Dowding's Costly Blunder in the Battle of France - Page 9




 
--
 
November 24th, 2011  
42RM
 
Great!
The creature has multiplied.
November 24th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Among the Soviet style sacrifices were those of the crews of the Swordfish attacking the Scharnhorst, etc, during the Channel Dash. Kamikaze pilots at least had faster planes and much greater odds of success and one per plane.
I say Soviet style sacrifice, because the pilots were ordered to attack, whereas Kamikazes were volunteers.
November 24th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Among the Soviet style sacrifices were those of the crews of the Swordfish attacking the Scharnhorst, etc, during the Channel Dash. Kamikaze pilots at least had faster planes and much greater odds of success and one per plane.
I say Soviet style sacrifice, because the pilots were ordered to attack, whereas Kamikazes were volunteers.
But they did damage the Bismarck making the warship unmanueverable and sealing its fate, and Swordfish-equipped units accounted for 14 U-boats destroyed. It was build trough august 1944.
--
November 24th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
The Bismarck was ages before. It was daftly equipped with manually fed 37 mm AA guns and had no air cover. Anyway, the Swordfish pilots were extremely lucky to survive that attack.
It was already absurd to have Swordfish by 1939, much more so by 1942 during the Channel Dash. My point is that the mighty British empire was the only nation using torpedo biplanes by that time and that can only be due to leader incompetence. There can be no justification for tiny Japan with a very small industry using faster monoplanes long before the British were sacrificing their pilots with biplanes. Only British leaders would spend a fortune building excellent, steel deck carriers and then equip them with doped linen and wood biplanes with 850 hp engines that had to approach below 100 mph ships bristling with AA.
November 24th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Once again you are not looking at the whole picture, is it not possible that what you seem to be declaring as incompetence was actually necessity?

Between 1939 - 1942 the Allies were fighting a war against a prepared opponent who was on the offensive to introduce new equipment takes time to develop, retool, produce in sufficient quantity and then train crews and provide the logistics for, a lot of outmoded equipment was kept in service because of operational necessity not because of incompetence.

As for sending every fighter available to Southern England leaving the rest of Britain undefended well that would have made Luftflotte 5 very happy, the Germans could have sent its bombers to Norway and just sent up a few fighters from Luftflotte 2&3 to draw up the RAF and use its fuel while 5 blew the snot out of the rest of the country, congratulations you have just won the Battle of Britain for the Luftwaffe.
November 24th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
It's strange that huge, extremely expensive, modern carriers can be ready for the war, but not 100 torpedo bombers capable of flying in excess of 200 mph. To me that is incompetence.

Yes, had the Germans had enough fuel and planes, they would have destroyed all the distilleries in Scotland.
It takes a lot longer to fly from Norway to Scotland than across the Channel, so your airplanes perform many fewer missions and can carry fewer bombs (more fuel). Not to mention the strong winds and bad weather.
Hitler had ordered the bombing of London and that's what they were doing.

In war, moving your forces is a must. If they attack you in large waves in London, you take advantage of the opportunity to wipe them out. If they are forced to spend fuel and time relocating from France to Norway, so much the better, then you move your planes a much shorter distance to Scotland.
It's funny how you thought it impossible to move and supply 250 fighters to South and East Anglia, a few hours from their factories but think it quite feasible for the Germans to rapidly deploy a thousand bombers from France to Norway.
November 25th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
It's strange that huge, extremely expensive, modern carriers can be ready for the war, but not 100 torpedo bombers capable of flying in excess of 200 mph. To me that is incompetence.

Yes, had the Germans had enough fuel and planes, they would have destroyed all the distilleries in Scotland.
It takes a lot longer to fly from Norway to Scotland than across the Channel, so your airplanes perform many fewer missions and can carry fewer bombs (more fuel). Not to mention the strong winds and bad weather.
Hitler had ordered the bombing of London and that's what they were doing.

In war, moving your forces is a must. If they attack you in large waves in London, you take advantage of the opportunity to wipe them out. If they are forced to spend fuel and time relocating from France to Norway, so much the better, then you move your planes a much shorter distance to Scotland.
It's funny how you thought it impossible to move and supply 250 fighters to South and East Anglia, a few hours from their factories but think it quite feasible for the Germans to rapidly deploy a thousand bombers from France to Norway.
You are talking like real war is the same as a simple computer game. Pick some here, move there and kill them all. Simple isn't it?
November 25th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
To illustrate the kind of things that British pilots had to face I'd like to mention Sq. 263 RAF in 1940.
These chaps were hastily shipped to northern Norway with 18 Gladiators. They started operating from a frozen lake, but lost all their planes to He-111 bombers and were shipped back to Britain. After being reequipped with Gladiators they were shipped again and reinforced by another squadron with Hurricanes. However, having lost the battle of Norway, they were soon evacuated again after destroying 26 German planes.
Unfortunately for these chaps, the aircraft carrier that transported them and the two destroyers escorting it were sunk by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (the only instance of a fleet carrier, whose bombers can attack from hundreds of km away being sunk by ships firing from 25 km away). Some brave escort carriers (slow, modified Liberty ships) were sunk by ship cannon shells in the Philippines when their planes were attacking 27 ships in order to save the troop transports landing thusands of troops in 1944.
The British navy with so many battleships, heavy cruisers, etc, lost a carrier and two destroyers to the crippled and never formidable German navy's cannon. Indeed their finest hour.
November 25th, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
To illustrate the kind of things that British pilots had to face I'd like to mention Sq. 263 RAF in 1940.
These chaps were hastily shipped to northern Norway with 18 Gladiators. They started operating from a frozen lake, but lost all their planes to He-111 bombers and were shipped back to Britain. After being reequipped with Gladiators they were shipped again and reinforced by another squadron with Hurricanes. However, having lost the battle of Norway, they were soon evacuated again after destroying 26 German planes.
Unfortunately for these chaps, the aircraft carrier that transported them and the two destroyers escorting it were sunk by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (the only instance of a fleet carrier, whose bombers can attack from hundreds of km away being sunk by ships firing from 25 km away). Some brave escort carriers (slow, modified Liberty ships) were sunk by ship cannon shells in the Philippines when their planes were attacking 27 ships in order to save the troop transports landing thusands of troops in 1944.
The British navy with so many battleships, heavy cruisers, etc, lost a carrier and two destroyers to the crippled and never formidable German navy's cannon. Indeed their finest hour.
You may have confused the battlecruiser Gneisenau with the armoured cruiser Gneisenau here.
While the battlecruiser Gneisenau was comissioned in 1938 the latter was sunk in 1914.

And by 1940 the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was far from crippled, on the contrary, they were formidable by all means.
The main battery on these was state of the art modern guns of 28 cm calibre, equipped with hydraulic seaters for the shells, and an inovative new ammunition hoist system effectively eliminating the need to turn the turret in order to bring shells and charges up to the battery deck.
Each of the three turrets had 3 guns, each capable of delivering a shot every 17 seconds.
Add the fact that both ships were equipped with top modern gun control systems and this, assisted by the radar, was instrumental in the sinking of borth Renown and Glorious.
The Ardent and the Acasta was hammered to pieces by direct fire from both main and secondary batteries and really stood little chance of survival.
November 25th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
And Rolls-Royce would belong to BMW?
Yea, the same numbnuts that stuffed up Land Rover.

You forgot Bentley.
 


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.