User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:18:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: water infested with the Royal Navy This. RAF mean German Troops on Water or Naval Forces didn't have complete Air Supremcy. The Royal Navy would have shredded any German Invasion attempt in a huge bloodbath for the Nazis. Germans had no tank landing craft or personal landing craft. They were trying to "covert" canal barges to be landing craft. Total Pooch Screw by the Germans - a Land Power that can't cross the water to invade a Sea Power ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:22:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Russia
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:25:48 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I recommend you read up on some of the naval battles. The German Navy was quite competent and for as small as it was held their own well enough. I recommend you read up on the Naval Battle of Narvik. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:28:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was only after Hitler realized that he couldn't force a British Empire peace by invasion that he began the assumption he could force peace by defeating the Soviets. This aligned two of his goals into one thing. And we know how that worked out. I remember someone famous saying something about a land war in Asia. In addition, the Germans couldn’t maintain their supplies lines of gas & food to keep up with his “Blitzkrieg” attack tactics spread over such a long distance. Especially while waging war on 2 fronts. Add to that the superior numbers of Russians, the Russian winter, and Russian scorched earth policy. They burned the ground, villages, everything as they retreated. Also the Russian army would shoot deserters on the spot as well as those soldiers that refused to fight. Good motivators. The Germans never expected or encountered anything like this before. This ain’t France or Poland, enjoy the burnt soil! Or to put it another way:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:29:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: pretty sure thy lost nearly all of their destroyer force in Norway... they just couldn't hope to protect any invasion transport force... there's no doubt in my mind the Royal Navy would suicide if they had to to sink a German invasion force with dominant air cover.. This. The RN quite literally was prepared to sacrifice every single ship and sailor if need be, and based on their history their is little doubt that would have. Look what happened in the Aegean in May 1941 - the RN lost a bunch of ships completely outside of air support, but until ordered to back off, they sank the entire naval component of the Crete invasion force. It seems more than a little unlikely that they wouldn't have done the same in the channel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:33:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even in Crete where the Germans were outnumbered they still managed to win. Crete? Where 1,200 German aircraft faced....3 RAF? And they lost over half their force (including, rather ominously I'd say, 100% of their seaborne reinforcements) fighting a British force composed of evacuees from Greece with no artillery or heavy equipment - though to be fair, the British Army in the UK in 1940 was only marginally better equipped with heavy weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:34:30 PM EDT
[#7]
RAF
Royal Navy English Channel is a fickle mistress and a Tempest when it wants to be. Even in the '40's weather and seas could be very unpredictable there. Still are, but we have better ways of watching it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:46:47 PM EDT
[#8]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands ETA: Never mind, the British Empire’s structure is weird. Crown Dependencies aren’t part of the UK. Which is really strange. But it’s still an interesting bit of history - I got to see some of the leftover bunkers and hear about the occupation when I visited. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:51:37 PM EDT
[#9]
They ran out of time. Oil reserves would have been insufficient (by their own estimates) to attack the Soviets if they didn't do it sooner rather than later.
It's not certain Hitler would have launched Sea Lion even if RAF had been grounded (was possible, but no follow through). He planned to get Britain after the Soviets. What stopped all this from happening was the United States. For sure. Since we almost certainly kept the Soviets in the war. The Luftwaffe could have probably taken the RN if the US wasn't supporting at all. Then allowing the Kriegsmarine to block outside supply to Britain. Starving it out and to terms or invasion. Biggest thing, it's probably not one thing (excluding US support) that stopped it. And maybe the Brits would have turned it around themselves, but not much indication of that. Without Britain's empire, they really don't have much of anything to draw from if the US isn't supplying them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2020 11:57:59 PM EDT
[#10]
NVM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:04:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Define decimated. Compared to our losses in Normandy? That was Hitler's decision Well achyually… Almost half the paratroopers that landed on the first day died. That's dead, not just casualties. They ended up with a total of nearly 6,000 casualties (2/3 KIA or MIA) out of 22,000 that eventually made it to the island before the British evacuated. The vast majority of the casualties were on the first two days, the 7th Flieger Division with around 10,000 men took almost 5,000 casualties. The 82nd Airborne took fewer casualties in 33 days of fighting in Normandy before being relieved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:10:40 AM EDT
[#12]
He thought the UK would surrender and then their forces would be his forces.
