D-Day - 6th June, 1944.

[syscom3]

yeah, leave his thread alone!!!!!!!



Soren, when it comes to amphibious invasions, the size of your army is dictated by how many can be transported by sea and supplied and maintained in the field.

If Hitler had 30 divisions in France waiting to invade England, but only had enough sea transport to supply two divisions at a time, the size of his army will always be two divisions.

 

[Udet]

I do not want to "ruin" your thread. Also I do not downplay anything.

It was yourself raising the question here, if the allies were required to make such a massive display of war materiel to make D-day happen, "how can there be people believing Germany could have invaded England in 1940"?

And that very typical style of yours of launching accusations and insults...might get you in serious trouble one day.

 

[Hunter368]

It really could not have succeeded with what both powers had available to fight with at the time. UK just had too many weapons to fight with at the time for Germany to be able to take care of them all.

1) RAF Fighter command
2) Bomber Command
3) The big daddy "Royal Navy"

Not to mention the lack of weapons that Germany had at the time. ie a navy that could pull it off or a air force that protect their non-existent navy.

If UK was connected to France by land Germany could of .... well thats a different thread. I will stick to the subject as PlanD has asked.

 

[syscom3]

Udet, the other thread went into detail how in 1940, the germans were completly unprepared and equipped to launch a major invasion. Their planning was made up of unbelievable assumptions and always assumed best case scenarios.

Their capability of invasion was next to nil in the best of circumstances in 1940 and would have been even worse off in 1941.

As the USN/USMC proved in the Pacific, if youre going to take any beachhead without port facilities, you better have a multitude of specialised amphib ships and lot of them.

The Germans didnt have them and even if they did make a few, they would have been sunk in transit to the channel ports or blown to pieces at the dock.

 

[syscom3]

Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.

To start with, the allies had far to few battleships and cruisers available for fire support. If I was Admiral, I would double the number of heavy gun ships. Also, I would have some shallow draft "monitors" built with some heavy 8" or 12" guns for direct fire support up close. The debacle at Omaha might have been far less severe if the German pillbox's could have been taken under direct close range fire.

 

[Hunter368]

Udet, the other thread went into detail how in 1940, the germans were completly unprepared and equipped to launch a major invasion. Their planning was made up of unbelievable assumptions and always assumed best case scenarios.

Their capability of invasion was next to nil in the best of circumstances in 1940 and would have been even worse off in 1941.

As the USN/USMC proved in the Pacific, if youre going to take any beachhead without port facilities, you better have a multitude of specialised amphib ships and lot of them.

The Germans didnt have them and even if they did make a few, they would have been sunk in transit to the channel ports or blown to pieces at the dock.

Syscom don't forget as Udet pointed out " that German never intented to invade UK really" lol yeh right they never wanted to. Yes they did. They just could not do it.

 

[syscom3]

Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.

To start with, the allies had far to few battleships and cruisers available for fire support. If I was Admiral, I would double the number of heavy gun ships. Also, I would have some shallow draft "monitors" built with some heavy 8" or 12" guns for direct fire support up close. The debacle at Omaha might have been far less severe if the German pillbox's could have been taken under direct close range fire.

 

[evangilder]

And that very typical style of yours of launching accusations and insults...might get you in serious trouble one day.

You really have no room to talk there, Udet.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.

To start with, the allies had far to few battleships and cruisers available for fire support. If I was Admiral, I would double the number of heavy gun ships. Also, I would have some shallow draft "monitors" built with some heavy 8" or 12" guns for direct fire support up close. The debacle at Omaha might have been far less severe if the German pillbox's could have been taken under direct close range fire.

The Allied fleet at Normandy had the largest array of naval support ever dedicated to an invasion. The USN history of Operation Neptune puts the immediate fire support as "The assault was to be supported by a bombardment force of 7 Battleships, 2 Monitors, 23 Cruisers, 2 Gunboats, 75 Fleet Destroyers, 16 Hunt class destroyers and special bombarding craft.", but notes later that many other ships were detached from their operations for fire support.

The heavy gun support was ordered off at Omaha 0830 for fear of hitting thier own troops. Support responisbilities then fell to the 5" guns on destroyers. With their shallow draft and good speed, they could prowl up and down the beachheads and use their guns to engage enemy batteries. Most USN destroyers on D-Day fired upwards of 500 5" shells. Some fired over 1000.

