Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Strategy Thread - BTR

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Strategy Thread - BTR Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/9/2007 5:03:58 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
I know this may be a little early, but I thought with all the waiting going on, we might start talking about strategies...

I haven't played BtR in some time (years), but I do recall several strategy threads at JC's old site... IIRC, power stations used to be a favorite target because of the system-wide effect. I used to shy away because of the sheer number of targets... Anybody else have ideas or favorite strategies?

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Post #: 1
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/9/2007 6:49:09 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
ohhhhh

you should know better then to post something like this with me around :)

POWER ! yeap, you can take out almost all production by taking down power, but as you say, there are alot of them, and for me, I dislike sending out heavy bombers to hit small targets, and normally wait until I am closer to them and can use Tac Air to knock them down

OILR, Swift has had some good effects taking down oil, but as most of it is Romy land, and will be taken by the Red Horde, I tend to wait until it falls before going to work on it heavy, but think I may have to rethink my thinking

OILS ? more of a target point raid, then the main idea for a raid

FUEL, well, sort of like Power, some good big targets, but to take it out, a lot of small targets

STEEL, again, lots of small targets

ALUM, I tend to take this out as soon as I can

RUBBER, a good target, a few very big targets that will cripple it

CHEM, another good target, and again a few big targets, but much more work to cripple

BB, lots of good targets in a small area, but dangerous to get to, and HARD to cripple due to lots of smaller sites

ARM, only target to knock out a target, lots and lots and lots of them, there are a few good sized ones to attack for points

AFAC, some good targets, but lots of small targets, and if you hit the bigs, you got a chance to make more small ones, but if you can cripple, you can cripple the LW

EFAC same as above

CFAC, same as above, but alot more of them and most are small

the above 3, better to work on only one type, to try and make a bottleneck, then to split your raids

one trouble is that some of the people who have worked on the game, may of slipped some production into areas or types you may not expect it to be, plus the AI has been programmed to think like this too

Airfields, just to keep the other guy honest :)

Radar, repairs fast, but can make the other guy blind, air attacks and jammers placed into the right areas can work wonders

RAILROADS, maybe one of the more importent targets

AREA, well, with out AREA then BC has nothing to go for :), but burn out a AREA you also tend to nail the RR and other stuff in the area

but, that is a start, your turns






_____________________________


(in reply to madflava13)
Post #: 2
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/9/2007 10:10:29 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline
Using BC on AREA and USAAF on RAILS gives synergie effects,
Attaking targets near the coast gives EXP and much better Fighter cover.
Going for german fighters and one of AFAC/EFAC/CFAC tends to give you air superiority if done right.



_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 3
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 12:06:41 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
How does the AI approach the campaign targets? IIRC the manual for the old version may have mentioned that the AI would 'decide' on a direction for their bombing (a/c industry, rubber or so on). Will it vary it's targets, or will it focus on the same industries each game?

Also, in BoB how historical is the Luftwaffe campaign? Will it switch to bombing London as historical, or continue against the airfields, or vary it's approach?





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Dixie -- 8/12/2007 12:09:12 AM >


_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to soeren01)
Post #: 4
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 12:54:13 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
over all, I can say that the AI has a number of "plans" that it will pick from at the start of the game, so, each game will/can have a different approch, which, so saying, once it starts, other things start to kick in, losses, damaged targets and what nots

there are things I want to adjust, but we are not there yet to work it over yet

I am not sure how close the AI follows the real war plan for BoB (I not sure the real Germans followed the real war plan too well ?)




_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 5
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 2:53:41 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well, they were following it pretty well, right up until the point when they stopped...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 6
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 8:39:39 AM   
wernerpruckner


Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

OILR, Swift has had some good effects taking down oil, but as most of it is Romy land, and will be taken by the Red Horde, I tend to wait until it falls before going to work on it heavy, but think I may have to rethink my thinking

OILS ? more of a target point raid, then the main idea for a raid

FUEL, well, sort of like Power, some good big targets, but to take it out, a lot of small targets


this is one of my tactics in BtR - it is a combo of OILR/OILS/FUEL/RR/PORT/AF
it is amazing how much fuel the Axis need in the war

why those kind of targets:

RR/area/PORT => RR and PORT seem to be the transportation points of BTR/BoB, when shut done, there will be less production in the surrounding factories, also the transport of goods is slowed done and/or stopped
Also bombing RRs gives you Terror points - this is the main task for BC
BC usually scores between 25 and 30 terror until the end of 1943 in my PBEMs

OILR and FUEL - production of fuel, which is needed by the aircraft of the enemy force - fuel also may or may not need by troops and industry ( I am sure that it is needed, but not sure how much is needed )

OILS - storage of oil and fuel - the size says nothing about the amount that there is in storage, but it is often much higher close to big ports and big RRs
bombing it destroys large amounts of fuel !!
but be aware that the game engine moves around lots of oil/fuel all the time

A/Fs - to haunt the enemy and also to destroy - as main task - fuel !! ( A/C are a nice by-product ) also the enemy is forced to move his units around a lot
negative aspect - Flak traps. but I stil go on bombing them.

Done in a right way you will be able to nearly shut done certain areas for Luftwaffe action - in testing games I was able that the LW A/Fs between Amsterdam, Hamm, Hamburg only got around 10 to 15 fuel points per turn
if there is not enough fuel on those A/Fs.....than the Luftwaffe cannot fly

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 7
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 10:01:51 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, they were following it pretty well, right up until the point when they stopped...


Well, overall, I kind of got to disagree, while combat is combat and all of that, BoB if you study it, most times just makes you shake your head, what were they thinking, what was the real plan ?

one day you could have a number of well timed and planned raids, with raids hitting right after each other, and putting tons of pressure on the defenders, other days, you may have 12 bombers at low level all by themselfs

most times, it really looks like it was a game, or at best half hearted

which a lot is said about Bebbo and his poor Intel, and how the LW followed his info blindly, but the leaders of the Airfleets, were no fools, the old fighter leaders were not fools, and the newer younger leaders may of been even smarter (as regards to what needed to be done in combat)

the KG Commanders were not fools

but why was so much of the battle fought like a it was a joke ?

the Germans really believed the English were ready to give up ?

the pilots in combat didn't believe or think this, why did the planners ?

a lot of people blame the fat man, but early on, he was back at Karenhall, and didn't come to the front and take over until later on (when the major mistake took place)

of course, we have hindsight, and we know what happened and most times why it happened, but, I would say most Airchair Generals would of fought the battle much different, then the pros did, but we are talking about people who spent most of there lives training and planning for this kind of stuff (now the Yanks, had lots and lots of 90 day wonders and people from all over being moved and placed into command slots, so, alot of more simple mistakes were going to be made)

but almost to the end of the battle, we hear, read, that the LW still didn't know which airfields belonged to whom, and who were stationed where ???

what were they doing ? Recon was flying every day, bombers and fighters were flying almost every day, they didn't know what fields had planes on them and which didn't ?

ahh, oh well, you can say the same for most of the later parts of the war, but at least, then, most of the commanders were handcuffed

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 8
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 11:23:00 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, they were following it pretty well, right up until the point when they stopped...



Quite right.

They had no plan and they followed it.

_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 9
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 11:31:21 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline
Many of the higher German Airforce Officers came from the Army, Artillery and Supply branches. They simply had no real grasp how an airpower worked. The y did a very good job at ground support which was handled similar to Artillery. Also, it was more like trying to bully GB into peace talks than an full out airwar.

_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to soeren01)
Post #: 10
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 11:52:43 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
I am talking more of the staff officers then the figure heads, and if anything, the Germens had good staff Officers

_____________________________


(in reply to soeren01)
Post #: 11
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 1:22:03 PM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
It does seem surprising that Germany didn't even know where British squadrons flew from. As part of their planning for Sealion they also described the planned invasion area's as something like low mountainous country. I'm not sure anyone living in England would have described the south downs in such a way! The inclusion of Mountain divisions in the planned initial assault seems to confirm what they were expecting.

The fact that they constantly under estimated the remaining aircraft in the RAF also shows complete lack of understanding. They believed their pilots kills claims and seemed unable to take into account replacement aircraft, pilots and of course, pilots that had bailed out. The fact that Britain was building more aircraft than Germany at the time seems to have completely passed them by. If they'd known how many squadrons Britain had about a month in, they'd have probably given up earlier.

