Dowding's Costly Blunder in the Battle of France
samneanderthal
Active member
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.
I say Soviet style sacrifice, because the pilots were ordered to attack, whereas Kamikazes were volunteers.
Last edited:
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.
samneanderthal
Active member
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.
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.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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.
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.
samneanderthal
Active member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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?
samneanderthal
Active member
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.
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.
Last edited:
84RFK
Active member
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. :santa:
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.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Last edited:
42RM
Banned
This self-proclaimed great strategist, who apparently never had a pair of boots on, has clearly proven that the last idiot is not dead yet. It surprised me that as a "civilian" you can read a book or two and see a few war movies and then think you are an expert in warfare. I've seen emergency 911 on the telly many times but does that make me a paramedic expert?
I would however add that we on this forum have people who don’t have a military background but is definitely intelligent enough to understand the complexity of warfare.
His logic and insight are in line with an immature child. I won’t even call him an armchair-general. Probably more a wheelchair-general as something is clearly disabled.
Now samneanderthal, try to understand this:
A dominating characteristic of most of all military operations is uncertainty. Decision making in an uncertain environment is one of the recurrent problems of military world affairs. To provide courses of action in real-world settings (by considering uncertainty) the planner must take into account the fact that actions may have several different outcomes. Planning military operations under uncertainty provides unexpected contingency plans.
LeEnfield
Active member
The Swordfish Aircraft......I think that this person is forgetting that the Fleet Arm came under the control of the RAF till just a couple of years before the outbreak of WW2. The RAF was not interested in the Navies problem and concentrated on their own hence the the Fleet Arm pilots were almost suicide jockeys for most of the war with the crap they had to fly.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
I'd be interested to hear exactly what military experience he has, if any.
Hard to say what he meant. @ 1st I thought it was a comment about the German Navy in general, considering the losses of the campaigne. Or...he could have been refering to the Scharnhorst being torpedoed @ the end of the action where Glorious & the 2 Destroyers were sunk.
samneanderthal
Active member
High 84RFK,
I said the crippled German navy, which was indeed quite crippled by the time the Glorious and its 2 escorting destroyers were sunk.
It is a shame that the huge allied navy (not only the huge British navy) allowed a carrier to be sunk by the German navy´s cannon, which by this time had very few ships in service. Losing many of the few experienced pilots to navy cannon cannot be justified at all.
Somehow you seem to accept the Germans as superhumans, capable of sending 1,000 planes to Norway or Greece in short term, capable of sending a carrier to the bottom with cannon, etc, and regard the British as poor unprepared victims. The fact is that the the British military had formidable resources and wasted them time after time, excelling only at evacuations.
I said the crippled German navy, which was indeed quite crippled by the time the Glorious and its 2 escorting destroyers were sunk.
It is a shame that the huge allied navy (not only the huge British navy) allowed a carrier to be sunk by the German navy´s cannon, which by this time had very few ships in service. Losing many of the few experienced pilots to navy cannon cannot be justified at all.
Somehow you seem to accept the Germans as superhumans, capable of sending 1,000 planes to Norway or Greece in short term, capable of sending a carrier to the bottom with cannon, etc, and regard the British as poor unprepared victims. The fact is that the the British military had formidable resources and wasted them time after time, excelling only at evacuations.
Last edited:
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Quite frankly its a waste of time even trying to engage him in sensible conversation, especially as he keeps repeating absolute nonsense.
He never did answer my question as to his military service.
Last edited:
samneanderthal
Active member
If you find my arguments absurd, childish, boring, unfounded or farfetched why waste time in this thread? Start a thread praising Churchill, Dowding, Mountbatten, Ritchie, Motgomery, Auchinleck, Wavell and all the great British leaders of WW II that you revere. Just remember that in spite of 5 million Indians and a greater number of Brits, Canadians, Australians, New Zelanders, South Africans, Free French, Poles, etc, The third largest industry in the world and 31 billion dollars in aid they could not kick Germany out of Africa nor Japan out of Burma without American troops, pilots, etc, and while Germany was fighting the Soviets and Japan the Chinese and Americans.
As you can tell my military experience is below nihil.
As you can tell my military experience is below nihil.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Ok I think think this will be my last shot at this because in reality we are just repeating the same things over and over.
Lets assume you are standing in the street and I walk up and kick you square in the nuts would you say that it was your incompetence that lead to you being curled up on the ground wondering wtf just happened?
Then while you are on the ground would you agree that it is your incompetence that I managed to get a few more kicks in because you did not have a baseball bat on you even though you could have afforded one at the time?
Would you describe your friends as incompetent because they weren't there?
The fact of the matter is that for 3 years the Germans were on the offensive, the knew the plan, were trained to execute that plan and had the equipment to execute the plan, they were not supermen they were prepared.
The Allies on the other started horribly, suffered great losses and stumbled around in the dark because they were not prepared until they found a counter to the German plan and from that point on they were prepared.
People seem to assume that it was Hitler who built the Germany army but the fact is that WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles built the German army, it was the Weimar Republic that was designing tanks and submarines in Russia as early as 1922 and developed rockets and artillery in secret.
samneanderthal
Active member
Actually the British were on the offensive in Norway and the Germans reacting, but kicked their balls anyway and with a much smaller navy.
Actually, the British knew about the German secret in the USSR and did nothing. As they did nothing when the USSR invaded Poland, but they did run to Stalin's help when Hitler betrayed his accomplice and supplier on credit.
As for stumbling in the dark, they shouldn't have, since the Poles broke the German code for them, so they had much better intelligence than the Germans did.
The idea that Britain was a defenseless maid in 1939 is quite absurd. Britain produced far more petrol engines than Germany did, had huge resources and population, the British had Radar, the best navy (including carriers!), the best fighter, the best tank, the best bolt action rifle (10 rounds vs 5 of the Germans),etc, and good allies that it did not support and use properly. Yet the Germans bested them in Norway, France, Greece, etc, simply because they had better leaders.
Actually, the British knew about the German secret in the USSR and did nothing. As they did nothing when the USSR invaded Poland, but they did run to Stalin's help when Hitler betrayed his accomplice and supplier on credit.
As for stumbling in the dark, they shouldn't have, since the Poles broke the German code for them, so they had much better intelligence than the Germans did.
The idea that Britain was a defenseless maid in 1939 is quite absurd. Britain produced far more petrol engines than Germany did, had huge resources and population, the British had Radar, the best navy (including carriers!), the best fighter, the best tank, the best bolt action rifle (10 rounds vs 5 of the Germans),etc, and good allies that it did not support and use properly. Yet the Germans bested them in Norway, France, Greece, etc, simply because they had better leaders.
Last edited:
LeEnfield
Active member
HMS Glorious, now there was a well known dispute between the Captain of the ship and the Flight Commander of the aircraft. It would appear that the flight commander argued with the captain and wanted some of his aircraft armed and flying. The captain of the carrier who had only operated Battleships before this command thought it was all a waste time and that he had been demoted by having to captain the Carrier. The argument was that heated that the Flight Commander was put under arrest and was facing a Court Martial, then shortly afterwards the Carrier came under attack from surface ships and as all the aircraft were below decks there is little they could do.