RE: Citizens of London facing German Army

RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury

Message

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 3:35:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar This of course would have meant postponing Barbarossa for a post 1941 start date. which raises the ever-entertaining question of whether Stalin was actually preparing to attack Germany in 1941. If so, then Germany might have been quite stretched for a while... perhaps fatally so.

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 3:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar Phil, You present a compelling case how operation Sealion could never have been more than a bluff by the Germans. I recall seeing a documentary several years ago that had discovered some documents in the German archives that demonstrated just that. If it took the British and Americans more than two years to build up sufficient forces for Overlord, with the vast industrial might of the U.S.A. behind it, it is fanciful to believe that the Germans could have pulled off an impromptu Jerry-rigged invasion in 1940, even against a British army trying to recover from Dunkirk. Even if the RAF had been totally annihilated it is hard to see how the Luftwaffe could have kept a determined Royal Navy from entering the channel ravaging the Germans invasion barges. It would have been a slaughter. The question as to whether the civilians of London would have resisted a German attack is really besides the point. The point being that operation Sealion in 1940 was simply not possible. While it is reasonably obvious that Sealion was a major league longshot - impossible to any reasonable way of thinking, in fact - I have pointed out for a number of the related issues that understanding its inherent unlikelihood is best done with 20:20 hindsight. So, did the Germans think of it as a bluff, is, I guess, the question. There seems little doubt that, initially, all the parties involved on the German side saw it as mostly being a way of forcing the UK to negotiate a peace ... so, on that level, yes, it was a bluff ... but, after it became obvious that Churchill and the Brits were not going to roll over and play dead, Hitler became angered and, encouraged by Goering's claims about what the Luftwaffe could do, decided to make at least a semi-serious attempt at it. At that point it became something more than a bluff in his mind ... We are well served by knowing all sorts of facts that neither side knew at the time ... so, on balance, I'd say that, to begin with, yes, it was largely (but not entirely) a bluff ... and that it took on a life of its own, becoming a semi-serious plan as time went on ... before other factors (failure of Luftwaffe to win BoB in the needed timeframe, as much as anything else) intervened and scuttled it. Phil

Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:00:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar This of course would have meant postponing Barbarossa for a post 1941 start date. which raises the ever-entertaining question of whether Stalin was actually preparing to attack Germany in 1941. If so, then Germany might have been quite stretched for a while... perhaps fatally so. Viktor Suvorov proposed such a possibility in his book Icebreaker and others. This is still being hotly debated among historians. Axis History forum, which has a fair number of very well informed contributors, has discussed this exhaustively. The consensus there seems to be that Stalin had no intention of attacking in 1941. Though many Soviets units were deployed forward in what could be interpreted as a offensive stance many of those units, especially tank formations, were not up to strength and were in the midst of organizational changes. However, by 1942 the Soviets could have been ready for a general offensive against the Germans. If the Germans had followed a Britain first Mediterranean Strategy in '40-'41 they would have been in a very favorable position that would have given Stalin pause about attacking first in '42. This is the sort of "what if" scenario that makes strategy gaming fun. But a Sealion '40 invasion under actual historical constraints that existed in 1940 is not a "what if" it is more like a fantasy scenario. Rigging the scenario by having the Royal Navy not enter the English Channel to intercept the German invasion and allowing the Germans to build transports in a few weeks doesn't create a credible "what if" scenario.

Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:24:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar Phil, You present a compelling case how operation Sealion could never have been more than a bluff by the Germans. I recall seeing a documentary several years ago that had discovered some documents in the German archives that demonstrated just that. If it took the British and Americans more than two years to build up sufficient forces for Overlord, with the vast industrial might of the U.S.A. behind it, it is fanciful to believe that the Germans could have pulled off an impromptu Jerry-rigged invasion in 1940, even against a British army trying to recover from Dunkirk. Even if the RAF had been totally annihilated it is hard to see how the Luftwaffe could have kept a determined Royal Navy from entering the channel ravaging the Germans invasion barges. It would have been a slaughter. The question as to whether the civilians of London would have resisted a German attack is really besides the point. The point being that operation Sealion in 1940 was simply not possible. While it is reasonably obvious that Sealion was a major league longshot - impossible to any reasonable way of thinking, in fact - I have pointed out for a number of the related issues that understanding its inherent unlikelihood is best done with 20:20 hindsight. So, did the Germans think of it as a bluff, is, I guess, the question. There seems little doubt that, initially, all the parties involved on the German side saw it as mostly being a way of forcing the UK to negotiate a peace ... so, on that level, yes, it was a bluff ... but, after it became obvious that Churchill and the Brits were not going to roll over and play dead, Hitler became angered and, encouraged by Goering's claims about what the Luftwaffe could do, decided to make at least a semi-serious attempt at it. At that point it became something more than a bluff in his mind ... We are well served by knowing all sorts of facts that neither side knew at the time ... so, on balance, I'd say that, to begin with, yes, it was largely (but not entirely) a bluff ... and that it took on a life of its own, becoming a semi-serious plan as time went on ... before other factors (failure of Luftwaffe to win BoB in the needed timeframe, as much as anything else) intervened and scuttled it. Phil You pointed out in your two well considered posts that at least at the operational levels the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine commanders knew the extreme hurdles they had to overcome to launch a successful Sealion. Of course all they could do is present the facts to their superiors with no assurance that they would see reason and not give orders to proceed with an overly ambitious operation that they were ill prepared to execute. As you pointed out, if the Luftwaffe had achieved air supremacy they were unlikely to have been able to engage the Royal Navy with the effectiveness required to defend the amphibious operations and follow up naval transport of reinforcements and supplies. Which brings us back to the original question posed by doomtrader. The defense of London 1940 is only of concern in ToF because the current scripting of the AI makes the RN passive and the rules allow the Germans to quickly assemble amphibious capacity and the Luftwaffe is able to take on the RN and win. This is not really a legitimate "what if" scenario under those rigged conditions. If a proper Sealion "what if" scenario is desired. Force the Germans to prepare for it. Spend the time (months, not weeks) to build the amphibious capacity, have the Luftwaffe spend the time and resources equipping and training units that can effectively attacks ships at sea. Certainly this can be done without adding undo complication to the mechanics of the game. Just modify the parameters of what is already in place.

