Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

1) The British ground forces were not limited to those evacuated from Dunkirk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

2) As for RAF pilots, they sunk approximately half the merchant ships sunk on the Italy to Libya/Tunisia routes in 1940-43.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

Perhaps they would have sunk more if they had dive bombers. I dare think barges would have been far easier targets than merchant vessels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

3) Even though the Germans managed to establish a beachead in Kent, any air support would have to deal with an intact RAF (forget those Stukas).

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Great, my initial response timed out. Someone asked for options, so here we go again:

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Germany would have taken out the BEF at Dunkirk with the Panzers,

warspite1

....or if Gamelin hadn't gone for the Breda Variant or Loerzer listened to von Kleist or Guderian remained sacked or many of the German panzer commanders not disobeyed orders .....

POINT 1 Points answered below

All other things the same except the German panzers and the rest of the army at Dunkirk continues to advance. Then, some armour - maybe even a panzer division - refits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The paratroopers in transports form up like a bomber force attacking England

warspite1

How many Ju-52 did the Germans lose in Holland, Belgium and France? I'd be interested to know how many they had left for any such major operation, where they would be needed for all sorts of tasks including supply. Let's be clear - no where near enough.

According to Schenk, there were enough for the 7th FliegerDivision but none to spare (and insufficient gliders anyway) to allow the 22nd Air Landing to be used. So enough for the 7th but that is without all these other tasks they are being assigned. Holland and Belgium - even with limited air defence - also shows just how vulnerable these precious aircraft were. 50% were lost in Holland alone....

POINT 2

The Ju-90 could carry 40 passengers, not many built only about 18 or so but some were still around. It had a door for vehicles and heavy cargo.

Some 276 FW Condors built, maybe not all yet, but they could carry 26 passengers.

So, those two aircraft should at least be able to carry half that many paratroopers - maybe more since they would not need to have that much fuel.

The German glider could carry 9 men and 270 kg or 600 lbs of equipment. It could do a 80 degree dive, land, and stop within 60 meters. Or it could carry 1200 kgs or 2600 pounds of cargo. They are reusable. This could be towed by a Me-109 or a Ju-87.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

behind a real bomber force hitting the radar installations

warspite1

But that re-writes history and assumes the Germans understood radar and that they couldn't hit the towers once and that was it. Let's be clear. They didn't. And Radar remained operational.

POINT 3

They understood radar and had some of their own although not as good. But keep attacking the sites, even use gliders to land troops to destroy them. Get back to the glider, load the air brake or cut the cords, send up a balloon if need be to have an aircraft grab the tow rope and take off. That is, if there was no suitable emergency landing and take off strip nearby.

Just make a gap in the radar coverage so the British don't see what is forming up over France and when. The the British would have to rely on ground observers or air craft in flight to see the Luftwaffe aircraft - any aircraft could then be shot down as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

then a quick paradrop to capture at least one airfield.

warspite1

More paras and more Ju-52....wow. Given that the Germans aren't going to put radar out, what are the RAF doing at this point?

POINT 4

The RAF is reacting. If the radar is put out as mentioned above, then the RAF will have to have a standing CAP which can be targeted a well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

with a few barges loaded and coming across the channel to grab some beach front property.

warspite1

When do these barges - moving at circa 3 knots - have to leave port to make it to this beach front property? Isn't that a kind of long range warning sign right there?

POINT 5

Not if they set out at night. If they practice loading, shifting the barges, then unloading, it might lull the British. Then, one night, the barges start across landing tanks, artillery, other vehicles, more men, and supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The air base would have fuel, supplies, and ground personnel for Luftwaffe planes that need help but they don't need to be based there, just stage them from France and top off the fighters fuel cells. This would effectively enhance their range, provide more time over the target, avoid the Channel radars, and hopefully save air crews from capture from aircraft that would otherwise be lost over the Channel.

