chuck it in their cars, but it was stopped because some - there's always some, were double-dipping. There was one guy when I worked on Hueys who hadn't fuelled his truck in years because he relied on fuel drain supplies!


Ditto for Jet A sump drains and home kerosene heaters.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Gas turbines are not very fussy about fuel. If there is enough vapor pressure for ignition and the impurities don't mung up the hot end, hey can tolerate quite a lot. To give an idea, when I worked at Lycoming, there was a civil T-55 (LTC4) running on peat.


But when they burn 115/145 avgas it coats their hot section with a beige/tan crust of hard deposit that slowly grows till it chokes the engine.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> But when they burn 115/145 avgas it coats their hot section with a beige/tan crust of hard deposit that slowly grows till it chokes the engine.


In newer engines, it will also clog the cooling holes in the hot end. This is bad. 

Starting can be a problem. They were trying to qualify the AGT-1500 on marine diesel when I was at Lycoming. This didn't work, as the vapor pressure of the fuel was so low and the viscosity so high that they couldn't get the engine started. Alas, the inside of the engine was also covered with marine diesel, so when they did start the engine, the marine diesel that coated the inside of the engine ignited and all sorts of hilarity ensued, including an overspeed resulting in all the LPT blades leaving their home disc.

We usually did all our tests with Jet-A (or Jet-A1), mostly because it was much easier to get than JP-4, JP-5, or Jet-B, and there was little functional difference between Jet-A and JP-5 (and why would anybody use JP-4, anyway?)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> (and why would anybody use JP-4, anyway?)


IIRC, doesn't JP4 have a few more BTU/LB?
NAS Boca Chica was required to stock JP4 ONLY, because of our high level of AF and ANG transient traffic, which meant we had to defuel and dispose of the JP5 tankered in by jets returning from deployment, then the fuel controls had to be rerigged.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> IIRC, doesn't JP4 have a few more BTU/LB?
> NAS Boca Chica was required to stock JP4 ONLY, because of our high level of AF and ANG transient traffic, which meant we had to defuel and dispose of the JP5 tankered in by jets returning from deployment, then the fuel controls had to be rerigged.



My base, Carswell, used only JP-4 for the entire fleet, including the F-16 A/Bs the 301st gained in 1991. Hell, I didn't know there was another fuel at all until 1990 or so... doh!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My base, Carswell, used only JP-4 for the entire fleet, including the F-16 A/Bs the 301st gained in 1991. Hell, I didn't know there was another fuel at all until 1990 or so... doh!


USAF always seemed to prefer JP4, probably because of its slightly greater performance. They don't have to operate in confined hangar decks at high temperatures where the extra volatility of JP4 is an issue.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 27, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, there is a big difference between OIL as it comes out of the ground (called crude oil) and OIL PRODUCTS.
> Crude oil can vary considerably depending on which oil field it comes from in regards to what percentage of different products you can per ton and for certain products it can make a big difference in the products also. Like 40 octane gas to 70 octane after simple distilling.
> When it comes to the products they have to meet certain standards regardless of source. Going back to aviation fuel, 87 octane product is pretty much 87 octane fuel regardless of source. It not only has to pass the octane test, it needs to have a certain heat value, it needs to evaporate at a certain temperature and specified rate. It has to have a certain vapor pressure and gum residue limit. Different countries can have slightly different limits but they have to be close or the fuel won't work properly at different temperatures or altitudes. It doesn't matter if the fuel is made from coal or crude oil, it has to work in the engines desired.
> Same for lubricating oil or diesel fuel. Russian diesel isn't going to be much different than German diesel.
> ...


And, why did the Germans use only synthetic fuel for the LW, not imported fuel, not domestic fuel ?
The fact that they used only synthetic fuel for the LW means that it matters if the fuel was made from coal or was crude .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And, why did the Germans use only synthetic fuel for the LW, not imported fuel, not domestic fuel ?
> The fact that they used only synthetic fuel for the LW means that it matters if the fuel was made from coal or was crude .


Does it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And, why did the Germans use only synthetic fuel for the LW, not imported fuel, not domestic fuel ?
> The fact that they used only synthetic fuel for the LW means that it matters if the fuel was made from coal or was crude .



OK, show me how it matters.

source or report that shows why. 

Not a conclusion based on circumstance or coincidence.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 27, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> IIRC, doesn't JP4 have a few more BTU/LB?
> NAS Boca Chica was required to stock JP4 ONLY, because of our high level of AF and ANG transient traffic, which meant we had to defuel and dispose of the JP5 tankered in by jets returning from deployment, then the fuel controls had to be rerigged.


No. 

I know the engines I worked with (I was a development test engineer at AVCO Stratford) could run on Jet -A, Jet-B, JP-5, and JP-4 without adjustment. I don't know about any other company's engines.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And, why did the Germans use only synthetic fuel for the LW, not imported fuel, not domestic fuel ?
> The fact that they used only synthetic fuel for the LW means that it matters if the fuel was made from coal or was crude .


The Luftwaffe didn't "only use synthetic fuel".
They used whatever they could get their hands on - which was clearly not enough...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JohnnyRackham (Jun 27, 2021)

NightHawk said:


> what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
> 1.Stalingrad
> 2.Normandy
> 3.El alamain
> ...


Kursk. Utterly unnecessary. No, BoB was not decisive- but it defanged the Luftwaffe. The lack of fighter range was suicidal- it should have been easily foreseen and drop tanks developed prior to it. All of them are important but not solely pivotal.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2021)

I’m gonna’ like this. I sense another educational opportunity for me.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2021)

JohnnyRackham said:


> Kursk. Utterly unnecessary. No, BoB was not decisive- but it defanged the Luftwaffe. The lack of fighter range was suicidal- it should have been easily foreseen and drop tanks developed prior to it. All of them are important but not solely pivotal.


In principle both were exactly the same, the German military came up against defences that couldnt be overcome and gave up.


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And, why did the Germans use only synthetic fuel for the LW, not imported fuel, not domestic fuel ?
> The fact that they used only synthetic fuel for the LW means that it matters if the fuel was made from coal or was crude .


What tosh. Germany used synthetic fuel because they didn't have reliable access to enough fuel, so they made their own at exceptional cost both in financial terms and resources. One outcome was that they never had enough high octane fuel, the Luftwaffe couldn't use C4 fuel for all their missions simply because they couldn't get enough of it.
*Note* - this has been mentioned before

A small aside, after the battle for France they used captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2021)

Glider said:


> A small aside, after the battle for France they used captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel.


They had special teams to capture fuel stocks "
From a purely fuel standpoint, the fall of France has to be considered the greatest victory of the war for Germany. That is, for the first and only time, Hitler ended a campaign with more oil than he had when he started.

The German army and air force had learned enough from the Polish campaign to build up significant reserves for the war in the West. When that blitz was over, the _Wehrmacht_ had captured more than 20 million barrels of oil from the French, Belgians and Dutch. Since the invaders had used only 12 million barrels through the campaign, the conquests represented a net gain of 8 million barrels. (For reference, though, and to show how precarious the Germans' situation remained, the United States in 1940 produced an average of 4 million barrels _per day_.)

During the campaign, the Oil Commandos were deployed to seize the French oil wells at Pechelbronn, in Alsace. On 21 June, with the help of French collaborators, they succeeded in doing so without firing a shot. The French demolition squads charged with destroying the machinery were entirely unsuccessful. Not only did the Oil Commandos get the 1.5 million gallons of petroleum in storage there, they returned production to full capacity in a few months.


The Quest for Fuel in WWII

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 27, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> I know the engines I worked with (I was a development test engineer at AVCO Stratford) could run on Jet -A, Jet-B, JP-5, and JP-4 without adjustment. I don't know about any other company's engines.


GE J79s


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 27, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

I think you might be confusing the terms sometimes used for the different types of manufacture and the different type of source for the raw materials, with the end user types and grades of fuel.

For example, these are the different organic petroleum end user fuel types in WWII, and their primary base:

Diesel (diesel)
Jet A (kerosene)
Jet B (kerosene-gasoline mixture)
Avgas (gasoline)
Alcohol (usually methanol and/or ethanol)

Usable compounds/mixtures that meet the chemical behavior (in ICE, jet, or rocket engines) of the above types can be produced using synthetic manufacturing processes alone, or distillation processes from organic petroleum alone, or a combination of the 2 types of manufacturing.

Depending on the additives used in the end user fuel types, there can be a problem with using a specific blend in one company's engine design vs another company's design. However, as far as I am aware, an additive of this type would have the same effect on the engine regardless of whether it is in a synthetic or organic based fuel. One example is isopropyl alcohol, which tends to dissolve natural rubber, most types of synthetic rubber, and many types of plastic.

Using higher than normal levels of TEL might cause the spark plug performance to degrade more quickly, but this was countered by changing the spark plugs more often.

Using isopropyl alcohol in a one shot rocket engine worked very well, but repeated/prolonged use in an ICE can lead to gasket/hose leaks and serious failure. The solution was to use alcohol resistant gaskets/hoses and/or switch to ethanol.

Due to the combatants involved in WWII all having pretty much the same level of technology and scientific knowledge in the area of fuels, there were no significant difference in fuel types needed. As mentioned upthread, the opposing sides sometimes even used the enemy fuel, sometimes (but not always) after mixing in certain additives (such as additional TEL to bring the knock rating up, or alcohol for the same reason). What additives and amounts being decided by skilled teams originally fielded for the purpose of quality control monitoring of the fuel received by the combat units.

As well as in France as mentioned above, the Germans sometimes used British stocks captured in NA, and vise versa. The Japanese, who also used a large amount of synthetic fuel (though not as large an amount as the Germans (I think)) also used captured US, British, and Dutch fuels. They dealt with any deficiencies in the captured fuels in the same way as other nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 28, 2021)

Glider said:


> What tosh. Germany used synthetic fuel because they didn't have reliable access to enough fuel, so they made their own at exceptional cost both in financial terms and resources. One outcome was that they never had enough high octane fuel, the Luftwaffe couldn't use C4 fuel for all their missions simply because they couldn't get enough of it.
> *Note* - this has been mentioned before
> 
> A small aside, after the battle for France they used captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel.


Army and KM used crude and synthetic oil.
LW used for its aircraft almost exclusively synthetic oil.
Why was it not the opposite ?= LW using crude and synthetic oil and the army and KM only synthetic oil ?
A possible reason is that the engines of the new LW aircraft demanded synthetic oil and were unfit for high octane fuel .
In 1941 Germany produced/imported 8,5 million ton of oil of which 4,1 million ton synthetic oil .
The military consumed only 4,6 million ton ,of which 1,3 million ton for the LW .
That means that there was a surplus, also for the LW ;they made the choice of not to use high octane fuel, because they did not need it and because the engines of their aircraft could not handle the high octane fuel .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 28, 2021)

ljadw said:


> In 1941 Germany produced/imported 8,5 million ton of oil of which 4,1 million ton synthetic oil .
> The military consumed only 4,6 million ton ,of which 1,3 million ton for the LW .
> That means that there was a surplus [...]



Does this take into account nonmilitary usage? And where are these numbers from?


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 28, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

re "A possible reason is that the engines of the new LW aircraft demanded synthetic oil and were unfit for high octane fuel ."

No. Physics/Chemistry/Engineering/History say no.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 28, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Why was it not the opposite ?= LW using crude and synthetic oil and the army and KM only synthetic oil ?
> A possible reason is that the engines of the new LW aircraft demanded synthetic oil and were unfit for high octane fuel .


I've got to hand it to you, you certainly have an active imagination, even if seriously deficient in factual knowledge. As has already been stated here repeatedly, the LW aircraft required high octane fuel, which is hard to make from low quality crude, and they didn't have access to anywhere near enough of the good crude, so they had to resort to synthetic (at great cost). Today's synthetic lubricating oils, which can significantly extend the life of an engine, are a far cry from the marginal stuff the Germans cranked out in the war. They needed volume at the expense of quality. Never enough of the stuff.
You've got a lot of studying to do.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Does this take into account nonmilitary usage? And where are these numbers from?


Total production/import in 1941 was 8,485 million ton .
Total consumption was 7,305 million .
Military consumption was 4,567 million .
Consumption of avgas was 1,274 million .
Source for total production and import and for avgas consumption is : ww2-weapons.com/military-expenditures-strategic-raw-materials-oil-production.
I lost the source for the part of the military consumption of total consumption, but it was in 
1940 51 %
1941 62,5 %
1942 and 1943 68 % 
Also from ww2 weapons :
production /consumption of avgas
1940 : production : 966000/ consumption : 863000
1941 : production : 910000 /consumption : 1274000
1942 : 1472000 and 1426000
1943 : 1977000 and 1826000
1944 : 1105000 and 1403000


----------



## ljadw (Jun 28, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I've got to hand it to you, you certainly have an active imagination, even if seriously deficient in factual knowledge. As has already been stated here repeatedly, the LW aircraft required high octane fuel, which is hard to make from low quality crude, and they didn't have access to anywhere near enough of the good crude, so they had to resort to synthetic (at great cost). Today's synthetic lubricating oils, which can significantly extend the life of an engine, are a far cry from the marginal stuff the Germans cranked out in the war. They needed volume at the expense of quality. Never enough of the stuff.
> You've got a lot of studying to do.


And before the war, the same LW aircraft that, following you required high octane fuel,used almost no synthetic fuel (the production of synthetic was very low before the war ) but only low quality crude . 
And the question remains unanswered : WHY did the LW replace during the oil crude by synthetic ?
If before the war they could do with crude, why did they abandon crude during the war ?


----------



## Graeme (Jun 28, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If before the war they could do with crude, why did they abandon crude during the war ?







Cause they had none after '43?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 28, 2021)

Graeme said:


> View attachment 630138
> 
> 
> Cause they had none after '43?
> ...


I would be carefull with that table.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Army and KM used crude and synthetic oil.
> LW used for its aircraft almost exclusively synthetic oil.
> Why was it not the opposite ?= LW using crude and synthetic oil and the army and KM only synthetic oil ?
> A possible reason is that the engines of the new LW aircraft demanded synthetic oil and were unfit for high octane fuel .
> ...


I can only echo what I and others have said in that you need to research before making replies that only emphasise what an imagination you have.

Aviation need to have fuel that is consistent in quality and a higher octane than most. If you have to go down the synthetic route then you you have one process that supplies your needs.

Re _*A possible reason is that the engines of the new LW aircraft demanded synthetic oil and were unfit for high octane fuel.*_ I am not going to do your research for you, and will let you do it yourself. However you seem to need a clue so I suggest you look up the fuel requirements of the later versions of the 109 and 190 and see what fuel is needed, then let us know what you find out.

Re _*The military consumed only 4,6 million ton ,of which 1,3 million ton for the LW . That means that there was a surplus.*_ Ask yourself what was needed to run the German economy, do some research and let us know what the surplus is.

Re *They made the choice of not to use high octane fuel, because they did not need it and because the engines of their aircraft could not handle the high octane fuel*. This is a classic example of you having been given the information form more than one person. Totally either ignoring and/or not taking it on board and making a comment that does you no favours. In this case ask yourself the following question.
*Question* - If the engines of their aircraft couldn't handle the high octane fuel How did the Luftwaffe use the captured RAF stocks of 100 octane fuel in their Me109 and Me110 fighters.

I and no doubt a lot of other people, await your answers to the points raised above with some interest.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2021)

ljadw said:


> A possible reason is that the engines of the new LW aircraft demanded synthetic oil and were unfit for high octane fuel .


We may be having a translation problem here.

You can almost always use higher octane fuel than an engine _requires_. With leaded fuel that can lead to lead fouling of the spark plugs but for short range fighters that means 5-10 flights before the plugs even need to be pulled for inspection. 

There was no special property that synthetic _feed stock _(the stuff you start turning into finished product) has over natural feed stock (crude oil).

You seem to fishing for reasons. 

Allied and German fuel varied enormously in the amount of aromatic compounds. 
The Americans started with 2% or under for 100 octane fuel.
The British started with not less than 20% for 100 octane. 
The Germans at times used up to 40% for 96 octane. 

ALL aviation fuel was blends of different compounds and additives. There were hundreds of possible combinations that could get to the pretty much the same end result. 
The Germans tended to use high cylinder compression for better economy in the V-12s while the allies used higher boost. 
The Germans tended not run their engines as rich as the allies did at max power. This affects both economy and cooling. P-47s were famous for leaving black smoke trails on take off they were running so rich as they were using some of the excess fuel as coolant. 

This is a complicated subject that has few good commonly available sources. 

The Germans would have loved to use higher octane fuel, the problem was making it with resources they had available. As an example toluene is a good additive to gasoline to raise the octane rating. You can get toluene from natural crude, you can also synthesize it. Unfortunately it is also a prime ingredient in TNT. Germans invented TNT (?) so they new about it and how to make it. Question is can they make enough or do they need to use something else in the Av gas or do they use us a little toluene and then something else? 

The whole supply thing is very complicated and cannot be reduced to a few sentences and/or paragraphs.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 28, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And before the war, the same LW aircraft that, following you required high octane fuel,used almost no synthetic fuel (the production of synthetic was very low before the war ) but only low quality crude .
> And the question remains unanswered : WHY did the LW replace during the oil crude by synthetic ?
> If before the war they could do with crude, why did they abandon crude during the war ?


Simple answer; before the war began Germany was not subject to blockade and could buy higher quality foreign oil. Also, the aircraft in use in 1939 didn't require as high an octane fuel as they did in 1943-44. As all the warring nations continued to try to wring more horsepower out of their engines, their octane requirements continued to rise.
Meanwhile, Germany's access to high quality crude declined, necessitating more (expensive) synthetic production.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 28, 2021)

I stand by my earlier comment that it was the Battle of the Atlantic. Supplies from the Americas were critical to Britain, which was not self-sufficient in food, fuel, or raw materials, and very important to the USSR, which relied heavily on US-built aircraft and trucks. 

If the Battle of the Atlantic were to be lost, Britain falls. The USSR may have managed, but I suspect it would be forced to a negotiated peace, one even worse than Brest-Litovsk (which made Versailles seem kind and generous in comparison).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 28, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> I stand by my earlier comment that it was the Battle of the Atlantic. Supplies from the Americas were critical to Britain, which was not self-sufficient in food, fuel, or raw materials, and very important to the USSR, which relied heavily on US-built aircraft and trucks.
> 
> If the Battle of the Atlantic were to be lost, Britain falls. The USSR may have managed, but I suspect it would be forced to a negotiated peace, one even worse than Brest-Litovsk (which made Versailles seem kind and generous in comparison).



I'm not sure I agree with your statement that Britain would fall if the Battle of the Atlantic was lost. Certainly, the extent of war operations would be somewhat curtailed....but I'm not convinced that it would knock Britain out of the war. For example, it would be interesting to know how much food was coming from the US vs other parts of the British Empire. For example, Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa all provided considerable agricultural produce to Britain during WW2...and, while it did transit the Atlantic for a portion of the journey, it was generally closer to Allied territory and hence could be better protected than ships on the US-UK route.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2021)

Shipping coming from the south (Med. or South Africa) also had to pass the gauntlet of the Bay of Biscay.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Shipping coming from the south (Med. or South Africa) also had to pass the gauntlet of the Bay of Biscay.



Yes...but that wasn't the Battle of the Atlantic, at least not how it's typically understood. And the UK was receiving imports from across the Empire throughout the war...so it's not like the Bay of Biscay wasn't already a threat that had to be dealt with.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 28, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your statement that Britain would fall if the Battle of the Atlantic was lost. Certainly, the extent of war operations would be somewhat curtailed....but I'm not convinced that it would knock Britain out of the war. For example, it would be interesting to know how much food was coming from the US vs other parts of the British Empire. For example, Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa all provided considerable agricultural produce to Britain during WW2...and, while it did transit the Atlantic for a portion of the journey, it was generally closer to Allied territory and hence could be better protected than ships on the US-UK route.



This is certainly true, but North America was still very important for manufactured goods. Of course, I don't think Germany could have won the Battle of the Atlantic unless some ass like Lindbergh was elected president.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 28, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> They still have to get there by sea, much of it through the Atlantic.



I've asked before what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" actually means, and the chain of events that would enable it. I'm still awaiting a response. 

Even at the height of the U-boat threat, Germany didn't have enough subs to strangle Britain. Seems like you're proposing a scenario where Germany has enough subs to cut the trans-Atlantic traffic from the US AND cut other supplies from the British Empire.

Please explain any scenario under which that was remotely possible.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 28, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I've asked before what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" actually means, and the chain of events that would enable it. I'm still awaiting a response.
> 
> Even at the height of the U-boat threat, Germany didn't have enough subs to strangle Britain. Seems like you're proposing a scenario where Germany has enough subs to cut the trans-Atlantic traffic from the US AND cut other supplies from the British Empire.
> 
> Please explain any scenario under which that was remotely possible.


I don’t think there is one unless the US is led by someone who is actively pro-German, like Lindbergh or the other members of organizations like America First. I also don’t think they had a chance of winning, but the idiocies of the electoral college does mean a person can be elected president with less than 30% of the national population _popular vote _in a two-person race. Once the US became neutral but leaning towards the UK, Hitler’s best course would have been to sue for peace and blow his little brains out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 28, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Once the US became neutral but leaning towards the UK, Hitler’s best course would have been to sue for peace and blow his little brains out.



And, in so doing, do the entire world a HUGE favour. Entirely agree!

Your other point about US leadership probably is the key part of the problem. A few other contributors to this thread have mentioned how unlikely that was.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 28, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> This is certainly true, but North America was still very important for manufactured goods. Of course, I don't think Germany could have won the Battle of the Atlantic unless some ass like Lindbergh was elected president.



Yes, the US was an important source of manufactured goods for the UK. However, if there was a pro-German leader in the White House, then the US wouldn't be supplying anything to the UK, so the Battle of the Atlantic never happens...unless it's in reverse with the Royal Navy trying to interdict American shipments to Nazi Germany. Now there's a "what if" scenario!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 29, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I've asked before what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" actually means, and the chain of events that would enable it. I'm still awaiting a response.
> 
> Even at the height of the U-boat threat, Germany didn't have enough subs to strangle Britain. Seems like you're proposing a scenario where Germany has enough subs to cut the trans-Atlantic traffic from the US AND cut other supplies from the British Empire.
> 
> Please explain any scenario under which that was remotely possible.


More U boats did not result in more sinkings : the Germans had more U Boats in 1941 than in 1940 ,but the MV losses were lower .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> More U boats did not result in more sinkings : the Germans had more U Boats in 1941 than in 1940 ,but the MV losses were lower .


Shhhhhh...

Grownups are having a discussion .
If we want to hear from you, we'll let you know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2021)

Responsible moderator mode: ON

Everyone take a deep breath. Relax. Debate responsibly.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 29, 2021)

Glider said:


> What tosh. Germany used synthetic fuel because they didn't have reliable access to enough fuel, so they made their own at exceptional cost both in financial terms and resources. One outcome was that they never had enough high octane fuel, the Luftwaffe couldn't use C4 fuel for all their missions simply because they couldn't get enough of it.
> *Note* - this has been mentioned before
> 
> A small aside, after the battle for France they used captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel.


From forums-Ubisoft. com
High octane fuel in Britain in WW 2
Post 3 :
Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies .
Post 4 :
A misconception about octane rating in fuel is that the higher the octane,the better an engine will run .


You are giving high octane fuel an importance it did not have .
The German fighters who following you used only low octane fuel,defeated the USAAF at Schweinfurt and BC at the air battle of Berlin .
Would the outcome of the Big Week be different if the Germans had used high octane fuel ?
Would the USAAF have suffered more non combat losses if it did not use high octane ? In the OTL,the USAAF lost 42000 aircraft from non combat causes and a very big part of the operational losses in Europe (which were 38000 aircraft ) were caused by the Flak . Would the Flak have shot more aircraft if these used low octane fuel ?
That the LW used (when ? ) captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel does not mean that the reason was that it was 100 octane fuel .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From forums-Ubisoft. com
> High octane fuel in Britain in WW 2
> Post 3 :
> Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies .
> ...


This reply literally makes no sense.
If the RAF's fuel was 100 octane, it will not change when the Germans used it...it remains 100 octane.

Also, American engines were designed to operate on high octane fuel, the P-38 captured by the Italians was eventually grounded because they were operating it on low grade fuel, which destroyed the engines.

German aircraft typically used three grades of fuel, 87 octane being their base.


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 29, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

re "That the LW used (when ? ) captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel does not mean that the reason was that it was 100 octane fuel ."

The reason they used it was not because it was 100 octane fuel, but the fact that they could use it means that the Luftwaffe engines did not need synthetic fuel.

re ". . . (when ? ) . . ."

France, Tobruk, Crete, and others that I do not remember right now (sorry).


----------



## ljadw (Jun 29, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> This reply literally makes no sense.
> If the RAF's fuel was 100 octane, it will not change when the Germans used it...it remains 100 octane.
> 
> Also, American engines were designed to operate on high octane fuel, the P-38 captured by the Italians was eventually grounded because they were operating it on low grade fuel, which destroyed the engines.
> ...





GrauGeist said:


> This reply literally makes no sense.
> If the RAF's fuel was 100 octane, it will not change when the Germans used it...it remains 100 octane.
> 
> Also, American engines were designed to operate on high octane fuel, the P-38 captured by the Italians was eventually grounded because they were operating it on low grade fuel, which destroyed the engines.
> ...


The conclusion of post 3 was the conclusion of an US report after the war : 
Technical report 145/45 :Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany .
And the poster also said that the use of 100 octane/87 octane as a proof that US fuel was ''better '' is very questionable,as US and Germany used different qualifications and that these numbers had thus different meanings : US used rich mix numbers, Germany lean mix numbers .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And the poster also said that the use of 100 octane/87 octane as a proof that US fuel was ''better '' is very questionable,as US and Germany used different qualifications and that these numbers had thus different meanings : US used rich mix numbers, Germany lean mix numbers .


You cannot use other forums as a reference, otherwise RADAR playing no part in the BoB becomes a fact. "!00 Octane" is not fuel from USA, it is a rating for fuel, it wasnt owned in any way by the USA, and the British not only made it themselves in UK but imported it from many other places that were not in the USA. 
Octane is a hydrocarbon and an alkane with the chemical formula C₈H₁₈,, the "Octane rating" is a scale based on equivalence to Octane in resisting pre ignition.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From forums-Ubisoft. com
> 
> .


Are you really using a computer game forum as your reference?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From forums-Ubisoft. com
> High octane fuel in Britain in WW 2
> Post 3 :
> Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies .
> ...


Yes, in fact a Merlin powered P-51 using 87 octane fuel would probably not get in the air with 2 x 100gal external tanks and its additional internal fuel tank. The Hurricane and Spitfire needed the higher boost and therefore higher octane fuel to compete with the Bf 109 because the Bf 109 had a bigger engine. The Hurricane would not be able to compete with a Bf109 on 87 octane in France or Battle of Britain. Higher boost pressure allow higher altitude so, higher octane fuel reduces flak losses too


----------



## ljadw (Jun 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you really using a computer game forum as your reference?


Is the report : Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany reliable or not ? And, is its conclusion right or wrong ?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Is the report : Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany reliable or not ? And, is its conclusion right or wrong ?


Your conclusion certainly is, look up the swept volume of the engines used by UK Germany and USA.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 29, 2021)

The report (from the US Navy ) is very detailed and is available on the internet .
The report said that the German C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the 130 US grade gasoline .
Is this correct or not ?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The report (from the US Navy ) is very detailed and is available on the internet .
> The report said that the German C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the 130 US grade gasoline .
> Is this correct or not ?


The reports are what they are, the problem, as ever, is the conclusions you draw from them, which are sweeping supposedly universal truths extrapolated from a small factoid that ignores absolutely everything else.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The report (from the US Navy ) is very detailed and is available on the internet .
> The report said that the German C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the 130 US grade gasoline .
> Is this correct or not ?


It is and it isn't.

and again please use the correct designations for fuel in technical discussions. There was NO 130 grade fuel, there was 100/130. 
the 100 number is the rating wen running lean and the 130 is when running rich. 
The German C-3 fuel changed a number of times during the war but they never changed the rating number. Pretty much because they only used the lean number even though the fuel's rich response changed. 
Just changing the fuel alone does not change the power of the engine. To use the Merlin as an example on 87 octane it could only use 6lbs of boost, with early 100 octane (British, and their was no 2nd number at this time, ie BOB)allowed 12lbs boost, latter Merlin were slightly strengthened and were allowed 15lbs of boost, with 100/130 fuel they had to strengthen the supercharger drive to keep it from failing when they tried to use 18lbs of boost. 

Germans had other problems, they were melting/holing pistons in the DB 605 engines in 1942 using 1.42 ATA (a bit over 6lbs boost). doesn't really matter what kind of fuel you stick in the engine, you need better pistons or improved cooling of the pistons. 

The BMW 801 required C-3 fuel to make the required power, the 87 octane wasn't going to give you competitive airplanes. The Germans couldn't make enough C-3 and the DB and Junkers engines didn't get for quite some time except for some DB 601N engines in 1940-41 before the supply crunch hit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From forums-Ubisoft. com
> High octane fuel in Britain in WW 2
> Post 3 :
> Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies .
> ...


We all know one prolific poster on the Ubisoft site who will convince people that the RAF didn't use 100 octane in the BOB, so take care when quoting from that site.

Re - Post 3 :
*Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies*
A couple of points
1) Germany never had enough high octane fuel for its needs. Did you do the research I suggested over the engines used in late versions of the 109 and 190 and the fuels they need?
2) If the fuel when available was equal to the Allied fuel towards the end of the war, It says something about the rest of the war doesn't it?

Re - Post 4 :
*A misconception about octane rating in fuel is that the higher the octane, the better an engine will run*.
It certainly gives you the potential. I refer you to the earlier posts which showed that the power of the Merlin increased from 1,030 hp to 1,300 hp when the fuel was changed from 87 to 100 Octane.
You are allowed your own opinion but I am confident that my Octavia would have a higher performance with 195hp instead of the 150hp it currently has.

*The German fighters who following you used only low octane fuel,defeated the USAAF at Schweinfurt and BC at the air battle of Berlin .
Would the outcome of the Big Week be different if the Germans had used high octane fuel ?*
Bombers tend to cruise at around 200mph - 200mph so fighters don't need the extra performance to catch them, unless your trying to catch a Mosquito.

*Would the USAAF have suffered more non combat losses if it did not use high octane ? In the OTL,the USAAF lost 42000 aircraft from non combat causes and a very big part of the operational losses in Europe (which were 38000 aircraft ) were caused by the Flak . Would the Flak have shot more aircraft if these used low octane fuel ?*
Probably yes as they would have found it difficult or even impossible to fly at the higher altitudes and the lower you are the more vulnerable you are

*That the LW used (when ? ) captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel does not mean that the reason was that it was 100 octane fuel *.
Towards the end of the BOB the Germans used captured RAF stocks of 100 octane. You can tell as they had a marker by the fuel caps to indicate that only 100 octane fuel should be used. I think it was a red triangle.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 30, 2021)

The German fighters ,using low octane fuel,defeated allied bombers , and, as that was their main mission ( the fate of allied fighters was secondary ,as was the fate of German fighters in 1940/1941 ), is the correct conclusion not that the use of high octane fuel was not a force multiplier,not a game changer, and that the LW would also be defeated if it had used high octane fuel ?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The German fighters ,using low octane fuel,defeated allied bombers , and, as that was their main mission ( the fate of allied fighters was secondary ,as was the fate of German fighters in 1940/1941 ), is the correct conclusion not that the use of high octane fuel was not a force multiplier,not a game changer, and that the LW would also be defeated if it had used high octane fuel ?



How did the LW fighters defeat Allied bombers? I thought we won the war? Am I mistaken?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 30, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> This is certainly true, but North America was still very important for manufactured goods. Of course, I don't think Germany could have won the Battle of the Atlantic unless some ass like Lindbergh was elected president.


After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.
And,it is questionable to say that the election of Lindbergh would result in the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic : his election could mean that there was no longer a ''Battle " of the Atlantic .
Much to importance is still been given to the role of the U Boats and the losses by U Boats .
In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
In 1941 there were mostly more than 40 operational U Boats and the losses were 2,2 million GRT .
It is the same for bombers : more bombers does not mean that more bombs were dropped on the targets .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 30, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Shhhhhh...
> 
> Grownups are having a discussion .
> If we want to hear from you, we'll let you know.


See post 1506 .


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> See post 1506 .


We have seen it, give us a moment, we're still laughing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.
> And,it is questionable to say that the election of Lindbergh would result in the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic : his election could mean that there was no longer a ''Battle " of the Atlantic .
> Much to importance is still been given to the role of the U Boats and the losses by U Boats .
> In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
> ...



People are talking about the ramifications of the hypothetical loss of the Battle of the Atlantic. In any case, had Lindbergh (or someone else of that ilk) been elected, there would still have been a Battle of the Atlantic as its existence depended only on actions by the then-belligerent powers.

One thing to remember is that British actions, such as convoy, significantly reduced the effectiveness of U-boats (and Italian submarines in the Atlantic); the RN had dealt with a U-boat campaign a few years earlier, and found convoy to be quite effective[1]. A second to remember is that the Battle of the Atlantic involved more axis powers than Germany.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
> In 1941 there were mostly more than 40 operational U Boats and the losses were 2,2 million GRT .


Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but the Kreigsmarine had far more than 20 operational U-Boats in 1940 and so on.
You may be misreading their operational status, which showed about 40 at sea when WWII staryed on 1 September 1939.
There was a slight lull by Christmas '39 where most boats were in port, but their numbers (put to sea) started increasing during winter/spring of '40, reaching about 35 at sea by April.
Then by Spring of 1941, their numbers at sea *did not drop under 40 deployed* until 29 April 1945.
It should also be noted that the U-Boat numbers deployed at sea do not include the Coastal type U-Boats, as they were not sea-going.
As far as tonnage is concerned, the U-Boats accounted for:
1939 (Sept - Dec): 0.6 million tons
1940: 2.3 million tons
1941: 2.2 million tons
1942: 5.8 million tons
1943: 2.3 million tons
1944: 0.6 million tons
1945 (Jan - Apr) 0.2 million tons

This totals 14 million tons.

That is a tremendous amount of valuable shipping lost.

To put tonnage in perspective, the IJN Yamato, one of the world's largest warships, weighed 71,660 tons (fully loaded, battle ready).

That's a.considerable amount of food, clothing, vehicles, ammunition, fuel, aircraft, raw materials and humans that were lost...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.
> And,it is questionable to say that the election of Lindbergh would result in the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic : his election could mean that there was no longer a ''Battle " of the Atlantic .
> Much to importance is still been given to the role of the U Boats and the losses by U Boats .
> In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
> ...


I certainly agree that this is only my opinion, but here is my stab at a definition. 

The Battle of the Atlantic would be lost if the UK were not able to import sufficient material to feed the nation and supply the raw materials to build equipment to support the war effort.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.
> And,it is questionable to say that the election of Lindbergh would result in the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic : his election could mean that there was no longer a ''Battle " of the Atlantic .
> Much to importance is still been given to the role of the U Boats and the losses by U Boats .
> In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
> ...


The battle of the Atlantic would be lost if it forced the UK to give up due to fuel and material and food shortages, Churchill faced two confidence motions in 1942 and the battle of the Atlantic was part of the debate Churchill said on July 2nd "_At the same time, in spite of our losses in Asia, in spite of our defeats in Libya, in spite of the increased sinkings off the American coast, I affirm with confidence that the general strength and prospects of the United Nations have greatly improved since the turn of the year, when I last visited the President in the United States."_

I have never seen any discussion of the Battle of the Atlantic that only mentioned U Boat numbers and U boat sinkings, have you? All the discussion I have read involved many topics, like u boat numbers, u boat production, allied action to prevent U boat production and to sink u boats. There is code breaking, the entry of USA in the war, closing the "Atlantic gap" centimetric RADAR, advances in SONAR, hedgehog and other devices and counter devices like schnorkel and Metox receivers. Then there were the surface raiders and actions against surface raiders. The only thing that is the same for bombers is that you want to boil everything down to a statement of a few words to cover everything. Here is Wiki, a place to start Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia


----------



## ljadw (Jun 30, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but the Kreigsmarine had far more than 20 operational U-Boats in 1940 and so on.
> You may be misreading their operational status, which showed about 40 at sea when WWII staryed on 1 September 1939.
> There was a slight lull by Christmas '39 where most boats were in port, but their numbers (put to sea) started increasing during winter/spring of '40, reaching about 35 at sea by April.
> Then by Spring of 1941, their numbers at sea *did not drop under 40 deployed* until 29 April 1945.
> ...


14 million ton lost in more than 5 years is a lot , but compared to what arrived in Britain and to the importance of what arrived in Britain, it was not that much .Much more than 14 million ton arrived in Britain during the war .
About the losses of the MV (Source : U Boat net ) : 561 MV were lost in 1940,and 501 in 1941,which is 10 a week,while on the average every week more than 40 U Boats were sailing in the Atlantic . This means that an U Boat had a chance of 0,25 % to sink a MV every week and that most U Boats never sunk a MV .
The U Boats sunk 2,3 million ton in 1943,while there were in March 1943 400 U Boats ,of which 182 were stationed in the Atlantic ( Source : Hitler,s War P 190 ,by Magenheimer ) who sunk weekly 40000 ton .
And there were no 182 U Boats in the Atlantic in 1940/1941 , which proves my point that more U Boats does not result in more sinkings of MV, but maybe in more losses of U Boats .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 30, 2021)

Am I the only one who has the advertisement for the Groundhog Day movie popping up every time I visit this thread?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The battle of the Atlantic would be lost if it forced the UK to give up due to fuel and material and food shortages, Churchill faced two confidence motions in 1942 and the battle of the Atlantic was part of the debate Churchill said on July 2nd "_At the same time, in spite of our losses in Asia, in spite of our defeats in Libya, in spite of the increased sinkings off the American coast, I affirm with confidence that the general strength and prospects of the United Nations have greatly improved since the turn of the year, when I last visited the President in the United States."_
> 
> I have never seen any discussion of the Battle of the Atlantic that only mentioned U Boat numbers and U boat sinkings, have you? All the discussion I have read involved many topics, like u boat numbers, u boat production, allied action to prevent U boat production and to sink u boats. There is code breaking, the entry of USA in the war, closing the "Atlantic gap" centimetric RADAR, advances in SONAR, hedgehog and other devices and counter devices like schnorkel and Metox receivers. Then there were the surface raiders and actions against surface raiders. The only thing that is the same for bombers is that you want to boil everything down to a statement of a few words to cover everything. Here is Wiki, a place to start Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia


You forget "CHANCE '
Most convoys were not attacked because they were not detected and most convoys who were detected,were detected by chance .
And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap .
Other point : do you have an idea of how much fuel,material an d food Britain needed and how much of it was transported by sea,was arriving in Britain, and why ?
The transport losses had only a minor importance in what arrived in Britain : what arrived in Britain was mainly determined by the amount of goods that was going to Britain and on this,the U Boats had no influence at all .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You forget "CHANCE '
> Most convoys were not attacked because they were not detected and most convoys who were detected,were detected by chance .
> And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap .
> Other point : do you have an idea of how much fuel,material an d food Britain needed and how much of it was transported by sea,was arriving in Britain, and why ?
> The transport losses had only a minor importance in what arrived in Britain : what arrived in Britain was mainly determined by the amount of goods that was going to Britain and on this,the U Boats had no influence at all .


If I put 14 million tons of goods and 3,500 ships in your back yard how long will it take for you to clear it up? What is the "code breaking trap" another one of your madcap fact free revelations?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2021)

Some people believed that the Battle of the Atlantic could be lost if the Germans could sink more shipping (tonnage) than the allies could replace. If the Germans could consistently do this the Britain, if it did not starve, could not be used as a forward base/jumping off point. The amount of cargo moved would decline over time. There already was a world wide shipping shortage and sometimes operations in the Pacific had to planned around operations in the Med or Europe as there was not enough shipping to supply both at the same time. 

The Germans did achieve this level for two months I believe, But for various reasons could not keep it up. however without a Crystal ball there was no way to predict the future and the allocation of resources to fight the U-Boats had to be made accordingly. If you are loosing ships faster than you can build them you can't wave a and and say, this is just a passing exception. If we ignore it everything will return to normal. 

Building ships faster than your opponent can sink them might be OK in the strategic sense but that tis an awful lot of cargo and an awful lot of sailors lost in the "tactical" view.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Some people believed that the Battle of the Atlantic could be lost if the Germans could sink more shipping (tonnage) than the allies could replace. If the Germans could consistently do this the Britain, if it did not starve, could not be used as a forward base/jumping off point. The amount of cargo moved would decline over time. There already was a world wide shipping shortage and sometimes operations in the Pacific had to planned around operations in the Med or Europe as there was not enough shipping to supply both at the same time.
> 
> The Germans did achieve this level for two months I believe, But for various reasons could not keep it up. however without a Crystal ball there was no way to predict the future and the allocation of resources to fight the U-Boats had to be made accordingly. If you are loosing ships faster than you can build them you can't wave a and and say, this is just a passing exception. If we ignore it everything will return to normal.
> 
> Building ships faster than your opponent can sink them might be OK in the strategic sense but that tis an awful lot of cargo and an awful lot of sailors lost in the "tactical" view.


Building ships faster was another technological challenge, development of SAW welding and solving the problems of brittle fracture was part of the "arms race" the place that did my examinations the British welding institute grew out of that on this side of the Atlantic while the Battelle institute in USA did the same.

It is a "what if" but if the Germans had got lucky or just were a bit better and the allies a bit worse resulting in all ships of one or two convoys being sunk, the politics of it all may have changed drastically, would more convoys be mounted?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 30, 2021)

Glider said:


> I certainly agree that this is only my opinion, but here is my stab at a definition.
> 
> The Battle of the Atlantic would be lost if the UK were not able to import sufficient material to feed the nation and supply the raw materials to build equipment to support the war effort.



The problem is quantifying those things. For example, the materiel supplies from America could have been entirely cut off and yet Britain could have continued to fight. Yes, the scale of the war effort would have been reduced. Hence "support the war effort" is hard to define in terms of an absolute win/loss criteria.

The "feed the nation" is perhaps a better measure, although it would take some detailed knowledge to work out what the threshold would be. As it was, despite rationing, the actual health of the British population appears to have increased during WW2. Certainly child mortality rates dropped during the war years. To make this criteria measurable, we'd need to define what "starvation level" meant in terms of feeding the British population, and then determining how close the nation came to it with and without food coming across the Atlantic.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You forget "CHANCE '
> Most convoys were not attacked because they were not detected and most convoys who were detected,were detected by chance .
> And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap .
> Other point : do you have an idea of how much fuel,material an d food Britain needed and how much of it was transported by sea,was arriving in Britain, and why ?
> The transport losses had only a minor importance in what arrived in Britain : what arrived in Britain was mainly determined by the amount of goods that was going to Britain and on this,the U Boats had no influence at all .


Many (not "most) convoys made it through intact becaise the Atlantic is a large place.

Perhaps a few convoys were detected by "chance", but the German Navy and Air force were conducting specific search patterns. This is not called "chance", but "deliberate".

This statement: "_And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap_" appears to come from deep within the conspiracy zone - yes the German Enigma code was broken.

And this is a fascinating comment:
"_what arrived in Britain was mainly determined by the amount of goods that was going to Britain_".

This part, however, appears to be the remark of a person who desires that history changes to their liking and/or refuses to accept the historical truth:
"_the U Boats had no influence at all_"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> "_the U Boats had no influence at all_"



British and Americans sure spent a lot of time, money, effort and lives fighting something that had no influence. 

How many escort destroyers, Frigates, corvettes and other escorts?
How much time spent developing better asdic/sonar?
How much time spent on radar for smaller ships?
How much time spent on better anti sub weapons?

and that is just the surface ships. 
go through the list again for aircraft engaged in anti sub work.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 30, 2021)

Sometime shortly before the shooting started, Doenitz told Hitler that he would need ~300 submarines to win the war. The idea was that he needed somewhere around 80-100 submarines active (ie on the hunt) in the Atlantic at any given time. He said that if he had these he could prevent the US from supplying England, and accomplish what they had failed to do in WWI.

While there is no real way to say if this would have worked historically, I have to believe the increase in losses would have been enormous even in relative terms to what the actual historical losses were.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> British and Americans sure spent a lot of time, money, effort and lives fighting something that had no influence.
> 
> How many escort destroyers, Frigates, corvettes and other escorts?
> How much time spent developing better asdic/sonar?
> ...


Don't forget the USN's K-Ships, too.

But in the end, since there was no U-Boat threat according to "some people", I guess ASW stands for "A Solid Waste"...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

JohnnyRackham said:


> The lack of fighter range was suicidal- it should have been easily foreseen and drop tanks developed prior to it.



It's a widely held myth that this might have tipped the balance and enabled a LW victory, but it would have made little difference to the outcome, to be honest. The Germans lost because of an overestimation of how well they were doing and an inability to continue because they were not able to replace their losses as fast as Fighter Command could replace theirs. German intelligence was faulty and never really gave them an accurate picture of how they were doing at destroying RAF aircraft and airfields, so they miscalculated when to begin attacking London. Sure, more RAF fighters _might_ have been shot down, but the German heads overestimating their successes wouldn't have changed even with longer-ranged Bf 109s.

By the end of October 1940, the RAF had more fighters than they began the battle with, but the LW had not been able to recuperate their increasing losses to the same degree - they had to replace fighters, bombers, recon aircraft, long-range fighters, and dive bombers and their aircrews, whereas the Brits only had to replace fighters and their pilots. It was a battle of attrition the LW were losing at and having longer-ranged fighters wouldn't have changed that at all. British tactics also nullified the advantages the German fighters had over the British ones, largely their superior numbers and superior altitude. Stats show that Bf 109s shot down more RAF fighters than RAF fighters shot down Bf 109s, but the LW lost a larger number of aircraft all up than the British did. The Brits achieved a higher kill to loss ratio compared to the LW.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> This statement: "_And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap_" appears to come from deep within the conspiracy zone - yes the German Enigma code was broken.


The Germans were breaking the British codes too, it seems that lots of people fell into this code breaking trap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Many (not "most) convoys made it through intact becaise the Atlantic is a large place.
> 
> Perhaps a few convoys were detected by "chance", but the German Navy and Air force were conducting specific search patterns. This is not called "chance", but "deliberate".
> 
> ...


Most convoys were detected, not by U Boats, but by the German B Dienst ( The German Ultra ),which was breaking the code of the RN/USN.
But,the B Dienst could not give a detailed information about the direction of a convoy and of the place where a convoy would be , that's why the B Dienst messages were mostly useless . And, if/when they were precise, than was there still the problem to concentrate a number of aircraft to attack the convoy , and when there were enough U Boats available, there was the problem that they needed to have sufficient fuel and ammunition and if they had sufficient fuel/ammunition, there was the problem of speed :U Boats were slower than fast convoys .The Torch convoys had no losses,because the B Dienst could not tell where they could be found, because there were not enough U Boats with sufficient fuel,ammunition and speed to attack them , NOT because of the information from Ultra .
The result was that in most cases Dönitz could do nothing with the information he received from the B Dienst .
This also means that it was the same for the Ultra messages : Ultra was REACTING on the messages of the B Dienst ,and ,as these messages had only a low threat level, Ultra could do not much .
How many convoys were redirected because of an Ultra warning ? Only a minority .
And how many convoys that were not redirected ,were attacked ? Only a minority .
And, what were the losses of the non redirected convoys that were attacked ? Very low .
A convoy that was not redirected was not doomed and a convoy that was redirected was not saved .
And it is obvious that the amount of goods that left the US for Britain had a very big influence on the amount of goods that reached Britain : if during a month 1 million tons left the US for Britain, not more than 1 million tons could reach Britain even if there were no attacks from the U Boats .
It was the same for NA : in November 1941 the Italians sent 79000 ton of materiel to NA of which 30 000 ton arrived (37 % ) ,in December 1942 they sent 13000 ton of which 6000 arrived ( 47 % ) ,what was better :47 % or 37 % ? It is obvious that 37 % was better ,and if in December 1942,100 % arrived (13000 ) , it is obvious that 37 % was better ,because more was sent in November 1941 .
The U Boats had no possibility at all to starve Britain ,and the mistakes from Dönitz make things even worse for Germany . Mistakes as Drumbeat ....
The U Boats failed in WW 1 ,they were doomed to fail in WW 2 .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The Germans were breaking the British codes too, it seems that lots of people fell into this code breaking trap.


And the results were was meaningless as were the results of the British code breakers .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Most convoys were detected, not by U Boats, but by the German B Dienst ( The German Ultra ),which was breaking the code of the RN/USN.
> But,the B Dienst could not give a detailed information about the direction of a convoy and of the place where a convoy would be , that's why the B Dienst messages were mostly useless . And, if/when they were precise, than was there still the problem to concentrate a number of aircraft to attack the convoy , and when there were enough U Boats available, there was the problem that they needed to have sufficient fuel and ammunition and if they had sufficient fuel/ammunition, there was the problem of speed :U Boats were slower than fast convoys .The Torch convoys had no losses,because the B Dienst could not tell where they could be found, because there were not enough U Boats with sufficient fuel,ammunition and speed to attack them , NOT because of the information from Ultra .
> The result was that in most cases Dönitz could do nothing with the information he received from the B Dienst .
> This also means that it was the same for the Ultra messages : Ultra was REACTING on the messages of the B Dienst ,and ,as these messages had only a low threat level, Ultra could do not much .
> ...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And the results were was meaningless as were the results of the British code breakers .


Why were they meaningless, they were used to direct wolf packs, without the information you need to set up a picket line across the Atlantic and communicate by radio which gives away your position and strength. You just make glib assertions with no basis, then move on to another when challenged.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If I put 14 million tons of goods and 3,500 ships in your back yard how long will it take for you to clear it up? What is the "code breaking trap" another one of your madcap fact free revelations?


At PH ,the British MV fleet was stronger than on September 1 1939 .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> At PH ,the British MV fleet was stronger than on September 1 1939 .


Well it would be wouldnt it, since so many European nations transferred their flags, like Norway for instance, or did you think I didnt know?

The British politician Philip Noel-Baker, Baron Noel-Baker, commented after the war,"The first great defeat for Hitler was the battle of Britain. It was a turning point in history. If we had not had the Norwegian fleet of tankers on our side, we should not have had the aviation spirit to put our Hawker Hurricanes and our Spitfires into the sky. Without the Norwegian merchant fleet, Britain and the allies would have lost the war".[1]​









Nortraship - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The battle of the Atlantic would be lost if it forced the UK to give up due to fuel and material and food shortages, Churchill faced two confidence motions in 1942 and the battle of the Atlantic was part of the debate Churchill said on July 2nd "_At the same time, in spite of our losses in Asia, in spite of our defeats in Libya, in spite of the increased sinkings off the American coast, I affirm with confidence that the general strength and prospects of the United Nations have greatly improved since the turn of the year, when I last visited the President in the United States."_
> 
> I have never seen any discussion of the Battle of the Atlantic that only mentioned U Boat numbers and U boat sinkings, have you? All the discussion I have read involved many topics, like u boat numbers, u boat production, allied action to prevent U boat production and to sink u boats. There is code breaking, the entry of USA in the war, closing the "Atlantic gap" centimetric RADAR, advances in SONAR, hedgehog and other devices and counter devices like schnorkel and Metox receivers. Then there were the surface raiders and actions against surface raiders. The only thing that is the same for bombers is that you want to boil everything down to a statement of a few words to cover everything. Here is Wiki, a place to start Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia


You are repeating the classic Hollywood interpretation : the truth is very simple : the Germans had to prevent the arrival of ships with goods in Britain and the return of ships without goods to the US . To do this ,the FIRST requirement was to know where these ships were : and this was IMPOSSIBLE .
The Allies,OTOH, had NOT to search to find where the U Boats were (this also was IMPOSSIBLE ) and not to sink U Boats ,they had only to prevent the U Boats to sink M/V .
If less,or even no U Boats were lost, that does not mean that more MV would be lost .
And if more U Boats were lost, that does not mean that less MV would be lost .
There was no causal relation between both .
U Boats and M/V were mostly lost by chance .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are repeating the classic Hollywood interpretation : the truth is very simple : the Germans had to prevent the arrival of ships with goods in Britain and the return of ships without goods to the US . To do this ,the FIRST requirement was to know where these ships were : and this was IMPOSSIBLE .
> The Allies,OTOH, had NOT to search to find where the U Boats were (this also was IMPOSSIBLE ) and not to sink U Boats ,they had only to prevent the U Boats to sink M/V .
> If less,or even no U Boats were lost, that does not mean that more MV would be lost .
> And if more U Boats were lost, that does not mean that less MV would be lost .
> ...


If the USA and Britain and Commonwealth had maintained their military as they were at the start of the war Sept 39 for UK and Dec 41 for USA then the Germans would have starved the UK. Germany had no chance of prevailing in a fight of industry and technology but that doesnt mean no chance especially since you maintain almost everything the allies did had no effect. What means to sink U Boats did the British have on Sept 3rd 1939?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Well it would be wouldnt it, since so many European nations transferred their flags, like Norway for instance, or did you think I didnt know?
> 
> The British politician Philip Noel-Baker, Baron Noel-Baker, commented after the war,"The first great defeat for Hitler was the battle of Britain. It was a turning point in history. If we had not had the Norwegian fleet of tankers on our side, we should not have had the aviation spirit to put our Hawker Hurricanes and our Spitfires into the sky. Without the Norwegian merchant fleet, Britain and the allies would have lost the war".[1]​
> 
> ...


That I didn’t know before. Ships of the “free” navies got a lot more press. Great thread!
The warships, that is.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are repeating the classic Hollywood interpretation : the truth is very simple : the Germans had to prevent the arrival of ships with goods in Britain and the return of ships without goods to the US . To do this ,the FIRST requirement was to know where these ships were : and this was IMPOSSIBLE .
> The Allies,OTOH, had NOT to search to find where the U Boats were (this also was IMPOSSIBLE ) and not to sink U Boats ,they had only to prevent the U Boats to sink M/V .
> If less,or even no U Boats were lost, that does not mean that more MV would be lost .
> And if more U Boats were lost, that does not mean that less MV would be lost .
> ...


*Bletchley Park*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You are repeating the classic Hollywood interpretation : the truth is very simple : the Germans had to prevent the arrival of ships with goods in Britain and the return of ships without goods to the US . To do this ,the FIRST requirement was to know where these ships were : and this was IMPOSSIBLE .
> The Allies,OTOH, had NOT to search to find where the U Boats were (this also was IMPOSSIBLE ) and not to sink U Boats ,they had only to prevent the U Boats to sink M/V .
> If less,or even no U Boats were lost, that does not mean that more MV would be lost .
> And if more U Boats were lost, that does not mean that less MV would be lost .
> ...


The ACTUAL truth is straightforward:
This thing called "shipping lanes" meant that locating "MV" (real world word is "shipping") was not difficult, the problem was determining WHEN, not where.
The Luftwaffe used long range aircraft (Fw200, Bv222, Bv138 etc.) to locate the convoys and either radioed the location of the convoy(s) to the Kreigsmarine or attacked (if it was able/armed and/or a smaller, less defended convoy).

Try as you might, both with fractured facts and creative, baseless facts, you cannot change history.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> That I didn’t know before. Ships of the “free” navies got a lot more press. Great thread!
> The warships, that is.


Unless you read into things in detail it isnt obvious. Most discussion just mentions tons lost in a convoy or a year, not who owned the vessels. The Norwegian fleet was massive in comparison to the size of Norway and its trade and also had a large percentage of tankers and newer diesel types.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Unless you read into things in detail it isnt obvious. Most discussion just mentions tons lost in a convoy or a year, not who owned the vessels. The Norwegian fleet was massive in comparison to the size of Norway and its trade and also had a large percentage of tankers and newer diesel types.


Dont forget the dutch merchant ships.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> Dont forget the dutch merchant ships.


I wasnt/havnt (mentioned as European nations transferred flags) I have been trying to find a link, do you have one? There was also German assets that were confiscated too, like the MV Windrush.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The ACTUAL truth is straightforward:
> This thing called "shipping lanes" meant that locating "MV" (real world word is "shipping") was not difficult, the problem was determining WHEN, not where.
> The Luftwaffe used long range aircraft (Fw200, Bv222, Bv138 etc.) to locate the convoys and either radioed the location of the convoy(s) to the Kreigsmarine or attacked (if it was able/armed and/or a smaller, less defended convoy).
> 
> Try as you might, both with fractured facts and creative, baseless facts, you cannot change history.


I think he’s doing great at it!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
 1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It's a widely held myth that this might have tipped the balance and enabled a LW victory, but it would have made little difference to the outcome, to be honest. The Germans lost because of an overestimation of how well they were doing and an inability to continue because they were not able to replace their losses as fast as Fighter Command could replace theirs. German intelligence was faulty and never really gave them an accurate picture of how they were doing at destroying RAF aircraft and airfields, so they miscalculated when to begin attacking London. Sure, more RAF fighters _might_ have been shot down, but the German heads overestimating their successes wouldn't have changed even with longer-ranged Bf 109s.
> 
> *By the end of October 1940, the RAF had more fighters than they began the battle with, but the LW had not been able to recuperate their increasing losses to the same degree - they had to replace fighters, bombers, recon aircraft, long-range fighters, and dive bombers and their aircrews, whereas the Brits only had to replace fighters and their pilots. *It was a battle of attrition the LW were losing at and having longer-ranged fighters wouldn't have changed that at all. British tactics also nullified the advantages the German fighters had over the British ones, largely their superior numbers and superior altitude. Stats show that Bf 109s shot down more RAF fighters than RAF fighters shot down Bf 109s, but the LW lost a larger number of aircraft all up than the British did. The Brits achieved a higher kill to loss ratio compared to the LW.


In principle correct, however from June to December bomber command lost 330 aircraft and 1,400 aircrew. Only the loss of aircrew was significant, just as the UK had ramped up fighter production, it ramped up bomber production with new types on the way and older types phased out. The LW as a bomber force was at its peak before the invasion of France. After the BoB the needs of many areas found that the Ju88 was the answer, and the He111 and Do 17 couldnt survive long after Barbarossa ground to a halt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You forget "CHANCE '
> Most convoys were not attacked because they were not detected and most convoys who were detected,were detected by chance .
> And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap .



David Kahn's _Seizing the Enigma_ is an excellent read on how the Allies used SIGINT to combat U-boat depredations. The victory in the Atlantic, mainly accomplished by summer of 1943, was not a matter of "chance". It was a matter of devoted investigation, as well as using aircraft (both land-based and shipborne) to close the Mid-Atlantic gap, and the simple hardy bravery of merchantmen sailing under various flags straight into an arena where not only subs were aiming at you, but often nature itself was hostile.

Link is here for anyone interested in reading his book, which focuses on SIGINT rather than the more mundane difficulties faced by seamen sailing that crossing. (I have no affiliation, just grabbed the first link for the book itself).

As an aside, Kahn also crafted some of the most devilish crossword puzzles I've ever encountered, probably (in my opinion) due to his expertise in crypto. His grids are usually very open, and he seems to avoid key break-in signatures like rare letters (Z, K, X, etc), so you have a 25-letter answer that gives you very few tells at all. I don't think he does them any more, but for years he contributed to the NYT crossword, and in that hard puzzle-space stands out as one of the most difficult puzzle authors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

The clearest example of falling into a code breaking trap must be Admiral Yamamoto, he fell into it with a Vengeance, what an unlucky guy he was, who would have thought some P-38s would stumble across his plane in the middle of nowhere, just like that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The clearest example of falling into a code breaking trap must be Admiral Yamamoto, he fell into it with a Vengeance, what an unlucky guy he was, who would have thought some P-38s would stumble across his plane in the middle of nowhere, just like that?



It was all coinkidinck.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It was all coinkidinck.


Pure chance as everyone knows, to me its a miracle that people were continually convinced it was chance in spite of all evidence and the laws of probability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Pure chance as everyone knows, to me its a miracle that people were continually convinced it was chance in spite of all evidence and the laws of probability.


My Uncle Jimmy was in on that, the groups were vectored to very precise coordinates to create a "net" that nothing was going to get through without one of the groups knowing.
Obviously, it worked well.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> My Uncle Jimmy was in on that, the groups were vectored to very precise coordinates to create a "net" that nothing was going to get through without one of the groups knowing.
> Obviously, it worked well.


They must have fallen into that old code breaking trap too? Or maybe you just described how breaking a code turns a microscopically small chance into an almost certain kill, as happened in the Atlantic with submarines and convoys.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> They must have fallen into that old code breaking trap too? Or maybe you just described how breaking a code turns a microscopically small chance into an almost certain kill, as happened in the Atlantic with submarines and convoys.


Or...or someone from the future read what happened on a WWII forum, thought it sounded like a good idea and went back in time and tried it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Or...or someone from the future read what happened on a WWII forum, thought it sounded like a good idea and went back in time and tried it.


Now you have posted it, it is an internet fact.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2021)

It is American exceptionalism, that by pure random chance, a high priority asset was eliminated and by pure random entropy and with a snare net to ensure that the nothing that wasn't there escaped. FACT


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> They must have fallen into that old code breaking trap too? Or maybe you just described how breaking a code turns a microscopically small chance into an almost certain kill, as happened in the Atlantic with submarines and convoys.


Nope, pure chance. That guy said so.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2021)

I still say it's a robot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Nope, pure chance. That guy said so.


I am starting to see it all clearly now. You have just as much chance of seeing a LW raid across the channel in a deck chair on Biggin Hill as you have at 25,000 ft over Dover, which is why RADAR is useless, always was always will be.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Pure chance as everyone knows, to me its a miracle that people were continually convinced it was chance in spite of all evidence and the laws of probability.



It just so happens that larger drop-tanks were flown to Henderson right before the attack, and we all know how P-38s always stooged around Bougainville waiting for the odd admiral to show up. Nothing to see here, please keep moving along.



SaparotRob said:


> I still say it's a robot.



I'm sticking with the Energizer Bunny, but to be fair that's a robot too ... though not a bright one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

And with that I think I'm off to watch some Drachinifel or other documentary. Fajitas eaten, beer drank, and s**tposting done, it's a good start to my weekend.

ETA: I've got an old Chuck Yeager interview on vid, I think that'll scratch the itch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It just so happens that larger drop-tanks were flown to Henderson right before the attack, and we all know how P-38s always stooged around Bougainville waiting for the odd admiral to show up. Nothing to see here, please keep moving along.


But this is further evidence of falling into the code breakers trap, larger drop tanks were distributed by chance, obviously some would end up being fitted to a plane that stumbled across an Admiral eventually.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> But this is further evidence of falling into the code breakers trap, larger drop tanks were distributed by chance, obviously some would end up being fitted to a plane that stumbled across an Admiral eventually.