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:26:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft Personally I believe that the best German strategy for late 1040 would have been a holding action in the BoB and to divert all resources to a push on Egypt and beyond. Control of the Arabian oil fields would have solved a lot of German problems. Ah. Something else discussed to death on soc.history.what-if. And something generally accepted as also being impossible. See, as with Sealion, the problem boils down to ... logistics, logistics, logistics and ... wait for it ... logistics ... For a start, the Germans have to rely on Italian shipping in any Mediterranean campaign. Problem is, Il Duce, when he declared war on the Allies in 1940, did so when, cunningly, something like 80% of the Italian Merchant marine were in enemy or neutral ports and were entirely captured or interned. Now, the Italian MM wasn't much shot anyway, but it was even more hobbling afterwards.The Italians found they could not simultaneously support would be operations in the Balkans/Aegean and North Africa at the same time. They simply didn't have the shipping. When their initial offensive failed and the DAK was formed and sent, the Germans had the same problem ... lack of shipping. But it was made worse by the simple fact that the main ports used for unloading had a maximum unloading capacity of (this is from memory) eight ... count 'em, yes, *eight* merchant ships of any size at once. The rest of the North African ports were worse. Then you had to ship the supplies to wherever the front was ... but the Italians and DAK never had enough coastal shipping to manage this, so a considerable percentage (a majority, more often than not) of any supplies had to be sent by truck ... and this meant that the supply trucks burnt several times their load of POL to get a single load to the front, when at full extension ... Oh. Did I mention that the small Italian Merchant Marine was 80& captured? I did? Good! That included almost all of the very few Tankers they had. So, how did they send POL to North Africa? In just about the most inefficient way possible. They shipped it in 44 gallon drums or jerrycans. Or, when things were getting desperate (in 1942-43) by flying it across in Me-323 Gigant transports ... in 44 gallon drums ... which is amazingly ridiculously profligate. This is all covered, in some detail, in an excellent book by Van Creveld "Supplying War" which makes it plain that the North African campaign was a marginal operation at best. But, say, by some fluke, Rommel manages to take Alexandria and Cairo. He rolls on to take the Iraqi, Saudi and Persian oil fields, right? Nope. Not even close. There are several divisions of troops in the way, and, indeed, holding said areas. And there's no real direct route through the Syrian/Palestinian deserts for an armoured thrust. But, somehow, the Germans cobble together a credible attempt. What do they get? Burning oilfields and destroyed refineries. And destroyed pipelines. Now, re-drilling the wellheads and rebuilding the refineries requires lots and lots and lots ... tens of thousands of tons, in fact ... of special order, not off the shelf ironmongery. Guess what the Germans were short of through the entire war? Had to be rationed almost as closely as POL? Iron and Steel. So, not much chance of making it all. Even so, imagine they managed by melting down iron bedsteads or somesuch. How do they get it there? By ship? Oh. Did I mention that the Italian Merchant marine was largely captured by the Allies at the outbreak of war? So. Not by sea. That leaves Turkey. Where Kemal Ataturk, whom the Turks still think rather highly of, had recently died (1934?) and left pretty specific instructions to not, under any circumstances, support Germany in any future war. But say the Turkish government ignores that advice, or that the Germans don't invade Russia and invade Turkey instead (!) ... can the send all the assorted ironmongery needed by rail. Er. Well. No. The Berlin-Baghdad rail line was slighted at the Iraqi border at the end of WW1. All that remains is the roadbed. And the lines through Turkey to the area are all single tracked, with limited capacity, made worse by the fact that the Turkish pre-war railways had a serious shortage of rolling stock and locomotives (and so did the Reichsbahn compared to what it was already being expected to do) ... So, to get the ironmongery to re-drill the wells and rebuild the refineries in Iraq etc. they need to rebuild the rail line first ... and look at all the problems they had doing that in Russia! So, at best, it's going to be several years, if ever, before they manage to do all this. But. Wait. How do they get the fuel out of Iraq? Not by sea. No tankers. Worse, the pipelines across Syria etc. have been destroyed ... so, there's more ironmongery to transport in an already inadequate logistics net. By rail? Remember that the rail line into Iraq is a single track line? A single track railway can support 20ktons of supply per day. That's total. So, in this case, 10ktons in each direction. But Iraq, Saudi and Persia have to be garrisoned ... and a minimal garrison will actually consume somehwre between closwe to and more than 10ktons per day in assorted supplies. Double tracking the rail line would invole major engineering works building or rebuilding or diverting the track through single track tunnels or over single track bridges or whatever. Not gonna happen overnight. And requires more of the scarce, special purpose, not off the shelf, ironmongery that Germany is already short of. Worse, the Reichsbahn suffered a perennial shortage which, because of iron and steel shortages, they were never able to rectify, of POL tankers ... so, in effect, you've made this issue an even bigger problem ... it is unlikely that even if the rail line is gotten back into service that they'd be able to ship a significant percentage out on it. I mean, scheduling problems alone would mean that the 20kton per day limit would mean that the Germans would be able to ship in only so many empty tankers before it bit into the supplies they needed for their defensive operations. Which limits the amount they could ship out ... and that's not even considering the POL tanker shortfall! And even if you do all this, its gonna take several years. The Japanese, for example, who had actually done some preparation and had specialists with the invasion force, took the best part of the war to get the DEI and Borneo oilfields and refineries back to just 80% of pre-war peacetime output ... which was, in fact, inadequate for their needs in any case. It seems unlikely that the Germans would do any better in the Middle East. So, on the whole, no. The Middle East was another chimaera. Mirage. What have you. (Again, a lot of this we only know through 20:20 hindsight, so you shouldn't assume that the Germans wouldn't have, at least, tried it ... its just unlikely they had a realistic chance of succeeding, but may not have known this) Phil

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:27:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: battlevonwar ~if in this game the RAF commits everything and the Royal Navy runs off to fight elsewhere, i.e. protecting from the real threat, U-boats, aid Allied Invasions too early in the war....then the consequence should be a possible Sea Lion. To keep the Brits Honest. RAF doesn't really matter once you get ashore. It's easy enough to recon their locations then strafe them with your own fighters or overrun them with Panzers. The RN should be the impenatrable Channel shield perhaps 30% of the time with varying levels of response for the other 70% of the time. Only in fantasyland. Phil

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar Rigging the scenario by having the Royal Navy not enter the English Channel to intercept the German invasion and allowing the Germans to build transports in a few weeks doesn't create a credible "what if" scenario. However playing WWII without the possibility of Sealion makes BoB pointless for the Germans and is an enormous boost for the Allies. After the Fall of France the Axis player is forced to ignore the Britain isles (which is completely ahistorical) and can look for victory only in Russia. Barbarossa 1940 perhaps? D@mned if you do and d@mned if you don't.

Lascar -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:46:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar Rigging the scenario by having the Royal Navy not enter the English Channel to intercept the German invasion and allowing the Germans to build transports in a few weeks doesn't create a credible "what if" scenario. However playing WWII without the possibility of Sealion makes BoB pointless for the Germans and is an enormous boost for the Allies. After the Fall of France the Axis player is forced to ignore the Britain isles (which is completely ahistorical) and can look for victory only in Russia. Barbarossa 1940 perhaps? D@mned if you do and d@mned if you don't. It doesn't have to be reduced to a simple either/or. For game purposes Sealion should be possible but not necessarily in 1940 with a RN held back on a leash by AI scripting or the Luftwaffe being adept at sinking the RN at sea and the Germans not relying on a Jerry-rigged amphibious lift but instead building a real amphibious capability. Those things should be possible with the proper investment in time and resources in game terms. It allows for the fun of "what if" without creating the sense of there is a "cheat" or "give away" that is making it all possible. Same could be said about Phil's comments on a German Mediterranean and Middle East first strategy. Many of the constraints of those initial conditions in 1940 may have been there but the game should allow for remedies to those limits put in place through the framework of the games production, logistics, and other rules that give the player a sense of creating a new set of conditions that allow for a "what if" to be explored.

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 5:00:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft The RN should be the impenatrable Channel shield perhaps 30% of the time with varying levels of response for the other 70% of the time. Only in fantasyland. Phil Wargaming IS fantasy - we just all have a different point at which we believe whether that fantasy becomes so implausible as to be not worthy of being played (or is no fun or whatever reason you want to use as justification for not playing the game any further). On one side we have the historical 'What-if?' and I personally come down on the side of: If Goring had achieved a measure of fighter superiority ( could have been possible if he'd kept attacking airfields rather than switching to London), and Hitler had bullied the Kreigsmarine into towing their barges across the Channel, then ... ... some German troops would have landed in England but the invasion would eventually fail. A wargame of Sealion was played by the Sandhurst Military College back in the 1970's which supports that conclusion. They had people such as Adolf Galland as umpires so their result was as professional as you can get. However the invasion itself may have convinced Franco to join the war which would take us even further from reality. I'm comfortable playing with those possibilities but I accept that others will not be. For every person who complains that Sealion should be impossible there will be a person who insists it must be achievable. So Doomtrader and co have invented an alternative reality kit that will disappoint all of us because it inevitably fails to live up to our personal expectations of what was possible in WWII. Every game eventually fails that test but before I pack it away for the last time I expect to have many dozen (hundreds of?) hours of enjoyment and I thank Doomtrader for that.

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 5:14:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar ... the Germans not relying on a Jerry-rigged amphibious lift ... [:D][:D][:D]

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 10:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft So Doomtrader and co have invented an alternative reality kit that will disappoint all of us because it inevitably fails to live up to our personal expectations of what was possible in WWII. Every game eventually fails that test but before I pack it away for the last time I expect to have many dozen (hundreds of?) hours of enjoyment and I thank Doomtrader for that. You misunderstand. I have no problem with Time of Fury, or Doomtrader's efforts, all I was doing was pointing out that in the real world (tm) Sealion was effectively impossible (and that taking the Middle East and getting oil from there in any realistic timeframe were equally and separately impossible). There is no way that a game with realistic representation of real world constraints could allow that to happen short of grossly incompetent generalship by the allies. But no one, least of all me, is blasting Time of Fury for being unrealistic ... though it probably (well, certainly) is. It is a game, and a reasonably fun one ... my problem with the aforementioned HoI 3 was that it was a crock from first release. It was so broken it was unplayable initially, and Paradox never really fixed it ... because it was broken on so many levels that it was beyond a joke. Time of Fury, on the other hand, seems to do a reasonably good job of representing something resembling WW2 ... though I speak only from the experience of playing the first 20-30 turns of the Grand Campaign through a couple or three times as a learning experience. It's also stable, which HoI 3 wasn't, and doesn't have really major game-breaking bugs like HoI 3. In short, it's fun and reasonably realistic. Is it perfect? Not even close. But I suspect that some of the elements that I, and others, find annoying could be modified by using the Game Editor ... if it ever gets issued in a usable form (I've tried ... won't work for me) ... * The RAF should have superior aircraft technology to the Germans and should have approximately equal fighter strength ... as it stands the Luftwaffe has equality in the former and a massively overwhelming superiority beyond all reason in the latter. * The RN should have superior naval forces than the Kreigsmarine. Superior experience, too, and no hardwired prohibition to intercepting Sealion in the Channel. * The Kriegsmarine has far too many submarines to begin with, and, I suspect, so does the Regia Marina. I think the TO&Es for the major beginning players all need to be considerably changed ... but I don't know whether the game engine could handle that. I suspect that there are two few levels of technology in each area, and too few stars that can be bought to progress it, and probably for too much cost. There also seems to be a problem with doctrine. If I understand correctly, you can improve in this, but can't research it. It seems to be hardwired on a time trigger ... and I suspect that, for example, RN Naval doctrine should be far higher than it is, just like RAF air doctrine should be, to represent Radar ... Do those possible flaws make the game unplayable, or even make it worthless as a fun way to pass the time? No! Not at all. But, in the real world, Sealion is impossible and should be impossible in a game intending to represent reality, or at least there should be an optional scenario with something resembling a historical TO&E for the major combatants and resembling the historical logistical and production constraints that applied as well ... which, yes, wouldn't be for everyone ... or, probably <sigh> even for very many <sigh> Still, I find ToF a fun diversion and am looking forwards to a working Editor so I can fiddle with it to my heart's content! Thanks to Doomtrader and his Elves ... er ... fellow programmers ... for the game! Phil

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 10:53:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz * The RAF should have superior aircraft technology to the Germans... must ... not ... open ... this ... can ... of ... worms ... self ... control ... fading ... don't ... mention ... the [aaarrrgh!] superior radar = yes superior integration of fighter defence with ground control = absolutely superior sense of mission and defined objectives = yes superior aircraft technology = whole 'nother thread

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 1:02:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz * The RAF should have superior aircraft technology to the Germans... must ... not ... open ... this ... can ... of ... worms ... self ... control ... fading ... don't ... mention ... the [aaarrrgh!] superior radar = yes superior integration of fighter defence with ground control = absolutely superior sense of mission and defined objectives = yes superior aircraft technology = whole 'nother thread Yeah, yeah, I know what you're saying ... I'm trying to express it in terms of the way in which I think the game engine handles things ... there doesn't seem any other obvious way of handling radar/integrated defence direction/more logical mission etc. in the system as it stands. Maybe there's something hidden in the engine, but since I can't get the editor to work, the only way I can currently think of representing this seems to be as "superior aircraft technology". Of course, it could well be that the really hugely grossly overstrength German fighter element makes it all so much worse. Either the Luftwaffe TO&E is grossly inflated, or the RAF TO&E grossly deflated ... or a mix of both. Phil

Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz * The RAF should have superior aircraft technology to the Germans and should have approximately equal fighter strength ... as it stands the Luftwaffe has equality in the former and a massively overwhelming superiority beyond all reason in the latter. The RAF only has a tech advantage whilst operating over Britain, those RAF units sent to France in 1940 suffered huge losses, especially the TAC bombers. The Germans used airfield attacks with great success at the beginning of their operations during 1940/41, particularly in France and Russia, it was ineffective against Britain because with a radar defence system, they were not going to be caught on the ground. In game terms RAF fighter units based in Britain could have a higher tech level than normal ( 3+ equals radar available), but if moved out of the country would have to reduce to the British base tech level. [:)]

Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:37:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft If Goring had achieved a measure of fighter superiority ( could have been possible if he'd kept attacking airfields rather than switching to London), and Continuing to bomb the airfields would have made little difference, no RAF 11 Group airfield was put out of operation for any significant time, grass landing areas were put back into action, mostly overnight, or sooner. The only airfield that stopped operating was Manston, which was so close to the front line as to be judged of little tactical use. Had the airfield attacks been successful, then Fighter Command would have withdrawn to airfields just North of London, in the 12 Group area. This would be out of range of German single seat fighter range and to attack them without fighter escort, or with Me110s only, would have been a gift to the RAF. The response time from 12 Group airfields would have been delayed, but it would have given time for Leigh-Mallory's 'big wing' tactics to be fully put into effect, as demonstrated from Duxford by Douglas Bader, putting 5 squadrons together for maximum punch. The RAF had fall back possibilities, but was never put in the position to need them.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 4:56:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa The pillboxes and obstacles which were installed in open areas were mainly intended as a defence against parachute troops and glider landing. They might have held up quite well against lightly armed paratroops, but they would not have had much impact on a serious ground attack by an invading force with heavy weapons. [:)] Of course, that depends on what you call "heavy weapons" ... you realise, of course, that the initial planning for Sealion had the elements of the Infantry divisions landed with only Mortars, and no heavier artillery. AFAIR at this period of the war, that means 81mm Mortars, as the German 120mm model was basically a copy of/or inspired by their contact with the Red Army during the opening stages of Barbarossa. Even the later plans, the ones for elements of 12 Infantry divisions being landed (the equivalent of 3 divisions spread along the whole east coast from Dover south and west) initially, didn't have anything more than mortars for this stage ... and the followup wave was going to be, seriously, three weeks later ... The Luftwaffe was supposed to be the artillery. And simultaneously fight off the RAF and the RN. So maybe those pillboxes would have done better than you think under the actual circumstances on the ground. The German planners were even somewhat worried by the presence of the Martello Towers erected by Henry VIII, IIRC [8D][:D] Phil I am not a military engineer, but I have seen enough of these pillboxes to see that they are mostly brick built, with not much more protection than a family house wall. They would keep out rifle and machine gun fire, e.g. the light weapons carried by glider and paratroops, however, the anti-tank and small artillery pieces, which could be expected to be with a major landing force, would have no trouble eliminating these defences. I believe that Sea Lion was a forlorn hope and in answer to the questions at the beginning this thread, the British government, whilst easily capable of mobilising 100,000s of civilians, was preparing for defence against air and airborne attack and not in a last ditch defence of London. [:)]

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 9:49:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa Continuing to bomb the airfields would have made little difference ... I agree that grass airfields were difficult to put out of action since half an hours work with a bulldozer and the heavy lawn roller would fix most bomb craters. The major effect of bombing the airfields was the pressure it placed on the UK pilots plus the possibility of destroying the sector station infrastructure (all above ground in wooden huts!). Having a nice flat airfield is of little use if the pilots nerves are shattered from random bombing and the airfield never gets the command to scramble the squadrons.

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/26/2011 11:35:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz * The RAF should have superior aircraft technology to the Germans and should have approximately equal fighter strength ... as it stands the Luftwaffe has equality in the former and a massively overwhelming superiority beyond all reason in the latter. The RAF only has a tech advantage whilst operating over Britain, those RAF units sent to France in 1940 suffered huge losses, especially the TAC bombers. The Germans used airfield attacks with great success at the beginning of their operations during 1940/41, particularly in France and Russia, it was ineffective against Britain because with a radar defence system, they were not going to be caught on the ground. In game terms RAF fighter units based in Britain could have a higher tech level than normal ( 3+ equals radar available), but if moved out of the country would have to reduce to the British base tech level. [:)] Actually, this is part of the problem. The RAF's fighters, regardless of whether in Britain or France, had a huge (well, a significant one, anyway) advantage and were all advanced models ... Hurricanes and some Spitfires ... the RAF's Tacair, however, was obsolete crap even at this stage (and so were their Strategic - hah! - bombers in 1939/40). There should be separate tech levels for Fighters, TacAir and Strategic Bombers. But I don't expect the engine can handle it [X(] ... maybe in ToF 2? So, what really should be the case is that RAF Fighters (except those in the Middle East, at least to begin) should be at least the same Tech level as German fighters, but with longer range (somewhat) while their TacAir should be at least a Tech level less than Germany's (but close[ish] to increasing), and both the German and RAF Strategic Bomber tech levels should be the same, initially, but the Brits should be on the verge of developing the next level. But, as I said, I don't expect the ToF engine can handle separating them out. Phil

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 12:35:18 AM)
quote: The Germans used airfield attacks with great success at the beginning of their operations during 1940/41, particularly in France and Russia, it was ineffective against Britain because with a radar defence system, they were not going to be caught on the ground. UK radar faced outwards to sea - not inland. Once the Germans crossed the coast then UK was dependent on the Observer Corp which meant fighters could and did get caught on the ground from time to time. Certainly the airfield infrastructure took a battering which meant longer refuel/rearm time for planes. ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_attacks_raf_fighter_command quote: The RAF's fighters, regardless of whether in Britain or France, had a huge (well, a significant one, anyway) advantage and were all advanced models ... Hurricanes and some Spitfires ... Here's a sample OOB for the RAF ref: http://battleofbritainblog.com/2010/07/20/day-11-%E2%80%93-july-20th-1940/ Day 11 � July 20th 1940 July 20, 2010 in July 1940, Wissler Diary \| by Tony Rudd Weather: Thunderstorms in the Channel, patchy clouds over Dover. FIGHTER COMMAND SERVICEABLE AIRCRAFT AS AT 0900 HOURS: Blenheim � 62 Spitfire � 224 Hurricane � 308 Defiant � 11 Total � 605 Unfortunately the Westland Whirlwinds (my favorite fighter) didn't become operational until December 1940 and missed all the fun [:(] quote: So, what really should be the case is that RAF Fighters (except those in the Middle East, at least to begin) should be at least the same Tech level as German fighters, but with longer range Range of Me109 = 410 miles (maximum) Range of Hurricane = 460 miles (working) Range of Spitfire = 575 miles (working) ref: http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/0007.html OK that one surprised me - I thought the Spitfire had the shortest range. But note the Me109 E-7 entered service and saw combat at the end of August 1940. The E-7 was the first subtype to be able to carry a drop tank, usually a 300 L (80 US gal) capacity unit mounted on a rack under the fuselage, which increased their range to 1,325 km (820 mi). Given the August 1940 entry date I don't suppose many of them fought in BoB. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants

rodney727 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 3:05:50 AM)
The Germans also thought they could take America in WW1 with just 100,000 men. quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz quote: ORIGINAL: battlevonwar From documentaries I watched as a boy until very recently I remember the ole drills of watching German Paratroopers loaded unto massive super gliders. The Germans were very innovative at getting things done. They even had light tanks in the nose. I'm sure anything is possible..(in small #s) Pretty sure that what you saw has been misremembered. AFAIR the Germans didn't have light tanks designed to be used in Gliders. The Brits did, but they were basically useless ... and not available in 1940. The Germans did have a big glider, the Me-321, from which the 6-engined Me-323 "Gigant" was developed. But, as far as I can tell, though it was the result of a 1940 design competition for a large Glider for Sealion, it didn't actually enter service until 1941, and not in large numbers at that time. Both models had a maximum payload of 20 tons, give or take, and that precludes carrying anything larger than a Panzer I/II or, perhaps, a Panzer 38(t) [both weighing in at around 10 tons, whereas the Panzer III was c. 23-24 tons, and obviously too heavy) ... if the Me-321 had been available, which it wasn't. All the Germans had for Sealion were a number of DFS-230's, with a payload of 1200 kg or 9 soldiers. And I don't think they had very many of those, as, for example, they were only able to muster 80 for the entire Marita-Merkur operation (the invasion of Crete). Also, the reality was that the number of Ju-52's available for Sealion operations was much more limited than for Crete, for the simple, obvious, and rarely understood fact that the losses (damaged and destroyed) to the Ju-52 force in the operations against Holland, Belgium and etc. had savaged them ... and, indeed, of the (IIRC) 3 parachute Divisions (really Brigades, strength wise) available at the beginning of the operation, only one was still operationally viable at the end ... and there evidently weren't enough Ju-52s and Gliders to carry all of what was available, even these reduced numbers, all in one wave. (Oh, and production of Ju-52s had, IIRC, ceased even before Fall Gelb, so operational losses couldn't even be replaced by new productiuon) Of course, as the Battle of Britain progressed, the reorganisation of the Parachute Divisions and Ju-52 units rectified the situation somewhat, but never to the point where the Germans could manage an entire divisional (and these were small even by US/UK Airborne Divisional Standards, around 6-7k IIRC) drop with the resources available. So, they might get a half division drop, or less, over the UK. Once. After that, well, what do you call Gliders and Glider Tugs and Ju-52s in general in disputed airspace? Targets. Dead targets. Don't like the chances of the second and succeeding waves, no siree! So, no tanks on Gliders. quote: ORIGINAL: battlevonwar Although I hear that the RAF would have been moved North in the event of a real invasion, reserved for the inevitable. I heard that if the BEF was destroyed at Dunkirk there would be nothing left to fight the Germans at all. It would be just a cakewalk period... Most people don't know that the RAF only committed three of five Groups against the Germans directly, and those three Groups only had 55% of the fighter strength. So, even if the Germans had savaged the 3 Groups committed to the BoB, they'd only have been up against 55% of the RAF fighters. The RAF plan was that, if the fighter strength of the three Groups committed was reduced to less than 50%, they'd withdraw north of the Luftwaffe Fighter range ... which would leave the RAF with 45% (uncommitted) plus 27.5% (half of the 55% committed) = 72.5% of their entire fighter strength and, therefore, actually more than they had committed originally, left to sortie south in the event of an invasion. Now, the Germans, as is shown historically, couldn't even handle the 55%! With an additional 20%, and with the Luftwaffe now committed to Air Superiority PLUS Ground Support PLUS Anti-Surface Warfare simultaneously, 24/7 ... well, lets just say that it doesn't look good ... for the Luftwaffe [;)] As for the BEF. Most people, back in 1940 as well as now, assume that 100% of the BEF was pocketed in the Dunkirk pocket and could, therefore, have been lost "if only" Hitler hadn't told the Panzers to halt. Sadly, none of the above is true. Around 45% (yes, again) of the BEF was not at Dunkirk and was never encircled. It was able to withdraw (mostly, not all, and not with a lot of their equipment) through the Breton ports about a month or six weeks later. So, no, the whole of the BEF wasn;t ever going to be lost. As for whether all of what was in the Dunkirk pocket was losable, the assumption here is based on Hitler's (in)famous "Stop" order to the Panzers. Allegedly (postwar, mainly) the argument is that Hitler did this because he didn't want to destroy the BEF, somehow seeing this as a political ploy that would make Churchill more likely to negotiate. "Rubbish" wouldn't be too strong a word for this theory. Mostly it's postwar justifications by German Generals blaming Hitler for every alleged mistake made during the entire war. The reality is that the Panzer divisions had just about shot their bolt. Divisional records show that they had largely outrun their supply network, and were short on fuel, ammo and other supplies, and their ability to initiate another offensive was much reduced, if possible at all. The other thing that the German divisional records show is that the rate of traffic accidents amongst Tank and Truck (and other) drivers was skyrocketing ... because the units had been in virtually nonstop action since the beginning of the campaign and drivers were, quite literally, falling asleep at the wheel! So whether the soldiers would have been able to continue with another assault, given the poor supply situation, is also questionable. Then there's the fact that the Panzer divisions had outrun the infantry. There's two issues here, the Panzers were more exploitation than breakthrough units ... the Infantry's heavy artillery was to provide the rupture through which the Panzers would then rumble. So they'd have been being asked to do something for which they were not really equipped, while short on supply and with exhausted soldiers. Then there's the other problem ... their flanks were, quite literally, in the air ... nothing was securing them. Now, with the advantage of 20:20 hindsight we know now that the French, even their armoured formations, had well and truly shot their bolt and were, at best, able to offer limited resistance to attacks and had no hope at all of mounting another offensive such as the one led by De Gaulle at Arras (which has been much overblown in significance, but worried the Germans regardless), but neither the French nor the British nor the Germans knew that at the time. In fact, based on what the Germans did know, they were very worried about moving further ahead until the Infantry caught up. So, in reality, the German generals in charge actually had stopped the advance, for good and sufficient reasons, and Hitler more or less formalised it when they explained their reasoning. Even if they had resumed (or attempted to) their advance/attack, the likelihood is that it merely reduces the number of British and French (mainly French, indeed, as few people realise as well) soldiers that are evacuated rather than preventing it completely. But say they did get most of the forces in the Dunkirk pocket ... that still leaves almost half still intact. A disaster, sure, but not an overwhelming one. Then there's the issue of how many soldiers were in the UK at the time. Lots. And Lots. And Lots and Lots and Lots. More than were in France. Much More. Much Much More. There was a whole, fully equipped, Canadian Division in the SE. A whole UK Armoured Division (not with the best tanks, but since the Germans weren't likely to have any at the beginning of the Sealion window, and the Brits were replacing their losses every week of delay ... IIRC even the final Sealion plan only planned on a dozen or so tanks being committed to the first wave ... and the second wave was to be three weeks later ... seriously! [8\|]) was also in the area. There were several more fully equipped Brigades in the SE, and there were the equivalent of a dozen more divisions spread around the country, in various stages of training and equipment, but the UK would always have been able to outnumber any planned German invasion force from very early on ... even the final plan involved elements of 12 divisions in the first wave (and German divisions were anywhere between half and 2/3rds the manpower of British Divisions, and all British units were motorised ... the Germans were planning on bringing their horses with them, and one of the problems their planners faced was brining fodder enough for said horses over) ... or about 3 divisions in absolute strength, spread across the SE coast from Dover to Southhampton ... and the second wave would be three weeks later. THREE WEEKS LATER That was their best plan. And even that was, obviously, a fantasy. quote: ORIGINAL: battlevonwar We must assume the threat was very real though. Look at the way the English built up for it. Look at the Speeches, the Dogfights! 109s with 30 minutes to Rock N Roll over English territory until suitable landing strips were created! Nope. Not a real threat at all. Not even close. Of course, all this is with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. No-one at the time knew this for sure. I suspect the British had a fair idea of the problems the Germans were likely to face ... they mainly feared a coup de main, and even that wasn't (as we now know) very likely at all. The Kriegsmarine seem to have had a pretty fair idea that it was impossible. The Wehrmacht? Not so obviously sure as the Kriegsmarine, and perhaps thinking it might work. The Luftwaffe? Well, Goering professed to think it possible ... but he was a blowhard. I suspect the rest of the Luftwaffe may have been somewhat more sanguine at their chances. quote: ORIGINAL: battlevonwar This was a logistical nightmare for either side given different circumstances. So it's not impossible, just EXTREMELY expensive for either side. So much the Germans decided against it and the British were willing to pay their entire Fighter Defense for it. "Londoners fighting? There are some pretty vicious and nationalistic men there. As bad as Americans or Russians? The Russians knew what was coming I don't think they were as naive as we think. I think they knew the Germans were bad by December '41. London could have been street fighting, that could have had tens of thousands of poorly equipped strong willed 14-65 year old men!" Nope. 27.5% of their fighter strength ;-) I seriously doubt any significant number of Germans would have gotten anywhere near the streets of London except, perhaps, passing through them on the way to POW camps [:)][:D] Phil

