Dowding's Costly Blunder in the Battle of France - Page 17




 
--
 
December 1st, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Nobody said that the Airacobra was marginally better than the I-15, which was a biplane and much slower than the CR.42. The Airacobra was much better even than the I-16 monoplane and in the hands of a very talented man it did well against the Bf-109. But the Brits wrongly considered it inferior to the Hurricane in 1942, so it was a missed opportunity. What I said is that the Airacobra was preferred over more modern SOviet planes, such as the MiG 3, etc, by Pokrishkin, etc,
Personally I think they should have produced the Corsair instead for ground base use, but the P-39 would have been very adequate for ground support in Burma acting together with the P-38 fronm land bases and backed by Wildcats from carriers for Rangoon, etc,
December 2nd, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
I thought this thread was about the Battle of Britain, now its turned into the war in Burma.

How would a navy defeat a Japanese army in the middle of a jungle?

But to get on track, Dowding was right.

If Britain had lost the Battle of Britain and Germany invaded, Hitler would not have stopped there and probably invaded Southern Ireland. Then what?
December 2nd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
The point is that by losing the many mediocre planes and most of the experienced British pilots, practically all the French pilots, navy and army, Britain was defeated. Göring and Hitler wasted that victory with their tactics and Dowding was saved only by pilots on whom he could not have counted, when he was left with hundreds of excellent planes and very few experienced British pilots.

Had Britain fallen with the British airplane industry and without having to fight on 2 fronts, Germany would have defeated the USSR. Japan would have taken the British colonies without attacking the US and the cold war would have been against Germany and Japan, instead of against the USSR.
--
December 2nd, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Good grief I have never met anyone that viewed life as a series of absolutes in the way you do.

1) Britain was never in any real danger of falling to the Germans:
- a) Because they did not have the capability to cross the channel in any real force.
- b) Because the German Uboat fleet was not strong enough to blockade Britain.
- c) Because the Luftwaffe lacked a strategic bomber to cripple Britain from the air.

2) What gives you the impression Germany would have beaten Russia at any stage, the Germans lacked the materials and manpower to complete an invasion the size of the Soviet Union, they got as far as they possibly could before their logistics system (which was at best a bloody nightmare) failed and the campaign ground to a halt.

I have told you this at least half a dozen times, it is not a matter of just dumping more troops than the opposition on a square and rolling a dice until you win through attrition, the 6th Army while trapped in Stalingrad needed around 500-750 tons of supplies a day just to maintain its combat efficiency (this was lower than usual because they were not carrying out anything but defensive operations) at the minimum required to survive for normal operations I am told it was 1500 tons.

You need to grasp the whole picture, for every soldier you put into the field there are at least half a dozen needed to keep him there and those people use fuel and supplies as well so they have their own supply train and so on and so forth, so even if Britain had millions of planes they still needed a supply line for each and every one of them.
December 3rd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
The RN and the Sworfish would have gone to the bottom of the Channel trying to stop a German invasion supported by all the planes of the LW. They could not stop the invasion of Norway, where ships had a huge coast to act. In the channel a few km from land they were cannon fodder for the Stukas and Ju-88s with heavy fighter escort.
German submarines did defeat Britain (even when they were few and primitive), which is why the US had to come up with L-L long before joining the war. In essence Germany was fighting also the US since 1939, but that aid was of little use. Only when the US entered the war and showered Britain and the USSR with unprecedented amounts of war materiel, etc, and introduced thousands of fighters and pilots did Germany lose the war.

You do not need a strategic bomber to win a war against a practically nonexisting army in Britain. You simply invade, wipe out the planes and advance rapidly to the industrial centers. Despite all the fanatical rhetoric, I am pretty sure that the British woud have surrendered rather than fight to the last housewife. They were much too smart to die opposing a government more efficient than the one that led them to defeat. After all there were many pro nazis in Britain, including the ex prince of wales.
December 3rd, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
The RN and the Sworfish would have gone to the bottom of the Channel trying to stop a German invasion supported by all the planes of the LW. They could not stop the invasion of Norway, where ships had a huge coast to act. In the channel a few km from land they were cannon fodder for the Stukas and Ju-88s with heavy fighter escort.
These would be the same Stuka's and Ju-88s that managed to sink a staggering 9 stationary destroyers (6 British and 3 French) off Dunkirk during the evacuation?

Sorry I am wrong it was 4 British and 1 French destroyer the rest were mined or torpedoed by E-Boats and U-Boats.

The same Stuka's and Ju-88s that sunk negligible amounts of unprotected shipping in the English channel?

Also would this be the same incompetent Royal Navy that pretty much sunk the Kriegsmarine off Norway in 1940 and hammered the Italian fleet at every opportunity and I am guessing that these Swordfish are similar to the ones that carried out the Taranto raid and was so successful that it gave Yamamoto the idea for Pearl Harbour?


Quote:
You do not need a strategic bomber to win a war against a practically nonexisting army in Britain. You simply invade, wipe out the planes and advance rapidly to the industrial centers. Despite all the fanatical rhetoric, I am pretty sure that the British woud have surrendered rather than fight to the last housewife. They were much too smart to die opposing a government more efficient than the one that led them to defeat. After all there were many pro nazis in Britain, including the ex prince of wales.
No but you do need them to deliver enough ordnance to destroy the British supply, transport and manufacturing systems prior to any landing, of course after that you would also need a navy capable of defending an invasion fleet and supplying it later fortunately they did not have any of the above and got to spend the war in France until of course they were kicked out of that by an invasion force that oddly enough was protected by a capable navy that was also capable of delivering enough supplies to keep that force in the field.
December 3rd, 2011  
lljadw
 
"simply" ,the use of this word indicates some one with a simple mind(or is it simpleton?)
December 3rd, 2011  
lljadw
 
For SL having a chance ,all the following were needed
1)air superiority above south east England
2)elimination of Bomber Command
3)a transport fleet to transport the troops
4)capturing of at least ONE intact port:you can't disembark tanks,artillery,horses,etc on the beaches
5)warships to protect the transport ships
6)several weeks of good weather for the build up
All these things were needed,not a single was possible .
I would be very surprised if the Germans could have disembark more than 5000 men on the beaches,5000 who would be eliminated on the first day
December 3rd, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Despite all the fanatical rhetoric, I am pretty sure that the British woud have surrendered rather than fight to the last housewife. They were much too smart to die opposing a government more efficient than the one that led them to defeat. After all there were many pro nazis in Britain, including the ex prince of wales.
By that statement alone, you have no idea whatsoever regarding the British people. Even IF Germany had landed there were over a million ex WW1 vets, who although not 18 or 19 years of age they would have given a damn good acount of themselves. The British would not have rolled over as easy as you think they would.

Define "many pro NAZI's" in Britain. The ex Prince of Wales you are talking about was actually King Edward VIII who was forced to abdicate.
December 3rd, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
The idea of the British people surrendering in masses to the first German soldier to set feet on British soil.....well, it was more likely that the entire island should sink in the sea due to overweight...

And the ex-prince of Wales (Edward VIII) later Duke of Windsor, spend very little time on British soil after the wat broke out, he was picked up in France and installed as gouvernor on Bahamas.

I'd say his influence on the British morale and spirit was next to none for the remainder of the war.
 


Similar Topics
Fiercest Battle in History
The Battle of Horseshoe Bend 1814
Timeline of Incompetent Leadership Contest in WW II
Riots in France offer wake-up call to U.S.
A tribute to France.