Damn you, nonfalsifiability!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It just so happens that larger drop-tanks were flown to Henderson right before the attack, and we all know how P-38s always stooged around Bougainville waiting for the odd admiral to show up. Nothing to see here, please keep moving along.


Yep, my Uncle Jimmy and the other guys were all hanging around, stealing money from the Navy guys during a crap game when all of a sudden, someone said "hey, let's strap those long range tanks on our crates and go for a ride!"
Everyone thought it was a good idea because you can only drink so much warm beer while depriving the Navy guys of their pocket change, before things get boring.

And so off they go, fooling around when all of a sudden, some G4Ms and A6Ms interfere with their jaunt.
Being irritated, they shoot them down because Army guys are like that.

The fact that out of the all the expanse of the Pacific, Yamammoto *just happened to be there* is irrelevant...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Yep, my Uncle Jimmy and the other guys were all hanging around, stealing money from the Navy guys during a crap game when all of a sudden, someone said "hey, let's strap those long range tanks on our crates and go for a ride!"
> Everyone thought it was a good idea because you can only drink so much warm beer while depriving the Navy guys of their pocket change, before things get boring.
> 
> And so off they go, fooling around when all of a sudden, some G4Ms and A6Ms interfere with their jaunt.
> ...


Hey, I bet they had a real laugh when they got the news in the papers about who was in that plane, that would be worth a round of drinks.


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 1, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

re "It was the same for NA : in November 1941 the Italians sent 79000 ton of materiel to NA of which 30 000 ton arrived (37 % ) ,in December 1942 they sent 13000 ton of which 6000 arrived ( 47 % ) ,what was better :47 % or 37 % ? It is obvious that 37 % was better ,and if in December 1942,100 % arrived (13000 ) , it is obvious that 37 % was better ,because more was sent in November 1941 ."

This is actually a quite irrational argument. It is akin to saying "It does not matter if 47% of an artificial heart arrives at North Memorial Hospital or only 37% of a bigger artificial heart." The important aspect is that you have enough parts to construct a working artificial heart.

This type of argument is similar to "If you move toward the door, and with every step you reduce the length of the step by 1/2, you can never reach the door." In real life this could happen only if you do not want to reach the door.

Remember, the universe is based on the laws of addition, not multiplication.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljadw,
> 
> re "It was the same for NA : in November 1941 the Italians sent 79000 ton of materiel to NA of which 30 000 ton arrived (37 % ) ,in December 1942 they sent 13000 ton of which 6000 arrived ( 47 % ) ,what was better :47 % or 37 % ? It is obvious that 37 % was better ,and if in December 1942,100 % arrived (13000 ) , it is obvious that 37 % was better ,because more was sent in November 1941 ."
> 
> ...


When tobacco was introduced to Europe the average life expectancy was 45 years, it is now about 82 years, therefore smoking almost doubles the life expectancy of a nation. This how we should use and deal with facts to become better informed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Hey, I bet they had a real laugh when they got the news in the papers about who was in that plane, that would be worth a round of drinks.


But it was impossible to know, because as we've been told (by an authority no less) that code-breaking was a myth.
They would have had to wait until the end of the war to find out.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Yep, my Uncle Jimmy and the other guys were all hanging around, stealing money from the Navy guys during a crap game when all of a sudden, someone said "hey, let's strap those long range tanks on our crates and go for a ride!"
> Everyone thought it was a good idea because you can only drink so much warm beer while depriving the Navy guys of their pocket change, before things get boring.
> 
> And so off they go, fooling around when all of a sudden, some G4Ms and A6Ms interfere with their jaunt.
> ...



I'll have you know that my great-uncle Elmer still harbors a grudge against Jimmy for clipping his shore-leave funds right before they sailed to sparkling Noumea to hit the resorts and casinos there.

Now, if they'd been playing acey-deucy, ole Jimmy might have been SOL. Uncle Elmer was no slouch playing that, penny-a-point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But it was impossible to know, because as we've been told (by an authority no less) that code-breaking was a myth.
> They would have had to wait until the end of the war to find out.


Imagine finding out it was all just pure chance that must have been a real shock. It is funny in a way, but a gross insult to all concerned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Imagine finding out it was all just pure chance that must have been a real shock. It is funny in a way, but a gross insult to all concerned.



Those old geezers need to get over themselves. We've got someone here who knows exactly what happened, and will happily explain to them what they experienced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Imagine finding out it was all just pure chance that must have been a real shock. It is funny in a way, but a gross insult to all concerned.


Agreed.
Sending groups of P-38s out to rendezvous points in the Pacific Ocean took a great deal of effort.
From the Intel people figuring out who/what/when/where, to the logistics guys figuring out how to effect an intercept and how to find the right guys, get them what they need and point them in the right direction and finally, the pilots who flew oit to the right spot and made the kill.
This is really one of the lesser known victories of the war, which was a morale-booster for the Allies and a huge blow to Japan.
And the entire chain of events was put in motion by breaking the IJN's code.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Those old geezers need to get over themselves. We've got someone here who knows exactly what happened, and will happily explain to them what they experienced.


Its the same with all that gun sight and bomb sight malarkey, and dont get me started on "training" who needs it, it just didnt work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed.
> Sending groups of P-38s out to rendezvous points in the Pacific Ocean took a great deal of effort.
> From the Intel people figuring out who/what/when/where, to the logistics guys figuring out how to effect an intercept and how to find the right guys, get them what they need and point them in the right direction and finally, the pilots who flew oit to the right spot and made the kill.
> This is really one of the lesser known victories of the war, which was a morale-booster for the Allies and a huge blow to Japan.
> And the entire chain of events was put in motion by breaking the IJN's code.


Apart from the operation itself which was a great piece of planning and execution, the whole thing was taken to FDR himself for approval, so it was planned and performed from the president down and yet the world believed it was a chance encounter. That takes some type of genius somewhere. I am very disappointed no one got my "vengeance" joke. Operation Vengeance - Wikipedia


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 1, 2021)




----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> from June to December bomber command lost 330 aircraft and 1,400 aircrew.



Indeed. I was specifically speaking about the Battle of Britain, and it also doesn't change the original intent of the post to demonstrate that Bf 109s with long-range drop tanks would have changed the outcome, which has little, if anything to do with Bomber Command.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Indeed. I was specifically speaking about the Battle of Britain, and it also doesn't change the original intent of the post to demonstrate that Bf 109s with long-range drop tanks would have changed the outcome, which has little, if anything to do with Bomber Command.


Post war (maybe because of Dresden etc) the BoB was separated into a purely defensive fight, such that British bomber operations and losses didnt count in the tally list. At the time the radio broadcasts gave equal weight to the bomber operations first against barges and then against Berlin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Post war (maybe because of Dresden etc) the BoB was separated into a purely defensive fight, such that British bomber operations and losses didnt count in the tally list. At the time the radio broadcasts gave equal weight to the bomber operations first against barges and then against Berlin.



Yes, I know this, thanks for pointing it out to those who don't, but again, none of this changes the original point of what I posted and has nothing to do with the original point of what I posted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Post war (maybe because of Dresden etc) the BoB was separated into a purely defensive fight, such that British bomber operations and losses didnt count in the tally list. At the time the radio broadcasts gave equal weight to the bomber operations first against barges and then against Berlin.



As an addition to this, a Bomber Command raid had a significant impact on the timing of Sealion, as a raid by Handley Page Hampdens against the Ems canal on the night of 12 August blocked it and prevented invasion barges from transiting to coastal sites for ten days, which affected the German timetable. Flt Lt Roderick Learoyd, for pressing home his attack and nursing his damaged aircraft back home earned himself a Victoria Cross. The Brits regard the raid as a failure, but it did affect the German invasion plans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, I know this, thanks for pointing it out to those who don't, but again, none of this changes the original point of what I posted and has nothing to do with the original point of what I posted.


Yes it does, read again what you posted. You said the British only had to replace fighters, the numbers I quoted were only in operations, a substantial number were also lost on raids on BC airfields and factories, the British also had to replace bomber losses, which they did. I wasnt contradicting what you posted just adding something that is often forgotten or deliberately wiped from history. 300 to 500 twin engined bombers is not small beer.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Its the same with all that gun sight and bomb sight malarkey, and dont get me started on "training" who needs it, it just didnt work.



Training? Wot's that?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Yes it does, read again what you posted. You said the British only had to replace fighters, the numbers I quoted were only in operations, a substantial number were also lost on raids on BC airfields and factories, the British also had to replace bomber losses, which they did. I wasnt contradicting what you posted just adding something that is often forgotten or deliberately wiped from history. 300 to 500 twin engined bombers is not small beer.


Look man, I'm not gonna do this again. It's pointless and adds nothing to the discussion at hand except you trying to score points. Just let it go, Elsa...


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed.
> Sending groups of P-38s out to rendezvous points in the Pacific Ocean took a great deal of effort.
> From the Intel people figuring out who/what/when/where, to the logistics guys figuring out how to effect an intercept and how to find the right guys, get them what they need and point them in the right direction and finally, the pilots who flew oit to the right spot and made the kill.
> This is really one of the lesser known victories of the war, which was a morale-booster for the Allies and a huge blow to Japan.
> And the entire chain of events was put in motion by breaking the IJN's code.



I personally would use P-39s, because Reasons®.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I personally would use P-39s, because Reasons®.


No!
Naughty!

(said while waving a rolled up newspaper)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I am very disappointed no one got my "vengeance" joke. Operation Vengeance - Wikipedia



Just to say I got the joke. But I love low-key humor and didn't want to dissect the frog.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> No!
> Naughty!
> 
> (said while waving a rolled up newspaper)



I'll get my nose-armor and show myself the door.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Look man, I'm not gonna do this again. It's pointless and adds nothing to the discussion at hand except you trying to score points. Just let it go, Elsa...


eh? let what go? You are the only person of authority here? What you posted omitted a huge slice of the reality of the time, like the British lost 300 to 500 bombers that had to be replaced, am I to apologise to you for pointing that out? Is pointing that out scoring points?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> eh? let what go? You are the only person of authority here? What you posted omitted a huge slice of the reality of the time, like the British lost 300 to 500 bombers that had to be replaced, am I to apologise to you for pointing that out? Is pointing that out scoring points?



The bomber missions to disrupt the potential invasion were a real thing. I don't know how many losses they suffered, but Hampdens and Whitleys were certainly busy in the summer of 1940. That was actually the sort of mission that was right in their ballpark, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> h? let what go? You are the only person of authority here? What you posted omitted a huge slice of the reality of the time, like the British lost 300 to 500 bombers that had to be replaced, am I to apologise to you for pointing that out? Is pointing that out scoring points?



Again mate, my point had nothing to do with this and you just keep going on about it. Go take a breather, you are getting heated for no reason.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The bomber missions to disrupt the potential invasion were a real thing. I don't know how many losses they suffered, but Hampdens and Whitleys were certainly busy in the summer of 1940. That was actually the sort of mission that was right in their ballpark, too.


As a start point 50% of Hampdens that were made were lost on operations in one way or another. Whitleys continued in service longer because they could carry troops and SOE operatives.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2021)

Calm down, relax everyone...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> David Kahn's _Seizing the Enigma_ is an excellent read on how the Allies used SIGINT to combat U-boat depredations. The victory in the Atlantic, mainly accomplished by summer of 1943, was not a matter of "chance". It was a matter of devoted investigation, as well as using aircraft (both land-based and shipborne) to close the Mid-Atlantic gap, and the simple hardy bravery of merchantmen sailing under various flags straight into an arena where not only subs were aiming at you, but often nature itself was hostile.
> 
> Link is here for anyone interested in reading his book, which focuses on SIGINT rather than the more mundane difficulties faced by seamen sailing that crossing. (I have no affiliation, just grabbed the first link for the book itself).
> 
> As an aside, Kahn also crafted some of the most devilish crossword puzzles I've ever encountered, probably (in my opinion) due to his expertise in crypto. His grids are usually very open, and he seems to avoid key break-in signatures like rare letters (Z, K, X, etc), so you have a 25-letter answer that gives you very few tells at all. I don't think he does them any more, but for years he contributed to the NYT crossword, and in that hard puzzle-space stands out as one of the most difficult puzzle authors.


From The Journal of Maritime Research:quantifying countermeasures and detection effectiveness to threats using U Boat data from the Second World War .
Abstract :
1 " The analysis confirms that the use of decryption intelligence did not itself result in a statistically significant increase in U -Boat sinkings ."
2 " Ultra made a far smaller contribution to the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic than is widely supposed "
I like to add that the use of decryption intelligence (from the B Dienst ) did not itself result in a statistically significant increase in MV losses and that the use of decryption intelligence (from Ultra ) did not result itself in a statistically significant increase in the rescue of convoys and that this is also the same ( for both sides ) in the air war .
Radar and code breaking did not sink U Boats,MV, did not kill aircraft ,neither did they rescue U Boats, MV, aircraft .
The reasons are 
1 The information was mostly very vague, thus useless 
2 When the information was more precise,it was not possible to use it,because of the shortage of U Boats, aircraft, fuel, ammunition, etc ....
PS : I have read the book of Kahn .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From The Journal of Maritime Research:quantifying countermeasures and detection effectiveness to threats using U Boat data from the Second World War .
> Abstract :
> 1 " The analysis confirms that the use of decryption intelligence did not itself result in a statistically significant increase in U -Boat sinkings ."
> 2 " Ultra made a far smaller contribution to the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic than is widely supposed "
> ...


What happened then? How was it that so much shipping was lost, and U Boats lost and suddenly things changed in 1943?


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Sometime shortly before the shooting started, Doenitz told Hitler that he would need ~300 submarines to win the war. The idea was that he needed somewhere around 80-100 submarines active (ie on the hunt) in the Atlantic at any given time. He said that if he had these he could prevent the US from supplying England, and accomplish what they had failed to do in WWI.
> 
> While there is no real way to say if this would have worked historically, I have to believe the increase in losses would have been enormous even in relative terms to what the actual historical losses were.


More submarines in the Atlantic does not mean more losses of MV, but more loses of submarines .
If Doenitz said that with more U Boats he could prevent the US from supplying Britain, he was a fool :
Britain was not supplied by the US only 
To have 80/100 U Boats active in the Atlantic, he would need more than 500 U Boats and this was excluded .
On 1 January 1942 there were 249 U Boats of which 158 for training,from the remaining 91 only 55 were available for the Atlantic and of these 22 were on patrol at any given time .
And, most important, and this proves that he was not a good U Boat commander : to force Britain to give up did not depend on the amount of supplies that arrived in Liverpool,as Britain was less depending on imports during the war than before the war .Britain had ONE weak point : OIL . If the U Boats were concentrating on the oil tankers,the situation could become dangerous for Britain , but Doenitz preferred to sink ships with spam ,to have his name mentioned in the Sonderberichten from Radio Berlin .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What happened then? How was it that so much shipping was lost, and U Boats lost and suddenly things changed in 1943?


Things did not suddenly change in 1943 .
And more U Boats were lost because there were more U Boats patrolling and more U Boats were attacking convoys .And more attacks mean more losses .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Things did not suddenly change in 1943 .
> And more U Boats were lost because there were more U Boats patrolling and more U Boats were attacking convoys .And more attacks mean more losses .


Oh yes they did. Losses during the Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 2, 2021)

FWIW I am not a robot.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> From The Journal of Maritime Research:quantifying countermeasures and detection effectiveness to threats using U Boat data from the Second World War .
> Abstract :
> 1 " The analysis confirms that the use of decryption intelligence did not itself result in a statistically significant increase in U -Boat sinkings ."
> 2 " Ultra made a far smaller contribution to the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic than is widely supposed "



The Allies didn't have to sink U-boats to win the Battle of the Atlantic. The Allies had to keep their own ships afloat. Broken ciphers gave away patrol lines and U-boat locations, which allowed the Allies to route their convoys out of harm's way, when the Allies were able to read German mail.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Things did not suddenly change in 1943 .
> And more U Boats were lost because there were more U Boats patrolling and more U Boats were attacking convoys .And more attacks mean more losses .


Did you know more Germans were killed at Stalingrad because Germany sent so many to fight at Stalingrad?
If Germany sent fewer soldier to Stalingrad, then the Soviets wouldn't have killed so many.

If Japan didn't have so many soldiers on Okinawa, then much fewer would have been killed.

I'm fascinated by this revelation.

Let's see: if Japan only had three carriers at Midway, they wouldn't have lost four!

Brilliant!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> More submarines in the Atlantic does not mean more losses of MV, but more loses of submarines .
> If Doenitz said that with more U Boats he could prevent the US from supplying Britain, he was a fool :
> Britain was not supplied by the US only
> To have 80/100 U Boats active in the Atlantic, he would need more than 500 U Boats and this was excluded .
> ...


To have 80-100 U Boats operational in the Atlantic Doenitz needed to stop losing between 20 and 40 of them every month, as he was from May 1943, how did that happen when nothing the allies used worked?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> On 1 January 1942 there were 249 U Boats of which 158 for training,from the remaining 91 only 55 were available for the Atlantic and of these 22 were on patrol at any given time .


It appears your numbers are slightly off.

The first week of 1942 saw over 75 Atlantic/Long-Range U-Boats deployed at sea.

This number does not include new boat shakedown cruises, or coastal U-boats deployed around Europe, the Med. or Black Sea.

It also does not include "Milk Cow" or Mine-layer boats in deployed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Did you know more Germans were killed at Stalingrad because Germany sent so many to fight at Stalingrad?
> If Germany sent fewer soldier to Stalingrad, then the Soviets wouldn't have killed so many.
> 
> If Japan didn't have so many soldiers on Okinawa, then much fewer would have been killed.
> ...


Carrier losses can be avoided by not building any, says my Ladybird book of logistics.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The Allies didn't have to sink U-boats to win the Battle of the Atlantic.


Yes.


Thumpalumpacus said:


> The Allies had to keep their own ships afloat.


Yes


Thumpalumpacus said:


> Broken ciphers gave away patrol lines and U-boat locations, which allowed the Allies to route their convoys out of harm's way, when the Allies were able to read German mail.


Yes and no .
It should be : broken ciphers gave away some ( not all ) patrol lines and U Boat locations .This means that redirecting convoys is not automatically saving them . Besides redirecting was not always possible AND not redirecting did not mean that the convoys would be attacked .Thus, the danger was not that great .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

Yeah, I didn't mean that broken ciphers gave away all info, all the time. That is exactly why I added the caveat "when the Allies were able to read German mail."

I had thought such wording would make clear that the Allies weren't always able to decipher and/or reroute.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It appears your numbers are slightly off.
> 
> The first week of 1942 saw over 75 Atlantic/Long-Range U-Boats deployed at sea.
> 
> ...


My source is Rahn ''Combat Readiness and Combat Power of German Submarines P 80 ,cited by Magenheimer in ''Hitler's War on P 132 .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Let's see: if Japan only had three carriers at Midway, they wouldn't have lost four!
> 
> Brilliant!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> My source is Rahn ''Combat Readiness and Combat Power of German Submarines P 80 ,cited by Magenheimer in ''Hitler's War on P 132 .


You do realize that Magenheimer is a devout revisionist, right?
Many of his writings have been discredited by the academic community on verious levels.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yeah, I didn't mean that broken ciphers gave away all info, all the time. That is exactly why I added the caveat "when the Allies were able to read German mail."
> 
> I had thought such wording would make clear that the Allies weren't always able to decipher and/or reroute.


But , you are still focusing on the number of supplies that was lost by submarines, while this number is subordinate on the number of supplies that arrived in Liverpool .
ONE example :
the period September 1939-May 1940 :
the month with the highest losses was May 1940 : 220,127 GRT were lost and the month with the lowest losses was November 1939 : 53,511 GRT .
Thus : May was the worst month and November the best ? NO
Because in May 5,142,000 GRT arrived in Britain : 5,362,000 were sent and 220,000 were lost 
While in November 4,408,000 were sent and 53,111 were lost, which means that only 4,355,000 GRT arrived .
Thus May was better than November .
Other point : it was not the amount of supplies that was lost,that was important, but WHAT was lost . If in November all losses were oil,that would mean that Britain could be in trouble with only 53000 GRT that was lost .
Last point : it was even (theoretically ) possible that Britain could be in big problems without losing even ONE ton of supplies : as everyone knows (or should know ) : all ships that arrived in Britain had to return empty to the Americas or the harbours from where they were sailing.
If in a month 1000 ships left for Britain with 3 million ton of supplies, and if all arrived without losing any GRT ,but if all were lost on their return, Britain would be in big problems .
I know that this IF did not happen , but he indicates that it is wrong to look at the losses of supplies only ,and also that it is wrong to look at the number of supplies only : Britain would be hurt more by the loss of 100000 GRT of oil than by the loss of 200000 GRT of Spam.
It is also wrong to look at the losses of U Boats only,as more U Boats were not a bigger danger than less U Boats .
Question :
was it possible for U Boats to recognize oil tankers ?
If yes, why was not more oil sunk ?
If not : why did Doenitz nothing to make it possible to recognize oil tankers ?


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You do realize that Magenheimer is a devout revisionist, right?
> Many of his writings have been discredited by the academic community on verious levels.


I do mostly disagree with Magenheimer, but the figures about operational U Boats,are not his figures, but those of Rahn .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Oh yes they did. Losses during the Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia


What losses ?
Losses of U Boats ? These can not be used to argue that the situation changed .
Losses of MV: idem,because there were loaded MV and empty MV.
Losses of supplies ? idem : a loss of 100000 GRT supplies can be more dangerous than a loss of 200000 GRT .
What is important is not how many supplies were lost but WHAT supplies were lost .
And, what is decisive is WHAT arrived in Britain and the number of ships that returned in the Americas .


----------



## Airframes (Jul 2, 2021)

Dear oh dear.
Never in the field of forum conduct have so many groaned to so few ........................

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> What losses ?
> Losses of U Boats ? These can not be used to argue that the situation changed .
> Losses of MV: idem,because there were loaded MV and empty MV.
> Losses of supplies ? idem : a loss of 100000 GRT supplies can be more dangerous than a loss of 200000 GRT .
> ...


That is what you say, I dont agree. What was decisive was the number of U Boats sunk compared to U Boats made and crews trained on one side and the tonnage of shipping lost on the other compared to how much was launched.. The fact that you talk about selecting tankers to sink shows you havnt thought about it much.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I do mostly disagree with Magenheimer, but the figures about operational U Boats,are not his figures, but those of Rahn .


Werner Rahn never published anything with that title, by the way...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> But , you are still focusing on the number of supplies that was lost by submarines, while this number is subordinate on the number of supplies that arrived in Liverpool .


No, I'm not. I'm saying that the ability to get the supplies over to the UK was the Allied victory condition. I'm not sure where your confusion is arising, but I'm sure you're confused about my point, which is that decrypts played a role in helping those ships deliver their cargoes. That was the entire point of all the measures the Allies took in the BotA: to ensure the safe delivery of cargoes. I should think it obvious that this is why rerouting was done.



ljadw said:


> Question :
> was it possible for U Boats to recognize oil tankers ?


Of course.



ljadw said:


> If yes, why was not more oil sunk ?



Perhaps the firing solutions weren't handy for the U-boat skipper? Related -- perhaps the U-boat skipper didn't see the tanker(s) because another ship was blocking clear identification of said tanker(s)? Perhaps it had a tanker lined up and before it could launch torpedoes an escort charged it? 

There are plenty of reasons why things go wrong in a battle. Clausewitz coined the term "friction" to explain how the exigencies of war can hamper military operations. It's a vital concept in understanding almost all battles one cares to look at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> No, I'm not. I'm saying that the ability to get the supplies over to the UK was the Allied victory condition. I'm not sure where your confusion is arising, but I'm sure you're confused about my point, which is that decrypts played a role in helping those ships deliver their cargoes. That was the entire point of all the measures the Allies took in the BotA: to ensure the safe delivery of cargoes. I should think it obvious that this is why rerouting was done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It may or may not be possible to tell what is a tanker at night though a periscope, how many ships should a captain let go before he sinks one, maybe the tankers are in another part of the convoy maybe there arent any tankers in the convoy. Having sunk a tanker how long do you stooge about looking for another or do you sink as many as possible as quickly as possible before the escorts get you?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It may or may not be possible to tell what is a tanker at night though a periscope, how many ships should a captain let go before he sinks one, maybe the tankers are in another part of the convoy maybe there arent any tankers in the convoy. Having sunk a tanker how long do you stooge about looking for another or do you sink as many as possible as quickly as possible before the escorts get you?



Exactly. The fog of war contributes to friction. Especially with subs and their tender hulls, loitering about to pick the optimal target doesn't strike me as a good idea.

I do remember that most submarines of the era operated on the surface at night, but that doesn't negate your larger point at all. Periscope or binoculars, on a sub we're talking about observers on a relatively low platform (restricting sighting distance) which may be sailing through swells (further reducing observational capability) in the dark (that's right, there's more reduction in observation) against ships which are generally sailing unlighted.

Even in daylight, surface ships were regularly misidentified. Now consider the manifold difficulties produced by night, and it's no wonder subs didn't hang around to pick out the juiciest cow in the herd for its shots.

You're dead right on this point.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Exactly. The fog of war contributes to friction. Especially with subs and their tender hulls, loitering about to pick the optimal target doesn't strike me as a good idea.
> 
> I do remember that most submarines of the era operated on the surface at night, but that doesn't negate your larger point at all. Periscope or binoculars, on a sub we're talking about observers on a relatively low platform (restricting sighting distance) which may be sailing through swells (further reducing observational capability) in the dark (that's right, there's more reduction in observation) against ships which are generally sailing unlighted.
> 
> ...


Tactics changed on both sides, before convoys a submarine may surface and use the deck gun to save torpedoes, armed merchantmen put an end to that malarkey. Many captains preferred to get inside a convoy and attack as it passed, but then escorts got wise to that and were waiting at the back.

But their arent really hard fast rules, different captains had their own favourite methods. I remember a U Boat captain on a documentary describing attacking a tanker, but it wasnt clear if he knew that before it exploded! There were special tanker designs but to me they just look like ships, a class of Liberty ship were tankers, they definitely look like all other Liberty ships.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There were special tanker designs but to me they just look like ships, a class of Liberty ship were tankers, they definitely look like all other Liberty ships.



I think the giveaways for tankers were: 1) they tended to ride lower in the water, and 2) the relative lack of booms on deck (for lading/unlading dry cargoes). Those two in combination would be a big aid in IDing, but of course can not and were not perfect. Expecting a sub skipper to hang around to be perfectly sure isn't really realistic, to me. When stealth is your main defense, you risk it only under dire circumstances, or if the enemy is unescorted.

Of course, the Japanese aerial recon at Coral Sea misidentified the tanker USS _Neosho_ as an aircraft carrier, so there's that. S**t happens, especially in combat. Pictured below to illustrate the two ID points mentioned above:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw said:


> More submarines in the Atlantic does not mean more losses of MV, but more loses of submarines .
> If Doenitz said that with more U Boats he could prevent the US from supplying Britain, he was a fool :
> Britain was not supplied by the US only
> To have 80/100 U Boats active in the Atlantic, he would need more than 500 U Boats and this was excluded .
> ...


*More submarines in the Atlantic does not mean more losses of MV, but more loses of submarines*
I think you will find that the increased loss of submarines had something to do with little things. Such as the breaking of the Enigma codes resulting in every supply U Boat being sunk. . Convoys being re routed because we had a good idea as to where the U Boat packs were.

*If Doenitz said that with more U Boats he could prevent the US from supplying Britain, he was a fool :*
Now Donitz is the fool, when he was actually right. If he had started the war with the Italian submarine fleet deployed in the Atlantic instead of his handful of U Boats. There is a very good chance that he may well of succeeded. 

*And, most important, and this proves that he was not a good U Boat commander* :
Now Donitz is a poor U Boat Commander. The man who introduced a whole new way of using the U Boat at war, very successfully. Was he perfect, no, did he get more right than wrong, yes, until the technology overtook him. I presume you don't have any qualifications or experience to to have the right to call him a fool or a bad U Boat commander. 

*To force Britain to give up did not depend on the amount of supplies that arrived in Liverpool, as Britain was less depending on imports during the war than before the war*
Fundamentally wrong in almost every way. Without food imports the UK would have folded it was never even close to self sufficiency.

*Britain had ONE weak point : OIL . If the U Boats were concentrating on the oil tankers,the situation could become dangerous for Britain*
A common misconception but your statement is again, fundamentally wrong. The UK was never short of fuel. Actually I should correct that, There was a shortage of 100 octane fuel in May 1944. This was because the simply vast amount of fuel being used in the build up to the invasion, almost overcame the UK's ability to distribute it.

*but Doenitz preferred to sink ships with spam ,to have his name mentioned in the Sonderberichten from Radio Berlin* 
A typical big statement with as ever no concept of the difficulty and pretty insulting to a man recognised by all sides as being someone who knew what he was talking about. The tankers were always kept in the centre of the convoys, so to sink them you had to get past the other vessels first. A tanker sounds just like another ship so you cannot hear the difference. If you keep the periscope up there is an increased chance of being seen and at night you couldn't see much through a periscope at night anyway. Go on the surface semi submerged worked at first (a Doenitz idea by the way, not used by any other navy) but when radar improved so that it was effective against such targets it was close to suicidal.
Maybe you could enlighten us all by telling us how you would do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> *More submarines in the Atlantic does not mean more losses of MV, but more loses of submarines*
> I think you will find that the increased loss of submarines had something to do with little things. Such as the breaking of the Enigma codes resulting in every supply U Boat being sunk. . Convoys being re routed because we had a good idea as to where the U Boat packs were.



While I agree with the gist of your entire response, I'm not sure that milch cows being sunk increased combat U-boat losses by much; rather, it reduced their radius of action and forced shorter missions, effectively reducing the combat strength of the _Ubootwaffen_ without many additional sinkings. 

In short, it was removing a force-multiplier that Doenitz had. Is there a short-circuit in my thinking?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

To increase food production just import more tractors and fuel? Where is the problem?


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> While I agree with the gist of your entire response, I'm not sure that milch cows being sunk increased combat U-boat losses by much; rather, it reduced their radius of action and forced shorter missions, effectively reducing the combat strength of the _Ubootwaffen_ without many additional sinkings.
> 
> In short, it was removing a force-multiplier that Doenitz had. Is there a short-circuit in my thinking?


Fair point and I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make was the ability to read and decipher the German codes was a massive advantage, but you are right, it removed a force multiplier. 
Unless of course, your on one of the Milch Cows that got sunk

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> To increase food production just import more tractors and fuel? Where is the problem?


Interesting the topic of how the UK prepared for war and the feeding of its population is very (to me anyway) interesting. The level of preparation was quite extraordinary but was still never sufficient to make us self sufficient, and that is the key point

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> Fair point and I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make was the ability to read and decipher the German codes was a massive advantage, but you are right, it removed a force multiplier.
> Unless of course, your on one of the Milch Cows that got sunk



Yeah, that could put a dent in one's day.

Your point was very clear and I believe apt, my little niggle aside.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> Interesting the topic of how the UK prepared for war and the feeding of its population is very (to me anyway) interesting. The level of preparation was quite extraordinary but was still never sufficient to make us self sufficient, and that is the key point


The UK hasnt been self sufficient since the mid 1800s when the population exploded, hard to increase production when you are finding all sorts of jobs for all the men and women in the country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> Interesting the topic of how the UK prepared for war and the feeding of its population is very (to me anyway) interesting. The level of preparation was quite extraordinary but was still never sufficient to make us self sufficient, and that is the key point



The conundrum is that the more land one devotes to herding, the less is available for raising crops. The UK had something like 45 million people in that era on an island that, while productive, wasn't up to the task. And that requires proteins as well as greens and starches, so land-use can be an issue.

We Americans had the luxury of vast spaces in our Midwest that were productive. Putting those acres to use keeping the unsinkable carrier afloat was an important war aim for a reason: without the UK, it's hard to see a way for any American involvement that actually helps remove Naziism from Europe.

One of Churchill's phrases from his WWII memoirs I absolutely love is his notion of "invidious comparisons". They're worse than useless in wartime and should be avoided at all costs, between Allies.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 2, 2021)

Well I’m convinced. How about you, ljadw?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> To increase food production just import more tractors and fuel? Where is the problem?



Are we allowed to import arable land?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Are we allowed to import arable land?


Thinking outside the box is always a great idea. Blow up the Scottish highlands and make a land bridge to Ireland. Win-Win why hasnt it been done already?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Thinking outside the box is always a great idea. Blow up the Scottish highlands and make a land bridge to Ireland. Win-Win why hasnt it been done already?


 The Marines in Iceland hadn't been consulted first, is my guess.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2021)

1943 saw a large number of new weapons/technologies either introduced or much wider distribution. 
Hedgehog scored first kill in Nov 1942. It had taken a while for it to get sorted out. 
Squid was introduced in 1943 but only scored first kill in 1944. 
The Fido air dropped homing torpedo was first used in March 1943. 

More escorts became available in 1943, British may have used larger depth charge patterns. 
AS the war progressed the British introduced weighted depth charges to increase the sink rate and introduced more powerful explosives to increase the lethal radius. 

Better Sonars, 
better radars.
Escort carriers in large numbers.
More long range land based aircraft. 

more that I have forgotten.

perhaps the Germans lost more U-Boats because they sent more but it took until 1943 to develop the weapons/sensors/experience to kill the increased number of U-Boats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> 1943 saw a large number of new weapons/technologies either introduced or much wider distribution.
> Hedgehog scored first kill in Nov 1942. It had taken a while for it to get sorted out.
> Squid was introduced in 1943 but only scored first kill in 1944.
> The Fido air dropped homing torpedo was first used in March 1943.
> ...


It was marginal gains all over the various fields of technology. For example I found this, just on the subject of air dropped depth charges.








NavWeaps Forums-Aerial Depth Charges of WWII


Does anybody know a good website that has the specifications of aerial depth charges, i.e. model number/type, year used, weight, explosive chage, etc.




www.tapatalk.com




Experience showed that it required some 170 man-hours by maintenance and ground staff to produce one hour of operational flying and more than 200 hours of flying to produce one attack on a surfaced U-boat. Hence over 34,000 man-hours of effort were necessary just to attack a U-boat.
In early 1941 the attack kill probability was 2% to 3% (i.e. between 1.1 million and 1.7 million man-hours were needed by Coastal Command to destroy one U-boat).

It is in this area that the greatest contribution was made by OR in Coastal Command and so we shall examine it in more detail. (Note here that we ignore the question of the U-boat being attacked and damaged, but not killed. To include this merely complicates the discussion).

Plainly in the above calculation the "weak link" is the low attack kill probability and it is this that really needs to be improved.

The main weapon of attack against a surfaced (when spotted) U-boat was depth charges dropped in a stick (typically six 250lb (110kg) depth charges) in a more or less straight line along the direction of flight of the attacking aircraft. After hitting the water a depth charge sinks whilst at the same time being carried forward by its own momentum. After a pre-set time delay, or upon reaching a certain depth, it explodes and any U-boat within a certain distance (the lethal radius) is fatally damaged. Six variables were considered as influencing the kill probability:

*1) Depth (time) setting for depth charge explosion*
In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary.

Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres.

2) *Lethal radius* - As mentioned above the standard 250lb depth charge was believed to have a lethal radius of only 5-6 metres. Plainly to increase this radius (within the 250lb limit) the chemical explosive inside the depth charge should be more powerful (e.g. increasing the lethal radius by just 20% increases the lethal volume (sphere) around the depth charge by 72.8%). The best chemical explosive currently available was therefore introduced. Note here that it could be argued (and was) that since a 250lb depth charge had too small a lethal radius a bigger charge (600lb (270kg) was prescribed by the Air Staff) was needed. ORS suggested 100lb (45kg) on the basis that it would be more effective to have many small explosions rather than one large explosion. (As an analogy would you prefer to throw many small balls at a small target or one large ball?). In fact neither alternative ever really preceded past the trial stage due to increasing success with the 250lb depth charge.

This illustrates the concept of "tradeoff" which often appears in OR in that, for a given total bomb load we have to make a choice (tradeoff) between bomb size and number of bombs (from one big bomb to many small ones).

*3) Aiming errors in dropping the stick *- By the end of 1942 it had become clear that too many pilots were reporting having had "straddled" a target U-boat with a stick of depth charges without sinking it. Either their claims were unduly optimistic (the ORS view) or the lethal radius of a depth charge was much less than currently believed (the Air Staff view). To settle the issue cameras were installed for recording U-boat attacks. Analysis of 16 attacks indicated that ORS were right. This analysis also showed that pilots were following tactical instructions and "aiming off" (aiming ahead of the U-boat to allow for its forward travel during fall of the depth charges). However analysis also revealed that had they not aimed off 50% more kills would have been recorded. Pilots were therefore instructed not to aim off.

*4) Orientation of the stick with respect to the U-boat*
Here the question was whether to attack from the beam, quarter or along the U-boat track. No definite answer was really reached until 1944 when it was concluded that track attacks were more accurate (probably due to the pilot using the U-boat wake to help him line the plane up).

*5) Spacing between successive depth charges in a stick *In the early part of the war this spacing was specified at 12 metres. ORS calculated that increasing this to 33 metres would increase kills by 35% and this was done.



*6) Low level bombsights* - For much of the war all low level attacks on U-boats were by the pilot acting as bomb aimer/release. Although pilots (and Air Staff) believed they were accurate photographic evidence did not support this belief and ORS pressed for bombsights to be provided. By late 1943 a low level (Mk.III) sight came into use increasing kills per attack by 35%.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2021)

ljadw

Given that your such an expert on submarine warfare, well better than Doenitz anyway. 

Were still waiting for your explanation as to how the Submarines can pick out the tankers given the difficulties highlighted.

I await with some anticipation

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yeah, I didn't mean that broken ciphers gave away all info, all the time. That is exactly why I added the caveat "when the Allies were able to read German mail."
> 
> I had thought such wording would make clear that the Allies weren't always able to decipher and/or reroute.


But, there is still the point that there is no proof that redirecting convoys was saving shipping and that not redirecting convoys was causing losses .See the example of May 1940/November 1939 : there is no proof that the low shipping losses of November were caused by the fact that the B Dienst was decoding messages of the RN and that Bletchley Park was decoding the messages of Doenitz. And there is no proof that the high losses of May 1940 were caused because the B Dienst decoded the messages of the RN,but that BP failed to decode the messages of Doenitz .
Every day the RN was transmitting hundreds,or thousands of messages. The B Dienst decoded a small part of them ,most were useless for the Germans and most of those that arrived at the HQ of Doenitz ( Lorient ) were obsolete .And for most of the others, Doenitz had not the means to react on them, to use them .
It was the same for Ultra .
In the second half of 1941 Ultra decoded daily 1000 messages, most of them worthless because it took a long time, too much time to read them and to transmit some of them to RN HQ and to the US : messages that remained at BP were worthless .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> But, there is still the point that there is no proof that redirecting convoys was saving shipping and that not redirecting convoys was causing losses .See the example of May 1940/November 1939 : there is no proof that the low shipping losses of November were caused by the fact that the B Dienst was decoding messages of the RN and that Bletchley Park was decoding the messages of Doenitz. And there is no proof that the high losses of May 1940 were caused because the B Dienst decoded the messages of the RN,but that BP failed to decode the messages of Doenitz .
> Every day the RN was transmitting hundreds,or thousands of messages. The B Dienst decoded a small part of them ,most were useless for the Germans and most of those that arrived at the HQ of Doenitz ( Lorient ) were obsolete .And for most of the others, Doenitz had not the means to react on them, to use them .
> It was the same for Ultra .
> In the second half of 1941 Ultra decoded daily 1000 messages, most of them worthless because it took a long time to read them .


But you recently said the code-breaking was a myth.
So once again changed your tune...

False page/book references, fantastic claims, skewed numbers and flip-flopping stances - interesting.

So what are your thoughts on the Bell P-39?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> But, there is still the point that there is no proof that redirecting convoys was saving shipping and that not redirecting convoys was causing losses .See the example of May 1940/November 1939 : there is no proof that the low shipping losses of November were caused by the fact that the B Dienst was decoding messages of the RN and that Bletchley Park was decoding the messages of Doenitz. And there is no proof that the high losses of May 1940 were caused because the B Dienst decoded the messages of the RN,but that BP failed to decode the messages of Doenitz .
> Every day the RN was transmitting hundreds,or thousands of messages. The B Dienst decoded a small part of them ,most were useless for the Germans and most of those that arrived at the HQ of Doenitz ( Lorient ) were obsolete .And for most of the others, Doenitz had not the means to react on them, to use them .
> It was the same for Ultra .
> In the second half of 1941 Ultra decoded daily 1000 messages, most of them worthless because it took a long time to read them .


Do some research and you will find that the Germans couldn't understand why their U Boat search lines often couldn't find the convoy's they knew were in the area. It was because the British were often able to redirect the convoys away from the known danger area.
You forget that you don't need to know what a message says, just knowing where the message has been sent from will tell you roughly where the U Boats are.

If you need a clue to help with your research, look up Rodger Winn and his work with the Tracking Team which he headed from the end of 1939.

PS still waiting for your tactical insight into how you select the tankers given the tactical situation at the time to explain why Donitz was such a fool and not a good U Boat Commander

PPS In case your wondering why I'm not letting this go its because my Grandfather was in the Merchant Navy and was sunk once in WW1 and twice in WW2. He had a grudging respect for the German submarine service despite having more reason than most to hate them

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> But, there is still the point that there is no proof that redirecting convoys was saving shipping and that not redirecting convoys was causing losses .See the example of May 1940/November 1939 : there is no proof that the low shipping losses of November were caused by the fact that the B Dienst was decoding messages of the RN and that Bletchley Park was decoding the messages of Doenitz. And there is no proof that the high losses of May 1940 were caused because the B Dienst decoded the messages of the RN,but that BP failed to decode the messages of Doenitz .
> Every day the RN was transmitting hundreds,or thousands of messages. The B Dienst decoded a small part of them ,most were useless for the Germans and most of those that arrived at the HQ of Doenitz ( Lorient ) were obsolete .And for most of the others, Doenitz had not the means to react on them, to use them .
> It was the same for Ultra .
> In the second half of 1941 Ultra decoded daily 1000 messages, most of them worthless because it took a long time, too much time to read them and to transmit some of them to RN HQ and to the US : messages that remained at BP were worthless .


This is wrong. Do some more reading instead of just guessing. Messages from U Boats and concerning U Boats were known to be so and given priority. Submarine commanders did not chit chat and gossip.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 3, 2021)

Glider said:


> Do some research and you will find that the Germans couldn't understand why their U Boat search lines often couldn't find the convoy's they knew were in the area. It was because the British were often able to redirect the convoys away from the known danger area.
> You forget that you don't need to know what a message says, just knowing where the message has been sent from will tell you roughly where the U Boats are.
> 
> If you need a clue to help with your research, look up Rodger Winn and his work with the Tracking Team which he headed from the end of 1939.
> ...


To know roughly where the U Boats were, or to know roughly where the the convoy was, was totally worthless . You had to know where they were precisely .The U Boat search lines could mostly not find the convoys they knew were in the area, not because of Ultra, but because the only thing the U Boats knew was that a convoy was in the area .And the area was too big .
About Doenitz : 
he knew where the convoys started : NY,etc, but could not attack them there , he also knew where they were going (Liverpool ) ,but did not attack them there. He attacked them where he could not find them : in the Atlantic .
Not an intelligent strategy .
He knew that if he did not find them,he could not attack them,but still refused to change his strategy .
And , then, he had the ''brilliant ''( haha ) idea to attack the stronger one (US ) by sending his U Boats to the eastern/southern coasts of the US (Drumbeat ),knowing very well that going and returning would consume most of their fuel, meaning that they could operate only a short time .And he knew very well that the oil tankers that were lost had as destination,not Britain, but the eastern states of the US and Canada : Britain did not import ONE ton less of oil because of Drumbeat, thus, Drumbeat was nothing more than a wast .
Oil was Britain's Achilles Heel, most of the other products could be made in Britain .Attacking Britain's coastal shipping could have obtained better results,but he failed to do it .
Why ?
Because he was obsessed by the idea that the only thing that could force Britain to capitulate,was to sink more,while the truth is that it was not a question of quantity, but of quality .Not : how much, but what .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 3, 2021)

pbehn said:


> This is wrong. Do some more reading instead of just guessing. Messages from U Boats and concerning U Boats were known to be so and given priority. Submarine commanders did not chit chat and gossip.


Most messages about convoys by U Boat commanders and by the B Dienst could be thrown away : they were useless the moment they were written, they were useless the moment Doenitz received them .And, even if they gave precise information about a convoy ( speed, direction, escort ) most of them remained useless ,for the very simple reason that to attack a convoy , you need submarines that had sufficient fuel and ammunition and that were not too far from the point where they could attack a convoy : and messages from the B Dienst did not give Doenitz these submarines.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 3, 2021)

Glider said:


> ljadw
> 
> Given that your such an expert on submarine warfare, well better than Doenitz anyway.
> 
> ...


Notwithstanding these difficulties,oil tankers were attacked and were lost .The question is : why were not more oil tankers sunk .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Notwithstanding these difficulties,oil tankers were attacked and were lost .The question is : why were not more oil tankers sunk .


You are the one saying Doenitz was a fool, how would you do it.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Most messages about convoys by U Boat commanders and by the B Dienst could be thrown away : they were useless the moment they were written, they were useless the moment Doenitz received them .And, even if they gave precise information about a convoy ( speed, direction, escort ) most of them remained useless ,for the very simple reason that to attack a convoy , you need submarines that had sufficient fuel and ammunition and that were not too far from the point where they could attack a convoy : and messages from the B Dienst did not give Doenitz these submarines.


Of course most messages are useless, thats why Bletchley park had 5,000 people.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 3, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Of course most messages are useless, thats why Bletchley park had 5,000 people.


And how many analists ?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And how many analists ?


You tell me. But your talk of thousands of messages just means one per day per person.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 3, 2021)

I see that I have to be the first to cite C.Blair ( a must, although I do not agree about everything he is saying ) :
from The Hunters P 425 and 426 
''Doenitz erred in his insistence that the KM stake almost all on the overtouted medium Type VIIC U-Boat .''
'' Doenitz also erred by greatly overestimating the ability of single U-Boats to find,shadow and attack convoys ''.
'' In the absence of good intelligence on convoy locations, Doenitz was compelled to convoy-hunting ''patrol lines ''
Here Blair is saying that Doenitz had no good intelligence on convoy locations,, this means that the Ultra messages had not much importance and that it was it most cases not needed to redirect convoys.
''German U-Boats were at the close of 1941, nowhere close to isolating and strangling Britain .''
''Wolf pack tactics were on the whole a failure ''.
''Nonetheless ,the myth of U-Boat prowess and invincibility had taken firm root in the public mind for the second time in this century .''
But ( what Blair is not mentioning ) the biggest mistake ( not that Germany would have won without this mistake ) was the total absence of a concentration ( Schwerpunkt ) in the strategy of Doenitz : what was he doing ? He was sending his U-Boats on the seven oceans to search for ships to be sunk ,and when a big number was sunk, the submarines went to an other ocean to do the same .
Doenitz wanted to have decisive strategic results,but failed to elaborate and to follow a strategic plan .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I see that I have to be the first to cite C.Blair ( a must, although I do not agree about everything he is saying ) :
> from The Hunters P 425 and 426
> ''Doenitz erred in his insistence that the KM stake almost all on the overtouted medium Type VIIC U-Boat .''
> '' Doenitz also erred by greatly overestimating the ability of single U-Boats to find,shadow and attack convoys ''.
> ...


You simply cannot be serious, read it to yourself. You are ascribing the efforts of the allies to thwart U Boat activity to Doenitz being foolish. When Doenitz did make a massed attack in 1943 he faced massed losses, between air and sea assets a U Boat could be found and attacked on the surface or submerged anywhere near a convoy by day or night, and travelling on the surface could be found by day or night too, but they couldnt travel far under water.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> But, there is still the point that there is no proof that redirecting convoys was saving shipping and that not redirecting convoys was causing losses





> *British convoys were now rerouted away from areas where U-boats were operating.* The odds in the Battle of the Atlantic began to even.
> 
> Through the summer of 1941, U-boat attacks greatly diminished. The fact that *U-boats were having less success against convoys* at the same time that the U-boat fleet was finally growing puzzled Dönitz.











The Codebreakers’ War in the Atlantic


Britain appeared doomed until the German naval codes were cracked.




warfarehistorynetwork.com





[Emphasis added -- Thump]



> The dramatic decline in sinkings (compared with those that had occurred during the first five months of 1941) cannot be explained other than that Ultra gave the British a crucial edge over their undersea opponents. No new technology, no increase in escorts, and no extension of air coverage can be credited. Ultra alone made the difference.











Ultra–The Misunderstood Allied Secret Weapon


The importance of decrypted German radio transmissions to Allied victory is well documented. Almost forgotten, however, is the fact that Ultra intelligence was sometimes squandered.




www.historynet.com







> The Allies were trying just as hard to route the convoys away from where the wolf packs were forming, and the failure to do so in late March 1943 was a factor in the high convoy losses.








H-019-4 "Black May": Battle of the Atlantic 1943


H-Gram 019, Attachment 4 Samuel J. Cox, Director NHHC June 2018




www.history.navy.mil







> Our primary defensive operations were concerned with routing convoys and the "Queens" 2 which, because of their high speed, operated independently. We in combat intelligence were in constant touch with the convoy and routing watch officers. A change in U-boat dispositions, such as the German wolfpacks, would immediately be noted and routing changes made.





https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-spectrum/Ultra.pdf





ljadw said:


> ''German U-Boats were at the close of 1941, nowhere close to isolating and strangling Britain .''
> ''Wolf pack tactics were on the whole a failure ''.



This drop-off was a direct result of rerouting.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Notwithstanding these difficulties,oil tankers were attacked and were lost .The question is : why were not more oil tankers sunk .


Maybe because 

1) They were in the centre of the convoys so the U Boats had to get through the other merchant ships first
2) Because you couldn't see much through a periscope at night
3) Initially the tactic of approaching and penetrating semi submersed which initially worked became almost suicidal once radar improved so it was effective against this type of target

Does any of this ring a bell with you?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2021)

Ultra was the name for signals intelligence, most but not all was from enigma. A submarine commander transmitting "hello mum" every day says nothing but he does give away his position, however when the codes changed and enigma had to be broken again, Bletchley Park knew that whatever was received from him encrypted by enigma said "hello mum" when decoded. There is no such thing as a useless message in code breaking and signals intelligence, it was all used to provide "depth". Wiki says this "
At Bletchley Park, extensive indices were kept of the information in the messages decrypted.[42]​ For each message the traffic analysis recorded the radio frequency, the date and time of intercept, and the preamble—which contained the network-identifying discriminant, the time of origin of the message, the callsign of the originating and receiving stations, and the indicator setting. This allowed cross referencing of a new message with a previous one.[43]​ The indices included message preambles, every person, every ship, every unit, every weapon, every technical term and of repeated phrases such as forms of address and other German military jargon that might be usable as _cribs_.[44]​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2021)

ljadw said:


> To know roughly where the U Boats were, or to know roughly where the the convoy was, was totally worthless . You had to know where they were precisely .The U Boat search lines could mostly not find the convoys they knew were in the area, not because of Ultra, but because the only thing the U Boats knew was that a convoy was in the area .And the area was too big .
> About Doenitz :
> he knew where the convoys started : NY,etc, but could not attack them there , he also knew where they were going (Liverpool ) ,but did not attack them there. He attacked them where he could not find them : in the Atlantic .
> Not an intelligent strategy .
> ...


I would love to know when you are going to start researching a topic from more than one source, before letting everyone know just how little you do know

*To know roughly where the U Boats were, or to know roughly where the the convoy was, was totally worthless* .
You clearly haven't taken up the suggestion I gave you to research Rodger Winn and the tracking team. 
A quote from War Beneath the Sea '_Donitz would listen to the third staff officer on enemy shipping, almost exclusively from decrypts supplied by B-Dienst._'
Contrary to your firm statement above, B-Dienst had broken the RN codes and they remained broken until mid 1943. So Donitz had an excellent understanding as to where to position his U Boats to intercept the convoys.
Interestingly in these early years of the war it was the British who hadn't broken the navy codes and were relying on '_intelligent guesswork_' which is their own description of their work. The kind of information that you describe as '_totally worthless_'. This totally worthless information enabled quite a lot of success. 
Another quote from 'War Beneath the Sea' _Despite B-Dienst's frequent successes, the last minute evasive routing practised by the trade division of the Admiralty to Winns plots increasingly cancelled out their efforts_.
So the worthless information had a lot of worth saving many ships their crews an cargo's 

*And , then, he had the ''brilliant ''( haha ) idea to attack the stronger one (US ) by sending his U Boats to the eastern/southern coasts of the US (Drumbeat ),knowing very well that going and returning would consume most of their fuel, meaning that they could operate only a short time .And he knew very well that the oil tankers that were lost had as destination,not Britain, but the eastern states of the US and Canada : Britain did not import ONE ton less of oil because of Drumbeat, thus, Drumbeat was nothing more than a wast*
I admit that I was taken aback by this section. The tankers that were going to the UK came from the eastern seaboard of the United States. By intercepting them at their most vulnerable the Germans achieved the maximum damage for the minimum cost and it did have an impact on the Battle of the Atlantic. Are you aware the the RN had to reverse lend lease quite a number of AS vessels to the USN at a time when the Battle of the Atlantic was far from over. The morale of the US leaders was significantly shaken and yes fewer tankers were sent to the UK because the US priority was the US and Britain didn't have a problem with oil supplies. 

*Oil was Britain's Achilles Heel, most of the other products could be made in Britain *.
Clearly you missed / ignored my previous posting in that oil was never a problem to the British. Indeed there were times when we had to reduce imports of certain types as we had run out of storage capacity. I invite you to support your statement with evidence. If you want to check my statement I suggest you look up the minutes of the Oil Committee which are available from the National Archives

*Attacking Britain's coastal shipping could have obtained better results,but he failed to do it .
Why *?
If you don't know the answer to this then its clear that your knowledge of the subject is negligible. A submarines biggest threat is aircraft and the RAF had a number of short/medium aircraft in Coastal Command but a massive shortage of long ranged AS aircraft. Go close to shore and you are playing into the hands of the RN and Coastal Command. Submarinne losses will skyrocket and the chances of success fall dramatically as the convoys will be have far better protection

*So to sum up your statement you couldn't really have been more wrong if you tried. *
a) Donitz had an excellent idea as to where the convoys were
b) He set his wolf packs into positions to intercept which sounds like a good strategic approach to me
c) The _totally useless information_ (your quote) was good enough to enable the British to avoid the worst of the German attack 
d) The other parts of your posting are self explanatory and totally wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 3, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

While I cannot comment on the Silent Hunters book you mention (I have not read it) I think you might like to read the U-boat related pages on the following website, beginning with:

"U-boat Warfare 1939-1940"

I think you will find the parts on the early campaign in the '*GERMAN U-BOATS AT WAR*' through 1943 are particularly applicable to this thread, pro or con.

Please note that almost all of the same sources that the author of Silent Hunters would have had available to him, were also used in the construction of this website, as well as many more (both in number and newer).

The answers to the questions you have raised are given quite clearly in some(many?) of the cases.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The Codebreakers’ War in the Atlantic
> 
> 
> Britain appeared doomed until the German naval codes were cracked.
> ...


You have still not given a proof that the reason why there were less shipping losses,was the rerouting .
Such proof does not exist ,because the successes of rerouting are depending on the unproved assumption that convoys that were not rerouted were in a bigger danger than convoys that were rerouted .
What was the chance that a non rerouted convoy would be detected by the U Boats ? And what was the chance that such a detection would result in an attack ? And, what was the chance that such an attack would result in sinkings of MV ?
And, what was the chance that a rerouted convoy would not be detected ?
The answer is : in most cases the same chance as for a non rerouted convoy .
In the first eight months of August 1942 3253 MV went from the Americas to Britain : 30 of them were lost .
This proves that the results of rerouting were meaningless,unless there are proofs that the 30 MV that were lost ,were not rerouted and that they were lost because they were not rerouted,and that the 3223 that were not lost were rerouted and that they were not lost because they were rerouted .
There is even NO proof at all that a non rerouted MV would be lost because it was not rerouted .
There is no proven relation between losses and rerouting .
The decrease of shipping losses in 19411 was caused by the inability of U Boats to find a non rerouted convoy and the ability of the convoy and its escort to block attacks from submarines .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 4, 2021)

Glider said:


> I would love to know when you are going to start researching a topic from more than one source, before letting everyone know just how little you do know
> 
> *To know roughly where the U Boats were, or to know roughly where the the convoy was, was totally worthless* .
> You clearly haven't taken up the suggestion I gave you to research Rodger Winn and the tracking team.
> ...


A : totally wrong : the information of the B Dienst did not tell Doenitz where he could find a non rerouted convoy and even if the B Dienst was telling it, the information was worthless and the information of Ultra did not tell the Admiralty where the U Boats were ,and, if Ultra was telling it, the information was still worthless .
The only valuable protection for U Boats and for MV ,was THE SEA .The sea was hiding and protecting them .
B : wolf packs did not have better results than non wolf packs . Besides : the word wolf packs is totally wrong : a wolf pack was a simultaneous attack by a group of wolves , There were no simultaneous attacks by groups of U Boats .
C No proof for your claim .
Attacks on Coastal Shipping : the number of U Boat losses was irrelevant . There was a war going on .And attacks on Coastal shipping did not result in better protection for Coastal convoys .
About Drumbeat : Drumbeat did not attack tankers that were sailing to Britain, but tankers that were supplying the north-east coast of the US and of Canada with oil .
If Britain did not have a problem with oil supplies, what was then the reason for Drumbeat ?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You have still not given a proof that the reason why there were less shipping losses,was the rerouting .
> Such prove does not exist ,because the successes of rerouting are depending on the unproved assumption that convoys that were not rerouted were in a bigger danger than convoys that were rerouted .
> What was the chance that a non rerouted convoy would be detected by the U Boats ? And what was the chance that such a detection would result in an attack ? And, what was the chance that such an attack would result in sinkings of MV ?
> And, what was the chance that a rerouted convoy would not be detected ?
> ...


Nothing "proves" anything. Compared to any other battle except possibly the Pacific it is a different battle to others. The Atlantic is huge and the number of combatants vanishingly small. If Doenitz has 40 U Boats at sea how far apart are they in a picket line? A convoy could still pass through the line undetected or be detected by accident by a submarine that wasnt where the captain thought it was. Both sides were just seeking to push the small chance of success in their favour. In daylight a submarine cant see very far when submerged, and the area that submarines had to stay submerged constantly increased as the range of allied recon increased. A submerged submarine cant travel very far or very fast, control of the air from land based aircraft and escort carries restricted the places U Boats could be successful even if they found a convoy.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 4, 2021)

The impact of Drumbeat on the arrival of oil in Britain is an invention .
''Owing to the shift in oil delivery systems in the US and to rationing, no crippling oil crises developed in the Americas or British Isles in 1942 (The Hunters P 697 ).
All we know is that during the first 8 months of 1941 8,250 million ton of oil was imported by Britain and in the same months of 1942 7,097 million ton . ( The Hunters P 699 ) . Note that this does not mean a loss of 1,153 million ton .
We know the reason of this decrease : it was not Drumbeat .
The reasons were 
1 The number of MS from the Halifax convoys was reduced by 240
2 200 ships were sent to Russia in the PQ convoys 
3 Many tankers en route from the Caribbean to the UK were rerouted to Sierra Leone,becoming slow convoys . The Hunters P 698 and 699 ).
This is one of the negative results of rerouting that its defenders are hiding .
The same would have happen without Drumbeat .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The impact of Drumbeat on the arrival of oil in Britain is an invention .
> ''Owing to the shift in oil delivery systems in the US and to rationing, no crippling oil crises developed in the Americas or British Isles in 1942 (The Hunters P 697 ).
> All we know is that during the first 8 months of 1941 8,250 million ton of oil was imported by Britain and in the same months of 1942 7,097 million ton . ( The Hunters P 699 ) . Note that this does not mean a loss of 1,153 million ton .
> We know the reason of this decrease : it was not Drumbeat .
> ...


How would the UK have a crippling oil crisis? It would only affect the military. You have invented fuel as the most important part of the battle and use the lack of a shortage as proof of your theory. The internal combustion engine had only been in not very common use for 20-30 years, transport power generation and heating was done with coal.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 4, 2021)

ljadw said:


> You have still not given a proof that the reason why there were less shipping losses,was the rerouting .



You should read those links with an eye to comprehension rather than argumentation. I'm not interested in trollery and will not make an exception for you. Take it up with the US Navy or the combat SIGINT report above. They _clearly_ ascribe saving cargo bottoms to rerouting.

You think you know better than the agencies tasked with execution? I'll take their word over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And what do you know ... it's Sunday.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2021)

ljadw said:


> A : totally wrong : the information of the B Dienst did not tell Doenitz where he could find a non rerouted convoy and even if the B Dienst was telling it, the information was worthless and the information of Ultra did not tell the Admiralty where the U Boats were ,and, if Ultra was telling it, the information was still worthless .
> The only valuable protection for U Boats and for MV ,was THE SEA .The sea was hiding and protecting them .
> B : wolf packs did not have better results than non wolf packs . Besides : the word wolf packs is totally wrong : a wolf pack was a simultaneous attack by a group of wolves , There were no simultaneous attacks by groups of U Boats .
> C No proof for your claim .
> ...


Ever heard of the phrase, When your in a hole stop digging?