The ground troops would consolidate their positions and enhance them. They would move out and try to get at least one airbase away from the coast so it would not be under Naval bombardment. More troops, supplies, and equipment would be flown in to increase their lodgment. If necessary, Luftwaffe bombers could also bring in supplies or just paradrop them although they might be needed as flying artillery.

warspite1

Sorry where have all these troops come from? Not to mention the fuel and supplies and ground personnel?

POINT 6

These would be the initial landing troops. The distance is not all that far and the Ju-52s could make more than one trip per day. Paratroopers could also drop out of the bomb bay of bombers, which could also drop supplies and equipment. With an air field in possession, it gets even easier and more can be landed and offloaded since no parachutes would be needed.

Any trucks, cars, tractors, horses with wagons or carts captured would be used by the Germans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

With mines laid in a corridor in the Channel with U-boats and E-boats, that could hamper the RN a little bit.

warspite1

Do the Royal Navy have any say in all this?... or Bomber Command?

POINT 7

Yes, they do. But most of the Royal Navy is not in the area or it would be bombed. Bomber command would try and interfere but they would run into Me-109s and Me-110s. Those could ruin a bombers whole day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Especially if the Kriegsmarine staged a breakout attempt with some heavy surface raiders to distract the Royal Navy.

warspite1

Lolzer. After Norway, which heavy surface raiders are these exactly? Have you seen what the Germans had intact and undamaged in June/July/August 1940?

POINT 8

Temporary repairs could be made, then the ships could sail and do so in order to be seen. The Royal Navy may not know the extent of the damage and would have to react accordingly. So would Coastal Command. Hopefully, the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean weather patterns would help hide the fact that the Kriegsmarine is not there. The Royal Navy could also sail into freshly laid minefields with U-boats patrolling. The U-boats then go south to the Channel area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Little Bennie wanted in, Italy should have consulted with Germany and arranged plans for Gibralter, Malta, and the Suez/Port Said.

warspite1

I'd love to have seen this. Firstly the British allow any old unidentified merchant vessel into these ports? And allow any old unidentified ship into the canal itself?

POINT 9

Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet. These could either appear to be normal troop movements to/from East Africa or a civilian passenger liner stopping at The Rock. Spanish dock workers could either be co-opted or even some Italians pretending to be Spanish could have checked out the defenses at The Rock.

How many troops get ashore, what equipment can they possibly have, and how do they get re-supplied? What are the British troops doing in the meantime?

For the Rock, either be ashore as tourists who pick up some stashed weapons deposited there by Spaniards or Italians pretending to be Spaniards or troops debarking from passenger liners in uniforms with weapons. Do so through the cargo hatch so they would not be seen on deck. The defenses would be lightly manned most likely.

For the Suez, it could simply be a ship leaving mines behind until it sinks in the Canal to block it. That could render it unusable for a few days. The Royal Navy would not be able to reinforce or retreat easily until the Canal was cleared unless it decided to run the gauntlet of the Central Med.

Which of these three operations is going to get any Regia Marina support? This is the RM without the Littorios and the two Andrea Dorias just coming back into service.

First and foremost would be Malta where there was already a plan:

quote:

Invasion plan DG10/42
Italian battleship Giulio Cesare firing during the Battle of Calabria, on 9 July 1940

In 1938 Mussolini had considered an invasion of Malta under Plan DG10/42, in which a force of 40,000 men would capture the island. Nearly all 80 purpose-built sea craft that would land the Italian Army ashore were expected to be lost but landings would be made in the north, with an attack upon the Victoria Lines, across the centre of the island. A secondary landing would be made on Gozo, north-west of Malta and the islet of Comino, between the two. All of the Italian navy and 500 aircraft would be involved, but the lack of supplies led the planners to believe that the operation could not be carried out. With the German success in the Battle of France from May–June 1940, the plan was reduced to 20,000 men with the addition of tanks. The Allied defeat in France gave the Italians an opportunity to seize Malta but Italian intelligence overestimated the Maltese defences and Mussolini thought that an invasion would be unnecessary once Britain made peace. Mussolini also expected Francoist Spain to join the Axis and capture Gibraltar, which would close the Mediterranean to the British from the west.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_%28World_War_II%29#Italian_siege_(June%E2%80%93December_1940)

The supplies could have been found and be waiting. The 10th Army could have stayed put and thus would have had the supplies where they were at. The 5th Army could also have stayed where it was at so no supplies needed for moving. With the Royal Navy at either end of the Med, there was only one monitor and two gunboats at Malta.

