Author Topic: Turning point of the War.  (Read 5904 times)

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #135 on: November 16, 2009, 02:07:55 PM »
WW2 in Europe was decided at Dunkirk, when the Germans failed to capture the Brit army and lost any chance at a cross channel invasion of a barely target.

WW2 in the Pacific was decided at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese forgot to blow up the fuel tank farms which fed our fleets and let us reinforce our front.


I do hope that you are just yanking our chain with both events?
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #136 on: November 16, 2009, 02:08:44 PM »
as a turning point? dunkirk wasnt the turning point... pearl wasnt either. yeah they had mistakes in them that CAUSED a problem that led to a turning point. but even then, the BoB was air only and second i think the russian front held at moscow and stalingrad was much more important as turning points
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline Unit791

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #137 on: November 16, 2009, 02:51:19 PM »
WW2 in Europe was decided at Dunkirk, when the Germans failed to capture the Brit army and lost any chance at a cross channel invasion of a barely target.

WW2 in the Pacific was decided at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese forgot to blow up the fuel tank farms which fed our fleets and let us reinforce our front.


You're right, they didn't capture them, they bombed the crap out of them and harassed them to death while trying to cross the channel.  Hitler was still 100% capable of crossing the channel after Dunkirk, had he focused his Luftwaffe attacks more on British Airfields, as apposed to the civilian population, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they could have crossed.  They could have crossed anyway, (although it would have been highly pherric if they did not try to destroy the RAF) and would have destroyed the British.
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns, we do not allow our enemies to have guns, why should be allow them to have ideas?"-
Josef Stalin


Mauser

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #138 on: November 16, 2009, 02:53:06 PM »

You're right, they didn't capture them, they bombed the crap out of them and harassed them to death while trying to cross the channel.  Hitler was still 100% capable of crossing the channel after Dunkirk, had he focused his Luftwaffe attacks more on British Airfields, as apposed to the civilian population, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they could have crossed.  They could have crossed anyway, (although it would have been highly pherric if they did not try to destroy the RAF) and would have destroyed the British.
Ummmmm no Germany definitely would have been massacred had they tried to just jump right over to Britain.
Furthermore Germany was never in a position to gain control of the air over Britain, even if they had continued to bomb RAF airfields, as the popular myth goes.

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #139 on: November 16, 2009, 03:04:46 PM »
Ummmmm no Germany definitely would have been massacred had they tried to just jump right over to Britain.
Furthermore Germany was never in a position to gain control of the air over Britain, even if they had continued to bomb RAF airfields, as the popular myth goes.

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone call that a myth.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #140 on: November 16, 2009, 03:20:52 PM »
According to Galland it is...
He wrote that the RAF would have just moved north and continued to threaten an invasion force while escaping the range of the already overstretched Jagdwaffe.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 03:22:49 PM by Motherland »

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #141 on: November 16, 2009, 03:31:28 PM »
Well, that's one man's opinion.  I would be careful about understating the danger the UK faced in the BoB, for if Galland's opinion is true, then we've been making a big deal over a chimera for 60+ years.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #142 on: November 16, 2009, 03:38:39 PM »
Well, that's one man's opinion.  I would be careful about understating the danger the UK faced in the BoB, for if Galland's opinion is true, then we've been making a big deal over a chimera for 60+ years.
Well I think that one man's opinion carries some weight on this topic :)

Quote
for if Galland's opinion is true, then we've been making a big deal over a chimera for 60+ years.
People have also made a big deal about all of the German superweapons for the past 60 years, that doesn't mean that they were practical, realistic, or could have had any effect on the war had they even made it off of the drawing board.