And they would have if Churchill had not been voted PM. Other than that look what it actually took for the Allies to build up and invade Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:17:41 AM EDT
[#13]
I still find this story interesting;
 The Paris Gun The gun was capable of firing a 234 lb shell to a range of 81 mi and a maximum altitude of 26.3 mi. the greatest height reached by a human-made projectile until the first successful V-2 flight test in October 1942. At the start of its 182-second trajectory each shell from the Paris Gun reached a speed of 3,681 mph. The gun was fired from a wooded hill (Le mont de Joie) near Crpy, and the first shell landed at 7:18 a.m. on 21 March 1918 on the Quai de la Seine, the explosion being heard across the city. Shells continued to land at 15-minute intervals, with 21 counted on the first day. The initial assumption was these were bombs dropped from an airplane or Zeppelin flying too high to be seen or heard. The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 75 mi. The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect the rotation of the Earth was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:24:58 AM EDT
[#14]
No control of the air was the main reason. Also, amphibious warfare doctrine was something the German military really didn’t understand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:26:15 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He wasted his resources by attacking the Soviet Union... If they would have place their efforts to controlling the air space above the channel and focused the resources to crossing the channel, there would be no UK. EDIT: Germany and the Soviet Union had already signed a treaty. Hitler stupidly thought, that the treaty would place them in a weaker position... Hitler failed to see the ruthlessness' of the Russian political/military leaders. If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin would have invaded Germany via Eastern Europe within the year anyway (and probably taking the whole of Europe AND England in the end) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:26:42 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still find this story interesting; http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/151/590x/schwerer-gustav-head-725503.jpg The Paris Gun The gun was capable of firing a 234 lb shell to a range of 81 mi and a maximum altitude of 26.3 mi. the greatest height reached by a human-made projectile until the first successful V-2 flight test in October 1942. At the start of its 182-second trajectory each shell from the Paris Gun reached a speed of 3,681 mph. The gun was fired from a wooded hill (Le mont de Joie) near Crpy, and the first shell landed at 7:18 a.m. on 21 March 1918 on the Quai de la Seine, the explosion being heard across the city. Shells continued to land at 15-minute intervals, with 21 counted on the first day. The initial assumption was these were bombs dropped from an airplane or Zeppelin flying too high to be seen or heard. The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 75 mi. The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect the rotation of the Earth was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. The picture shown is of the ‘Dora’ gun used at Sevastopol. It is not the Paris gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:26:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Enlighten us There are History websites that have explained indepth why Sealion would never have worked regardless of the uear attempted. Opposed water crossing are lethal even across a river, just look at The Rapido River crossing in Italy. The Germans didnt have the specialized craft or the logistics to back up what they put across. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:29:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never once did a major British naval vessel sail through the channel after the Germans conquered France for obvious reasons Even if they were down to rowboats with American Civil War style explosives mounted near the bow, I have no doubt that the Royal Navy would have thrown in everything it had to stop an invasion of the British Isle. The only reason not to was to evacuate to Canada and continue the fight from Greenland and Iceland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:50:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: *snip for brevity* The notion of German military prowess is largely a myth. She did after all lose two world wars. This is the only thing said out that I sort of disagree with. From a purely military standpoint: in both world wars they effectively took on the world and while losing, did better than any other military could have IMHO, especially when looking at it thru a balance of power lens. WW1 saw a 2+ front war with some of the absolute useless allies they could possibly have. Nonetheless, it took 4 years for them to be attritted out of the war against the UK, France, Russia, Italy and eventually the US (and smaller nations) There were still opportunities for them to have been successful even into early 1917. WW2, for all the horrors of the Nazis, saw them conquer much of Europe and Western Russia at its peak, again mostly on their own. Granted, some were surprised victims, some were simply not prepared for what they encountered but one by one they fell. They took on arguably 3 of the 4 greatest powers at the time, in multiple theaters, and while losing managed to drag it out 4 years. I'm honestly not sure if even the US, placed in a similar geographic confine, would be able to pull it off as well as Germany did in either world war. Maybe the 1945 US military, assuming we lasted thst long |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:51:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Hitler always had an affection for, and respect, the English.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:56:48 AM EDT