 

[Hunter368]

Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.

To start with, the allies had far to few battleships and cruisers available for fire support. If I was Admiral, I would double the number of heavy gun ships. Also, I would have some shallow draft "monitors" built with some heavy 8" or 12" guns for direct fire support up close. The debacle at Omaha might have been far less severe if the German pillbox's could have been taken under direct close range fire.

The Allied fleet at Normandy had the largest array of naval support ever dedicated to an invasion. The USN history of Operation Neptune puts the immediate fire support as "The assault was to be supported by a bombardment force of 7 Battleships, 2 Monitors, 23 Cruisers, 2 Gunboats, 75 Fleet Destroyers, 16 Hunt class destroyers and special bombarding craft.", but notes later that many other ships were detached from their operations for fire support.

The heavy gun support was ordered off at Omaha 0830 for fear of hitting thier own troops. Support responisbilities then fell to the 5" guns on destroyers. With their shallow draft and good speed, they could prowl up and down the beachheads and use their guns to engage enemy batteries. Most USN destroyers on D-Day fired upwards of 500 5" shells. Some fired over 1000.

Yikes, can you imagine being dug in or sitting in a pill box on the beach and seeing them go up and down shooting like hell. Whether they could knock out your pill box or not it would of been terrifying to see if you were a German.

 

[Udet]

syscom:

I do agree the possibilities for Germany to carry on with an invasion of Britain in 1940 were marginal to say the least.

The point is -and yes Mr. Hunter368, you can laugh as much as you desire-, there is evidence enough to suggest Germany did not really intend to invade much less occupy the British island.

I do not care if Hitler hired an architect to have his personal palace designed in London once Buckingham got flattened.

First off, what of Germany´s oficial peace offering? Please, tell me of the arguments you have to dismiss this first point off hand.

Hitler´s fundamental obssesion was the soviet union. He wanted to put as much pressure as possible on the British to perhaps force a peace agreement to then switch east as soon as possible.

Occupying England? Whatever the number of divisions necessary to achieve such task, Hitler feared seeing his military getting scattered across Europe. The most concetrated blow was to strike the soviets.

He carried on with what appeared as a feasible venture, an air campaign -Battle of Britain-, which proved of course futile.

It is clear the industrial might of the US, combined with that of the Brits produced the massive armada which stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944.

Conditions for each period were quite different however. The Allies required that kind of massive deployment for they were going to face a tough enemy, that although over stretched had very powerful units in the order of battle (Panzer Lehr, 21 Pz. Div, 12 SS.Pz.Div, 116 Pz. Div, the SS s.Pz.Abt., etc.).

Do not get me wrong mr syscom, this ain´t an issue where I´ll say I am knowledged, but if i recall correctly, even with the massive assault of june 1944, the allies always progressed embarrasingly behind the projected timeframes for advancing in the continent.

Germany, in 1940, in the nearly impossible event of an invasion of England would have faced an entirely different foe: an army which had lost the bulk of its equipment and material in the battle where they had just been battered.


Mr. Evangilder:

I have no room to talk there? So you are suggesting that just like Plan_D does virtually on a daily basis with many members, also I conduct my own rampages insulting people and launching groundless acussations?

Read very well what he said to me there; it was pretty much like "you downplay the fierce defensive effort of the British people". He does not know me to launch such acussation.

Please do not confuse disliking the ideas of someone (disagreeing) with being unnecessarily cyberaggressive and insulting.

Had any member posted the very same comment you just directed to me there, the exact phrase having Plan_D as the receiver, I am sure you can figure out the kind of vocabulary and "attitude" would come from him as response.

 

[plan_D]

< Just for you, Udet.

That simple rhetorical question at the end of the first post was meant to simply provide some light on the difficulties that Germany would have faced in 1940/1941. I thought it was obvious to the vast majority of people on here that the discussion of Sealion had already been over ... more than once. Not to arouse a discussion about some lame ass punk bitch little Austrian picking his arse while trying to decide on Britain or Russia ...

I think the title of the thread clearly indicates that it's about Operation OVERLORD - but now, any onlooker doesn't know what the f*ck is going on because it seems no one knows how to use the "New Thread" button.