There were six Sea Gladiators assembled and six more to be assembled. Three of these were named Faith, Hope, and Charity. Not much air cover against the Italian Air Force. There was one airfield almost completed.

There were 4 regular infantry battalions and one territorial infantry battalion. There may have been some light armour besides Bren carriers. They may have been two artillery regiments of 24 guns each, one of 18 pounders and one of 25 pounders. The coastal defense guns could not fire too much against land targets.

If only the Italians had tried that......

True. If the Italians had tried that in the Med and were successful in a blitz, then two German Panzer divisions and two Motorized divisions along with good () Italian armoured formations and mobile infantry formations, then Egypt may have been captured. That would make the Eastern Med secure and Central Med more secure. If Gibraltar could be quickly captured, the entire Med would be secure except for any possible Vichy French action.

The airborne landings in England would be a blitz type along with the force sent across the Channel to grab some beachfront property. But the British would be surprised and the Royal Navy would be out of position. As long as the Germans could get an airfield away from British Naval bombardment and kept operating otherwise, then more men, equipment, and supplies could be flown in.

Do these operations fast and surprise is on your side. Negate the British radar and lessen the distance that the Luftwaffe is from a safe place to land and it takes away the biggest RAF advantage.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available.

The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

Answers to the points above

1. Sure, if you want to now make the scenario that things happen differently in Case Yellow then that’s fine but I’m not hugely interested. I mean, the halt order was given and Dunkirk did happen. If you want to change things then sure. Like with Curtis Lemay’s proposal it becomes fantasy: let’s assume the Germans don’t make the mistakes they made, while the British continue to make theirs…..

Don't insult me by comparing me to Lemay.

All I stated was that the German Army not be halted, that they finish the job. How does that become some weird fantasy? Or are you injecting such good pharmaceuticals?

2. I’ve quoted from a German historian that there were insufficient gliders after the Low Countries, but you are still suggesting they be used? As for the aircraft, you mention using other aircraft as paratroop carriers – I’ve no idea as to their availability, their actual nos. or to what extent they could be used for para drops. But sure, if you want to use the few FW-200 on this mission then fine. At least they won’t be giving the convoys a hard time flying from France into the Bay of Biscay/Atlantic.

Sufficient or not, what ever they have would have been used. They could also be reused as long as they are not damaged beyond repair or are totally destroyed.

At this time, they were not flying from France into the Bay of Biscay nor the Atlantic.

3. I’ve explained that the Germans didn’t understand how to put the British Radar out of action. But you ignore that and said that in your scenario they did know and would take appropriate action. Listen, if you want to go with that a re-write history then fine.

That is what we are discussing, rewriting history. A German commando type raid using gliders can put a lot of explosives on the equipment as well as downing the towers. That just might possibly even put the radar unit out of action for at least one hour. Can you comprehend that?

And please don’t say I suggested the Germans didn’t know or understand about Radar itself. What they didn’t understand was the importance of knocking out the towers and that that wasn’t a one-off - that is historical fact.

Yes, they knew that they had to keep attacking the towers and the sites themselves. That had means of detecting radio waves. You do understand that radar (not Radar, he is a character) works by using radio waves? That the radio waves can actually be detected at ranges farther than the effective range of the radar?

4. “If the Radar is put out”. Well as stated above if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle.

Not if she was a hermaphrodite and identified as a female. Or if she had a sex change operation and was castrated.

5. “Not if they set out at night”. So regardless of what time they set out, are you saying that in a 36 hour journey it will always be night?

It is a distance of 18 nautical miles across the Channel near Calais to the Dover area. Are you stating that the vessels only travel half a nautical mile per hour? It is a 5 to 7 hour trip on a ferry from Ostend to Dover which is a much greater distance. Dover is such a nice, distinctive port. Have you ever been there?

