Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: agent 009 on April 30, 2005, 11:15:35 PM
-
Germany 1st takes Austria, Czechlosovakia, Denmark, part of Poland to connect Prussia with Germany, Then Baltic states, & Scandinavia, & finally England. & calls it the northern empire.
No eastern front, no battle of France, no North African front.
Can they hold it? will US & Canada intervene?
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Germany 1st takes Austria, Czechlosovakia, Denmark, part of Poland to connect Prussia with Germany, Then Baltic states, & Scandinavia, & finally England. & calls it the northern empire.
No eastern front, no battle of France, no North African front.
Can they hold it? will US & Canada intervene?
Depends. Is my Granpa still wearing a dress? If he IS, then no, Germany couldn't possibly hold.
OTOH, if he goes back to pants, then Hitler very well might have succeded.
Touchy one there (the topic, not my grandpa. that bastage never gave "good" hugs)
-
Fabulously interesting to hear about grandpa, was he a cross dresser then?
-
So england and france dont declare when takes the danzig corridore?
So Germany doesnt ally with Russia to invade poland?
So they invade england successfully from Denmark? is that a two day sail?
Hitler ignores the two largest armies in the world on his flanks?
He has still not secured a single source of oil unless you count the north sea.
I dont think your scenario is even remotly feasable or in keeping with what we know of Hitler. But shure..if they succeeded in taking all that they wouldnt have to worry about losing it. Who is going to take it back? Why ignore france and the low countries though? They would be a piece of cake if you had england.
-
In yaughts yes. Yes England & france do not declare war over Danzig corridor.
The idea is a Northern empire that is no threat to France or Russia. England as you say would be difficult, It would require a completely differwent naval plan starting in 30,s. It could be left out for that matter as part of strategic plan.
If Germans captured Iceland and Norway, one would be hard pressed to see England staying neutral, But again that is the question, is there a feasible way for Germany to create a Northern empire with central Europe, baltic states & scandinavia?
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Fabulously interesting to hear about grandpa, was he a cross dresser then?
you missed my point entirely. (sigh) Obviously SOMEONE needs to bone up on their world history.
(cross dresser indeed SNORK)
-
Originally posted by WMLute
SOMEONE needs to bone up on their world history.
... and their geography.
asw
-
Why wouldn't there be an eastern front? War was inevitable between Germany and Russia.
-
I thought I would get the odd snide replies. If hurling turds is your thing, head back to the crossdresser chat room.
Danzig corridor could be bypassed. war with Russia inevitable? perhaps over Baltic states, Hitlers political bent is well known. But the discussion is theoretical, it is a strategic discussion regarding feasability, not Hitlers political bent.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
I thought I would get the odd snide replies. If hurling turds is your thing, head back to the crossdresser chat room.
Danzig corridor could be bypassed. war with Russia inevitable? perhaps over Baltic states, Hitlers political bent is well known. But the discussion is theoretical, it is a strategic discussion regarding feasability, not Hitlers political bent.
and YOU sir, obviously have never met my granpa. He TAUGHT Danzig how to rock. Taught 'em to crack walnuts w/ their, well, better not get into THAT right now. It's a pretty scary story fraught with peril. Remind me to tell you the story of my grandpa and stalin, two beer bongs, and a whole lot of squirrels.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
The idea is a Northern empire that is no threat to France or Russia. England as you say would be difficult, It would require a completely differwent naval plan starting in 30,s. It could be left out for that matter as part of strategic plan.
If Germans captured Iceland and Norway, one would be hard pressed to see England staying neutral, But again that is the question, is there a feasible way for Germany to create a Northern empire with central Europe, baltic states & scandinavia?
France could/would not have remained neutral in your scenario unless you roll back history 2 hundred years and make some changes there. Your trying to look at this idea in a historical vacuum. Read Robert Massey's "Dreadnought" and Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy" and you'll know why I say this.
asw
-
Glad I haven't met Grandpa with his interest in nuts & dresses.
-
This is out of control.
Stop it.
-
I don't know, was kinda fun to watch actually. A bit like a Fairy swordfish runs into a tempest, and doesn't understand why its fluttering down in flames.
-
"The idea is a ..."
I just have to ask.
Do you wear leather undies, listen to Wehrmacht marching music and get all dreamy eyed during these alternate history fantasies so that a box of VonKleenex has to be at hand?
-
Me thinks your lookin for lovers in the wrong forum westy.
-
what if hitler had invaded russia from the west, instead of france, and Japan from the East in 1939/40?
would the french and british intervened then?
would russia have survived without lend lease?
or would france and britain invade via france?
-
Originally posted by Furball
what if hitler had invaded russia from the west, instead of france, and Japan from the East in 1939/40?
Russia would have fallen, little doubt in my mind. It was largely the release of the Siberian troop from the east that saved Moskow in 1941. The issue for the Japs was oil though, even if Hitler were to share the caucasian fields with them the lines would have been too long. Japan could not have mounted enough offensive in the east without more oil.
-
I don't think Germany could have conquered Britain without having conquered France first. As it was, the Channel was still too much of an obstacle and the RAF too strong. Germany could never have mounted an attack on Britain across the North Sea from Denmark & Norway.
MRPLUTO
-
Now you have Germany taking Iceland as well. Give them the azores too.
I think your underestimation of the problems of invading Britian from Denmark or Wilihamshaven pretty much undermine your scenario. It is nothing like any invasion that happened in ww2. Sealion was projecting a 30 mile piece of water, as was Overlord, Some of the American invasions were quite far but they were not against fully established industrialized countries with some of the most able airforces and navies in the world to oppose them.
-
The real problem is your ignoring the political realities of the time. Only when you look at history thru a distorted lens can you come up with this.
If you look at the driving issues behind the war it has to unfold along the lines it did.....
The driving force was the reunification of the "reich"...Basically the annexation of the northern provinces of france that were "taken" at the end of WW1. The danzig corridor and the "liberation" of the balkin states that were considered part of the original prussian sphere on influence. In addition, none of WW1 was fought on German soil so from the german perspective they never really lost WW1...but were duped after the fact. Germany would have preferred to reach a comprimise with England/America with whom they had no real conflict as long as they were free to beat the snot out of France. Russia was simply a lurking danger (much like China today) that hitler decided to strike first since they felt conflict was inevitable.
-
Yes, driving issues of the war are obviously important in most aternative strategy discussions . But it is a different thread here as this topic is purely strategic, is it technically feasible sort of a thing.
However. reactions of other nations as I stated above "is" relevant. Would England declare war if Germany took Norway? etc.
& yes I'm very aware of difficulties of attacking England & Iceland as well. It really isn't neccessary to act as though a poster is an idiot.
As I mentioned earlier, a completely different naval strategy for Germany starting in early 30's would be an obvious prerequisite for either objective. Please note, I didn't say they "could" do it, save your negative posts.
Iceland & England would be the hardest objectives without doubt. A couple of ocean liners were actually earmarked for possible invasion of Iceland.
-
"Alternative strategy" has to based on the then current political reality. German support of hitler was based primarily on the fallout from WW1 and the harsh sanctions. Also on the fact that the average German viewed the objectives as "historically" correct. An anology would be suggesting we (US) should have just had our "cold war" with Mexico or openly invaded central america instead of Vietnam....alot easier but not politically practical. The other issue at hand is the reality that in 1939 the French army was far superior to the German Army in many ways. French tanks were superior and the airwar was much better matched then most would believe. The german edge was in tactics and commitment...had they not invaded France in 1940 they would have faced a greatly beefed up foe...in addition the Germans faced an inevitable war with Russia...again the combination of the purge and Russias resultant poor state of readiness would have been altered as well.
Bottom line...they would have been stomped on.
-
1 "alternative" would have been to "hold fast" after the original "reunification but before the invasion of france...germany could have then "backed off"....no other nation had the leadership to initiate a world war....so by 43 the germans could have had the Panther tank V-1, Ar 234 Me 262 and maybe the A bomb...how bout a sept 44 blitzkrieg supported by a nuclear demo somewhere:)
-
Originally posted by agent 009 Would England declare war if Germany took Norway? etc. [/B]
They did. More accurately, they already had. England declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland.
asw
-
The Sanger Antipodal bomber could be used in the early 50s to drop nukes anywhere in the world, so a Pax Germanic is grudgingly accepted by the US.
-
If you said.
"Tell me how I look with a huge **** on my head"
would you get defensive when people told you that you looked horrible?
Thats about the level that your working at here.
You throw out one lined hair brained concepts for german domination based on changed stratagy and then dont like it when people try to explain the real constraints that were in place for the Germans in ww2.
If you want positive discussion then put another 20 minutes into describing how your scenario is possible and what assumptions are inherant in your scenario and how those assumptions impact the scenario itself.
The only way they could take England is with English capitulation. So the Royal Navy and Merchant marine is largly German now.
Capturing a signifigant portion of the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine make every single thing that Hitler wants in the world posssible and likley. You need not consider fring issues like Norway or Denmark or any concept of "holding on". If Vichy Britain is in Hitlers hands and he is Allied with Italy and Japan the Eurasian and African Land masses are his.
So the little part where you say
"and england" is so monsterous that the scenario cannot be discussed arround it. And without England you know you are facing a far inferior situation then germany actually faced in fall of 1940...So your northern empire is kind of useless.
But to play your game I guess.
France capitulates 20 minutes after britian capitulates.
Poland Capitulates 20 minutes after that.
Hitler consolidates the English empire and eventually gets tired of Russia and take that in 2 years of hard fighting that are made inevitable with British and French industry behind him and thier merchant marines making him the richest nation on earth by a large margin.
There you go. He wins. Brits shouldnt have capitulated I guess.
-
Taking france was both quick and effective for Germany, I don't see why avoiding that would help their chances. Coastline is easier to defend, and if they left England well enough alone while fortifying northern france they could probably hold in the west. By avoiding direct confrontation with England tension with the US would be less, possibly preventing the Japanese from baiting the beginning of a war in the Pacific. The Japanese had a good position to harass Russia, perhaps diverting enough attention to the east that the Russians would never become aggressive against their German neighbors. This leaves all of Germany's might to move into the Mediteranian, and through extension the middle east and north africa. By the time they became powerful enough that a war with America and Russia became enivitable, German production and supply would be unmatched. Controling a considerable number of ports would perhaps give the Germans enough ship production to stop american and english transports from crossing the atlantic as well as they did, making American invasion all but impossible. With these holdings the Germans could match the Americans reguarding attrition, and perhaps world domination would follow.
There's my fictional take on this, but I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm sure there are many factors I'm missing.
-p.
-
Well Pongo, so you enjoy being an ass, I don't suppose anything can be done for it. Every chat room has a couple, as I said above I expect a bit of that.
As for your assumation that it is Impossible to invade England as the distance was too great, well they did ship 1.393 Panzers across Med, with 149 lost. The med is farther across than the areas in the above scenarios. Not to mention the German capital ships went straight through the Channel in broad daylight, which means surprise attacks on east coast of England is entirely possible. That's a polite way of saying you lack imagination.
Let's not also forget with Sweden & Filand in tow, more ocean going vessels fall into German hands. The craft they built for med transport were had tank carrying capacity & had enough range to get across. If these had been built in 30's, then cross water invasions are more feasible.
If the subject does not interest you, move on.
Africa shipments (total arrived plus number lost in transit in parens):
8-10 March 41, 5 le.Afrika-Div. with 25 Pz I, 45 Pz II, 61 (10) Pz III, 17 (3) Pz IV
24 April-6 May 41, 21 Pz.Div. with 45 Pz II, 71 Pz III, 20 Pz IV
Replacements (release date given, all arrived between August and October 1941):
? April 41, 10 Pz III, 3 Pz IV
4 June 41, 15 Pz III, 5 Pz IV
30 June 41, 4 Pz II, 6 Pz III
10 July 41, 4 Pz III
19 December 41, 11 (11) Pz III, 34 (34) Pz IV
Monthly reported shipments:
January 42, 81 Pz III, 18 Pz IV
February 42, 75 Pz III, 22 Pz IV
March 42, 6 (3) Pz III
April 42, 14 Pz III
May 42, 33 (6) Pz III, 9 Pz IV
June 42, 2 (6) Pz III
July 42, 47 (3) Pz III, 10 Pz IV
August 42, 29 (3) Pz III, 10 Pz IV
September 42, 7 (9) Pz III, 12 Pz IV
Arrived November-December 1942:
Pz.Abtl. 190 with 7 Pz II, 52 Pz III, 10 Pz IV
10. Pz.Div. with 19 (2) Pz II, 89 (16) Pz III, 8 (12) Pz IV
s.Pz.Abtl. 501 with 25 Pz III, 20 Tiger
Arrived March-April 43:
s.Pz.Abtl. 504 with 19 Pz III, 11 Tiger
3./Pz.Regt. HG with 2 Pz III, 8 Pz IV
Replacements 1 November 42-1 May 1943:
68 (16) Pz III, 142 (2 Pz IV
So, if I can add them up right for once, 25 Pz I, 120 (2) Pz II, 727 (82) Pz III, 328 (77) Pz IV, and 31 Tiger. Note that of the 1,393 recorded as shipped, only 149 were lost in shipping to enemy action (the 13 lost in March 41 were to a shipboard fire), or just over 10 percent. OTOH note that half those shipped as critical reinforcements to Pz.A.O.K. Afrika in December 1941 were lost.
-
I didnt really think you thought it was possible, I thought it was an oversight that you were just defending because your an idiot.
But if you think that crossing from Italy to Tunis opposed by 20 hurricanes, 12 swordfish 12 blenhiems and 3 submarines and landing those tanks on a friendly shore (which in the end was totaly interdicted as any student of WW2 knows, presenting the German shipping accross the med as a great success is increadable)is equivilent to crossing the treacherous north sea opposed by the entire RAF, Coastal Command, Bomber Command the Royal Navy and powerfull French forces at sea and in the air and landing on a trecherous contested shore of one of the most densely populated and heavily industrialized nations on earth then we will leave it at that. Imagine the 15 divisions of the FEF beefing up the defence of England. lol The Germans would have to build up thier navy and landing forces for YEARS right under the noses of France and Britian to have any hope of massing the force neccesary.
I would say trying to achieve your northern empire would have ended the war in 1939. Germany would have been destroyed and bankrupted trying to achieve it. But they were alot smarter then you and thats why they didnt.
so in summary your stratagy without including England is way worse off then what the Germans actually accomplished with poland and France and the low countries under thier heal and allied with Russia.
And your scenario in regards to England is just silly. Only capitulation would accomplish it and obviosly British capitulation would be a fantastic boon for the Germans that would probably win them the entire non western hemisphere. Maybe British capitulation isnt such a far feched idea but that is not your thesis.
-
Pongo pretty much said it all. And come to think of it, summed it up pretty nicely too.
Agent009, take the time to put your ego, etc aside and reread this.
(Pongo said) You throw out one lined hair brained concepts for german domination based on changed stratagy and then dont like it when people try to explain the real constraints that were in place for the Germans in ww2.
If you want positive discussion then put another 20 minutes into describing how your scenario is possible and what assumptions are inherant in your scenario and how those assumptions impact the scenario itself. (End quote)
This is the heart of the matter right here in a nutshell.
Yes we can discuss "what if" as regards to WWII. I've been thinking about the same thing in regards to Pearl Harbour for years.
Put you have to put everything into perspective. The Japanese can't take Pearl without robbing resources needed elsewhere.
Same holds for Germany. They had limited resources, and were surrounded by enemys.
Perhaps Hitler could have waited to attack Russia and worked on England instead. Fact remains he did NOT have the ships, the landing craft, the amphibious vehicles, or the WILL to do so.
Actually Hitler was lucky to have gotten Norway, England was just a bit slow reading the signs & reacting. A week difference could have seen major changes. England might have gained a stronger foothold, and put the majority of WWII battles being fought in Norway.
That was "Close" enough in terms of timing, and forces involved that it could have gone either way.
Germany did at one point have England on the ropes. The LW was attacking the Brit Airfields and Comand and control was loosing effectiveness rapidly. Then they shifted their attention to Radar & London, gave the RAF a chance to bounce back again.
Now THAT is a decision that could have changed the war.
Granted England suffered under the Blitz, but do you really think churchill would have surrendered?
"We will fight them on the beaches, etc"
But just to say "England surrendered" is unrealistic, and brings nothing to the table to discuss.
-
[edited for lameness]
-
Originally posted by agent 009
As for your assumation that it is Impossible to invade England as the distance was too great, well they did ship 1.393 Panzers across Med, with 149 lost. The med is farther across than the areas in the above scenarios. Not to mention the German capital ships went straight through the Channel in broad daylight, which means surprise attacks on east coast of England is entirely possible. That's a polite way of saying you lack imagination.
Agent, have you ever been in that part of the ocean? I have and I'll tell you it's like another planet compared to the swimming pool of the Med. The wind howls, the seas pitch and that's on a good day. Mounting any kind of Naval operation in those waters is a serious problem. Just look what happened to the Spanish Armada when they tried to go there.
I just don't think an amphib. invasion of the British Isles is a viable plan in any sinario. The brits would not roll over like the French. Without completely crippling the Royal Navy prior to attempting this makes it unwinnable. Germany would have had to spend a whole lot of resources building a Navy that could compete with the Brits and I doubt the British would have allow that to continue unchallenged.
Britania ruled the waves, and they were damn sure going to keep it that way.
-
Another factor is being ignored. The strong historical ties between Germany & England...the "royal families" were cousins and the countries general populations viewed each other much more favorably then they did the French. Remember Hitlers assent to power was supported by a population brought to its knees by what ti considered French abuses...very little popular support early on for any war against England or the Nordic countries...remember the germans went into Norway to "protect" the interests of the germanic population there. Hitler rose to power by understanding and appealing to the German desire for national pride...not only is your grasp on the military realities lacking...your grasp on the political realities is farther off.
Had Hitler simply stopped short of the invasion of France things would have diffused. The English & French had no stomach for war and the Americans were strongly isolationist. By 1941 the "quiet war" would have evolved into the "silent peace" and Hitler would have had all the time he needed.
By the way if Hitler went West & north....who would have apposed the French army rolling North into the Rhineland?
-
You would have said the same thing before invasion of Norway. My IQ was 142 at age 14 Pongo.
& yes I'm aware of Germany's lack of ships, that's why it is based on a different naval strategy starting in 30's which I stated at least twice above, Have no ego, only an interest in strategic discussions.
Wild Bill Guarnere.Community -> Operation Weserübung
... April 3rd, German supply ships left german harbours headed for Norway ... not sink any of the German vessels. They contiuned to ... Teaching our Students about WW2: What to include? ...forums.wildbillguarnere.co m/index.php?...&showtopic=2855&st=0 - 57k - Cached - More from this site
Humble, I'm gonna guess you meant east & north. As regards France running into Rhineland, well nothing really execpt their desire to not go to war. Again the scenario is based on Polish issue being handled differently, ie Danzig being bypassed or perhaps allowing Russians to attack 1st, then saying occupation of east half of Poland is a defensive bulwark against further Russian aggression. Again, use the imagination. The idea is to avoid war with west as long or if possible completely. If not possible, then plan for attack on England & Iceland as well. The question then becomes would France & England declare war over Norway? with no war being declared prior over Poland.
Again, you must understand I am not stating anythng in concrete terms, it is what is known as a discussion. Theoretical discussion.
I also stated above Iceland & England would be hardest nuts to crack. Do you guys read?
-
Hmmm last I saw England was West and Iceland Northwest of Germany...or am I wrong here?
France is Germany's natural enemy...they had fought multiple wars and France had built the great farce er wall at tremendous expense. They also had a very large tank force (larger then Germany) and enough young aggressive commanders that would have agitated for war once Germany went to war vs England. Once the French navy went into action supporting England the French would have seized the opportunity to regain the disputed territory+some.
Germany didnt have anywhere near the military supremacy you imagine. Your alternative would actually create a better opportunity for the french army to come into play as an organized force instead of being suprised and "rolled" up. Remember that the assault on France was concieved well before the war and tailored to the specifics of both the military and political realities very well....easily one of the 2 or 3 great "master strokes" of all time. Instead your leaving the single largest tank army (at the time) poised on Germany's southern border. Destroying that army is what enabled the entire war to proceed. Instead you match strength (the royal navy) vs weakness and commit the german army to a war of attrition while leaving its major historical foes (Russia & France) at large...if and its a big if...Germany had even successfully landed forces in England resupplying (the Army) and subduing the island would have been an almost impossible undertaking. Now imagine the english navy steaming to france with the remnants of the english Army and now you have the "free English" navy, airforce and army operating directly on the german boarder while the cream of the wermacht is tied down in a guerilla war in England unable to even leave do to the french/english blockade. I'd say the war would have lasted 6 months to a year before Germany falls...
-
agent009 i'm sorry but they are right. Your theoretical strategic discussions have to be in context to have any merit to them. You have to take into consideration other factors than simply "what if Germany conquered X,Y,Z".
-
Agent.
Your not a good medium for such a discussion.
I was discussing this very reasonably with you and suddenly we start getting "dont talk to me like Im an idiot"
Then your flailing all over the place.
How the germans could take Norway indicates to you how they would take England. Why not get 100 really long range Ju52s and take America the same way then?
What you should learn from the invasion of Norway is that the German fleet was pretty much whiped out by just acomplishing that.
German Fleet Available on June 30, 1940
Name Effective Remarks
Battle cruisers Nil (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau damaged)
Pocket Battleships Nil (Scheer under repair. Lutzow damaged)
Heavy Cruiser Hipper -
Light Cruiser Koln, (Nurnberg Leipzig and Emden damaged)
Destroyers Schoemann, lody, Galster, Inn (Six others under repair)
Torpedo Boats Nineteen Six others under repair. Eight new craft under construction
The Germans lost a Heavy cruiser, 2 light cruisers, 10 destroyers, and 8 Uboats in Norway.
They had only two ships operational larger then a destroyer. One heavy and one light cruiser. with 2 destroyers to escort them.
How much do you think the Royal Navy had left?
And your northern empire scheme would depend on them allready takeing those casualties! they have to invade England with what they have left.
-
Pongo you were not discussing it reasonably, Go back & read your 1st post, it was snide to say the least.
Humble, I did not say Russia was ignored, I mentioned a fight over Baltic with them, & yes I'm well aware that Joe had an interest in east europe, but he wouldn't be ready til late 42, early 43, & central europe & scandinavia could well be conquered by 40.
Yes France had the Maginot line, but they were very timid in 40 & waited til Germany attacked which demonstrates their reluctance to fight. If Poland hadn't happened, they had no provocation to attack Germany, execpt perhaps over Norway.
-
"My IQ was 142 at age 14..."
Which counts for diddley squat when you have the personality of a tree stump and lack an ounce of common sense.
-
Westy shares his sphincteresque personality once again. Is it a compulsion disorder perhaps? can't hold it in?
-
Geez...........:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Pongo you were not discussing it reasonably, Go back & read your 1st post, it was snide to say the least.
Humble, I did not say Russia was ignored, I mentioned a fight over Baltic with them, & yes I'm well aware that Joe had an interest in east europe, but he wouldn't be ready til late 42, early 43, & central europe & scandinavia could well be conquered by 40.
Yes France had the Maginot line, but they were very timid in 40 & waited til Germany attacked which demonstrates their reluctance to fight. If Poland hadn't happened, they had no provocation to attack Germany, execpt perhaps over Norway.
And your basing this on what....?
I get the feeling you have no firm grasp of geopolitical realities...as mentioned above the attack on Poland generated a state of war. So attacking Norway or England wouldnt trigger the same reaction?
You really feel that France would abandon its primary alliance so it would be standing alone against Hitler two years later. Your demonstrating no grasp of either military or political reality here. Would Germanyhave ignored France and supported Italy in Africa...about as realistic.
While the French intent was to avoid defeat initially, the German strategy in 1940 sought to achieve a swift and decisive victory over the Allies. The German High Command emphasised a preference for a short war and the importance of annihilating the Allied forces.8 After much deliberation, the Germans rationalised that the annihilation of the Allied forces could only be achieved by an outflanking manoeuvre to bypass their main defences in Belgium. This fundamental conclusion formed the basis for the German invasion plan in 1940.
Your idea entirely negates this brilliant rational and leaves what was widely viewed as the best army in the world time to regroup and recover from the stupidity of its politically driven senior leadership....
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_1/3.htm
Basically your suggesting a poorly thought out course of action that had little chance of success with little or no upside in the unlikelyevent it suceeded...it would in fact isolate a significant portion of the german army from the primary battlefield while eliminating the realityof D-day...war start in 1940...over in 1941...
-
As I stated above an attack on Norway was the question, would it trigger a response from France & England. Nowhere did I state that it wouln't generate a resonse. Your inferring something I haven't said.
I'm basing what I said about France on historcal fact. They didn't attack Germany in 40, that's why it was called the phoney war. Neither did I say France would abandon its primary alliance. again inferring something I haven't said.
As for little chance of success, I have to disagree. Central europe did fall as I have described. Finland would likely join with Germany as it did in the war during baltic skirmish. Sweden might go as Czechlosovakia did & Norway goes as it did.
As for your point of there being little or no upside. Um control of central europe & scandinavia has no upside? The natural resources alone represent an upside.Control of The ports of Norway is not an upside?
This then leaves the question of whether France & England declare war over Norway. If so, then Germany is back to square 1.
Out of curiosity, is it possible to present your point of view without making somewhat negative comments like; you have no real grasp of geopolitical realities? Or is it some sort of internet etiquette that I'm not familiar with, squeezing in an insult as prereqisite to making ones point?
-
Way to go Idaho. Keep proving my point!
(anyone else besides me hear the Vonage ad theme playing when reading Agent 009s posts?)
-
Vonage? Is that "intimate care" soap?
-
Nah. It's for Vonage the broadband phone people and the song is “Woo Hoo" by The 5.6.7.8’s. It plays in the background as the ad shows stupid people do really stupid things (such as post and socially interact as agent 009 does)
http://video.olympus.ru/sounds/download/Kill%20Bill%20vol%201/11%20The%205%206%207%208s%20-%20Woo%20Hoo.mp3
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Germany 1st takes Austria, Czechlosovakia, Denmark, part of Poland to connect Prussia with Germany, Then Baltic states, & Scandinavia, & finally England. & calls it the northern empire.
No eastern front, no battle of France, no North African front.
Can they hold it? will US & Canada intervene?
This is your original post.....
Basically saying you attack england and bypass france. Now I gave you the historical basis for what happened...France was at war...it's military philosophy was passive. By engaging in your proposed course of action you alter the geopolitics and facilitate DeGauls rise to power along with other simiiar officers. You also let the french reorganization (they had just formed 4 armored divisions) continue.
So in a ntshell the answer is simple....not a snowballs chance in #&!!
-
Originally posted by agent 009
1.Out of curiosity, is it possible to present your point of view without making somewhat negative comments like; you have no real grasp of geopolitical realities? Or is it some sort of internet etiquette that I'm not familiar with, squeezing in an insult as prereqisite to making ones point?
2.My IQ was 142 at age 14
Couple quick points.
1. Something about a pot and a kettle here.... hmm...
2. In this bunch, that places your right about "average". Do bear that in mind.
Also, just curious, are you still 14? Or are you much older. If you are older, I just have to ask, "what happened"? If you are indeed 14, then that of course explains 90% of your actions and behavior.
-
"Pongo you were not discussing it reasonably, Go back & read your 1st post, it was snide to say the least"
its hard to discuss something that is unreasonable in a reasonable way.
"So england and france dont declare when takes the danzig corridore?
So Germany doesnt ally with Russia to invade poland?
So they invade england successfully from Denmark? is that a two day sail?
Hitler ignores the two largest armies in the world on his flanks?
He has still not secured a single source of oil unless you count the north sea.
I dont think your scenario is even remotly feasable or in keeping with what we know of Hitler. But shure..if they succeeded in taking all that they wouldnt have to worry about losing it. Who is going to take it back? Why ignore france and the low countries though? They would be a piece of cake if you had england."
I dont see my post as rude or unreasonable. I understand why you dont like it though. Cause it makes your northen empire look silly.
Like I said though. Its hard to answer the question "how do I look with a big **** on my head " in a complementary way.
You of course totaly ignored that I demonstrated to you that the German navy was destroyed in Norway. So you just stop talking about that..in fact you stopped talking about the invasion of England at all.
Now your northen empire is reduced to Germany not taking all of poland and not takeing france and not takeing belgium.
So your northern empire is now considerably less then the Germans actually acomplished. The French are busy re arming, their American aircraft will be arriving soon in numbers. Time is ticking.
You have to understand that ignoring Russia and France are not really options for the Germans unless they want to live in peace, which was totaly not the case. Both were very powerful economies on extreme re armement programs.
France in 1941 has 1000s more supperior tanks, 1000s more up to date American and French made planes. France in 1941 might be a different issue then France in 1940.
Russia in 1942 would be a different force then Russia in 1941..
Exactly the same is true of Britian.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Can they hold it? will US & Canada intervene?
No, and no.
France would invade the Ruhr once (or shortly after) England was invaded and once Western Germany was overrun (handilly due to the Whermacht being busy elsewhere) the Russians would capture the Balkans and all of Eastern Europe.
-
009,
In your scenario of German naval rearmament, why would the British allow the Germans to build a navy equal to or superior to the Royal Navy? Germany's attempt to do so was the real bone of contention that brough the UK into WWI. You think they're just going to let a resergent Germany do it in the '30s?
Even if, in your scenario, they pulled off a military and economic impossiblity and took the UK by force of arms they would be spent, utterly spent. Since you postulate an invasion rather than a British capitulation you must count the Royal Navy destroyed as well as most of the Kreigsmarine. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would be spent winning in a nigh unteneable situation, causing their casualties to be astronomical. They get no "instant navy" from the British in your scenario.
The result: Germany has no defenses and is sitting between an angry, powerful France and an idealogically expansionist Russia with a huge army and a ruthless dictator at the helm.
You predict the results.
-
Um, again, I didn't mention ignoring Russia. I mentioned a confrontation in Baltic states. That would require some reading above. & Really England & France become issues after fall of Norway. Which I've tried to clarify, but with so far little success.
If they do declare war on Germany then war would go pretty much as it did. Germany attacks France, then on to England, but this time with different naval strength, ( lst's, destroyers etc).
Again, I am well aware of political bent of Hitler which makes the scenario a very unlikely one, but as I stated, it is purely strategic, not political in nature.
Supply of England after fall is a good point. food for civilians etc. But then that is the point of discussion, the what if's, how this or that might be encountered. One possibility is to have Germanys colonies returned in Africa & pacific in return, Germany vacates France & England & peace is restored before US involvement.
Anyway, it doesn't appear that much original thought is to be
found here regarding the various possibilities of said scenario-s.
Well Karnak & Edbert excepted. I wouldn't think an equal size navy would be the way to go, but rather one with fast Lst's, destroyers etc & shallow draft landing craft. More flying boats as well.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
and YOU sir, obviously have never met my granpa. He TAUGHT Danzig how to rock. Taught 'em to crack walnuts w/ their, well, better not get into THAT right now. It's a pretty scary story fraught with peril. Remind me to tell you the story of my grandpa and stalin, two beer bongs, and a whole lot of squirrels.
Sig material
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Well Karnak & Edbert excepted. I wouldn't think an equal size navy would be the way to go, but rather one with fast Lst's, destroyers etc & shallow draft landing craft. More flying boats as well.
The Royal Navy would obliterate such an invasion force. You would need capital ships, and lots of them.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Anyway, it doesn't appear that much original thought is to be
found here regarding the various possibilities of said scenario-s.
Agreed.
The question is then, why are your ideas so un-original, and why do you keep going on and on about it?
New Topic:
What if Hitler suddenly could shoot flying monkeys out his tookus, and created a great flying simian combat wing that could help him take over the known world.
Discuss...
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Germany 1st takes Austria, Czechlosovakia, Denmark, part of Poland to connect Prussia with Germany, Then Baltic states, & Scandinavia, & finally England. & calls it the northern empire.
No eastern front, no battle of France, no North African front.
Can they hold it? will US & Canada intervene?
yes
however well all know japan was always going to end up at war with america, and straight away germany to help its ally declared war on was america.... the only country germany "officaly" declared war on......Canada was partly british still so it was already helping wasnt it?
-
also, people keep saying about how "if" germany waited they could have built up forces to make it even better... well what do you think the other sides would be doing???
hitler done it in the "right" order, apart from england... they NEARLY won BOB, but screwed up by changing to city bombing. Having won BOB, a "quick" invasion in 1940 or 41 would have probably been VERY successful. Probably only a few weeks longer than the french assault.
Once thats done, theres no back door, theres no atlantic war wasting resources, theres no need to defend the air, or sea and almost 100% effort can go to the east, and some in africa... but remember if the Brits had lost the UK, africa would have become free, much like french africa???
The war was lost as soon as he left england, and went to the East....he always said he didnt want 2 fronts... and yet he done that......:rolleyes:
-
Overlag,
No scenario I have ever seen had the Germans winning Operation Sealion, even with best results in the BoB. The Royal Navy is simply too much and the German plan too small.
The Germans had no chance to capture Britain outside of a British capitulation. None.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Overlag,
No scenario I have ever seen had the Germans winning Operation Sealion, even with best results in the BoB. The Royal Navy is simply too much and the German plan too small.
The Germans had no chance to capture Britain outside of a British capitulation. None.
i wouldnt say None.... but its lower than 20%
however you have to remember what happend to those BB's they sent to japan without aircover...what happend to those?:(
i cant remember who or where i read it buti think it would have taken just 3 more days of bombing/killing RAF and it would have been OVER for them thats how close it was.
however, once the LW turn there attention to sinking Brit ships whos going to bomb airfields from getting resupplys....hmm
also the river barges the germans was going to use was laughable.... they would have had the same fate as those DD tanks at omaha.
that percentage is getting lower all the time lol.......
-
Lute, you have provided exactly no original ideas yet, who are U to talk?
As for bob being impossible, The experts often say that before campaigns that ended up succeeding. Rommel had 2 divisions against 7 Brit. Conventional wisdom would dictate he fails right from the start. But conventional wisdom is often wrong.
Overlag, US was supplying Brits in N Africa in 41 with military hardware through red cross ships. Don't know what capacity Canada played in 40-41.
found a westy photo here. crossdressing stories - sissy maids not exactly yer best side.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Overlag, US was supplying Brits in N Africa in 41 with military hardware through red cross ships.
where did you pick up that bull****?
much like the germans in WWI sinking the Britannic because it had supplys onboard? it was a DAM HOSPITAL SHIP FFS and a dam good White star line ship......unsinkable my a*** ;) prove would be nice
and why do you say that? i didnt talk about N Africa? I mearly said if the UK mainland had fallen, then its control in Africa would have probably been "given up" like French N-Africa...although saying that, brits do have backbone unlike the french
-
Hey lovepotion009.
"Our generals are just a bunch of contemptable disloyal cowards!
They will pay with thier own blood for thier weakness!"
It feels like the bunker in here. And we are all the generals looking embarased as 009 froths at the mouth.
-
A German raider stopped a US red cross ship in Indian ocean & found aircraft parts & other assorted hadware. From a book about the raider, the captains account. Not bs.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Don't know what capacity Canada played in 40-41.
Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany simultaneously with Britain on September 3, 1939. Canada officially declared war one week later, on September 10. Reserve troops and equipment from all over the Commonwealth abroad were sailing for England in 1940. Canadian pilots participated significantly in the BoB, and Canada was a major manufacturing base for British aircraft starting in 1940, with supplies being shipped out of Halifax on British and Canadian (and some American) merchant ships escorted by light warships from all the Commonwealth navies.
-
Overlag,
What makes you think the Royal Navy would not have had aircover?
It absolutely would have had aircover. There was no way the Luftwaffe could eliminate the RAF as the RAF would have simply withdrawn its remaining fighters north and held them in reserve to cover the fleet when it sailed against the invasion force. That was the plan.
Also look at the Japanese pilot's skill compared to the Luftwaffe, particularly in anti-shipping actions. The Japanese were far, far better at that due to their overly rigorous training.
As a comparison look at how ineffectual the Luftwaffe was during the Dunkirk evacuations. They only got a handful of destroyers, much softer targets than battleships, during the 10 days of the evacuation. The Royal Navy would need less than a day to utterly destroy the German invasion force.
If the Germans had tried it they would have suffered 50%-100% loss of Wehrmacht forces commited and a chunk of the Luftwaffe. The British would have lost some of the Royal Navy and a large chunk of the remaining strength in RAF Fighter Command.
There was no chance for the invasion to work.
-
009 has recognized that an invasion of england as a primary war aim for the germans would have involved commiting to that strategy in 1933 or so. I think we can all agree with that.
The german naval build stratagy as it was turned out to be a failure. They built ships of the line that each would have been 50-100 subs in man power and cost then threw the supporting ships necessary to make those ships effective away in norway.
The whole build a battle line idea is flawed in hindsight.
But specializing the german armed forces for the purposes of invading england would be clear from the begining. Who else does germany need 120 LSTs for? Telegraphing your intention and commiting your treasury and industry to accomplishing it makes for a VERY different german armed forces in 1939. And england gets several years to make it even less probable to work.
I doubt that a germany that had commited itself to be able to invade england would be able to wage blitzkrieg. The resources to invade would have eaten up all the resources to build panzer divisions and stuka wings.
Think about it though. Germany didnt have the means to take Malta! defended by 1 squadron of fighters and manned with less then a division of troops! With germany able to establish absolute air supperiority over the objective.
-
It is interesting that the Luftwaffe only got a few destroyers at Dunkirk. It begs the question, how many ships would the RAF got in a cross channel invasion by Germans, & how many ships would Germans need to get across for it to be a success?
One good transport ship could carry 50 panzers. Brit navy would no doubt sink many, but not all.
For that matter, how sophisticated was aerial ship bombing in 1940? skip bombing had not been developed yet. The techniques for sinking ships from the air went through much upgrade in subsequent yrs.
Yes Brit spies would be aware of German naval plan, but Chamberlain believed in appeasement or should I say diplomatic resolutions. So Brit reaction is hard to nail down with certitude.
Raf is still a prob when germans land. Control of southern airfields would be key. Paratroops perhaps.
different thread, but interesting nonetheless.
-
It is interesting that the Luftwaffe only got a few destroyers at Dunkirk. It begs the question, how many ships would the RAF got in a cross channel invasion by Germans, & how many ships would Germans need to get across for it to be a success?
For that matter, how sophisticated was aerial ship bombing in 1940? skip bombing had not been developed yet. The techniques for sinking ships from the air went through much upgrade in subsequent yrs.
How many German battleships and battle cruisers were running through the withdrawal forces ripping it to shreds? There would have been plenty of RN capital ships, cruisers and destroyers in a target-rich environment.
Germany had no amphibious warfare doctrine. Didn't get to practice it in Spain, didn't plan on any invasions, didn't figure at all in the goals of the Third Reich. They had no specialized vessels, no Higgins boats, no LSTs, no Mulberry docks, no sophisticated fuel logistics (no pipeline on the channel bed to the coast) to keep the army moving once ashore, no means to get those 50 panzers off a transport ship and onto the beach without controlling a port, no naval superiority (not even in U-boats at this time), would have been opposed to some degree in the air (enough to disrupt Stukas attacking the RN certainly) and would be facing the full, unoccupied commonwealth forces in Britain.
There is a reason why the allies waited until 1944, took full advantage of massive numbers of specialized US produced support vessels, massive naval bombardment, a diluted german force with much on the Eastern front, hard earned amphibious doctrine from the Pacific and overwhelming air superiority. Nobody could have pulled of a similar invasion in 1939 because the scope of the undertaking was too massive compared to the defense required to resist. The amount of mental gymnastics required to make this successful borders on the realm of science fiction (not alternative history). The channel was a *****. Logistics is a *****. Pile up enough dirt to fill in the English Channel and maybe it becomes a different story :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by agent 009
It is interesting that the Luftwaffe only got a few destroyers at Dunkirk. It begs the question, how many ships would the RAF got in a cross channel invasion by Germans, & how many ships would Germans need to get across for it to be a success?
One good transport ship could carry 50 panzers. Brit navy would no doubt sink many, but not all.
The RAF would not sink very many, if any at all.
Then again the RAF's job would be to protect the RN while the RN absolutely slaughtered the German transports.
The RN would likely sink all of them, or so many as to make no substantive difference from sinking all of them. I think you are greatly underestimating the trauma that battleships and battlecruisers can inflict to transports at point blank range.
-
009 has recognized that an invasion of england as a primary war aim for the germans would have involved commiting to that strategy in 1933 or so. I think we can all agree with that.
Of course, then you have to ignore the Great Depression. If you do that Hitler fails to get a lot of the moderate/conservative middle calss vote and doesn't rise to power. If you take it back into the 1920s you have to ignore the initial recovery period from World War I. If you Ignore WWI, then hitler doesn't rise to power and maybe WWI happens under the next Kaiser in 1939. But then none of the lessons learned from WWI come into play so you have horse cavalry, the limited use of less developed aircraft and trench warfare in France again, unless the Kaiser decides to take it out on his cousins in England for some reason.
Charon
-
Its the same thread.
The british had a dedicated arm for the attack of ships by aircraft. The Germans did not. Recognizing this after Norway and Dunquirk they trained up and did very well at malta.
The Germans did poorly at dunkirk partly because of the RAF being there in force. No aircraft the germans had would be covering an invasion beach from Germany.
So ALOT of german ships would be gone to the RAF, The beach head would be getting bomber commanded night and day.
And that is with no real threat of invasion. With a real threat, devloped over several years and telegraphed to the british the germans would be absolutely doomed.
The only invasion attempt that even approaches a german invasion of england is Normandy. With total naval and air supperiority against a tired and stretched enemy with the defenders cipher system totaly comprimised, and enemy air recce planes kept totaly out of the picture and only crossing 20 km of water.
-
Charon, they started rebuilding the navy in 33 historically, its just a matter of having a focus on goon rushing england instead of having a real navy.
-
Charon, they started rebuilding the navy in 33 historically, its just a matter of having a focus on goon rushing england instead of having a real navy.
I was thinking along the lines of having some sort of combined fleet that could serve as at least a speedbump to the RN, in addition to a vastly expanded auxiliary fleet. I mean, just the auxiliaries sailing without any serious escort or shore bombardment capability... It just didn't occur to me that you would only build the auxiliaries (which you would have to do given the 1930s recovery period -- one or the other or not much of either).
The Germans did poorly at dunkirk partly because of the RAF being there in force. No aircraft the germans had would be covering an invasion beach from Germany.
That's really a good point, a deal breaker I believe even if they controlled Norway. There essentially is no BoB to wear down the RAF, range issues are magnified tremendously so you have lightly escorted (by 110s) or unescorted Ju-88s as your offensive striking power against the RN. Lightly or unescorted 111s etc to do some sort of interdiction. No navy to counter (only auxiliaries). Unpossible.
Charon
-
yup..
yup..
hey its not my idea..I think its hilarios..
-
"(The RN would likely sink all of them, or so many as to make no substantive difference from sinking all of them. I think you are greatly underestimating the trauma that battleships and battlecruisers can inflict to transports at point blank range.)"
Not that simple, most would travel at night & some like the marinefahrprahm would be small & very maneuverable, easily outmaneuver large warships. enough of them & it would be impossible to sink most of em. Pure fantasy to think anywhere near all of em. Destroyers likewise very maneuverable fast as well. & remember what happened to Brit navy in greek waters. sitting ducks.
Landing Crafts
The landing craft of the Kriegsmarine are a often neglected part of German naval history, although the over 700 crafts build played multiple roles during World War II.
Operation Sealion never took place, but the so called Marinefährprahme (MFP) were build. They proved to be as vehicles with a universal use - besides transport and supply operations in all theaters of war, they could be operating as gun boats, mine layers or Sperrbrecher.
Marinefährprahm
The Naval Landing Crafts - called "Marinefahrprahm" in German were the largest landing craft used by the Kriegsmarine. Although required for Operation Sealion (Invasion of England) in 1940, the first of this transport ships were delivered in 1941. The development of this ship went through several Types (A-D), whose size and armament grew from class to class. They were mainly used for transport and supply duties and not for their initial invasion role and could transport 200 Soldiers or 140 tons of equipment, including Tiger tanks. Marinefahrprahme were used in almost all Kriegsmarine operational areas: the British Channel, the North sea, the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Caspic and the Black sea
Very shallow draft as well which made it impervious to torpedo attack.
-
click.
-
agent 9
by the time the Germans had built up the force to do anything about england (id say around 1941/2), england itself would be defended well enough to make it impossible.
IF they had got accross in 1940 it could have well been possible to defeat a unprepaired UK. But Germany had no resources either.
-
009....
You obviously have a very limited understanding of warfare....so let me fill in the blanks for you.
Land war depends on two distinct variables....seperate from any other factor these almost invariabley determine the outcome of all major modern engagements....
The 1st is logistics....The US army was #1 in both WW2 and today primarily because of its logistics capabilities. Germany had no ability to project a forward logisitcs capability to england. Regardless of the ability to actually land a soldier in England (non existant in my mind) any cohesive force that did land would be combat ineffective within 48hours simplybased on logistics.
2nd is Artillery...
Did you know that no german position in WW2 was ever defeated while its artillery was functional. Again the US was the #1 armyin the world (then and now) with regard to artillery capability. Without significant capital ships you you have no capability to provide counter battery fire during the initial phase of an invasion. Again no chance to survive initial counterattacksand maintain your beachhead....
With regard to your totally ignoarant comments on ship survivability....youneed to look no farther then the japanese efforts to supply guadalcanel. The japanese had a large naval force complete with air assets. A well thought out logistics capability including fast transports that were converted destroyers and they were unable to maintain a supply line inspite of inflicting massive losses on the Allied navy. Meanwhile you think the germans can maintain a sealift capability with no capital ships, no siginifacnt sealift capability and no seaborne airpower....
You leave the decimal point of that IQ?
-
"But Germany had no resources either."
Bzzzt. WRONG!
In 1940 the Germans would have had aircraft carriers, ME-262's, fleets of B2 bomb__, er Gotha jets that could strike NYC if they wanted, the Tiger tank, STG44 assault rifles and V2's ready for the nuclear bomb which would have almost been ready. IF.....
(Ich bin sorry. Alas Meinen Gott im Himmler I'm getting all verklempt and misty eyed just thinking about it all... Ach du Leibe!!! )
(lol Humbles last line hit the bullseye)
-
You know, I'm coming into this late, but it seems like you're saying "If they could do it, could they do it?" which is circular.
Could they hold it? Well, you are making a great deal of assumptions to start with which, while you can brush away by saying they are not part of the question, are indeed material. You can't possible hold something if you can't first take it.
Posing questions like this where you ignore all sorts (not just a few) causally related events is like saying:
What if Germany had the A Bomb in 1940?
What if Japan had not attacked the US?
What if Poland had allied with Nazi Germany?
I mean, once you upturn the can of beans, you can't choose which ones spill out.
Also, it is important to consider causal relationship when you suggest Hitler mount the conquest of England and not France. Why would he attack one and not the other? For that matter, why would he not engage in a war with Soviet Russia? All of these answers will determine 1) How Germany was able to carry out a successful conquest of the areas you describe and 2) If they would be able to hold it indefinitely. Also, why are you restricting it to only Canada and the U.S. intervening?
I would back up and look at the whole scenario from an earlier point of view. Then, use prewar historical data to help determine reactions to Germanies actions. Also, you will need to look at political and diplomatic relations between all of the involved nations. From there, propose minor changes in history and project their long term effect. You will better be able to get an answer to your question if you construction a reasonable and feesible scenario first.
Just my meanderings...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
-
Blammo...
The biggest misjudgement is the perception France would not have done anything. France had a basic strategy of defense in depth. Basically we'll let them attack us and bleed them out. This played into the german strategy nicely. Had Germany moved aggressively on England France would have attacked the German flank. Additionally, the French navy which had no role in a land conflict would have been active in support of the Royal navy as well....
Probably the single least winnable scenario the germans could have faced....
-
And the expese of developeing evan an attempt at the capability would have meant way less tanks, planes, arty etc.
-
humble:
I completely agree with you. That's why I am asking 009 to develop a better premise for how Germany could be in the position he described, but have avoided any other conflict in the meantime. Without that, this is just an academic discussion with little to no merit. As I said, once you throw out a "what if" that ignores a mound of other actions and reactions, anything is fair game.
-
Yes Humble I'm familiar with guadalcanal. The difference is distance. Which gave the allies Much more time to not only pinpoint these convoys but attack as well. & we had radar & they didn't. Very different scene. Thanks for lovely insults. Also Japanese did not use craft similar to the marinefahrprahm.
So far noone has answered the question of what if France & England didn't declare war over Norway? Germany retains central europe & scandinavia-minus Iceland, & deals with Joe later.
& I have gone over the France question once or twice already. Blammo I cover the Russia question above regarding a baltic skirmish. & I didn't "anywhere" say that if England were attacked that France wouldn't intervene.
-
who is insulting anyone?
-
009,
Japan's night optics, which they'd put quite some effort into, were superior to the radar we had in 1942.
On more than one occasion US and Japanese task forces interpolated before detecting one another. That should tell you something about the limitations of both sides detection capabilities.
Add to that the fact that Japan's task was vastly simpler and easier to accomplish than Germany's would have been and you get an idea of how doomed any such German effort would have been.
To me, a more interesting "What if" would be asking what would have happened if the British had tried to sucker the Germans into actually launching Operation Sealion? They pull RAF fighters back to match the German claims (presumably the Germans made press claims too), pretended to have practically no production capability like the Germans believed, hid the effectiveness of the RDF system, put decoy fighters on the ground to be destroyed to inflate German claims and kept the Royal Navy ready to slam the door after the Germans commit. What would that have done to the rest of the war?
-
yeah....
if that had happend it would have failed....then, the the war would have been over by 1942 at the most......and that would have ment the cold war never happend......
-
The key to destroying Japanese transports was radio decoding. US knew in advance when a Japanese convoy would sail. This was more than anything else what doomed their supply of Guadalcanal. Not to mention the scant air cover they had for these convoys.
Germans in cross channel operation would have substantial air cover & much shorter distance to cross. & unlike Japanese on Guadalcanal, germans could launch paratroop landings on southern airfields. Apples & oranges. Would they succeed? who knows. No such thing as a foregone conclusion.
Overlag,Who is insulting? well good question. I could mention the exeptionally dumb comparison Humble makes between Guadalcanal & the English channel or his obviously ignorant understanding of Germany's ability to make hardware, explained below, but it isn't neccessary, it's obvious. But then who's insulting?
As for being able to build the Marinefahrprahm & 323's by 1940. well that one is easy to answer. They did build these 1 yr later. Almost from scratch. Didn't take very long & with an advance building program beginning 33, they would have had loads of em. Neither of these would have detracted from building panzers. & yes I know 321 & 323 were unwieldy craft, but 321 was 1 way ride.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Yes Humble I'm familiar with guadalcanal. The difference is distance. Which gave the allies Much more time to not only pinpoint these convoys but attack as well. & we had radar & they didn't. Very different scene. Thanks for lovely insults. Also Japanese did not use craft similar to the marinefahrprahm.
So far noone has answered the question of what if France & England didn't declare war over Norway? Germany retains central europe & scandinavia-minus Iceland, & deals with Joe later.
& I have gone over the France question once or twice already. Blammo I cover the Russia question above regarding a baltic skirmish. & I didn't "anywhere" say that if England were attacked that France wouldn't intervene.
1st,
The japanese had radar in 1942 (not operationally deployed...but they knew the capabilities it brought), however radar played no significant role at all. Most actions were at night and favored the japanese who inflicted significant loses. While radar is effective vs planes its very limited for surface engagements...the distance actually gave advantages to the japanese as well since they had more area to "hide" in...
http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/japaneseradar/japaneseradar.html
The real points to consider here however you completely ignore.
1st) The japanese were excellent sailors with a robust navy which was proactive in screening the supply lines.
2) The japanese had significant naval logistics and knew how to use them
3) they had dedicated naval air assets in place
4) They had significant army aviation assets with suitable range to provide complete aircover over the supply route
5) They were well entrenched at the target destination and had secure landing area's...
As for your "other" points...England and France did declare war over Poland and would over Norway as well. However your original post indicated Norway as a stepping stone to England...which I take it you now concede as impossible.
-
Totally wrong...
The key to destroying Japanese transports was radio decoding. US knew in advance when a Japanese convoy would sail. This was more than anything else what doomed their supply of Guadalcanal. Not to mention the scant air cover they had for these convoys
Totally wrong...
Germans in cross channel operation would have substantial air cover & much shorter distance to cross
Totally wrong...
unlike Japanese on Guadalcanal, germans could launch paratroop landings on southern airfields
So in sumary....
Totally wrong....
-
I could mention the exeptionally dumb comparison Humble makes between Guadalcanal & the English channel or his obviously ignorant understanding of Germany's ability to make hardware, explained below, but it isn't neccessary, it's obvious. But then who's insulting?
Please explain how my comparison is "dumb". Guadalcanal is the 1st major seaborn assualt of the war. Further it involves a proactive navy on both attack and defense. Further the defender has the edge in both sea and airpower as well as superior naval units but was unable to maintain supply routes inspite of impressive naval victories.
Further "what English channel"....your not coming across the snowy cliffs of dover....your coming down the north sea...big big difference.
What german hardware? The Japanese had the largest surface navy in the world after the british I believe. Yet they still couldnt force the issue....it wouldnt matter what the germans built it simply wouldnt have mattered. We'll rename agent .009......
-
There is also a very large difference between invading Guadalcanal and a major industialized country. Guadalcanal was a far flung outpost of the Japanese Empire, not the Japanese homeland itself.
Drop paratroopers on the Southern Airfields :lol
I'd like to see you volunteer to be in one of those Ju52s heading into the teeth of RAF Fighter Command. Talk about a slaughter.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
There is also a very large difference between invading Guadalcanal and a major industialized country. Guadalcanal was a far flung outpost of the Japanese Empire, not the Japanese homeland itself.
Drop paratroopers on the Southern Airfields :lol
I'd like to see you volunteer to be in one of those Ju52s heading into the teeth of RAF Fighter Command. Talk about a slaughter.
Exacxtly,
It's a much simpler scenario, here we have one of the best navies in the world and its unable to defend and resupply its army on the canal...meanwhile the allies have equal problems which detract from ther abilities as well....
England would not only have a much greater air & navel presence while the Germans are much less capable then the japanese...but they have none of the logistical problems the marines had. BTW 009 Iam curious about 1 thing...how many divisions did you envision during the initial invasion of England?
-
The book No bended knee - the battle of guadalcanal by Gen Merrill Twining mentions "exactly" what I said. I supppose you think you are more intelligent than him eh Humble? Not only are you completely wrong-again, but stupendously arrogant as well.
Karnak, yes it was an industrial nation vs an island, which makes Humbles comparison rather silly. JU 52's? well what was the highest percentage a bomber stream ever lost over Europe? 15-20%? certainly not higher than 30-40%. So the RAF & ack ack is gonna get em all eh? absurd.
The US did use craft similiar in size to the German marinefahrprahm which is how they did much of their resupply. & the Japanese capital ships had little success against these. they are small targets & hard to hit. So the Royal navy is gonna sink em all eh? utterly stupid.
Besides, comparing fat slow Japanese mauru's to small armored maneuverable German Mfp's speaks for itself. Dumb as it gets.
-
Agent you still haven't thought about it logistically, it was logistically impossible for the Germans to have taken England.
-
Speculative opinion, nothing more. One can argue it in circles indefinitely. The French army was considered best in world in 40. had more tanks than Germans. The numbers are not as important as the tactics. I don't suppose anyone gave the Vietnamese much of a chance against the technologically superior French & US.
Did find this regarding German supply craft circa 43. Not exactly defenseless craft like the hastily gathered barges were.
On the afternoon of February 23, another six-plane sweep set out. Near Cape Bon, it spotted seven Siebel ferries and six German motor torpedo boats en route from Marsala to Tunis. (The Americans thought all 13 craft were Siebels.) The attackers met terrific flak. The entire lead element of three B-25s was shot down. The lead crew managed to ditch. Lashing their two rafts together, they floated around until an Italian seaplane saved them the next day. The 310th Group claimed five ferries sunk and two damaged; in reality, two Siebels went down.
-
You haven't thought it out rationally agent.
How are the paratroopers going to be supplied with ammunition? how are the tanks going to be supplied with fuel? Germany wont have any ships for the supplying. The ju52 is not similar to Germany's medium bombers. They lack protective armour, are slow and had a poor defensive armament. Your comparision is not valid. The ju52's were very vulnerable in the med, they would have suffered the same over Britain. Heaven forbid if the Ju52's had troops instead of fuel/ammunition. The loss of life would have been immense.
The ground in the south of England isn't the same as the low countries. the panzers wont be making long sweeping manouvers over flat ground. It would be much more similar to the hedge fighting in the bocage of Normandy.
How do you think Germany could have supplied it's troops and tanks, agent?
-
Covering ground in southern England is valid point.
Fuel & supply;
Tanks are topped off before embarking. One MFP can carry 140 tons of equipmeny-or fuel. Paratroopers carry ammo with them, enough to create havoc with planes on ground, grenades, machine guns etc. In north Africa aircraft carried drums of fuel to troops. Not to mention flying boats Germany had. These could land near beaches unload, repeat. Gliders carry men "and" equipment. Troops on ground are supplied by airdrop as they always are.
There's no doubt many JU's would be lost as they were over Crete. But the question becomes are they worth losing to secure victory?
many would be repaired & returned to service if invasion successful. Same question applied to Norway. Germany lost it's destroyers, but it was worth it.
It's not as black & white an issue as some would like to paint it.
-
Agent you are still glossing over the logisticis, which is the most critical element for a successful invasion.
You are ignoring the very real problems Germany would have faced. Your paratroop drops are as ludicrous as suggesting the allies to do a troop drop on enemy airfields across the rhine in '44.
You are seriously suggesting the paratroops will be ok because they'll carry enough ammo. It'll last for a couple of days at the most. You just ignored the fact that the ju52's will be decimated by the RAF on the crossing, just as you seem to have ignored the Royal Navy.
You suggest aircraft dropping fuel drums to troops is not a solution, it's an ineffective improvisation. With aircraft dropping fuel what will be escorting the Ju52's that would have suffered heavy casualties regardless? What will be covering the German fleet? Supplying troops by air drops? how? it's over contested air space, which now you have German planes carrying fuel drums now anyway.
Your invasion plans have no basis in reality and it's feasibility is nil.
-
" A bridge too Far"
Classic example of unsupported paratroop drops. And that was a LIGHTLY defended target btw.
Put troops into England and farmers will have sniped half of them before Tea Time.
The rest won't make it through the first night.
The only feasable way for Hitler to have taken England was to have continued hitting the RAF. Once the LW have total air supperiority, the bombers come in and start hitting the Aircraft & tank factorys. It would not have been easy, it would NOT have been fast, and he could NOT have started a second front while doing so. But it is within the realm of possibility if he had continued to make it his primary objective.
Granted, the English were short on heavy equipment, they left most of it at Dunkirk.
But on the flip side there is no prractical way for the germans to get panzers to england. Ohhh a few perhaps in those converted dutch barges. That is if they didn't all sink, take a bomb, shell, etc hit before hitting the shore.
Even then, its not the same as an LST that beaches itself, then has a nice ramp for tanks to roll ashore on.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
The only feasable way for Hitler to have taken England was to have continued hitting the RAF. Once the LW have total air supperiority, the bombers come in and start hitting the Aircraft & tank factorys. It would not have been easy, it would NOT have been fast, and he could NOT have started a second front while doing so. But it is within the realm of possibility if he had continued to make it his primary objective.
Yup, only chance would have been to destroy the RAF, lure the RN out and into hitting range of the LW, sink it, then maybe try to take a major port with paratroops for shipping in supplies.
Doubt it would have worked but that seems the only way it could work.
-
Nope, thrila paratroops would be mostly captured & released after invasion. Their purpose -as you mentioned, a couple of days, is to temporarily disrupt air activities of the British, enough time to establish a beachhead.
& I covered 52 topic already. Raf could not get em all, not even near all. No fighter force ever got near all of a bomber stream in any theater.
& for the newbies, read the Mfp transport data. That is how it would be done. Not with barges.
-
Agent the Ju52 isn't a bomber, it isn't even comparable. The troops wont make it to any airfields, they'll be dead. You are talking about an unarmoured, under gunned plane cruising less than 150mph crossing a large distance. It will require shifts of escorts as the 109 will run out of fuel before the Ju52 gets to the airfields- effectively slashing their escort in the very least of a half. In fact the Ju52 would to fly unescorted as they approached their targets, the 109s struggled operating over London, they could not oprate realistically any northward. The Ju52 took horrendous losses whenever they operated without air supremacy- it happened at stalingrad, it happened in the med, it would have happened over britain.
I'm amazed you still think the mfp will make it ashore, they'll be decimated by the Royal Navy. Do you honestly think the German navy could stand toe to toe against the Royal Navy in holding or even establishing a beachhead? You talk of German destroyers and small craft, do you know how many the Royal Navy had? The German navy had to operate in a guerilla style in ww2 otherwise it would have been annhilated.
-
"it's not as black & white an issue as some would like to paint it."
Damn right! It's the only thing you've hit the nail on the head with.
If they'd just put on the rose colored Von Polyana glasses you're wearing then they'd see things in das proper light!
lol. You've got the answer and you're simply working backwards on evetns to support it by any means you can think of - mainly via ludicrous, shallowly worked out assumptions and fantasy.
Hence my prior posts have all been right on the mark.
Siek Helpp!
-
Originally posted by agent 009
The book No bended knee - the battle of guadalcanal by Gen Merrill Twining mentions "exactly" what I said. I supppose you think you are more intelligent than him eh Humble? Not only are you completely wrong-again, but stupendously arrogant as well.
Karnak, yes it was an industrial nation vs an island, which makes Humbles comparison rather silly. JU 52's? well what was the highest percentage a bomber stream ever lost over Europe? 15-20%? certainly not higher than 30-40%. So the RAF & ack ack is gonna get em all eh? absurd.
The US did use craft similiar in size to the German marinefahrprahm which is how they did much of their resupply. & the Japanese capital ships had little success against these. they are small targets & hard to hit. So the Royal navy is gonna sink em all eh? utterly stupid.
Besides, comparing fat slow Japanese mauru's to small armored maneuverable German Mfp's speaks for itself. Dumb as it gets.
LOL....
Mentions "exactly" what.....
So the US Navy was made unaware of japanese communications regarding the movement of Japanese capital ships which led to the defeats of Savo island etcetra....but the aircorps was clued into the exact movements of supply convoys...which of course were controlled directly from Japan using the highest priority codes.
Yes the Allies had significant ability to break codes on all fronts...however not much tactical information was obtained that way. The best example of radio interception is Midway...yes we knew they were coming...but we had no current operational information.
I'm not arrogant at all.....just locked into a non arguement with a 5th or 6th grader who cant rise to the situation at hand. You simply do not have a clue what your talking about...
As for Guadalcanal vs England, your arguing it would be easier for Germany to invade england then for Japan to defend and resupply Guadalcanal?
-
Originally posted by thrila
Agent you still haven't thought about it logistically, it was logistically impossible for the Germans to have taken England.
Your arguing with an idiot....
1st)
No seaborne invasion has ever been attempted without control of both the sea and air at the invasion site. The Germans didn't have the aviation assets or naval assets to accomplish this...period.
2nd)
An invasion beachhead is most vulnerable during its initial 48 hours. During this critical phase the attacker needs to maintain both an aircap and provide seaborne "artillery"....again the germans didnt have the ability to do either.
3rd)
Sustained combat requires tremendous resources and the germans simply didnt have the logistical capability to deliver the required men and material.
4th)
There is no military gain from deploying airborne troops in england...again this is so much dribble. The allies deployed such forces due to the specific scenario at hand. Unless you have a tactical reason to due so your simply wasting assets...
Now of course the fact that someone thinks a bunch of transport planes would actually survive the trip speaks volumes...
-
...however not much tactical information was obtained that way. The best example of radio interception is Midway...yes we knew they were coming...but we had no current operational information
Read the book, loads of tactical data was obtained. particularly regarding supply convoys.
Nothing to be gained by paratroop drops? your getting dumber with each post. No mfp's or 52's would get through, well I've explained that no fighter force in history ever shot down a majority of any bomber stream. humble lives in fanstasyland. No seaborne invasion was ever attempted without having control of sea & air at invasion site. Wrong again. US had complete control of neither at Guadalcanal. In the early stages the US lost more ships than the Japanese. The only airfield on the island was in Japanese hands. When the germans invaded Crete, twas the Brits who controlled the sea. Which proves you don't know what yer talkin bout. Arguing with mental midgets is boring. I'll leave you to it.
-
JU52s are not bombers though agent
have you either seen a Ju52? its like a tin can
it wont work. EVERYONE has chipped in offering reasons that you seem to ignore.
of coarse you will probably see this as an insult, which it isnt but this threads subject is the least thought out.
the other thread about gibralter/malta etc kinda made sence and was probably something they could have done.... however that leads me to another point, which im sure ive seen in this thread too
Malta wasnt taken during WWII, yet it was a small island, with very little in troop defence, very little air defence, and few ships in defence too.
Italy and german had more chance in taking malta than taking England, but they didnt....Italy could have provided the ships, Germany the airforce.... but they didnt make it happen....and thats to a small little island with a VERY LONG supply line.
Englands defence was like 1000 times stronger......
oh and you mention crete. Crete was 100% airbourne invasion wasnt it???? with very little or no aircover, ie germany had 100% air control during the invasion. Oh and crete is a small island with very little in reserve, unlike Mainland England.....
id say and Ju52 drop on mainland england, you'd loose 40-50% due to fighters, and 40-50% of those people that managed to drop due to fire from the ground. That leaves very little to capture dover (as in germanys plans) and the airfields.... Having lost all those Ju52s, what is going to run supplys to the now captured airfields?
A army doesnt run without supplys. Thats partly why Germanys war vs the French had a bit of a "break" after they encircled us... Because the panzers had got so far ahead that the supplys couldnt keep up. Same with America/UK/Can vs Germany later.... all there supplys coming off the tempory ports at normandy couldnt keep up with the offencive now reaching antwerp... And Antwerp wasnt really useable still. Thats why the war "slowed" down before xmas 1944, and thats why Hitlers Bulge nearly worked......ooh that sounded rude ;)
-
http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20europe/ww2%20europe%20pages/ww2%20europe%20map%2018.htm
there ya go... BOTH seabourne invasions to crete FAILED
cant you logicaly see that the same would have happend to the ones going to the UK?
same with the Ju52s.... With englands defence they would have been mince meat
-
Using Guadicanal as an example of how britain might be invaded successfully?
One is a remote, undefeded nearly deserted island. The other is the most densly populated and industrialised nation on earth at the time. One had almost no local population that cared either way. The British population were millions strong and cared a great deal.
One had an extensive radar system the other didnt, one was one of the greatest naval powers the other wasnt .
The british army, fully intact and prepared for a long telegraphed german invasion and without having split its strength to france would be a little different then 200 japanese construction engineers.
Ju52s flying over the north sea all the way from Germany to England. Loaded with paratroopers. Almost un escorted. Each with at most one manually aimed 7.92mm mount.
Agent says that no bomber stream in history ever took near 100 % casualties.
Ever heard of the palm sunday massacre agent?
100 Ju5s go out. 40 come back. One mission. That doesnt indicate how many troops in those planes would have been killed. And that was with 109s as escort.
009 will say that 60% isnt 100 %. And that the Germans could effectivly deliver the falshimjaegers even if 60% of them died. Amazing.
Gemanys mystery LSTs arent mentioned in Janes WW2 book or in Conways. Interesting.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
...however not much tactical information was obtained that way. The best example of radio interception is Midway...yes we knew they were coming...but we had no current operational information
Read the book, loads of tactical data was obtained. particularly regarding supply convoys.
Nothing to be gained by paratroop drops? your getting dumber with each post. No mfp's or 52's would get through, well I've explained that no fighter force in history ever shot down a majority of any bomber stream. humble lives in fanstasyland. No seaborne invasion was ever attempted without having control of sea & air at invasion site. Wrong again. US had complete control of neither at Guadalcanal. In the early stages the US lost more ships than the Japanese. The only airfield on the island was in Japanese hands. When the germans invaded Crete, twas the Brits who controlled the sea. Which proves you don't know what yer talkin bout. Arguing with mental midgets is boring. I'll leave you to it.
Wrong again numnutes....
Please provide me with the name of anyJapanese warship which was on hand to oppose the actual landings. The battle of Savo Island occured on August 9, 1942...the initial landings were unopposed by any japanese naval force.
Please provide me with any operational aviation asset located on Guadalcanal as of August 7, 1942. The airfield was not operational at the time of the invasion.
As for paratroop drops...I didnt say they had no value...simply that your use had no value and was a waste of valuable assets for no gain. Realistically you'd have 80%+ loses at best....but even if you got them on the ground you have no ability to capitalize on any success they have.
If youwant to see a mental midgit...just go look in the mirror....just bring a high stool...I'm sure its a long way up son:).
BTW you havent explained anything...you just repeat absurd statements with no factual basis in reality. To you even know how many tons of supplies (and men) are required to maintain seven divisions engaged in sustained combat for 3 days?
Just the petrol requirements alone are beyond german capability
Or do you think a couple of battalions of paratroopers are going to roll england up:)....
-
Japanese reaction to the Guadalcanal-Tulagi invasion was swift, if not initially very effective. At Rabaul, the principal Japanese base in the area, the local fleet commander, Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa, pulled together some ground troops, put them in six transports and ordered them off toward Guadalcanal, about six hundred miles to the southeastward. However, during the night of 8 August one of the transports had the ill-fortune to pass near the old U.S. submarine S-38, which sank her with over three hundred men. This forced the cancellation of this first of what would be many Japanese efforts to reinforce their embattled troops on Guadalcanal.
Meanwhile, Japanese planes from Rabaul were sent off to attack the invaders, or preferably their supporting aircraft carriers. In the early afternoon of 7 August, some 27 twin-engine bombers (of a type soon to be nicknamed "Betty") and 18 deadly "Zero" fighters, not having found the carriers, arrived over the invasion fleet. Making a high-level bombing attack, they achieved no hits and lost five bombers and two fighters in actions with U.S. carrier planes (of which the "Zeros" shot down several F4F-4 "Wildcat" fighters and one SBD scout bomber). A few hours later nine single-engine Japanese dive bombers (type "Val") appeared and scored a non-fatal hit on the destroyer Mugford. All of these attackers were lost, either shot down or ditched on the way home.
The Japanese tried again the next day, this time with 27 "Betty" bombers fitted with aerial torpedos and an escort of 15 "Zeros". Once more, they failed to locate the U.S. aircraft carriers, but made a daring low-level torpedo attack on the Vice Admiral Turner's amphibious force. Turner skillfully maneuvered his ships in the sound between Guadalcanal and Tulagi, throwing off the enemy's aim. Only one torpedo scored, hitting destroyer Jarvis in the bow. The transport George F. Elliot was struck amidships by a crashing bomber and was set afire. Japanese losses were very heavy, about seventeen bombers and two fighters, the great majority to the ship's anti-aircraft guns.
The damage done by these Japanese air attacks only inconvenienced the invasion force, slowing supply off-loading by a few hours and taking three ships out of the fight. George F. Elliot was a total loss, her fires burned out of control and she had to be scuttled. Jarvis and Mugford were both able to steam away to seek repairs, but the former, sailing independently, was found by enemy planes on the 9th of August and sunk with no survivors.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Hey lovepotion009.
"Our generals are just a bunch of contemptable disloyal cowards!
They will pay with thier own blood for thier weakness!"
It feels like the bunker in here. And we are all the generals looking embarased as 009 froths at the mouth.
classic!
now we need to get back to the flying monkeys that hitlers blowing out of his tookus. England wouldnt stand a chance against them.
fly! fly! fly!
-
Invasion of Crete was done with slow tranport ships, nothing at all in common with Mfp's. Convoys are easy to spot, mfp's would operate singly & run zig zag patterns if need be. Totally different situation. English channel also different from Med. Again, channel crossing be done at night with fog as cover. wait for bad weather, especially fog, no way Brit navy could find most of em.
As for Ju's noone has yet answered the question of percentages of bomber streams or the fact that these were successful over Crete. Sorry no real intelligent arguments have been made regarding how many could-would make it across. If you read, you would see above that I agreed many would be lost.
Humble your post only reinforces the fact that US did not have complete air superiority. You disproved your own argument. Your insults even suck, numnutes? Learn to spell. Pack it in mate it's embarrassing.
-
Now you are proposing to send the mfps zigzaging in poor, foggy weather? Can you not see the insanity in what you are suggesting? If you suggested such a thing to any navy you would be laughed at. How are the ships supposed to find their targets? what about collisions? How will the troops be concentrated when the ships are landing in penny packets in random places.
You are still comparing the ju52 to a bomber, which it is not. It doesn't have any protective armour or a heavy armament- a single 7.9mm mg and they wont be flying between 20 and 25k. Your comparison of a fleet of ju52s to a bomber stream is unfounded. With this poor, foggy weather how are the ju52's supposed to find their targets? Are they just going to dump their troops where ever? Of course that'll be the 10% that doesn't just massacred by the RAF. You are back peddling to such a degree you are removing conditions critical for success in one area of the operation to suit another. Your plan is incoherent.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Germany 1st takes Austria, Czechlosovakia, Denmark, part of Poland to connect Prussia with Germany, Then Baltic states, & Scandinavia, & finally England. & calls it the northern empire.
No eastern front, no battle of France, no North African front.
Can they hold it? will US & Canada intervene?
Can speak for others. But in czech we had pretty good nest of fortress all around.
It hasnt been totaly finished, but most of it were ready to use.
Many czech were angry that we didnt fight, coz when they saw, what came to prague, it were clear thet we could resist for several months on our own.
However we better speak about alliance whitch has been set-up after WW1 and broke in Munich by British.
How could war develop if it started in 36 or 38 ?
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Invasion of Crete was done with slow tranport ships, nothing at all in common with Mfp's. Convoys are easy to spot, mfp's would operate singly & run zig zag patterns if need be. Totally different situation. English channel also different from Med. Again, channel crossing be done at night with fog as cover. wait for bad weather, especially fog, no way Brit navy could find most of em.
As for Ju's noone has yet answered the question of percentages of bomber streams or the fact that these were successful over Crete. Sorry no real intelligent arguments have been made regarding how many could-would make it across. If you read, you would see above that I agreed many would be lost.
Humble your post only reinforces the fact that US did not have complete air superiority. You disproved your own argument. Your insults even suck, numnutes? Learn to spell. Pack it in mate it's embarrassing.
Sounds like they had air superiority to me...far far better than you would have over England. See this is typical anywhere here on these threads with people like you. Facts are never totally one sided. But people like you ignore 98% and magnify the other 2%.
We established that the airfield on Guadalcanal was non operational. We established that Japan provided no direct opposition to the landing itself. Now japan did mount a two airborne counter attacks totaling 54 planes which were ineffective. Not a single troop or landing craft was touched and only one escort damaged.
Further we now have reduced your "invasion" of England to a bunch of paratroopers and some Mfp's zigzaging thru the fog banks....you use the "english channel" again here....your coming across the north sea from Norway you twit. The person who hasnt provided an intelligent argument is you.
-
it could have been done, just not the way agent sees...
-
Um no, Norway was but one of the things discussed you twit, if you'd read you'd see that the normal invasion through france was also discussed you twit. Yes I know the airfield was under construction on Guadalcanal, but it still has no relevant comparison to the Channel you twit.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Um no, Norway was but one of the things discussed you twit, if you'd read you'd see that the normal invasion through france was also discussed you twit. Yes I know the airfield was under construction on Guadalcanal, but it still has no relevant comparison to the Channel you twit.
nice personal insults agent... to be honest this subject isnt even worth discussing anymore
-
Those were intended for Humble. & for what its worth, I did not start any of the insults. I merely responded to them.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Those were intended for Humble. & for what its worth, I did not start any of the insults. I merely responded & returned the feces the their rightful ownwers.
i know who they are ment for, and i dont really understand how you can keep ignoring the FACTS these guys throw up
-
Where?! The idea that all the 52's would be knocked down is opinion, all mfp's would be sunk is opinion. Unprovable opinion at that.
Guadalcanal & Crete supply operations have no comparitive value in comparison to the much shorter channel. They aren't intelligent arguments.
Covering the terrain in southern England was a good point & I said so.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Where?!
the whole thread.
but anyone that brings up proof this wont work, gets insulted
-
They don't bring up proof, they bring up nonrelated opinions about guadalcanal & unproven opinions about all JU's being shot down. When I point out that no bomber stream ever lost more than 30 - 40 % they have no response. JU's succeeded over Crete. The real question is; were there more anti aircraft over southern England vs Crete? that would be intelligent discussion. But I'm the only one who thought to ask that question.
They are more interested in insultation than discussion.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
They don't bring up proof, they bring up nonrelated opinions about guadalcanal & unproven opinions about all JU's being shot down. When I point out that no bomber stream ever lost more than 30 - 40 % they have no response. JU's succeeded over Crete. The real question is; were there more anti aircraft over southern England vs Crete? that would be intelligent discussion. But I'm the only one who thought to ask that question.
They are more interested in insultation than discussion.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN
Ju52 is NOT A BOMBER have you missed the countless posts on this? Bomber formations flew at 10-15k if not more, and bombers have ARMOUR and guns on them they also flew at over 200mph.
Ju52s would be flying at like 3k have no armour, and no gun worth while on it, or do you expect the troops inside to start firing there rifles out the windows???? lol they are also very very slow planes
crete had NO (or very little) airdefence like fighters or AAA
crete had very few ships defending it, yet BOTH invasion fleets got turned back or sunk.
vs
UK had 1000s of AAAs, AAs and fighters.
UK had MANY types of ships in the area for defence and the result of any seabourne invasion would have been the same.
you also say the same Ju52s (which will suffer terrible losses) will also supply supplys, like fuel etc for those panzers. But if your loosing 30-50% (and thats being nice) per trip, how many Ju52s will germany have after just 2 sorties? not many.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Um no, Norway was but one of the things discussed you twit, if you'd read you'd see that the normal invasion through france was also discussed you twit. Yes I know the airfield was under construction on Guadalcanal, but it still has no relevant comparison to the Channel you twit.
Not....
Your whole premise was NOT attacking France....
As for Guadalcanal....
Your entire arguement is that Germany could have developed a suitable navy given different priorities....well Japan did develop that navy. So we have a naval power trying to defend against a naval assualt on an Island they initially control in a scenario where they actually inflict significant damage to the enemy. But they still cant successfully resupply their forces...yet you feel Germany facing a much formidable Navy...and a much much stronger land based enemy will be able to establish maintain and supply a beach head....you sir are a twit.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Those were intended for Humble. & for what its worth, I did not start any of the insults. I merely responded to them.
Wrong again...you started the insults with your IQ "claims"...
-
Originally posted by agent 009
They don't bring up proof, they bring up nonrelated opinions about guadalcanal & unproven opinions about all JU's being shot down. When I point out that no bomber stream ever lost more than 30 - 40 % they have no response. JU's succeeded over Crete. The real question is; were there more anti aircraft over southern England vs Crete? that would be intelligent discussion. But I'm the only one who thought to ask that question.
They are more interested in insultation than discussion.
You dont know how to debate...your points are not relevent or worthy of serious discussion....will take your JU claims....
Improved version of the Junkers Ju 52/3m ge. It had more modern radio equipment, upgraded bomb-release mechanisms, and was powered by 3 × BMW 132A-3 radials, rated at 725 hp (541 kW) each. The internal fuel capacity of 544 Imp gal (654 US gal, 2.475 liters) made a tactical radius of 311 miles (500 km) possible at a max cruising speed of 152 miles (245 km/h) at 2,950 ft (900 m)
So we're comparing a plane with a top speed of 152 mph at ~3,000ft and a combat radius of 311 miles to a bomber...
Will use the Boston as an example since you haven't specified one. It's a 1938 bomber with a top speed of 340 mph and a cieling of ~28,000 ft with a range of over 1100 miles...see any differance there champ...
The JU isn't a bomber...
Personally I suggest the germans use genetically engineered butterflies...not only are they non detectable byradar but there are no known instances of spitfires successfully intercepting butterflies at anytime during WW2.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Agreed.
The question is then, why are your ideas so un-original, and why do you keep going on and on about it?
New Topic:
What if Hitler suddenly could shoot flying monkeys out his tookus, and created a great flying simian combat wing that could help him take over the known world.
Discuss...
1 banana could end it all.....
TEEN SQUELCH HACK available for only $.47
First 100 buyers get a 10% off bonus coupon to Muttonbone.com
-
Agent i suggest you read up on the palm sunday massacre, perhaps that will demonstrate that survivability of the ju52 to you. There are other examples, but this one is the first that springs to mind.
The ju52 as humble and I have persisted in trying to explain, isn't comparable to a bomber.
-
Right then, for starters a commando raid would have required about 10- 15 men per each airfield. therefore the numbers of planes required for this type of mission is very few. not at all like the Bridge too far missions. Which means that comparison is irrelevant. The number of JU's involved discounts the "losses in great numbers" theory. The fact that none of my detratcors thought of that demonstrates that they have absolutey no concept whatsoever of how such raids would be conducted.
U-boats could also drop commandos on the shore to do raids on radar sites. Just one of many ponderables available to those who think.
As well if germany did develop the MFp's in 30's & had interest in cross water invasions, they would no doubt have done practice runs in the baltic & encounter the probs of such misions & adjust as the allies did.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
As well if germany did develop the MFp's in 30's & had interest in cross water invasions, they would no doubt have done practice runs in the baltic & encounter the probs of such misions & adjust as the allies did.
and if they had done that they would have had less uboats, less DD's etc
to even THINK of invading the UK they would have needed at least 4 bismark class ships + MANY support ships.
tactaly they would still have to draw the Brit fleet away from the UK and block TWO ends of the channel....with said ships...
-
Strategic theorem. One of many.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Um no, Norway was but one of the things discussed you twit, if you'd read you'd see that the normal invasion through france was also discussed you twit. Yes I know the airfield was under construction on Guadalcanal, but it still has no relevant comparison to the Channel you twit.
Channel has nothing to do with it.
You were theorizing a german invasion from germany. Without taking france or the low countries.
Thats a long way but wheat. Way out side of air cover and a very long flight for your JU52s.
-
I allready tried to point out palm sunday to him pages ago.
100 ju52 take off, 40 return. Having not made it to their objective.
Agent just ignores such references.
-
Which has no bearing or relation to a small commando force, ( requiring relatinely few planes ), which if one uses one's imagination could be done with a different craft than the JU 52.
& no I didn't theorize an attack from Germany without 1st attacking through low countries. That was inferred by someone else.
-
couldn't think of a better way to mass slaughter the best germany had to offer, would of shaved years off the war.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Which has no bearing or relation to a small commando force, ( requiring relatinely few planes ), which if one uses one's imagination could be done with a different craft than the JU 52.
& no I didn't theorize an attack from Germany without 1st attacking through low countries. That was inferred by someone else.
OK....
So we've scrapped the "northern empire"...conceeded that an invasion from Norway (or anywhere else is beyond german capability) and are now arguing the feasibility of small commando raids by the germans.
Now JU-52's will show upon radar and small commando teams have little or no chance of causing any real damage regardless of the mechanism for insertion. Your not using your imagination...or any other part of your brain for that matter.
-
Nope, northern empire which includes central europe -as it did in real war, plus Baltic states, during which Finland joins Germany, then Sweden joins like the Czechs did rather than fight a perhaps umwinnable war, then Norway falls. At which point one of 2 things occurs, England & France declare war, or they don't. If they don't, Germany maintains its gains in Central europe & scandinavia. Sans Iceland, which would become hot property as it was in real war. Deals with uncle Joe later.
If they do, the most reasonable course of events as described earlier is Germany invades France, then though channel invades England, (this time with Mfp's, commando raids on radar sites & airfields), Which may or may not succeed.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Which has no bearing or relation to a small commando force, ( requiring relatinely few planes ), which if one uses one's imagination could be done with a different craft than the JU 52.
& no I didn't theorize an attack from Germany without 1st attacking through low countries. That was inferred by someone else.
"Germany 1st takes Austria, Czechlosovakia, Denmark, part of Poland to connect Prussia with Germany, Then Baltic states, & Scandinavia, & finally England. & calls it the northern empire.
No eastern front, no battle of France, no North African front. "
Where are Holland and Belgium mentioned there? Denmark is consdered part of scandinavia I believe so I will grant you that one.
You think 100 ju52s is some kind of huge armada? How many were you planning on taking England with? each only carries 13 troops. A squad of infantry. A Platoon needs 4 a Company 15 or so. How many airfields are you going to attack? you better send a battalion to each I would say 50 per airfield?.
Your strategy will be 2000 or more ju52s.
Keep in mind that only the first wave are to air drop. To hold those fields the light infantry must land, USING LARGELY THE SAME TRANSPORTS. Any attrition of the first wave will greatly reduce the chances of the second wave.
Such arrivals obviosly have no element of supprise. No matter what magic you conjour to get even a semblence of your first wave on the ground the second wave faces the RAF. They cant arrive at night because only a small % of pilots can deliver paras at night. They are going to be facing 600 or so modern fighters with Radar direction.
agent. What you propose is impossible. you included england as an afterthought in your strategy without any grasp at all of what successive invasions of Norway and England would mean. The Germans were lucky to take Norway. Extremely lucky. The amount of luck needed to take england with a simular tactic doenst exist.
-
oh my god.
I just read where agent is sending ONE ju52 to each RAF field.
13 men. 20% of them injured if they jump at night.
Well, Agent has pretty much evolved his northern empire to include Holland and Belguim.
So France and England let the Chezks, Holland, Belguim, Poland and Norway fall without getting involved in the war.
And then somehow.
The same german Tactic that barely worked in Norway but was quite successfull backed up by blitzkrieg in the Low countries will somehow suprise the British at some time after that, presumebly with the same troops that where used in Norway, Belguim and Holland.
He will then drop one squad of paras on each British airfield to nutralise it. And his fleet of phantom LSTs that are imune to torpedos and invisible to the 130 destoryers adn 50 submarines and 200 smaller craft and 30 Cruisers and 15 battleships and 1000 bombers that will attack them will zig zag across the channel at night and what? Take a port I guess? Why do a beach landing when Norwaw gave up thier ports so easy.
I guess it doenst matter that if the weather is so bad that no on can see the transports then the Ju52s will not find a single airfield either. But hey...england will fall in a day.
Yes Agent. If that worked Hitler would have rulled the world for sure. It is a great strategy if it can work.
My prediction though. Is that your fantasy stratagy ends ww2 in 1941 in Britians favour. But that is me.
-
I still think the butterflies would work:) :aok
-
"(So France and England let the Chezks, Holland, Belguim, Poland and Norway fall without getting involved in the war)".
Um no, go back & read, when you've done your homework properly, then you can come back with an intelligent post. Maybe.
Surprise the British? yet another stupidity inferred exclusively by you.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
"(So France and England let the Chezks, Holland, Belguim, Poland and Norway fall without getting involved in the war)".
Um no, go back & read, when you've done your homework properly, then you can come back with an intelligent post. Maybe.
Surprise the British? yet another stupidity inferred exclusively by you.
maybe you should try the same?
-
I think Agent is right...look at a map of England and you'll notice it has lots of coastline, and the Limeys couldn't watch all of it.
Once on shore the Panzar divisions woulda sliced through England like a hot knife through butter.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I think Agent is right...look at a map of England and you'll notice it has lots of coastline, and the Limeys couldn't watch all of it.
Once on shore the Panzar divisions woulda sliced through England like a hot knife through butter.
Hmmm....Airhead....sounds about right:)......
1) "once on shore"....and how will you accomplish that??
2) Tanks need aircover...your aircover is restricted to a small part of england and has something like 18 minutes combat time.
3) tanks without gas dont slice very well...where is the gas coming from?
4) The vast majority of Englands coastline is not within the operational envelope of the Germany Army, Navy or Airforce.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
"(So France and England let the Chezks, Holland, Belguim, Poland and Norway fall without getting involved in the war)".
Um no, go back & read, when you've done your homework properly, then you can come back with an intelligent post. Maybe.
Surprise the British? yet another stupidity inferred exclusively by you.
Hmmm...you haven't had an intelligent post yet so what are youmouthing off about?
-
Originally posted by agent 009
"(So France and England let the Chezks, Holland, Belguim, Poland and Norway fall without getting involved in the war)".
Um no, go back & read, when you've done your homework properly, then you can come back with an intelligent post. Maybe.
Surprise the British? yet another stupidity inferred exclusively by you.
I dont think I have ever owned anyone on this BBS as bad as I have owned you.
Too bad every one else with a brain has also washed the floor with you. But thanks it was a blast.
-
lol pongo
-
Let's see 15 battleships, 30 cruisers 130 destroyers. Quite an armada. Dy'a suppose they had a teleportation device? to get all their ships from Gibralter, Alexandria, Iceland, Scapa flow SE asia & the Atlantic bases all in the channel on invasion day. Amazing ! how they could do that. Al, of em in fighting trim on the same day. Wow!
painfully obvious you haven't the foggiest notion of how naval warfare maneuvers work.
& no I didn't say anywhere 1 Ju for each base. where do you get these weird ideas that I never said? If you had read, you'd see I pointed out other types of planes could be used. They fly low under radar like every nation did from time to time during war. As well commandos would conduct raids on radar sites. Obvious you have no concept of para warfare either.
Perhaps you didn't know the germans had other planes besides the JU 52 to fly during the war. When your mommy & daddy come home tonite you can tell em you learned that today.
Give it a few yrs, do some reading & then perhaps you'll be ready to discuss military operations such as these. & that's a "big" maybe.
Good to hear you enjoyed expressing your retardation.
-
"Right then, for starters a commando raid would have required about 10- 15 men per each airfield. therefore the numbers of planes required for this type of mission is very few. not at all like the Bridge too far missions. Which means that comparison is irrelevant. The number of JU's involved discounts the "losses in great numbers" theory. The fact that none of my detratcors thought of that demonstrates that they have absolutey no concept whatsoever of how such raids would be conducted. "
did you write that? You insult us because we lack your stratigic vision then insult us becuase we remember what you wrote a page ago even if you dont..
A Ju 52 stick is 13 men son. Thats one plane per base to accomplish your grand plan. I know you wont respond to this.
"Let's see 15 battleships, 30 cruisers 130 destroyers."
The germans at the time had no battleships one cruiser and 6 destroyers.
If the British ignored the build up of 100 + german LSTs long enough so that they couldnt recall the empire forces just think what the Home fleet could do...
You have only accepted the neccessity of invading the low countries because I and others forced you to do so.
I think the most telling indicator of how little you know of war and ww2s outcome in particular is your fascination with single weapons.
Germans had no landing craft? They could have made the mk III zig zagging, torpedo dodging super LST! case closed. NOTHING CAN STAND AGAINST IT!
Germans loseing 60% of thier Ju52s in one mission? Dont be so narrow minded as to think they would use Ju52! easy they just put the JU 290 into series production in 1939 and fight thier way to the objective!
This idea that there is some wonder weapon that will defy the rules of attrition and logistics and operational planning is very in keeping with someone that really knows absolutly nothing of war.
-
A Ju 52 stick is 13 men son. Thats one plane per base to accomplish your grand plan. I know you wont respond to this.
And 2 or 3 smaller planes would carry a similiar amount of men, do you think man?
-
Also don't forget the Brits had strict gun control among their civilian population, and their Army was never battle tested in WW2 until the day after D-Day.. It is very concevible smaller boats could have infiltrated the British coast, especially in the frequently foggy weather, and dropped of commandos to establish beachheads and destroy vital instillations.
Don't forget the German U-Boats owned the Channel.
-
This idea that there is some wonder weapon that will defy the rules of attrition and logistics and operational planning is very in keeping with someone that really knows absolutly nothing of war.
I think it's very much a FPS kind of thing. All you need are three buds and a BFG to take the base. A UT capture the flag session or a counter strike mission. Maybe a C-47 full of goons at A4...
Charon
-
Originally posted by agent 009
A Ju 52 stick is 13 men son. Thats one plane per base to accomplish your grand plan. I know you wont respond to this.
And 2 or 3 smaller planes would carry a similiar amount of men, do you think man?
LOL
the signifigant thing is that you think takeing or impacting a fully defended ww2 base with a squad of men is a valid tactic of some sort. Only the most stupid person would consider the relevent issue how many planes it takes to carry them.
Hell you can send em over in Storches if you like. We are back up to 7 planes per field now!
You should develop a video game where 10 guys can capture an air base. I bet it would be a big seller.
-
And the palm sunday masacre was flown under radar. But as you approach the coast you are no longer "under radar"
And make sure your noe flying transports dont hit the zig zagging super LSTs in the Fog....
-
Who said anything about capture of an airfield. Disruption is the word. set fire to hangars, lob grenades at aircraft. Create havoc.
-
What is that going to do? If the entire LW couldnt shut down the RAF or appreciably attrite them in the battle of britian what will some grenades do? All your doing is broadcasting your intentions even more.
The RAF had many hundreds of fighters deployed all over the county. In air bases manned for local defence and anti aircraft.
You seem to think that if the Brits could be made to look the wrong way for a few hours that they could be successfully invaded.
-
The $64,000 question is ...
How are you going to get the 7 panzer divisions of Army Group A to England?
And how will you supply them For sustained combat operations?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Also don't forget the Brits had strict gun control among their civilian population, and their Army was never battle tested in WW2 until the day after D-Day.. It is very concevible smaller boats could have infiltrated the British coast, especially in the frequently foggy weather, and dropped of commandos to establish beachheads and destroy vital instillations.
Don't forget the German U-Boats owned the Channel.
rubbish. Army never battle tested??? We didnt run away from those germans. we held a LARGE area, long enough for us to escape, so we could defend our island. You saying these guys wasnt battle tested?
And the strict gun control with civilians??? maybe now in 2005 thats true, but im not sure about 1939... also Guns was given to select civilians for resistance operations just in case. Im pretty dam sure if those germans had ever stepped foot on UK beaches EVERY civilian would have had the chance to get a gun and fight.
-
Originally posted by humble
The $64,000 question is ...
How are you going to get the 7 panzer divisions of Army Group A to England?
And how will you supply them For sustained combat operations?
with my plans, i can get them there, but im 95% sure that within 2 days they will be cut off from all supplys, and within 3 they will have to surrender having run out of fuel and ammo....sure way to win a war that :D
-
Originally posted by agent 009
war with Russia inevitable? perhaps over Baltic states, Hitlers political bent is well known. But the discussion is theoretical, it is a strategic discussion regarding feasability, not Hitlers political bent.
Heard of Liberstraum? (Living space?)
Hitler was obsessed with it and was drooling over Russia when he wrote Mein Kampf.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
rubbish. Army never battle tested??? We didnt run away from those germans. we held a LARGE area, long enough for us to escape, so we could defend our island. You saying these guys wasnt battle tested?
And the strict gun control with civilians??? maybe now in 2005 thats true, but im not sure about 1939... also Guns was given to select civilians for resistance operations just in case. Im pretty dam sure if those germans had ever stepped foot on UK beaches EVERY civilian would have had the chance to get a gun and fight.
Don't feed the troll Overlag. :)
-
Ok feeling bored today I fired up Il2
Made a mission me in a hurri vs a buncha radar evading para troop Jus.
Since Il2 doesnt have zigzagging landing hovercraft, we had to skip that part.
The Jus were slaughtered to a plane.
Just for shiznets and giggles I loaded my mission again. But this time with me in a stuka.
Same story. but for further amusement I had my tail gunner kill 2 jus.
Then I landed and Power Armor wearing rocketeer Sturmtruppen were all over my base from teh hovercrafts, and I got bombed by an arado 555 :(
But for Agent009, he deserves a VC. Single handedly winning the war for england in 40 :rofl
-
Originally posted by Curval
Heard of Liberstraum? (Living space?)
Hitler was obsessed with it and was drooling over Russia when he wrote Mein Kampf.
Leberstraum=Liverdream?:rofl
Lebensraum= Living Room
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Leberstraum=Liverdream?:rofl
Lebensraum= Living Room
lol...I suggest you never make an English spelling mistake...'cause I got my eye out for it now.
;)
-
And how will you supply them For sustained combat operations?
They just have to find the appropriate power ups, unless the Brits spawn camp them :)
Charon