PDA

View Full Version : Why did Guderian stop at Dunkirk?



garm1and
05-25-2015, 09:38 AM
I've read that Field Marshal Guderian halted his forces outside of Dunkirk because he was opposed to inflicting a bloodbath on the BEF. Also there was probably no practical way that he could make them all prisoners. Thoughts anyone?

Rising Sun*
05-25-2015, 10:43 AM
I think this ranks with the fiction that Hitler stopped the German advance as he wanted to come to a peace with Britain and didn't want to prejudice it by slaughtering the British.

My understanding is that the real reasons were that the German armour had outrun its supply lines and outrun German infantry; the country around Dunkirk wasn't favourable to armour; and that the German commanders felt exposed to a possible counter-attack by the Allies and wanted to consolidate their forces and supplies before resuming the offensive.

Also, Guderian wasn't the overall commander but subject to orders from above, so it wasn't his call to stop the German advance.

tankgeezer
05-25-2015, 03:04 PM
I had heard that the Tanks were stopped for both supply reasons, and Maintenance / repairs, which were allegedly sorely needed. Although I have not read, or heard it to be true, It would not surprise me at all to learn that the German Commander stopped the advance in order to allow the remnant to be rescued as they were in no condition to fight, or defend, nor would they be so for some time after having to abandon all of the heavy equipments. So any additional ground attack would appear to the World at large to be murderous slaughter. This consideration would be more the choice of a Professional Officer of long experience rather than a born again, Blut Fahne fondling Party member, especially if the Germans had no facility, or resource for processing, and holding such a huge number of Prisoners.

leccy
05-25-2015, 06:18 PM
The Germans had already panicked at Arras with Rommel declaring he wa being assaulted by several Allied tank Divisions - which caused a halt and German Panzers to be turned round to deal with this threat to their rear.

The Ground Forces did not really halt outside Dunkirk, the defenders were amply supplied for their needs, could not be outflanked, in terrain that favoured infantry rather than tanks. The tank forces were therefore halted to resupply and maint while the infantry caught up to assault what was rapidly becoming a heavily defended position.

One attempt by Germans to use tanks to break through what was perceived a weak position was halted by well sited British 3" AA guns in the AT role.

Lots can be said with most saying the Germans were wanting to prevent slaughter etc etc - but when did they ever show that restraint - bombing city's and refugee columns, atrocities in France and Belgium against military and civilian prisoners. They still tried to bomb those poor helpless troops from the air - why do that and why try to sink the ships if you wanted them to get away - does not add up.

The only thing that does is the Germans could not take them by ground assault before the defences were solidified - once they were it was a very costly battle for them and the mainly French rear guard holding out.

Rising Sun*
05-26-2015, 08:42 AM
One attempt by Germans to use tanks to break through what was perceived a weak position was halted by well sited British 3" AA guns in the AT role.

I knew that the German 88mm was adaptable to AA or AT and very effective in the latter role, but didn't realise that the British had a 75mm or thereabouts AA / AT gun. Was it in common use in WWII and, if so, how effective was it in the AT role?

leccy
05-26-2015, 11:04 AM
I knew that the German 88mm was adaptable to AA or AT and very effective in the latter role, but didn't realise that the British had a 75mm or thereabouts AA / AT gun. Was it in common use in WWII and, if so, how effective was it in the AT role?

Many people attribute the Germans to first using the Flak 88 as an AT gun and the whole idea of the heavy AA guns having a dual use.

Pre war (from the 1920's) it was part of the Annual shoot for all heavy AA regts to do an AT shoot as part of their training. The 3" AA fired a 12 1/2 pound AP Shot from the case that was later used with improved propellant and a 17pdr projectile for the 77mm on the comet so imagine the effect in 1939/40.

This was stopped with the introduction of the 2pdr as a dedicated AT gun, the 3" AA was then to be used for its primary design as there was not enough to go round - the newer 3.7" was also not as well suited to the ground use with its carriage being designed for high angle use.

All AA units though still kept stocks of AT ammunition for local defence (in North Africa it was doctrine for all AA guns HAA 3", 3.7", LAA 40mm, to be positioned for AA and ground use if possible) and contrary to popular thought, the British did use their 3" AA in 1940 for ground use and their 3.7" in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe.

The 3" AA on field mount - much easier and quicker than the 3.7" to bring into action as it was fired from the wheeled mount and screw jacks were wound down either side.

7462

Rising Sun*
05-26-2015, 11:23 AM
Many people attribute the Germans to first using the Flak 88 as an AT gun and the whole idea of the heavy AA guns having a dual use.

Pre war (from the 1920's) it was part of the Annual shoot for all heavy AA regts to do an AT shoot as part of their training. The 3" AA fired a 12 1/2 pound AP Shot from the case that was later used with improved propellant and a 17pdr projectile for the 77mm on the comet so imagine the effect in 1939/40.

This was stopped with the introduction of the 2pdr as a dedicated AT gun, the 3" AA was then to be used for its primary design as there was not enough to go round - the newer 3.7" was also not as well suited to the ground use with its carriage being designed for high angle use.

All AA units though still kept stocks of AT ammunition for local defence (in North Africa it was doctrine for all AA guns HAA 3", 3.7", LAA 40mm, to be positioned for AA and ground use if possible) and contrary to popular thought, the British did use their 3" AA in 1940 for ground use and their 3.7" in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe.

Thanks for that.

I confess that I was under the impression that only the Germans had a useful dual purpose AA/AT weapon. I was also under what I think is a common misconception that the British weapons couldn't depress enough to be used in AT roles. No doubt it also reflects my relative lack of interest in weapon details in preference for wider strategy and related issues.


The 3" AA on field mount - much easier and quicker than the 3.7" to bring into action as it was fired from the wheeled mount and screw jacks were wound down either side.

The screw mounts rather than a spade, on what I assume was a wheeled mount set at right angles to the barrel in firing position, suggest that there wasn't a lot of recoil. Was this so?

leccy
05-26-2015, 11:47 AM
For high trajectory fire most force is directed downwards, so the screw jacks which can just be seen midway between the wheels on the image I posted give enough stability (the weapon was initially a WW1 design), I have not read what the horizontal recoil force would be like but I should imagine nothing like the M56 Scorpion which was deemed still good and accurate enough for service. The Cruciform system used on the Flak 88 and 3.7" gave much better stability to handle the much higher MV and forces of those guns.

The weapon had a full 360 degree traverse on this mount, which was one of many types over the years.

It does beggar belief that only 50 were converted to AT guns on two wheeled carriage, with another 50 mounted in Churchill hulls to become the 3" Gun Carrier as they were retired from AA use with all kept for home defence. They would have been very useful to supplement the 18 pdrs and 25 pdrs used as temporary AT guns in North Africa. But some British decisions in WW2 really defy logic when looking back with hindsight.

Rising Sun*
05-27-2015, 08:47 AM
leccy,

Is the gun in your photo a captured one?

Looks like a German soldier to the right of it.

leccy
05-27-2015, 07:27 PM
That was one of the ones used on the parade next to the beach at Dunkirk - three at least were in a row on the promenade defending the beach until ammunition ran out - it was odd that some of the ships taking away troops were also bringing ammunition in for the defenders.

7465

One in traveling position on the beach

7466

One of the little known but very important constructions to be defended - the improvised piers

7467

Rising Sun*
05-28-2015, 06:35 AM
it was odd that some of the ships taking away troops were also bringing ammunition in for the defenders.

Assuming that the defenders needed ammunition, that seems a sensible process to extend the defence and protect the evacuation.

Or was there already sufficient ammunition there?

Separate issue: The AT guns kept for home defence could, if suitably used (which is debatable in the rather chaotic retreat down Malaya) have made a useful difference against Japanese tanks in Malaya 18 months after Dunkirk, by which time there was little prospect of Germany invading Britain. Although that would not have altered the eventual result, so those guns would have been lost with everything else in Malaya / Singapore.

leccy
05-28-2015, 07:54 AM
Certain types of ammunition especially 2 pdr AT and AA were in short supply (in actual unit hands) when the Germans launched their assault, supply dumps were lost or destroyed in the chaos of the retreats with HQ often having no contact with their sub units for long periods.

Ref AT guns the British made some decisions that looking back now were bad - but at the time, in the situation they were in - I can understand to an extent - I possibly would have gambled and got the 6pdr into production in 1940 when it should have been - in at least one factory.

aly j
05-30-2015, 11:31 PM
Also, Guderian wasn't the overall commander but subject to orders from above, so it wasn't his call to stop the German advance.

That is why I believe Hitler halted German forces to allow the British to escape. Only Hitler was in charge of halting and moving german forces.

pdf27
05-31-2015, 02:06 AM
Thanks for that.

I confess that I was under the impression that only the Germans had a useful dual purpose AA/AT weapon. I was also under what I think is a common misconception that the British weapons couldn't depress enough to be used in AT roles. No doubt it also reflects my relative lack of interest in weapon details in preference for wider strategy and related issues.
To a large extent that reflects the plenitude of materiel the British had in comparison to the Germans - they didn't make much use of dual AA/AT guns because by and large they didn't have to, having a sufficiency of dedicated designs of both for most of the war.


