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

[ljadw]

Sorry but no. Military leaders are issued Terms of Reference that define their area of responsibility. TORs always close with a catch-all that says "and other orders as directed" but that's an AND statement not an INSTEAD OF statement. Those "other orders" must be accomplished in addition to the primary direction being provided to the officer. In Dowding's case, his primary responsibility was air defence of the UK, hence why he refused to send more fighters to France (air defence of France was France's problem to solve, not Dowding's).

Your suggestion to pull back north of London would be an abrogation of Dowding's responsibility to defend the UK. No military leader ignores their primary mission on the off-chance of some future "what if" possibility. You fight tonight with the forces that you have - you don't hold back and wait just in case. Holding back and waiting cedes the initiative to the adversary, and you risk having your forces picked off.

Not sure where you're going with the Tirpitz thing but its only real contribution was as a resource sink for the Allied bombing effort. It represented a potential threat that had to be neutralized. FC, or at least 11 Group's defensive area, still had to be neutralized regardless of where the aircraft were located.

You can't guarantee that FC would remain intact. That is a MASSIVE assumption that isn't borne out by the facts of air combat. You have yet to answer how FC will defend its airfields north of London if the Luftwaffe takes out a sizeable chunk of CH? Again, look at Poland, the Low Countries and France where, without radar, airfields were incredibly vulnerable. How could FC protect its airfields if it doesn't know German attacks are even coming their way? The Observer Corps might be of some use but the amount of warning they could provide would be minimal. There's a real risk that much of FC would get caught on the ground or still be struggling to climb to height when the Luftwaffe arrived overhead. That's not a recipe for a winning strategy. It's very likely that FC would suffer greater losses than was the case in the BoB as it played out.

Sigh : only bombers could attack airfields north of London IF,IF they were protected by fighters .And London was the limit for the German fighters . Thus the airfields north of London were safe even without CH .
And the defense of Britain against air attacks was not the mission of FC only : after the war the BC lobby said that the 40000 civilian deaths from the Blitz were the responsibility of the politicians who refused to give more money to BC .The BC lobby said that if BC was strong enough in 1940 to destroy German cities the LW would not have attacked British cities : something as the MAD doctrine of the Cold War .

 

[ljadw]

I mentioned "The Few" because it was a reference Churchill made, just like Churchill used the phrase "we will fight them on the beaches" which I also referenced in the same post.

How about actually answering questions that have been asked of you instead of such nit-picking idiocy.

Irrelevant : you mentioned something that was a myth : Britain was not saved by a few fighter pilots .

 

[buffnut453]

Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .
Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...

So, in your world, the Battle of Britain doesn't really happen because FC retreats and refuses to fight and the Luftwaffe doesn't go after them. Sounds something like this:

 

[ljadw]

But he died in November, you said Chamberlain would be there to oppose him, a new leder is not dependent on the old, read the link.

Chamberlain made Winston PM .

 

[buffnut453]

Sigh : only bombers could attack airfields north of London IF,IF they were protected by fighters .And London was the limit for the German fighters . Thus the airfields north of London were safe even without CH .
And the defense of Britain against air attacks was not the mission of FC only : after the war the BC lobby said that the 40000 civilian deaths from the Blitz were the responsibility of the politicians who refused to give more money to BC .The BC lobby said that if BC was strong enough in 1940 to destroy German cities the LW would not have attacked British cities : something as the MAD doctrine of the Cold War .

Why would Luftwaffe bombers need to be protected by fighters if FC is stuck on the ground because it doesn't know the raid is coming? Without radar, the Observer Corps have no idea where or when a raid might develop. Their ability to spot raids would be greatly diminished. How, then, would FC stations be alerted that a raid was incoming?

Please answer me that.

P.S. BC never had a mission to defend British airspace. FC did have that mission. Deterrence is not defence...deterrence is a preventative measure seeking to avoid attack, defence is an active measure required in case of attack. Stop your tortured twisting of soundbites.

 

[pbehn]

Chamberlain made Winston PM .

No he didnt, you keep stating your latest idea as a fact. It is extremely tiresome. You never back anything up with any facts, you just state another baseless idea, you just found out when Chamberlain died yesterday.

 

[buffnut453]

Irrelevant : you mentioned something that was a myth : Britain was not saved by a few fighter pilots .

In your tortured opinion. However, you've yet to answer a number of key questions asked of you. So put up or shut up. Either start answering questions with reason and facts rather than restating your opinions and absolute statements that entirely lack evidence.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Doctrines are subordinate to the circumstances .

Wrong again. Doctrines are guiding principles. Reread what I quoted above from the USAF's own source material.

Biplanes could only attack if there were opponents, if they had sufficient fuel, sufficient ammunition, if they had the order to attack, if, if ,...

Well, duh, Capt Obvious ... although orders to attack weren't always necessary. None of that, however, obviates my rebuttal to the stupid claim that no principles of air power have stood the test of time.

Chamberlain made Winston PM .

I'm pretty sure the King made Winston PM.

 

[pbehn]

In your tortured opinion. However, you've yet to answer a number of key questions asked of you. So put up or shut up. Either start answering questions with reason and facts rather than restating your opinions and absolute statements that entirely lack evidence.

World War Two and powered flight are myths.... discuss.

 

[SaparotRob]

Captain Obvious commanded the FC retreat from London. Takka takka takka. FACT!

 

[buffnut453]

 

[ljadw]

What is your argument or is it just a series of contradictions? There was a war because Germany invaded Poland, are you now saying Germany doesnt invade Poland? Why?

Sigh : even a student of the LSE would understand this .
1 There were elections in 1935 won by the Tories but with a smaller majority than in 1931
2 Elections were planned for November 1939,but it was dubious that the Tories would win them ,
3 Because of the DOW, these elections were delayed
4 If the war was over in September 1940 because of a British surrender, there would be no longer a reason to delay the elections and the Commons would be dissolved .
5 No one could predict the outcome of these elections.
6 Germany would not take the risk that the new government would be hostile to Germany and would demand a dictatorial government .
7 As such a government could not survive without German support,a German army of occupation would be needed .
QED .

 

[Shortround6]

Doctrine/s are not absolutes, at least they shouldn't be.

They are, in an ideal world, guidelines or best practices should be able to be violated by a junior officer IF the junior officer has good and sufficient reason/s for doing so and can state the existing doctrine and why the junior officer felt it didn't apply in the particular situation. Just saying he didn't fell like it is not good enough.

Unfortunately in an imperfect world doctrine sometimes becomes Dogma.
In the RAF Bomber Command had their own Dogma which they held to both during and after the war. It resulted in a lot of deaths of British service men (and merchant seamen) and lost battles which BC stubbornly refused to admit any fault. Anything BC said at the time or in the years after WW II needs a very careful examination as they were in full blame shifting mode.

 

[buffnut453]

Sigh : even a student of the LSE would understand this .
1 There were elections in 1935 won by the Tories but with a smaller majority than in 1931
2 Elections were planned for November 1939,but it was dubious that the Tories would win them ,
3 Because of the DOW, these elections were delayed
4 If the war was over in September 1940 because of a British surrender, there would be no longer a reason to delay the elections and the Commons would be dissolved .
5 No one could predict the outcome of these elections.
6 Germany would not take the risk that the new government would be hostile to Germany and would demand a dictatorial government .
7 As such a government could not survive without German support,a German army of occupation would be needed .
QED .

And it would be a lot better if you'd stop making such bald assumptions. The following numbers offer alternative interpretations to your "statement = fact" nonsense:

#4: A negotiated peace settlement is not the same as surrender...as you've been told numerous times.
#5: That's your assumption. If the war went so badly that Churchill was removed from power, it's entirely possible that the election results COULD be predicted.
#6: There's a fair amount of distance between dictatorial and compliant...and both government options were viable.
#7: Again (as has been pointed out repeatedly), this all depends on the peace negotiations and whether German demands essentially forced Britain into a treaty that supported Nazi war aims. If this was presented as the only viable option other than invasion, it's entirely possible that Parliament and the people would have gone along with the plan (reinstating Edward VIII was also on the table to help ensure Britain's compliance).

 

[pbehn]

Sigh : even a student of the LSE would understand this .
1 There were elections in 1935 won by the Tories but with a smaller majority than in 1931
2 Elections were planned for November 1939,but it was dubious that the Tories would win them ,
3 Because of the DOW, these elections were delayed
4 If the war was over in September 1940 because of a British surrender, there would be no longer a reason to delay the elections and the Commons would be dissolved .
5 No one could predict the outcome of these elections.
6 Germany would not take the risk that the new government would be hostile to Germany and would demand a dictatorial government .
7 As such a government could not survive without German support,a German army of occupation would be needed .
QED .

So the British surrender and then hold an election, if Germany gives them permission? Can you spend more than 2 seconds on these theories. The declaration of war was more significant to the UK than it was to Germany, with that declaration the UK government took almost unlimited powers, including those on the constitution. The Emergency Powers Act was passed on 24 August 1939 in reaction to Nazi Soviet pact. After Sept 3 1939 the UK had and used far more powers over its people than Germany did. I am getting a bit irked by people who dont know the UK constitution or its history glibly lecturing me on it. No one "makes" a British prime minister, after an election the monarch invites a member to form a government.

Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[buffnut453]

No one "makes" a British prime minister, after an election the monarch invites a member to form a government.

Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hence why reinstating Edward VIII would be a canny move by Germany.

 

[pbehn]

Hence why reinstating Edward VIII would be a canny move by Germany.

They wouldnt get the chance. I dont know where the conversation came from or is going, the LW couldnt eliminate the RAF or force it to pull back, the navy was perfectly able to defeat any invasion without air cover but losses would be high and Germany couldnt cut UK supply lines. It is a scenario based on the UK just laying down its arms to see what happens next.

 

[buffnut453]

They wouldnt get the chance. I dont know where the conversation came from or is going, the LW couldnt eliminate the RAF or force it to pull back, the navy was perfectly able to defeat any invasion without air cover but losses would be high and Germany couldnt cut UK supply lines. It is a scenario based on the UK just laying down its arms to see what happens next.

So you agree with our argumentative friend that the Battle of Britain was irrelevant?

 

[pbehn]

So you agree with our argumentative friend that the Battle of Britain was irrelevant?

I havnt a clue what he is getting at. It seems the RAF was formed to make vapour trails over London prior to welcoming Goering in Pall Mall.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sigh...

Groundhog v. 2.0