Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

Not with the logististics available for Sealion I agree, but with say the equivalent of what was built up for the invasion of the USSR for an amphibious landing...

What was built up for the invasion of USSR was 600,000 motor vehicles and between 600,000 and 700,000 horses. As regards operation sealion, Goring (head of luftwaffe) believed the invasion could not succeed and he doubted if even the German air force could win control in the air. A successful invasion of the UK would have required two preconditions, air and naval superiority. Germany never had these 2 preconditions. Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz famously said, "We possessed neither control of the air or the sea; nor were we in any position to gain it.


The English channel was a great anti tank moat and good against horses too;)

FrancieBrady

'We're not losing, we are not running, we are evacuating...... gloriously'. :D

The war is over folks, the British won it with a little help from their friends. Time to let it go.

ohnonotgmail

Jawgap wrote: »

No, they wouldn't.

For example, they had pretty much no anti-shipping capacity in the Luftwaffe in 1940 (aside from one Gruppe) and what little they had was poised to used modified large calibre naval shells as anti-shipping weapons.

Difficult to amount an invasion in the face of flotillas of aggressively manoeuvring destroyers bearing down on you......especially if you've conceived the operation as a 'river crossing on a broad front' and are using barges with a low freeboard in historically stormy waters, and are hoping to support the landings with air cover only and not large volumes of naval gunfire.

Plus the Heer had no tradition of amphibious operations - they were an continental land army. Even the Allies when it came to mounting OVERLORD had to learn from the numerous mistakes they made during TORCH, HUSKY, AVALANCHE and SHINGLE.

HUSKY, for example, was actually larger, in some regards compared to OVERLORD but it was also a catalogue of errors.

They may well have crossed, got ashore and even developed a lodgement but in terms of then being supplied, sustained etc they've have not faired well given their supply lines would have extended back across the Channel, and across Europe to Germany.

The British wouldn't have even had to fire on the german barges. They just had to get their destroyers to sail close to them and the wash would have sunk them. I cant believe that people are still arguing in favour of sealion.

Jawgap

Or as Foch might have said.....

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.

ohnonotgmail

Jawgap wrote: »

Or as Foch might have said.....

it sounds better in the original french.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

No, they wouldn't.

For example, they had pretty much no anti-shipping capacity in the Luftwaffe in 1940 (aside from one Gruppe) and what little they had was poised to used modified large calibre naval shells as anti-shipping weapons.

Difficult to amount an invasion in the face of flotillas of aggressively manoeuvring destroyers bearing down on you......especially if you've conceived the operation as a 'river crossing on a broad front' and are using barges with a low freeboard in historically stormy waters, and are hoping to support the landings with air cover only and not large volumes of naval gunfire.

Plus the Heer had no tradition of amphibious operations - they were an continental land army. Even the Allies when it came to mounting OVERLORD had to learn from the numerous mistakes they made during TORCH, HUSKY, AVALANCHE and SHINGLE.

HUSKY, for example, was actually larger, in some regards compared to OVERLORD but it was also a catalogue of errors.

They may well have crossed, got ashore and even developed a lodgement but in terms of then being supplied, sustained etc they've have not faired well given their supply lines would have extended back across the Channel, and across Europe to Germany.

You rule it out completely then? Torch, Husky etc were carried out over wide expanses of water. The German's land based artillery in the Pas de Calais area could have counteracted the RN. A Naval Chief of Staff memo (4 Sept 1940) admitted if the Germans had taken control of the 'Dover defile' on the English side of the Dover Strait, having guns on both sides could have severely disrupted RN attempts to interdict German supply efforts.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

You rule it out completely then? Torch, Husky etc were carried out over wide expanses of water. The German's land based artillery in the Pas de Calais area could have counteracted the RN. A Naval Chief of Staff memo (4 Sept 1940) admitted if the Germans had taken control of the 'Dover defile' on the English side of the Dover Strait, having guns on both sides could have severely disrupted RN attempts to interdict German supply efforts.

No.

TORCH, HUSKY etc were backed up by several navies, two of which (the USN and RN) had deep traditions of running such operations and wider naval operations - the Germans simply didn't. Even during AVALANCHE when the Luftwaffe when the Luftwaffe had the Fritz X guided bomb for use against the naval units they weren't able to hit anything except ships at anchor.

Land based artillery wouldn't have been much use against something like a destroyer manoevering at speed especially when you consider the flight time of a shell - if skilled Stuka pilots struggled to ping destroyers during the evacuation of Crete it's difficult to believe gunners would be able to do any better.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

You rule it out completely then? Torch, Husky etc were carried out over wide expanses of water. The German's land based artillery in the Pas de Calais area could have counteracted the RN. A Naval Chief of Staff memo (4 Sept 1940) admitted if the Germans had taken control of the 'Dover defile' on the English side of the Dover Strait, having guns on both sides could have severely disrupted RN attempts to interdict German supply efforts.

For Torch they was practically no naval opposition. they also had dedicated landing craft not river barges and the landing craft were not expected to travel over a wide expanse of water. The french opposition wasnt exactly sterling. The same could not be said for sealion.

For Husky the landings were not strongly opposed. again the same could not be said for sealion.

OxfordColours

Deleted User wrote: »

You rule it out completely then? Torch, Husky etc were carried out over wide expanses of water. The German's land based artillery in the Pas de Calais area could have counteracted the RN. A Naval Chief of Staff memo (4 Sept 1940) admitted if the Germans had taken control of the 'Dover defile' on the English side of the Dover Strait, having guns on both sides could have severely disrupted RN attempts to interdict German supply efforts.

You have no idea, literally, no idea. Artillery is next to useless against naval craft. Even today, with the best fire control computers, it's a pointless effort, even in direct fire mode. For someone with the username 17-pdr...

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

No.

TORCH, HUSKY etc were backed up by several navies, two of which (the USN and RN) had deep traditions of running such operations and wider naval operations - the Germans simply didn't. Even during AVALANCHE when the Luftwaffe when the Luftwaffe had the Fritz X guided bomb for use against the naval units they weren't able to hit anything except ships at anchor.

Land based artillery wouldn't have been much use against something like a destroyer manoevering at speed especially when you consider the flight time of a shell - if skilled Stuka pilots struggled to ping destroyers during the evacuation of Crete it's difficult to believe gunners would be able to do any better.

I know it would have been extraodinarily difficult but I would have still have given it a chance of success, but not with 1940 force levels. Even the Sandhurst 1974 wargame exercise gave the Sealion 1940 version plan a chance of getting a foothold, even though it led to eventual defeat. What could have happened in say the summer of 1941 after an adequate military buildup is anybody's guess.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it would have been extraodinarily difficult but I would have still have given it a chance of success, but not with 1940 force levels. Even the Sandhurst 1974 wargame exercise gave the Sealion 1940 version plan a chance of getting a foothold, even though it led to eventual defeat. What could have happened in say the summer of 1941 after an adequate military buildup is anybody's guess.

Yes, as I said, they proabably could have got a force across and landed it - but then how could they have sustained it?

All the other landings mentioned (TORCH, HUSKY, AVALANCHE etc) were supplied over the beach but it was a horrendously difficult task even with specialist ships.

Plus, a landing in 1940, in my opinion, would have been closer to in character to Gallipoli than OVERLORD. Additionally, some of the logistical concepts that helped deliver OVERLORD were only developed in the wake of HUSKY so without that experience (or something comparable) it's difficult to see how the Germans could've conceived and delivered a successful SEALION in 1940......perhaps if they failed, fell back and 're-grouped' for another attempt the experience would have helped make SEALION II a success - but that's a real hypothetical as it would've meant no BARBAROSSA.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it would have been extraodinarily difficult but I would have still have given it a chance of success, but not with 1940 force levels. Even the Sandhurst 1974 wargame exercise gave the Sealion 1940 version plan a chance of getting a foothold, even though it led to eventual defeat. What could have happened in say the summer of 1941 after an adequate military buildup is anybody's guess.

you're then talking about WWII being contained in Western Europe and no push eastwards by the Nazis.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you're then talking about WWII being contained in Western Europe and no push eastwards by the Nazis.

Yep, mentioned that in an earlier post.

Jawgap wrote: »

but that's a real hypothetical as it would've meant no BARBAROSSA.

Same reply as to FF above.

Originally posted by OxfordColours: You have no idea, literally, no idea. Artillery is next to useless against naval craft. Even today, with the best fire control computers, it's a pointless effort, even in direct fire mode. For someone with the username 17-pdr...

Then maybe you could explain the 4 September 1940 Naval Chief of staff memo which expressed worry about the issue of the possible denial of access for the RN to the Dover straits should the Germans gain a land foothold on the English side (Dover defile) adding to the threat from the French side (Pas De Calais) not forgetting as well the efforts of the Luftwaffe?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, mentioned that in an earlier post.



Same reply as to FF above.



Then maybe you could explain the 4 September 1940 Naval Chief of staff memo which expressed worry about the issue of the possible denial of access for the RN to the Dover straits should the Germans gain a land foothold on the English side (Dover defile) adding to the threat from the French side (Pas De Calais) not forgetting as well the efforts of the Luftwaffe?

the same luftwaffe that couldnt guarantee air superiority for sealion?

Skylinehead

Jawgap wrote: »

No.

TORCH, HUSKY etc were backed up by several navies, two of which (the USN and RN) had deep traditions of running such operations and wider naval operations - the Germans simply didn't. Even during AVALANCHE when the Luftwaffe when the Luftwaffe had the Fritz X guided bomb for use against the naval units they weren't able to hit anything except ships at anchor.

I think the Fritz managed to hit the Roma a few times when she was under way, and from memory a US cruiser as well. I know the Warspite was hit but I think during an amphibious operation so probably not moving.

Although that was long after Sealion would have taken place, and there was no way the Germans were crossing the Channel with the Royal Navy around.

Jawgap

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yep, mentioned that in an earlier post.



Same reply as to FF above.



Then maybe you could explain the 4 September 1940 Naval Chief of staff memo which expressed worry about the issue of the possible denial of access for the RN to the Dover straits should the Germans gain a land foothold on the English side (Dover defile) adding to the threat from the French side (Pas De Calais) not forgetting as well the efforts of the Luftwaffe?

That was a possibility but it's also worth remembering that at this point in the War the Brits were twitchy about frittering away their naval power which is why the Home Fleet was ordered to remain north of the Wash.

However, if an invasion fleet put to sea there's no way that order would've remained in place and any German invasion ships would've been faced with what was planned......destroyer flotillas coming on at flank speed and firing everything.

And as the Luftwaffe demonstrated during the Greek, Norwegian and Dunkirk evacuations hitting a manoeuvring destroyer is not easy.

indioblack

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it would have been extraodinarily difficult but I would have still have given it a chance of success, but not with 1940 force levels. Even the Sandhurst 1974 wargame exercise gave the Sealion 1940 version plan a chance of getting a foothold, even though it led to eventual defeat. What could have happened in say the summer of 1941 after an adequate military buildup is anybody's guess.

I remember reading about the 1974 wargame - the Germans landed 90,000 troops on the first day. The days following this had the invasion force requiring and expecting reinforcement and resupply, ["The Battle of the Build-Up" in Overlord]. This never happened and the forces in England were finally ordered to withdraw - most were unable to do so.
Years ago I read of an invasion exercise carried out near Boulogne in 1940.
It appears to have been a shambles - with the German military concluding that an invasion of England in this fashion was "not on".

MRnotlob606

BRITISH ARMY OUT OUT OUT