I think they were so over confident from their recent campaigns they just didn't plan the campaign well enough because they thought they'd win easily.

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 12
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 1:28:27 PM   
wernerpruckner


Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline
A Mountain Division is a "light" division - and so it is easier moved around ( per ship, per A/C )
The German Mountain Divisions were part of the landing forces in Crete ( a part of them landed with gliders and another part per sea )

_____________________________


(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 13
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/12/2007 1:30:34 PM   
wernerpruckner


Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline
To underestimate the enemy strength and to overestimate the own strength was one of the biggest problems for the German forces throughout the war.

The Luftwaffe told their pilots that the Bf109G-6 was superior ( faster and more agile ) than all Soviet A/C at that time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 14
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/13/2007 2:29:56 AM   
medaloffairness

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 8/11/2007
Status: offline
Hmm...

I disagree to the opinion that it was the biggest problem of the German to unerestimate the strength od their opponents, because every nation which thinks it can conquer another country or has to defend from the aggression of another country will underestimate the strength of the opponent.
The biggest problem is the war itself.

Examples in WWII

Germany
Underestimated: Russia
By the way. Due to the contract with Japan, it was the idea that Japan opens a second front against Russia.
The Russians expected this till 1942 (although Japan and Russia had an non-attack agrement) but then Japan got problems with the Americans. So, now the Russian were able to move huge amounts of Siberian forces to Europe, where there were also used in the battle of Stalingrad.

Underestimated: Yugoslawia
It was a fast "victory" but the huge number of troops which were sticked in Yugoslawia for the partisans would have been needed on other fronts.

and so on...

UK
Underestimated: Japan
For whatever reason, the British military responsibilities never thought that it is possible for an Asian army to conquer Singapur on through the jungle. And it has happened.
By the way, this first defeat (with modern weapons) of an European Force against an Asian one showed the Asian that the europeans or any other "western nation" is invinceable. This is the reason why it was impossible for the French to stay in Vietnam any longer after the war...(at least one of the reasons)

UK and FRANCE
Underestimated: Germany
I don`t think that France thought that it will be defeated within such a short period.

Russia:
Underestimated: Finnland
In the Winter War of 1939/40 Russia thought it will be easy for them to conquer Finnland and at least they have fixed it. But the losses of materials and Human ressources had a relation of 1:10 and in some cases (planes) 1:15

America:
Underestimated: Germany (Arnhem and Ardennes)
In both cases the American strategists thought that the soldiers they will have to face are old men or children. The truth was different and unfortunatly blody for all sides.


You see, underestimation lies in eye of the beholder. Telling a young german pilot that his plane is the best one is just a kind of propaganda, which was used in every country. And I honour those British pilots which were flying into the "Reich" in late 1940 with very old Blenheims for destroying important bridges over the Maas. I don`t think that the British commander told them, that the Blenheim has no chance against some fighters without cover.

Last question ;-)

Is there a chance to influence the allocation of new piolts out of a replenishment pool? in the new version of BTR?

(in reply to wernerpruckner)
Post #: 15
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/13/2007 3:20:15 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
No Chance

one thing I think alot of people who follow BoB miss out, there is a lot of complaint that the LW never had a real 4 engine bomber, they had no Stat Airforce, and in the end had to use it's twins as Stat Bombers

the hassle is, BoB was not a Stat Battle, and at times, I think even the LW tried to make it into one, but, it was a Tac battle, they needed control of the air, of the airspace, it was plain and simple, but overall, they never fought the battle as such, there is a BC AF here, there is a CC field there, it don't matter, a field is a field is a field, if it is in range, it does not work, they would send a Staffel or a Gruppen in to hit a target, and a lot of times, hit it good, but really, just enough so they could say they hit it

I mean, think about it, they went after factories with Staffels (and in fact some of them knocked the places out !)

plus for numbers and stuff, we got to remember, there is what is being told to the folks and what is being told to the troops, and what the troops see and believe, I doubt very much that any of the JG leaders believed any of the statements that the UK only had 50 planes left


_____________________________


(in reply to medaloffairness)
Post #: 16
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/13/2007 3:54:58 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
and just in case, in my own little world, Stat is the same as Strat, and maybe about 100 other words




_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 17
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/13/2007 7:03:31 PM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
Luftflotte 5 certainly found out the hard way. The German reasoning for the fact that there were still so many fighters in the South was that they must have transferred down from the North. In fact the northern airfields were all in good shape and itching for some action themselves.

