Hitler

[tueartsboots]

So what about Hitler's plans to invade once the RAF were defeated?

It was the failure to establish air superiority which fatally stalled the planned assualt.

Hitler made military decisions for political reasons. Hence the view that Germany esssentially lost a winnable war more than the allies having won it.

But the fact is that Germany was the superior force in 1939 -40 and they made vast and ultimately critical mistakes.

I'm saying Hitler's plans to invade could not have succeeded had Fighter Command been destroyed. There is something called the Royal Navy and in 1940 it was the biggest naval force on the planet.

Air superiority was essential for an attempt. The success of the attempt was far from certain even with air superiority.

Noticed you have skirted around the issue of Germany even getting to the Channel due to English and French strategic and tactical errors. Only Germany are allowed to make mistakes then.

That is simply untrue. Britain and France combined were stronger both on land and at sea, quantitatively and qualitatively.

How can you say that when the evacuation on Dunkirk was BEFORE the Battle of Britain? British, French AND Belgium forces were beaten by the Germans and forced to surrender or, in our case, retreat

 

[Skashion]

How can you say that when the evacuation on Dunkirk was BEFORE the Battle of Britain? British, French AND Belgium forces were beaten by the Germans and forced to surrender or, in our case, retreat

We are talking orders of battle here. My claim is that Germany won in France not because they had the best army on paper. At most you can give them the advantage on quality of troops and them being motorised. In terms of armour quality and quantity, and artillery, the Wehrmacht was outgunned and outnumbered. It won by superior tactics and exploiting the outdated tactics of the British and French armies who did not concentrate their armour like the Wehrmacht did to gain local superiority and outflank and surround at great speed. Essentially, I'm arguing they won due to British and French errors. Not only those tactical errors but the strategic errors of the French of investing so much money in the Maginot line and the errors of both in not having sufficient numbers of quality air superiority fighters. I'm saying that Hitler even lasting beyond 1940 is due to our errors whereas mammutly seems to believe that only Hitler made errors.

 

[tueartsboots]

How can you say that when the evacuation on Dunkirk was BEFORE the Battle of Britain? British, French AND Belgium forces were beaten by the Germans and forced to surrender or, in our case, retreat

We are talking orders of battle here. My claim is that Germany won in France not because they had the best army on paper. At most you can give them the advantage on quality of troops and them being motorised. In terms of armour quality and quantity, and artillery, the Wehrmacht was outgunned and outnumbered. It won by superior tactics and exploiting the outdated tactics of the British and French armies who did not concentrate their armour like the Wehrmacht did to gain local superiority and outflank and surround at great speed. Essentially, I'm arguing they won due to British and French errors. Not only those tactical errors but the strategic errors of the French of investing so much money in the Maginot line and the errors of both in not having sufficient numbers of quality air superiority fighters. I'm saying that Hitler even lasting beyond 1940 is due to our errors whereas mammutly seems to believe that only Hitler made errors.

Can't argue with that. Hitler and his Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Navy had been preparing (against the Versaille treaty) since 1933, something the League of Nations took a blind eye to. So yes we did make mistakes

 

[mammutly]

How can you say that when the evacuation on Dunkirk was BEFORE the Battle of Britain? British, French AND Belgium forces were beaten by the Germans and forced to surrender or, in our case, retreat

We are talking orders of battle here. My claim is that Germany won in France not because they had the best army on paper. At most you can give them the advantage on quality of troops and them being motorised. In terms of armour quality and quantity, and artillery, the Wehrmacht was outgunned and outnumbered. It won by superior tactics and exploiting the outdated tactics of the British and French armies who did not concentrate their armour like the Wehrmacht did to gain local superiority and outflank and surround at great speed. Essentially, I'm arguing they won due to British and French errors. Not only those tactical errors but the strategic errors of the French of investing so much money in the Maginot line and the errors of both in not having sufficient numbers of quality air superiority fighters. I'm saying that Hitler even lasting beyond 1940 is due to our errors whereas mammutly seems to believe that only Hitler made errors.

The RN being in the English Channel without air cover, would have been fish in a barrel for the Luftwaffe.

Ships without air support are sitting ducks.

I don't believe that only the Germans made errors. But, they failed to press home a clear advantage- essentially backing off at a time when a day or two more would have led to the RAF being defeated making a cross channel invasion very possible. The south coast defences would have been bombarded from air, land and sea. Do you think the US would have joined the war had England fallen?

You are right that Hitler altered tactics for non military reasons. He did the same at several critical points and by doing so lost a war that on paper he could and should have won after the rout of Dunkirk - which incidentally has been turned into some kind of heroic struggle, when in fact it was an utter disaster.

 

[tueartsboots]

We are talking orders of battle here. My claim is that Germany won in France not because they had the best army on paper. At most you can give them the advantage on quality of troops and them being motorised. In terms of armour quality and quantity, and artillery, the Wehrmacht was outgunned and outnumbered. It won by superior tactics and exploiting the outdated tactics of the British and French armies who did not concentrate their armour like the Wehrmacht did to gain local superiority and outflank and surround at great speed. Essentially, I'm arguing they won due to British and French errors. Not only those tactical errors but the strategic errors of the French of investing so much money in the Maginot line and the errors of both in not having sufficient numbers of quality air superiority fighters. I'm saying that Hitler even lasting beyond 1940 is due to our errors whereas mammutly seems to believe that only Hitler made errors.

The RN being in the English Channel without air cover, would have been fish in a barrel for the Luftwaffe.

Ships without air support are sitting ducks.

I don't believe that only the Germans made errors. But, they failed to press home a clear advantage- essentially backing off at a time when a day or two more would have led to the RAF being defeated making a cross channel invasion very possible. The south coast defences would have been bombarded from air, land and sea. Do you think the US would have joined the war had England fallen?

You are right that Hitler altered tactics for non military reasons. He did the same at several critical points and by doing so lost a war that on paper he could and should have won after the rout of Dunkirk - which incidentally has been turned into some kind of heroic struggle, when in fact it was an utter disaster.

The heroic struggle was by the general boatmen that took (even stole) general craft over and back, sometimes several times. The RN was pretty much useless.
They should be classed as heroes

 

[mammutly]

The RN being in the English Channel without air cover, would have been fish in a barrel for the Luftwaffe.

Ships without air support are sitting ducks.

I don't believe that only the Germans made errors. But, they failed to press home a clear advantage- essentially backing off at a time when a day or two more would have led to the RAF being defeated making a cross channel invasion very possible. The south coast defences would have been bombarded from air, land and sea. Do you think the US would have joined the war had England fallen?

You are right that Hitler altered tactics for non military reasons. He did the same at several critical points and by doing so lost a war that on paper he could and should have won after the rout of Dunkirk - which incidentally has been turned into some kind of heroic struggle, when in fact it was an utter disaster.

The heroic struggle was by the general boatmen that took (even stole) general craft over and back, sometimes several times. The RN was pretty much useless.
They should be classed as heroes

I agree.

The RN would not put ships into the channel

 

[tueartsboots]

The heroic struggle was by the general boatmen that took (even stole) general craft over and back, sometimes several times. The RN was pretty much useless.
They should be classed as heroes

I agree.

The RN would not put ships into the channel

RN were covering the Atlantic link

 

[Skashion]

Just as the Royal Navy were sitting ducks in repelling the seaborne invasion of Crete with German air superiority? Just as the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen were sitting ducks in the Channel Dash? Give it a rest. Britain's neck is on the line, with the vast majority of the Luftwaffe's Stukas destroyed during the Battle of Britain, and the Royal Navy wouldn't have been sent into the Channel to intervene? The Royal Navy would have to have accepted the losses but if it was a choice between that and Britain's survival there can be no doubt that it would have been done. It would have been far more bloody and winning the air battle was by far the best way to defeat any prospect of invasion but that's it. The destruction of Fighter Command was pre-requisite, not a guarantee of victory.

 

[tueartsboots]

Just as the Royal Navy were sitting ducks in repelling the seaborne invasion of Crete with German air superiority? Just as the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen were sitting ducks in the Channel Dash? Give it a rest. Britain's neck is on the line, with the vast majority of the Luftwaffe's Stukas destroyed during the Battle of Britain, and the Royal Navy wouldn't have been sent into the Channel to intervene? The Royal Navy would have to have accepted the losses but if it was a choice between that and Britain's survival there can be no doubt that it would have been done. It would have been far more bloody and winning the air battle was by far the best way to defeat any prospect of invasion but that's it. The destruction of Fighter Command was pre-requisite, not a guarantee of victory.

We're talking the evacuation of Dunkirk. RN were elsewhere deployed fact, No-one is saying that if they could they wouldn't help and the the thought of British/French/Belgium forces being defeated ? Not gonna happen-fuck, we've been defeated

 

[Skashion]

But they weren't useless, there was a sizeable Royal Navy presence in Scapa Flow which were made use of during a run-through of Operation Sea Lion about thirty years after the war during war games. Indeed, they were responsible for the defeat of the invasion. Unfortunately though, that simulation assumed that Germany had not won total air superiority as at Dunkirk. You are wrong though to say that the Royal Navy was not involved at Dunkirk. It most certainly was, and accounted for the vast majority of the evacuation. The spirit of Dunkirk is mostly propaganda.