Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
PlanD This is just the start. But I would like to ask said: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 said: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.
Udet said:And that very typical style of yours of launching accusations and insults...might get you in serious trouble one day.
syscom3 said: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.
Jabberwocky said:syscom3 said: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.
Udet said: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.
Udet said: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.
Jabberwocky said:Udet said: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"