The Raid At Dieppe - Page 5




 
--
 
December 7th, 2011  
Julie
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
The most important lesson that could have been learnt from Dieppe was that Mountbatten and Churchill were willing to waste a lot of men and equipment......
War is in principle a waste of human life. But sometimes you have to sacrifice 100 good men so that 1000 men later can benefit from the experience and survive. Forget about your morals and ethics. War is a dirty profession.
December 7th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Stalingrad is one of the best examples of defenses collapsing because of airplane depletion and relocation (to Africa because of torch). For lack of Ju-52 and fighters to protect them, Stalingrad ran out of ammuniton, food, supplies, spares (your mechanical failures) and reinforcements and for lack of Stukas, Bf-109s Zhukov could attack successfully and use 13,000 cannon to shell the Germans.
Only when the Soviets gained air superiority over Stalingrad could they defeat it.
Like I said, without air superiority, the Texas could not have destroyed the tanks and the destruction of the railroads, truck convoys, etc, by planes ensured that the German tanks, reinforcements, artillery, ammunition, etc, arrived at the. front.
The most powerful navy is useless without planes to protect it as proven time and again in Norway, France, Greece (especially Crete), Singapore, and later in the Japanese navy in Samar, indonesia, etc,), the sinking of the formidable Musashi and Yamato, etc,
The Germans were stopped only because they attacked the huge USSR with a fraction of the planes they used in France, so the ground support was lousy. Guderian received a laughable cartoon of support in Yelnya, compared to that in the sickle cut.
Having started with few planes (and tanks, artillery, trucks, etc,) at the end of Barbarossa there were extremely few planes, tanks et, and when Zhukov showed up with nearly 1,000 tanks and planes from Siberia he pushed back the Germans.
December 7th, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Yes we went over this before, but you don't read. The allied navy was huge and would not have allowed Germany to take over Norway and control the North Atlantic with the few ships and submarines it had left and ensure its ore supply had German planes not been sinking its ships at will. France was a good excuse to safe face. Withdrawing from Norway allowed Hitler to send hundreds of planes to France.

The German army in Poland in 1939, the paras in Crete, Rommel in Gazala and the Japs in Singapore also admitted that they had no munitions to continue fighting. The allies just kept losing, because of airplanes and bluffing.
So I am the one not reading here?

Did you notice what I wrote about the situation in Narvik?
The Germans was loosing, they were practicly beaten, even though the allies didn't have the air superiority!
--
December 7th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Yet they abandoned Narvik instead of securing it to prevent Germany from getting iron and installing submarine bases and although the German navy had been nearly wiped out. All this only because their situation in Norway was completely untenable, since they could not supply their troops with the enemy planes ruling the sea.
December 7th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Hi Julie,
War is indeed a series of sacrifices. However, while Germany and Japan sacrificed troops to gain territory and defeat large forces from 1939 to 1941, Italy, the USSR and Britain sacrificed a lot of forces to lose battle after battle, simply because Churchill, Mussolini and Stalin refused to learn the lesson that without air superiority it doesn't matter how many tanks or troops you have, you will be beaten every time.
Even the incompetent Hitler realized that he could not invade Britain without air superiority, hence the BoB. Luckily fro Britain Göring conducted the BoB in a most incompetent way and Britain won with fewer planes and Hitler called off the invasion, rather than waste thousands of lives without hope of success.
By the way, in Libya 30,000 British troops defeated and captured over 100,000 men and lots of cannon and ammunition (which were given to Greece to defeat the Italian invasion), because Mussolini invaded Egypt without air superiority (against his generals' advice).
December 7th, 2011  
42RM
 
Ask those who lead soldiers into battle, and they'll tell you right away: "Logistics wins wars." History supports their claim. Again and again, battles' outcomes have depended on getting supplies and weapons to the right place at the right time. It's been this way since before Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants to claim victory.
December 7th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
That is precisely the strength of aviation. It is impossible to transport badly needed supplies when airplanes are detroying your ships, barges, trains, trucks, horses, etc,
In Barbarossa thousands of Soviet tanks were lost because they ran out of fuel, ammo, oil, water, spares, etc, because the LW destroyed thousands of trucks, trains, etc, fuel and ammo depots, etc, every day and the abundant planes of the Red air force were obsolete and powerless to stop them.
Each German division in Normandy required 350 tons per day and they were not going to get it if the 12,000 allied tactical planes plus thousands of strategic planes were blowing the bridges, trains, trucks, etc, before and after D-day. Not to mention reinforcements, etc,
between D-day and the end of the war, P-47s alone destroyed 68,000 trucks, 86,000 RR cars and 9,000 RR engines.
December 7th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
But now you are getting into a chicken and egg argument though as aircraft can not destroy the opposition without bombs, fuel and ammunition so it still comes down to logistics.

You can have the most troops, the best tanks, ships and planes but without a functioning logistics system you will lose.
December 7th, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Yet they abandoned Narvik instead of securing it to prevent Germany from getting iron and installing submarine bases and although the German navy had been nearly wiped out. All this only because their situation in Norway was completely untenable, since they could not supply their troops with the enemy planes ruling the sea.
Seems like you missed the point again.
I wrote: The Germans was loosing, they were practicly beaten.

The Wehrmacht with support from Luftwaffe was pushed back by allied forces with only some naval artillery support and a few planes, the bulk of the operations was done with only infantry and light mountain artillery.

The allies didn't suffer any major supply problem, except the lack of efficient planes and the British winter-equipment, they had plenty.

The reason they withdrew was that the mighty French army was taken by surprise and chased away by a German invasion.
Seems like Churchill knew better than fighting a war on two fronts...
December 7th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
The only surprise was that the Germans didn't invade before May 10, 1940. They knew it was comming.
Moreover, like I wrote squadron 263 was sent back to Norway with some Hurricanes to reinforce them on May 21, 1940, 11 days after the invasion of France they were still interested in winning in Norway. But Churchill realized their situation was untenable both in Norway and in France and may even become so in Britain if they lost the air battle.

Hi MontyN,
Supplying the carriers is only possible if there is air superiority all along the supply route, just as on land, as evidenced in the Mediterranean. This is why the Americans spent a lot of resources and time capturing otherwise useless islands in the Pacific (thanks to air support, which also allowed naval support). Likewise supplying the invasion was possible when airplanes in transatlantic and costal flights wiped out the submarines, this had not occurred at the time of Dieppe.
Had the Japs taken Hawaii on Dec 7, 1941 the US would have been unable to operate in the central Pacific with long range enemy planes so close to the US coast, unless they gained local air superiority with carriers.

Summing up, the US could have built all the ships, tanks, trucks, cannon, etc, but without air superiority (320,000 planes) it would all have been useless, as were all the British campaigns before el Alamein 1 and 2, where air superiority stopped Rommel. On the other side of the coin, had Italy and France not wasted fortunes building huge Navies that were pretty useless and France building the Maginot line, but built or bought more planes they would have been more successful. Similarly, had Hitler not wasted a fortune building Bismarck, Tirpitz, two 800 mm cannon, etc, and wasted 2,000 planes in the BoB, but built more Stukas, Bf-109s, Ju-88s, Pz IV and 88 mm cannon and attacked the USSR with more planes, etc, he would have taken Moscow, which would have caused the Japs to invade the USSR instead of forcingthe US into the war.