When is this all supposed to be happening again? Suddenly you have plenty of time for the conversion of the barges and conversion runs.

How about 23 June 1940? The barges don't necessarily need conversions. Some of them already have vehicle ramps. Don't forget ferries can also carry vehicles such as tanks. They would be considered Roll On Roll Off vessels. This is also the first time that you asked for a date.

Suppose in the many dummy load/unload scenarios you are having the Germans running, this coincides with an air attack? That’s expensive isn’t it?

Especially for the attacker facing the 8.8cm Flak, plus 37mm and 20mm auto cannons for lower level attacks - that is, after they fighter defense mauls them. There need not be many dummy runs, if any.

6. “The distance is not all that far”…. Okay I’m not going to comment on this point. The answers to other points cover off my thoughts here.

You may be confusing this with Operation Neptune, the movement of the invasion fleets to Normandy.

7. Okay. So let’s get this completely clear. If British bombers seek to interfere with the slow moving barges, then the German fighters destroy them. But if the Germans send over slow moving, lumbering Ju-52, Ju-90, Fw-200 and whatever, the RAF can’t touch them. Have I got the gist of what you are saying? The stuka had to be withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, but you have these transport aircraft flying men here there and everywhere without a problem? Oh and the Germans would bomb the Royal Navy so none of their ships can get to the invasion fleet. Wow.

That is not what I stated about the transports. If the Germans take off at night and arrive over England around dawn, where is the RAF Fighter Command? Even if the assemble during the day and follow behind a bomber force, is the RAF Fight Command going to meet them right over the beaches? The Luftwaffe would send out fighters sweeps ahead of the air transports along with fighters in close escorting formations.

During the night, how would the British necessarily know about any ship movements in the Channel if the sea invasion forces kept blackout conditions? I do believe that the crews and the soldiers on them would not want to be seen from England.

Of course, maybe you wwould wwant to be seen so you could try swimming in the Channel while you are loaded down with equipment.


8. “Temporary repairs could be made”. So what is the condition of the 5 German heavy surface ships? Scharnhorst required 6 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, the Gneisenau required 5 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, Lutzow required a year of repairs due to a torpedo hit, Graf Spee was already very much sunk. The only ship operational – and that was not until the end of July was Admiral Scheer. That leaves the three heavy cruisers. Well Blucher is at the bottom of a Norwegian fjord, Prinz Eugen wasn’t worked up for service until late 1940/early1941 and Admiral Hipper was ordered into the arctic on a raiding patrol and by the time she finished, at the beginning of August, was in need of a refit (having been damaged during Weserubung). So no, temporary repairs could not be made and at a pinch, one ship was available from August onwards.

The Hipper was usable. The other vessels would just have to be seen moving north, then return to be repaired or to a port away from prying eyes.

9. “Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet”. The British are blockading Italy and they are fully aware that Italy could join the war on the Axis side at any time! But you say the British will allow, without any checks, an unidentified merchant ship into the naval bases at Gibraltar and Malta and to enter the Suez Canal? Absolute and total fantasy.

There was no blockade of Italy yet, such a thing would amount to a declaration of war. That would be bad for the British in the United States.

As far as the Suez canal, prohibiting Italian ships would violate The Convention of Constantinople which was signed by both the United Kingdom and Italy, among others. This Convention allowed warships to use the Suez Canal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Constantinople

As far as Gibraltar, it had a civilian town and at least one tourist attraction:

quote:


The Gibraltar Museum

The Gibraltar Museum, located within the historical heart of Gibraltar is a national museum of history, culture and natural history.
Founded on 23 July 1930 by the then Governor of Gibraltar General Sir Alexander Godley, the Museum houses an array of galleries and exhibits representing the Rocks millennia-old history and the unique culture of the Gibraltarians. Sir Alexander carefully selected two adjacent military quarters to house the Museum. One of the buildings, Ordnance House, was the official residence of the Principal Artillery Officer and beneath it lay the chambers of an ancient bath house dating from Gibraltar's Moorish period.