In all honesty the best Germany was ever likely to do was force the RAF back to airfields north of London. This would have meant the beachheads during Sealion would still have been contested by the RAF and Germany needed complete air supremecy to have any chance. They had already learned the Stuka's couldn't survive under fighter attack. They didn't just need to get the 9 or so divisions to England, they needed to supply them and get the armour in the 2nd wave over too. If in any of that time the Royal Navy had got access to the channel it would have all been over.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I doubt very much that any of the JG leaders believed any of the statements that the UK only had 50 planes left




_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 18
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/26/2007 5:26:02 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Hmmmm, this topic normally draws them in like flies :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Luftflotte 5 certainly found out the hard way. The German reasoning for the fact that there were still so many fighters in the South was that they must have transferred down from the North. In fact the northern airfields were all in good shape and itching for some action themselves.

In all honesty the best Germany was ever likely to do was force the RAF back to airfields north of London.

if they had won the AS over the south, the RAF would of been pushed back more into 12 Group area, then to just say north of London, 12 Group fields would hurt the Fighters if they were trying to reach the Dover area, the GB bombers of this time, would of been slaughtered if they had tried to make a anti-ship strike, worse then what the LW took during there attacks, plus the RAF fighters would of been tied down trying to protect the bombers and would then of been faceing the same troubles the 109 had been

This would have meant the beachheads during Sealion would still have been contested by the RAF and Germany needed complete air supremecy to have any chance.

really don't see it as much of any contest, if they had AS over the south, they would of had it over the beaches too, even more so, and as I said, the RAF would of been trying to protect there bombers, not out on the hunt, much different battle, if you hope to have any of your bombers return


They had already learned the Stuka's couldn't survive under fighter attack. They didn't just need to get the 9 or so divisions to England, they needed to supply them and get the armour in the 2nd wave over too. If in any of that time the Royal Navy had got access to the channel it would have all been over.

and again really ? why does every one think the GE were just plain dumb and stupid people ? by 1940, most of Europe didn't think so anymore ? (and as I am a ex Marine, I have some training in this sort of stuff, and as a lowly NCO I know how to plan and mount an attack with this kind of defence, I am sure the GE Staff Officers had some ideas) you don't need fully loaded boats and ships to make a landing, or to supply a force on the land, just loaded up enough with what you can offload in the time you think you are going to have or need, every modern day writer, thinks they were plain Morons, who would be loading ships that would take 5 days to unload and would be sending all of them to the same spot and would then have to wait in line for the ship ahead of them to unload, before they could begin there unloading

and as the RN had already admitted, the channel was not under RAF control, and "all" ships were order not to enter, of course, if a landing was under way, the RN would of responded, but as already has been seen, the RAF would of had trouble protecting the fleets, as they were father away now, they couldn't do in July, when they were on the coast, they wouldn't be able to do it in Aug or Sept when they were based in 12 Group, and also being weaken, but again, everybody says, when the RN DDs got there at night, the landing would of been in trouble, but who says they had to be there at night, only the modern writers who think the Staff Officers were morons and wouldn't know they only had a short time to be at sea and back

if the LW has AS over the south, the RN DD fleet would of been crippled if it was around during the day

too many plans on what was going to happen to the BB fleet if it looked like England was going to fall, for them to really of been planned on going into the slaughter fields

one hassle is, most people when they talk about what would, could of happened, if, always talk as if the RAF was still in control, but if the LW had AS over the south, then RAF was no longer in control and would be fighting a totally different battle

let the flames begin



quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I doubt very much that any of the JG leaders believed any of the statements that the UK only had 50 planes left






_____________________________


(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 19
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/26/2007 11:28:38 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
What were the LW torpedo bombers like at that stage of the war?  Surely Stukas and torpedo bombers would be a major factor in RN losses as regular bombing was rarely effective against a moving ship.  The RN would have gone into action with or without RAF AS in an effort to stop the landings.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 20
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/27/2007 10:13:26 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

What were the LW torpedo bombers like at that stage of the war? Surely Stukas and torpedo bombers would be a major factor in RN losses as regular bombing was rarely effective against a moving ship. The RN would have gone into action with or without RAF AS in an effort to stop the landings.



