Hi Monty B,
The Italian navy did pretty well and the British navy and army quite badly in Crete. The Italian navy managed to supply Rommel, despite the RN and RAF and although Hitler was sending most of the equipment, fuel, ammunition, etc, to the USSR and little was destined for Rommel.
The main disadvantage of the italian navy was the lack of radar, which should have been corrected by Hitler.
Like I said, without Malta and Alexandria the RN would have been pretty useless in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Imperial navy won all the battles up to the Coral Sea. It forced the British navy to abandon the eastern Indian Ocean, running all the way to Kenya. The British were only able to sail relatively safely in parts of the eastern Indian ocean (far from Burma and East India) when the Japanese withdrew their carrier after the Doolittle raid. In 1939 it was far superior to the British navy and together with the Italian navy and LW could have easily kept the RN away from the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Had Guderian not lived, the Panzer force would have been much weaker, France would have taken at least 6 more months to fall and at a much higher cost and the eastern front would have collapsed at least a year before. Although he was despised by Hitler, Halder, Bock, Kluge, etc, and out of work for a while, he managed to advance more with fewer resources and in a shorter time and against more formidable forces than any other general and then in coordination with Speer made considerable contributions to the fighting effectiveness of the Wehrmacht, despite having to fight Hitler, Himmler, Göring, the artillery officers, etc, constantly.
The famous Rommel was but an apprentice compared to Guderian.
Hitler considered replacing Brauchitsch with Guderian in 1941 (a move which Stauffenberg supported) and it was fortunate for the allies that Hitler himself replaced Brauchitsch.
Besides Hitler, the biggest obstacle that Guderian faced was Göring, whom he considered so lazy that it was useless to talk to him, preferring to use even Göbbels to try to influence Hitler. Unfortunately for Guderian, the LW (and hence Göring) controlled even the production of the Panzers until Speer managed to put it under Guderian, but by then it was too late.
It is unbelievable that the laziest and not very bright nazi would be in charge of the most important LW (which also controlled most of the invaluable 88 mm cannon and some Panzer forces), economy, production, etc, for so long.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

But they do have a sense of humor in battle: Waterloo, Sunday June 18 1815

With carnage all around, Wellington and Lord Uxbridge observed how the latter's leg had just been blown off: "By God, Sir. I've lost my leg." "By God, Sir. So you have."

"There seems to be something wrong with our Battle Cruisers today!"

Armored artillery and penetration tactics were invented by Agbar the great, who mounted breech loading, steel cannon on rotating fixtures and on armored elephants centuries before Napoleon and Lee were using muzzle loading, bronze cannon with limited mobility. He also used high carbon steel muskets that were much superior to those use used in the west.

In a sense the 1918 German spring offensive was a Blitzkrieg that used airplanes and storm troops to break though the front, achieving in weeks what had not been achieved in years. But by then the Americans were in the war with fresh, well supplied and paid troops. Incredibly,more British troops died in 1918 than in the rest of the war.

Sam is making progress (in making a fool of himself)by saying that the LW controlled the production of the Panzers

Originally Posted by Der Alte

Myths?
Their principles and writings that are universally recognized and used today in several military academies. On what do you base these myths.

Charles de Gaulle was one of the pioneers of modern armored warfare. His writings, Vers l'armée de métier from 1934 defended the idea of a small professional army, highly mechanized and mobile, in preference to the static theories exemplified by the Maginot Line, although initially ignored, it eventually led to his assuming command of the newly-created French 4th Mechanized Division in May, 1940.

De Gaulle's concept called for forming a mechanized corps of six divisions plus a light division consisting of armored and motorized elements. The division was to include an armored brigade composed of a heavy tank regiment, a medium tank regiment, and a battalion of light tanks. The second brigade was to include two infantry regiments and a battalion of chasseurs, all mounted in tracked vehicles. There was an artillery brigade with two regiments of howitzers and an antiaircraft group. Finally, the division was to include a reconnaissance regiment, an engineer battalion, a signal battalion, and a camouflage battalion. De Gaulle's proposed division was a relatively balanced force of combined arms, intended for the offense based on the strength of its armored vehicles and not the foot soldiers. His light division was to serve as an advance force with faster vehicles. He also proposed an air element to support operations and create a truly combined arms force.

By the time the war began, the Germans had created a force of several armored divisions similar to what de Gaulle had wanted, but Guderian and others did not agree with de Gaulle on concentrating a force of 3,000 tanks for a front of about fifty kilometers.


In the military realm, Liddell Hart’s theories about mechanised warfare, mobility, surprise attack and air warfare developed during the 1920s and 1930s were put into practice in World War II initially, and with great effectiveness, by the Germans with the blitzkrieg offensives. His enemies acknowledged their debt. General Heinz Guderian during the war said "I was one of Captain Liddell Hart’s disciples in tank affairs." And Field Marshal Erwin Rommel opined that "The British would have been able to prevent the greatest part of their defeats if they had paid attention to the modern theories expounded by Liddell Hart before the war."

What Guderian said after the war,was at the instigation of LH,who wrote the following to Guderian :
"you might care to insert a remark (in the English translation of Panzerleader)that I emphasized the use of armoured forces for longrange operations against the opposing Army's communications,and also the proposed type of armoured division combining Paner and Panzer-infantry units-AND THAT THESE POINTS PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED YOU."
Guderian did as requested.(a copy of the letter has been found by K.Macksey)
Liddell Hart used the same method with the widow of Rommel,and with Manstein.
LH has been accused of deceit ,tendentious report of history and of a fabricated version of history ,and of distorting and falsifying facts .
Before WWII,his influence was very limited.This changed after the war,by his using of sneaking methods,and by his writing of a modern version of the Tales of Baron von Munchhausen :the German generals talk (it could be written by Sam)
And about DeGaulle :his proposed division was not a balanced form of combined arms :he proposed something that never could work :a panzerdivision of 500 tanks .

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Hi Monty B,
The Italian navy did pretty well and the British navy and army quite badly in Crete. The Italian navy managed to supply Rommel, despite the RN and RAF and although Hitler was sending most of the equipment, fuel, ammunition, etc, to the USSR and little was destined for Rommel.
The main disadvantage of the italian navy was the lack of radar, which should have been corrected by Hitler.
Like I said, without Malta and Alexandria the RN would have been pretty useless in the eastern Mediterranean.

No offence but you are seriously maligning the Royal Navy here, in Greece and Crete the RN managed to execute two major evacuations under constant attack and they did it very effectively.

At Cape Spatha, a British naval task force prevented reinforcments arriving sinking both troop transports and its Italian escorts which in turn prevented any further attempt to land troops by ship on the island.

Say what you like but the RN of all the branches in the British armed forces performed very well in the first few years of the war when things looked rather bleak for the UK and this especially goes for its Destroyer forces who sacrificed a lot to rescue troops in evacuations, recover prisoners (Altmark/Cossack incident) or extract an Enigma and its code books (HMS Bulldog).

As for the bit about Malta and Alexandria I agree without ports a Navy is generally not going to do well but your comment is misleading as using the same logic I could say without airfields in England the RAF would have been ineffective over southern England.

The Imperial navy won all the battles up to the Coral Sea. It forced the British navy to abandon the eastern Indian Ocean, running all the way to Kenya. The British were only able to sail relatively safely in parts of the eastern Indian ocean (far from Burma and East India) when the Japanese withdrew their carrier after the Doolittle raid. In 1939 it was far superior to the British navy and together with the Italian navy and LW could have easily kept the RN away from the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

umm sorry the Japanese navy in the Red Sea now, I assume they were going to sail up the Suez (but only at night so the British wouldn't see them), as for the Italians well the best thing they could have done for the German war effort would have been to join the Allied cause as they were nothing more than a millstone around the neck of the Germans.

Had Guderian not lived, the Panzer force would have been much weaker, France would have taken at least 6 more months to fall and at a much higher cost and the eastern front would have collapsed at least a year before. Although he was despised by Hitler, Halder, Bock, Kluge, etc, and out of work for a while, he managed to advance more with fewer resources and in a shorter time and against more formidable forces than any other general and then in coordination with Speer made considerable contributions to the fighting effectiveness of the Wehrmacht, despite having to fight Hitler, Himmler, Göring, the artillery officers, etc, constantly.

How do you know this, Guderian was rather a late comer to the armoured scene had it not been for the likes of Volckheim, von Fritsch, von Blomberg, Wilhelm Brandt, von Altrock, von Seeckt, Ludwig von Radlmeier, Heigl, Lutz all of whom were shaping the future of German armoured doctrine, training and vehicle development 5-10 years before Guderian even saw a tank, without these men the German armoured force of 1939 would have been vastly different.

In my opinion if you want to see the true father of the German armoured forces go find out more about Ernst Volckheim.

Originally Posted by George

"There seems to be something wrong with our Battle Cruisers today!"

Who's quote was that?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Who's quote was that?

Admiral David Beatty said it to his flag captain Alfred Chatfield on the bridge of HMS Lion during the Battle of Jutland after hearing the news that the Princess Royal had exploded although apparently he just said "there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

Originally Posted by Der Alte

The truth is that Guderian can not be said to be the father of Blitzkrieg. He studied and translated the works of Basil Henry Liddell Hart and Charles de Gaulle and most specifically John Frederick Charles Fuller which is considered as the inventor of mechanized warfare techniques. Fuller collaborated with Hart in developing these ideas. These ideas were not implemented in England but ironically they did in Germany notably by Heinz Guderian. His book Achtung - Panzer! is largely based on the theories of Fuller. Not a direct copy (he refined some of these theories) but much of his work is strongly based on Fuller, Hart and also to a lesser degree on Charles de Gaulle.

On a side note, an obscure fact that many don't know is that J.F.C. Fuller also collaborated with an American General named Frank Parker in the early 1920's. Parker had similar ideas on mobile warfare with Fuller and both of their ideas were ahead of their time and went well unnoticed in the U.S. military.

Source: Through Mobility We Conquer, The mechanization of U.S. Cavalry by George F. Hofmann

Originally Posted by lolwhassup

On a side note, an obscure fact that many don't know is that J.F.C. Fuller also collaborated with an American General named Frank Parker in the early 1920's. Parker had similar ideas on mobile warfare with Fuller and both of their ideas were ahead of their time and went well unnoticed in the U.S. military.

Source: Through Mobility We Conquer, The mechanization of U.S. Cavalry by George F. Hofmann

Indeed and one of the guys that spent a lot of time in the USA studying American armoured car tactics and doctrine in the early 1920s was Major Ritter Ludwig von Radlmeier who later became Generalleutnant Ludwig Ritter von Radlmeier who went on to command the 4th Panzer Division.