It does beggar belief that only 50 were converted to AT guns on two wheeled carriage, with another 50 mounted in Churchill hulls to become the 3" Gun Carrier as they were retired from AA use with all kept for home defence. They would have been very useful to supplement the 18 pdrs and 25 pdrs used as temporary AT guns in North Africa. But some British decisions in WW2 really defy logic when looking back with hindsight.
I suspect in North Africa it was probably a logistics issue - supplying an additional 25pdr shell type is much, much easier than keeping an entirely different weapon supplied in theatre complete with spare parts, ammunition, etc. It needs to be remembered exactly how hard it was to supply the North African theatre for the British at this point - I've seen estimates of over 100,000 men working on the logistics for the campaign, with everything needed having either to go around the Cape and then along the coast road from Suez or flown overland via Takoradi.
The 3" gun did remain in anti-tank use until 1973, however. What happened was that the 17pdr was too big for some tanks like the Comet so the 17pdr ammunition (which was 3" in diameter) was bodged together with the cartridge of the 3" 20cwt AA gun and the resulting weapon called the "77mm HV" and was used on the Comet.

leccy
06-02-2015, 07:48 AM
The 3" gun did remain in anti-tank use until 1973, however. What happened was that the 17pdr was too big for some tanks like the Comet so the 17pdr ammunition (which was 3" in diameter) was bodged together with the cartridge of the 3" 20cwt AA gun and the resulting weapon called the "77mm HV" and was used on the Comet.

Yes the good old 77mm - 3" Shell case with 17pdr projectile and propellant, in a modified 3"/17pdr/Vickers 75mm HV bodge gun - remained in British frontline service until the mid 1960's in Hong kong and with other nations much later.

Built as the Cromwell chassis/turret ring could not take the force of the Vickers 75mm HV nor the 17pdr - proven a teeny bit of a lie as post war they fitted 20pdr and even the L7 105mm in a modified (admittedly thin armour and 2 man) turret on them to make the Charioteer.

Ex-Airman
07-08-2016, 02:35 AM
I've read that Field Marshal Guderian halted his forces outside of Dunkirk because he was opposed to inflicting a bloodbath on the BEF. Also there was probably no practical way that he could make them all prisoners. Thoughts anyone?

I've got nothing in terms of info on this but I would like to think it true. On another note, I am really looking forward to Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" due out next year. I just hope he can do it justice.

imi
07-08-2016, 04:54 AM
because Hitler was generous

Ex-Airman
07-08-2016, 05:06 AM
I wouldn't call the sinking of RMS Lancastria or the Wormhoudt massacre generous.

Nickdfresh
07-08-2016, 05:45 PM
because Hitler was generous

There is a theory that old Adolf halted the panzers in order to get a hold of his increasingly unruly generals and as a way to reestablish Nazi Party control over the military and so that the Battle would be seen as a Nazi victory rather than a purely German Wehrmacht one. Goering also lied to Hitler routinely and over estimateed and oversold his Luftwaffe's ability to annihilate the garrisons at Dunkirk and to prevent a naval evacuation. In The Blitzkrieg Legend, (http://www.usni.org/store/books/history/blitzkrieg-legend) Karl-Heinz Frieser states this coming largely from a German post-war military (hindsight) point of view. I myself don't particularly agree and think there were many reasons the Germans halted already stated in this thread. Not least of which was the Battle of Arras that unnerved the German command quite a bit and the lingering fear that the Allies had something of a surprise up their sleeve are probably more plausible. Also, the Germans didn't think the Allies would be able to evacuate because they had no similar capability so in an odd way it was difficult for the Germans envision things in purely naval terms as the Kriegsmarine was weak and they had little amphibious warfare experience and they often failed to accurately account for the British naval and shipping capabilities....

Laconia
07-10-2016, 04:27 PM
I heard that Hitler did not want to inflict a catastrophe on his British "cousins", thought that they would eventually come to terms, and thus ordered the halt. Plus the blowhard Goering insisted that his Luftwaffe could do the job of finishing off the British. In the end such actions proved devastating - to the Germans themselves.

Nickdfresh
07-11-2016, 07:28 AM
I heard that Hitler did not want to inflict a catastrophe on his British "cousins", thought that they would eventually come to terms, and thus ordered the halt.....

A complete myth that has been dispelled on many levels. Hitler would alternately praise and then despise the British, he certainly had no great love for them and the premise is idiotic. The notion is based on a few speeches Hitler gave but makes no sense and is based on nothing he said or did during the battle. Secondly, the Halt! Order originated with Rundstedt, and was backed by most of the OKW based on their lack of knowledge on the tactical situation and lack of concrete information. If you want a country to sue for peace and negotiate, why the **** would you let the only well trained, experienced portion of their land forces escape?

Laconia
07-12-2016, 01:46 AM
A complete myth that has been dispelled on many levels. Hitler would alternately praise and then despise the British, he certainly had no great love for them and the premise is idiotic. The notion is based on a few speeches Hitler gave but makes no sense and is based on nothing he said or did during the battle. Secondly, the Halt! Order originated with Rundstedt, and was backed by most of the OKW based on their lack of knowledge on the tactical situation and lack of concrete information. If you want a country to sue for peace and negotiate, why the **** would you let the only well trained, experienced portion of their land forces escape?

Hey, it's hard to explain many of the things the Germans did in WW2. By the time of Dunkirk, Hitler already had a lot of Europe in the bag, so letting some enemy troops get away to an island where he could finish them off if they didn't surrender was not to my mind really such a farfetched idea.

imi
07-12-2016, 07:23 AM
I wouldn't call the sinking of RMS Lancastria or the Wormhoudt massacre generous.

The Brits used for military purposes civilian transport ships, the reason for the sinking this could be

imi
07-12-2016, 08:57 AM
Anyway Hitler not planned to attack France, or England before 1939
France and England attack Germany because the Germans moved into Poland to recapture old territories like Danzig (now Gdansk) which was part of the German empire, and by the Versailles Peace Treaty unlawfully handed over to the Poles after WW1 in 1920 (not to mention the dismemberment of Austro-Hungarian monarchy)
Danzig was a German city, almost 100% of the population of germans consisted at that time after Versailles Germany lost 6 million german citizen

From 1939 until 1941 Hitler constantly sought to end the war between England and Germany, but Churchill wanted to continue the war and rejected any peace treaty from Hitler

Laconia
07-12-2016, 11:05 AM
Anyway Hitler not planned to attack France, or England before 1939
France and England attack Germany because the Germans moved into Poland to recapture old territories like Danzig (now Gdansk) which was part of the German empire, and by the Versailles Peace Treaty unlawfully handed over to the Poles after WW1 in 1920 (not to mention the dismemberment of Austro-Hungarian monarchy)
Danzig was a German city, almost 100% of the population of germans consisted at that time after Versailles Germany lost 6 million german citizen



From 1939 until 1941 Hitler constantly sought to end the war between England and Germany, but Churchill wanted to continue the war and rejected any peace treaty from Hitler

France and England attacked Germany? Good grief, where did you get your information? No that is not what happened. When Hitler forced the annexation of the remaining part of Czechoslovakia after he got the Sudetenland, England finally realized that Hitler was not going to be able to be appeased any longer and they would finally have to stand up to him. The whole thing was set in motion by the evil Hitler, not the British or the French. Hitler wanted a war by any means and he finally got what he wanted which led to his complete demise with him cowering in a bunker in Berlin while Russian artillery rained down all around.

imi
07-13-2016, 12:30 AM
France and England attacked Germany? Good grief, where did you get your information? No that is not what happened. When Hitler forced the annexation of the remaining part of Czechoslovakia after he got the Sudetenland, England finally realized that Hitler was not going to be able to be appeased any longer and they would finally have to stand up to him. The whole thing was set in motion by the evil Hitler, not the British or the French. Hitler wanted a war by any means and he finally got what he wanted which led to his complete demise with him cowering in a bunker in Berlin while Russian artillery rained down all around.

Your informations is wrong about ww2 my friend, England declared war on Germany (September 3, 1939, 11 a.m.) a few hours later France also declared war on Germany (September 3, 1939, 5 p.m.)
Hitler only wants back the separated German territorries what Versailles take away from Germany like the Ruhr Area or the Sudetenland and the city of Danzig
Danzig is one of ancient german city and german territory before WW1, Hitler wants only what belongs to Germany

Hitler gives 24 hours capitulation to the Poles and under the Polish campaign another 48 hours to evacuate the civilians, but the Polish Goverment denied both the capitulation and the civilians evacuation from the strategically important cities

England and France the same day sending declaration of war to Germany only a few hours difference

Hitler before the Polish campaign, a 25-year-old peace treaty was signed between the French and Germany
And this peace treaty was infringe from the French side because France declared war on Germany, not Germany declared war on France (After the Polish campaign Hitler beat France)

From 1939 until 1941 Hitler made several peace deals to England, but Churchill denied any peace treaty only the complete withdrawal the German forces from Poland, Hitler insisted on the Danzig

The Second World War broke out due to Versailles peace treaty, and the French and English agression

Laconia
07-13-2016, 12:45 AM
Your informations is wrong about ww2 my friend, England declared war on Germany (September 3, 1939, 11 a.m.) a few hours later France also declared war on Germany (September 3, 1939, 5 p.m.)
Hitler only wants back the separated German territorries what Versailles take away from Germany like the Ruhr Area or the Sudetenland and the city of Danzig
Danzig is one of ancient german city and german territory before WW1, Hitler wants only what belongs to Germany

Hitler gives 24 hours capitulation to the Poles and under the Polish campaign another 48 hours to evacuate the civilians, but the Polish Goverment denied both the capitulation and the civilians evacuation from the strategically important cities

England and France the same day sending declaration of war to Germany only a few hours difference

Hitler before the Polish campaign, a 25-year-old peace treaty was signed between the French and Germany
And this peace treaty was infringe from the French side because France declared war on Germany, not Germany declared war on France (After the Polish campaign Hitler beat France)

From 1939 until 1941 Hitler made several peace deals to England, but Churchill denied any peace treaty only the complete withdrawal the German forces from Poland, Hitler insisted on the Danzig

The Second World War broke out due to Versailles peace treaty, and the French and English agression

What a bunch of crap! The next thing you are going to tell us that there were no death camps either. Hitler's idea of a peace offering was accede to his demands or else. The English and French were bound by a treaty to defend Poland and with his invasion of Poland the treaty was invoked. Hitler started the war, no one else.

If Hitler only wanted what was Germany's, why did he take the rest of Czechoslovakia besides the Sudetenland? And the rest of Poland besides Danzig? And how about Norway, was that once German too? Belgium? The Netherlands?

imi
07-13-2016, 03:18 AM
What a bunch of crap! The next thing you are going to tell us that there were no death camps either. Hitler's idea of a peace offering was accede to his demands or else. The English and French were bound by a treaty to defend Poland and with his invasion of Poland the treaty was invoked. Hitler started the war, no one else.

If Hitler only wanted what was Germany's, why did he take the rest of Czechoslovakia besides the Sudetenland? And the rest of Poland besides Danzig? And how about Norway, was that once German too? Belgium? The Netherlands?

- You are stupid and looks like uneducated, first you don't correctly known basic things who start the war whom :lol:

- Hitler not want war, only back the ancient city of Danzig, gives 24 hours capitulation which the Poles denied. The city of Danzig illegally taken away by the Versailles Peace Treaty (like breaking up the 72% of the Austro Hungarian Monarchy)

- We aren't speak concentration work camps, we speaking about the World War 2. You are a Jew provocateur?

- Norway and Netherland occupation was preventive action from the German side was due to a possible British invasion,the Abwerh (German Secret Services) notice Hitler, England try to design a disembarkation in these Eastern countries

- Belgium was strongly connected to Germany under Hitler leadership,in the reality was independent like Switzerland and most of the German firearms developed in Belgium before WW2

- Hitler not want to occupy whole Poland he was only interested in separated old german territorries and cities like Danzig, and he is very carefully done through the Polish campaign, the separated 6 million German population in Poland is not damaged, only military targets were attacked

Read more about the the subject and not just Jewish-English-Russian-American publications

Rising Sun*
07-13-2016, 04:43 AM
- You are stupid and looks like uneducated

imi, there is no need for this sort of comment, so don't do it again. Consider this as mod advice that will become a warning if you repeat this sort of unnecessary, inaccurate, and unfair comment.

imi
07-13-2016, 05:12 AM
imi, there is no need for this sort of comment, so don't do it again. Consider this as mod advice that will become a warning if you repeat this sort of unnecessary, inaccurate, and unfair comment.

sorry if someone not clear these basic things who attack who under ww2, for me uneducated and stupid
In the elemetary school teaching this theme for 14 years olds

Rising Sun*
07-13-2016, 06:08 AM
sorry if someone not clear these basic things who attack who under ww2, for me uneducated and stupid
In the elemetary school teaching this theme for 14 years olds

I consider that Laconia has a much better understanding of the relevant history than you do.

You are entitled to your opinion, as Laconia and I are to ours.

Just be respectful of others in disputing their opinion, and do so with reasoned argument and presentation of facts.

As I said in my last post, there is no need for comments such as Laconia being uneducated and stupid because his opinion disagrees with yours.

As you have chosen to repeat the specific comment of the type I advised you not to repeat, and in doing so added the comment that 14 year olds in your education system are taught what I regard as your distorted view of the relevant history and thus implied that Laconia lacked the intelligence and education of a 14 year old, you now have an official mod warning not to engage in this sort of conduct.

tankgeezer
07-13-2016, 10:04 AM
IMI, you're going on about Jews again, so another advisory correction for you. You do not seem to take RS* advice on board, so allow me to deepen its impression upon you by seconding that advice, and adding my own. If you cannot control what you post, then refrain from posting until you can control it. Should you continue to demonstrate this lack of control, then the Staff will be forced to do it for you by editing, or deleting posts that do not conform to Site rules. This is not something we wish to do, but we are the ones who maintain the integrity of this Site for the benefit of all of its members.

Laconia
07-13-2016, 12:29 PM
- You are stupid and looks like uneducated, first you don't correctly known basic things who start the war whom :lol:

- Hitler not want war, only back the ancient city of Danzig, gives 24 hours capitulation which the Poles denied. The city of Danzig illegally taken away by the Versailles Peace Treaty (like breaking up the 72% of the Austro Hungarian Monarchy)

- We aren't speak concentration work camps, we speaking about the World War 2. You are a Jew provocateur?

- Norway and Netherland occupation was preventive action from the German side was due to a possible British invasion,the Abwerh (German Secret Services) notice Hitler, England try to design a disembarkation in these Eastern countries

- Belgium was strongly connected to Germany under Hitler leadership,in the reality was independent like Switzerland and most of the German firearms developed in Belgium before WW2

- Hitler not want to occupy whole Poland he was only interested in separated old german territorries and cities like Danzig, and he is very carefully done through the Polish campaign, the separated 6 million German population in Poland is not damaged, only military targets were attacked

Read more about the the subject and not just Jewish-English-Russian-American publications

Ah, I see what we have here - a neo Nazi who continues on with Nazi propaganda some 70 years after the war. Unbelievable!

imi
07-13-2016, 12:53 PM
I consider that Laconia has a much better understanding of the relevant history than you do.

You are entitled to your opinion, as Laconia and I are to ours.

Just be respectful of others in disputing their opinion, and do so with reasoned argument and presentation of facts.

As I said in my last post, there is no need for comments such as Laconia being uneducated and stupid because his opinion disagrees with yours.

As you have chosen to repeat the specific comment of the type I advised you not to repeat, and in doing so added the comment that 14 year olds in your education system are taught what I regard as your distorted view of the relevant history and thus implied that Laconia lacked the intelligence and education of a 14 year old, you now have an official mod warning not to engage in this sort of conduct.

I world war 2 theme about 20 years. Do you think I am incompetent about World War 2?

- Laconia is write about the war the view of the US
- You write about the war the view of Australia (australia also declared war on Germany, in the same date as the Brits and the French, Australia declared war on Germany September 3, 1939)
- tankgeezer write about the war the view "the land of Yoopers" this probably Canada or US, but sure one allied state of the WW2
- I sue the Jews immediately because there is currently no word anti-Semitism, this is a deliberate provocation on behalf of Laconia. I did not say that there were no concentration camps, Laconia is a provocateur

I am write what happening in Europe but who I talk to: jewish and liberalist brainwashed pensioners? :lol: I am sure a total idiot!

Today the Allied and Jews wroted history books deliberately omitted things that Hitler are more evil than he was. Because the winners wrote the history,and later the history books that's all and the Allies and the Jews try to presented Hitler much worse then he was
Hitler wants only back the old german territorries, and not plan to attack France or England. France and England attacked Germany for the German territory goal Polish campaign

Here is one of his speeches which presents Hitler was was entirely diplomatically about the german territories question to the allies but completely unnecessary (listen from part 1- until 7)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4rPn34qMkI&bpctr=1468428119

But the Poles and the Brits want to insist the Versailles "Peace Treaty" which cut out from Germany around 6 million German citizen from their homeland, Hitler wants only what belongs to Germany
The Austro Hungarian Monarchy lost 72% of the country, do you call this a fair "peace treaty"?

Anyway I'm getting enough of this forum which is most similar to a pensioners' club in these latest years which constantly threaten me terrorists called "moderators" only for my opinions
I wrote the truth that's all, and you not want to adopt, because you are the allies, and I am the Axis
And you came immediately the "nazi" and the good old "anti-semitic" themes, and the usual warnings for banning wich is terrorist threatnigs, what you call "warnings"

You know what?
I was member of this forum 06-18-2008 and I have 19,570 visits only on my private site on this forum
I made several topics, and these topics made total 236,295 views totally free for your pockets (you know internet pay per view system right? Course you know :lol:)
And what is the gratitude for that? Permanent banning threats from the "moderators"
I think this is enough and the time to say goodbye to you all dear brainwashed capitalist liberalist, and Jew bootlicker terrorists
Goodbye and f*ck you all dear Gents!
Bye

Nickdfresh
07-13-2016, 03:51 PM
Hey, it's hard to explain many of the things the Germans did in WW2. By the time of Dunkirk, Hitler already had a lot of Europe in the bag, so letting some enemy troops get away to an island where he could finish them off if they didn't surrender was not to my mind really such a farfetched idea.

It is a far-fetched idea and makes no sense. Why didn't they just let some French troops go? Why did they hold most of the French Army as POWs until the end of the war? And OKW was under no illusion that "finishing off" Britain would be an easy thing.

And most of all, the order didn't originate with Hitler, it did with Rundstedt (to refit his exhausted panzerwaffe and allow consolation of forces for the second phase of the attack on France: Fall Rot) and some other supportive generals. I can't recall if Halder was in favor or not. But much of these myths are the doing of the post-war rantings of the German generals seeking to absolve themselves of what turned out to be (arguably) as massive strategic blunder and cast Hitler as the goat.

Most of all, a quick panzer attack into Dunkirk might have failed miserably since unsupported tanks do not do well in urban combat against increasingly consolidated infantry......

Nickdfresh
07-13-2016, 03:57 PM
Anyway Hitler not planned to attack France, or England before 1939...

The Wehrmacht was not prepared for war before 1942 at the earliest. They didn't even have a real war-plan against France, much less England. Perhaps 1948 for the Kriegsmarine...


France and England attack Germany because the Germans moved into Poland to recapture old territories like Danzig (now Gdansk) which was part of the German empire, and by the Versailles Peace Treaty unlawfully handed over to the Poles after WW1 in 1920 (not to mention the dismemberment of Austro-Hungarian monarchy)
Danzig was a German city, almost 100% of the population of germans consisted at that time after Versailles Germany lost 6 million german citizen

Funny how they also took Warsaw, which the Germans had no historical claim too...

And calling "The Phony War" an "attack" is absolute hyperbole...


From 1939 until 1941 Hitler constantly sought to end the war between England and Germany, but Churchill wanted to continue the war and rejected any peace treaty from Hitler

No he didn't...

Name one serious instance Hitler offered any actual peace...

Nickdfresh
07-13-2016, 04:07 PM
I world war 2 theme about 20 years. Do you think I am incompetent about World War 2?

- Laconia is write about the war the view of the US
- You write about the war the view of Australia (australia also declared war on Germany, in the same date as the Brits and the French, Australia declared war on Germany September 3, 1939)
- tankgeezer write about the war the view "the land of Yoopers" this probably Canada or US, but sure one allied state of the WW2
- I sue the Jews immediately because there is currently no word anti-Semitism, this is a deliberate provocation on behalf of Laconia. I did not say that there were no concentration camps, Laconia is a provocateur

I am write what happening in Europe but who I talk to: jewish and liberalist brainwashed pensioners? :lol: I am sure a total idiot!

Today the Allied and Jews wroted history books deliberately omitted things that Hitler are more evil than he was. Because the winners wrote the history,and later the history books that's all and the Allies and the Jews try to presented Hitler much worse then he was
Hitler wants only back the old german territorries, and not plan to attack France or England. France and England attacked Germany for the German territory goal Polish campaign

Here is one of his speeches which presents Hitler was was entirely diplomatically about the german territories question to the allies but completely unnecessary (listen from part 1- until 7)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4rPn34qMkI&bpctr=1468428119

But the Poles and the Brits want to insist the Versailles "Peace Treaty" which cut out from Germany around 6 million German citizen from their homeland, Hitler wants only what belongs to Germany
The Austro Hungarian Monarchy lost 72% of the country, do you call this a fair "peace treaty"?

Anyway I'm getting enough of this forum which is most similar to a pensioners' club in these latest years which constantly threaten me terrorists called "moderators" only for my opinions
I wrote the truth that's all, and you not want to adopt, because you are the allies, and I am the Axis
And you came immediately the "nazi" and the good old "anti-semitic" themes, and the usual warnings for banning wich is terrorist threatnigs, what you call "warnings"

You know what?
I was member of this forum 06-18-2008 and I have 19,570 visits only on my private site on this forum
I made several topics, and these topics made total 236,295 views totally free for your pockets (you know internet pay per view system right? Course you know :lol:)
And what is the gratitude for that? Permanent banning threats from the "moderators"
I think this is enough and the time to say goodbye to you all dear brainwashed capitalist liberalist, and Jew bootlicker terrorists
Goodbye and f*ck you all dear Gents!
Bye

Well, we've been told! :)

tankgeezer
07-13-2016, 10:55 PM
If that's how you feel IMI, but remember, it was your decision.

Laconia
07-13-2016, 11:23 PM
One cannot deny the historical record as it applies to the events leading up to the beginning of WW2. The last thing Britain and France wanted was another war and the appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain to prevent another European conflagration is proof of this. It finally happened though because at some point even Chamberlain could see that negotiations with Hitler were fruitless.

It is hard to believe that in this day and age anyone could be an apologist for the Hitlerites. People can have their own opinions, but the facts are the facts and cannot be argued. One of the most fascinating books on the subject was written by American correspondent William L. Shirer called The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - it is truly a masterpiece of historical writing.

Laconia
07-13-2016, 11:29 PM
It is a far-fetched idea and makes no sense. Why didn't they just let some French troops go? Why did they hold most of the French Army as POWs until the end of the war? And OKW was under no illusion that "finishing off" Britain would be an easy thing.

And most of all, the order didn't originate with Hitler, it did with Rundstedt (to refit his exhausted panzerwaffe and allow consolation of forces for the second phase of the attack on France: Fall Rot) and some other supportive generals. I can't recall if Halder was in favor or not. But much of these myths are the doing of the post-war rantings of the German generals seeking to absolve themselves of what turned out to be (arguably) as massive strategic blunder and cast Hitler as the goat.

Most of all, a quick panzer attack into Dunkirk might have failed miserably since unsupported tanks do not do well in urban combat against increasingly consolidated infantry......

During these battles leading up to Dunkirk, the British infantry fought hard like the professionals they were. Unfortunately they were fighting against the tide of German superiority in tactics and arms. I remember seeing a video of one of the German soldiers who was there praising the fighting abilities of the British soldiers. He said that after they were captured they lined themselves up in ranks and dutifully marched ramrod straight like true soldiers off into captivity.

32Bravo
07-15-2016, 01:41 PM
You see? I just go away for a little while and you get yourselves into all kinds of trouble!

Clearly, he stopped because his tanks couldn't swim.

Laconia
07-15-2016, 10:41 PM
You see? I just go away for a little while and you get yourselves into all kinds of trouble!

Clearly, he stopped because his tanks couldn't swim.

Duh! You are a genius!

JR*
07-19-2016, 06:59 AM
Britain has, in modern (i.e. from the 16th century on) relied on a small professional army and superior naval power. This tendency was reinforced by the early 17th century British Civil War, which gave rise to a long-lasting distrust of professional armies. In fact, technically, Britain did not have a professional standing army at all for a long period. The maintenance of the Army relied on annual renewal of funding through the passage of "Army Bills", a system that occasioned much political trouble, and eventually produced the parliamentary doctrine of "Finance Bills" or "Money Bills", which protected such legislation from the submission of intrusive, irrelevant amendments in Parliament.

In the event of a war requiring additional troops, reliance was placed on the raising of what were essentially temporary forces to meet the exigencies of the situation. During the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, Britain increased the size of its Army substantially, and committed home defence to very substantial corps of Militia, the latter not subject to overseas service (a sort of post-Cromwellian safety valve). This could give rise to difficulties - as when the bulk of Wellington's experienced, professional soldiers were sent on a tidying-up operation to the West Indies, leaving a more-or-less inexperienced rump force to face Napoleon at Waterloo.

In WW2, the BEF could be divided into two broad categories - the usual hard-core professional units, and the increasing number of relatively recent recruits with fairly basic training and no battle experience, many of them mobilized members of the British Territorial Reserve (roughly equivalent of the old Militia). Many of the professional units were to all intents and purposes sacrificed in order to shield the retreat of the bulk of the Anglo-French forces towards evacuation ports. Along with the valiant defence of the French Army, they were successful in this - though at great cost.

As to the Panzers' "halt" - opinions differ as to why this occurred. One clear fact is that, by the time of the "halt", the Germans had come to the end of a desperate game of leap-frog, with the motorized infantry and the first line of marching infantry strained to form a solid line to shield the rapid advance of the tanks. Both the Panzers and the infantry were worn out and in need of refit. The artillery, mainly horse-drawn, was for the most part way to the rear, and short of ammunition. I remain a bit unclear as to who exactly authorized the "halt" - but it is clear that Runstedt, in particular, was more than willing to implement it, since it was clearly, to him, a military necessity. Should the Germans have pressed on ? A hypothetical, and therefore unhistorical speculation. Drifting into that territory, however, I do wonder whether such a course might have severely damaged the worn-out German frontline forces, prejudicing future operation that would obviously be required to complete the defeat of the remaining French metropolitan forces. Who knows ? Yours from The Beaches, JR.

leccy
07-19-2016, 09:45 AM
You see? I just go away for a little while and you get yourselves into all kinds of trouble!

Clearly, he stopped because his tanks couldn't swim.


Duh! You are a genius!

But but but - they stuck hosepipes on a few and drove them under water, even tested them out in the channel, When the were finally used though I suspect the river Bug was a bit shallower and calmer.

Nickdfresh
07-20-2016, 03:05 PM
But but but - they stuck hosepipes on a few and drove them under water, even tested them out in the channel, When the were finally used though I suspect the river Bug was a bit challower and calmer.

Much like the river barges the Germans intended to use as landing craft in the hypothetical Sea Lion...

leccy
07-20-2016, 03:34 PM
Much like the river barges the Germans intended to use as landing craft in the hypothetical Sea Lion...

Oh that was not even their worst idea. This most be pretty close.

Lay wood packing in the barges with railway tracks on them, place wagons full of stores on the tracks, carry spare railway track and winch motors with plenty of SWR.
Barge lands and bows removed, wooden ramp constructed then railway tracks laid on the beach to link up with other tracks from other barges and a main line laid parrallel to the waterline, large truck or halftrack drags the first set of rail wagons off the barge where they are then connected to winch ropes on the winches which have been positioned along the railtrack. The stores wagons are then winched along the beach and over the dunes inland.

Or due to the lack of KM ships for beach fire support - lash artillery pieces to the bows of some ships and use them in lieu.

But getting back to Dunkirk - as much as it upsets a certain type of persons thinking - the Germans allowed the Brits and a large number of French to escape - because they could not stop them. So much easier to try and make up a reason instead of admit they had reached the end of their capability.

Nickdfresh
07-22-2016, 04:06 PM
...

But getting back to Dunkirk - as much as it upsets a certain type of persons thinking - the Germans allowed the Brits and a large number of French to escape - because they could not stop them. So much easier to try and make up a reason instead of admit they had reached the end of their capability.

They also seem to ignore that the British did evacuate large portions of the BEF at other places besides Dunkirk. And also fail to realize that Dunkirk was not the last battle, but was the prelude to the final Fall Rot operation to mop up the rest of the French Army and secure France. They met stubborn French resistance and the first successful tactics to blunt "Blitzkrieg" in the hedgehog tactics of Weygand. In no small part of the German difficulties were born of exhaustion of men and machines as well as shortages in materials. If the French had any sort of significant mobile strategic reserve left to counterattack, the Germans might have had some troubles...

Rising Sun*
07-23-2016, 09:47 AM
Lay wood packing in the barges with railway tracks on them, place wagons full of stores on the tracks, carry spare railway track and winch motors with plenty of SWR.
Barge lands and bows removed, wooden ramp constructed then railway tracks laid on the beach to link up with other tracks from other barges and a main line laid parrallel to the waterline, large truck or halftrack drags the first set of rail wagons off the barge where they are then connected to winch ropes on the winches which have been positioned along the railtrack. The stores wagons are then winched along the beach and over the dunes inland.

I don't know the precise landing spots intended for Sea Lion, but I suspect that the Germans would have found it impossible to winch any wagons over the cliffs often backing the beaches in south east England.

Also, would the incoming tides have covered and or damaged the tracks and impeded operations?

leccy
07-24-2016, 05:27 AM
I don't know the precise landing spots intended for Sea Lion, but I suspect that the Germans would have found it impossible to winch any wagons over the cliffs often backing the beaches in south east England.

Also, would the incoming tides have covered and or damaged the tracks and impeded operations?

The navy wanted a narrow landing front, the army a wide frontage, there was a huge variance in terrain types, one of the areas was around Romney - which is in Romney Marshes - The name gives a hint as to what the terrain was like inland from the beach.

It was another of the bad ideas they had - very impractical especially for an invasion or even ressuply, but they did publish it in documents captured by the Soviets and made available when the old Soviet Archives were unlocked, scanned and put online a couple of years ago.

Rising Sun*
07-24-2016, 08:40 AM
The navy wanted a narrow landing front, the army a wide frontage, there was a huge variance in terrain types, one of the areas was around Romney - which is in Romney Marshes - The name gives a hint as to what the terrain was like inland from the beach.

Sounds like very poor staff work if the Germans thought their somewhat Heath Robinson railway system was going to work in that sort of country.

Better staff work would at least have provided pontoons and something like Bailey Bridges for crossing the marshes and flooded areas, but the supply train and general logistics for what seems like a massive exercise to achieve that would seem to have been well beyond Germany's already seriously limited capacity to undertake and sustain a seaborne assault.

Thanks to your last post, and the marvels of Google, I found that the British anticipated a landing in this area and prepared for it by flooding some areas and being able to flood others, plus, depending upon the questionable reliability of a few sites thrown up by Google, a plan to flood parts of the Marshes with oil based fuels and set fire to them.

Now I know why the Romney Marsh sheep and their derivatives in Australia were suited to wet and swampy conditions. I knew they were valued for that half a century ago when I worked in the bush, but it wasn't until now that I realised they were named after the swampy area in which they were bred to survive.

Rising Sun*
07-24-2016, 10:11 AM
Fortunately the German General Staff didn't get Heath Robinson's secret designs for crossing difficult country like the Romney Marshes. ;) :D

https://au.pinterest.com/pin/397513104590344186/

32Bravo
08-28-2016, 06:36 AM
7738These are a few pics I took at Cuckmere Haven. The Seven Sisters cliffs were obviously impassable, but the Cuckmere was a planned access route. This too was planned to be flooded. The beach consists of a bank of shingle created for land reclamation.
You can see a part of the field of fire in the picture taken from atop the bunker. There are several of these bunkers, but they could have been outflanked by scaling the cliff. There is also a line of Dragon's-teeth on the shore side of the bank (no pics.).

7735

7736

7737

garm1and
08-28-2016, 01:09 PM
Very cool photos! :cool: Thanks for sharing.

32Bravo
08-28-2016, 05:48 PM
Glad you like them.

32Bravo
08-28-2016, 05:52 PM
A few more of the general area around Cuckmere.

7739 This pic is just slightly to the shoreside of the shingle bank. A natural flood plain, it is now a water fowl reserve.

7740 This is where the cliff comes down to the beach. It is a very unstable cliff due to water erosion caused by tidal activity. The cliffs frequently collapse in part along their length.


7741 This is a mile or so inland from the beach.

32Bravo
08-28-2016, 06:08 PM
Here's a link to some web pics. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=cuckmere+haven&view=detailv2&id=CF06E905C47C1DF34280105FEDC77DB02C471675&selectedindex=3&ccid=IvyfdtSp&simid=608053828493772963&thid=OIP.M22fc9f76d4a956fcec79973880629c91o0&mode=overlay&first=1

7742

7743

leccy
08-30-2016, 06:55 AM
Even today a lot of the proposed invasion areas have pretty poor road infrastructure (although they had a much better rail system back then).

Getting ashore in sufficient numbers to be able get inland is one thing, it is another to be able to move inland through the terrain and with limited resources behind you.

32Bravo
08-31-2016, 07:31 AM
I would think that the use of airbourne forces would have helped to overcome some of the problems of rapid escalation from the landing areas. Particularly with the capture of RAF base, of which there were quite a few in the Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Furthermore, I would suggest that the experience gained in negotiating the forests of the Ardenne would have been considerable. Once beyond the cliffs of the south coast, there is excellent country for armour to break out. To some extent, the German use of horses and infantry afoot, might have been an advantage. Unlike the Soviet Union, the distances to and between major conurbations were not great.

leccy
08-31-2016, 03:19 PM
The Germans did not gain even local superiority in the air during the battle of Britain which means the RAF would have a field day against the slow German transport aircraft which had suffered many losses in the low countries (and were not fully replaced by Barbarossa) against virtually no air power.

With no real means of resupplying those forces once the initial drop was made they would not be able to really link up with the seaborne forces. In 1940 they were still not the large well trained and equipped force that went into Crete and suffered huge losses against inadequate forces (little air cover or AA defence, a large amount of poorly trained and equipped forces lacking in artillery and armour and who were unfamiliar with the ground working with allies they could not adequately communicate with).

Even the ground forces when (or if) they got acroos with their first echelon supplies were cut off from reinforcement and resupply (some areas it would be three days presuming shipping was still available before the second wave could land). Much of the armour was to be landed from frieghters and craned onto docks after capturing a port (not an easy feat to do), fire support was to be provided by artillery tied down to the bows of merchant ships as the Navy had too many tasks to do with its very limited resources (especially as many ships crews were to be reduced to the bare bones to supply crews for the freighters, barges, small boats and requisitioned vessals from home and abroad).

32Bravo
09-01-2016, 06:24 AM
I'm sure that you're right for the most part. Did Goering attempt to win local air superiority? I think that remains a much debated topic. Arguably, the RAF was on the brink when the emphasis was switched to London as a target. There are a lot of assumptions in your statement. Maybe true opinions, but not proven facts. Clearly, the main fact is that they didn't come. Enjoy!

JR*
09-01-2016, 07:26 AM
Nice photos, 32Bravo. I am not familiar with this part of England, a deficiency I must try to correct.

As regards the use of airborne forces to overcome the problems posed for the Germans in exploiting a seaborne invasion across the English Channel, well, I have my doubts. Germany had, in 1940, paratroop and airborne forces of superior quality. However, it is worth examining their performance in the major area of involvement in "Fall Gelb" - the invasion of the Netherlands. The very idea of including the Netherlands in "Fall Gelb" owed much to the Luftwaffe's interest in obtaining Dutch airfields for use against Britain later. Perhaps in consequence, the allocation of tasks in the Netherlands fell to a great extent on Luftwaffe or Luftwaffe-led forces and commanders. The results could charitably be described as "mixed".

Leaving aside the multi-arms fiasco that led to the bombing of Rotterdam, an instance of more interest here is the exclusively airborne attack on the area of the Hague. The idea here was that a combined paratroop and airborne (Heer) infantry would launch a surprise attack on airfields around the city (the Netherlands' administrative capital) and capture the Queen and her government and the Dutch military high command. This, it was hoped, might end the war in the Netherlands or, at least, cripple the Dutch Army's command structures. The result was, well, a bit of a fiasco. German pilots towing the gliders made pretty much a hash of their navigation. This may have been contributed to by the featureless landscape of the southern Netherlands. To this I can only say that navigational techniques generally regarded as required of group leaders in civilian hillwalking clubs seem to have been absent here. In any event, many targets were missed, with gliders coming down in the wrong areas; other targets were found, but only after delays. As a result, the Dutch defenders were thoroughly alerted. Some of the airport targets were hotly contested, with particular airfields changing hands more than once. By the time the Germans had dealt with this resistance and occupied the Hague, the Queen, her government and the military brass had escaped. The Royal Family and government was eventually evacuated to Great Britain, where they led resistance to the Germans until liberation. The Germans involved in the operation were ordered to strike towards Rotterdam, only to be immobilized and surrounded by the Dutch. They were only rescued from this situation by the general Dutch surrender.

It is worth bearing in mind that this fiasco was played out in the absence of any effective fighter resistance from the Dutch. A similar operation over southern England would have required effective fighter escort, since RAF Fighter Command would have to contended with. Escorting large numbers of Ju52 transports loaded with paratroopers or towing gliders would have been a tricky assignment, not least because the effective operating time of the MeBf 109 over the target area would have been very limited. It is of course speculative, but it seems quite likely that the result would have been a "turkey shoot" for the defending RAF fighters.

The success of the Germans in learning the lessons of the Netherlands was mixed. They do seem to have absorbed, to some extent, the lessons of the one-day battle of Dordrecht (don't commit large numbers of tanks in cramped urban environment). However, the attack on Crete does not suggest that the lessons regarding the limitations of assaults by paratroop and airborne forces was learned. Best regards, JR.

Rising Sun*
09-01-2016, 08:04 AM
In 1940 they were still not the large well trained and equipped force that went into Crete and suffered huge losses against inadequate forces (little air cover or AA defence, a large amount of poorly trained and equipped forces lacking in artillery and armour and who were unfamiliar with the ground working with allies they could not adequately communicate with).

Unlike Crete in 1941, Britain in 1940 had:

1. Single military defence command.
2. Unified land, air and naval forces under that command
3. Relative to Crete, large, mobile and reasonably well equipped and supplied land, air and naval forces available for sustained resistance to the invader.
4. Ability to move those forces to or in support of defending beachhead.
5. Ability to retreat in depth over prepared defensive ground while wearing down the invader and extending his somewhat tenuous lines of communication.
5. Common language.
6. Civilian support in defence of their homeland with all of the above points (although it would be difficult to exceed the brave and determined Greek civilian support given to Commonwealth forces during the battle and, at even greater risk to themselves, after defeat on Crete).

Rising Sun*
09-01-2016, 08:18 AM
German pilots towing the gliders made pretty much a hash of their navigation. This may have been contributed to by the featureless landscape of the southern Netherlands. To this I can only say that navigational techniques generally regarded as required of group leaders in civilian hillwalking clubs seem to have been absent here. In any event, many targets were missed, with gliders coming down in the wrong areas; other targets were found, but only after delays.

Given somewhat similar problems with Allied gliders landing in Europe in 1944, and despite me having no knowledge of the training and expectations of Allied glider pilots, your comment made me wonder if perhaps there was a notion that glider pilots were one trip expendable pilots who, on both sides, weren't sufficiently trained to identify their targets and perform the difficult task, which powered pilots weren't required to do as part of their normal landing, of landing when they ran out of air?

I suspect that glider pilots didn't get a lot of practice landings on unknown landing grounds with gliders fully laden with troops and or equipment before being sent into action.

leccy
09-01-2016, 03:45 PM
I'm sure that you're right for the most part. Did Goering attempt to win local air superiority? I think that remains a much debated topic. Arguably, the RAF was on the brink when the emphasis was switched to London as a target. There are a lot of assumptions in your statement. Maybe true opinions, but not proven facts. Clearly, the main fact is that they didn't come. Enjoy!

Only one airgroup in the UK was fully comitted and egaged by the Luftwaffe during the BoB No 11 Group SE England (Which still held a surplus of pilots and aircraft on each squadrons strength although not as great as other groups squadrons)

No's 9 Group NW England and NI, 10 Group SW England, 12 Group Midlands and N England, 13 Group N England and Scotland, 14 Group Scotland - were involved to a greater or lesser extent mostly in rotation of Squadrons or Aircrew and dealing with limited German raids (although 12 Group was supposed to cover 11 Groups airfields).

Fighter command was never really in the dire straights it is often portrayed to have been in - much down to films like BoB and propaganda of the time about 'The Few' - Fighter Commands strength in aircraft and trained pilots increased during June, July and August while the Luftwaffes actually dropped. The war of attrition was lost by the luftwaffe as they could not sustain their losses - the RAF may not have been able to indefinately suffer the losses but the Luftwaffe reached breaking point first.

32Bravo
09-02-2016, 06:16 AM
Interesting comments, thank you. To what extent had the Luftwaffe reached breaking point when they switched their emphasis to London? Could they have achieved local air superiority at any time? How easily could the northern RAF fighter groups have reinforced, had the southern airfields have been denied them? Did Hitler ever seriously intend to invade Britain? The answers always seem to raise further questions, but I guess that's a part of the enjoyment. Considering the German successes in Europe and the underestimation of their potential, not least their ability to make good the improbable/impossible, I'm not convinced that the defeat of a German invasion would have been quite so straightforward as some analyses of Sea Lion would suggest.

Rising Sun*
09-02-2016, 08:41 AM
Considering the German successes in Europe and the underestimation of their potential, not least their ability to make good the improbable/impossible, I'm not convinced that the defeat of a German invasion would have been quite so straightforward as some analyses of Sea Lion would suggest.

I think the odds were against German success, largely because the main two preconditions recognised by Germany of naval and air superiority (which were also Allied preconditions to D Day) were not achieved, but also because it seems that German logistics were not up to the task, regardless of whether or not the converted river barge landing craft were adequate to the task. The German success on land in Europe didn't translate to a massive sea borne invasion, of which (unlike the Allies' substantial experience by D Day) Germany had no experience in 1940 and never attempted anywhere else subsequently.

Still, there are expert opinions both ways, some of which are summarised at http://www.navalofficer.com.au/sealion/

32Bravo
09-02-2016, 01:21 PM
Yes, I get the D-Day analogy, but not certain that the two are analogous. The German coastal defences in 1944 were far more substantial than anything Britain had in 1940. Arguably, the German success on land in Europe didn't translate, because they didn't try it. So I guess it remains a moot point. The reason I queried as to whether Hitler was serious about invading Britain, is that he doesn't appear to have asked for an alternative plan. Most staff planners present their commanders with options. As we know, the German high command had some very able people, and Hitler could be open to innovative ideas or totally blinkered and inflexible. There are those that argue that the whole invasion exercise was merely a screen to cover the preparations for Barbarossa.

Thanks for the link.

Nickdfresh
09-02-2016, 02:13 PM
Here is (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/2548-Operation-Sealion) a previous thread on Sea Lion started by Stoat 11 years ago...

Nickdfresh
09-02-2016, 02:21 PM
...
Fighter command was never really in the dire straights it is often portrayed to have been in - much down to films like BoB and propaganda of the time about 'The Few' - Fighter Commands strength in aircraft and trained pilots increased during June, July and August while the Luftwaffes actually dropped. The war of attrition was lost by the luftwaffe as they could not sustain their losses - the RAF may not have been able to indefinately suffer the losses but the Luftwaffe reached breaking point first.

Yeah, the fighter production far exceeded German estimates and Luftwaffe intelligence seems like it was rather poor and vastly over optimistic contributing to an overall demoralization of Luftwaffe crews not suited nor trained for a sustained strategic air war of attrition. The Luftwaffe had also been in near constant action since the Polish campaign and they also knew that Barbarossa was on the horizon as well...

32Bravo
09-02-2016, 03:06 PM
Thank you for that, JR. Very interesting. Force and operation size seems to be a major factor in these airbourne matters. Did you know that later in the war the Germans used parachute troops to invade the Greek island of Leros? The British considered that the Germans might do such a thing, so they dropped a British para to test its plausibility. As the island was very rocky, he broke his leg. From this result they ruled out airbourne invasion. The Germans mounted an airbourne invasion and captured the island.

http://ww2today.com/12th-november-1943-german-paratroopers-attack-island-of-leros

Yes, the coastal stretch from, say, Beachy Head to Cuckmere Haven, and beyond, is very beautiful. There is a piece of classic film archive of a spitfire crashing in the sea just off Seven Sisters. I saw a recent documentary with the veteran pilot giving his description fo the event.

7745 7746 7748

7747

One of the most beautiful parts of England - almost beats Blackpool! :)

Nickdfresh
09-02-2016, 03:16 PM
...There are those that argue that the whole invasion exercise was merely a screen to cover the preparations for Barbarossa.

Thanks for the link.

Probably not initially and not by design. But eventually more or less I think it became a screen for Barbarossa. Neither the Heer nor Kriegsmarine had much enthusiasm for the project, it was Goering and his intelligence buffoons that were overemphasizing the strengths of a tiring, somewhat depleted Luftwaffe while woefully underestimating the British aerospace industry and the ability of RAF to reconstitute itself. Overall, the German experience of amphibious warfare was not good in WWII with naval infantry being repelled in Westerplatte during the Battle for Poland and The Wehrmacht lacked the institutional experience for large amphibious landings and always regarded the Kriegsmarine as its bastard stepchild.

The Luftwaffe wanted to establish a more strategic bombing capability initially, but the limitations of German industry and the demands of quickly reconstituting an air force from little more than a shadow, covert force precluded the development of expensive four-engined bombers. The Luftwaffe was hastily expanded to deal with relatively peripheral enemies (aka Poland and France) not sustained strategic bombing of distant targets. Its capabilities were also largely mischaracterized and exaggerated by delusional and pompous ****wit named Herman..

32Bravo
09-02-2016, 03:26 PM
Probably not...I wonder? The limitations of German industrial production came so much in to play in many aspects of the European theatre. Too much diversity in too many weapons systems almost certainly because Germany began the war years ahead of schedule and before the capacity for production was increased. Word has it that Germany did not have a war economy when they commenced hostilities even with the Soviet Union.

Nickdfresh
09-02-2016, 04:08 PM
Probably not...I wonder? The limitations of German industrial production came so much in to play in many aspects of the European theatre. Too much diversity in too many weapons systems almost certainly because Germany began the war years ahead of schedule and before the capacity for production was increased. Word has it that Germany did not have a war economy when they commenced hostilities even with the Soviet Union.

I think there was sort of a trite belief that by conquering France, Poland and with the final assimilation of Czechoslovakia that the armaments question would take care of itself. The Germans did have a war economy -- sort of. But there was a bizarre tendency to attempt to continue the production of consumer goods in an effort to maintain the good graces of the German people and insulate them as much as possible from the abnormalities of war until relatively late - when crises began to escalate and cascade. Most do not realize how agrarian the German economy was at the beginning of WWII. For instance, some will say that German never properly mobilized its female population for war production the way that the United States and Britain did (i.e. no German equivalent to "Rosie the Riveter"). But actually much of the German female adult population was involved in making up for the shortage of male agricultural workers in this period, so in a sense the did mobilize their adult female population for production. The Reich also believed they could make good some shortages via the use of slave labor and captured transport from France. Certainly, the French weapons and trucks went a long way in helping the Wehrmacht until they began to break down or quickly became obsolete and relegated to secondary fronts against partisans. Slave labor was a Catch-22 at best, as many of the best trained machinists were Jews that Germany was trying to work-to-death or kill outright. Starved slave laborers are not very productive and might actually constitute a net loss since you're feeding them a starvation diet that only allows them to pass out in factories and be unproductive but is enough to draw rations away from more productive German laborers - whom were often demoralized by the brutality of the regime they witnessed with complete disregard for the lives of foreign conscript workers...

In short, I think Hitler believed the easiest way to take Britain was to defeat, or at least severally cripple, the Soviet Union and its government by capturing the most productive areas of industry and agriculture. He would deprive Britain of one of her main hopes and solve the ultimate crisis the Reich faced in terms of access to resources and production shortfalls and limitations - ultimately with an eye towards a total war with the United States and its "Jewish Shadow Government". Of course the Russians had another idea about that...

32Bravo
09-03-2016, 04:10 AM
British glider pilots were trained and employed as infantrymen once the ship had landed. Navigation and handling were quintessential to the success of the operation. In some operations such as the landings at Syracuse, Operation Huskey, the problems encountered were those such as being shot down by allies or by inexperienced tug-pilots releasing them too soon which resulted in them landing in the sea.

For an example of good glider piloting and towing see the Orne landings (below).

7749

32Bravo
09-03-2016, 04:13 AM
In short, I think Hitler believed the easiest way to take Britain was to defeat, or at least severally cripple, the Soviet Union and its government by capturing the most productive areas of industry and agriculture.

As a bi-product of his war on the Soviet?

JR*
09-08-2016, 10:13 AM
Nick - agree with your points. I would go further - the failure of the German government to activate a full war economy was based on political considerations, and was supported by what amounted to extensive looting of occupied territories. Also relevant was a set of rather lazy assumption as to the possibilities for looting further in Soviet territories not yet acquired - and never actually acquired. Thus came about what German historian Gotz Aly characterized as "the accommodating dictatorship". The German population was shielded from the full rigors of war, at the expense of the occupied populations, and of course of the Jews. One expression of this came in a speech delivered by Hermann Goering in October, 1942 - "If anyone is to go hungry, it will not be a German !". The defeat at Stalingrad (and related failure of the Caucasus campaign, something under-rated) resulted in a quick transition to "Total War", as the possibilities for looting suddenly dried up.

Regarding slave labor - indeed a double-edged sword. The Third Reich employed compelled or impressed in a wide range of forms. The advantages are obvious. The disadvantages perhaps less so. These ranged from dependence on workforces under strong compulsion with little incentive to perform their tasks efficiently and effectively to the dislocation of local economies in occupied countries through forced or semi-compelled displacement of local labour forces, to (in the East) the destruction of the productive capacity of regions through the "harvesting" of their workers for employment elsewhere. One point to be borne in mind about the employment of slave labour (and indeed looting) employed on this scale in the modern environment unused to such measures is that it involves a choice, and a complex one at that. This form of direction of labour (and of other productive resources and products), rather than trying one's best to employ these resources in situ and under minimum compulsion, is likely to be a considerable reduction in the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the economy. There is ample evidence of this in the Third Reich context. Best regards, JR.

leccy
09-18-2016, 05:57 PM
Yes, I get the D-Day analogy, but not certain that the two are analogous. The German coastal defences in 1944 were far more substantial than anything Britain had in 1940. Arguably, the German success on land in Europe didn't translate, because they didn't try it. So I guess it remains a moot point. The reason I queried as to whether Hitler was serious about invading Britain, is that he doesn't appear to have asked for an alternative plan. Most staff planners present their commanders with options. As we know, the German high command had some very able people, and Hitler could be open to innovative ideas or totally blinkered and inflexible. There are those that argue that the whole invasion exercise was merely a screen to cover the preparations for Barbarossa.

Thanks for the link.

The Germans struggled to come up with a really detailed plan - but that is not surprising when the Army wanted a broad front invasion but the Navy wanted a narrow front - fundamentally disagreeing on where to even land - hard to do any plans past that. Saying that though they did persue both plans but in a more half hearted way as it seems the officers nominated to come up with ideas had no illusions as to the ability to actually launch a crossing in any circumstances except the collapse of the British government.


I think there was sort of a trite belief that by conquering France, Poland and with the final assimilation of Czechoslovakia that the armaments question would take care of itself. The Germans did have a war economy -- sort of. But there was a bizarre tendency to attempt to continue the production of consumer goods in an effort to maintain the good graces of the German people and insulate them as much as possible from the abnormalities of war until relatively late - when crises began to escalate and cascade. Most do not realize how agrarian the German economy was at the beginning of WWII. For instance, some will say that German never properly mobilized its female population for war production the way that the United States and Britain did (i.e. no German equivalent to "Rosie the Riveter"). But actually much of the German female adult population was involved in making up for the shortage of male agricultural workers in this period, so in a sense the did mobilize their adult female population for production.

