Most underated? - Page 3




 
--
 
January 28th, 2005  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: hmmmmmmm


hey least when the brits aim they hit the enemy or the target!!!! I been on the recieving end plenty from us forces so have many of mates..............

Sorry just a little joke

We do good with BIG GUNS i know I did

we'll when it wasn't a certain 7 days of a month, strangley they never let me on anything that could do harm at that certain time
January 28th, 2005  
OutcastHuman
 
The Brit big guns are equal to the US medium guns of any branch.
January 28th, 2005  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: have to say


No the Royal Navys big guns have further range than US navy big guns.

Ours tend to be slightly more powerful, I ain't got a scooby bout the army etc lol
--
January 28th, 2005  
OutcastHuman
 
Well we will just bomb your navy out of the seas so no worries lol
January 28th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
That's actually a pretty fair assesment.
The bulk of the German fighting machine did get ground up in Russia.
But I think what needs to be considered is what sort of resistance the British Army could muster against even a relatively small, but well organized and equipped, invasion backed with total air superiority.
Well the British never would have had anything like total air superiority for any German invasion. The Battle of Britain was fought by the Luftwaffe to establish air superiority which it failed to do. So there would have been parity between the 2 air forces. If the Luftwaffe had air superiority then it would go the same way except quicker and easier for the Germans. At that time though ground attack tactics were not nearly as developed as they were later in the war.

I think initially the battle would have been pretty hard fought as the Germans struggled to establish bridgeheads and get their supplies and heavy equipment over the English Channel. That phase would be similar to how D-Day initially went. This would be the most crucial part of the whole battle. If the British were able to delay and tie up the Germans on the beaches for any length of time then indecision and doubt would set in for the Germans.

Once the Germans were able to break out from the coast their Panzers would roam all over the place and that phase would be like the German invasion of France. I would foresee the British Command and Control system being completely disrupted, their supply lines being broken and their ability to counter the Germans severely hampered. British army units cut off from their HQs would continue to fight like demons in urban areas but essentially the battle would be all over.

There would continue to be an active guerrilla movement like in occupied France but the Germans would be able to cope with it reasonably well I'm sure.
January 28th, 2005  
KC72
 
 
OK Dowding is a good one but lets not get stuck on WW2.What about more historical wars or even recent conflicts
January 28th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Belisarius!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius
Belisarius is one of the best generals of all-time, yet he is barely remembered. Why does history not remember him?
1.) He was from the Byzantine general. That means he's not Western European and therefore not worth discussing.
2.) He had a tremendous sense of loyalty. He served under Justinian and has numerous chances to seize control for himself, but he remained 100% loyal to the Emperor. Because of his lack of personal ambition, he is not marked by history where Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were.
Quote:
Justinian now resolved to restore as much of the Western Roman Empire as he could. In 535, he commissioned Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths. Again, he chose well, as Belisarius quickly captured Sicily and then crossed into Italy proper, where he captured Naples and Rome in 536. The following year, he successfully defended Rome against the Goths and moved north to take Mediolanum (Milan) and the Ostrogoth capital of Ravenna in 540, where the Goth king Witiges was captured. The Goths offered to make Belisarius the western emperor, but he refused.
To the best of my knowledge, Belisarius never lost a campaign and very likely never lost a battle in his career. [/b]
January 28th, 2005  
Claymore
 
 
The two guys that immediately jump to my mind are:

Nathaniel Greene - Washington's second in command during the AWFI.
Greene's southern campaign was excellent. He may not have won many battles but the result of his campaign led directly to the British defeat at Yorktown. From a strategic and tactical point of view, I believe that he was the best AMERICAN General of the War.

George Henry Thomas - The only General Officer from the South to remain with the Union. I believe that Grant did Thomas a great disservice before and especially after the battle of Nashville. Thomas was generally slow to move. which did not fit with the political impatience of the day, but when he did move, he moved fast, purposefully, and with great force.
Thomas was also a battlefield innovator, he had a mobile telegraph station constructed so that he could more readily communicate with his sub-ordinates during the course of the battle. I think he is generally overlooked now because of Grants preference for Sherman during the war.
January 28th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 

Topic: Re: have to say


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anya1982
No the Royal Navys big guns have further range than US navy big guns.

Ours tend to be slightly more powerful, I ain't got a scooby bout the army etc lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outcasthuman
Well we will just bomb your navy out of the seas so no worries lol
Was there a point to any of that??? Does ANYONE have reliable sources to back up their claims??

Oh yes, I forgot my first reaction: Who cares who can blast the crap out of who?? We're allies so why does it matter?
January 29th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Well the British never would have had anything like total air superiority for any German invasion. The Battle of Britain was fought by the Luftwaffe to establish air superiority which it failed to do. So there would have been parity between the 2 air forces. If the Luftwaffe had air superiority then it would go the same way except quicker and easier for the Germans. At that time though ground attack tactics were not nearly as developed as they were later in the war.

I think initially the battle would have been pretty hard fought as the Germans struggled to establish bridgeheads and get their supplies and heavy equipment over the English Channel. That phase would be similar to how D-Day initially went. This would be the most crucial part of the whole battle. If the British were able to delay and tie up the Germans on the beaches for any length of time then indecision and doubt would set in for the Germans.

Once the Germans were able to break out from the coast their Panzers would roam all over the place and that phase would be like the German invasion of France. I would foresee the British Command and Control system being completely disrupted, their supply lines being broken and their ability to counter the Germans severely hampered. British army units cut off from their HQs would continue to fight like demons in urban areas but essentially the battle would be all over.

There would continue to be an active guerrilla movement like in occupied France but the Germans would be able to cope with it reasonably well I'm sure.
That's actually what I meant. THe Germans would have had complete air superiority had Dowding and his men lost. And the British army was in need of SERIOUS repair at that point. Once the shell at the beach got broken, the Germans would have had a pretty easy ride around Britain (except for guerilla ambushes).
So that's why I say Dowding may have achieved a heck of a lot more than people give credit for.