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: ...No airpower??

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Re: ...No airpower?? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Re: ...No airpower?? - 7/24/2002 9:03:34 PM   
CCB


Posts: 4208
Joined: 3/21/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by msaario
[B]They had two fighters over the beaches making one strafing run on D-Day! Isn't that some serious airpower?:D :D :D
[/B][/QUOTE]

They did a good job protraying it in the movie The Longest Day!

_____________________________

Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 91
- 7/24/2002 9:30:19 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by CCB
[B]

Hmmmmm. Its my understanding that the Alueutians 'adventure' (Operation AO) was as much a diversion to draw the US Navy out as was the planned invasion of Midway itself. The Japanese were not sure that the raid did come from a carrier, but nor could they rule out the attack being launched [I]from[/I] the Aleutians.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Certainly the Aleutian op was also to protect the "North-west" flank, but from my limited reading on the subject, this was as a response to the Doolittle raid, if nothing more than to complete the oceanic perimeter.
[QUOTE][B]
Every book I've read states that the Japanese knew the B-25s came from carriers. Maybe not right away, but soon afterward, hence the Midway plan (Operation MO) to destroy the US carriers and remaining fleet.[/B][/QUOTE]

The Japanese were not sure that the raid did come from a carrier, but nor could they rule out the attack being launched [I]from[/I] the Aleutians.

[QUOTE][B]
The lack of two carriers at Midway was due to the Battle of the Coral Sea in which the air crews of the Zuikaku and Shokaku were so badly mauled the two carriers were unable to participate in the Midway plan. Also the light carrier Shoho was sunk. [/B][/QUOTE]


Well if we then presume that Coral Sea didn't happen then there would have been 8 IJN carriers against the USN, but Coral sea did happen, so now we are down to a possible six carriers....two of which were being used "up-north"....leaving only 4 carriers to face off against the USN. Indeed...the Junyo and the Ryujo, were supposed to sail south to cover the withdrawl of what remained of the fleet at Midway. This was decided against as the attack in the aleutians was going so well.....better to have at least one victory than none.

So my question then is this.....[I]IF[/I] Doolittles raid had not been successful....or even launched at all.....would the Japanese have still attacked in the Aleutians? Which then begs the question....would not Junyo and Ryujo have been used at Midway?

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 92
- 7/24/2002 10:26:12 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]
Certainly the Aleutian op was also to protect the "North-west" flank, but from my limited reading on the subject, this was as a response to the Doolittle raid, if nothing more than to complete the oceanic perimeter.

The Japanese were not sure that the raid did come from a carrier, but nor could they rule out the attack being launched [I]from[/I] the Aleutians.

Well if we then presume that Coral Sea didn't happen then there would have been 8 IJN carriers against the USN, but Coral sea did happen, so now we are down to a possible six carriers....two of which were being used "up-north"....leaving only 4 carriers to face off against the USN. Indeed...the Junyo and the Ryujo, were supposed to sail south to cover the withdrawl of what remained of the fleet at Midway. This was decided against as the attack in the aleutians was going so well.....better to have at least one victory than none.

So my question then is this.....[I]IF[/I] Doolittles raid had not been successful....or even launched at all.....would the Japanese have still attacked in the Aleutians? Which then begs the question....would not Junyo and Ryujo have been used at Midway? [/B][/QUOTE]Yes, the Japanese would still have attacked in the Aleutians.

The thrust into the Aleutians was a diversionary one to draw the US fleet away from Midway, and to anchor their "Ribbon Defense" that was to run through Midway.

The Japanese loved diversion as a tactic of surprise with fleets popping up out of nowhere, etc. Their plan was to secure Midway, and the annihiliate the US Fleet when it came rushing back from the feint in the Aleutians.
[QUOTE]
[B] Which then begs the question....would not Junyo and Ryujo have been used at Midway? [/B][/QUOTE]The 2 Carriers to cover the Northern Force were assigned to support that movement. Had the IJN not also attacked the Aleutians, I'm not sure how else they would have employed those 2 carriers. It's possible that they could have diverted them to the 8th Army (South Pacific) Area.

The Japanese violated the Principles of [I]Objective[/I] and [I]Economy of Force[/I] on both ends of the spectrum in their Midway plan.

[I]Objective[/I]: Was it to take Midway, or to draw out the US? It was both, but both were addressed as one, not as separates.

[I]Economy of Force[/I]: 4 Fleet CVs to pound a tiny outpost atoll is overkill. A better plan might have been to establish air superiority, let the CVLs pound the installations, and keep the CVs in reserve to meet any sea-borne threat from the US.

Additionally, 1 CVL was with Yamamoto's Main Body, and 1 CVL was with the Support Force approaching from the WSW.

The Midway (Operation AI) was originally planned for July/Aug 42. It was the Doolittle Raid that pushed it up. SHOKAKU was out for 3 months due to battle damage at Coral Sea. ZUIKAKU was not available for a few months because her airgroups had been decimated. If the original date had been kept, she may have been ready with a refurbished compliment.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 93
- 7/25/2002 12:06:16 AM   
GYBLIN

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: ocala florida
Status: offline 		Hey Sarge im going to have to start up a new thread since the discusion needs more focus to do it justice.BTW you sound very informed about german troop positions.My father served in WW2 but was in the third I.D.He went the Italy route.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 94
- 7/25/2002 7:10:23 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
[B]Yes, the Japanese would still have attacked in the Aleutians.

The thrust into the Aleutians was a diversionary one to draw the US fleet away from Midway, and to anchor their "Ribbon Defense" that was to run through Midway.

The Japanese loved diversion as a tactic of surprise with fleets popping up out of nowhere, etc. Their plan was to secure Midway, and the annihiliate the US Fleet when it came rushing back from the feint in the Aleutians.
The 2 Carriers to cover the Northern Force were assigned to support that movement. Had the IJN not also attacked the Aleutians, I'm not sure how else they would have employed those 2 carriers. It's possible that they could have diverted them to the 8th Army (South Pacific) Area.

The Japanese violated the Principles of [I]Objective[/I] and [I]Economy of Force[/I] on both ends of the spectrum in their Midway plan.

[I]Objective[/I]: Was it to take Midway, or to draw out the US? It was both, but both were addressed as one, not as separates.

[I]Economy of Force[/I]: 4 Fleet CVs to pound a tiny outpost atoll is overkill. A better plan might have been to establish air superiority, let the CVLs pound the installations, and keep the CVs in reserve to meet any sea-borne threat from the US.

Additionally, 1 CVL was with Yamamoto's Main Body, and 1 CVL was with the Support Force approaching from the WSW.

The Midway (Operation AI) was originally planned for July/Aug 42. It was the Doolittle Raid that pushed it up. SHOKAKU was out for 3 months due to battle damage at Coral Sea. ZUIKAKU was not available for a few months because her airgroups had been decimated. If the original date had been kept, she may have been ready with a refurbished compliment. [/B][/QUOTE]


Good points.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 95
- 7/25/2002 12:23:35 PM   
runes


Posts: 107
Joined: 1/15/2001
Status: offline 		Battle of Britain
Stalingrad
Kursk

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 96
- 7/25/2002 7:31:24 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Gyblin I would of course participate on your thread.

But you will have trouble with the focus part. Additionally you will have trouble getting posters to elaborate.

Example, Rune just offered three choices, but Rune you only mentioned three battles with no reason why you like them.

We wargamers all know those three battles obviously, but what is not clear is what you have to say about them.

I build models for instance. If asked to state which one I liked best, Saying Sherman would of course identify a model I liked, but sure wouldn't say why.
Would it be because the model has been sooooo done to death that the variations on type are almost virtually endless. Would it be that a specific company did a major job on a fine example. Is it a matter of price, cause you can find shermans in all price ranges. Or difficulty level, because you can go from raw beginner to master craftsman.

So come on you guys, if you are going to offer up a post, show us you know your material eh:) This is your moment to bask i n the sun, and get use out of all those books you have read.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 97
- 7/26/2002 2:05:00 PM   
runes


Posts: 107
Joined: 1/15/2001
Status: offline 		lol, sorry, was in the processing of beating up my computer, which was in the process of acting up


Battle of Britain- I would just have to say, kinda turned the balanca of power all flip flop. Allowing the allies control on the skies, which gave them eventual control of the seas and land.

Stalingrad- this one fairly obvious. bang bang, boom boom.

Kursk- similarly. maybe not one of the most pivitol, but surely an important battle. what were the numbers? they were huge, showed (in a really big way) that german armour didn't really live up to it's fame.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 98
- 7/26/2002 3:33:13 PM   
GYBLIN

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: ocala florida
Status: offline 		Sorry sarge.I cant crank the details on numbers and such.Although i do read alot of ww2 books and such.Im only willing to give my opinion from what i know which apparantly isnt as much as you do.I know alot was on the line at normandy and although everyone here has brought up good points to why i proabably didnt matter.i still think the loss of 175,000 troops would have been a crushing defeat for the allies.:)

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 99
- 7/26/2002 3:55:26 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by GYBLIN
[B]i still think the loss of 175,000 troops would have been a crushing defeat for the allies.:) [/B][/QUOTE]


Indeed it would have been....out of interest, I just wonder what the cut-off point was, in lives lost, for abandoning the invasion.....anyone know?

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 100
- 7/26/2002 5:35:21 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		People.

Rule number 1

Thou shalt not imply that Les the Sarge has god like wisdom.
Already been proven elsewhere I don't heheh:D

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 101
- 7/26/2002 10:14:50 PM   
Vincent Prochelo

 

Posts: 2473
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Cimmeria
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
[B]

While true Germany left skeleton forces in France to hold it.
Look at it which ever way you want. If the East front would of fallen apart Germany would of won the entire enchillada.

France isn't Russia, dude. Russia is a huge country, and they would have had to have left at least 20 divisions if they planned on holding everything west of the Urals and fight guerillas at the same time.

quote:


Also not true.
If the East front would of been won. England would of fallen or sued for peace.


Everyone takes it for granted that Churchill would have sued for peace if Russia had surrendered, but I don't think that is a given. The Brits would have held on. They still dominted theAtlantic and there was no way the Germans were going to invade the UK any time soon.

All they had to do was wait for the U-boats to sink one to many American ships...

quote:


Also if the Germans had won in the easst America would of made pieace with Germany without a drop of blood ever being spilled between the two in Europe.
America in '42 didnt really have anything against Germany.
Since Hitler declared war we felt something [I]had[/I] to be done.


I don't think so, there were many places for America to fight. We could have still invaded North Africa and used that for a springboard to invade Italy, Southern France or the Balkans.

quote:


America being America doesnt give much of a **** about the world until somnething thereantens its interests. If Germany had only declared war and not gone beyond that [I]and[/I] it wasnt convinent for us to go to Europe we never would of gone. [/B][/QUOTE]

If Russia is defeated then what changes is the size of the US Navy which is committed to the Atlantic instead of the Pacific.

Germany was a greater threat to the United States, which is why we chose the 'Europe first" war policy.

Germany would lose because Germany could not defeat the United States even if she had defeated Russia. I will admit a defeat of the Soviets certainly helps Germany allot. And makes the war drag on allot longer. But I don't think the UK ever falls. And the US will not make peace with Nazi Germany.

-V

_____________________________

"It is as it is."

-Edward III

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 102
Reality Check please - 7/26/2002 11:11:00 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		No reasonable historian would claim Germany could win the
war on their terms. To do that, they needed to invade, AND DEFEAT Britain. They didnt do that.

The Soviet Union was a big place and no particular point
was crucial to its survival. There is no way barring Stalin dying
that they would quit.

The German economy under the Nazi never rose above 20%
of the 1918 German war production. It is sobering to realize
just how under-utilized the German economy was.

To consider a German win, is really not possible without Nukes.
Even if they had them, I am afraid the USA had more.
The USA would have been ready willing and able to swap
cities if it meant getting rid of Hitler.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 103
- 7/26/2002 11:23:47 PM   
GYBLIN

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: ocala florida
Status: offline 		I read in a book somewhere that Hitler designed a bomber especialy to carry a nuke to washington or new york.I cant remember more though.Scarry thought.I still think a Normandy failed assault means victory for germany although maybe not militarywise.Most likely a cease-fire with Russia and another armatice with the allies.Of course once we found out about the attocities all bets would be off...

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 104
Oh come on - 7/26/2002 11:28:27 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		The Prez already knew all about the atrocities and he SAT
on the information. So much for being a man of the people.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 105
Re: Reality Check please - 7/26/2002 11:56:29 PM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]The German economy under the Nazi never rose above 20%
of the 1918 German war production. It is sobering to realize
just how under-utilized the German economy was.[/B][/QUOTE]
Good point.

Only few people consider how much German economy still suffered from Versailles Treaty + Global economy Crisis 1932 [What is the correct term here?] in the 1940's.

1914 Germany had one of the world's strongest economy powers. Compared to that Germany 1939 was a midget. The Blitzkrieg tactics made the difference. But you all know that.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 106
- 7/27/2002 12:14:25 AM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by GYBLIN
[B]I read in a book somewhere that Hitler designed a bomber especialy to carry a nuke to washington or new york.I cant remember more though.Scarry thought.[/B][/QUOTE]
You mean the "Amerika Bomber" project, Me 264 (well, actually only one of several parallel projects, as always).

[IMG]http://visi.net/~djohnson/prototyp/264-11.jpg[/IMG]

The work on that project already began before the war. So I guess the plane was supposed to do conventional air strikes. (And I'm not sure how far the German atomic bomb program really was. Anyone else?)

Interesting side note:
[QUOTE]On July 8, 1943, at a meeting in the Supreme Headquarters, Hitler promised his support for the continued production of the Me 264 to Messerschmitt, but only for maritime uses. At the same time he dropped his decision to bomb the east coast of the U.S., because "the few aircraft that could get through would only provoke the populace to resistance". [/QUOTE]
[URL]http://visi.net/~djohnson/prototyp/me264.html[/URL]

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 107
- 7/27/2002 12:43:00 AM   
GYBLIN

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: ocala florida
Status: offline 		Very Cool! I wonder how close the nazis's were to the bomb?Its probably wouldnt have made a difference though.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 108
not close - 7/27/2002 1:01:37 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		The Nazi's were not even close. They made a simple mistake dealing with the storage of U-235. The details escape me.
This caused a deflagration within the building where the project
was being studied. Apparently Uranium is highly flammable
in addition to being toxic. The Building was filled with highly
radioactive toxic particles. They sealed the building off, and left it.
This consumed most of the high grade materials they had at the time. The result was that research shifted to Heavy water.
In effect they were trying to build an h-bomb without a
fission device. Heisenberg stated that they were easily three
years OR MORE away from a workable device - barring espionage.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 109
- 7/27/2002 2:49:47 AM   
Bernard

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Gyblin I would of course participate on your thread.

But you will have trouble with the focus part. Additionally you will have trouble getting posters to elaborate.

Example, Rune just offered three choices, but Rune you only mentioned three battles with no reason why you like them.

We wargamers all know those three battles obviously, but what is not clear is what you have to say about them.

I build models for instance. If asked to state which one I liked best, Saying Sherman would of course identify a model I liked, but sure wouldn't say why.
Would it be because the model has been sooooo done to death that the variations on type are almost virtually endless. Would it be that a specific company did a major job on a fine example. Is it a matter of price, cause you can find shermans in all price ranges. Or difficulty level, because you can go from raw beginner to master craftsman.

So come on you guys, if you are going to offer up a post, show us you know your material eh:) This is your moment to bask i n the sun, and get use out of all those books you have read. [/B][/QUOTE]

By the way, reading your post, i wonder what you mean by pivotal ?

You said in one of your mails "something small that changed it all".

For me Pivotal means a "pivot". Of course english (or american) is not my native language but the same word exists in french. it means that something "pivote" which means in this case a turning point.

A turning point is a point where situation changes : you have before, the pivot, then after.
And after doesn't look like before. this is pivotal.

So like it or not, DDAY IS pivotal (without it, no chance to crush germany), so is kursk, stalingrad, battle of britain etc.

if you mean "pivotal but with a very specific item that made the difference because the situation was not so hugely in balance of some side that any result could have come out of it" then you can cross some of these, like DDAY, Bastogne, etc.

So clarify. And allow us to be also sometimes "unclear" for your mind.

Best regards.

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 110
Re: Reality Check please - 7/27/2002 2:54:30 AM   
Bernard

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		[QUOTE
The German economy under the Nazi never rose above 20%
of the 1918 German war production. It is sobering to realize
just how under-utilized the German economy was.

. [/B][/QUOTE]

is this so ?
i find it hard to believe.

1918 : no aircraft, no tanks, no trucks, only cannons and rifles.
1918 : germany as a whole, the "reich" with or without Austria (including Hungary) or same territory ?

comparing 1944 (peak production) under carpetbombing or 1939 peace production ?

Best regards

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 111
quote - 7/27/2002 3:28:40 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		John Keegan - 'The Second World War'
I will have to hunt for the page number if you insist.

He was using the USA in 1939 as the baseline of productivity.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 112
Re: quote - 7/27/2002 4:17:00 AM   
Bernard

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]John Keegan - 'The Second World War'
I will have to hunt for the page number if you insist.

He was using the USA in 1939 as the baseline of productivity. [/B][/QUOTE]

i'll just buy the book if you recommend, this is the kind of "behind the scene" stats that i like.

like : why the hell didn't they produce FW190 and stop BF109, PZ IV and no elefant, tigers or big difficult to produce tanks, sublicence in Italy intead of having there obsolete M13/40 etc.

But we already had this debate in WIR.;)

Bye.

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 113
- 7/27/2002 4:47:20 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		It is possible my use of the term "pivotal" is not eeeeeeentirely bang on with Websters dictionary heheh.

Overlord is a significant battle, in that it meant the allies were now on the continent in a way that was only going to get worse for Germany's war direction.

They were of course in Italy (and the debate as to the usefulness of that theatre would occupy a thread rather nicely).

The Russians were also hard at work grinding the German army to a pulp as well.

"Pivotal" might have been a sloppy choice in the final analysis.

I am looking for events that seem so minor, and yet had such a profound effect.
Overlord was NOT minor, and as such it's a bit to significant an event to be considered in the light I had in mind originally.

To isolate the discussion down to Overlord is of course not impossible. Here is a good example.
The lead up to the battle involved the use of the Strategic Airforces.
What would have been the effect if the Air chiefs had gotten their way more so, as was possible, and had forced their assets to remain more on strategic targets, and not as much as was the case, in isolating the immediate battlefield zone.

I have a game called The Longest Day (one of Avalon Hills finest massive games, a true monster game in fact).
It makes it very easy to see the impact heavy bombers had on the movement of German forces outside of the immediate battle area.
With those assets elsewhere, the Germans would have seen greatly enhanced mobility in getting reinforcements into Normandy proper from deeper in France.

Now I am not saying the use of the bombers was intrinsically "pivotal" as per my notional intention, but many aspects of the campaign, were not set in stone. Many significant results could have arisen with just a minor alteration of circumstance.

The Germans use of significant armour resources just prior to the massive encirclement that ended in such disasterous losses of material for them around Falaise , had to have had a major impact on their collapse in France.

I still say the most "pivotal" event of the whole of the war in Europe from start to close was Hitler electing to discontinue thrashing the Royal Airforce's airfileds and the beginning of his petulant attacks on British cities.

The RAF didn't collapse, and Germany's illusions of Sealion were made categorically toast, and he was turned away to other matters. I myself think the entire war would have gone done a myriad number of very unique paths, if the RAF had been driven from the skies.
Complete mastery of the air will render even the great Royal Navy worthless. If you disagree I say the words Taranto, Crete, Malta, Pearl Harbour, Midway, Coral Sea, where airpower handed the navy its head on a platter.

No navy, no problem. Hitler without an RAF to consider could have sat back while Goering convinced the Royal Navy to retreat from Southern England.

I am not saying the Germans were prepared or even equipped to take out all of England, but British stubborness makes a lousy defense against bullets.
The British would have sued for peace the same way the Japanese were forced to accept defeat (and personally I think the Japanese were a great deal more fanatical than the British).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 114
Re: Re: quote - 7/27/2002 9:16:21 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernard
[B]

i'll just buy the book if you recommend, this is the kind of "behind the scene" stats that i like.

like : why the hell didn't they produce FW190 and stop BF109, PZ IV and no elefant, tigers or big difficult to produce tanks, sublicence in Italy intead of having there obsolete M13/40 etc.

But we already had this debate in WIR.;)

Bye. [/B][/QUOTE]


Bernard, I didnt say it was a great book. He skimps on the
Pacific Theater and focuses on 4 major battles. There are better books than Keegan. Or perhaps I should say, even Keegan has better books.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 115
- 7/28/2002 5:09:22 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline 		===================
I still say the most "pivotal" event of the whole of the war in Europe from start to close was Hitler electing to discontinue thrashing the Royal Airforce's airfileds and the beginning of his petulant attacks on British cities.

The RAF didn't collapse, and Germany's illusions of Sealion were made categorically toast, and he was turned away to other matters. I myself think the entire war would have gone done a myriad number of very unique paths, if the RAF had been driven from the skies.
Complete mastery of the air will render even the great Royal Navy worthless. If you disagree I say the words Taranto, Crete, Malta, Pearl Harbour, Midway, Coral Sea, where airpower handed the navy its head on a platter.

No navy, no problem. Hitler without an RAF to consider could have sat back while Goering convinced the Royal Navy to retreat from Southern England.

I am not saying the Germans were prepared or even equipped to take out all of England, but British stubborness makes a lousy defense against bullets.
The British would have sued for peace the same way the Japanese were forced to accept defeat (and personally I think the Japanese were a great deal more fanatical than the British). [/B][/QUOTE]
===========================
I agree the errant bomber was a stroke of luck and saved the RAF when the fighting switched to the cities. However, I don't think Hitler was ever really interested in us in the UK. If we had made peace after the fall of France, he would have offered terms far more favourable to us than our military position at that time probably deserved. I doubt whether Hitler would ever have launched Sealion. Bearing in mind the Germans created dozens of new formations and fielded 3.5 million men in Barbarossa, battle of britain or no battle of britain, the Germans would surely have won at some stage. I just think they lacked the policitical will to fight us, turning their attention to the east since they considered us finished and Sealion a pointless risk. The Royal Navy would have suffered terribly, but nightime raids into the invasion areas by the home fleet, would have decimated the German landing and supply effort.

It's also been suggested that one (of several) of the reasons he struck east was to remove the last hope for the UK, who would have felt conflict between the USSR and Germany inevitable. Remove the Soviets and Britain would have had no potential allies left on the european mainland

Malta was pivotal for the mediterranean but no further, I'm not sure Rommel driving through the middle east into Southern Russia was ever really on.

This (very interesting) thread's main problem is cause and effect. A crucial late start in Russia is caused by problems in the Balkans, but are the Balkans pivotal, or is the pivot the Italian failure in Greece that made German intervention necessary?

Or, is the pivotal battle the breakthrough at Sedan? Surely the point Hitler became confident that his troops were capable of anything. Or the winter war when Hitler saw the Red Army humbled by the Finns and decided Russia would be easy meat?

However, I can't resist a suggeston, so I would go with those suggesting the Battle of Moscow. German strategic aims in each successive year of the war in the east narrowed. Year one: attack all along the front. year two: strike in the south. Year three: pinch out the salient at Kursk. I don't think the USSR would have survived the loss of Moscow. Since the Germans never threatened to take it after December 41, then that would be my pivotal battle. Having lost it, the German army was condemned to bleed to death on the Steppe.

Everything else was salt in the wound, although Overlord and the Bulge were pivotal battles in wetsern european history, because defeat in either for the allies would have seen a very different post war europe.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 116
- 7/28/2002 7:42:18 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Excellent comments Iron Duke

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 117
- 7/28/2002 8:47:58 PM   
GYBLIN

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: ocala florida
Status: offline 		I concur.Its all in the timeline of events,If a then b or c.The greatest question of man,"what if?"

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 118
- 7/30/2002 6:14:34 AM   
Bernard

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Midway is then pivotal in your view.
batlle of britain too.

U-boats should be : imagine Doenitz has his opinions taken into account and Germany enters the war just 200+ transocenic subs instead of (67?) of which many onl coastal.

other pivotals (small) and what-ifs :
MED :
- maiale : italy puts out of action 2 BB in Alexandria and COULD have reveresd the tide (wich they didn't)
- tarente (like a midway : small raid : after no more italian navy (losses + loss of spirit)
- Toulon : the french are intelligent, Churchill doesn't attack them on Mers El Kebir and Fench Navy joins Royal Navy.

East :
- Stalingrad : Hoth makes it to Stalingrad and Hitler allows Von Paulus to join him. 6th army saved.
- Mussolini becomes intelligent and doesn't invade balkans.
- hitler attacks with all forces on Leningrad instead on making a siege. Leningrad falls.

West :
- lofotten and other raids : Hitler immobilizes ?? full divisions in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and makes an atlantic wall there.
- Hitler accepts spanish terms in 1940 and Spain joins the war
- Petain gets a stroke and the french continue fighting instead of collaborating

Germany
- Hitler lets his engineers work on Me262 and get a fighter 1 year earlier.

Pacific
- The british fortify Singapore from inland and train their troops.

Belgium : my grandfather joins his regiment on time and war is won in 1940.

etc.

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 119
re: warduke - 7/30/2002 6:35:49 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		I would argue that even Four UK destroyers in amongst
the invasion barges would have made the spanish debacle
look like they won. The hardest hearts shudder at the thought.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Re: ...No airpower?? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.031