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/heritage/gibraltar-museum

Or a vessel could also have an "engine" malfunction and go to the nearest port.

As we’ve discussed before, the only operation that was possible was an assault on Malta. That could have succeeded if the Italians had put everything into it – and I mean everything. Sheers numbers, lack of defenders and proximity to Sicily should have allowed even the Italian military to achieve success.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/10/2020 12:57:17 AM >

quote:

Yes they were, right up until Italy joined with Germany in the Second World War. Britain had two bases to protect the Suez Canal under International Treaty, Alexandria and Port Said. Britain guaranteed free passage for all ships using the Canal and protection of the Canal which was vital to Britain for easier access to the Far East, India, Hong Kong, Australia and so on. One perceived threat to the Canal was Italy which had already had a substantial presence in Libya from 1912, military and civilian, and Mussolini encouraged 30,000 more Italian farmers and settlers to move there in the 1930’s in an attempt to begin rebuilding the old Roman Empire, which included Egypt. However, Britain stuck to the rules and allowed a potential adversary to use the Canal.

Italy also regularly used the Canal to reach it’s colony of Italian Somaliland and in October 1935 an Italian invasion fleet was allowed by the British to pass through the Canal carrying 100,000 troops for the invasion of Abyssinia ( Ethiopia ). The invasion was precipitated by a border dispute between Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland. The dispute was supposedly solved by the League of Nations ( existed 1920 - 1946 ), an earlier version of the United Nations, which awarded Italy part of Abyssinia. Mussolini though, wanted it all and invaded. Italy quickly won the War against the poorly equipped Abyssinian troops ( who had actually had rifles and machine guns provided by Hitler ) partly by using poison gas left over from the First World War fired from artilery and dropped by aircraft. The Emperor, Haile Selassi left for exile in Britain in May 1936 on the cruiser HMS Enterprise. Eritrea, Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia were joined together as The Italian Province of East Africa ( also known as Italian East Africa ) with King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy proclaimed as Emperor.
.
.
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available.

The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence.

warspite1

Why have you suddenly mentioned an electrical fence? What are you talking about?

If you change history so that Dunkirk didn't happen and the Kriegsmarine suddenly had all their big ships available, and the gliders and transport aircraft destroyed in the Low Countries are available, and Goering understands that he needs to keep the towers down, then yes of course the Germans may win. And? So what? You've altered history so much it means nothing. Sure if the subject matter is looking at what could have made Sea Lion work then fine, but that is not what we are discussing here - indeed Curtis Lemay has specifically said no Sea Lion.

And just to be clear. Having read so much over the last few years on Sea Lion, Norway and The Mediterranean War, my stance on Sea Lion has softened somewhat. Ten years ago - maybe even a bit less - I was firmly of the opinion that Sea Lion was impossible to pull off. End of story.

Now, I am less certain. I look at, for example, Case Yellow, or I look at Weserubung, and I think that one thing is certain. There is nothing certain in war.

Could the Germans have somehow pulled it off? I wouldn't put serious money on saying they couldn't. But let's be clear, the problems facing the Germans were pretty huge and everything would have to go right, allied to the British making the wrong calls.

The Germans had so much luck in 1939-42 (allied to their not insignificant martial prowess) and the British were so poor (for the most part) in 1939-41, that it would be wrong to say it could never have happened, only that the percentages remained firmly in the British favour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You seem to be upset that someone actually could successfully invade England which had not been done since Willy the Bastard did so in 1066.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment?

quote:

If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment?

No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills.

In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about so how about you shut your pie hole and quit typing?

You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill.

quote:

If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone?