[#21]
FPNI,
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 12:57:08 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The RAF. And the Royal Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:00:49 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the only thing said out that I sort of disagree with. From a purely military standpoint: in both world wars they effectively took on the world and while losing, did better than any other military could have IMHO, especially when looking at it thru a balance of power lens. WW1 saw a 2+ front war with some of the absolute useless allies they could possibly have. Nonetheless, it took 4 years for them to be attritted out of the war against the UK, France, Russia, Italy and eventually the US (and smaller nations) There were still opportunities for them to have been successful even into early 1917. WW2, for all the horrors of the Nazis, saw them conquer much of Europe and Western Russia at its peak, again mostly on their own. Granted, some were surprised victims, some were simply not prepared for what they encountered but one by one they fell. They took on arguably 3 of the 4 greatest powers at the time, in multiple theaters, and while losing managed to drag it out 4 years. I'm honestly not sure if even the US, placed in a similar geographic confine, would be able to pull it off as well as Germany did in either world war. Maybe the 1945 US military, assuming we lasted thst long +1 to all of this. Add to the fact that if the Nazis weren’t so quick to throw the Jews in to camps, showers, ovens or chase them out of Germany... they might have had the A-bomb first. They were very close with the V2 rocket tech too. They definitely had superior tech and engineering as shown by the Tiger tanks, MP43/MP44 rifles, and Luger pistols. Also they were fighting a war on 2 fronts against the 2 largest super powers of the day: USA and USSR. Long story short... Hitler should’ve been happy with France, Poland, Austria and negotiated a treaty. Too greedy, too fast. As with many megalomaniac dictators. This is also why to this day Germany doesn’t have an official federal standing army, and why we have so many US troops stationed inside Germany itself. More than inside any other country on earth. Remember they started 2 World Wars... That’s not a small feat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:01:18 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hitler always had an affection for, and respect, the English. He did not want the British Empire destroyed, he wanted them on Germany's side again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:04:34 AM EDT
[#25]
My RAF Grandfather and everyone like him. Fuck the Germans.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:18:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hitler always had an affection for, and respect, the English. He had a romanticized distortion of reality is what he had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:19:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: +1 to all of this. Add to the fact that if the Nazis weren’t so quick to throw the Jews in to camps, showers, ovens or chase them out of Germany... they might have had the A-bomb first. They were very close with the V2 rocket tech too. They definitely had superior tech and engineering as shown by the Tiger tanks, MP43/MP44 rifles, and Luger pistols. Also they were fighting a war on 2 fronts against the 2 largest super powers of the day: USA and USSR. Long story short... Hitler should’ve been happy with France, Poland, Austria and negotiated a treaty. Too greedy, too fast. As with many megalomaniac dictators. This is also why to this day Germany doesn’t have an official federal standing army, and why we have so many US troops stationed inside Germany itself. More than inside any other country on earth. Remember they started 2 World Wars... That’s not a small feat. Technically, the USA does not have a permanent standing army, either. It has a 2 year max standing army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:21:44 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: water infested with the Royal Navy This. The luftwaffe could not have provided sufficient cover for the landings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:29:03 AM EDT
[#29]
Any invasion force would have been destroyed by the Royal Navy. Even if a couple of ships and thousands of troops managed to get across, their supply lines would soon be cut off.