So, feel free to rampage on in this thread ... I'll start a new one ... and maybe you'll all rampage about who's arse smells the best in that one.

 

[syscom3]

Is that guy on the violin playing "ride of the valkeryie"?

 

[plan_D]

I don't know ... he could be playin' "Sniff my noggin" for all I care. He's some little yellow dude with a violin ... you can't go wrong.

 

[CharlesBronson]

A nice link with info about the sluggish performance of the Luftwaffe over the invation front.

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/6june44.htm

 

[Jabberwocky]

syscom:

I do agree the possibilities for Germany to carry on with an invasion of Britain in 1940 were marginal to say the least.

The point is -and yes Mr. Hunter368, you can laugh as much as you desire-, there is evidence enough to suggest Germany did not really intend to invade much less occupy the British island.

I do not care if Hitler hired an architect to have his personal palace designed in London once Buckingham got flattened.

First off, what of Germany´s oficial peace offering? Please, tell me of the arguments you have to dismiss this first point off hand.

Hitler´s fundamental obssesion was the soviet union. He wanted to put as much pressure as possible on the British to perhaps force a peace agreement to then switch east as soon as possible.

Occupying England? Whatever the number of divisions necessary to achieve such task, Hitler feared seeing his military getting scattered across Europe. The most concetrated blow was to strike the soviets.

He carried on with what appeared as a feasible venture, an air campaign -Battle of Britain-, which proved of course futile.

It is clear the industrial might of the US, combined with that of the Brits produced the massive armada which stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944.

Conditions for each period were quite different however. The Allies required that kind of massive deployment for they were going to face a tough enemy, that although over stretched had very powerful units in the order of battle (Panzer Lehr, 21 Pz. Div, 12 SS.Pz.Div, 116 Pz. Div, the SS s.Pz.Abt., etc.).

Do not get me wrong mr syscom, this ain´t an issue where I´ll say I am knowledged, but if i recall correctly, even with the massive assault of june 1944, the allies always progressed embarrasingly behind the projected timeframes for advancing in the continent.

Germany, in 1940, in the nearly impossible event of an invasion of England would have faced an entirely different foe: an army which had lost the bulk of its equipment and material in the battle where they had just been battered.


Mr. Evangilder:

I have no room to talk there? So you are suggesting that just like Plan_D does virtually on a daily basis with many members, also I conduct my own rampages insulting people and launching groundless acussations?

Read very well what he said to me there; it was pretty much like "you downplay the fierce defensive effort of the British people". He does not know me to launch such acussation.

Please do not confuse disliking the ideas of someone (disagreeing) with being unnecessarily cyberaggressive and insulting.

Had any member posted the very same comment you just directed to me there, the exact phrase having Plan_D as the receiver, I am sure you can figure out the kind of vocabulary and "attitude" would come from him as response.

Actually Udet, Germany WAS planning to invade England, no matter how you want to slant it. They just couldn't.

Surely, the Kriegsmarine didn't assemble 1300 barges and 300 transports in northen France because they didn't intend to invade England?

The Whermarcht didn't convert 250 tanks for amphibious assault just because they felt like it, did they?

The 6th Army obviously just began training their troops in seaborn landing techniques for no reason.

Hitler really didnt want to invade the UK when he issued Directive 16. After all, all that it says in the second sentence is "I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary carry out, an invasion of England". He wanted to eliminate "Great Britain as a base from which the war against Germany can be fought, and if necessary the island will be occupied"

 

[Maestro]

... And may be the Blitz on British cities, airfields, radar stations [...] was only for the fun of wasting ammos and losing aircrafts ?

 

[evangilder]

Mr. Evangilder:

I have no room to talk there? So you are suggesting that just like Plan_D does virtually on a daily basis with many members, also I conduct my own rampages insulting people and launching groundless acussations?

Read very well what he said to me there; it was pretty much like "you downplay the fierce defensive effort of the British people". He does not know me to launch such acussation.

Please do not confuse disliking the ideas of someone (disagreeing) with being unnecessarily cyberaggressive and insulting.

Had any member posted the very same comment you just directed to me there, the exact phrase having Plan_D as the receiver, I am sure you can figure out the kind of vocabulary and "attitude" would come from him as response.