At that time of war german torpedos where still not very reliable. While the Torpedo planes made good attacks agains merchant shipping, succesfull attacks against naval ships where very rare. German air launched torpedo productio during this time was between 20 and 50 torpedos/month (have to look it up). In addition there where only very few aircrews qualified for airborne torpedo attacks as the navy could not train and the airforce would not train.

_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 21
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/27/2007 12:08:09 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

What were the LW torpedo bombers like at that stage of the war? Surely Stukas and torpedo bombers would be a major factor in RN losses as regular bombing was rarely effective against a moving ship. The RN would have gone into action with or without RAF AS in an effort to stop the landings.


You also have to remember that the sort of RN forces most useful in defecting the invasion are destroyers and smaller. You would only need to get 2 or 3 DDs, or a half dozen MTB or something into the invasion barge fleet one night and the Germans would have had a very bad time. Do it 5 or 6 times in the first week, and the follow-up landings would look very vulnerable. If Churchill was prepared to sacrifice say 20 destroyers regardless, to attack the fleets (not being swayed by the 'we are lost - save the RN to send to Canada' naysayers), the invasion would have been very unlikely to succeed. A few days of bad weather would likely have the same effect. Of course, the loss of the DDs makes the sub war interesting later, but the loss of the barges on the Ge economy is also significant. The presige gained by the British in defeating an invasion might have off set the loss in ships. Certainly, Hitler loses his invincibility reputation well before late 1942 when he lost in in RL!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 22
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/27/2007 4:17:05 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

What were the LW torpedo bombers like at that stage of the war? Surely Stukas and torpedo bombers would be a major factor in RN losses as regular bombing was rarely effective against a moving ship. The RN would have gone into action with or without RAF AS in an effort to stop the landings.


You also have to remember that the sort of RN forces most useful in defecting the invasion are destroyers and smaller. You would only need to get 2 or 3 DDs, or a half dozen MTB or something into the invasion barge fleet one night and the Germans would have had a very bad time. Do it 5 or 6 times in the first week, and the follow-up landings would look very vulnerable. If Churchill was prepared to sacrifice say 20 destroyers regardless, to attack the fleets (not being swayed by the 'we are lost - save the RN to send to Canada' naysayers), the invasion would have been very unlikely to succeed. A few days of bad weather would likely have the same effect. Of course, the loss of the DDs makes the sub war interesting later, but the loss of the barges on the Ge economy is also significant. The presige gained by the British in defeating an invasion might have off set the loss in ships. Certainly, Hitler loses his invincibility reputation well before late 1942 when he lost in in RL!



okay but again, if they get into the fleet during the night, every account is being based on the GE being stuck in the area at night and letting the RN in to wreak the landing

I still say, you wouldn't need to be at sea during the night, to have the landing

plus for the most part, it is a landing to take a few AFs, once the AFs are under control, the basic supplies would be airlifted in, the tanks would be sent in by ship/barge, and I still think the GE would be smart enough to know, that hey, we can cross and unload 3 tanks and then have to leave, if we don't want to be caught in the open

your gonna see the ships coming, so you know when they are going to get there

plus a landing in England in 1940 is not going to be on the same scale as the landing in France in 1944, and wouldn't need to be, so the shipping and troops and supplies are not going to be any where near as great, and as the GE have already proved in France, even Armor can live off the land

for anti ship, I think the Stuka would of been the main weapon of choice, it was a ship killer, as had already been seen, and the 88 was pretty good at it too

which will agree, that the 111 and 17 wouldn't really do much damage, once the ships were seen, they could still be used to make them burn fuel and waste time dodgeing



_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 23
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/27/2007 4:36:12 PM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
It's always an interesting discussion. Of course there are too many unknowns to know for sure what would have happened.

