Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 .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.
The initial Halt Order was issued by Rundstedt, thus Guderian, Halder and Liddell Hart were lying when they blamed Hitler for the Halt Order .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...
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 .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.
Did Liddell get everything right, No, did he get more right than he got wrong, I would argue yes. 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'
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 .
Rundstedt called the halt because his elements were strung out, playing catch-up. They needed consolidating before pushing into the defenders.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 .
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 .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.
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 ) .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).
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 .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.
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
I didn't forget anything.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 .
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 .
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.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.
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 .
The initial Halt Order was issued by Rundstedt, thus Guderian, Halder and Liddell Hart were lying when they blamed Hitler for the Halt Order .
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?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.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 .
.
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 .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.
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.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.