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: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

 
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: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/3/2006 10:17:29 PM   
Justascratch


Posts: 321
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to otisabuser2)
Post #: 31
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/4/2006 1:48:25 AM   
otisabuser2


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

(in reply to Justascratch)
Post #: 32
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/4/2006 6:38:43 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

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

(in reply to otisabuser2)
Post #: 33
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/4/2006 6:51:22 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hey, OB is the BoB man, don't be messing with is info !




_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 34
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/4/2006 7:35:49 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		ain't messin' with nuthin' - but I did a 3rd year paper on the BoB, have a coupla books on Sealion, etc too....

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 35
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/4/2006 3:15:37 PM   
otisabuser2


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

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 36
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/4/2006 8:46:06 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to otisabuser2)
Post #: 37
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/5/2006 2:01:48 AM   
oi_you_nutter


Posts: 418
Joined: 10/28/2004
From: from Bristle now living in Kalifornia
Status: offline 		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.




(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 38
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/5/2006 6:35:13 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

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

(in reply to otisabuser2)
Post #: 39
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/6/2006 8:25:06 PM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to captskillet)
Post #: 40
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/6/2006 8:47:35 PM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline 		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."



< Message edited by matchwood -- 10/6/2006 8:51:57 PM >

(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 41
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/7/2006 12:52:22 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

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

(in reply to matchwood)
Post #: 42
RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/16/2006 3:41:53 PM   
matchwood

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 43
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.938