Yet Greece could only hold out about a month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay so you've ignored Yugoslavia (no acknowledgement that you were wrong there) ...

quote:

...and now you are going for Greece. Going through Yugoslavia? Again you miss the key points. The Germans also attacked from Bulgaria too. The Greeks, facing the Italian in Albania were suddenly facing an enemy in the rear.

quote:

The Greeks in the northwest were supplied from Salonika, once this port was taken - and the terrain is not defender friendly - then the Greeks were in trouble.

quote:

From The German Campaign in the Balkans

According to military doctrine the mountainous terrain of Greece would seem ideally suited for defense. The high ranges of the Rhodope, Epirus, Pindus, and Olympus Mountains offer many possibilities to stop an invader. However, the defender must have sufficient air power, if the many defiles are not to become traps for his ground forces.

Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north. Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions. Since a voluntary withdrawal of the Greek forces in Albania was not feasible and Salonika was practically indefensible, the Greek and British commands resigned themselves to fighting a delaying action in the northeastern part of the country. The British fully realized the vulnerability of the Greek border defense system; it was bound to collapse in the event of a German thrust between the Strimon and Vardar Rivers. However, they let the Greeks have their way without taking the logical step of moving their forces up to the frontier into the sector west of the Metaxas Line.

Why do you keep missing fundamentally important points?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill.

quote:

The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived.

So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer.

You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment?

No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills.

In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about so how about you shut your pie hole and quit typing?

You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill.

quote:

If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone?

Yet Greece could only hold out about a month.

The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived.

So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer.

You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Don't insult me by comparing me to Lemay.

All I stated was that the German Army not be halted, that they finish the job. How does that become some weird fantasy? Or are you injecting such good pharmaceuticals?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Sufficient or not, what ever they have would have been used. They could also be reused as long as they are not damaged beyond repair or are totally destroyed.

At this time, they were not flying from France into the Bay of Biscay nor the Atlantic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That is what we are discussing, rewriting history. A German commando type raid using gliders can put a lot of explosives on the equipment as well as downing the towers. That just might possibly even put the radar unit out of action for at least one hour. Can you comprehend that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Yes, they knew that they had to keep attacking the towers and the sites themselves. That had means of detecting radio waves. You do understand that radar (not Radar, he is a character) works by using radio waves? That the radio waves can actually be detected at ranges farther than the effective range of the radar?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It is a distance of 18 nautical miles across the Channel near Calais to the Dover area. Are you stating that the vessels only travel half a nautical mile per hour? It is a 5 to 7 hour trip on a ferry from Ostend to Dover which is a much greater distance. Dover is such a nice, distinctive port. Have you ever been there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

How about 23 June 1940? The barges don't necessarily need conversions. Some of them already have vehicle ramps. Don't forget ferries can also carry vehicles such as tanks. They would be considered Roll On Roll Off vessels. This is also the first time that you asked for a date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Especially for the attacker facing the 8.8cm Flak, plus 37mm and 20mm auto cannons for lower level attacks - that is, after they fighter defense mauls them. There need not be many dummy runs, if any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You may be confusing this with Operation Neptune, the movement of the invasion fleets to Normandy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That is not what I stated about the transports. If the Germans take off at night and arrive over England around dawn, where is the RAF Fighter Command? Even if the assemble during the day and follow behind a bomber force, is the RAF Fight Command going to meet them right over the beaches? The Luftwaffe would send out fighters sweeps ahead of the air transports along with fighters in close escorting formations.

During the night, how would the British necessarily know about any ship movements in the Channel if the sea invasion forces kept blackout conditions? I do believe that the crews and the soldiers on them would not want to be seen from England.

Of course, maybe you wwould wwant to be seen so you could try swimming in the Channel while you are loaded down with equipment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Hipper was usable. The other vessels would just have to be seen moving north, then return to be repaired or to a port away from prying eyes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There was no blockade of Italy yet, such a thing would amount to a declaration of war. That would be bad for the British in the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

As far as the Suez canal, prohibiting Italian ships would violate The Convention of Constantinople which was signed by both the United Kingdom and Italy, among others. This Convention allowed warships to use the Suez Canal.

