RE: Strategy Thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Strategy Thread - BTR

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/30/2007 10:43:15 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

yes, but you bring up Norway, why not Dunkirk ?

Yes, an excellent example of the Luftwaffe being unable to interdict RN forces effectively - even when they had destroyers tied up and stationary in Dunkirk. This is revealing for all those who assume the LW had a magic answer to the Home Fleet appearing in the Channel, perhaps even more so than what the RN did off Crete in circumstances where the LW had AS - which they didn't have over the Channel coast of England.

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

Sure. But the historical reality is that a leader who was prepared to gamble against the advice of his army when attacking Scandanavia, France, Russia and was even prepared to declare war against the USA when he didn't have to, still thought twice about invading Britain. The key here is the *naval* equation, not the military one.

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

The nature of the Sealion is known history, and relying upon towed barges to mount a large-scale amphbious invasion against prepared defences wasn't tried by the allies, who spent a lot of time and resources working out how to do such things.

The Germans didn't invade Britain in 1940 for valid reasons. But the BoB was an expensive demonstration of the fact that the Germans had never thought seriously about how to force a British capitulation by air power and sea power alone. The losses they took indicate it was a serious attempt, however.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 31

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/31/2007 7:45:41 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

What part of "the ships does not have to be fully loaded" do you guys not understand?

The bit where the Germans were planning on loading their ships up to the gun'ls because they didn't have and couldn't GET enough shipping.

Look the plans for Sealion are reasonably well known - you can say "could have...should have...would have..." all you like, but what they planned for was what they planned for......and they only had the shipping that they could get....which WAS NOT ENOUGH for their ideal landing. they didn't have enough large ships - they didn't even have enough tows for the mass of unpowered barges they weer going to use.

Had they 3 or 4 times as much shipping then fine - things might have been different....but they didn't...and it wasn't.

quote:

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

Actually everyone thought that Germany COULD defeat France.....but they didn't expect it to take so little time, and they did expect the Germans to come through the Ardennes...that's why there were troops there - they "just" didn't expect them to come sthough in such force.....I don't know anyone who thought that Germany couldn't take Greece - where did you get that from??

And the Allied commander on Crete expected the German attack would have every chance of succeeding ...he had wanted to destroy the airfields, but his commanders thought they would prove more useful to the allies and decided that the invasion must be defeated since they knew all about it from Ultra....but of course to defeat an invasion you actually still need to take measures against it....not merely know about it!!

so there y'go - you are wrong on every one of those points!!

And we know the reasons why conventional wisdom at the time failed the defeated sides. And none of it applies to sealion.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 8/31/2007 7:56:12 AM >

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 32

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/31/2007 2:26:50 PM

Hard Sarge

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

What part of "the ships does not have to be fully loaded" do you guys not understand?

The bit where the Germans were planning on loading their ships up to the gun'ls because they didn't have and couldn't GET enough shipping.

Look the plans for Sealion are reasonably well known - you can say "could have...should have...would have..." all you like, but what they planned for was what they planned for......and they only had the shipping that they could get....which WAS NOT ENOUGH for their ideal landing. they didn't have enough large ships - they didn't even have enough tows for the mass of unpowered barges they weer going to use.

yes, they are well know, and they were done by Naval people who didn't want or plan on it ever happening, so it made it much HARDer then it had to be, to get everyone else to agree with them, that they shouldn't do it

Had they 3 or 4 times as much shipping then fine - things might have been different....but they didn't...and it wasn't.

quote:

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

Actually everyone thought that Germany COULD defeat France.....but they didn't expect it to take so little time, and they did expect the Germans to come through the Ardennes...that's why there were troops there - they "just" didn't expect them to come sthough in such force.....I don't know anyone who thought that Germany couldn't take Greece - where did you get that from??

