Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Interesting info on the naval blockade

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Interesting info on the naval blockade Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/8/2008 11:47:33 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		I've been reading a 1924 book about the naval blockade of Germany written by an American chap who was the US representative on the Allied & Associated Powers blockade committee, and did some tours and studies in Germany and Austria after the war.

I didn't realise that the allies actually allowed the Scandinavian countries to trade with Germany, but they limited them to pre-war quantities per annum - eg in 1918 Denmark was allowed to sell about 25,000 tons of fish and 226,000 cattle to Germany, plus various other goods, and both Sweden and Norway were permitted to sell iron ore, fish, some cattle and various other goods.

Also the allies actually lifted the blockade restrictions by April 1919, well before the blockade itself was officially lifted with the signing of the treaty of Versailles in June, but it took some time for the lifting to have any effect.

When the war ended in 1918 the blockade machinery was still "ramping up" - ie looking for ways to apply the screws even harder. There were no plans for how it might go about lifting it in an orderly manner. As a result the lifting was much affected by allied attempts to ensure the "new" trade and associated profits to the CP would be carried out by allied companies and ships, and not by neutral ones.

Fascinating stuff.
Post #: 1
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/9/2008 5:10:30 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		Hard to believe that the Entente was already worried about making a buck over even punishing the CP. I recall stories from WW1 Documentaries where the aluminum cans sent by the red cross were taken by the CP to be melted down into Grenades? They were taking everything from the Neutrals that wasn't literally impossible to take... I am not exactly sure how far they went but if that was going on the CP must've been scarce for resources on a massive level..

Anyway, anyone ever hear the story about the U-boat that travelled to the USA on a good will mission traded and headed back home? I found thits quite remarkable... That in WW1 that a U-boat crossed the Atlantic for Trade.. Heh at the time this was probably more for propaganda than anything, imagine the US was sympathetic to Germany soon to be their enemies

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 2
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/9/2008 5:19:55 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		It seems there were massive "one off" profits to be made when the blockade was lifted - the CP was desperate for many staples that were cheap at source, but it was a once only deal.

The author of this book notes that the blockade was as much about economics as actual supply.......a major part of it was attacking the CP exchange rate - devaluing their currency so that they couldn't afford to purchase their requirements even if the commodities were available.

"allowing" neutrals to trade at pre-war levels was a concession to the pre-war ideal that neutrals were supposed to be able to trade in anything except "contraband" without restriction.  This was rapidly ignored by the British who unilaterally expanded the list of what consisted of contraband, and by the end of the war the allies closely controlled the import/export volumes and available stockpiles of all neutrals. 

It seems to me that the exports allowed to the CP from neutrals would probably have been retricted if the war had gone into 1919, as the next logical step.

Continuing the blockade into 1919 was to ensure there was plenty of pressure on the CP to accept the ultimate peace terms, whatever they were going to be.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 1/9/2008 5:21:09 AM >

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 3
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/9/2008 6:44:15 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		It shows a war of Economics to beat down the CPs insides. Unlike Strategic Bombing of WW2 or U-Boat warfare, highly powerful and quite unrestricted sounding by your statement. Interesting exerts

The Germans did not eat Bread as much from what I've heard, they were more meat and dairy. This I also heard again after WW2... Lots of issues with starvation/malnutrition and more so from the civilians within those borders. So this type of warfare is no less cruel than Torpedoing Ships carrying supplies, it's just a little bit more passive warfare.


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 4
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/9/2008 8:46:55 AM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		Well Britain's incentive to enter WW1 was as much about the economic perspective and dependence upon French and Russian support in the far east to keep the trade flowing and their Empire intact than concern for violation of Belgian neutrality. So in that retrospect their blockade actions was quite logic as an elimination of Germany as their prime economic opponent on the European continent.

As mentioned in another thread the huge devastation in northern France by Germany during WW1 was done also on a economic strategic level that was (and did) to hurt French long term economic competition against German economic interests.

The SUB actually went to the states several times but was a huge propaganda hit both abroad and at home.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 5
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/11/2008 10:08:15 PM   
Disintegration

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Well Britain's incentive to enter WW1 was as much about the economic perspective and dependence upon French and Russian support in the far east to keep the trade flowing and their Empire intact than concern for violation of Belgian neutrality.


That was a factor, but even more important was Britain's policy from the 16th century on (if not earlier) of keeping a balance of power on the Continent. Secure routes to the colonies don't do you any good if a continental hegemon can extort them away by threatening the homeland. And the most immediate goal was keeping the Kriegsmarine out of the Channel ports.

Economic (including colonial) warfare had been Britain's main way of waging war in Europe since the days of Drake and Hawkins; I'm sure they would have employed it regardless of the strategic situation. The more unusual development in WW1 was the deployment of a large army and the bulk of war-fighting resources in the main theater of operations on the Continent.

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 6
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/11/2008 11:20:18 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Disintegration

That was a factor, but even more important was Britain's policy from the 16th century on (if not earlier) of keeping a balance of power on the Continent. Secure routes to the colonies don't do you any good if a continental hegemon can extort them away by threatening the homeland. And the most immediate goal was keeping the Kriegsmarine out of the Channel ports.



No the economic factor was the dominant factor by WW1 for Britain.

The traditional British policy of "divide and rule" changed with the introduction of the Dreadnought which meant a whole new arms race. That sort of rearmament would have ruined UK. Britain could no longer maintain their traditional 2 to 1 lead fighting the combined navies of the second and third largest fleets of the world which wad been their security to safeguard their Empire.

That meant UK was no longer in a position to secure their Empire by themselves and its trade which was vital for its survival. They tried for a decade to enter an alliance with Germany primarily targeted against their traditional foe France but German arrogance and ignorance spoiled that possibility. So UK had to turn to France and their Russian allies. UK very conveniently disregarded the American and Japanese Fleets as being pro British and changed their ambition for naval superiority as being two to one when combining fleets side by side i.e. including the French fleet.

So it was based on necessity that UK entered cooperation with one of the alliances which they traditionally had shunned to maintain their maneuverability to maintain continental stability.

After Fishers naval reforms the responsibility for guarding the Mediterranean fell upon the French fleet (and some obsolete British squadrons) and the British concentrated on HSF.

With the Entente facing the CP in their big alliances there was very little Britain could do in practice to influence the power balance when they both had to build a whole new fleet from scratch and later prepare for a continental army.

I can highly recommend "Dreadnought" (actually from "Dread not") by Robert Massie to give an detailed insight in the above.

(in reply to Disintegration)
Post #: 7
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/12/2008 2:23:38 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		I find the topic extremely interesting. In fact, WW1 was decided in a great deal by the DreadNaught, and the HSF vs the RN

Arms races as in the WW3 scenario recently ended in the 80s show that when you build up a lot of Deterrent Weapons you end up sometimes triggering something to happen. The HSF built-up because they didn't want to be second dog to the British. The HSF thus threatened the supremacy of the British, the real truth is that the resources that the Germans acquired however neat an overseas Empire was not neccessary. It was just what every other Imperial Power was doing in Europe at the time. Pretty much like Fascist Italy in the 30s invading Ethiopia, world opinion was quite negative about it. What couldn't of Italy gotten via trade? It's a bare ans tricken place.

Had Germany never constructed a Dreadnaught, or a Navy to Threaten Britian however dangerous this may have been and however it may tied up of the RN.. It may have been more likely to keep Britian neutral. Might... Though allying with AH to me, an obvious loser along with OE was carrying the baggage of two very very weak Allies, however Brave the men of their nations were. They were rotting from years of instability and were going to drag down the stronger Power.

British Foreign Policy was a necessity she has no Manpower to fight on the Continent, she has to have a navy to pick and choose her fights. Plus she made her Empire off the Backs off Spanish Gold and trade. From the battle with Spanish Armada showed that Naval Supremacy was a must, or Catholic England with a Spanish or Dutch Prince would be the Standard now and one of those types of Nations would have taken to the High Seas and been the Empire of the past couple hundred years to see.

To summize I feel that in WW2, YES a navy was important, with the Japanese and the ever increasing U-boat threat, the RN was overstretched and with a Stronger Italian navy if would've been used right could've meant the collapse of the Western Allies... Although in WW1 it seemed like to Titanics struggling against each other, neither superior and neither gaining anything, and honestly the Germans losing out... Fewer ships, fewer resources and thus no Trade...

However in recent years, Germany has repaid England & France. Having created a more economic prosperous nation than either... LOL It's just how it works sometimes



(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 8
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/12/2008 3:10:58 AM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

I find the topic extremely interesting. In fact, WW1 was decided in a great deal by the DreadNaught, and the HSF vs the RN



Strategically the Germans chose a passive approach. Keeping their fleet in harbor relying on their SUBS to crush RN and gain supremacy. Surprisingly the British after having lost a substantial number of more or less obsolete types in the beginning of the war didn't risk their slow cruising Dreadnought in the North Sea

If Germany had adopted a hit and run strategy against the shores of Britain and in relative close proximity to their bases and with support of their SUBS life would probably have been rather miserable for RN. Excursions into the Atlantic was out of the question because the Germans wouldn't risk loosing their precious heavy ships neither. They were necessary after the war to safeguard German colonial ambitions

Instead RN were allowed to close up the North Sea with their heavy fleet and largely rely upon the French to close the AH fleet in the Adriatic and use their obsolete pré-Dreadnought Mediterranean fleet in a defensive role to guard Suez.

This allowed them to adopt an offensive global role with large number of CA/BC and other support vessels to hunt down German warships and commerce hunters on the high sea and especially the strong German far east cruiser squadron based in German Tsingtao in China which ended at the battle of the Falklands. The strategic goal was to secure global communication lines and in the long run British trade.

A not so well known high profile target for RN was the radio relaying stations in the German colonies which enabled the German navy to communicate and coordinate their commerce raiders and heavier capital ships on a global scale. The Japanese was lured into taking out Tsingtao while the British and their allies rather fast took out the strategical parts of the coastal regions in German colonies in Africa and the pacific specifically with the main priority to destroy German communications.

Hew Strachans WW1 trilogy is immensely informative if you are into this type of background.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 9
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/12/2008 12:22:10 PM   
boogada

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

To summize I feel that in WW2, YES a navy was important, with the Japanese and the ever increasing U-boat threat, the RN was overstretched and with a Stronger Italian navy if would've been used right could've meant the collapse of the Western Allies...


In WWII large battleships were almost obsolete. (Note that I say almost) You could sink an enemy ship by airpower much better and a lot cheaper! (best example: the sinking of Repulse and Price of Wales by the Japanese) And this is especially true for the Med, the Germans planed to invade Malta by air, not by sea. (They only refrained from doing so after the high losses of the invasion of Crete) After WWII coastal bombardment is the last thing you need large vessels for.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 10
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/12/2008 8:22:19 PM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		Somewhat true, Pearl-Taranto was possible due to the fact they were set up like Ducks in a little Pond.. The Mighty Bismark was Disabled by the Mighty Swordfish biplane, but not finished off by it, neither Scharnhorst. Much of the dirty work had to be done at sea by the Navy. They worked in conjuction Air/Naval Power..USNavy AA on BBs did very well in WW2. Naval bombardment is still used today and was highly demoralizing then

(in reply to boogada)
Post #: 11
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/12/2008 9:24:58 PM   
boogada

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		But Bismarck and Repulse showed clearly that even the biggest battleships couldn't operate without any support any longer. Although there were some big clashes in the east, the pacific war was dominated by the carriers of both fleets. 

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 12
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/12/2008 11:00:33 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		The half year strategic battle for Guadalcanal showed that cruisers and battleships still were usable in night actions. But woe them if they were in reach of land based air when it became day again.

The relative success or rather sturdiness of BB in Europe on the high seas was largely due to the usage of older carriers and carrier planes on behalf of the British.

(in reply to boogada)
Post #: 13
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/13/2008 3:57:07 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		Hjaco and Boogada, you know it's I think the legend of that Invincible Dreadnaught or BB that we all dream about... The one that is put into our heads. The deadly power of an aircraft to come over top during WW2, drop it's ordinance and run... So fast and so easily, in an ocean that is so massive... Air is fast, with radio it's extremely good at covering lots of Sea... Also it's powerful because 20 Divebombers is like 20 Wasps on a man... can ruin him and 20 Divebombers is rather cheap vs 1 BB

However with 50 or 60 Zeros or Hellcats overhead, those BBs are awfully good at pushing the hand. In the Pacific and Atlantic when one side had Air Supremacy Naval ambition was of little consequence. It was expected. A tank is a very vulnerable weapon without SMG foot soldiers and Rifleman protecting it's tiny flanks when a sapper can easily attach ordinance to hit's tail while it sleeps and blow it to bits at the price of some TNT...

I'd prefer Air Supremacy to Naval Supremacy, and Sea Lion was forgone now we know due to a lack of the 1.. The Germans didn't think they needed Naval Supremacy at all.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 14
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/13/2008 10:27:22 AM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123
I'd prefer Air Supremacy to Naval Supremacy, and Sea Lion was forgone now we know due to a lack of the 1.. The Germans didn't think they needed Naval Supremacy at all.


Ah well not the German Army bud definitely the German Navy

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 15
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/13/2008 12:43:22 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Everyone grossly over-rates the effects of aircraft on shipping in 1940 IMO - at that stage neither the RAF nor hte LW had significant anti-shipping capability - LW dive bombers hadn't trained vs shipping and had no AP bombs, and AFAIK they had 1 staffel of experimental torpedo bombing He-111's.

The RAF was limited to torpedo carrying Beauforts (which were at least operations), and the FAA could chuck in Swordfish and Skua dive bombers....but only a handful of each.

It wasn't until 1941 that the LW had the training and equipment to effectively attack ships - as they did in the Med.

Sealion would have been crushed by overwhelming RN superiority over the Kriegsmarine - 20 cruisers to half-a-dozen (IIRC), 60 or 70 destroyers to 20-25 (including the torpedo-boats that were effectively small destroyers), and no heavy units for hte KM at all apart from 1 old pre-dreadnought that was used as a gunnery training vessel that they were planning to beach as a battery.

Probably the RN would have taken casualties from mines and U-boats (although there weren't many of the later either amnd many were only type II's with trainng crews!), but whatever losses they took would pale in comparison to the loss of the entire German invasion force of 100,000+ men.  Also all the shipping that would have been sunk would have made a considerable dent in European economy - the large numbers of Rhine barges would have been especially missed.

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 16
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/13/2008 11:29:02 PM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		SMK, the Germans were not certain of SeaLion. They were building up for it. They had a level of ingenuity and sneakiness that may be difficult to overlook. Norway-France were to operations no one ever expected they could undertake, but they did. Norway cost Germany half of her Destroyers...They were willing to pay if the victory was achieved. I do not think you should underestimate what they might dream up and put into work.

May not have had to invade England outright to win, but destroy her airforce and you have full recon over the English channel, given time adaptions were the key to German ingenuity in success throughout the early parts of the second world war.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 17
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/13/2008 11:41:13 PM   
boogada

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Don't forget another aspect of aircrafts: They have incredible potential for recon and spotting. But the HSF into the North Sea, and you can take a look at a small area. Put one carrier into the North Sea and you can recon the entire sea. Finding out where your enemy is, and what force he has is the most important information you could possibly get, to find out where to go/not to go. During WWI airforce at sea was insignificant, a few planes, some zeppelins, but that was it. Think about the whole Jutland setup, with both cruiser fleets and battle fleets trying to surprise the enemy. Compare that to WWII where some of the biggest battles were almost entirely based on aircraft (Pearl Harbour, Midway). 

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 18
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/13/2008 11:50:01 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		We know what they dreamed up - we do not have to imagine it.  Norway is not a good comparison - they took a neutral country by surprise....and still took heavy casualties.

the could never destroy the RAF - the british were out-producing Germany in fighters by almost 2:1, and Germany barely had a trained pilot for every fighter yet the Brits were panicing when they got down to 1 1/2 pilots per fighter.  The RAF was perfectly prepared to withdraw 11 Group behind London and out of range of German 109's from the continent.

The British were very cautious and conservative in their assessments of their own forces, which is normally a good thing when your country is at stake. We know better now.

And when the German forces were at sea and landed it would have been the LW that had the problem of how to protect them - the RAF didn't do a good job protecting the chanel convoys even with radar and only small numbers of ships to worry about - the LW would have been worse trying to protect the large sealift without even rudimentary radar.

Plus the LW would have to protect the beaches and landed troops....again without radar.  They would have captured the small coastal airfields....but they would have been useful only for emergency landings so all their ops would have had to originate in France.

Of course no-one knew all this at the time, but that's the advantage of 20/20 hindsight - we do not have to accept the worries of the wartime analysis - we can see what ACTULLAY existed/would have happened.

To repeat the concerns of the time as being "the facts" is pretty lame these days IMO.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 19
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/14/2008 3:34:56 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		The British were beatable. Where their is a will there is always a way...Casualties didn't mean a lot to the Germans, they have given as much as the Russians to two World Wars in Soldiers about... People underestimate that now because they read what happened and the history books portray things very very onesided. If people just knew how close the world was to becoming a Nazi one, they might not underestimate what determination actually can do. Or the dozens of variables that go into anything, how all the sudden things can change due to the fact there is a reason to change it... Dunkirk, failure of the RAF, and 6months who knows what could go on.. The resources and able Men weren't put to the task at the right time and place, blunder after blunder. So the Free World would live on...for awhile... I just feel that it is so imbedded and so hardcoded in Historians and in Human doctrine-belief they do no open to what is possible. Noone ever dreamt Blitzkrieg was possible nor the capitulation of 75% of Europe in less than 2 years by a Single Medium Size Nations Armed Forces. Just goes to show...

WW2 Era Aircraft was a big jump from WW1, they were testing in WW1 what air could do, I believe it was on a German Dreadnaught or Cruiser. Went superbly, at the end of WW1 they saw the potential of Air against Sea Targets. The Power of Radar is also in WW2 a British Invention helped in the Battle of Britian and hurt the Italians-Japanese, who never embraced it quite the same

< Message edited by wargamer123 -- 1/14/2008 3:36:35 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 20
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/14/2008 3:39:49 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Casualties may not have meant much to the Germans...but losing the shipping would have stopped the invasion cold - you can't invade the British isles unless you have ships.

Germany had so few ships available in 1940 that the 2nd and 3rd waves would have to wait for the 1st wave to unload so the shipping could return to pick up the subsequent troops.  The loss of any significant portion of the 1st wave of shipping would have posed major problems for the rest of the invasion.

and remember they were going to park those ships off eth coast of England for 3 days jsut to offload the 1st wave - the RN would probably have sunk a huge portion of them on the 2 nights they would be anchored there.

sure they might have built more....or wrecked the economy a bit more by taking even more barges off the Rhine.....but not in 1940.



< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 1/14/2008 3:43:51 AM >

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 21
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/14/2008 9:27:29 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		SMK, indeed, the 1940 KG was relatively weak. The Royal Navy was a true Power. Though we always forget the bigger picture. The RN was also sorely needed to protect Empire. I think your accessment is true, that it would be a nightmare to attempt to cross the channel. The Allies did it with state of the art landing craft and everything at their disposal in '44. They had did so on a smaller scale in '43, an experiment... So they were very very determined to do it right. Though just the threat of Sea Lion, with the buildup of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe over time may have forced the British to the Table.

In '41 there would be some nice KG ships, U-boats, FW-190...
There were plans for a lot more, the Germans always had an obsession with Navys...

Also one has to imagine at Stalingrad, the loss of hundreds of thousands of Germans meant nothing really. Though if it would have gained England...It would have meant everything...

Egypt and the MiddleEast will open up if you lay too much threat on England, and so will India. Though some of this may be stepping on Stalin's toes the Axis grand strategy was to meetup in India... I personally think the USSR could of and virtually defeated the Germans 'alone'.... Though the Second Front fear tied up a lot of resources of the Axis in Europe.

Lastly, the British Army of 1940 was shredded a part, 1 army group across that Channel of Germans would've been very dangerous. The British were mobilizing the People to fight the war at this point, even old men...

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 22
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/14/2008 4:46:47 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		Ahhh where to begin Interesting discussions.

The potential 40 Sea Lion would have been a disaster and no sane (or insane) German considered it as a viable strategy. In fact the Army exaggerated its demands toward the Navy and vice versa because neither believed in the project. And it was not only the enormous problems with the initial landing to consider but the whole concept about fighting a campaign on foreign soil.

If we consider all kind of "what ifs" sure the Nazis could have won in Europe and dominating it for a long period. But the view on Germany to eat losses and fight on with grim determination was proved again and again as history has shown. But then again the same complies to the Allied major powers so thats not conclusive support for a potential Nazi victory. I mean you could hardly expect Germany to fight on more than they did

It was RN who adopted carriers in WW1. I think it was in mid 17'. Did you by the way know that Germany had a semi operational carrier (Graf Zeppelin) during WW2 ? It was only used for aviational training purposes in the Baltic though.

But the whole situation behind German failure to get a peace settlement with Britain was due to the fact that Germany was completely unprepared in all areas to fight a large scale war and no serious planning or provisioning had been made. Had Germany invested heavily in SUB technology and production before WW2 it would have been an entirely new ball game. But even given the situation as it is Germany may with a good probability have gained a peace settlement in the west by making a general peace settlement with occupied minors and France on the provision that the occupied territories would have been abandoned when Germany and CW were at peace. Now THAT would have been difficult for the shaky Churchill fraction to find support for a prolonged fighting with Germany if being presented with a generous peace offer as they were.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 23
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/14/2008 6:51:34 PM   
Joel Rauber

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Ahhh where to begin Interesting discussions.

The potential 40 Sea Lion would have been a disaster and no sane (or insane) German considered it as a viable strategy. In fact the Army exaggerated its demands toward the Navy and vice versa because neither believed in the project. And it was not only the enormous problems with the initial landing to consider but the whole concept about fighting a campaign on foreign soil.



I assume you mean fighting a campaign on foreign soil across a sea. The axis only did it once and with great difficulty (I.e. in N. Africa) and there they had an established base already set-up.


_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 24
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/14/2008 7:47:23 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

I assume you mean fighting a campaign on foreign soil across a sea. The axis only did it once and with great difficulty (I.e. in N. Africa) and there they had an established base already set-up.



Yep

I think you overlook Norway and Crete In both campaigns they suffered heavy losses amongst the Navy in Norway and Paratroopers at Crete.

(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 25
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/15/2008 5:29:41 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		I guess watching dozens and dozens of documentaries of German Gliders, Barges, etc... All the Battle of Britian footage can be a bit misleading, plus 18 years of boardgaming. We do always want to leave open the 1940 Sea Lion. It is not only interesting, but fun for wargames and for T.V. and Books. I am aware after the amount of Effort that went into Normandy D-Day '44 and that could've easily failed with some backup Panzers smooshing the beachheads before they dug deep into France.

I have never done a barge for barge, ship for ship, aircraft for aircraft account. Plus accounting that the RAF could've always moved and that the RN could've all been pulled back to England quite quickly to do Hellish Damage to anything crossing.

I always loved to watch the Various Nazi Gliders they showed how they packed them to the brim. The idea of it, is sorta Sci-Fi in comparison with the thousands of craft used during D-Day built for the rough English Channel.

It is possible at a later date but most wargames make it feel possible whenever you want, Even GOA during WW1, where no real Amphibious Assualts were ever really successful...in fact left with a bitter taste with the British attempts to KnockOut Turkey.

Though there is one thing, the British were preparing, They were afraid as were the Americans of the Japanese. There are thousands of pillboxes all over the UK CountrySide, there was a massive effort and mobilization and Churchill put his country up for the Fight, didn't wait for the Germans to put anymore fear into the hearts of the British. He went for it.. Even Hitler was so reluctant to step foot across the Channel and he was never a good military tactician.


I think for Fear Factor, that counts more than the actual event. That is why we include it in Wargames. The Fear Factor forces the "What If," makes one prepare, for if you abandon all defenses and completely act like That Could never happen, you wouldn't station 1 corps in all of England because you'd feel overly safe in that any time a nation can be threatened.




The Japanese and Americans unlike the ETO were quite amazing with their Naval ambitions. They were way ahead of their time. Everyone expected Pearl Habour to be taken by Foot soldiers, and Midway was going to be... Shows how advanced these nations were!

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 26
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/15/2008 11:07:18 AM   
boogada

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		fact:  the original german navy planing was aimed at a war in ~1944, so quite some ships were planed or in production. Hitler had to start the war earlier, and so the navy was anything but prepared!

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 27
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/15/2008 10:01:24 PM   
Joel Rauber

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco




Yep

I think you overlook Norway and Crete In both campaigns they suffered heavy losses amongst the Navy in Norway and Paratroopers at Crete.


Yes, I overlooked those, but as you point out those rather prove the point.

Crete was minor IMO and in the Med theatre of operations, which is probably why I overlooked it. No excuses for Norway however.


_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 28
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/15/2008 10:33:10 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		Crete was important in the sense that the experience weighed heavily on Germany's hesitation to do the same with Malta.

(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 29
RE: Interesting info on the naval blockade - 1/16/2008 5:44:32 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

The Germans were ahead in the area as far as I know.. There giant Gliders could carry very light 1 tank and an assortment of equipment and troops. I recall watching a training film...I forget the name of the glider, a I think it was a Junkers something... Of course after Crete I know that they'd lost sooooo much they were unable to commit to Malta out of fear of losses... that and a failure to do in the Island





(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Interesting info on the naval blockade Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

1.328