Or a vessel could also have an "engine" malfunction and go to the nearest port.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

So Warspite1, with your illegal blockade of Italy before any declaration of war and the violation of The Convention of Constantinople you are actually having the United Kingdom at war with Italy.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I never stated that the destroyed aircraft and gliders would be available but there would be some available.

As far as the heavy surface vessels, the Lutzow was ready on 27 July 1940 and the Hipper was ready before that. Even if it was just the Hipper that went out, the British would have to respond. If the Hipper just was seen and then went into a Norwegian fjord where it was unseen, that would have been effective enough for the Royal Navy to have to respond.

You can temporarily repair hull damage in a ship with concrete, at least enough to make it sea worthy. Let it be seen, then creep back to a safe port then camouflage it.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay so you've ignored Yugoslavia (no acknowledgement that you were wrong there) ...

Huh? I can't read your mind. If you have a point, spell it out.

quote:

...and now you are going for Greece. Going through Yugoslavia? Again you miss the key points. The Germans also attacked from Bulgaria too. The Greeks, facing the Italian in Albania were suddenly facing an enemy in the rear.

They attacked from every direction. Some forces had to cross Yugoslavia to get to Greece.

quote:

The Greeks in the northwest were supplied from Salonika, once this port was taken - and the terrain is not defender friendly - then the Greeks were in trouble.

They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits.

quote:

From The German Campaign in the Balkans

According to military doctrine the mountainous terrain of Greece would seem ideally suited for defense. The high ranges of the Rhodope, Epirus, Pindus, and Olympus Mountains offer many possibilities to stop an invader. However, the defender must have sufficient air power, if the many defiles are not to become traps for his ground forces.

Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north. Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions. Since a voluntary withdrawal of the Greek forces in Albania was not feasible and Salonika was practically indefensible, the Greek and British commands resigned themselves to fighting a delaying action in the northeastern part of the country. The British fully realized the vulnerability of the Greek border defense system; it was bound to collapse in the event of a German thrust between the Strimon and Vardar Rivers. However, they let the Greeks have their way without taking the logical step of moving their forces up to the frontier into the sector west of the Metaxas Line.

Why do you keep missing fundamentally important points?

I defy you to find anyplace where I've said that the Greeks defending so far forward was a good idea. I've said the opposite. Had they been deployed in their interior, those lines could have held out for a long time.

quote:

Note the terrain is much tougher than Spain and no better than Turkey. Claims that the Germans have never faced anything but flat tank country are false.

quote:

As has been said before, look at the short distance that the Axis troops needed to travel - remember the Germans attacked the poor Yugoslavs from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, while the Italians came at the Yugoslavs from Italy and Albania. They were almost completely surrounded. It was not the one axis of attack that confronts the Germans in Spain..... There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either.

quote:

Distance to Madrid from the border was 12 hexes. To Athens from the border is also 12 hexes. That's without going through Yugoslavia first, of course. Hills all the way in Greece. Not so in Spain.

quote:

They still could have been supplied through Athens.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The Brits had between 700-800 small coastal craft that would of had something to say about barges being towed to the coast. Only 9 were lost to air attack the entire war. The Luftwaffe made 21 deliberate attacks on them in 1940, and sank.....0. Sure, nine DDs were sunk by air attack in 1940. Out of a force of over 100 in British home waters. Sure 5 were sunk evacuating Dunkirk. Not much of a result given the thousands of sorties flown, thousands of tons of bombs dropped. In 1940, the Luftwaffe was not trained or equipped to attack fast moving naval targets. Eight weeks of air superiority over Norway, and they sank 2 warships. They lacked armor piercing bombs, and the only torpedo bombers they had were HE-115 float planes. Dead meat unless the RAF is beaten.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

As for towing gliders at night... How are they going to navigate to the target. And why could they not be intercepted?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Flying gliders to land troops to take out radar. Then you surround the sites with obstacles to wreck the gliders on landing. And what about guarding the sites with troops?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You've mentioned five points above, but you've missed the one that kicks all this off - and one that Curtis Lemay refuses to expand upon even though this is his scenario. Hitler has been persuaded to move south (a major volte face but let's go with it). Is it really feasible that the UK is left alone, completely untouched, while the Luftwaffe 'demonstrate' (whatever that means)?

