Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 88

Thread: Operation Sealion

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monty's Double
    Well, sort of, but you have to remember how close the Luftwaffe was to the edge as well. The table below shows the daily losses - during that crucial period when 11 Group was almost knocked out of the fight, German losses were still round about double the British ones.

    http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html
    Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.

    I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would've eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler's ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed

    With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.

    In my mind the Royal Navy would've been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuel
    Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.
    The relevant statistic is the number of planes kept in immediate reserve (i.e. factory fresh aircraft just waiting to be delivered to a pilot who could use them). Throughout the BoB, this always had aircraft in it which were released as soon as they were required. While maintenence facilities were hit (to the extent that Manston was abandoned) it didn't really affect availability. The limiting factor was always pilots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuel
    I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would've eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler's ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed
    You're suffering from a major logical fallacy here. You're assuming that the RAF would have done exactly what the Luftwaffe wanted them to do and connived in their own destruction. This wouldn't have happened - the RAF was staffed by some pretty ruthless professionals. What they would have done (and their are documented plans supporting this) is simply withdrawn North of London until the invasion happened, in which case they would have surged forward again rapidly.
    Since little needed to be moved except the aircraft themselves (spares, tooling, etc. could be borrowed while they were in the North) this would take little time and would leave the Germans with little to hit. If they had really wanted to hit anything, it would have meant unescorted raids tracked all the way in - and hence very bad losses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuel
    With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.
    Why? ALL the German vehicles, artillery (bar a few mortars) and heavy armour would be parked in France as they simply lacked the ability to get it across the channel. Incidentally, the majority of units were fully reequipped within a very short period of time - I can think of at least one unit armed with 3.7"(?) AA guns that left it's guns at Dunkirk and were most disappointed to find shiny new ones waiting for them the minute they got back (meaning no leave!).
    You're also fundamentally misreading the national character if you think that the defeat in France led to those evacuated being defeatist in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuel
    In my mind the Royal Navy would've been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.
    The RN always were the fundamental obstacle - in the sense that unless they did something incredibly stupid (along the lines of scuttle the entire fleet in Scapa Floe as a joke) any invasion by sea will be destroyed, the majority of it before it hit the beaches. IIRC throughout summer 1940 there were around 50 destroyers kept at very short notice to steam within 2 hours steaming of the planned invasion beaches, along with around a dozen cruisers. Given that most of the German barges needed 24 hours to make the crossing and would sink by themselves in moderately bad weather (the wake from a large ship would be more than enough) it's virtually inconceivable that the Germans could ever get ashore in any force.

    Oh, and did you read the rest of the thread? Most of your arguaments have been gone over in far greater depth already and generally thoroughly discredited.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  3. #48
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty's Double
    Well, sort of, but you have to remember how close the Luftwaffe was to the edge as well. The table below shows the daily losses - during that crucial period when 11 Group was almost knocked out of the fight, German losses were still round about double the British ones.

    http://www.brooksart.com/BoBloss.html
    Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.

    I am certain that if the Luftwaffe kept targetting the RAF on the ground they would've eventually have defeated them. Luckily Hitler's ego got in the way and at the expense of the City of London, the RAF was given the breathing space it needed

    With the British army having been already defeated in France and a large amount of its vehicles and heavy equipment rusting away on the beaches of Dunkirk the British wouldve put a desperate fight on their home soil but would be on the back foot.

    In my mind the Royal Navy would've been the main obstacle to Operation Sea Lion had the Luftwaffe continued to target the RAF instead of switching to London.
    Hi mate, good stuff, as PDF says some of it has been gone over before. If you read this:

    http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/vie...=1266&start=15

    You will find that I posted a good few links on the strength of Fighter Command during the BoB.

    Although that I would agree that a lot of the British troops had to be somewhat deflated after Dunkirk I'm convinced that fighting on home soil would have provided a spur to them.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27
    The relevant statistic is the number of planes kept in immediate reserve (i.e. factory fresh aircraft just waiting to be delivered to a pilot who could use them). Throughout the BoB, this always had aircraft in it which were released as soon as they were required. While maintenence facilities were hit (to the extent that Manston was abandoned) it didn't really affect availability. The limiting factor was always pilots.
    Sir Keith Park's greatest fear was that more of his squadrons would be caught on the ground by the Luftwaffe, until the switch to London this was exactly what the Luftwaffe were attempting to do. Planes on the ground don't shoot back. I understand that this actually only happened a small number of times but had the Luftwaffe continued to attack RAF airfields it would've proved very costly.

    It is more out of curiousity that I would like to see a figure that shows the number of RAF aircraft lost on the ground as well as in the air. I know it is tradition to think of a plane only being a kill if it shot down from the air but when it comes down to it, a plane is a plane.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27
    You're also fundamentally misreading the national character if you think that the defeat in France led to those evacuated being defeatist in nature.
    Did I say that at all? What I actually said was that "they wouldve put a desperate fight" I NEVER once suggested that the British were being defeatist by nature, I was just reminding you that the British Army had just lost a lot of their equipment and a large number of their trained army in France.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27
    Oh, and did you read the rest of the thread? Most of your arguaments have been gone over in far greater depth already and generally thoroughly discredited.
    Yes I had read the rest of the thread but posted what I did as my opinion in response to Monty's Double post. I am very sorry to have somehow caused you grief pdf and will endevaour to not have an opinion in the future if it only means you will flame me accusing me of not reading threads and misquoting me eg: claiming I thought the British people were defeatist in nature

  5. #50
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    Nope, continue what your doing Lemuel. It is good debate. PDF is also a good debater and thats what we like here.

    No flames, just points and counterpoints, as long as anyone can clearly and susinctly put their points of view over there is no problem.

    After all this is a bit of a what if. Which has been good I may add.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    I have just read a very well written piece on Op SEALION here:

    http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

    He seems to have a good grasp of the pertinent elements that have all been touched on above.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,413

    Default Re: Op. Sealion

    I'm reopening this thread...

    I've read some on this at other forums. And I've heard speculation that Operation Sealion planning was nothing more than a half-assed bluff and no invasion would have taken place remotely within the timetable after the Fall of France...

    So, was Sealion a ruse, or did the Germans have any actual hope of landing in Britain?

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    342

    Default Re: Operation Sealion

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuel View Post
    Do those statistics include RAF planes lost on the ground? Remember that for every day that the Luftwaffe bombed RAF Airfields the RAF wasn't just losing planes in the air but ALSO planes on the ground along with the facilities needed to mantain and supply them.
    RAF Fighter Command lost a total of 20 serviceable fighters on the ground during the whole of the Battle Of Britain
    Last edited by redcoat; 09-28-2008 at 04:23 PM.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Operation Sealion

    You mentioned the Aquatic Mammal. A Jihad on your arse!
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    342

    Default Re: Op. Sealion

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    So, was Sealion a ruse, or did the Germans have any actual hope of landing in Britain?
    It wasn't a ruse, and it had a zero chance of success

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia-Melbourne
    Posts
    623

    Default Re: Operation Sealion

    Quote Originally Posted by Twitch1 View Post
    Had the Germans come ashore on the isle in any substantial number Britain would have been doomed.
    Germany did manage too get a shore on british soil[ british isle or something]
    U can see an english police officer standing next too German Officers and German Soilders,and the germans even took down the british flag and put the nazi flag up. I saw it with my own eyes. History channel and ww2 book.
    It was all down too the royal air force,if they fail then britan was doomed

  12. #57
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Operation Sealion

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    U can see an english police officer standing next too German Officers and German Soilders,and the germans even took down the british flag and put the nazi flag up. I saw it with my own eyes. History channel and ww2 book.
    That was in the Channel Islands, which are technically part of the Dutchy of Normandy. They are the last bit of France owned by William the Conqueror prior to 1066 still owned by the British Crown, and as they are about 5 miles off the coast of France were considered indefensible.
    The Germans fortified them heavily and used large garrisons - which the Allies promptly ignored when they invaded France and later Germany. Indeed, Channel Islanders still celebrate VE day as Liberation Day...

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    It was all down too the royal air force,if they fail then britan was doomed
    Not quite - the Luftwaffe were incapable of effectively attacking moving ships in 1940. They wouldn't have been capable of stopping the RN from attacking the invasion fleet, and considering it was largely made of river barges they would most likely have slaughtered it.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia-Melbourne
    Posts
    623

    Default Re: Operation Sealion

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    That was in the Channel Islands, which are technically part of the Dutchy of Normandy. They are the last bit of France owned by William the Conqueror prior to 1066 still owned by the British Crown, and as they are about 5 miles off the coast of France were considered indefensible.
    The Germans fortified them heavily and used large garrisons - which the Allies promptly ignored when they invaded France and later Germany. Indeed, Channel Islanders still celebrate VE day as Liberation Day...


    Not quite - the Luftwaffe were incapable of effectively attacking moving ships in 1940. They wouldn't have been capable of stopping the RN from attacking the invasion fleet, and considering it was largely made of river barges they would most likely have slaughtered it.
    Sorry but it was british soil ,but it wast join up to britain. Thats the only british soil the germans ever step foot on. Dont forget britain had an Empire back in those days I dont think youre wrong at, all its what i learnt and i dont what to go against a mod,i respect mods,please dont jump down my throat.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Operation Sealion

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    Sorry but it was british soil ,but it wast join up to britain.
    Ummm.... sort of. The Channel Islanders are subjects of the British Crown (as indeed are Australians, come to think of it), but not part of the United Kingdom. They are self-governing in all matters except defence, citizenship, and diplomatic representation. As such they aren't actually British soil as they are specifically Crown possesions.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia-Melbourne
    Posts
    623

    Default Re: Operation Sealion

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    Ummm.... sort of. The Channel Islanders are subjects of the British Crown (as indeed are Australians, come to think of it), but not part of the United Kingdom. They are self-governing in all matters except defence, citizenship, and diplomatic representation. As such they aren't actually British soil as they are specifically Crown possesions.
    YES are you saying im right?OH im god im right ,im going to chuck a party

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. WW2 myths
    By Firefly in forum 2006 Archive Room
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 11:16 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •