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

[ljadw]

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.

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 .

 

[ljadw]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[buffnut453]

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.

 

[buffnut453]

Why would there be elections?

And how can we be so certain that "anti-Germans" (in reality anti-Nazis) would win?

 

[pbehn]

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]​

 

[pbehn]

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.

 

[buffnut453]

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.

 

[Glider]

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 .

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.

 

[buffnut453]

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]

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]

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.

 

[pbehn]

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.

 

[ljadw]

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]

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.

 

[pbehn]

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.

 

[buffnut453]

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.