RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich

Message

Justascratch -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/3/2006 10:17:29 PM)
I have really enjoyed reading these posts! The topic certainly brings out the strategic planner in all of us. However, when you step back from strategy & tactics it is quite plain to see that the RN of that time was much like the US nuclear arsenal of the cold war period. It's very existance made the obvious outcome of a GE invasion attempt unthinkable. It wasn't required to act it prevented the envasion just because it existed & everyone knew GB would use it.

otisabuser2 -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/4/2006 1:48:25 AM)
Yes. But there was no certainty on the UK side at the time. The British though, were very concerned that the Germans by some slip or ruse or unforseen circumstance pull the invasion off. They cleared France which was even beyond the original German expectations. In Norway the Germans slipped past the unwitting defences of a neutral country. In the Low Countries the germans made novel use of parachutists, gliders and disguised troops. There was always the expectation that the Germans could pull off the unexpected. The British did not know the Germans were short of parachutists or transport planes. Neither did they know that the two largest German battlecruisers were out of the action due to damage. They knew about the invasion barges in the channel ports, but thought they were not the serious force, just a diversion. They beleived the main ( sensible ) invasion fleet was massing and preparing beyond recon range in the Baltic with the battlecruisers. Out of sight, they would have had little warning when this fleet began to sail. The British did not realise the Operation Sealion plan was only devised at the 11th hour with such a motley collection of vessels. The original German Army plan estimated 40 German Divisions to be the number necessary to defeat the British Army. Then they found that there was only sufficient transport for 13 Divisions. Then they revised their plans and discovered that 13 Divisions would be enough to destroy the defenders. What kind of planning is that ?

SMK-at-work -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/4/2006 6:38:43 AM)
I've never read anywhere that the Brits thought the Germans were preparing an invasion fleet in hte baltic - it was certainly not out of range of their recce a/c of the time.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/4/2006 6:51:22 AM)
Hey, OB is the BoB man, don't be messing with is info !

SMK-at-work -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/4/2006 7:35:49 AM)
[:D] ain't messin' with nuthin' - but I did a 3rd year paper on the BoB, have a coupla books on Sealion, etc too....

otisabuser2 -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/4/2006 3:15:37 PM)
No problem SMK. Got quotes about the Baltic threat from the Fleming book and one other. From early in BoB the British thought this the most credible threat. Accordingly a large part of the army was assigned to the East coast defence. Also more destroyers held east of Dover than south, in readiness. This perception changed, but only slowly, when the barges massed in the Channel ports.

timtom -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/4/2006 8:46:06 PM)
Watched a 1-hour program on the UK History Channel a couple of weeks back. It was argued that the Kriegsmarine had basically done the math and concluded that even with complete air superiority they couldn't prevent the RN from breaking through to attack the invasion fleet (according to the program, the RN would be able to throw 80 destroyers, just to mention one category of craft, at an invasion). The Luftwaffe essentially concurred with this conclusion. This before the end of July '40. Hence, it was argued, the subsequent operation was in the nature of a strategic bluff in hope of a negotiated peace.

oi_you_nutter -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/5/2006 2:01:48 AM)
Operation Sealion always seems to create some very lively discussions, more than other what-ifs of WW2. especially as the scale of forces involved was small compared to other theatres or later battles. perhaps it is because there are some many unknowns involved, what do others think ? btw, i like the football (soccer) game analogy above, although i think the german striker (Hitler) scored an own goal while defending from a free kick by the substitute british striker (Churchill). the free kick was awarded after Chaimberlain was injured when tackled from behind by von Ribbentrop.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/5/2006 6:35:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: otisabuser2 No problem SMK. Got quotes about the Baltic threat from the Fleming book and one other. From early in BoB the British thought this the most credible threat. Accordingly a large part of the army was assigned to the East coast defence. Also more destroyers held east of Dover than south, in readiness. This perception changed, but only slowly, when the barges massed in the Channel ports. Ah.....so this was their perception before hte preparations for Sealion were known - well that's fair enough - after all in early 1940 the French and Belgians still controlled the other side of the Chanel so where else could a German invasion come from? As for basing of destroyers - I dont' think that's actually important - Destroyers based at Harwich were outside Me-109 range - hence could only be bombed by unescorted bombers, or with 110'sas the only escort, and were within jsut a couple of hours sailing time of the nearest landing spots. There were other vbases within range of course, such as Sheerness and Plymouth, but the RN could effectively base itself outside LW range and still easily hit the intended roadsteads every night.

matchwood -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/6/2006 8:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captskillet quote: By the way RAF and USAAF leaders still believed the same thing four years later.... I dont think that Harris or Arnold had any illusions that bombing alone was going to make the Nazis quit. They viewed it (strategic bombing) as it was, a tool to help win/shorten the war. Um er actually, they did. Harris told Churchill that the Germans would surrender once a certain tonnage had been dropped on German cities. When that tonnage was reached they carried on. It was only when forced to, that they deviated to attack other targets such as oil. Even with the Ultra information telling them what an effect some of the industry raids were having Harris insisted on city targets right to the end of the war.

matchwood -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/6/2006 8:47:35 PM)
I read an interesting book a while back about air power in vietnam about the Linebacker Raids. Can't rember the title sorry but again, they thought that air power alone would "force" a solution. Massive bomb loads, improved aiming, almost total air control, fewer targets to destroy and it still didn't work. It does seem that air power rarely achieves the "forcing" of a result - it only facilitates other military activities. The NATO bombing in Yugoslavia might be a rare result where bombing alone achieved the solution? Found this on Amazon which looked interesting... http://www.amazon.com/Bombing-Win-Coercion-Security-Affairs/dp/0801483115/sr=1-84/qid=1160156205/ref=sr_1_84/102-6380726-8266506?ie=UTF8&s=books Highlight from the page: "1. Punishment strategies will rarely succeed.... "2. Risk strategies will fail.... "3. Denial strategies work best.... "4. Surrender of homeland territory is especially unlikely.... "5. Surrender terms that incorporate heavy ad! ditional punishment will not be accepted.... "6. Coercive success almost always takes longer than the logic of either punishment or denial alone would suggest."

SMK-at-work -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/7/2006 12:52:22 PM)
It came within an inch tho - it definitely drove the Nth to the Paris peace talks.....but it wasn't backed up when they stalled, and hte Nth had a longer range vision overall......

matchwood -> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain (10/16/2006 3:41:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work It came within an inch tho - it definitely drove the Nth to the Paris peace talks.....but it wasn't backed up when they stalled, and hte Nth had a longer range vision overall...... Hi SMK, not sure if it did. The Nth weren't commiting to anything by participating in the talks, and it affected the US badly when they failed. In short, the Nth may have participated just for the impact of false hopes being dashed at the failure to reach an agreement.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125