The most important battle of WW2

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes there would have been no way for the Germans to even launch Seeloewe unless they had won the BoB. Without air supremecy it deffinatly would have failed.

Even with air-supremacy it is highly doubtful. The Luftwaffe's very limited time on target and the long transit times between missions would have made it relatively ineffective as "airborne artillery" to support the invasion. During the day the German ground forces might have made some gains, but at night they'd be left unprotected and the RN would come in and shell the crap out of them. Without a port through which to unload heavy equipment such as tanks and artillery peices and provide supply, the forces on the ground would be ill equipt to fight off the available British ground forces operating at night.

For Seelowe to work the German's needed air-superiority AND they needed to neutralize the RN. And even then there is a very good chance the channel would have wiped out their invasion force on the first night anyway!

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Troops on British soil was not even necessary. FDR had the US Navy at his command. That was: 15 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers, 37 cruisers, 185 destroyers, 64 submarines, 19 PT boats, and 36 mine warfare ships.

The British had moved into Iceland in 1940 after the fall of Denmark, to prevent the German's from taking it. All they had to do was hand this over to the USA (which they did anyway in 1941) and FDR could have stationed several warships at this base, just 1000 miles north-northwest of Dover, and then US ships would have patrolled to the south of that point, putting them within easy striking distance of any German invasion. Just their presence would have been enough to prevent Hitler from invading, the USA would not even have had to officially enter the war.

And, as you know, I agree - the German's had no way to deploy any heavy equipment of any kind until after they secured an operation port. Since the British would surely have destroyed such a port before leaving it, and probably mined the waters near it, and the RN could shell it at night rather easily, it would have taken a long time for the Germans to establish an operational port.

=S=

Lunatic

No offense but at the time I think the Germans would have been more scared of the Royal Navy then the US Navy.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Udet

Plan_D:

Thank you very much for showing who the real dazzed lost individual is.


The Germans were defeated at the Battle of Arras? No kidding!
It is funny you mention a local setback suffered by the Germans to attempt proving I have no clue on the battlefield facts!!

What was the benefit of the so called British "victory" at the Battle of Arras, when the bulk of the BEF arrived to England in shock and in trousers, escaping simply because Hitler allowed them to do so?

You can have your lollypop when you ve beaten nearly to death, with both your eyes deeply bruised and badly swollen lips.

Very funny Plan_D!!!!

Are you trying to suggest the British/Greek garrison at Crete did not have superior firepower to combat the German fallschirmjager?
Well mister, that is your very own problem.

Furthermore, no one ever said the German paratroopers did not have very high casualty rates; still those who touched the ground and unloaded their weapons were better lead, smarter and ferocious enough to bring the British and their allies down on their knees.

The German paratroopers had a very high casualty rate "even when the Luftwaffe had air superiority"? What does that have to do with anything at all?

The allied soldiers shot many paratroopers while they were hanging in their parachutes and several Ju52s were hit by antiaircraft fire while being loaded with the troopers.

So there is no connection AT ALL, between the high casualty rate of the German paratroopers in Crete and the air superioriy of the Luftwaffe in the area.

Since you believe you are very good at statisctics, can you tell the losses of the Royal Navy during Crete? How many cruisers and destroyers were destroyed by the Luftwaffe, plus those with several degrees of damage?

You trying to suggest Crete was only a minor issue for the British in terms of casualties?

Malta never fell? What about that?
Did the Germans ever try to seize it? They just ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb it, and during such time, the island experienced a very black period.

The German army had numerical superiority over the British everywhere they clashed??? This deserves a monument Plan-D. So you are suggesting during Fall Gelb the Germans outnumbered the allies?

As I said before, just like the British enjoyed the benefits of the very short range od the Bf109 during the Battle of Britain, the Germans enjoyed the benefits of each battlefield were they clashed with the British. The rule also applies for Germany.

The arguments you displayed make no point in taking substance to my comments and are only explanations to justify the British defeats.

I did say Seelowe was not launched because Hitler was not interested in doing so; if you read well, I also said, Seelowe, if launched, might well have failed.

Hitler´s fundamental interest was placed EAST, and would not waste valuable men in such a venture.

I am not going to get involved with your little arguement but as for the Royal Navy losses at Crete and Malta here is what I have found:

Supporting the army had not been a gentle task for the navy. Each of the army's failures had exacted a heavy toll on the navy. In Norway, at Dunkirk, Greece, Crete and North Africa with it's effects on Malta, all of these operations required the utmost sacrifice of the navy.

It was in the Mediterranean that the Royal Navy really learned to fear the Luftwaffe. The aircraft carrier Illustrious was badly damaged by air attack, the cruiser Southampton was sunk. In the withdrawal from Crete the cruisers Naiad and Carlisle were damaged, while the cruisers Gloucester and Fiji were sunk. The battleship Warspite was also damaged by air attack. The entire operation saw 2 battleships, an aircraft carrier, six cruisers and seven destroyers damaged, while three cruisers and six destroyers were sunk, all of this by air attack. Crete was a very expensive operation for the Royal Navy.

The support of Malta was also expensive. In a single convoy combined attacks by submarines, torpedo boats, and aircraft, one aircraft carrier was sunk and another badly damaged. Two cruisers were badly damaged and two others sunk.
http://www.jubilee.freehomepage.com/royal.htm

As for the actuall invasion of Crete this though my friend does pretty much say that even though the British lost Crete they put up a great defence with what they had:

20 May
Operation Merkur (Mercury): the German invasion of the island of Crete, begins with an airborne assault by the Luftwaffe's 7th Parachute Division. Although Allied ground units on Crete, and naval vessels in the surrounding waters, fight tenaciously, the defenders are forced to withdraw from the island during the period 28 May to 1 June.

18,000 British and Commonwealth troops are evacuated by the Royal Navy - 2,000 men are killed during the battle for Crete and a further 12,000 taken prisoner. Royal Navy losses around the island are also extremely heavy. However, the defenders, for their part, inflicte heavy casualties on the Luftwaffe paratroop and airlift units that take part in the assault - over 4,000 men are killed, mostly from 7th Parachute Division and 220 of the 600 Junkers Ju52 transport aircraft used in the operation are destroyed. Mercury was to be the last large-scale airborne operation mounted by the Luftwaffe during the Second World War.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/mileston...ry/1941_3.html

Udet,

If Seelowe had been launched, I think it is more accurate to say it almost surely would have failed.

Odds are it would have failed in the channel without the British having to even fire a shot.

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I too do not think it would have succeded but I think RG_Lunatic that you underestimate the German fighting machine quite a bit. With a little more planning the Germans could have succeded in Seeloewe. And I think most would agree. It would have come with very heavy losses and the British would have never stopped fighting as they were a very superb fighting force but they were already beaten and on there knees after Dunkirk. Once they recovered they again fought on with great skill as the British always have and could match anyone but in the state that the British forces were in if the Germans had planned more, and succeded in the BoB it could have succeded. Please dont take me wrong I too think it would have failed but I do not underestimate what the German military could have done.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No offense but at the time I think the Germans would have been more scared of the Royal Navy then the US Navy.

Perhaps so, but we arn't talking about one or the other, we are talking about BOTH!

While Hitler may have thought the Luftwaffe' and Kriegsmarine might somehow deal with the RN, he certainly would not have believed that they could have dealt with the RN AND the USN.

And I'm not sure why you think this. Let's suppose FDR sent:

4 Battleships, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers, and 12 mine warfare ships, and 25 submarines, and possibly 1 or 2 Carriers (~75 planes each).

This would have effectively doubled the naval threat to any invasion.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I too do not think it would have succeded but I think RG_Lunatic that you underestimate the German fighting machine quite a bit. With a little more planning the Germans could have succeded in Seeloewe. And I think most would agree. It would have come with very heavy losses and the British would have never stopped fighting as they were a very superb fighting force but they were already beaten and on there knees after Dunkirk. Once they recovered they again fought on with great skill as the British always have and could match anyone but in the state that the British forces were in if the Germans had planned more, and succeded in the BoB it could have succeded. Please dont take me wrong I too think it would have failed but I do not underestimate what the German military could have done.

A little more planning?

For God sakes, look at the plan they had put together. Every aspect of it is pure crap.

I'm not underestimating them. THEY HAD NO AMPHIBIOUS INVASION CAPABILITY! NONE! Their entire plane rested on the belief that somehow they were going to be able to make do by putting land soldiers onto rafts and river barges and towing them across the channel. That was the extent of it.

What Germany would have had to do to make SeeLowe viable would have been to spend over a year buidling an invasion fleet of some kind. They'd have needed landing craft capable of crossing the channel and delivering troops right onto the beaches and some means of getting heavy equipment ashore without having to secure an operational British port. Then they'd have needed to spend at least 3 months (probably 6 months) practicing making landings on safe beaches. Finally they'd have had to not only win the airwar against the RAF but also figure out how they were going to deal with the RN, something they had no capacity to do.

Until you can explain some way that Hitler was going to overcome these issues, the whole idea of a successful Seelowe is ludicrous. The German's had no experiance in amphibous operations and the Seelowe plan exemplifies this.

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

A little more planning?

For God sakes, look at the plan they had put together. Every aspect of it is pure crap.

I'm not underestimating them. THEY HAD NO AMPHIBIOUS INVASION CAPABILITY! NONE! Their entire plane rested on the belief that somehow they were going to be able to make due by putting land soldiers onto rafts and river barges and towing them across the channel. That was the extent of it.

What Germany would have had to do to make SeeLowe viable would have been to spend over a year buidling an invasion fleet of some kind. They'd have needed landing craft capable of crossing the channel and delivering troops right onto the beaches and some means of getting heavy equipment ashore without having to secure an operational British port. Then they'd have needed to spend at least 3 months (probably 6 months) practicing making landings on safe beaches. Finally they'd have had to not only win the airwar against the RAF but also figure out how they were going to deal with the RN, something they had no capacity to do.

Until you can explain some way that Hitler was going to overcome these issues, the whole idea of a successful Seelowe is ludicrous. The German's had no experiance in amphibous operations and the Seelowe plan exemplifies this.

=S=

Lunatic

I dont need to, you just did. As I said more planning and what you just said comes down to more PLANNING! (I can do that too you see).
So please take your attitude someplace else I dont need it.

As for the Royal Navy and the US Navy yes together they would have made a fleet that would have been very very frightening but again you were talking about the US coming to the rescue of the British (which you always imply that the US had to do), and this case the US Navy having to rescue the British Navy. I dont really think so the British Navy would have done fine all by themselves. Sorry the Brits did not need the US as you always imply.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I dont need to, you just did. As I said more planning and what you just said comes down to more PLANNING! (I can do that too you see).
So please take your attitude someplace else I dont need it.

As for the Royal Navy and the US Navy yes together they would have made a fleet that would have been very very frightening but again you were talking about the US coming to the rescue of the British (which you always imply that the US had to do), and this case the US Navy having to rescue the British Navy. I dont really think so the British Navy would have done fine all by themselves. Sorry the Brits did not need the US as you always imply.

Grrrr... sorry didn't mean to offend you.

I just don't see that as "planning". Planning implies no additional resources or accomplishements needed to be met first, only the right "plan" was needed. This was not the case.

As for the Brit's not needing the USA, of course they did. Without US supplies they'd have starved and been unable to fight.

As for the RN having been sufficient all by themselves, I would agree I think they would have been. However, had the USA positioned part of its fleet in a threatening position, it would have been yet another factor Hitler would have had to consider, making the likelyhood of an invasion almost nil. And again, the USA would not even have had to declare war, simply having 4 BB's, 10 cruisers, and maybe 40 destroyers within easy reach of an invasion would have been enough.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

Udet, you make me laugh.

The British victory at Arras proves that the British could fight against the Germans, and could beat them. The Wehrmacht was no unstoppable, Arras proved it. The British arriving back home did suffer greatly from the excellent tactics of the Germans but, again, Arras proved they were not unbeatable. Many of the British setbacks were not due to German supremcy but to lack of British supplies. A lot of the times they were firing smoke shells because all shells had run out. Tanks were running out of ammo, many were abandoned because of no fuel.

The British garrison on Crete was inferior in firepower to the Germans. Those 40,000 on Crete were not a garrison but had just been evacuated from Greece. Many were unarmed after leaving their weapons behind. The overall firepower was superior to the Fallschirmjager but the evacuated troops were tired, battered and low on morale.
The Fallschirmjager did not take the island on their own. The Germans sent in three waves of landing troops to help when the paras had landed. The first of which was oblitered, a long with the Italian escort Destroyer Luzo.

There isn't a connection with German high losses and air superiority. And that's not what I said. The MAIN reason the Germans won Crete was due to their air superiority. Ju-87s made good use of this by bombarding British positions to dust before the German landings.

Malta did have a black period while under siege, but it was a much bigger black spot on the German operations in the Med. The Med never fell to the Germans or Italians, the Royal Navy held it.

Can you read English? I said the BRITISH were out numbered. The Allies in Fall Gell amounted to 57 divisions with 4.6 million (if my memory serves me perfectly) the British contingent was 350,000 men. The Germans attacked with 3.3 million. The Germans out-numbered the British. Fool.

All those points show the clear, to normal people, fact that the German invasion would have failed. Imagine Crete without German air superiority, effective AA cover and a proper determined garrison. Germany would have been slaughtered.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I just don't see that as "planning". Planning implies no additional resources or accomplishements needed to be met first, only the right "plan" was needed. This was not the case.

As for the Brit's not needing the USA, of course they did. Without US supplies they'd have starved and been unable to fight.

As for the RN having been sufficient all by themselves, I would agree I think they would have been. However, had the USA positioned part of its fleet in a threatening position, it would have been yet another factor Hitler would have had to consider, making the likelyhood of an invasion almost nil. And again, the USA would not even have had to declare war, simply having 4 BB's, 10 cruisers, and maybe 40 destroyers within easy reach of an invasion would have been enough.

=S=

Lunatic

Yes it was planning. If there had been more planning, they would have had a better way to transport the forces including tanks, everything needed. They would have a better plan to obtain air superiority (not bomb the **** out of cities but take out factories and air bases), they would have had a more realistic plan in place.

I think you took me wrong about England needing the US. Yes I agree that England did need supplies from the US. I completly agree with you but the Brits were a very capable fighting force that did not need to be rescued by the US on the battle field as it seems that you sometimes imply. Dont take me wrong I admire your patriotism, it is very noble but the Brits were not a second rate military and did not need the US military to fight off the Germans.

And yes as I said before if the US and the Brits had combined fleets it would have been an amazing fleet but at the time of the proposed Seeloewe there was no fleet better then the Royal Navy.[/quote]

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Imagine Crete without German air superiority, effective AA cover and a proper determined garrison. Germany would have been slaughtered.

One thing is for sure, just the terrain of Crete would have made it very very difficult to take. If the British forces there had been fresh troops with good moral and well supplied it very well may have been different.

Wow you two really are starting to go at it! I wonder how much I can sell tickets for.

[Nonskimmer]

I snuck in for free!

[Udet]

RG_Lunatic:

While you make some good points all I can tell you is that just like it can not be affirmed Seelowe if launched would have succeeded, likewise it can not be affirmed it would have failed.

I stick to my conclusion Hitler did not launch it, because his interest was placed in the east. He of course knew it would have been a terrible fight; Hitler even offered peace to Great Britain.

But do not forget that at the moment, those feeling the hard going were the British and not the Germans; the badly battered side was England after Fall Gelb. Do you disagree on this Lunatic?

Plan_D:

You are particularly funny. If you belong in the category of people who used to believe the Wehrmacht was a flawless, perfect, invincible machine, that is your problem.

I never bought such stuff.

You are diverting the discussion to places I am not interested in going.
I did never say the Wehrmacht was invincible.

The myth regarding the "easy German victories" happens to be an allied invention, and not a German one. All campaigns included mishaps, setbacks and nasty local surprises.

No German victory was easy, at all. That their victories were very fast in some cases is 100% true, but that does not imply they were easy. Ï bet anything you did not know Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt praised the bravery of the Polish soldiers on September 1939.

Poland was not easy; Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and the clashes with the BEF were not easy fights.

German victories were fast because of better tactics; the best officers and NCOs in Europe. There were even cases when the German equipment was not precisely superior: like the French tanks in 1940 which were in some cases better and more powerful than the German panzers; it was the French who doomed their tanks using them on the battlefield quite in the old fashion.

You say the British were defeated in some places because they ran out of supplies? Whose fault would that be? I can assure it was not Germany´s.

It is just like if i´d say the Luftwaffe did not erase the RAF from British skies during 1940 simply because the Bf109 did not have the range to stay in the fight for greater time.

Or if I say, had the 6th Army at Stalingrad received proper supplies the soviets would have never forced them surrender.

Each one of your comments has counter point, and do not fool me. I can read English better than you can assess the recorded facts of the war.

I am done with this mister. I have no furhter use of this poster.

[lesofprimus]

the Brits were not a second rate military

I totally agree.....

and did not need the US military to fight off the Germans.

That I disagree with.... There was no way that a small tiny Island Nation could forstall the innevitable Juggernaught of Nazi Germany for very long without a US military presence...... Dont think a landing in Normandy coulda been done by the Brits themselves...

Although, looking at your statement, it could mean that England didnt need USA to fight their battles for them, just help them out.........

If thats what u meant, then I agree with u...