All my statements are easily (make that very easily) supported and proved by some very simple and easy research

*A - totally wrong : the information of the B Dienst did not tell Doenitz where he could find a non rerouted convoy and even if the B Dienst was telling it, the information was worthless and the information of Ultra did not tell the Admiralty where the U Boats were ,and, if Ultra was telling it, the information was still worthless .
The only valuable protection for U Boats and for MV ,was THE SEA .The sea was hiding and protecting them* .
Are you really saying that knowing where you target convoys are and where they are going is useless information, Really!!
Also you must be the only person in the world who cannot believe that Ultra (which wasn't a factor in the early stages of the war) wasn't a huge advantage
Strongly recommend you do some research on that. A simple search on B Dienst on google should help you, it will also tell you that the UK convoy codes had been broken until 1943.
*B : wolf packs did not have better results than non wolf packs . Besides : the word wolf packs is totally wrong : a wolf pack was a simultaneous attack by a group of wolves , There were no simultaneous attacks by groups of U Boats*
Again your statements continue to emphasise how little you know. Ask yourself why if the Wolf Pack was such a failure did the USA use a modified version against the Japanese. When you have asked yourself this question do that thing called Research. I suggest you research
i) Wolfpack Naval tactic
ii) Happy time in N Atlantic submarine Warfare
*C No proof for your claim Attacks on Coastal Shipping : the number of U Boat losses was irrelevant . There was a war going on .And attacks on Coastal shipping did not result in better protection for Coastal convoys*
Guess what I am going to suggest, yes you've got it. Do some research on the Mid Atlantic Gap and let us know what you find

*If Britain did not have a problem with oil supplies, what was then the reason for Drumbeat ?*
Because like you Germany didn't know that the UK didn't have a problem with fuel supplies and wanted to do the most damage with the minimum of losses

You are really good at big statements which only show how little you know and how adverse you are to doing research

*PS* After demonising Donitz for being such a rubbish leader and a fool. We are still waiting for you to tell us how the U Boats could concentrate on the tankers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2021)

If someone honestly believes that knowing approximately where U-Boats were was no use at all in the U Boat conflict, I dont know where you go from there. The people attacking a U Boat knew there was a U Boat there, so it must have some use.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If someone honestly believes that knowing approximately where U-Boats were was no use at all in the U Boat conflict, I dont know where you go from there. The people attacking a U Boat knew there was a U Boat there, so it must have some use.


That literally makes no sense - the entire concept of warfare is locating, engaging and destroying the enemy.

That would be like the RN stating:
"Oh, the Bismark has been spotted heading to sea, but that information is useless so we won't pay it any attention..."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> That literally makes no sense - the entire concept of warfare is locating, engaging and destroying the enemy.
> 
> That would be like the RN stating:
> "Oh, the Bismark has been spotted heading to sea, but that information is useless so we won't pay it any attention..."


Dont bother me with reports of ship and submarine movements, we will just fire shells, depth charges and torpedoes randomly into stretches of water, we will hit something eventually. 

From the start of history, battles were won by one side not knowing what the other side were doing, to claim it is not important is a new and worrying strand of revisionism. If knowing where the opposition is, is not important, what is? Try it out in a game of football (any rules).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 4, 2021)

It would appear 
L
 ljadw
has never played a game of hide-and-seek. It's pretty hard to tag your opponent when you don't know where they are.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Dont bother me with reports of ship and submarine movements, we will just fire shells, depth charges and torpedoes randomly into stretches of water, we will hit something eventually.
> 
> From the start of history, battles were won by one side not knowing what the other side were doing, to claim it is not important is a new and worrying strand of revisionism. If knowing where the opposition is, is not important, what is? Try it out in a game of football (any rules).


The element of surprise is one of the greatest weapons an adversary can possess and can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

If the U.S. knew when and where the Japanese were going to strike Pearl, the attack would have turned out considerably different.
If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, the Allied landings would have been a copy of the Dieppe raid on a massive scale.

There is a reason spies are a valuable asset (as well as being executed if caught by the enemy), their eyes and ears provide information that allows the ability to counter the enemy's intent.
Breaking the enemy's code(s) is much like having a spy, except the enemy himself is telling you exactly what they're up to.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 4, 2021)

Looking forward to him weighing in on the uselessness of Layton's intel to Nimitz at Midway. That should be golden.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Looking forward to him weighing in on the uselessness of Layton's intel to Nimitz at Midway. That should be golden.


If you recall, they claim code-breaking is a myth...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> If you recall, they claim code-breaking is a myth...



Crap, I forgot about that. Did Layton consult his Magic Eight-Ball or something?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The element of surprise is one of the greatest weapons an adversary can possess and can mean the difference between victory and defeat.
> 
> If the U.S. knew when and where the Japanese were going to strike Pearl, the attack would have turned out considerably different.
> If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, the Allied landings would have been a copy of the Dieppe raid on a massive scale.
> ...


Hitler called the Lorenz code his geheimnis schreiber or secrets writer/diary. But he didnt know it was being broken. As you obviously know (but others dont seem to) the effort taken to mislead Adolf as to where allied forces were and what they intended to do was a war in itself. On D-Day Ike and Monty had all the German forces order of battle in front of them from Lorenz and this went on up to the end of the war.


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 5, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

The Wiki link "Second Happy Time - Wikipedia" has a detailed timeline of what happened during 'The Second Happy Time' aka 'Operation Drumbeat', along with a fair explanation of the reasons. It would (I think) answer some of your questions.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

Type VII submarine - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Performance of the most produced U Boat below, a Liberty ship did 11.5kts. There were many things Doenitz couldnt do with his U Boats when forced to be submerged.


Speed
17.7 knots (32.8 km/h; 20.4 mph) surfaced[3]​
7.6 knots (14.1 km/h; 8.7 mph) submerged[3]​
Range
8,500 nmi (15,700 km; 9,800 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) surfaced[3]​
80 nmi (150 km; 92 mi) at 4 knots (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) submerged[3]​


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The element of surprise is one of the greatest weapons an adversary can possess and can mean the difference between victory and defeat.
> 
> If the U.S. knew when and where the Japanese were going to strike Pearl, the attack would have turned out considerably different.
> If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, the Allied landings would have been a copy of the Dieppe raid on a massive scale.
> ...


If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, Overlord would still be a big success .
And, mostly the enemy is not telling you exactly what they are up to ,because he doesn't know it himself .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Dont bother me with reports of ship and submarine movements, we will just fire shells, depth charges and torpedoes randomly into stretches of water, we will hit something eventually.
> 
> From the start of history, battles were won by one side not knowing what the other side were doing, to claim it is not important is a new and worrying strand of revisionism. If knowing where the opposition is, is not important, what is? Try it out in a game of football (any rules).


Knowing where the opposition is ,is only important if the opposition can do something :and on the average, Doenitz could not do much ,because he did not know where the opposition was .The opposition was hided by the ocean .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If someone honestly believes that knowing approximately where U-Boats were was no use at all in the U Boat conflict, I dont know where you go from there. The people attacking a U Boat knew there was a U Boat there, so it must have some use.


Approximately is useless :a submarine had to know where exactly the convoy was and would be . And let's not forget the escorts, speed ,ammunition ,fuel ,...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, Overlord would still be a big success .
> And, mostly the enemy is not telling you exactly what they are up to ,because he doesn't know it himself .


The deception plan around D-Day had Hitler holding tanks and other assets in reserve waiting for the main strike in the Pas de Calais, the daft corporal was told exactly what wouldnt happen and he believed it. He gave one spy (Garbo) who was feeding him complete nonsense the Iron Cross in July 1944 while the British gave him an MBE for the same work in November 1944.








Operation Fortitude - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org












Juan Pujol García - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

Glider said:


> Ever heard of the phrase, When your in a hole stop digging?
> 
> All my statements are easily (make that very easily) supported and proved by some very simple and easy research
> 
> ...


Less supply losses and less losses of MV do NOT mean more imports : it was not Doenitz who decided how much and what would be imported .
1940 : supply and food imports : 41,4 million ton .
1941 : 29,7 million ton 
1942 : 22,1 million ton
1943 : 24,3 million ton 
1944 :22,8 million ton .
In 1944 the U Boat danger was lower than in 1941,and the result was that the imports decreased .
In 1941 the losses were lower than in 1940 ,but yet the imports also were lower .
This means that there is no causal relation between the losses and the imports and this means that the importance of the Battle of The Atlantic has been much exaggerated .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Approximately is useless :a submarine had to know where exactly the convoy was and would be . And let's not forget the escorts, speed ,ammunition ,fuel ,...


So if the position is wrong by 10 meters the convoy isnt there? Dont remind me of what others and myself have reminded you as if it is knowledge.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Less supply losses and less losses of MV do NOT mean more imports : it was not Doenitz who decided how much and what would be imported .
> 1940 : supply and food imports : 41,4 million ton .
> 1941 : 29,7 million ton
> 1942 : 22,1 million ton
> ...


Did Germany invading Russia and Pearl Harbour affect things? Asking for a friend.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The deception plan around D-Day had Hitler holding tanks and other assets in reserve waiting for the main strike in the Pas de Calais, the daft corporal was told exactly what wouldnt happen and he believed it. He gave one spy (Garbo) who was feeding him complete nonsense the Iron Cross in July 1944 while the British gave him an MBE for the same work in November 1944.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NO : Hitler did not think that the main strike would happen in the Pas de Calais, besides his reserves were located in Normandy . 15th Army was mostly ''bodenständige 'divisions who were useless in Normandy ,which was one of the reasons they were in thee Pas de Calais .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> NO : Hitler did not think that the main strike would happen in the Pas de Calais, besides his reserves were located in Normandy . 15th Army was mostly ''bodenständige 'divisions who were useless in Normandy ,which was one of the reasons they were in thee Pas de Calais .


Yes he did, read the article, that is exactly what he said to the Japanese ambassador and what happened. I am getting a little tired of you refusing to read anything that goes against your opinion.

From the previous links.

The Allies were able to judge how well Fortitude worked because of Ultra, the signals intelligence that was obtained by breaking German codes and ciphers. On June 1, a decrypted transmission by Hiroshi Ōshima, the Japanese ambassador, to his government that recounted a recent conversation with Hitler confirmed the effectiveness of Fortitude. When asked for Hitler's thoughts on the Allied battle plan, he had said, "I think that diversionary actions will take place in a number of places – against Norway, Denmark, the southern part of western France, and the French Mediterranean coast",[27]​ and he added that he expected the Allies would then attack in force across the Strait of Dover.[27]​

OKW accepted Garbo's reports so completely that they kept two armoured divisions and 19 infantry divisions in the Pas de Calais waiting for a second invasion through July and August 1944. The German Commander-in-Chief in the west, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, refused to allow General Erwin Rommel to move these divisions to Normandy.[4]​ There were more German troops in the Pas de Calais region two months after the Normandy invasion than there had been on D-Day.[42]​

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Did Germany invading Russia and Pearl Harbour affect things? Asking for a friend.


PH (8 December 1941 ) and Barbarossa did not affect the Atlantic convoys in 1941 : PQ convoys were very limited ,besides the US Atlantic Fleet was not going to the Pacific in 1942.
The decrease of British imports in 1944 was decided by Britain and the US ,independently of the number of operating U Boats . And the main reason was : Overlord .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> PH (8 December 1941 ) and Barbarossa did not affect the Atlantic convoys in 1941 : PQ convoys were very limited ,besides the US Atlantic Fleet was not going to the Pacific in 1942.
> The decrease of British imports in 1944 was decided by Britain and the US ,independently of the number of operating U Boats . And the main reason was : Overlord .


Funny I thought USA Canada and UK started sending things to the Soviet Union not UK, like P-39s and tanks.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Yes he did, read the article, that is exactly what he said to the Japanese ambassador and what happened. I am getting a little tired of you refusing to read anything that goes against your opinion.
> 
> From the previous links.
> 
> ...


If that was what Hitler was thinking ,explain me why he kept the majority of his mobile forces OUTSIDE the Pas de Calais .PzL, 12 SS and 21 Pz were located left of the Seine .
And, which were the 2 PzD in the Pas de Calais ?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> PH (8 December 1941 ) and Barbarossa did not affect the Atlantic convoys in 1941 : PQ convoys were very limited ,besides the US Atlantic Fleet was not going to the Pacific in 1942.
> The decrease of British imports in 1944 was decided by Britain and the US ,independently of the number of operating U Boats . And the main reason was : Overlord .


Capturing ports in France and Italy didnt affect British imports of USA military supplies?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If that was what Hitler was thinking ,explain me why he kept the majority of his mobile forces OUTSIDE the Pas de Calais .PzL, 12 SS and 21 Pz were located left of the Seine .
> And, which were the 2 PzD in the Pas de Calais ?


He kept them away from where they could be bombed, the idea being to move mobile forces at the time of any attack. There is no doubt Hitler believed it, no point in discussing it further, or introducing other factoids.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> He kept them away from where they could be bombed, the idea being to move mobile forces at the time of any attack. There is no doubt Hitler believed it, no point in discussing it further, or introducing other factoids.


If he believed it, why did Das Reich ,located at Toulouse, receive the order on June 6 to go to ..Normandy ?
Why did he transfer 2 PzD (9 and 10 SS ) from the East to ...Normandy ?
Why did he order the second tank battalion of Panzer Lehr that was moving to the East on June 6 ,to return ...to Normandy ?
What he said to the Japanese ambassador ( if we may believe the Japanese ambassador ) was contradicted by what he did .
The German strategy was not dictated by Fortitude,not by the belief of a main attack ( a diversionary attack was as dangerous as a main attack ) but by the FACT that,as the French in 1940, Germany had to defend the whole coast of Western and Northern and Southern Europe .The allies could attack everywhere ,especially where there were no or few Germans .
The Pas de Calais did not receive any reinforcements after D Day,for the simple reason that there was no landing at the Pas de Calais .
The reinforcements were sent to where there was fighting .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> You simply cannot be serious, read it to yourself. You are ascribing the efforts of the allies to thwart U Boat activity to Doenitz being foolish. When Doenitz did make a massed attack in 1943 he faced massed losses, between air and sea assets a U Boat could be found and attacked on the surface or submerged anywhere near a convoy by day or night, and travelling on the surface could be found by day or night too, but they couldnt travel far under water.



There were several attacks which resulted in big losses,but the number of lost U Boats is irrelevant .
The principle of the attacks is questionable, as no attacks would not improve the Allied situation : a submarine fleet in being could be as efficient as a submarine fleet searching, mostly without results,for convoys .
For the rest, I repeat what C.Blair, a well known expert,said : 
''Doenitz had not good intelligence ,thus the importance of rerouting is very questionable 
Wolf packs were mostly failures 
There was no possibility for the U Boats to strangle Britain.''
During almost 6 years the submarines were searching for convoys, mostly without any success .
When they found some convoys, mostly they could not attack them .
When they attacked them,they suffered heavy losses while inflicting few losses .
Conclusion : Doenitz failed totally .
He could have left his U Boats in the harbours and the result would not have been much different .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> There were several attacks which resulted in big losses,but the number of lost U Boats is irrelevant .
> The principle of the attacks is questionable, as no attacks would not improve the Allied situation : a submarine fleet in being could be as efficient as a submarine fleet searching, mostly without results,for convoys .
> For the rest, I repeat what C.Blair, a well known expert,said :
> ''Doenitz had not good intelligence ,thus the importance of rerouting is very questionable
> ...


Only irrelevant to you because what you consider relevant is only that which supports your idea of the day.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If he believed it, why did Das Reich ,located at Toulouse, receive the order on June 6 to go to ..Normandy ?
> Why did he transfer 2 PzD (9 and 10 SS ) from the East to ...Normandy ?
> Why did he order the second tank battalion of Panzer Lehr that was moving to the East on June 6 ,to return ...to Normandy ?
> What he said to the Japanese ambassador ( if we may believe the Japanese ambassador ) was contradicted by what he did .
> ...


Of course he believed it. Your point was about Germany being aware of the place and time of the D Day landings, they were but were told it was a diversion, by the time they figured out it wasnt a diversion the Allies had broken out of Normandy. You are just moving goalposts pettifogging and denying. The point is the usefulness of breaking codes and deception which is actually beyond doubt except in the minds of revisionsists with a new theory.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, Overlord would still be a big success .
> And, mostly the enemy is not telling you exactly what they are up to ,because he doesn't know it himself .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, Overlord would still be a big success .
> And, mostly the enemy is not telling you exactly what they are up to ,because he doesn't know it himself .


Now you're just arguing because you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

If the OKW knew that the landings would be at Normandy, they would have had all their assets in place.
You argue that the Germans were at Calais in force and guess what?
They were there BECAUSE they were given false information which they beleived to be true - proving that "Intel" CAN affect the movements of an army.
*IF* the Germans had received factual Intel about Overlord, they would have been there instead.

Regarding that last bit you posted, stating that the enemy doesn't know what they are doing is pure crap.
So the Japanese Navy just happened to show up at Midway Atoll by accident after bumbling aimlessly around the Pacific?

You attempt to be authorative, yet you post a statement like that.
You should *actually read a book* instead of gleaning wikiwand for factoids...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Now you're just arguing because you refuse to admit that you are wrong.
> 
> If the OKW knew that the landings would be at Normandy, they would have had all their assets in place.
> You argue that the Germans were at Calais in force and guess what?
> ...


Operation Fortitude was an exercise in getting into Adolf head with plausible stories and plausible denial. Adolf was told about D-Day but too late to do anything. After that it was all about convincing him that it was a diversion. This was quite easy to do because Normandy hasnt got a harbour, of course no one mentioned Mulberry harbours, flexible fuel pipelines or ships capable of landing a lot of goods on a beach.

For Adolf to give "Garbo" $340,000 and the Iron Cross for his services adds comedy to the whole thing..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If the Germans knew the date and time of Overlord, Overlord would still be a big success .
> And, mostly the enemy is not telling you exactly what they are up to ,because he doesn't know it himself .





ljadw said:


> Knowing where the opposition is ,is only important if the opposition can do something :and on the average, Doenitz could not do much ,because he did not know where the opposition was .The opposition was hided by the ocean .


the above were actually quite painful to read

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Only irrelevant to you because what you consider relevant is only that which supports your idea of the day.


I have given the proof that more U Boats does not mean more losses of supplies/of MV, thus the number of lost U Boats is not relevant .


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Less supply losses and less losses of MV do NOT mean more imports : it was not Doenitz who decided how much and what would be imported .
> 1940 : supply and food imports : 41,4 million ton .
> 1941 : 29,7 million ton
> 1942 : 22,1 million ton
> ...


I admit to almost admiring the way you totally ignore the comments raised in the posting you are pretending to respond too, and then raise an equally ignorant statement on a totally different aspect.

*To Sum Up
From the posting you are pretending to respond to*
A) Did you research B Dienst on google and confirm that the UK convoy codes had been broken until 1943. *Yes/No*
B) Did you research the Wolf Pack and discover that contrary to your previous statement that there were simultaneous attacks by groups of U Boats *Yes/No*
C) Did you research the Mid Atlantic Gap and let us know what you find, in particular the importance of aircraft protection to the defence of convoys and that the impact of operating close to shore would increase the risk to the submarines *Yes/No*
D) Did you research the oil situation in the UK and discover that the UK never had a problem with oil supplies *Yes/No*
E) We are all still waiting for you to tell us how the German U Boats could pick out the tankers as they cannot be identified by sound, or by sight unless you have penetrated the centre of the convoy which is also suicidal once radar has progressed to the stage that it can be effective against semi submerged submarines

*Now the new point you are raising*
_This means that there is no causal relation between the losses and the imports and this means that the importance of the Battle of The Atlantic has been much exaggerated _.
Interestingly the first part _This means that there is no causal relation between the losses and the imports. _This part is actually partly correct, as it depends on the resources thrown into the conflict. I am taking your figures on trust as being accurate

1941 imports 29.7 million tons, ships lost 1,419 - 4,693 thousand tons
1942 imports 22.1 million tons, ships lost 1,859 - 8,398 thousand tons
1943 imports 24.3 million tons, ships lost 812 - 3,646 thousand tons.

From this you can see that your conclusion is fundamentally wrong. If the 1942 shipping losses had been roughly the same as in 1941 then the imports would have been considerably higher at least equalling the 1941 figure. So it is clear that the damage inflicted by the German submarines did impact the level of imports. 

It is also clear that the losses inflicted on the German U Boats also impacted the conflict. In 1943 the losses suffered were such that from April the U Boat arm was largely withdrawn from the conflict to recover and learn the lessons. The turnaround was quite sudden, in March 1943 U Boats hit 131 merchant ships, if they had been able to maintain that pace for the rest of 1943 the situation would have been dire. Instead the losses dropped to an average of 38 ships per month.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I have given the proof that more U Boats does not mean more losses of supplies/of MV, thus the number of lost U Boats is not relevant .


No you havent. any more than a bomb falling on London proves the RAF was useless or that a US bomber being shot down proves escort fighters dont work. This attention seeking style of discussion is tiresome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I have given the proof that more U Boats does not mean more losses of supplies/of MV, thus the number of lost U Boats is not relevant .


You haven't proven anything, except that you have zero clues about what you're talking about.
In that respect, you have excelled well beyond that of mere mortals...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Knowing where the opposition is ,is only important if the opposition can do something :and on the average, Doenitz could not do much ,because he did not know where the opposition was .The opposition was hided by the ocean .


Clearly you still haven't followed up on the research hints I gave you so I will say this one more time.

Germany had broken the UK Convoy codes and knew exactly where the convoys were. In other words using your words 
*Doenitz* *could* not *do much* ,*because* *he* *did* not *know where the opposition was* .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> He kept them away from where they could be bombed, the idea being to move mobile forces at the time of any attack. There is no doubt Hitler believed it, no point in discussing it further, or introducing other factoids.


No : he did not keep them away from where they could be bombarded ,but for other reasons ,as 
they were concentrated at railway junctions,to make it easier to supply them and from where they could easier advance .By railway . 2 PzD was the only PzD north of the Somme and was concentrated at the region of Amiens, FAR AWAY from the Pas de Calais . Distance Amiens - Dunkirk on roads of 80 years ago : more than 150 km .It would take more than 2 days before the whole division could arrive at Dunkirk .
an other reason was that,if one wanted ( as was Rommel ) to concentrate the mobile divisions at the coast, the only solution was to split them in small battalions and give up their mobility .
The Pz maffia ( Guderian,Geyr von Schweppenburg ,etc ) were hostile to the proposals of Rommel with as argument that it was impossible to prevent a successful landing . They were right,but their proposal: to let the Allied armoured divisions advance to the interior and to defeat them there, was also wrong .
Except for a miracle ,the Germans had no chance .


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

Glider said:


> Clearly you still haven't followed up on the research hints I gave you so I will say this one more time.
> 
> Germany had broken the UK Convoy codes and knew exactly where the convoys were. In other words using your words
> *Doenitz* *could* not *do much* ,*because* *he* *did* not *know where the opposition was* .


Germany did NOT know where the convoys were exactly, but only where they were roughly .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

Glider said:


> I admit to almost admiring the way you totally ignore the comments raised in the posting you are pretending to respond too, and then raise an equally ignorant statement on a totally different aspect.
> 
> *To Sum Up
> From the posting you are pretending to respond to*
> ...


Excellent post additional to ships lost are the number of ships constructed. Emergency Shipbuilding Program - Wikipedia compared to Uboats constructed. U-boat - Wikipedia The main type of U Boat the Mk VII only 709 were made.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

Glider said:


> I admit to almost admiring the way you totally ignore the comments raised in the posting you are pretending to respond too, and then raise an equally ignorant statement on a totally different aspect.
> 
> *To Sum Up
> From the posting you are pretending to respond to*
> ...


If they had been able : IF is not a serious argument .


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Germany did NOT know where the convoys were exactly, but only where they were roughly .


If you have broken the codes, you know what the messages say. Using DF you know pretty much exactly where the convoy was when the message sent. Convoys are big and they don't go very fast.
Put the two together and you have as good a picture of the tactical situation as any commander has of any action in the history of war

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If they had been able : IF is not a serious argument .


Actually it's an excellent statement as it shows the importance of the Battle of the Atlantic. Now if you could address the other long standing questions included in the posting it would be appreciated

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

I want to know how a submarine commander knows where he is travelling underwater or on the surface in the middle of the Atlantic in fog?


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2021)

or in an Atlantic Gale

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Germany did NOT know where the convoys were exactly, but only where they were roughly .


You keep saying this, what do you call "exactly" bearing in mind it is moving, if you know exactly where it is at a certain time it can travel 250 miles in a day. Can you start answering things instead of just making glib sweeping statements. Without a working transmitter that is transmitting all anyone knew about any boat until recently was "last known position"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> No : he did not keep them away from where they could be bombarded ,but for other reasons ,as
> they were concentrated at railway junctions,to make it easier to supply them and from where they could easier advance .By railway . 2 PzD was the only PzD north of the Somme and was concentrated at the region of Amiens, FAR AWAY from the Pas de Calais . Distance Amiens - Dunkirk on roads of 80 years ago : more than 150 km .It would take more than 2 days before the whole division could arrive at Dunkirk .
> an other reason was that,if one wanted ( as was Rommel ) to concentrate the mobile divisions at the coast, the only solution was to split them in small battalions and give up their mobility .
> The Pz maffia ( Guderian,Geyr von Schweppenburg ,etc ) were hostile to the proposals of Rommel with as argument that it was impossible to prevent a successful landing . They were right,but their proposal: to let the Allied armoured divisions advance to the interior and to defeat them there, was also wrong .
> Except for a miracle ,the Germans had no chance .


Are you having a joke? I have passed through the Pas de Calais many times, it isnt the French name for the English Channel (La Manche) it is the name for the departement on the French side. In WW2 it meant anywhere in and around Calais from Dieppe to Brugge and inland as far as places like Douai, anywhere that had military targets that would convince the Germans that the area would be the main point of attack on D-Day. Since the British and Canadian, Commonwealth forces had already landed at Dieppe, it was certainly in the Pas de Calais, thats why there were tanks at Arras.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 5, 2021)

Suddenly a very large troll arrives...............

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Knowing where the opposition is ,is only important if the opposition can do something



As a military veteran, you have just proven to me you know jack shit about military strategy and war fighting.

Go back to playing Call of Duty or War Thunder...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> No : he did not keep them away from where they could be bombarded ,but for other reasons ,as
> they were concentrated at railway junctions,to make it easier to supply them and from where they could easier advance .By railway . 2 PzD was the only PzD north of the Somme and was concentrated at the region of Amiens, FAR AWAY from the Pas de Calais . Distance Amiens - Dunkirk on roads of 80 years ago : more than 150 km .It would take more than 2 days before the whole division could arrive at Dunkirk .
> an other reason was that,if one wanted ( as was Rommel ) to concentrate the mobile divisions at the coast, the only solution was to split them in small battalions and give up their mobility .
> The Pz maffia ( Guderian,Geyr von Schweppenburg ,etc ) were hostile to the proposals of Rommel with as argument that it was impossible to prevent a successful landing . They were right,but their proposal: to let the Allied armoured divisions advance to the interior and to defeat them there, was also wrong .
> Except for a miracle ,the Germans had no chance .


But Gen. Lee knew he could counter the PZ between Dunkirk and Amiens by starting bushfires that would confuse the enemy and slow them down. The smoke also blocked the view below by Kaiserliche und Königliche Luftfahrtruppen scouts so they couldn't assess the situation.
Also, according to Zappa ("_The Black Page_" pg. 69) all the Telegraph lines between Dunkirk and Amiens had been cut, disrupting communications.
So there was no way that Rommel, Guderian or Von Munchausen could counter Lee's fast moving mobile units.

So even if the Pz were to lay a trap inland, Aurelius (who had been very successful fighting Germans) and Lee would have decimated them wholesale.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Are you having a joke? I have passed through the Pas de Calais many times, it isnt the French name for the English Channel (La Manche) it is the name for the departement on the French side. In WW2 it meant anywhere in and around Calais from Dieppe to Brugge and inland as far as places like Douai, anywhere that had military targets that would convince the Germans that the area would be the main point of attack on D-Day. Since the British and Canadian, Commonwealth forces had already landed at Dieppe, it was certainly in the Pas de Calais, thats why there were tanks at Arras.
> View attachment 631224


Are you familiar with the expression “pearls before swine”? You would have better luck talking to the wall. 
FWIW I’m convinced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But Gen. Lee knew he could counter the PZ between Dunkirk and Amiens by starting bushfires that would confuse the enemy and slow them down. The smoke also blocked the view below by Kaiserliche und Königliche Luftfahrtruppen scouts so they couldn't assess the situation.
> Also, according to Zappa ("_The Black Page_" pg. 69) all the Telegraph lines between Dunkirk and Amiens had been cut, disrupting communications.
> So there was no way that Rommel, Guderian or Von Munchausen could counter Lee's fast moving mobile units.
> 
> So even if the Pz were to lay a trap inland, Aurelius (who had been very successful fighting Germans) and Lee would have decimated them wholesale.


You are mostly correct but I think you are forgetting the eighth point of the Fourteen Points.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Are you familiar with the expression “pearls before swine”? You would have better luck talking to the wall.
> FWIW I’m convinced.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As a military veteran, you have just proven to me you know jack shit about military strategy and war fighting.
> 
> Go back to playing Call of Duty or War Thunder...


If the U Boats could not do anything against the convoys, there was no need to search for them .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If the U Boats could not do anything against the convoys, there was no need to search for them .


But they weren't searching for UB - they were using that as an excuse to find the Titanic, most because they wanted to dispel the myth that the Titanic's swimming pool was still full.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2021)

“If the U-boats could not do anything against the convoys, there was no need to search for them.” 
So if the Luftwaffe couldn’t do anything to London, there was no need to intercept them.
I think I’m starting to understand.

Reactions: Funny Funny:

2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Of course he believed it. Your point was about Germany being aware of the place and time of the D Day landings, they were but were told it was a diversion, by the time they figured out it wasnt a diversion the Allies had broken out of Normandy. You are just moving goalposts pettifogging and denying. The point is the usefulness of breaking codes and deception which is actually beyond doubt except in the minds of revisionsists with a new theory.


Germany was not aware of time and place of Overlord, but this was not important,because Germany had not the forces to defeat the landing even if they knew it .
It was the same for the U Boats: even if they had more information about the convoys, they could not sink more MV/supplies .
And about breaking codes and deception : you are talking as some one of 2021 who is convinced that quality defeats quantity : the truth is that EIGHTY YEARS ago,quantity was more important than quality .
You still are unable to understand that with better code breaking,Germany would still lose : what it needed was not more knowledge of allied plans, but more divisions .
Germany had not enough soldiers to protect the coasts of Western Europe .
It had also not enough operational submarines ( very primitive machines ) to have a chance to strangle Britain .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Are you familiar with the expression “pearls before swine”? You would have better luck talking to the wall.
> FWIW I’m convinced.


Historically it is important. Allied bombing efforts were split between Normandy and other areas where a landing was likely, mainly the Pas de Calais region. Only a tenth of bombs dropped were in and around Normandy, most were around the Pas de Calais and further. They even left somethings untouched around Normandy to show they werent that serious, things that the allies would need themselves like bridges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2021)

I’m really hoping that there is a U-boat crewman who is a member of our forum to comment. Not that he would know.


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> “If the U-boats could not anything against the convoys, there was no need to search for them.”
> So if the Luftwaffe couldn’t do anything to London, there was no need to intercept them.
> I think I’m starting to understand.


There is a difference between both : the LW was still able in 1940 to attack London while Doenitz did not know where were the non rerouted convoys and while his U Boats had not sufficient fuel and ammunition .
But : why should the RAF go after the LW bombers in 1945,when these were unable to hurt London .


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Germany was not aware of time and place of Overlord, but this was not important,because Germany had not the forces to defeat the landing even if they knew it .
> It was the same for the U Boats: even if they had more information about the convoys, they could not sink more MV/supplies .
> And about breaking codes and deception : you are talking as some one of 2021 who is convinced that quality defeats quantity : the truth is that EIGHTY YEARS ago,quantity was more important than quality .
> You still are unable to understand that with better code breaking,Germany would still lose : what it needed was not more knowledge of allied plans, but more divisions .
> ...


If Germany knew the date and time of the landings they easily had the forces to stop the landings, once a bridgehead was established with airfields which took place within days then they didnt. You are still unable to understand that you dont understand very much, so stop patronising and talking down to me and others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Germany was not aware of time and place of Overlord, but this was not important,because Germany had not the forces to defeat the landing even if they knew it .
> It was the same for the U Boats: even if they had more information about the convoys, they could not sink more MV/supplies .
> And about breaking codes and deception : you are talking as some one of 2021 who is convinced that quality defeats quantity : the truth is that EIGHTY YEARS ago,quantity was more important than quality .
> You still are unable to understand that with better code breaking,Germany would still lose : what it needed was not more knowledge of allied plans, but more divisions .
> ...


Well, it's no winder that the UB were useless, they were patterned after Hunley's design after all.
Now if they had followed Kroehl's design, they would have clearly been more effective.

In regards to code-breaking, Germany would have been able to move their units away before the invasion, so they wouldn't have lost any men or tanks - FACT.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Are you having a joke? I have passed through the Pas de Calais many times, it isnt the French name for the English Channel (La Manche) it is the name for the departement on the French side. In WW2 it meant anywhere in and around Calais from Dieppe to Brugge and inland as far as places like Douai, anywhere that had military targets that would convince the Germans that the area would be the main point of attack on D-Day. Since the British and Canadian, Commonwealth forces had already landed at Dieppe, it was certainly in the Pas de Calais, thats why there were tanks at Arras.
> View attachment 631224


Brugge is in Flanders : the Pas de Calais is in France .And Amiens is not located in the Pas de Calais . Amiens is the capital of the department of the Somme and was in WW2 the HQ of the second panzer division . And the distance between Amiens and Dunkirk is more than 150 km ,to Brugge even more which means that Germany had only ONE PzD to protect the coast between Normandy and the Netherlands ,which proves my point that with better intelligence Germany would still have only one division .
The problem was not intelligence but shortage of divisions .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> There is a difference between both : the LW was still able in 1940 to attack London while Doenitz did not know where were the non rerouted convoys and while his U Boats had not sufficient fuel and ammunition .
> But : why should the RAF go after the LW bombers in 1945,when these were unable to hurt London .


But you don't seem to understand, the RAF wasn't going after LW bombers because they didn't know where they were.
People could hear them, but the RAF had no means to find them...they sky is as big as the Atlantic, you know.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Brugge is in Flanders : the Pas de Calais is in France .And Amiens is not located in the Pas de Calais . Amiens is the capital of the department of the Somme and was in WW2 the HQ of the second panzer division . And the distance between Amiens and Dunkirk is more than 150 km ,to Brugge even more which means that Germany had only ONE PzD to protect the coast between Normandy and the Netherlands ,which proves my point that with better intelligence Germany would still have only one division .
> The problem was not intelligence but shortage of divisions .


But if they had more divisions, they'd have to hire more intelligence people - where would they come from, since the Germans were so short staffed?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2021)

Wait a minute, wasn't Intelligence on both sides irrelevant?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I’m really hoping that there is a U-boat crewman who is a member of our forum to comment. Not that he would know.


My wifes father was a submariner, my father was on convoy escort. His ship HMS Highlander hit ice off Newfoundland, as the Titanic did. If you can run into an iceberg because you didnt see it how easy is it to miss a ship or convoy in the dark that is only a mile away?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2021)

Don't bother us with facts.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Brugge is in Flanders : the Pas de Calais is in France .And Amiens is not located in the Pas de Calais . Amiens is the capital of the department of the Somme and was in WW2 the HQ of the second panzer division . And the distance between Amiens and Dunkirk is more than 150 km ,to Brugge even more which means that Germany had only ONE PzD to protect the coast between Normandy and the Netherlands ,which proves my point that with better intelligence Germany would still have only one division .
> The problem was not intelligence but shortage of divisions .


You do realise that Germany invaded France dont you? When the Allies planned raids they didnt consider which French political department places were in or even if they were in France. When I worked in Dunkerque I stayed in Belgium, De Panne, it is four miles away, please give up, you are sounding like a Yokel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> My wifes father was a submariner, my father was on convoy escort. His ship HMS Highlander hit ice off Newfoundland, as the Titanic did. If you can run into an iceberg because you didnt see it how easy is it to miss a ship or convoy in the dark that is only a mile away?


My Uncle was a submariner in the Pacific Theater.
I have no idea how he got by, they were primitive machines, you know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> My Uncle was a submariner in the Pacific Theater.
> I have no idea how he got by, they were primitive machines, you know.


His wartime service killed him, the acid fumes burned his lungs and he died of chronic lung problems in 1962. He spent much of the time submerged in the Med as far as we know, a Submariners records dont say much about what they did,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If the U Boats could not do anything against the convoys, there was no need to search for them .



You continue to prove my point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I’m really hoping that there is a U-boat crewman who is a member of our forum to comment. Not that he would know.



It would not matter. He would tell our U-Boot crewman he is clueless.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 5, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You continue to prove my point.



His response to every situation seems to be to do nothing. Unfortunately, he's applying the retrospectroscope at massive scale. You can't know whether your activities are effective or not until after you've captured all the data, typically long after the fighting has ceased. That's a luxury not available to people fighting at the time. Operational and tactical situations can change very quickly, and military forces need to be prepared to respond...sitting back just isn't an option. You know this. I know this. Most people on this forum know this. Alas, ljadw doesn't appear to know this and seems to think that premonition was available in abundance during WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

At times during the war it was taking 40,000 shells to down one aircraft, that is why everyone gave up such a hopeless cause, they couldnt hit anything. Well in fact they worked on better gun laying, better aiming and better munitions.

In the four weeks proximity fuses were used against V1 doodlebugs 1st week 24% destroyed 2nd week 46% 3rd week 67% 4th week 79%. On the last day of major launches 104 were launched and 4 reached London. At the start of the war hitting a small plane travelling at 450MPH with a shell was as hopeless as detecting a submarine conning tower from 20,000ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> His wartime service killed him, the acid fumes burned his lungs and he died of chronic lung problems in 1962. He spent much of the time submerged in the Med as far as we know, a Submariners records dont say much about what they did,


My Uncle survived the war and went on to serve in the USN until he retired.
He did suffered residual effects from the "bends".
One of his boats was sunk in battle and being a torpedoman, he was able to escape via the tube before the boat sank too deep to survive the ascent.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> My Uncle survived the war and went on to serve in the USN until he retired.
> He did suffered residual effects from the "bends".
> One of his boats was sunk in battle and being a torpedoman, he was able to escape via the tube before the boat sank too deep to survive the ascent.


Its hard to imagine the life. He was married during the war and they had two children during it. She never got notice of him coming home so he either came through the front door or she would get a telegram saying he was missing presumed dead.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Are you familiar with the expression “pearls before swine”? You would have better luck talking to the wall.
> FWIW I’m convinced.


 
It's funny you mention that phrase, Rob. It was _literally_ in my mind when I was composing a reply to his "D-Day/enemy-doesn't-know-what-he-himself-is-doing" claptrap this morning. So I backspaced over my reply and simply put up my facepalm instead.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Germany was not aware of time and place of Overlord, but this was not important,because Germany had not the forces to defeat the landing even if they knew it .



Even without knowing Overlord would land in Normandy, the Germans there held up the Allies to the tune of seven weeks behind their planned timetable for advance.

Now imagine, if you can, what the Germans could do if they had good information that Overlord would land in Normandy and brought in some reinforcements from the North quickly rather than later.

Also, regarding your point -- and I'm using that term generously -- about "why search for U-boats if they cannot do anything?": has the thought occurred to you that the aerial search for the U-boats would tend to have them spending more time underwater, where there speeds were slower? Have you considered how air power impacted the U-boats ability to perform their mission?



ljadw said:


> You still are unable to understand that with better code breaking,Germany would still lose : what it needed was not more knowledge of allied plans, but more divisions .



This is an evacuated-middle fallacy.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's funny you mention that phrase, Rob. It was _literally_ in my mind when I was composing a reply to his "D-Day/enemy-doesn't-know-what-he-himself-is-doing" claptrap this morning. So I backspaced over my reply and simply put up my facepalm instead.


Dude, same reaction here. Almost face palmed instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

When the first submarine was launched no one could find it so they stopped wasting time looking, but it didnt go very far and had no weapons on board so no one built any more. That's why what you read in all your so called history books is wrong.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> When the first submarine was launched no one could find it so they stopped wasting time looking, but it didnt go very far and had no weapons on board so no one built any more. That's why what you read in all our so called history books is wrong.


Those primitive machines were a waste and so were oil tankers.
They should have used all that time and effort to improve the road between Dunkirk and Amiens - I hear it was rough going.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Those primitive machines were a waste and so were oil tankers.
> They should have used all that time and effort to improve the road between Dunkirk and Amiens - I hear it was rough going.


Its always great to be given a geography lesson about where I used to live. 6 months in Dunkerque, 6 months in Aulnoye / Maubeuge and 9 months in Rouen plus years in Northern Europe crossing the channel by ferry to from Dieppe Calais Brugge Rotterdam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2021)

Nothing that person says makes sense.
It's now to the point of being funny.

The saying is: "don't feed the troll", but I think "trolling the troll" is much more fun

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 5, 2021)

Wow! Speaking of tiresome arguments, just waded through all this...



ljadw said:


> You still are unable to understand that with better code breaking,Germany would still lose : what it needed was not more knowledge of allied plans, but more divisions .
> Germany had not enough soldiers to protect the coasts of Western Europe .



So they should'a just given up, then? Huh... Would'a saved a lot of people from dying, that's for sure. Rewritten history if they had your wisdom...


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2021)

ljadw said:


> There is a difference between both : the LW was still able in 1940 to attack London while Doenitz did not know where were the non rerouted convoys and while his U Boats had not sufficient fuel and ammunition .
> But : why should the RAF go after the LW bombers in 1945,when these were unable to hurt London .


Still haven't looked up the suggestions given to you for some research have you.

PS Still waiting for you to respond to the questions posed to you


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

Glider said:


> Still haven't looked up the suggestions given to you for some research have you.
> 
> PS Still waiting for you to respond to the questions posed to you



He’s busy conquering the world in War Thunder.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2021)

I suspect the long delays between posts is because his mom is making him clean his room or helping with the dishes...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2021)

I've got it now. Breaking codes and more submarines was no help in sinking ships, in fact Doenitz couldnt sink ships, so he should have concentrated on sinking tankers instead, the fool. Now, how many submarine captains can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## special ed (Jul 6, 2021)

Maybe the institution only computer access at certain times.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2021)

I do beleive we have this thread back.

I was so distracted by the Bell product authority's endless nonsense that I failed to notice our expert on alternate history seems to have vanished...


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 16, 2021)

I noticed. Maybe he realized he was wrong?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 16, 2021)

Joking!


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 16, 2021)

Maybe this thread should be moved to the “What-if” section

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 16, 2021)

As in "what if we ignored reality?"


----------