Although it's a lot later in the war, and was successful, just look at how much effort Germany had to put into getting the Scharnhorst Gniesenau and Prinz Eugen (three ships) through the Channel (they even used nightfighter 110's during the daytime to help to bridge the gaps), imagine them trying to get an entire invasion fleet across and then support it on the ground...
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 03:41:52 PM by Motherland »

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #143 on: November 16, 2009, 03:52:56 PM »
You should know by now that I'm almost never convinced by appeals to authority and reputation. :D
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #144 on: November 16, 2009, 04:01:03 PM »

You're right, they didn't capture them, they bombed the crap out of them and harassed them to death while trying to cross the channel.  Hitler was still 100% capable of crossing the channel after Dunkirk, had he focused his Luftwaffe attacks more on British Airfields, as apposed to the civilian population, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they could have crossed.  They could have crossed anyway, (although it would have been highly pherric if they did not try to destroy the RAF) and would have destroyed the British.

Gibberish. :D And yet not, - this period marks a significant change in thecompletely so-far-successful Nazi campaign.
Hitler could not stop the crossings of several hundred thousand men floating away in just about anything that would .... float. And the LW actually suffered quite some casualties over the land they held.
And while the British airfields in the south were indeed buckling under the weight of the LW, don't make the same mistake as the Germans. They thought ALL of the BRITISH airforce were fighting them and rapidly depleting. They were bleeding every bit as fast themselves, and absolutely failed to comprehend the structure of the British air power.
After all, RAF had Bomber command and fighter command, and fighter command was basically split down in 4 in homeland defence, only 2 of which were effectively defending the south. 10 and 11th group. 12th group didn't make it to the fray before the Germans reached for London. 13th group was relatively idle up north and in Scotland , but did baffle the Germans when they sent bombers on that flank over the North sea, expecting all the British being in the south.
Then there was Coastal command, and the Fleet air arm as well. Not having quite the fighters for tackling the LW, they had quite some skilled pilots. Both arms were rather idle in the fight.
In the BoB the British had planes and crews in odd places. It was in the summer of 1940 when they for instance caught a German submarine with all hands with an aircraft of a squadron operating from .... Iceland.
The tactics and success debate is still warm, but I think I may claim that both sides did lot of mistakes. It would have been almost an impossible feat for the Germans to deliver a K.O. to the RAF though, and with the RAF around, the RN could not be stopped. Both depended on one another. Britain on both. And to hold the RN at bay, the RAF had to be held off. Didn't work.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #145 on: November 16, 2009, 04:02:50 PM »
If all of this is true, then it's a crime that the RAF did not stop the Luftwaffe over France.  Send the Spitfires for god's sake.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #146 on: November 16, 2009, 04:11:18 PM »
If all of this is true, then it's a crime that the RAF did not stop the Luftwaffe over France.  Send the Spitfires for god's sake.

Churchill and others felt that France couldn't be saved, which is why they withheld a lot of support towards the end of the Battle of France.  They didn't want to waste RAF resources in a hopeless cause when they were going to need them at home.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #147 on: November 16, 2009, 04:12:55 PM »
Nope. (For Anaxo that is)
Their system made it possible to make the LW bleed harder over the UK, as well as airfields were not run over as in France. The system was basically the best in the world, probably followed by the German one.
RAF casualties in France were great, and it was just a matter of cold calculation when their fighters would have been depleted. In the BoB however, they fought much bigger formations of German aircraft with a much better exchange ratio, - without any French aircraft as well.
Spitfires were in action over France before the BoB by the way. Dunkirk. Although not being aided by radar except partially, the success was noteable. And the home base was in the UK.
RS Tuck bagged 5 Gerries there in a day. Not common in the whole of WW2.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 04:14:37 PM by Angus »
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #148 on: November 16, 2009, 04:19:15 PM »
Churchill and others felt that France couldn't be saved, which is why they withheld a lot of support towards the end of the Battle of France.  They didn't want to waste RAF resources in a hopeless cause when they were going to need them at home.


ack-ack

Yep. once France was overrun, Churchill was shocked how quick it took Germany to take Paris. 
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Turning point of the War.
« Reply #149 on: November 16, 2009, 04:37:15 PM »
I'm going to respectfully disagree.  To my mind, not sending Spitfires to France was a major mistake, one that only looks justified because the decision entailed the result that was its own justification, i.e. the fall of France.  Without German air superiority the result of the battle could have been drastically different.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!