Actually No, most of the people didn't think they could defeat France, the size of there Army and the number of Tanks and troops they had, they were not expected to lose the war

they expected them to come though there ? I guess that is why most of the French and English rushed into the north, all of there plans were to stop the Germens before they got into French lands

And the Allied commander on Crete expected the German attack would have every chance of succeeding ...he had wanted to destroy the airfields, but his commanders thought they would prove more useful to the allies and decided that the invasion must be defeated since they knew all about it from Ultra....but of course to defeat an invasion you actually still need to take measures against it....not merely know about it!!

they didn't expect them to be able to take Crete by air, and it was the same deal, with the Royal Navy in the Med, the Germens would never be able to land enough troops on Crete "by" sea to take it (which as part of the landing force, found out, was pretty much true)

so there y'go - you are wrong on every one of those points!!

all, I am trying to do is give you experts something to talk about, and one of the easiest ways is to say or ask if the Germens could of won Sealion

And we know the reasons why conventional wisdom at the time failed the defeated sides. And none of it applies to sealion.

_____________________________

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 33

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/31/2007 5:19:12 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

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

If memory still serves me, the Germans were successfully targeting southern RAF airfields daily, and the RAF was feeling the strain of this constant barrage.

But after a German bomber(s) accidently hit London during a night raid, the Brits retaliated in kind, to which Hitler replied, "Two can play at that game" and sent the Luftwaffle directly against the English populace by bombing major Brit cities. This new "plan" gave the RAF in the south enough time to repair their airfields and get back into the fight.

Of course, I don't expect BoB&BtR to have an algorithm for this!

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 34

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 8/31/2007 7:42:22 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

all, I am trying to do is give you experts something to talk about, and one of the easiest ways is to say or ask if the Germens could of won Sealion

Can't argue with that!

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 35

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/1/2007 8:55:09 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

yes, they are well know, and they were done by Naval people who didn't want or plan on it ever happening, so it made it much HARDer then it had to be, to get everyone else to agree with them, that they shouldn't do it

Tough - they were their plans, and they used all the available shipping - to get less than a full load they either had to find shipping that wasn't available, or drastically cut back on the initial wave - it was going to be 3 divisions landing over 3 days - you want it to land in 1 day - fine - let's make it 1 division.....oops...not much of an invasion any more.....

quote:

Actually No, most of the people didn't think they could defeat France, the size of there Army and the number of Tanks and troops they had, they were not expected to lose the war

The Germans thought they could, and the allies were keenly aware of the possibility - that's why they looked at all sorts of plans to try to counter German intentions.

Of course they failed.

No one on the allied side actually knew the precise strength of the German army, so your comment about the number of tanks and troops is strange.

quote:

they expected them to come though there ? I guess that is why most of the French and English rushed into the north, all of there plans were to stop the Germens before they got into French lands

No - most English and French forces rushed north because that's where they expected the majority of the German forces to attack in a 1940 version of the Schliefflen plan. However they were aware of the route through the Ardennes and put what they thought was enough troops to cover it against the attacks they expected to happen there. French light amour and motorised Belgian infantry were advancing into the Ardennes when they met the Panzers.....but lacked sufficient anti-tank strength to be able to do much.

Even after the Germans had passed the Ardennes they still had to cross the Meuse....the French had prepared defences at Sedan - a deep fortified defensive line manned by a fortress division and the 55th infantry division - the French fully expected an attack there, BUT only after the Germans had built up enough infantry force - which they expected them to do by the 20th of May because of the traffic congestion in the Ardennes - indeed the Germans had planned on the same date!!

The French accordingly ordered their reserve divisions to that sector, but they were too slow - the Luftwaffe pounded the rear areas of the 55th divisions positions and when they broke through the front sectors after some heavy fighting the positions set-up to defeat them were already demoralised and/or destroyed.

So it is completely false to say the French didn't expect an attack through the Ardennes....they did expect exactly that, and they prepared for it. They just got it wrong.

quote:

they didn't expect them to be able to take Crete by air, and it was the same deal, with the Royal Navy in the Med, the Germens would never be able to land enough troops on Crete "by" sea to take it (which as part of the landing force, found out, was pretty much true)

You are correct about what the British high command thought, but you didn't read what I wrote - the commander ON THE GROUND in Crete did expect an airborne assault, and id expect to have a hard time of it....poor translation of Ultra lead him to think there would also be a seaborne component at the first assault, and this expectation remained for some time, reducing the forces available to counter-attack the airborne troops.