I think the only way Germany could have pushed the RAF back to North London was to continue their airfield raids. These were very effective. They tried and failed to win AS over Southern England by fighting the RAF in the air. Had they pushed the RAF back to North of London by bombing the airfields, it would have given them an easier time over SE England but would NOT have given them AS. I see no reason why the RAF would be tied up escorting bombers. The important obective for the RAF would be to provide air cover for the Navy.

Although the Royal Navy had ordered it's big ships out off the Engish Channel, there were still plenty of smaller ships there that would be more than capable of destroying the German invasion ships. The home fleet was held back further north for precisely the purpose of engaging the invasion fleet, should it sail. The Royal Navy were scared of aircraft attack. During the invasion of Norway HMS Suffolk had been damaged by air attack and it made Britain wary of sending it's warships into air attack range. However, (with hindsight to what was to come in the Pacific) it actually showed the inefficiency of German planes to sink ships (33 sorties flown against Suffolk and still they couldn't sink her)

Suffolk was on her own and had no air cover. With that in mind what chance would Germany have had of sinking a major part of the Royal navy, with RAF air cover?

Peter Schenk's 'Invasion of England' shows German plans for getting troops to England. 3-4 days were required to get the first waves off the ships on average. And yes, the ships would be all nicely lined up during this time (German diagrams show them as such). It was such a delicate operation, with the tides dictating much of the schedule, that it's easy to believe it would have all gone wrong without any interference from Britain at all. Infact a dummy run in France had gone completely wrong. Had they got ashore one objective was to take Dover which would have made life easier for getting supplies across the channel) It's hard to see how this operation would not have turned into a complete disaster once the RN had arrived.

I Attach a picture of one of the planned invasion locations (Rottingdean I think) Over a hundred ships, many towing barges spending 3 days unloading an infantry division in this small gap!

I certainly wouldn't say the Germans were stupid but invading England was an entirely different proposition to the battles they had fought on mainland Europe.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 24
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/27/2007 6:24:45 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
sure, that is why we talk :)

yes, but you bring up Norway, why not Dunkirk ? the RAF couldn't protect the fleet there and they would be much closer, the Press made a big deal of the major air victory that the RAF had won, but the numbers show it was no where near a victory (the victory was the Navy and the small ships getting the troops home, but they paid a major price for it)

and again, that is what the writers say and think, the "plan" kept changeing though out the air battle, and no staff officer worth his rank, is going to make a real battle plan, that takes 3 days to off load a Div of men

and, again with my background, I can tell you it does not take days to offload a Div of men, it don't take days to load a Div of men, supplies and bulk can take major time, but most assault troops carry what they need, when they land, supply comes later (and remember a Marine Div is 2 to 3 times the size of a GE or GB Div back then)

I think the idea I am trying to get across, is most of these writers, back then, would also be telling you that the GE could not win a war against France, that they could not cross Lux, that they could not take Greece, and that they couldn't take Crete, in fact, they couldn't take Eben Eble (sorry spelling) that was a untakeable fort

if the GE do everything by the book, and according to how the RN expects them to mount a landing, it will fail, hands down, I don't believe if they were really planning on doing it, they would of done it by the book, as I say, alot of the BoB does not make it look like they were really fighting a battle to win

remember also, alot of the plans and reports we see today, were done by Naval Officers, who really didn't want to have to make a landing or to support one, so alot of there plans and time tables were done up, trying to show, it couldn't/shouldn't be done, once the Army Commanders started to get into it, they started making major changes to what was needed and what they could do


_____________________________


(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 25
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/27/2007 8:00:24 PM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
I agree it wouldn't have taken 3 days to get off the bulk of the fighting men.. but to get all the equipment and supplies ashore was stated as 3 days in the German plans at the time. They hoped for an overall turnaround of 6 days (2 days to load the division, 3 days to unload and, presumably, one day sailing back and forth)

Remember we're not talking about a US Marine division here. US Marines are trained and equipped for seaborne invasions. German infantry divisions were not, and did not have the equipment. The troops would have to transfer to the barges from other ships. As far as I know the barges would then have to be towed by tugboat into the shore. Getting armour ashore was even worse. I've seen photo's of planks of wood being arranged off the ships to get tanks onto land.