In 1938 more German women were in work as a percentage of the population (mostly on the land) than in the UK at its highest level which was in 1944 (in all industries and services).
Britain was a more industrialised nation particularly in agriculture and livestock than Germany, Britain also had the vast Commonwealth providing food and goods so subsidising its homegrown produce - it did not need the labour heavy farming methods Germany had to use (not withstanding the huge call ups of the farms principle motive power - the horse)

The Reich also believed they could make good some shortages via the use of slave labor and captured transport from France. Certainly, the French weapons and trucks went a long way in helping the Wehrmacht until they began to break down or quickly became obsolete and relegated to secondary fronts against partisans. Slave labor was a Catch-22 at best, as many of the best trained machinists were Jews that Germany was trying to work-to-death or kill outright. Starved slave laborers are not very productive and might actually constitute a net loss since you're feeding them a starvation diet that only allows them to pass out in factories and be unproductive but is enough to draw rations away from more productive German laborers - whom were often demoralized by the brutality of the regime they witnessed with complete disregard for the lives of foreign conscript workers...

In short, I think Hitler believed the easiest way to take Britain was to defeat, or at least severally cripple, the Soviet Union and its government by capturing the most productive areas of industry and agriculture. He would deprive Britain of one of her main hopes and solve the ultimate crisis the Reich faced in terms of access to resources and production shortfalls and limitations - ultimately with an eye towards a total war with the United States and its "Jewish Shadow Government". Of course the Russians had another idea about that...

32Bravo
09-21-2016, 12:55 PM
The Germans struggled to come up with a really detailed plan - but that is not surprising when the Army wanted a broad front invasion but the Navy wanted a narrow front - fundamentally disagreeing on where to even land - hard to do any plans past that. Saying that though they did persue both plans but in a more half hearted way as it seems the officers nominated to come up with ideas had no illusions as to the ability to actually launch a crossing in any circumstances except the collapse of the British government.

Which begs the question: did Hitler ever really intend to invade the UK?

leccy
09-21-2016, 02:41 PM
Which begs the question: did Hitler ever really intend to invade the UK?

Simple answer - no - he wanted Britain to surrender or seek peace terms (after all part of the British government did want to seek terms and had spent years appeasing the Germans).

But ................

From what I have read (and several years of discussions on various sites and books - including one running to over 10k posts over 7 years) - it was a yes if the issues could be solved (when it became clear early on Britain would continue to fight) - he did not appoint the juniors who did the actual grunt work for the planning (or tried to). He appointed the 'Names' and basically said - get it done - those 'names' appointed the junior staff officers and units that actually did the planning and the development of equipment to be used.

Those in the higher ranks seemed to be under no illusion in their capability to work together (all arms and forces) and actually cross the channel in force with enough strength to defeat the British, never mind the constant resupply afterwards.

Goering seemed to be the only one convinced that it could be done, while he seemed to ignore the state of his own forces - propoganda hype or winning streak blinding him to facts maybe.

The KM were to block the channel with all available mines at one end (including captured and training mines this amounted to just over 6000 sea mines), the other end was to be covered by shore based artillery - this was supposed to prevent the RN from getting into the channel area.

A slight problem though that at the height of the threat the RN already around 80 destroyers/corvettes/sloops in the Channel ports, to which must be added the armed trawlers and other boats of the 'Lilliput Navy' - far outnumbering and outclassing the entire KM fleet even with captured vessals included. The RN did not need to get its larger surface fleet into action.

Even reducing the crews of the KM ships to the bare minimum for their tasks so that the rest could be used to crew the captured and requisitioned ships and boats, they would have to call up just about anyone who had crewed a boat including those who were purely pleasure boat owners - to man all the craft they had.

The KM understood this so were less than enthusiastic about planning it (especially after the losses in Norway - including some spectacular losses in destroyers to outnumbered attackers).

Germany did call up all boat skippers, barges and small craft (over a certain tonnage) even from the lakes in Germany and the occupied zones - it reduced their production capacity due to the disruption to the transportation network. Seems odd to slow down war material production for months just to do something for show.

Hitler did not have a concept of how hard a sea crossing and landing on a hostile shore would be - all their experience was with river crossings (which they assumed could be scaled up), where multiple units could cross with full support from their organic artillery or close air support, using existing bridges/fords or their organic engineer capability - none of which would be present when crossing the channel.

32Bravo
09-22-2016, 05:07 AM
Simple answer - no - he wanted Britain to surrender or seek peace terms (after all part of the British government did want to seek terms and had spent years appeasing the Germans).

But ................

From what I have read (and several years of discussions on various sites and books - including one running to over 10k posts over 7 years)

So, where's the book?

leccy
09-22-2016, 08:01 AM
So, where's the book?

If you really want to do some reading and have a few brain cells killed off with impossible claims (from both sides)

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123559

There was another long one of WW2 talk I participated in but cant find that one right now (not been on the site for a few years) - 0ne thread was by someone trying to sell a book of his - despite his continual fighting (he claimed it would have been easy to invade Britain and win) he failed to answer valid questions and all his arguments were taken apart - I am really going to have to look at that again - I can get a little passionate or carried away at times about things.

32Bravo
09-22-2016, 08:33 AM
If you really want to do some reading and have a few brain cells killed off with impossible claims (from both sides)

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123559

I am really going to have to look at that again - I can get a little passionate or carried away at times about things.

If only I were that keen...

Nickdfresh
09-22-2016, 11:58 AM
If you really want to do some reading and have a few brain cells killed off with impossible claims (from both sides)

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123559

....

And the requisite alcohol it takes to get through Armchair General threads... :mrgreen:

Nickdfresh
09-22-2016, 12:13 PM
Simple answer - no - he wanted Britain to surrender or seek peace terms (after all part of the British government did want to seek terms and had spent years appeasing the Germans).

But ................

Agreed, generally speaking. I think Hitler tended to however not let himself be muddled with military details like logistics and all. I do think Hitler believed that if the British were not sensible enough to simply come to terms the invasion could be worked out, initially. But as he came more to obsess with the Soviet Union and ultimately the Jewish "controlled" United States, he thought he would need to secure the resources of the USSR. Hitler had victory disease at this point and had successfully forced his will on his generals hesitant to invade France, and combined with their sensible obstinacy, came up with a (Sickle cut) plan that achieved their victory. I agree he disfavored an invasion of Britain, but I do think he thought it could be done if the necessary resources existed and everything would sort of take care of itself. I think we have to keep in mind also that the Wehrmacht was almost as unprepared for its early victories and there was sort of a "what next?" mentality. They didn't even have a real war plan versus the French until well after the Polish Invasion started...


From what I have read (and several years of discussions on various sites and books - including one running to over 10k posts over 7 years) - it was a yes if the issues could be solved (when it became clear early on Britain would continue to fight) - he did not appoint the juniors who did the actual grunt work for the planning (or tried to). He appointed the 'Names' and basically said - get it done - those 'names' appointed the junior staff officers and units that actually did the planning and the development of equipment to be used.

Those in the higher ranks seemed to be under no illusion in their capability to work together (all arms and forces) and actually cross the channel in force with enough strength to defeat the British, never mind the constant resupply afterwards.

Goering seemed to be the only one convinced that it could be done, while he seemed to ignore the state of his own forces - propoganda hype or winning streak blinding him to facts maybe.

It's hard to know what Goering actually believed since he lied so much, he basically lied about everything including the Luftwaffe's ability to take on Britain. But he may well have thought it could be done, but only by willful burying his head in the sand as his underlings told him of the gaping challenges facing German air arms in a long war...


The KM were to block the channel with all available mines at one end (including captured and training mines this amounted to just over 6000 sea mines), the other end was to be covered by shore based artillery - this was supposed to prevent the RN from getting into the channel area.

A slight problem though that at the height of the threat the RN already around 80 destroyers/corvettes/sloops in the Channel ports, to which must be added the armed trawlers and other boats of the 'Lilliput Navy' - far outnumbering and outclassing the entire KM fleet even with captured vessals included. The RN did not need to get its larger surface fleet into action.

Even reducing the crews of the KM ships to the bare minimum for their tasks so that the rest could be used to crew the captured and requisitioned ships and boats, they would have to call up just about anyone who had crewed a boat including those who were purely pleasure boat owners - to man all the craft they had.

The KM understood this so were less than enthusiastic about planning it (especially after the losses in Norway - including some spectacular losses in destroyers to outnumbered attackers).

Germany did call up all boat skippers, barges and small craft (over a certain tonnage) even from the lakes in Germany and the occupied zones - it reduced their production capacity due to the disruption to the transportation network. Seems odd to slow down war material production for months just to do something for show.

Hitler did not have a concept of how hard a sea crossing and landing on a hostile shore would be - all their experience was with river crossings (which they assumed could be scaled up), where multiple units could cross with full support from their organic artillery or close air support, using existing bridges/fords or their organic engineer capability - none of which would be present when crossing the channel.

I think we should add the institutional weakness that the Wehrmacht had as far as its complete inexperience and even ignorance of amphibious warfare. Both the British and American navies had Marines and a lot of institutional naval experience that was lost in Germany after WWI. Of course, Hitler would be rather flippant about that as well. There actually was a small unit of German naval infantry, they were repulsed with heavy casualties in the opening hours of the Polish Campaign.

I personally think Sealion was nothing but pie-in-the-sky and that both the Heer and Kriegsmarine dragged on plodding as ordered while hoping Hitler would come to his senses and focus on the Soviets - which he did, although that was far from sensible...

Nickdfresh
10-17-2016, 12:32 PM
Test. Test...