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 3:19:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft OK that one surprised me - I thought the Spitfire had the shortest range. But note the Me109 E-7 entered service and saw combat at the end of August 1940. The E-7 was the first subtype to be able to carry a drop tank, usually a 300 L (80 US gal) capacity unit mounted on a rack under the fuselage, which increased their range to 1,325 km (820 mi). Given the August 1940 entry date I don't suppose many of them fought in BoB. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants It may have been *able* to use drop tanks. However. Generally speaking. They didn't. Partly because the Germans didn't produce enough (my memory is faulty, it may be, at this stage, they didn't actually produce any) and, when they did, doctrine was such that the dumped them the moment they went into combat. The result? Generally speaking? German fighters (apart from the useless Me-110) had 10-15 minutes of flight time over SE England. Oh, when quoting ranges for aircraft, it would be best to note that ... 1) The RAF was operating over its home territory and had the shortest distances to travel, and, therefore, the longest combat endurance in the battlespace and 2) The Luftwaffe had the longest distance to come, their operational doctrine required them to loiter over their continental airfields until all the aircraft in their unit were airborne, and then to loiter until all the Bombers they were supposed to be escorting were airborne, reducing their combat endurance over the actual battlespace. Hence, range figures are completely misleading. The RAF had the advantage in time over battlespace way over what the Germans had. A corollary ... a Luftwaffe Bomber or Fighter loss was almost 100% a loss of the pilot/crew in the former and the pilot in the latter ... whereas a considerable proportion of RAF losses were recovered (60% IIRC), many of whom could be back in a cockpit the same day or soon thereafter. Coupled with the fact that the fruits of the EATS (Empire Air Training Scheme) were coming on line, this meant that the RAF was not only outproducing the Germans in Fighters, they were rapidly becoming more able to replace pilot and aircrew losses. Neither is reflected in quoting mere range figures. Phil

warspite1 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 7:55:10 AM)
Plus the British were much better at getting their damaged planes operational once more. For some strange reason the German's were very lax in this department...... Source: Holland. Battle of Britain.

aspqrz02 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 8:00:54 AM)
Yes, and, from memory, the Brits had a much larger reserve of aircraft than the Luftwaffe ... their initial problem was that they were short of pilots, and aircraft losses weren't as much the issue ... pilot losses were. However, the EATS was coming online and, at worst, the RAF would have had enough pilots to replace losses and enough aircraft for them to fly, and more, within probably no more than a month of any withdrawal. The Luftwaffe training scheme, while nowhere near as pathetic as the Japanese ones, was not very good and pilot losses were a considerably worse blow for them. Phil

warspite1 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 8:48:36 AM)
As far as the original question is concerned I would love to know the answer - but so glad it was never put to the test [:)] I have never been one to gloat over the French predicament post June 1940; who knows how we would have reacted to the realisation we were a conquered people? I like to think we would have put up a fight - and I think we would have - but no, it would not have been a Leningrad type situation and if the Germans had been able to land in force (suspend real life for the minute) then as soon as German victory was inevitable, resistance would collapse. A large underground resistance movement would have come into play almost immediately. However, fact was the Germans could never have got across the Channel in 1940/41.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 9:16:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa Continuing to bomb the airfields would have made little difference ... I agree that grass airfields were difficult to put out of action since half an hours work with a bulldozer and the heavy lawn roller would fix most bomb craters. The major effect of bombing the airfields was the pressure it placed on the UK pilots plus the possibility of destroying the sector station infrastructure (all above ground in wooden huts!). Having a nice flat airfield is of little use if the pilots nerves are shattered from random bombing and the airfield never gets the command to scramble the squadrons. War is not a pleasant business and Luftwaffe pilots had nerves as well, my point is that Fighter Command had a fall back position available, but were never put in the position to need to use it, as it was almost impossible to put grass airfields permanently out of use. Malta is another example were constant bombing did not stop the pilots flying, as long as there are planes to fly, problem on Malta was shortage of planes, which did not apply in the UK. [:)]

Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 10:01:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz Actually, this is part of the problem. The RAF's fighters, regardless of whether in Britain or France, had a huge (well, a significant one, anyway) advantage and were all advanced models ... Hurricanes and some Spitfires ... the RAF's Tacair, however, was obsolete crap even at this stage (and so were their Strategic - hah! - bombers in 1939/40). There should be separate tech levels for Fighters, TacAir and Strategic Bombers. But I don't expect the engine can handle it ... maybe in ToF 2? The RAF fighters had no significant advantage over the German Bf109E, the Hurricane was at a disadvantage, the Spitfire had a slight advantage in some respects and not in others (e.g. no fuel injection). RAF fighters were at a major disadvantage in tactics, still flying in tight 'vic' formations of 3, whilst the Germans operated the more flexible 'finger four'. The RAF pilots spent more time in watching each other in formation, rather than looking for the enemy, the leader did that. This was not so much of a problem over Britain, where the air defence system meant that the squadrons already knew where the Luftwaffe formations were and were being directed into advantageous positions. RAF fighter formations were being 'bounced' by attackers they did not see coming, so a 'weaver' was introduced to fly behind the formation to warn of an attack, the problem then was that the lone weaver was often the first to get hit. It was the UK air defence system (the only such system in the world at that time) that gave Fighter Command the tech advantage, but only over Britain. RAF bombers were not crap, they suffered from the same problem that every countries' bombers suffered from, the advance in single seat fighters that the Bf109 and the Spitfire represented. The Blenheim was up to 40 mph faster that the fighters in use when it was introduced a few years earlier. The Gladiator biplane fighter had just entered service with the RAF, as the Spitfire made its first flight, being outclassed immediately by the new monoplane fighters. All bombers were in danger if encountering the new fighters, even the vaunted Ju87 Stuka, TAC bomber 'par excellence', could not live with these interceptors, even when it had an escort and had to be withdrawn from the 'Battle of Britain'. So I am suggesting a tech advantage, or odds bonus, for RAF fighters, but only when operating from bases in Britain and that losses during attacks on fighter airfields in Britain should be reduced, because most of the fighters will not be on the airfields during such attacks.[:)]

Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 10:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft UK radar faced outwards to sea - not inland. Once the Germans crossed the coast then UK was dependent on the Observer Corp which meant fighters could and did get caught on the ground from time to time. Certainly the airfield infrastructure took a battering which meant longer refuel/rearm time for planes. The Observer Corps was an integral part of the air defence system and often gave better information than the radar plots, they were able to identify the type of aircraft and confirm numbers, which with radar was only an estimate. There was not necessarily a reduction in the accuarcy of the system, after the Germans had passed inland and clear of radar cover. The Germans made several low level attacks (crossing below radar cover), particularly damaging was the attack by Dorniers of 9/KG76, on Kenley 18th Aug., however although serious damage was done to airfield installations and several RAF fighter aircraft were destroyed, the airfield was operational the next day. Fighter Command 11 Group would not have stood waiting to be wiped out, if the effects of German airfield attacks had become serious enough to threaten the existence of the force, it would have been withdrawn into 12 Group airfields, where operations could have been continued, just as 12 Group did contribute to the 'Battle' from their airfields. Victory comes when your enemy runs out of options, the Luftwaffe did not achieve that, indeed it was they who ran out of options.[:)]

Greyshaft -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 11:04:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa The Germans made several low level attacks (crossing below radar cover), particularly damaging was the attack by Dorniers of 9/KG76, on Kenley 18th Aug., however although serious damage was done to airfield installations and several RAF fighter aircraft were destroyed, the airfield was operational the next day. I think we all agree that it is relatively easy to rebuild a grass airstrip. I made the point earlier that there are other parts of the infrastructure that are less easily repaired (damaged hangers, wounded ground staff etc) and loss of those facilities will slow down refuel/rearm/rebuild time for fighters. An operational airfield is not necessarily the same as an efficient one. I recall an anecdote of fighter pilots needing to refuel/rearm their own planes because ground staff were too terrified to come out of the shelters but I can't recall where I read it.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 11:36:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa The Germans made several low level attacks (crossing below radar cover), particularly damaging was the attack by Dorniers of 9/KG76, on Kenley 18th Aug., however although serious damage was done to airfield installations and several RAF fighter aircraft were destroyed, the airfield was operational the next day. I think we all agree that it is relatively easy to rebuild a grass airstrip. I made the point earlier that there are other parts of the infrastructure that are less easily repaired (damaged hangers, wounded ground staff etc) and loss of those facilities will slow down refuel/rearm/rebuild time for fighters. An operational airfield is not necessarily the same as an efficient one. I recall an anecdote of fighter pilots needing to refuel/rearm their own planes because ground staff were too terrified to come out of the shelters but I can't recall where I read it. I am not saying that the bombing of airfields had no effect, obviously efficiency will suffer, but Malta was an example of how, under even more intensive bombing, it was impossible to completely suppress the air defence, as long as aircraft were available. With Malta the availability of replacement aircraft was problematic, in Britain it was not a factor. Pilots were more critical, but Fighter Command continued to contest each detected attack, which in the end broke the morale of the German crews. The British overestimated their success by at least x2, but the Germans overestimated by at least x4, which meant that when, in September, German intelligence had advised that Fighter Command was close to elimination, the Germans crews were still encountering considerable resistance and realised that they were no closer to winning than at the start. That is when the 'Battle' was lost. The RAF only had to continue to exist to win, efficiency, or not, that is what they did. Apart from Manston (judged tactically ineffective), 11 Group did not have to abandon any of their airfields.

Razz1 -> RE: Citizens of London facing German Army (12/27/2011 8:20:48 PM)
So... since this topic has strayed to Battle Over Britain, have you had enough game experience to recommend a change? The BOB is tough, but can be cracked. We can make it tougher. The question is; When? Already, it cost the Germans allot of PP. All that PP could be used against Russia in Barbarossa. The question is, while you can win the BOB as Germany and keep her down via bombing and rebuilding of fighters along with submarines.... Is it worth it? The loss of PP's is astronomical. The Bear is very tough. We probably have to revisit these questions in the future.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375