Let's be honest no, it's most unlikely, but we know why he doesn't want to agree to that. We know that any Luftwaffe attempt to attack the UK by air will fail - and moreover will be costly. That doesn't fit his scenario.

I've asked for thoughts but suspect that there is insufficient interest in the topic to get any response - which is fair enough. But that is fine, Curtis Lemay's scenario has piqued my interest and I will continue to post.

I've said from the getgo that there will be no BoB. I still think that just the presence of the huge force left on the channel border, the accumulation of barges, and any sort of activity by the remaining Luftwaffe will be enough to prevent the British from committing more than a token force to Spain. Regardless, even if the entire British army on Britain is committed, there will then be no threat left for France, and most of what was on the channel can be committed to Spain.

warspite1

But you are totally missing the point. WHY is there no BoB? We know why it happened in real life - and it wasn't because of Sea Lion, which Goering couldn't give a fig about. So for BoB not to happen in your scenario you are, once again and for no purpose (other than Axis fanboisism), making Goering into a completely different animal.

As said, if you want to play total fantasy why not war game the LoTR vs GoT? There has to be a measure of realism or what's the point?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Seems like all the posting my post got lost. Any comments on it with regards to Sealion and Battle of Britain? See post # 579.

Also, I am just getting into watching all the tutorials on MWIF...

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

2) As for RAF pilots, they sunk approximately half the merchant ships sunk on the Italy to Libya/Tunisia routes in 1940-43.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'd like to see a source for that. That figure is way too high. Unless the Tunisian Campaign skews things, but 1940-42 sorry but no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The British had dive bombers. Old, obsolete crappy dive-bombers, but dive bombers nonetheless.

Indeed the Skuas of 800 and 803 Squadrons sunk the Konigsberg - the first ship sunk by dive bombers and indeed the first warship sunk by air attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You don’t have to read my mind. I did spell it out. You have chosen to ignore what you don’t like as usual.

In post 527 you tried to make the point (using a game map) that:

quote:

Note the terrain is much tougher than Spain and no better than Turkey. Claims that the Germans have never faced anything but flat tank country are false.

In Post 529 I said I’d never made the point about flat tank country, ...

quote:

but did make the following pertinent observation:

quote:

As has been said before, look at the short distance that the Axis troops needed to travel - remember the Germans attacked the poor Yugoslavs from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, while the Italians came at the Yugoslavs from Italy and Albania. They were almost completely surrounded. It was not the one axis of attack that confronts the Germans in Spain..... There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either.

Once again, you’ve been shown to be wrong so you, not very subtly, simply ignored Yugoslavia and moved onto Greece in post 555:

quote:

I responded in Post 560 that you were wrong about Greece too, and quoted from the Centre of Military History – United States Army’s The German Campaign in the Balkans. This made clear:

Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north.

quote:

So your thinking that “Hills are all the way in Greece”

quote:

But furthermore, that extract from the US military study went further. It clearly stated:

Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions.

How did you respond?

quote:

They still could have been supplied through Athens.

How arrogant is that? Even the game map you provided shows no rail or road link but you simply ignore this and blandly state the opposite of what a military study concluded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

WHY is there no BoB?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

WHY is there no BoB?

Because they have decided to do a Med Strategy. They know they will not attempt a channel crossing, so why risk using a tactical air force in a strategic role?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Hi Zovs, not ignoring you, but the trouble I have in commenting on your post is that I don't play SC (played for a little while) and so I don't really have any context in terms of the various + and -.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I hope this thread has borne out just how bad a Spanish joining with the Axis would be for Spain (and possibly Germany!) but that is boring when playing SC isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Equally it should - if realistic - be a massive problem politically (other Axis powers) and militarily (Occupation drain) and humanitarian (starvation) if the Germans invade the country and then install a German puppet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If I read it right, there is no - modifier if Sea Lion is attempted and fails? Now THAT would be a problem for Germany

Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator