Defeat of the Luftwaffe

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 3, 2012

Hoju2k, Parsifal, both of you need to tone it down. Do not let this thread get out of hand with personal insults. Personal insults ruin threads for the other members, and I am sick and tired of handing out warnings and constantly being ignored!

This is the only warning being given. Next insult to come from anyone, will get an infraction and the thread closed.

stona · Mar 3, 2012

GDP is not a measure of military or even industrial output. It is a measure of the whole economy. For example a significant proportion of the GDP of the current British economy comes from the financial service sector,banking,insurance etc. Not terribly useful when repelling an invasion though it may give you the means to buy in equipment or technology.
Cheers
Steve

Ratsel · Mar 3, 2012

Interesting thread, good read.

michaelmaltby · Mar 4, 2012

I am sick and tired of .... constantly being ignored!

Yeah, sure you are ... with that avatar

MM

Jenisch · Mar 4, 2012

michaelmaltby said:
I am sick and tired of .... constantly being ignored!

Yeah, sure you are ... with that avatar

MM

Mate, he is tr00, and he will burn you and everyone that don't obey him together with the churches, so be careful.

ps: just a joke DerAdlerIstGelandet.

tyrodtom · Mar 4, 2012

I've always liked that avatar, wished I was computor savy enough to do one like that myself.

Njaco · Mar 4, 2012

Tread lightly. DerAdler is not the only one fed up with the way threads go.

michaelmaltby · Mar 4, 2012

".... Tread lightly. "

Mines.

MM

parsifal · Mar 4, 2012

I was one of the protagonists in the last foray. i dont want anyone burnt by this indiscretion. Everyone should just step back and let things cool off.

I dont resile from the position I took, but I went too far and allowed the emotion of the moment get the better of me.

We can continue the discussion, after termpers have cooled a little. This issue is relevant to the topic. The only thing that needs to be quaterised is the personal attack stuff.

And dont mess with the mods, unless you have a death wish guys

cherry blossom · Mar 6, 2012

Jenisch said:
BTW, there's a book from 2010 called Operation Sea Lion: A Joint Critical Analysis, that seems interesting.

Description:

Three U.S. officers -- one from the Air Force, one from the Army, and one from the Navy -- met at the Joint Forces Staff College to argue that a truly "joint" approach could have produced success for Hitler in Operation Sea Lion, the proposed invasion of England in 1940.
Military history contains many lessons from which the warfighting doctrine of the individual services, as well as joint doctrine, is derived. World War II stands as one of the major contributors of valuable lessons learned. From a joint and combined warfighting perspective, Germany's planning and preparatory military actions to the invasion of Great Britain after the fall of France are instructive. Their plan, called Operation SEA LION by the Germans, was never carried out, as certain prerequisite conditions were never achieved, and Hitler elected to move on to other operations. But Germany could have been successful in invading and, if necessary, occupying Great Britain had they exercised joint and combined operations to achieve better unity of effort within the German military, remained focused on key British operational centers of gravity, and exploited the capabilities of friendly nations such as Spain, Italy, and the Vichy government of France

I didn't find any reviews from it, anyone already read?

You can download "OPERATION SEA LION: A JOINT CRITICAL ANALYSIS" by Lt Col Randy McCanne, USAF, LTC Greg D. Olson, USA and CDR Dario E. Teicher, USN at
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA421637

barney · Mar 7, 2012

Great read

Thanks

mhuxt · Mar 7, 2012

Thanks for the link.

Jenisch · Mar 8, 2012

Interesting, thanks.

I'm always cautious towards "radical" views, such as that Sea Lion could have never succeed, and the Wehrmacht was doomed since the start. This work only boost my thinking.

stona · Mar 11, 2012

Jenisch said:
Interesting, thanks.

I'm always cautious towards "radical" views, such as that Sea Lion could have never succeed,

I don't think that this is a radical view,quite the reverse. With the benefit of hindsight I think most people can't really envisage any way for the German Armies to make a landing across the Channel. Just look at the resources the Western Allies deployed during "Overlord". German defences were of course much better prepared but it was still a much closer run thing than some would have us believe. In 1940 the Wermacht did not posess a single specialised landing craft of any sort! Soldiers were to row ashore in rubber boats and tanks were,eventually,to be off loaded from barges.
I believe that "Sealion" was little more than an elaborate bluff and part of a larger plan,along with the air assault on Britain,to force a negotiated peace,favourable to Germany,which would allow her to pursue her real objectives. These had always lain in the East.
If these are radical views I know a lot of radical people
Cheers
Steve

Gixxerman · Mar 11, 2012

I agree stona.
In fact I recall reading that the German command always 'war gamed' big operations like Sea Lion and even they concluded that (barring several outrageously enormous strokes of good fortune and/or British political stupidity) they could not succeed with Sea Lion.

Sad to say the usual 'health warning' applies.
I'm afraid my recall is as good as this gets, I'm certain i'm not mistaken on this but I'm afraid I can't give a link to back this up.

parsifal · Mar 12, 2012

stona said:
I don't think that this is a radical view,quite the reverse. With the benefit of hindsight I think most people can't really envisage any way for the German Armies to make a landing across the Channel. Just look at the resources the Western Allies deployed during "Overlord". German defences were of course much better prepared but it was still a much closer run thing than some would have us believe. In 1940 the Wermacht did not posess a single specialised landing craft of any sort! Soldiers were to row ashore in rubber boats and tanks were,eventually,to be off loaded from barges.
I believe that "Sealion" was little more than an elaborate bluff and part of a larger plan,along with the air assault on Britain,to force a negotiated peace,favourable to Germany,which would allow her to pursue her real objectives. These had always lain in the East.
If these are radical views I know a lot of radical people
Cheers
Steve

Hi Steve
cto

95% of what you say I agree with, and yet this can still be used by those not wanting to embrace the truth of the victory achieved. Ask yourself these questions. Could the british afford to not fighht the battle (for more than just propaganda reasons) and what wouold have happened if they had lost. Beyond that .....was it possible for the british to lose.

Here are my answers to my own questions

1) Could the british afford to not fighht the battle (for more than just propaganda reasons)
No, they needed to deny air superiority to the LW and then gain it for themselves if they wanted any hope of turning the fortunes of war in their favour

2) what wouold have happened if they had lost

At some point, probably early to mid '41, they would have been forced to the peace table
3) Beyond that .....was it possible for the british to lose

Undoubetedly. In fact, with only a few degrees of different approaches, it is my opinion this battle was likely to be lost. It was the most unlikley of victories. Because we can sit here now, 70 years later with the benefits of hindsight, and see the perfection in the British defencee to the bumbling mess made of the German offensive, its easy to say this was a battle that Britain would never lose. i have more faith in the Germans than that

Jenisch · Mar 12, 2012

Parfisal, despite what I have said, many historians today point it was unlikely for the LW to defeat the RAF, even if they had focused in the airfields. They say that even attacking the airbases, the damage inflicted was mediocre, and the RAF was each time more strong.

Elmas · Mar 12, 2012

Not to say that the LW attacks were mainly on the airfields south of London: to destroy also those north of London the effort of the LW shuld have been much greater, an effort that LW did not have the strenght to sustain.
It was just for political reasons that the Squadons were compelled to stay in the more exposed airfields, like Biggin, Kenley etc.

Jenisch · Mar 12, 2012

Another thing is that if the Germans focused on the airfields, not only the losses would still be replaced, but perhaps even faster, because the industry and the infraestructure would not been affected.

However, I don't agree with those who say the BoB was only a bluff from Hitler. Had he obtained air superiority, it would be quiet possible the invasion would proceed.

Vincenzo · Mar 12, 2012

the resources most rare were the pilots, so need to take out this

Defeat of the Luftwaffe

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Banned

Colonel

Attachments

Staff Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Colonel

Colonel

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Senior Airman

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads