Author Topic: Northern empire-theoretical discuss (Read 3275 times)

Overlag · « **Reply #120 on:** May 08, 2005, 03:08:56 PM »

Quote

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

agent 009 · « **Reply #121 on:** May 08, 2005, 03:11:54 PM »

Those were intended for Humble. & for what its worth, I did not start any of the insults. I merely responded to them.

Overlag · « **Reply #122 on:** May 08, 2005, 03:21:13 PM »

Quote

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

agent 009 · « **Reply #123 on:** May 08, 2005, 03:25:50 PM »

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.

Overlag · « **Reply #124 on:** May 08, 2005, 03:29:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by agent 009
Where?!

the whole thread.

but anyone that brings up proof this wont work, gets insulted

agent 009 · « **Reply #125 on:** May 08, 2005, 03:35:43 PM »

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.

Overlag · « **Reply #126 on:** May 08, 2005, 03:45:34 PM »

Quote

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.

humble · « **Reply #127 on:** May 08, 2005, 04:29:03 PM »

Quote

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.

humble · « **Reply #128 on:** May 08, 2005, 04:30:22 PM »

Quote

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"...

humble · « **Reply #129 on:** May 08, 2005, 04:41:01 PM »

Quote

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.

Silat · « **Reply #130 on:** May 08, 2005, 04:41:34 PM »

Quote

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

thrila · « **Reply #131 on:** May 08, 2005, 04:53:26 PM »

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.

agent 009 · « **Reply #132 on:** May 08, 2005, 05:42:10 PM »

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.

Overlag · « **Reply #133 on:** May 08, 2005, 05:49:06 PM »

Quote

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...

agent 009 · « **Reply #134 on:** May 08, 2005, 07:00:06 PM »

Strategic theorem. One of many.