I also believe Hitler was not trying to conquer Great Britain. He wanted to punish them enough through the Luftwaffe that they would make peace with Nazi Germany. Then Hitler could focus on expanding his Empire to the East. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:32:28 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He had a romanticized distortion of reality is what he had. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hitler always had an affection for, and respect, the English. He had a romanticized distortion of reality is what he had. People forget that Prussia and England had a very cozy relationship for much longer then they were enemies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:33:46 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s stupid simple. The Battle of Britain didn’t STOP Germany from being able to take Britain but postponed it. They weren’t pushing into Europe. What stopped Germany from taking the UK was going to war with Russia. Another year or two of full focus on eastern front, no -stop Uboat attacks, and refining the German Navy and amphibious assaults and Germany would have held Britain. It would take more than a year of fully prioritized warship construction just to replace the warships the Germans lost in Norway. That would mean reducing construction of U-boats and any specialized landing craft. During that time, the British, who had a vastly superior maritime construction potential, are adding to their already overwhelming lead. And eventually, Japan still attacks the US, the US enters the war, and now the resources available to defend Britain are insurmountable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:33:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Technically, the USA does not have a permanent standing army, either. It has a 2 year max standing army. Yes and no. The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men. In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation. Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read. As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution. Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military. “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote. Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session. Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service. At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940. Minimum enlistment contract is 4-6-8 years... with 2 years active duty. And many re-up anyway. So... theory vs practice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:36:23 AM EDT
[#33]
Because it wasn't in Napoleon's playbook?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:37:56 AM EDT
[#34]
There are bitter weeds in England.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 1:44:57 AM EDT
[#35]
The brits weren't wimps in 1940, amphibious landing were tough for the Germans, they were tied up elsewhere by the Russians. Take your pick. Had the Russians folded and made peace, it likely would have been a different story.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 2:02:41 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the Germans sucked at logistics. This was huge! Although the blitzkrieg was some serious shit they frequently outpaced their supplies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 2:11:25 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The picture shown is of the 'Dora' gun used at Sevastopol. It is not the Paris gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I still find this story interesting; http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/151/590x/schwerer-gustav-head-725503.jpg The Paris Gun The gun was capable of firing a 234 lb shell to a range of 81 mi and a maximum altitude of 26.3 mi. the greatest height reached by a human-made projectile until the first successful V-2 flight test in October 1942. At the start of its 182-second trajectory each shell from the Paris Gun reached a speed of 3,681 mph. The gun was fired from a wooded hill (Le mont de Joie) near Crpy, and the first shell landed at 7:18 a.m. on 21 March 1918 on the Quai de la Seine, the explosion being heard across the city. Shells continued to land at 15-minute intervals, with 21 counted on the first day. The initial assumption was these were bombs dropped from an airplane or Zeppelin flying too high to be seen or heard. The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 75 mi. The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect the rotation of the Earth was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. The picture shown is of the 'Dora' gun used at Sevastopol. It is not the Paris gun. You are correct. I fixed it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 2:17:14 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How effective were the V1s? A complete waste. They took valuable resources to design and produce, and did limited damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 2:36:26 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: +1 to all of this. Add to the fact that if the Nazis weren’t so quick to throw the Jews in to camps, showers, ovens or chase them out of Germany... they might have had the A-bomb first. They were very close with the V2 rocket tech too. They definitely had superior tech and engineering as shown by the Tiger tanks, MP43/MP44 rifles, and Luger pistols. Also they were fighting a war on 2 fronts against the 2 largest super powers of the day: USA and USSR. Long story short... Hitler should’ve been happy with France, Poland, Austria and negotiated a treaty. Too greedy, too fast. As with many megalomaniac dictators. This is also why to this day Germany doesn’t have an official federal standing army, and why we have so many US troops stationed inside Germany itself. More than inside any other country on earth. Remember they started 2 World Wars... That’s not a small feat. An A-bomb is useless without a delivery method. Germany never had an operational bomber that could deliver an early A-bomb, which weighs 4 times what a V-2 can lift. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 2:38:52 AM EDT
[#40]
I just watched In Enemy Hands with William H Macy. It was on the free movies on Vudu. It was really good. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316824/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_45