This was for the first wave of 9 divisions. The 2nd wave, (approx 15 more, including armour) would then have to been shipped across and then the whole lot would have had to be supplied by sea. I can't see how airlifted supplies are going to keep 25 divisions in enough supplies for offensive operations. I think they would have had massive problems supplying these units from across the channel even without interference from British aircraft and warships.

You're right about Dunkirk, the airforce did have moderate success attacking shipping in that operation. Although the fact that 250,000 plus men managed to escape in boats indicates they weren't that successful. And, these were ships operating close to land, exactly the situation the German navy would be faced with while invading. I say German Navy but, apart from the barges, steamships, tugs and motorboats there were half a dozen destroyers and possibly 3 light cruisers allocated to the operation. That's all the KM had. And submarines of course. I just can't see that force keeping the RN out of the Channel for the weeks required to win a land war.

Stuka's were reasonably effective against ships but without torpedo's doing serious damage to the larger warships in the RN was certainly not guaranteed.. especially, as mentioned earlier, they'd been withdrawn from Bob due to high losses. As long as the RAF could get fighters to cover the navy.. I can't see how the Stuka's could have operated.

To be honest I find it hard to believe the German high command ever had any real intention of launching the operation. It was more likely a feint to keep Britain on the back foot and possibly to force a peace deal. If it hadn't been Churchill in power at the time, it might have worked in that regard?

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 26
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/27/2007 9:52:19 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline
The timing of the landings for the Germans, as later for the allies, was dictated by the tides. The German craft were designed to be beached on a falling tide to allow the boat to dry out and the troops disembark. Thus a prahm had to wait for the tide to turn and rise again before it was floated off. So, you can't just wait until it "gets dark" to land, you have to wait until the tide is ebbing too, and as that only happens twice a day (unless you're somewhere wierd like Southampton), then your landing time is severely limited. This also led to the Germans building their beach obstacles in the wrong place, above the low water line.

The allies landed on a rising tide so the LC could immediately pull off the beach to make room for more and to refill and return.

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 27
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/28/2007 6:22:14 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
oo oo.....sealion talk....!!!! :)

ther are a few things to remember - Park was completely prepared to pull FC back "behind London" if required - and his loss tolerance for doing so was actually quite low - FC never fell below 600 operational hurricanes and Spitfires IIRC - plus it always had at least 200 in reserve and was making them at 400/month at the time.  the LW was only making about 200 Me-109's, started with a small superiority in numbers, but ended September with only 280 serviceable!

Sealion requied 3 days to offload the 1st wave - and then those same ships had to return to the continent to load the 2nd wave - there was no question of them only being off the English coast for a day to offload - they would have had to anchor there for 3 days and 2 nights.

the LW only had 1 stafflen of experimental torpedo bombers at the time, and little experience attacking shipping - te great naval sinkings in hte Med weer a few months away still and required some improvement in dive-bombing techniques and equipment - specifically armour piercing bombs for armoured taqrgets like carriers, cruisers, etc.

The Kriegsmarine was also minscule - IIRC they could assemble about 20-25 Destroyers and torpedo boats, a handful of cruisers, and 1 pre-dreadnought battleship used for gunnery training that was going to be beached and used as a battery!  The RN in home waters outnumbered them about 3:1 in destroyers and 4:1 in cruisers.  The German submarine fleet was fairly small - by using all their trainign boats with poorly trained crews they got up to about 40.....the Brits had about the same number, but all were better boats than the Type II's.

All in all it's a shame that Sealion wasn't attempted......because it would probably have shortened the war considerably by costing Germany a good portion of its early war veteran infantry and internal transport.


(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 28
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/28/2007 7:32:33 PM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
Completely agree SMK. Germany was using pretty much every ship/boat/barge it had as well. Any losses couldn't be replaced. And, as Warspite said earlier, the loss of barges would have hampered the economy quite badly. I believe even just collecting all the barges in French ports caused quite some disruption to the economy.

_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 29
RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/30/2007 10:26:54 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
What part of "the ships does not have to be fully loaded" do you guys not understand?

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Strategy Thread - BTR Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984