In fact the Germans did try to send troops by sea........and they WERE caught by the RN on hte night of hte 21 May and virtually every ship was sunk....it was only a supply convoy essentially - carrying ammo and support units, but that's what a small RN force of about 6 ships could do in 1 night.

quote:

all, I am trying to do is give you experts something to talk about, and one of the easiest ways is to say or ask if the Germens could of won Sealion

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 36

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/1/2007 9:17:01 AM

Hard Sarge

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

Yep - you asked, and you were answered.....and then you argued about the answers. Inspring discussoin is great, but yuo can't claim to be only seeking discussion once you enter the argument as well!! :)

why ? I can't enter a discussion that is started ? I can't reply to any of the statements that are made with my own, right or wrong or made up, to keep the discussion going ?

_____________________________

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 37

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 12:25:03 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Tough - they were their plans, and they used all the available shipping - to get less than a full load they either had to find shipping that wasn't available, or drastically cut back on the initial wave - it was going to be 3 divisions landing over 3 days - you want it to land in 1 day - fine - let's make it 1 division.....oops...not much of an invasion any more.....

Meh, say what you will about the Germans, but they were pretty good at adapting to new circumstances and changing plans on the fly. So a staff-officer made a plan that called for the ships to lay offshore and take three days to unload, and all sorts of sillyness. Big deal. That plan would not have survived even into the final preparations.

Cut back on the initial wave like you say. Instead of landing 3 divisions during three days, land a single regiment at night and have that regiment take a small port suitable for normal unloading operations. Suddenly you have cut down on offloading time from three days to three hours. Have paratroopers (before Crete, we can play with at least two divisions of those) land during that same night in blocking positions outside that port. Use the port to unload troops, instead of pulling them ashore on barges. Feel like one port is not enough? Too easy to disrupt unloading operations by air attacks? Take two. You have the units for it, and the opposition consists of home-guards. Heck, take three, or why not even five. Like I said, you can easily put two airborne divisions on the ground during that night, and you can land at least one regiment per target.

But no...instead you want to sit there and play out ludicrous scenarios where the entire German merchant marine is supposed to lay offshore for three days unloading infantry into barges that can barely float, pull those barges to shore at 3 knots and whatnot. its just silly.

_____________________________

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 SMK-at-work)

Post #: 38

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 2:39:41 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

OK, I'm in...........

SMK is quite right. The German Sealion plan is well known. Whatever strange theories anyone may have about them being a bluff, ruse or otherwise are nothing but speculation only. The plan was highly detailed and subject of heated debate between German army and Navy. Unusual for a bluff don't you think ? However bad the plan may have been, they were stuck with it. The planners were not morons. Trouble is Hitler wanted it done, whatever, and they had to do the best they could to follow his orders under the circumstances. This was the plan they WERE going to use until Sealion was cancelled.

The lack of shipping and type of shipping ie huge numbers of unpowered river barges, were the key limitations. The use of these was what would cause the German fleet to be at sea and vunerable for so long. They were not necessarily just waiting off shore for 3 days to unload ( they'd probably sink ). This is journey time. This flotilla would have to load up and queue to emerge from their harbours in Europe and chug across the sandbanks, minefields and tides of the English Channel at speeds that would have embarrased William the Conquerer and his Normans. Oh, and then turn for shore at the correct place and somehow beach.

They had no Landing ships, amphibious assault craft, hovercraft or ospreys. Large ships may have been quicker than barges, but unable to get near enough to the beaches alone. Heavily armed soldiers can not swim.

They did not have the option of landing 2 divisions of paratroopers, because they did not have this. Nor the transports required to drop this number.

The British had more than Home Guards manning the key positions. The ports and harbours were defended. The British planners were not morons either.

The Royal Navy was at this time sucessfully operating destroyers nightly in the Channel. The Luftwaffe was unable to stop them.

That the Royal Navy would have been unwilling to risk their ships to defend the UK may need some evidence. The losses they were willing to take to defend/evacuate more minor places like Crete and defend Singapore suggest otherwise.

regards Otis

< Message edited by otisabuser2 -- 9/2/2007 2:40:31 PM >

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 39

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 2:52:11 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

Basically what you are saying is this. "If the Germans had done a Sealion in a completely retarded fashion, they would have failed". On that I agree.

What I am arguing is that if the Germans did another variant of Sealion, they could very possibly have pulled it off.

As for the two airborne units, they had the units, and they had the transports. Not enough to lift them all in one go, but thats the neat thing with transports, you can use them more than once. Gliders and transports for the assault, then transports for the reinforcements.

And as for the transports. Bigger ships can unload in ports and other harbors. Smaller ships can be used for the initial assault. Barges can safely be left back in France.

_____________________________

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 otisabuser2)

Post #: 40

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 3:05:17 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

But no...instead you want to sit there and play out ludicrous scenarios where the entire German merchant marine is supposed to lay offshore for three days unloading infantry into barges that can barely float, pull those barges to shore at 3 knots and whatnot. its just silly.

Are you being serious?

The 'ludicrous scenarios' you mention are infact well documented German plans. If you think they are retarded then that's most likely you failing to grasp the logistics of the whole operation. You certainly don't seem bothered by such small details as the tides, as you're landing the 1 whole regiment at night.

One parachute division (7th) was included in the plans and were going to (with considerable other forces) attempt to take Dover. What other parachute division are you going use?

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 41

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 3:31:26 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet
Are you being serious?

Yes.

quote:

The 'ludicrous scenarios' you mention are infact well documented German plans.

In your world, do plans ever change? In ww2 Germany, did plans ever change?

quote:

If you think they are retarded then that's most likely you failing to grasp the logistics of the whole operation. You certainly don't seem bothered by such small details as the tides, as you're landing the 1 whole regiment at night.

Landing 1 regiment at night can be achieved by 10 destroyers. Thats what the Germans did in Narvik anyway. 2000 men ashore in what...an hour?

The logistics of the operation, well the supplies for the Norwegian campaign were all in the cargo holds of ships laying at anchor in the Baltic ports during the time of the invasion. Same can easily be applied here, but the ports can be in France or Holland/Belgium. The troops can take at least 24 hours of supplies with them when they land.

quote:

One parachute division (7th) was included in the plans and were going to (with considerable other forces) attempt to take Dover. What other parachute division are you going use?

Again you are harping along the "if the Germans did a retarded Sealion they would have lost". Well, no ****?

22nd Luftlande ID. You could also use one of the mountain divisions if you wanted.

_____________________________

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 #: 42

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 3:47:35 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

Of course plans change in war but you seem to be suggesting that months of planning and research be changed on the fly because someone in the German command suddenly comes to the conclusion 'this plan is retarded' It might not be a great plan (due to Germany's lack of equipment suitable to launch a seaborne invasion) but it's the best they could come up with.

22nd Luftlande was not a parachute division it was airborne but needed a captured airfield to land at. So now your 2000 men plus 7th airborne need to capture a port AND an airfield.

Just to be clear, no one here invented the 'retarded' plan for German invasion. It's what the German high command came up with. It was actually quite a bold plan in so far as it would have landed 138,000 men in 2 days, achieving a force of up to 300,000 by day 14. Compared to D-Day (326,000 men by 12 June)

Strangely, when planning D-Day, the allies didn't plan to land 1 airborne division and one regiment to capture Cherbourg. Maybe it's because things aren't as simple as that?

PS, all 10 destroyers that landed that regiment in Narvik were sunk by the RN after the landing.. which says a lot for the German ability to supply their troops across the channel once they got them ashore in England. I think you could also expect the English coast to be better defended.

< Message edited by Banquet -- 9/2/2007 3:55:52 PM >

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 43

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 4:08:06 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

22nd Luftlande was not a parachute division it was airborne but needed a captured airfield to land at. So now your 2000 men plus 7th airborne need to capture a port AND an airfield.

No, it can also be brought in by glider. But that is beside the point, if they have to they can be brought in the first wave by glider, or they can be brought in later via aircraft, glider or ship. Same with various mountain divisions.

quote:

It's what the German high command came up with. It was actually quite a bold plan in so far as it would have landed 138,000 men in 2 days, achieving a force of up to 300,000 by day 14. Compared to D-Day (326,000 men by 12 June)

And its completely unneccessary to play with those figures, since landing those 138 000 men would require half of them more or less swimming across the channel. And there is no need for 138 000 men in the first two days. For the first day alone, all you would need is more like 5- 10 000 men. The rest can be brought in by ship to various ports or anchorages.

quote:

Strangely, when planning D-Day, the allies didn't plan to land 1 airborne division and one regiment to capture Cherbourg. Maybe it's because things aren't as simple as that?

Yes, hmm...lets brainstorm for a while and see if we can come up with any differences between the German army in France 1944 and the British army in the UK in 1940.

Any thoughts?

quote:

PS, all 10 destroyers that landed that regiment in Narvik were sunk by the RN after the landing.. which says a lot for the German ability to supply their troops across the channel once they got them ashore in England. I think you could also expect the English coast to be better defended.

The reason those 10 destroyers were sunk was because they were captured in a fjord several days after the landings. The reason they were still there was because their supply ship had gone down, leaving them practically without fuel.

It doesnt say **** all about the German ability to supply troops across the channel however.

< Message edited by Panzerjaeger Hortlund -- 9/2/2007 4:12:49 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 44

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 5:02:21 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

At the end of the day, Panzerjaeger Hortlund, the Germans thought they needed 10 divisions to secure the beachheads and capture the ports and infrastructure needed to land the 2nd wave, which would push on into England.

You seem to think you could have done it with 5-10,000 men, plus maybe an airborne division? I guess we'll just to agree to disagree

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 45

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 5:10:20 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

In Normandy and Arnhem the Allies mustered only enough Transports and gliders to land parts of three Airbourne Divisions after several years of production. I would be suprised to learn that the Germans had enough to land 2 Divisions so soon after their severe losses in the western campaign.

Which undefended and unready port are you considering cruising those 10 destroyers into ? Norway was caught totally unaware, being neutral when invaded.

Once this port has been captured by coup de main, there is still the issue of getting your main force across to a now known destination and ripe for ambush by the Royal Navy.

With even 2 ports in German hands the chances of a rapid build up and suprise breakout are reduced.

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 46

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/2/2007 5:47:44 PM

harley

Posts: 1700
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

This is waaaaaay of topic, guys. Some of you might also want to keep it civil...

_____________________________

gigiddy gigiddy gig-i-ddy

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 47

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/5/2007 1:51:15 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

What I am arguing is that if the Germans did another variant of Sealion, they could very possibly have pulled it off.

Well that's a bit of a trivial answer...of course they could have done it successfully if they had the right resources......and Market Garden could have succeeded, and Dieppe, and the French Plan XVII in 1914, and, and, and.....

however I'm pretty sure almost everyone else in this thread is confining themselves to resources and abilities that the Germans had at the time, and not going 5 years earlier and re-building the whole German military and economy with a view to invading England.

quote:

As for the two airborne units, they had the units, and they had the transports. Not enough to lift them all in one go, but thats the neat thing with transports, you can use them more than once.

Only if they dont' get shot down or damaged on landing.

how many Ju-52's did they have in 1940? There's a LW oob page at http://www.ww2.dk/ - look up air units and there's an entry for transort units. Some have no info, but many are listed. A quick look through shows that a lot were disbanded in 1938-39 and then reformed in late 1942.......presumably for Stalingrad.

the wiki page on the invasion of the low countries says that 125 Ju-52's were shot down and 47 damaged for 50% of the total number available.

Imagine what fun the RAF might have had with a full fledged airborne invasion of England...

annual production figures for the Ju-52 are at http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_aircf_a4.htm

quote:

Gliders and transports�for the assault, then transports for the reinforcements.

And as for the transports. Bigger ships can unload in ports and other harbors. Smaller ships can be used for the initial assault. Barges can safely be left back in France.

Except they didn't have enough ships to transport everything they wanted, and they anticipated the British blowing all the port facilities and requiring a week or so to repair them sufficiently to be able to offload heavy equipment.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 9/5/2007 2:08:02 AM >

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 48

RE: Strategy Thread - BTR - 9/5/2007 10:43:08 AM

Dave Ferguson

Posts: 302
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: Kent, United Kingdom
Status: offline

Oh, fun, a Sealion row!

Just to make things harder for the germans the Brits were reading and decoding Luftwaffe messages by summer 1940 and there is every possibility that they would be aware of the time and place of the invasion. So the germans would to their surprise find that the defenders had managed to pre move their reserves. Actually a ultra intercept was not really needed as the german units shipping from Boulogne and moving at 5 knots would be a looong time at sea. The defence is all down to the RN anyway, the germans could not keep the destroyers out of the channel and just a few there and the invasion would be kaput!

dave

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 49