I wasn't talking about plan_d, Udet. I was talking about YOU. You can try to deflect all you want, but you have numerous times been insulting and talked down to other members. So don't play holier than thou. If you took a statement that someone said as directed at you and insulting when it did not appear to be then I believe that one with the problem here is you.

The point is that you can't claim moral high ground if there is a dead body in your closet. Capiche?

 

[Hunter368]

syscom:

I do agree the possibilities for Germany to carry on with an invasion of Britain in 1940 were marginal to say the least.

The point is -and yes Mr. Hunter368, you can laugh as much as you desire-, there is evidence enough to suggest Germany did not really intend to invade much less occupy the British island.

I do not care if Hitler hired an architect to have his personal palace designed in London once Buckingham got flattened.

First off, what of Germany´s oficial peace offering? Please, tell me of the arguments you have to dismiss this first point off hand.

Hitler´s fundamental obssesion was the soviet union. He wanted to put as much pressure as possible on the British to perhaps force a peace agreement to then switch east as soon as possible.

Occupying England? Whatever the number of divisions necessary to achieve such task, Hitler feared seeing his military getting scattered across Europe. The most concetrated blow was to strike the soviets.

He carried on with what appeared as a feasible venture, an air campaign -Battle of Britain-, which proved of course futile.

It is clear the industrial might of the US, combined with that of the Brits produced the massive armada which stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944.

Conditions for each period were quite different however. The Allies required that kind of massive deployment for they were going to face a tough enemy, that although over stretched had very powerful units in the order of battle (Panzer Lehr, 21 Pz. Div, 12 SS.Pz.Div, 116 Pz. Div, the SS s.Pz.Abt., etc.).

Do not get me wrong mr syscom, this ain´t an issue where I´ll say I am knowledged, but if i recall correctly, even with the massive assault of june 1944, the allies always progressed embarrasingly behind the projected timeframes for advancing in the continent.

Germany, in 1940, in the nearly impossible event of an invasion of England would have faced an entirely different foe: an army which had lost the bulk of its equipment and material in the battle where they had just been battered.


Mr. Evangilder:

I have no room to talk there? So you are suggesting that just like Plan_D does virtually on a daily basis with many members, also I conduct my own rampages insulting people and launching groundless acussations?

Read very well what he said to me there; it was pretty much like "you downplay the fierce defensive effort of the British people". He does not know me to launch such acussation.

Please do not confuse disliking the ideas of someone (disagreeing) with being unnecessarily cyberaggressive and insulting.

Had any member posted the very same comment you just directed to me there, the exact phrase having Plan_D as the receiver, I am sure you can figure out the kind of vocabulary and "attitude" would come from him as response.

Actually Udet, Germany WAS planning to invade England, no matter how you want to slant it. They just couldn't.

Surely, the Kriegsmarine didn't assemble 1300 barges and 300 transports in northen France because they didn't intend to invade England?

The Whermarcht didn't convert 250 tanks for amphibious assault just because they felt like it, did they?

The 6th Army obviously just began training their troops in seaborn landing techniques for no reason.

Hitler really didnt want to invade the UK when he issued Directive 16. After all, all that it says in the second sentence is "I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary carry out, an invasion of England". He wanted to eliminate "Great Britain as a base from which the war against Germany can be fought, and if necessary the island will be occupied"

Jabber this was obviously an elaborate plan only to fool everyone. So was BoB just a plan to fool everyone. Germany never planned to invade Germany ever.

Udet please come on here, Germany 100% planned to invade them IF a negotiated peace could not be worked out. As any person would Hitler planned to win the war with UK with bluff, intimation and negotiated peace talks first. If that didn't happen (which it did not) then he would need to control the air space (he failed as we all know) over UK and send in his invasion fleet (which as was stated already was in ports along France and was not up to the task). Hitler had a plan A (win with talks) and plan B (win with war) and both failed. Be reasonable Hitler did plan to invade UK if talks failed, did he like the idea of invading them ? no Who would of, he knew it was going to costs him dearly even if he could of done it successfully. If you say they did not plan to invade UK give a list of examples for us why you believe this. Maybe like in a new thread would be better as this is off subect here.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A picture reveals a 1000 words...