warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008 From: England Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1 1. You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that for Sealion to succeed the Germans would need air superiority. is that right? ... I've maintained throughout that air superiority is an absolute necessity for Sea Lion to succeed. quote:
Without air superiority Sealion is a failure - with it - assuming everything goes right for the Germans and wrong for the British, there is a slim chance, a very slim, chance of success. Of course things can go wrong in war, but there is simply too much, too many variables that the Germans need to overcome for the operation to be other than a graveyard for so many German servicemen. ... Then there is at last something we agree on! You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that Sea Lion was "impossible". Is that right? quote:
2. Re the losses and damage incurred by the RN off Crete, yes this is well known - and losses and damage during Sealion could be heavy, very heavy. But the Royal Navy - our senior service - spent the entire war putting themselves in harm's way - with the entire future of the country at stake they would have done the same in the autumn of 1940. And what does this add to the discussion exactly? Some propaganda poster esque paragraph about the nobility of the Royal Navy does not take away from the fact that they had several capital ships sunk and even more damaged in operations off Crete - operations conducted when the Luftwaffe had air supremacy. We're all aware you've got a thing for the RN, but to try to defend their obvious tatical failings like this is, frankly, embarrassing for you. quote:
ORIGINAL: Orm Could you give me a percentage figure on what "unlikely" is to you so I better understand what number we argue about. 5% mark. Without air superiority, you're probably hovering around at the 1%. warspite1 quote:
mind_messing I've maintained throughout that air superiority is an absolute necessity for Sea Lion to succeed. quote:
mind_messing Without air superiority, you're probably hovering around at the 1%. Okay so is it 1% or is it an absolute necessity for Sealion to succeed? quote:
You seem to have back-tracked on your earlier point I.e. that Sea Lion was "impossible". Is that right? You know I haven't I do not know how many times I can refer back to earlier posts - but one last time to hopefully get through: 1. Sealion is launched in September against the back drop of real life events. Sealion will fail 100%. 2. Sealion is launched with the local air superiority for the Germans that Hitler demanded. Sealion has a slim chance of success and for that to happen everything needs to go right for the Germans and wrong for the British. I cannot make myself any clearer. quote:
And what does this add to the discussion exactly? Some propaganda poster esque paragraph about the nobility of the Royal Navy does not take away from the fact that they had several capital ships sunk and even more damaged in operations off Crete - operations conducted when the Luftwaffe had air supremacy. We're all aware you've got a thing for the RN, but to try to defend their obvious tatical failings like this is, frankly, embarrassing for you. We have debated strongly previously on many issues but things have always been civil between us. But you obviously feel the need for this nonsense. A real shame, hot on the heels of "you've seen Battle of Britain too many times" there is now this. Let me be crystal clear: - The point of that statement is that in previous posts you have indicated that the RN will not fully commit capital ships at a time when there is an invasion of the UK going on. Like not having air superiority will be enough to keep RN ships in port. The point I am politely making is that this view is as childish as your assumption that Bismarck would have been combat ready in September 1940. This is not propaganda - this is what happened in Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Malta, South China Sea etc and can therefore be taken as a given (whatever you may say to the contrary). - What is most interesting though is that you accuse me of spouting nonsense (fact actually) to avoid the fact that the RN suffered casualties off Crete. a) Firstly, far from hiding anything I AGREED with you on the losses (and you forgot HMS Warspite by the way) and admitted that the losses during Sealion would be heavy, very heavy. So you saying I am trying to cover something up that I have readily agreed to - and expounded upon is er.... really rather silly b) If we are talking covering up - why won't you address ANY points I have made about the plan - a plan so ridiculous that Raeder and Goering both knew was going to fail? You bang on quite embarrassingly about adding pre-dreadnought class "battleships" and the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen (not to mention the Scharnhorsts under repair), you totally ignore the stats given about the state of the Luftwaffe and the RAF by September 1940 and the lack of weaponry that the Luftwaffe has in its armoury in September 1940 to kill the quantity of shipping required to allow Sealion to succeed? And if we are going down the embarrassing route, how many RN capital ships were sunk off Crete? At least, whilst not addressing the points I made, you at least seem to have taken them on board with the 5%/1% comment. But a real shame you had to resort to snotty comments in getting there
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/3/2015 11:51:23 PM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805
|