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 2:43:17 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An A-bomb is useless without a delivery method. Germany never had an operational bomber that could deliver an early A-bomb, which weighs 4 times what a V-2 can lift. They had these things called U-Boats. They would’ve sailed one right down the Hudson and detonated it. Huge save. Also given time and if they didn’t run off most of the engineers, physicists, and scientists... who knows what they would’ve developed. Their tech was clearly the most advanced ranging from artillery, tanks, small arms, to jet engines. They made it much harder on themselves... while fighting a war on 2 fronts. Too much, too fast, The candle that burns twice as bright, burns twice as fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 3:18:12 AM EDT
[#42]
Primarily the Eastern Front. But that said, with X number of troops you can not occupy everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 3:45:49 AM EDT
[#43]
his troops would have been chewed up in a crossing
but in the end Logistics made invasion impossible even if he got a beachhead he would never have been able to keep his troops supplied, basically the same thing that happened to all those divisions sent into Russia would have made the war a lot shorter if he had tried invading the UK |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 3:49:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. The RN quite literally was prepared to sacrifice every single ship and sailor if need be, and based on their history their is little doubt that would have. Look what happened in the Aegean in May 1941 - the RN lost a bunch of ships completely outside of air support, but until ordered to back off, they sank the entire naval component of the Crete invasion force. It seems more than a little unlikely that they wouldn't have done the same in the channel. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: pretty sure thy lost nearly all of their destroyer force in Norway... they just couldn't hope to protect any invasion transport force... there's no doubt in my mind the Royal Navy would suicide if they had to to sink a German invasion force with dominant air cover.. This. The RN quite literally was prepared to sacrifice every single ship and sailor if need be, and based on their history their is little doubt that would have. Look what happened in the Aegean in May 1941 - the RN lost a bunch of ships completely outside of air support, but until ordered to back off, they sank the entire naval component of the Crete invasion force. It seems more than a little unlikely that they wouldn't have done the same in the channel. Yep. A lot of folks don't realise how big the RN was at the start of WW2, and how much bigger than the Kriegsmarine it was. The RN committed more ships to the Battle of Crete than the Kriegsmarine had *period*. (looking at the wiki article...) ...in the face of Luftwaffe air superiority they lost 12 combat ships, at an average rate of around 1 ship per day during the battle. In Home waters, the RN had about a tenfold superiority in destroyers over the Kriegsmarine, and could afford to lose a ship-a-day for *months*. There is no way the Kriegsmarine could protect a landing fleet against those odds. Without air cover, yes, the RN would take immense casualties; but, they would be prepared to accept that to defend Britain; and, of course, they wouldn't actually be without air cover when defending Britain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 3:55:58 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: As we all know, Hitler had his eye on the UK for a list of very obvious reasons. He never invaded, though. Why not? Was it because: 1. He felt his troop transports would have been sunk by the Allied navy. 2. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit from the air during the beach landings. 3. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit by shore batteries during the beach landings. 4. He felt he would have made it ashore only to be slaughtered by every man, woman, and child Brit. 5. He did not have the men and equipment to spare for the operation. Discuss. All five. In a nutshell, Nazi Germany never gained Air and Naval supremacy. That was what stopped Operation Sea-lion. Hitler also knew, as did his generals, that an invasion of the UK would be met with fierce and very costly resistance, which helped that decision, because without adequate supply lines and reinforcements it would have been stalled at too high a cost, and would have chewed up Nazi resources with very little to be gained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 4:06:53 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The RAF. First response is correct. Goering promised an easy victory but the RAF whooped his fat ass. No air superiority, no invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 4:43:22 AM EDT
[#47]
Lend Lease
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 6:32:57 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yet they won with what can only be described as a shoestring force. Quote HistoryQuoted: Yet they won with what can only be described as a shoestring force. Against what? Your over-awed view of Nazi ability to initiate and support a massive and heavily contested amphibious assault against overwhelmingly superior defending forces is backed up by neither example nor careful consideration. Quoted: Add to the fact that if the Nazis weren’t so quick to throw the Jews in to camps, showers, ovens or chase them out of Germany... they might have had the A-bomb first. LOL no. Even discounting the fact that antisemitism was one of the most reliable characteristics of Hitler from early on and the Nazi movement was rooted in it.... even supposing the Nazis could get the science right, they weren't building a bomb. It was a matter of industrial capacity. Neils Bohr famously realized that an a-bomb required turning an "entire country" into an a-bomb factory. Germany could not do this while waging war at the same time. Only the USA could do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 6:39:08 AM EDT
[#49]
He didn't have enough shipping to carry a meaningful assault force over unprotected water and land it on a hostile shore.
Fuck's sake, they were looking at towing barges over to use in landing troops. That's a shit idea even with an uncontested landing. Germany didn't have the physical ability to transport more than a token force of men across any amount of ocean and land them on a contested beach. And that's without the Royal Navy even getting involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 6:40:23 AM EDT
[#50]
I have always felt is was more political in nature- not wanting to draw the U.S. into the war.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
