PDA

View Full Version : What if > Operation Sealion 1942



luftluuver
04-01-2007, 10:39 AM
Nazi Germany has defeated the USSR and now turns its attention to the west. Germany still has to support the Italians in the desert.

Would Sealion be a success or not in 1942?

luftluuver
04-01-2007, 10:39 AM
Nazi Germany has defeated the USSR and now turns its attention to the west. Germany still has to support the Italians in the desert.

Would Sealion be a success or not in 1942?

wikingsh2006
04-01-2007, 11:00 AM
Interesting idea. Maybe, maybe not. Overlord showed that without complete control over the air and sea a cross channel invasion wouldn't succeed. Diepe showed that as well. However, if the Germans did achieve control of the air and sea and had started building an invasion fleet they may well have. Great Briton would not have been able to receive supplys from the U.S. Also, would the U.S. even be an enemy of Germany. What if Hitler didn't declare war on the U.S.? Would the U.S. have declared war on them? Maybe, maybe not. The Japanese attacked the U.S., not Germany. So, the U.S. population may have wanted to limit the war that they were to be involved in. What other opinions are out there on this? Interesting to think about if Germany did defeat the U.S.S.R. and then the last 60 or so years would have been totally different. Better or worse? Who knows.....

JG52Karaya-X
04-01-2007, 11:17 AM
Well IMHO Sealion would have been a far easier effort in 1942 than it was in 1940 given the longer range of the Bf109F/G over the E (due to the drop tanks) and the service introduction of the FW190 which gave the SpitVs a tough fight at the time.

horseback
04-01-2007, 11:19 AM
By 1942, England's coastal and air defenses have had two years to be built up, the British Army has expanded and re-equipped, and the Royal Navy has been greatly supplemented by the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet (please note that the USN was already a first rate force, in great contrast to the US Army and the Army Air Forces in 1942).

While there was only a trickle of USAAF units into Britain by the summer of 1942, there was already a flood of trained RAF and RCAF aircrew from America at that time, with more and better to come.

Hitler missed his chance in June/July of 1940, when the Brits were teetering on the precipice. In 1942, with the Yanks (and their farmers) in the war, and a chance to get their collective breath, the peoples of Britain were already more than a match for the German war machine, especially if the Germans had to come to them.

cheers

horseback

Ed6269
04-01-2007, 11:45 AM
It's very unlikely Germany would have succeeded in invading England: The Royal Navy would maul the invaders at night even if the Luftwaffe got control of the air. (Like Guadalcanal where control of sea lanes changed hands with Japan's superior night-fighting navy.) Plus with Brittain's superior internal lines of communication, they could have massed far more quickly than the Germans. (Having to cross the English Channel.) Look what Normandy took, and the Germans were extremely weak there.
I don't think there's any way they could have done it.

Nimits
04-01-2007, 11:56 AM
Even assuming the Germans could have wrested air superiority from the RAF, the Germans had nothing like the Navy the Allies had or that they (the Allies) used in Overlord. The initial German landing force would have had to be relatively small due to lack of transport. No matter who controlled the skies over the Channel, the Royal Navy would have contested the landings. It is hard to sink a manuvering battleships or carriers at sea; every time it was done it took the undivided attention of dozens or hundreds of bombers virtually unopposed by defensive fighters. The Luftwaffe would have been hard pressed to keep the Royal Navy at bay and still provide enough CAS to defend the army's beachhead.

PBNA-Boosher
04-01-2007, 12:40 PM
The Japanese had attacked us for sure and dealt a stunning blow, but what do you mean that Germany wasn't attacking the US? There were U-boats in our Harbors! We very luckily caught German saboteurs in Florida's and New York Harbor's beaches.

VW-IceFire
04-01-2007, 02:25 PM
The biggest problem would still be landing craft. That was the biggest issue for Sealion of 1940. The Germans really had no serious workable plan for crossing the channel with actual landing craft...often its shown that this lack of capability in mounting a sea borne invasion tipped part of Hitler's hand for his diminishing lack of interest in invading England.

Provided that LC's weren't a problem...they would still be faced with a RAF battle hardened by two years of direct combat plus the same radar, observer, and command and control system that proved so effective in the Battle of Britain. Then add in the slow arrival of USAAF aircraft to the theater...not quite ready to go into combat but it would have moved things forward a fair bit.

Interesting scenario...I think the invasion would fail but there would be a very serious battle and its possible that the battle could go both ways depending on a huge number of factors.

jasonbirder
04-01-2007, 02:29 PM
Given the huge (and I mean huge!) disparity in naval power I can't concieve any way in which this operation could be made to work...
An amphibious landing requires freedom of movement over the sea for landing, support and follow up supply...something the germans would never be able to provide...
Their destroyer and light cruiser fleet was a complete joke...Leaving any German landing attempt at the tender mercies of the Royal Navy.

MB_Avro_UK
04-01-2007, 02:50 PM
Hi all,

Here's my thoughts.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The difference between Britain's defensive position in 1940 and 1942 was huge.

In 1940 during the 'Battle of Britain' the RAF was almost defeated and their Army had only several tanks and a few other weapons mounted on broomsticks to repel even the smallest invasion force.

Had the RAF been defeated in 1940 (and it almost was) there would have been no need for an invasion.

British politicians would probably have sought peace and allowed Hitler to conquer Europe in exchange for Britain retaining her Empire (for the time being of course). This was the 'offer on the table' by Hitler.

By 1942 the British armaments industries were in top gear and the political/military situation was very different. And the RAF had become a much stronger force.

Just my opinion.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ImpStarDuece
04-01-2007, 03:40 PM
The British were in a far superior position defensively in 1942 than the were in 1940, and the disparity of strength was swinging back in favour of the British.

Fighter Command had expanded its number of squadrons by 50% and Costal Commmand had expanded its squadrons by 150%, adding the Beaufighter and Beaufort in the strike role. Anti-Aircraft Command had increased its strength in guns by 300% and manpower by 200% and gotten rid of most of its obsolete equipment. The FAA had much better aircraft (Seafires and Martlets compared to Rocs and Skuas) and about 75% more squadrons.

The British Army had two years to reform and re-equip and while its equipmment wasn't as good as that of the Whermarcht, the qualitative gap wasn't as large as it had been. The Home Guard would of been used as static/garrison/delaying forces, to guard strategic points (bridges, canals, cross roads) and relieve British Army manpower.

By 1942 the British had completed over 28,000 defensive strongpoints up to a depth of 20 miles from the coast, designed to slow German attackers while the armoured forces assembled inland for counter attacks at the beach heads. Infantry divisions would hold the German landings in the south, while armour pushed from the north and the RN attempted to cut the supply lines.

Unlike the Normandy invasion, the Germans wouldn't have aerial superiority, naval superiority or even a clear advantage in numbers on land, given the limitiations imposed by using barges to transport troops and equipment.

Chris0382
04-01-2007, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">British politicians would probably have sought peace and allowed Hitler to conquer Europe in exchange for Britain retaining her Empire (for the time being of course). This was the 'offer on the table' by Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what would Japan think of this plan as Japan was just as much as a threat to the empire as Germany was as it was Japan marching on Singapore, Malaysia, India, eventually Hong Kong etc, Australia.

joeap
04-01-2007, 03:59 PM
Well I can't see Germany defeating the USSR, at least not in 42.

tomtheyak
04-01-2007, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well I can't see Germany defeating the USSR, at least not in 42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he's implying that Barborossa succeeds in 1941 and it takes some months for the transfer west of units, logistics and planning of a 'Sealion MkII' - hence invasion in 1942.

Its an interesting scenario though. With RAF losses being very heavy during 1941-1942 (almost 3 aircraft lost for every claimed IIRC) and that just with the two channel front Geschwadern the influx of units from the East would have been a major headache. The air battle might well have been the greatest ever seen as Experten in the admittedly superior (to MkV spit) Fw190 and the F4/G2 109s take the offensive I can see a VERY costly battle, likely ending in the LW favour.

As for invasion barges, didnt Germany use a few in amphibious ops around the USSR? OK not nearly enough for a cross channel campaign, and the RN are a HUGE factor here, but dont forget the U boat force are also just beginning to see what would be the end of their ascendancy.

A lot of What Ifs but an interesting case study - no doubt it would have ben a brutal slugfest; perhaps too costly for all sides?

luftluuver
04-01-2007, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well I can't see Germany defeating the USSR, at least not in 42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you miss the words <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WHAT IF</span>?

jensenpark
04-01-2007, 09:10 PM
IceFire is right...goes back to the landing craft.

There's a recent book out (title eludes me) that is commenting that the BOB really wasn't that big a strategic victory for the Brits in regards to warding off invasion. That the overwhelming strength of the Royal Navy was enough to protect the UK.

Goes on to show how the wake alone of a single destroyer among the flat bottomed German LC would have swamped the force and capsized them.

Real interesting What If.

A What If I'd love to get the communities comment on is if Stalin had beaten Hitler to the punch and invaded West (as he was planning).

If Stalin had invaded during the Phoney War, where would Britain and France stand? Would they continue to fight Germany or ally themselves with the the Nazis to fight the communist horde? Would we have US lend-lease to Germany against the USSR?

djetz
04-02-2007, 02:42 AM
Nazi Germany could not have defeated the USSR, because they went about it in the wrong way. The Nazis saw slavic peoples as inferior - untermensch.

Now, if the Nazis weren't such idiots and treated the peoples of the Soviet Union - not "Russians" at all, most of them - with a little bit more respect, they would have been a lot better off. The Germans were welcomed as liberators in the western USSR, releasing people from the bonds of Stalinist oppression.

If the Nazis had been smart enough to play that role, they could have engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union, at which time they could have done whatever they wanted. They could have owned the Ukraine and Belarus, added them to the Nazi empire, and had all the lebenstraum they could handle.

They didn't, of course, which is a pretty good refutation of the idea that Hitler understood thing one about strategy. Anyway, the point is that it would have been possible.

So, positing this, we can then move on the the possibility of the Nazis turning westward again in 1942.

The-Pizza-Man
04-02-2007, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well I can't see Germany defeating the USSR, at least not in 42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he's implying that Barborossa succeeds in 1941 and it takes some months for the transfer west of units, logistics and planning of a 'Sealion MkII' - hence invasion in 1942.

Its an interesting scenario though. With RAF losses being very heavy during 1941-1942 (almost 3 aircraft lost for every claimed IIRC) and that just with the two channel front Geschwadern the influx of units from the East would have been a major headache. The air battle might well have been the greatest ever seen as Experten in the admittedly superior (to MkV spit) Fw190 and the F4/G2 109s take the offensive I can see a VERY costly battle, likely ending in the LW favour.

As for invasion barges, didnt Germany use a few in amphibious ops around the USSR? OK not nearly enough for a cross channel campaign, and the RN are a HUGE factor here, but dont forget the U boat force are also just beginning to see what would be the end of their ascendancy.

A lot of What Ifs but an interesting case study - no doubt it would have ben a brutal slugfest; perhaps too costly for all sides? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you expect a 3 to 1 kill ratio to prevail over England when all of the factors that made it possible over France are removed.

You also forget that the RAF was training more pilots and the British aircraft industry producing more fighter and other aircraft than Germany at time.

bazzaah2
04-02-2007, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
Nazi Germany could not have defeated the USSR, because they went about it in the wrong way. The Nazis saw slavic peoples as inferior - untermensch.

Now, if the Nazis weren't such idiots and treated the peoples of the Soviet Union - not "Russians" at all, most of them - with a little bit more respect, they would have been a lot better off. The Germans were welcomed as liberators in the western USSR, releasing people from the bonds of Stalinist oppression.

If the Nazis had been smart enough to play that role, they could have engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union, at which time they could have done whatever they wanted. They could have owned the Ukraine and Belarus, added them to the Nazi empire, and had all the lebenstraum they could handle.

They didn't, of course, which is a pretty good refutation of the idea that Hitler understood thing one about strategy. Anyway, the point is that it would have been possible.

So, positing this, we can then move on the the possibility of the Nazis turning westward again in 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right of course but the thing people forget sometimes is that people with extreme views actually believe what they say. Hitler was driven by his ideology. He wanted to create a slave empire in the east. I don't think that he was capable of allowing any other treatment of the conquered Slavic peoples other than what was meted out.

I'm pretty sure that Hitler had blown all chance of winning the war by the period August-December 1941. But he was capable of winning up to that point, including the destruction of the USSR.

Matz0r
04-02-2007, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RN are a HUGE factor here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It's true that Great Britain boasted the most powerful fleet during WWII, however it would be suicidal for RN to enter the channel to cut off the Germans without air superiority while Germany was occupying France. Thus the primary battle would be for air superiority for both sides.

mynameisroland
04-02-2007, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Well IMHO Sealion would have been a far easier effort in 1942 than it was in 1940 given the longer range of the Bf109F/G over the E (due to the drop tanks) and the service introduction of the FW190 which gave the SpitVs a tough fight at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst.

So long range bombing missions from France or Norway to Scapa flow, the Clyde or Rosyth wouldnt have been much of a problem. How would the Home Fleet survive this aerial onslaught supported by the Bf 109 ?

ForkTailedDevil
04-02-2007, 06:12 AM
There is another thought I think that some people are missing. Lets say that Germany also control's the Suez canal and Malta. UK would almost have to sue for peace. With there only ability to get resources from around the horn of Africa it would be much easier to starve them off.

mynameisroland
04-02-2007, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RN are a HUGE factor here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It's true that Great Britain boasted the most powerful fleet during WWII, however it would be suicidal for RN to enter the channel to cut off the Germans without air superiority while Germany was occupying France. Thus the primary battle would be for air superiority for both sides. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would the Luftwaffe subdue the RAF in 1942, after the RAF had expanded, had greater reserves, a greater frontline fighter strength and a larger pool of pilots/training facilites than the Luftwaffe had in 1942 ? They didnt manage to subdue the RAF in 1940 while it was at its weakest vs the Luftwaffe at its strongest so I would think it impossible for a weakened Luftwaffe to destroy a strengthened RAF.

Even when you throw in a few hundred Fw 190s in to the mix.

mynameisroland
04-02-2007, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
There is another thought I think that some people are missing. Lets say that Germany also control's the Suez canal and Malta. UK would almost have to sue for peace. With there only ability to get resources from around the horn of Africa it would be much easier to starve them off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the resources the UK relied on came from the US or South America. If Germany controlled Malta and the Suez it wold make no real difference.

1stly; because they still did not have enough Ships/naval aircraft to exploit these possesions

and

2ndly; Britain already diverted their Merchant ships around Africa taking out the Med out of the equation altogether. In this scenario the nothing would change imo.

Matz0r
04-02-2007, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RN are a HUGE factor here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It's true that Great Britain boasted the most powerful fleet during WWII, however it would be suicidal for RN to enter the channel to cut off the Germans without air superiority while Germany was occupying France. Thus the primary battle would be for air superiority for both sides. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would the Luftwaffe subdue the RAF in 1942, after the RAF had expanded, had greater reserves, a greater frontline fighter strength and a larger pool of pilots/training facilites than the Luftwaffe had in 1942 ? They didnt manage to subdue the RAF in 1940 while it was at its weakest vs the Luftwaffe at its strongest so I would think it impossible for a weakened Luftwaffe to destroy a strengthened RAF.

Even when you throw in a few hundred Fw 190s in to the mix. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're missing my point, I was only dismissing the importance of RN OR the kriegsmarine in such a scenario since it would be suicidal for ships to enter the narrow channel without complete air supremacy.

Oh... and I got a Fw in my sig because I like the plane.

djetz
04-02-2007, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2:
You are right of course but the thing people forget sometimes is that people with extreme views actually believe what they say. Hitler was driven by his ideology. He wanted to create a slave empire in the east. I don't think that he was capable of allowing any other treatment of the conquered Slavic peoples other than what was meted out.

I'm pretty sure that Hitler had blown all chance of winning the war by the period August-December 1941. But he was capable of winning up to that point, including the destruction of the USSR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I was saying that if the Nazis had been smart enough to hold off on the evil till the war in the east was won, rather than starting it right away, they would have had a much greater chance of succeeding.

It's another example of Hitler and the Nazis in general shooting themselves in the foot. It's true that maybe they couldn't have behaved any differently, but IF Hitler had been a better general he might have seen the point of PRETENDING to be a liberator till he'd achieved his goal.

Hitler's only "genius" was appealing to the dark side of his people. He really wasn't much better at politics than he was at strategy. He was a creature of pure hate that managed to get very lucky at exactly the right time and place.

Since we're talking "what if?" here, I'm saying "IF Hitler and his Nazi leadership team had been a little less motivated by ideology, THEN the Axis could have achieved their goals in the east, and THEN we might have seen a revival of action on the western front."

Of course, Hitler never really wanted to fight the English, he saw them as Aryan. He didn't want to fight the UK, he wanted them to join him. I believe that even if the Nazis had been ready to turn towards England again in '42, they still couldn't have won by direct military action. The air war is what interests us here the most, but in '42 the best way for the Axis to have won would be with U-boats, by starving the UK of food and war materials.

Which might well have been achievable. Particularly if the enigma machine hadn't been cracked. In air war terms, the best way to use the Luftwaffe against the UK in '42 would have been to support the Kriegsmarine.

Even Hitler understood that, which is why the Nazis declared war on the US. All this "what if?" stuff is interesting, but with Hitler and the Nazis as they were, it's unlikely. So my "what if?" is, basically, "What if Hitler was a better strategist?"

ViktorViktor
04-02-2007, 11:10 AM
djetz writes
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So my "what if?" is, basically, "What if Hitler was a better strategist?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, who among the major powers had the best strategist ?

mynameisroland
04-02-2007, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RN are a HUGE factor here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It's true that Great Britain boasted the most powerful fleet during WWII, however it would be suicidal for RN to enter the channel to cut off the Germans without air superiority while Germany was occupying France. Thus the primary battle would be for air superiority for both sides. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would the Luftwaffe subdue the RAF in 1942, after the RAF had expanded, had greater reserves, a greater frontline fighter strength and a larger pool of pilots/training facilites than the Luftwaffe had in 1942 ? They didnt manage to subdue the RAF in 1940 while it was at its weakest vs the Luftwaffe at its strongest so I would think it impossible for a weakened Luftwaffe to destroy a strengthened RAF.

Even when you throw in a few hundred Fw 190s in to the mix. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're missing my point, I was only dismissing the importance of RN OR the kriegsmarine in such a scenario since it would be suicidal for ships to enter the narrow channel without complete air supremacy.

Oh... and I got a Fw in my sig because I like the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Channel Dash ? The Royal Navy's operations in the Mediterranean? The Norway campaign?

In all of these scenarios ships operated without too heavy losses in areas without complete air supremacy. If the German army wanted to cross the Channel it would bring the Royal Navy in to the Channel, undoubtedly losses would be high but even suffering 33% total losses - which is pretty unlikely given the RAF's strength the Royal Navy would happily accept such odd and worse if it meant wrecking an invasion attempt.

Fw 190 comment was in reference to the fact that the Luftwaffe in 1942 imo had a qualative edge in some aspects the Fw 190 being one of those, however this advantage was not large enough to outweigh the RAFs relative strength or that of the Royal Navys preponderance in numbers over the Kriegsmarine.

Ruy Horta
04-02-2007, 11:32 AM
Assuming that you mean Germany won the summer campaign of 1941, it would negate the need to join the Japanese by declaring war against the US on Dec. 11th 1941 (since there is no need to have Japan join in to defeat the Soviet Union). The US without a need to declare war against Germany will for the time being focus on Japan alone.

Part of the Wehrmacht in Russia and the Ukraine can, at that stage with a far more willing Turkey) attack British interests in the middle east from the north, more forces can be joinng Rommel in the western desert. The french are neutral but facilitating (Lebanon & Syria), with the right diplomatic moves they may even join the Germans against Britain. Iraq and Iran are both sympathetic to Germany.

Rest of the Wehrmacht, at least sufficient divisions for a potential invasion (still a modest number) can be retained in the west for a possible assault on Britain.

But far more important through the freeing of resources, the Luftwaffe can expand in 1942 both in terms of strategic power and maritime reconnaissance, the U-Boat campaign can get the much needed support from the air. Any (military) built up in Britain can be put under constant pressure.

1943 would be the year of major effort from the air and sea, with an 1944 invasion of the south coast of England if still needed.

Britain may be forced to negociate before any military invasion.

The wild card remains US involvement, which will certainly be a factor AFTER defeat of Japan, but far more difficult to implement.

With a timely victory in Russia, a German Endsieg in the West is certainly a possibility.

joeap
04-02-2007, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well I can't see Germany defeating the USSR, at least not in 42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you miss the words <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WHAT IF</span>? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you understand the concept of disagreeing with the premise of an argument? No need to get in a huff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I stated my opinion, though I am interested in the subsequent speculation.

faustnik
04-02-2007, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:

Britain may be forced to negociate before any military invasion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems much more possible than a cross channel invasion. Maybe if advance on Dunkirk was pressed, that might have been a possible result in 1940???

luftluuver
04-02-2007, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well I can't see Germany defeating the USSR, at least not in 42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you miss the words <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WHAT IF</span>? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you understand the concept of disagreeing with the premise of an argument? No need to get in a huff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I stated my opinion, though I am interested in the subsequent speculation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Since when is asking a question 'getting in a huff'? The only one who is you getting in a 'huff' is you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

jasonbirder
04-02-2007, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're missing my point, I was only dismissing the importance of RN OR the kriegsmarine in such a scenario since it would be suicidal for ships to enter the narrow channel without complete air supremacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like the successful evacuation of Crete by RN destroyers in the face of complete German Air Superiority?

Hoatee
04-02-2007, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:

Britain may be forced to negociate before any military invasion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems much more possible than a cross channel invasion. Maybe if advance on Dunkirk was pressed, that might have been a possible result in 1940??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also a possibility that Britain could have continued the fight from Canada - after all, that was what De Gaulle was doing in Britain, fighting for the liberation of France.

Xiolablu3
04-02-2007, 02:07 PM
It all comes down to what resources Hitler has at his disposal in 1942, and if the US is willing to rush help across the pond in an effort to help (I beleive Roosevelt would have done it).

Roosevelt sent an agent to the UK in 1940 to assess the 'fighting spirit' of the British. He was to find out if Britain would fight on regardless or give in when the pressure was on. The report came back that there was absolutely no question that they would not capitulate. SO Roosevelt basically pledged to help in 1940 even when most of his people were against involvement.

Roosevelt would have seen the situation develop and be ready to send help in force IMO. ALso the UK was is a much stronger postition in 1942, a lot of the heavier losses in late 1941-42 were a result of switching to the offensive.

BUT:-

The biggest factor however would be the planning of the crossing. COuld Hitler really get enough resources to pull it off with the stiff resistanc that would be put up?

The D-Day landings showed just how much planning and resources were needed for a cross channel invasion, and this was far from a certain thing even in 1944 after 3 years of build up and planning. This was with complete Air and Naval superiority and on a much weakened Germany with NO Navy defence or Luftwaffe defence at all. (2 planes on DDay I believe?)

Could Germany really have pulled this off with her much more limited resources in 1942? I doubt it....

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2007, 02:19 PM
Hi all,

An invasion fleet would <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> have been necessary if the RAF had been defeated in 1942.

Without the RAF the Luftwaffe would have been free to roam all over the British Isles and bomb targets in daylight without opposition.

The Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks in harbour unless they sailed to the USA. But on way they would have been sunk by U-Boats guided by Condors.

In other words, had the Luftwaffe gained air supremacy, the British Government would have had no choice but to seek peace with Hitler.

And don't forget, there were influential voices in Britain such as Lord Halifax who since the outbreak of war favoured a 'deal' with Hitler.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ForkTailedDevil
04-02-2007, 02:25 PM
Not sure Boehmer. Other than military supplies from the US I understood that India, Middle East and Oil and rubber from the Far East is a lot of what kept the UK in it. Either way if the Suez had fallen and Germany and Italy had closed the Med and opened the Middle East for invasion it might have been a far different war. The US would have been hard pressed if it was fighting Japan to supply the UK with all of its Oil and Fuel needs as well to fend off the Germans.

mynameisroland
04-02-2007, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
Not sure Boehmer. Other than military supplies from the US I understood that India, Middle East and Oil and rubber from the Far East is a lot of what kept the UK in it. Either way if the Suez had fallen and Germany and Italy had closed the Med and opened the Middle East for invasion it might have been a far different war. The US would have been hard pressed if it was fighting Japan to supply the UK with all of its Oil and Fuel needs as well to fend off the Germans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Fork I am looking at it from a naval and a shipping aspect. In WW2 Britian, instead of using the Suez Canal for convoys prefered to send them round the Cape of Good Hope to avoid the Mediterranean altogether. If Suez had fallen, from a naval perspective the Kriegsmarine simply didnt have any ships to operate from the facilities. If the RM occupied them then their ships would still be relitively useless as they lacked the range to operate out of the Med anyway. Regardless, 12 Swordfish sorted the RM out at Taranto and after Matapan the Italians didnt want to fight any Royal Navy heavy units even if they were WW1 throwbacks.

mynameisroland
04-02-2007, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

An invasion fleet would <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> have been necessary if the RAF had been defeated in 1942.

Without the RAF the Luftwaffe would have been free to roam all over the British Isles and bomb targets in daylight without opposition.

The Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks in harbour unless they sailed to the USA. But on way they would have been sunk by U-Boats guided by Condors.

In other words, had the Luftwaffe gained air supremacy, the British Government would have had no choice but to seek peace with Hitler.

And don't forget, there were influential voices in Britain such as Lord Halifax who since the outbreak of war favoured a 'deal' with Hitler.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would the Luftwaffe gain air supremacy over Scotland and Scapaflow ? Its like the RAF gaining air supremacy over Austria from bases on the English coast.

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2007, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

An invasion fleet would <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> have been necessary if the RAF had been defeated in 1942.

Without the RAF the Luftwaffe would have been free to roam all over the British Isles and bomb targets in daylight without opposition.

The Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks in harbour unless they sailed to the USA. But on way they would have been sunk by U-Boats guided by Condors.

In other words, had the Luftwaffe gained air supremacy, the British Government would have had no choice but to seek peace with Hitler.

And don't forget, there were influential voices in Britain such as Lord Halifax who since the outbreak of war favoured a 'deal' with Hitler.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would the Luftwaffe gain air supremacy over Scotland and Scapaflow ? Its like the RAF gaining air supremacy over Austria from bases on the English coast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assumed that the Luftwaffe would have flown from bases in Norway. If I am wrong...I stand corrected http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

bazzaah2
04-02-2007, 03:12 PM
like they did in the Battle of Britain.

I suppose the long range escort fighters the Luftwaffe had by 1942 would have guaranteed success. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

darkhorizon11
04-02-2007, 04:02 PM
The Soviet UNion wouldnt have been completely defeated by 1942 no matter how well the invasion of the USSR went...

That said, if the Germans were able to make a beach head and land a signficant amount of troops and get a full tank division ashore (or at least part) in the first week or so. Probably yes, there were only something like 120,000 combay ready to 220,000 soldiers in the UK that were battle ready but weary after Dunkirk.

To their credit they were tough and battle hardened, but remember, Germany invaded Russia with something on the order of 2 million plus in infantry alone.

The issue comes down to could Germany have held off or defeated the RAF (which was already stretched thin) and land the troops in the first place. Also a massive shore battery of artillery would be needed to back up the German surface fleet hold off the RN which would attempt to intervene.

So in a nutshell, IF Germany could get a decent amount of troops ashore in a relatively short time to hold a beachhead...YES. But thats a BIG "if."

Kurfurst__
04-02-2007, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't stated that, ever.

Chris0382
04-02-2007, 04:10 PM
Just as the Romans did, the Germans would have gotten a taste of the nasty constant cold rain and would have gone into full retreat back across the channel.

jasonbirder
04-02-2007, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Without the RAF the Luftwaffe would have been free to roam all over the British Isles and bomb targets in daylight without opposition </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the combined efforts of RAF Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce (The RAF and the USAAF) having been commited by doctrine for many years to Strategic Bombing campaigns) with the industrial might of the US and the majority of the UKs resources behind them, bolstered by the expertise of 3 years of practical experience weren't sufficient to inflict a body blow on Germany in 1945, what hope would the smaller, tactically orientated Luftwaffe have had of defeating Britain in 1942 by a bomber campaign alone?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks in harbour unless they sailed to the USA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the time and effort it took for Air Attack to sink )or not...) the comparitively small numbers of German Capital ships in 1944/45 with far more sophisticated techniques and weapons than the luftwaffe had in 1942, I think that its highly unlikely...

[QuoteBut on way they would have been sunk by U-Boats guided by Condors[/Quote]

Throughout the whole war U-boats were only succesful in sinking HMS Royal Oak (sunk at HArbour before proper anti U-boat protections were enforced)"˘ HMS Barham "˘ HMS Courageous "˘ HMS Ark Royal "˘ HMS Audacity (Escort Carrier)"˘ HMS Avenger (Escort Carrier) Hardly the threat to capial ships you seem to imply!

djetz
04-02-2007, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:

Well, who among the major powers had the best strategist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trick question. Even Stalin was smart enough to realise that he wasn't a military genius the way Hitler believed himself to be. Stalin gave his generals a chance to do their jobs. Of course, if they failed he tended to execute them, but he did give them a chance. Zhukov et al did manage to succeed.

Roosevelt, Churchill, even Tojo, they ALL gave their military leaders a chance. Not Hitler. Hitler was always convinced he knew better. Hitler had a very good military general staff under him, perhaps the world's best at the time, but he couldn't keep his hands off and let them get on with it.

Seriously, Hitler was a one-trick-pony. He could do one thing really well: stir up nationalist hatred. He took it amazingly far, but he really wasn't a strategist, either militarily or politically. After the Germans stopped winning, he decided his general staff were rubbish and that he could do a better job. At which point, the third Reich was doomed.

All of these "what-if" ideas are flawed if you don't take Hitler's unshakeable opinion of his own infallibility into account.

I can't say who was the best strategist among the leaders of the major powers in WW2, but I can certainly say who was the worst: the one who could have achieved his stated goals, but ended up losing everything.

Hoatee
04-02-2007, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

An invasion fleet would <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> have been necessary if the RAF had been defeated in 1942.

Without the RAF the Luftwaffe would have been free to roam all over the British Isles and bomb targets in daylight without opposition.

The Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks in harbour unless they sailed to the USA. But on way they would have been sunk by U-Boats guided by Condors.

In other words, had the Luftwaffe gained air supremacy, the British Government would have had no choice but to seek peace with Hitler.

And don't forget, there were influential voices in Britain such as Lord Halifax who since the outbreak of war favoured a 'deal' with Hitler.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pertinent to point to the example of Petain (iro Halifax).

djetz
04-02-2007, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
Just as the Romans did, the Germans would have gotten a taste of the nasty constant cold rain and would have gone into full retreat back across the channel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get it, but keep in mind that the Romans occupied Britain for 400-odd years. A little bit more than "a taste".

RSS-Martin
04-02-2007, 04:57 PM
Interesting topic, but glad it is only a "What if" and not reality!! As to the RN well think of the Z-Force by Singapore, capital ships can be stopped from the air! Also if certain aircraft developments had not been bungeled like the long fumbeled four engine bomber, things could have been rather uncomfortable.
Well as to the weather I don´t think there is a huge differance between Germany and Britian, maybe less wet but thats about it. Afer all where do you guys think that the Anglo Saxons came from? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
Little tip look east of Britain and south of Denmark http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ThePhilanthrope
04-02-2007, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The Soviet UNion wouldnt have been completely defeated by 1942 no matter how well the invasion of the USSR went... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assuming the Soviets chose to stay in the fight, you're probably right.

However, there are two pertinent factors here:

1. Barbarossa was delayed by over a month owing to unexpected resistance to German occupation of the Balkans, and

2. This is a bit speculative it seems, and I can't call up any kind of resource to back it up, but I swear I occasionally hear this rumor that Stalin was teetering on the brink of capitulation in the early winter of '41. If anybody can authoritatively confirm or deny that for me I'd be much obliged.


So... if given an extra month and a pessimistic Soviet leadership, could the Wehrmacht have taken Moscow and won a surrender by December '41? That seems to be within the realm of possibility to me.



I gotta agree with the folks citing British naval superiority, though. Had the Soviets been removed from the game in '41 I'd guess we'd have seen a negotiated peace and an earlier, alternative cold war. Hitler seemed to be ammenable to peace with Britain according to the loony logic of his racial ideas.

mynameisroland
04-02-2007, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't stated that, ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey you must have a really short memory, let me refresh it Kufurst.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: And since when was that a task of the Bf 109s...? It had a range of 800 miles on 'fast' cruise with it's droptank, more on economic cruise. That was a very typical configuration.

That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London, from Kharkov into Moscow or Stalingrad, or from Crete to Alexanderia, or from Calais to Glasgow, or from Helsinki to Vilnius, or to take off from Berlin and chase bombers over the Ruhr and return.

In an Allied config, it would have an escort range from England up to apprx. Hamburg. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span>, but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting. It never needed to do that either.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back. Now you state you have never said such a thing.

djetz
04-02-2007, 08:25 PM
I would just like to add, at this point:

IBTL!

...just in case...

luftluuver
04-02-2007, 08:44 PM
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
27 July 1942

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters - 945
Twin-engined day fighters - 58
Night fighters - 203
Fighter-bombers - 40
Specialized ground attack aircraft - 19
Dive-bombers - 249
Twin-engined bombers - 1119
Four-engined bombers - 41
Long-range reconaissance aircraft - 188
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft - 209
Coastal aircraft - 64
Transport aircraft - 365
Total 3500

What did the RAF have?

What was the OoB for the RN and KM?

from http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm#part8

Operation Sealion - The One Exercise
One single main exercise was carried out, just off Boulogne. Fifty vessels were used, and to enable the observers to actually observe, the exercise was carried out in broad daylight. (The real thing was due to take place at night/dawn, remember).

The vessels marshalled about a mile out to sea, and cruised parallel to the coast. The aramada turned towards the coast (one barge capsizing, and another losing its tow) and approached and landed. The barges opened, and soldiers swarmed ashore.

However, it was noted that the masters of the boats let the intervals between the vessels become wider and wider, because they were scared of collisions. Half the barges failed to get their troops ashore within an hour of the first troops, and over 10% failed to reach the shore at all.

The troops in the barges managed to impede the sailors in a remarkable manner - in one case, a barge overturned because the troops rushed to one side when another barge "came too close".

Several barges grounded broadside on, preventing the ramp from being lowered.

In this exercise, carried out in good visibility, with no enemy, in good weather, after travelling only a short distance, with no navigation hazards or beach defences, less than half the troops were got ashore where they could have done what they were supposed to do.

Could there be the same results in 1942?

Nimits
04-02-2007, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:


You're missing my point, I was only dismissing the importance of RN OR the kriegsmarine in such a scenario since it would be suicidal for ships to enter the narrow channel without complete air supremacy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am going to have to disagree here, and I do based on looking at the actual examples when airpower successfully engaged large surface vessels manuvering at sea while enjoying air superiority:

1 - In May, 1941, the unescorted battleship Bismark was attacked by two separate Swordfish strikes, for a total of 24 torpedos launched for 3 hits, only 1 severe. While the severe hit did cripple the Bismark, the low rate of hits (3 out of 24) despite the fact there was no opposing fighter cover or escorting destroyers is not impressive, and, excepting a critical hit such as the one achieved, most modern battleships could shrug off 2-3 aerial torpedo hits with little loss of combat capability.

In December, 1941, the battleship Prince of Wales and battlecrusier Repulse, escorted by 3 destroyers, were attacked by 85 Japanese G3Ms and G4Ms. Again, there were no defensive fighters. While the IJN did manage to sink both battleships, it took just about all the weapons the strike force had to put them under, despite the fact the Japanese naval attack plane pilots were some of the most skilled anti-shipping and torpedo pilots in the world at the time.

In October, 1944, 259 US aircraft (about half bombers) against more or less non-existant air cover engaged a Japanese force of 5 battleships, 7 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 14 destroyers, sinking 1 battleship Musashi and damaging 3 battleships, 1 heavy cruiser, and 1 light cruiser. In all honesty, this was probably one of, if not the most effective anti-shipping strikes of the war, yet all of the ships in the group besides Musashi remained more or less combat capable, and the USN only sank the Musashi by diverting the vast majority of the strike group at her to the near exclusion of the rest of the group. Even after this awesome display of airpower, the IJN still had enough firepower to fight an even match against the USN's old battleship force and at least cause some trouble for Halsey's Iowas.

In 1942 the Luftwaffe, did not have the large cadre of dedicated anti-shipping aviators or bombers that the IJN did in 1941 or the USN in 1944. While, as evidenced in the Mediterranean, the Germans had some ASUW capability, I think they would have been hard pressed to successfully negate a large RN battleship-cruiser force without using several hundred bombers, which would have had to be pulled from the forces providing CAS and surpressing the RAF. I also believe it is doubtful the RAF could have been surpressed to the point of leaving an RN surface group completely unprotected as in the example above. To stop such a task force would probably have stretched German air power beyond the breaking point, and any large ships which survived could have wreaked havoc with the landing force. Even single CA with a few destroyers could have sunk a German division at sea.

horseback
04-02-2007, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't stated that, ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey you must have a really short memory, let me refresh it Kufurst.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: And since when was that a task of the Bf 109s...? It had a range of 800 miles on 'fast' cruise with it's droptank, more on economic cruise. That was a very typical configuration.

That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London, from Kharkov into Moscow or Stalingrad, or from Crete to Alexanderia, or from Calais to Glasgow, or from Helsinki to Vilnius, or to take off from Berlin and chase bombers over the Ruhr and return.

In an Allied config, it would have an escort range from England up to apprx. Hamburg. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span>, but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting. It never needed to do that either.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back. Now you state you have never said such a thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, he's done that in at least one other thread that I can remember. It may have been my fault, as I had made the arguement that if the LW were flying the much longer ranged Mustangs instead of 109s as their primary high alt fighter, they would have been MUCH better off...and up pops Kurfy and he announces that a 109 could fly from Berlin to London and back.

After a bit of prying, I think that he admitted that the 109 would need 3 droptanks, and have to keep one of them on for most, if not all of its excursion on the other side of the Channel.

cheers

horseback

horseback
04-02-2007, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
In October, 1942, 259 US aircraft (about half bombers) against more or less non-existant air cover engaged a Japanese force of 5 battleships, 7 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 14 destroyers, sinking 1 battleship Musashi and damaging 3 battleships, 1 heavy cruiser, and 1 light cruiser. In all honesty, this was probably one of, if not the most effective anti-shipping strikes of the war, yet all of the ships in the group besides Musashi remained more or less combat capable, and the USN only sank the Musashi by diverting the vast majority of the strike group at her to the near exclusion of the rest of the group. Even after this awesome display of airpower, the IJN still had enough firepower to fight an even match against the USN's old battleship force and at least cause some trouble for Halsey's Iowas.

In 1942 the Luftwaffe, did not have the large cadre of dedicated anti-shipping aviators or bombers that the IJN did in 1941 or the USN in 1944. While, as evidenced in the Mediterranean, the Germans had some ASUW capability, I think they would have been hard pressed to successfully negate a large RN battleship-cruiser force without using several hundred bombers, which would have had to be pulled from the forces providing CAS and surpressing the RAF. I also believe it is doubtful the RAF could have been surpressed to the point of leaving an RN surface group completely unprotected as in the example above. To stop such a task force would probably have stretched German air power beyond the breaking point, and any large ships which survived could have wreaked havoc with the landing force. Even single CA with a few destroyers could have sunk a German division at sea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>While I generally agree with your premise, you have badly misrepresented the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which took place in October of 1944, not 1942.

There were two major Japanese surface fleets heading for the invasion fleets in the gulf, and the one coming from the northwest through the Surigao Straits headed by the Musashi and the Yamato was heavily engaged by an air strike group. That fleet turned back after the sinking of the Musashi and the heavy damaging of the Yamato, which allowed Halsey to believe himself free to go chase down the bait of a Japanese task group composed largely of carriers to the northeast of the Phillippines (I think-it was further out towards the open sea from the islands).

These carriers were sacrificed because the IJN no longer had sufficiently trained aircrews to man their carrier air groups, but Halsey had no way of knowing that. Thinking he had defeated the battleship task force, he left a fleet of jeep carriers defended by a few destroyers at Leyte to go sink the carriers.

The Yamato task group did a yeoman's job of damage control & repair in the meantime, and while Halsey steamed north that night, turned around and caught the jeep carriers practically unattended in the morning while they supported MacArthur's invasion force. They sank a couple of the destroyers, and the escort carrier Gambier Bay, before they left prematurely, harassed by the jeeps' light fighters and bombers, and fearing Halsey's imminent return.

The Japaenese' southern pincer group, composed of older battleships and cruisers, was pretty much annihilated by a task group of older (prewar design) US & Commonwealth battleships and cruisers in a predawn action, the US ships crossing the Japanese 'T' in classic manner.

At no time did the Yamato or Musashi ever come within radar, much less guns range, of an Iowa class battleship.

cheers

horseback

Nimits
04-02-2007, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While I generally agree with your premise, you have badly misrepresented the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which took place in October of 1944, not 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1942 was a typo; I obviously meant 1944. Nor was I trying to recount the whole Leyte Gulf operation, but rather perform a basic analysis on the Battle of Sibuyan Sea and its possible theoretical outcomes, as revlevent to the effectiveness off airpower on heavy surface units, if either Olendorf's "Standard" battleships (as Halsey supposed) or Lee's fast battleships (as Olendorf supposed) were guarding the Samar area. The point was, even after suffering through a major air strike, Kurita was still probably capable of defeating Olendorf and at least giving Lee a bloody nose, had either engagement occured. As the campaign actually played out, Kurita should have been able wipe out Taffy 3 with his cruisers alone, had they been more aggressive and better handled.

luftluuver
04-03-2007, 12:15 AM
Horseback, Roland, seems someone likes to state theoretical range and not actual range. Looks better with theoretical range, doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange5.jpg

Von_Rat
04-03-2007, 12:54 AM
a few years ago there was a novel called S day that was a fictional account of a german invasion of britain in 1942. the premise was that instead of attacking russia in 1941, the germans build up forces for a invasion of britain in 1942.

it wasnt that bad of a book, lots of action.


a warning to my friends in the u.k. this novel was written by a american and mainly features the fictional exploits of the us army in the battle. they had a us army defending the south east coast, which in the novel is where the germans invaded. i myself thought that this was ridicolous. imo the brits would of used their own troops to defend the coasts and had any us troops available in reserve.

other than the above, the book seemed to be pretty well researched and believeable. the book ends in a very historical manner too.

Bewolf
04-03-2007, 02:37 AM
I was once saw a documentary stating that Stalin during the run towards Moscow pleaded for peace "twice", granting Hitler most of the goals of Operation Barbarossa. During that time Russia was very, very near to collaps, the population in the conquered territory more or less pro german and the rest extremly low on moral. Only with the starting of atrocities and the successful winter offensive around Moscow that changed. So I would not say it was entirly impossible Russia would have lost in 1941.

BUT even if, a 1942 invasion of Britain is completly out of the question. Not only, as stated already, were the defenses of Britain much, much better prepared, but also was its airforce. Germany neither had the ships to land troops there nor was there any motivation left to do so. That said, there was no real motivation to invade Britain from the very start on and as such even in 1940 chances rather slim. All Hitler wanted to have was Britain out of the war.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't stated that, ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey you must have a really short memory, let me refresh it Kufurst.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: And since when was that a task of the Bf 109s...? It had a range of 800 miles on 'fast' cruise with it's droptank, more on economic cruise. That was a very typical configuration.

That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London, from Kharkov into Moscow or Stalingrad, or from Crete to Alexanderia, or from Calais to Glasgow, or from Helsinki to Vilnius, or to take off from Berlin and chase bombers over the Ruhr and return.

In an Allied config, it would have an escort range from England up to apprx. Hamburg. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span>, but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting. It never needed to do that either.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back. Now you state you have never said such a thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mynameisroland, 1st version :

"the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst."

mynameisroland, 2nd version :

"two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back."

Now which one? Did I say it could fly London and Berlin and back, or did I say it could escort bombers on a route London-Berlin and back? Why the sudden change in your statements, strawman arguement, perhaphs?

Actual version : "That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London"

Escort from the German border to London. That's my statement.

Me on the possiblility of escort missions between London abd Berlin : "...but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and [/b]would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting.[/b]"

Hardly the same statement as you're trying to put into my mouth.

WOLFMondo
04-03-2007, 03:05 AM
Germany = failed. No Navy.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
So two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back. Now you state you have never said such a thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, he's done that in at least one other thread that I can remember. It may have been my fault, as I had made the arguement that if the LW were flying the much longer ranged Mustangs instead of 109s as their primary high alt fighter, they would have been MUCH better off...and up pops Kurfy and he announces that a 109 could fly from Berlin to London and back.

After a bit of prying, I think that he admitted that the 109 would need 3 droptanks, and have to keep one of them on for most, if not all of its excursion on the other side of the Channel.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can tell the same to you as mynameisroland, you have eitherreading comprehension problems, or issues with honestly presenting the other's PoV. I think it's the latter, you're basically presenting a story that's script was written from the first letter to the last by yourself. It's simply nothing more than badmouthing, making an absurd claim by yourself and then putting it into my mouth.

whiteladder
04-03-2007, 03:19 AM
Just add a couple of points,

By 1942 Britain had 2 years preparing for invasion and the defences were many times stronger than in 1940. Where I grew up in South Linconshire even today there are maybe 20 or so Pill boxes dotted around just our village and South Lincs wasn`t exactly a hot spot for invasion. The defense in Kent and the home counties were stonger still. The Germans would have been presented with terrain not disimilar to the Bocage that the allies faced in Normandy.

I think they lost any slim chance they would have had in 1940.

ForkTailedDevil
04-03-2007, 03:22 AM
Well if it was 1942 maybe throw in some Italian torpedo bombers to the mix to help slow down the RN. They were the cream of the RA after all.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
I think they lost any slim chance they would have had in 1940. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the land forces of Britiain, that would have been certainly true that they were vastly improved after the sad state they were in after Dunkerque, no heavy weapons etc. But the real problem for the Germans in 1940 was their lack of naval capacity. They had 2 big surface ships, the battlecruisers of the Scharnhorst class, both under repairs at the time and unavailable long with other big ships. They also lost 10 destroyers in Norway.

By 1942, their position would improve considerably. Th 2 battlecruisers were repaired, their crew had good experience, and while they lost Bismarck, Tirpitz was ready for operations. The destroyer losses were replaced as well by that time. The biggest change is the U-boots though. In 1940, there were about 50-60 around in service, many of these being small Type II coastal boats, and they were operating from North German bases. By mid 1942, there are over 350 U-boots in service, and they're operating from French bases nearby, and most of them are of the capable VII and IX classes. The relative strenght ratio was much better the KM than in 1940, though still vastly outnumbered. An idea of submarines forming a protective cordon is rather likely, though - with so many submarines available, you can place subs literally next to each other, dangerours waters indeed! I wonder about the Italian fleet, which had 3 good and modern Battleships at ready, plus a number of older WW1 battleships that were forming the bulk of the British battleship force. They would have to break through Gibraltar - this either means the British need to split their naval forces to reinforce Gibraltar to keep the Italians in the med, or let them join up with the Kriegsmarine, and form a very potent task force of 3 German, 3 Italian modern BBs, and 2 old Italan BBs plus support vessels - 8 available in total. The RN had 15 BBs a the start of the war, 3 new were commissioned (KGV, POW, DOY) up to 1942, 6 were lost. That's about 1.5 : 1 in battleships, same was the case at Jutland. Carriers don't play much of a role here, so near to the continent.

The Royal Navy having suffered considerable loss at that time, loosing the following capital units ;

Up the start of 1942, they lost :

Royal Oak, sunk by U-boot, 1939.
Courageous, sunk by U-boot, 1939.
Glorious, sunk Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, 1940.
Hood, sunk by Bismarsck 1941.
Barham, sunk by U-boot, 1941.
Ark Royal, sunk by U-boot, 1941.
Queen Elizabeth, sunk by Italian frogmen 1941.
Valiant, sunk by Italian frogmen 1941.
Prince of Wales, sunk by Japanese aircraft 1941.
Repulse, sunk by Japanese aircraft 1941.

They commissioned a new BB, Duke of York ever since 1940, while PoW sunk already. Anson and Howe was coming in the summer of 1940, though, but the British had commitments elsewhere, with capital ships simply being far away on the Indian ocean and elsewhere.

The naval scenario is very interesting, now that I look at it in detail.

OD_79
04-03-2007, 04:09 AM
One point you're missing, while the RN may have lost the ships the Tirpitz moves one inch and the RAF was onto it, the Royal Navy would have sent the whole Home Fleet after it. That's why it was stuck in Norway. It was a nice deterrent sitting there as it kept the Navy tied down but it was one ship...one ship against what was still the best trained and most powerful Navy in the world - one that managed to keep up a fight on three fronts, which is what was supposed to be avoided at all costs as it was believed it could not be done.

1942 would have been tough equipment wise on the RAF but the Fw190 would probably have been in the same situation as the 109E in the BoB in being tied to escort again.

The bombers had not changed significantly, still the Ju-88 and the He-111 being the major factors, excpet now instead of being up against machine gun only fighters they were up against Cannon armed Hurricane and Spifires. The Night fighter force had been vastly improved so night attacks would have been costly - whereas in 1940 they were not. Air superiority would have been as essential then as it was in 1940, and would have been even tougher to establish as the RAF was ready for just such an event and had the exeprience of 1940 to go on.
Defences were prepared, the army was at least equipped with something and the Navy was still there. The only reason air superiority was needed was to prevent the RAF and the Navy attacking the invasion barges.

Plus after Crete the German Army never used paratropers again so the threat of using them for an invasion was greatly reduced. As a result I think any invasion would have failed.

OD.

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Horseback, Roland, seems someone likes to state theoretical range and not actual range. Looks better with theoretical range, doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange5.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horseback, it seems luftluuver is incapable of detecting sarcasm, doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't stated that, ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey you must have a really short memory, let me refresh it Kufurst.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: And since when was that a task of the Bf 109s...? It had a range of 800 miles on 'fast' cruise with it's droptank, more on economic cruise. That was a very typical configuration.

That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London, from Kharkov into Moscow or Stalingrad, or from Crete to Alexanderia, or from Calais to Glasgow, or from Helsinki to Vilnius, or to take off from Berlin and chase bombers over the Ruhr and return.

In an Allied config, it would have an escort range from England up to apprx. Hamburg. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span> , but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting. It never needed to do that either.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back. Now you state you have never said such a thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mynameisroland, 1st version :

"the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst."

mynameisroland, 2nd version :

"two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back."

Now which one? Did I say it could fly London and Berlin and back, or did I say it could escort bombers on a route London-Berlin and back? Why the sudden change in your statements, strawman arguement, perhaphs?

Actual version : "That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London"

Escort from the German border to London. That's my statement.

Me on the possiblility of escort missions between London abd Berlin : "...but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and [/b]would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting.[/b]"

Hardly the same statement as you're trying to put into my mouth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ofcourse Kufurst ! It must be my reading comprehension. I suppose when you wrote <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span>. Oh Im so sorry Kufurst, perhaps I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4. Am I wrong to assume that you actually held that belief that the Bf 109 was capable of flying long range escort missions from GErmany to England and had put it forward as an argument on countless occasions. Funny that Horseback also remembers a seperate incident where you have trawled up the long range capabilities of the Bf 109 to serve your own counter arguments.

So let me see :

Bf 109 has range to reach England from Berlin - So if it was based in West Germany that makes escort missions over London feasible in your eyes?

Or do you just post the extreme max ferry range whenever the accusation that the Bf 109 lacked range is levelled at your favourite plane?

Dont come crying to the forums when your stupid rhetoric is quoted back to you and say it is out of context. YOU post this **** in the 1st place and argue till the cows come homw that the Bf 109 is &gt; than anything else - whatever the plane - whatever the performance characteristic. Infact the only WW2 fighter I have seen you cede ground to is the Me 262, another of Willy's over hyped fighters.


What operational examples of this long range escort capability do you have? I know for a fact that no Bf 109s got within 200miles of Glasgow - unless they were caputured examples. Why is it that despite possesing such a long ranged escort fighter the Luftwaffe didnt use it? Even if they didnt escort bombers why not use its range on fighter sweeps over England and Scotland to disrupt the training of new pilots and the forming up of bombers ?

Damn with such a capability staring them in the face they missed out big time. Just think Bf 109s raoming over Scotland shooting down Spitfires as they try and take off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
1942 would have been tough equipment wise on the RAF but the Fw190 would probably have been in the same situation as the 109E in the BoB in being tied to escort again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a bit of a myth. The 109s were never all tied to the bombers - this roots in the fact that fighter pilots like Galland were complaining about of such close-escort duties, but that was not the only way of defending the bombers. The escort 109s in 1940, usually operated in a standard manner : there were first a fighter group doing a fighter sweep in front of the bombers, preceeding them, there was a top-cover zig-zagging above the bombers ready to dive on incoming interceptors, and the 3rd group of 109 would provide the immidiate cover of the bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Plus after Crete the German Army never used paratropers again so the threat of using them for an invasion was greatly reduced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is quite untrue, actually invented by Churchill in his book to reletivize the defeat at Crete, claiming the paratroopers suffered 'irreversible' losses. It was simply not true - paratroopers were employed through the rest of the war in Russia, Normandy, Italy, Ardennes to name a few. They were not used for airborne operations anymore, but that is generally has to do with the strategic situation. They would employ them on Malta, but that plan ran aground because of the Italians, and later on they were fighting a defensive war, which doesn't give much room for paratrooper operations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a result I think any invasion would have failed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's a what-if scenario, where everything is possible that did not happen in real life, and IMHO it's impossible to judge the outcome realistically. Personally, I believe that venturing of such an operation would be very unlikely for the Germans, they did the preparations very half-heartadly in 1940, and later on they had much bigger troubles than that to even think about it.

M_Gunz
04-03-2007, 04:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Nazi Germany has defeated the USSR and now turns its attention to the west. Germany still has to support the Italians in the desert.

Would Sealion be a success or not in 1942? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given one impossibility, why not another?

whiteladder
04-03-2007, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They would have to break through Gibraltar - this either means the British need to split their naval forces to reinforce Gibraltar to keep the Italians in the med, or let them join up with the Kriegsmarine, and form a very potent task force of 3 German, 3 Italian modern BBs, and 2 old Italan BBs plus support vessels - 8 available in total. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Italian had no capability to force the Gibraltor straights, any force attempting to do so would be in no fit state to fight on the other side. Plus the Italian navy spent most of the war with a qualitative superiority but were unable to press that to any advantage( Cunninghams Med fleet was mostly made up of Modernised or semi modernised WW1 battle ships). You can`t discount the aircraft carriers, the Italians had to sail almost 2300 miles to reach a friendly port at Brest, I don`t think the RN would let them do that unhindered from carrier attack.

It may be more interesting to look at how the big punchers wieghed up on both sides but the simple truth is the Axis didn`t have the capacity in other areas to mount a sustained amphibious operation. They didn`t have the spare capacity in destroyers, mine sweepers, landing craft to land a force large enough to gain a foothold. They didn`t have to capacity to neutralise to shore batteries that had been set up, clear the mine fields that had been laid. Even with complete and total air superiority what they faced in 1942 was incoparable to 1940.

Matz0r
04-03-2007, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Channel Dash ? The Royal Navy's operations in the Mediterranean? The Norway campaign?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The channel dash was as the name suggests a dash lasting less than 48 hours through the channel with air cover present, it doesn't remotely compare to the scenario we are discussing. The early RN operations in Norway were naval operations with very few aircrafts taking part.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...which is pretty unlikely given the RAF's strength the Royal Navy would happily accept such odd and worse if it meant wrecking an invasion attempt.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you agree with me? That air power is vital for a successful naval operation. It's probably true that the RN would enter the channel without complete air supremacy should an invasion be imminent, but it would be a "at all costs" response rather than a tactical decision. Pretty much the same reasoning that went at Crete:

When army generals stated their fears that he would lose too many ships Cunningham said that "It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition".


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Like the successful evacuation of Crete by RN destroyers in the face of complete German Air Superiority? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Successful, but at a great cost:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mediterranean

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Attacks by German planes, mainly Ju-87 and Ju-88, destroyed several British warships: two cruisers (HMS Gloucester, Fiji) and six destroyers (Kelly, Greyhound, Kashmir, Hereward, Imperial, Juno). Seven other ships were damaged, including the battleships HMS Warspite and Valiant and the cruiser HMS Orion. Close to two thousand British sailors died.

It was a significant victory for the Luftwaffe, as it proved that the Royal Navy could not be expected to operated in waters where the Germans had air supremacy, without suffering severe losses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was more of a sacrifice by the RN to rescue the 15,000 troops on Crete.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ofcourse Kufurst ! It must be my reading comprehension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's quite clear to everyone that it is, and that you just argue for arguements sake, sidetracking the thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suppose when you wrote <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span>. Oh Im so sorry Kufurst, perhaps I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the distance between Berlin and London is 575 miles. The range of the Bf 109G is given by various range tables as between 1000-1250 miles, cruising at economical power, and having one droptank under the fuselage - a fairly standard configuration. The math is really easy, the plane can do the trip, but do little else than flying straight at slow speed - that's hardly an escort mission.

My original statement of course was that "That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London". In your (mis-)interpretation of it, the German border become, somehow, Berlin..

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET_109G_rangetable.jpg

This is one of the tables, there's another that states 1000 or 1050 miles IIRC. The actual German Bf 109F-4 range figures give 1600 km (~1000 miles) with a droptank, and note that the 109G is foreseen to be slightly longer ranged. That was a big improvement over the early Bf 109E, which could not mount a droptank and w/o it's range was limited to about 400 miles max.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Am I wrong to assume that you actually held that belief that the Bf 109 was capable of flying long range escort missions from GErmany to England and had put it forward as an argument on countless occasions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mynameisroland, 1st version :

"the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst."

mynameisroland, 2nd version :

"two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back."

mynameisroland, 3rd version :

"you actually held that belief that the Bf 109 was capable of flying long range escort missions from GErmany to England and had put it forward as an argument on countless occasions."

I am getting a bit dizzy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Funny that Horseback also remembers a seperate incident where you have trawled up the long range capabilities of the Bf 109 to serve your own counter arguments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I agree, it's funny how different people can remember of the same thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So let me see :

Bf 109 has range to reach England from Berlin - So if it was based in West Germany that makes escort missions over London feasible in your eyes? Or do you just post the extreme max ferry range whenever the accusation that the Bf 109 lacked range is levelled at your favourite plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's see. Köln, that is in West Germany, not even on the border, is 310 miles away from London, measured in straight line. The Bf 109G, with a single droptank, even when cruising fast at ca 5-600 km/h, can obtain a range of ca. 750 miles with a single droptank, and a lot more if some of the distance is covered at more economic speeds.

310 miles distance to London. 310 miles distance back from London. The plane has a range of ca 750 miles with droptank on high speed cruise, and 1000-1250 miles on economic cruise; say, 900 miles if the low and high speed cruises are combined in th mission (economic cruise over friendly, fast cruise over hostile territory). The fuel not used to cover the distance can be used for fighting; generally effective penetrating distance is defined as 1/3 of the maximum ferry range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or do you just post the extreme max ferry range whenever the accusation that the Bf 109 lacked range is levelled at your favourite plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the extreme max ferry range (=one way trip) of the Bf 109, with one droptank (some variants used 2), was 1000-1200 miles distance. An 1100 miles one-way ferry trip would be from London to Helsinki, not Berlin. An 1000 mile ferry trip would be from Berlin to Moscow.

Anyone with Google Earth can check the distances in Europe. Maybe you should try it as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dont come crying to the forums when your stupid rhetoric is quoted back to you and say it is out of context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why shouldn't I complain if you mis-quote me out of context, can you tell me?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What operational examples of this long range escort capability do you have? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well as I recall Galland's unit was dispatched to provide air cover for Bismarck in 1941. Bismarck was certainly not very near to JG 26's bases.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know for a fact that no Bf 109s got within 200miles of Glasgow - unless they were caputured examples. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's grand, can you point to the source?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why is it that despite possesing such a long ranged escort fighter the Luftwaffe didnt use it? Even if they didnt escort bombers why not use its range on fighter sweeps over England and Scotland to disrupt the training of new pilots and the forming up of bombers ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't a long range escort fighter, but it wasn't terribly short ranged one either. The Luftwaffe was using them in Russia - where the German bombers were operating, you know? What fighter force was there in the West up to 1943 - just two heavily outnumbered JGs? Would you launch long range penetrations into enemy airspace with such forces?

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Like the successful evacuation of Crete by RN destroyers in the face of complete German Air Superiority? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Successful...?

Garrison of Crete before the battle:

United Kingdom: 15,000
Greece: 11,000
Australia: 7,100
New Zealand: 6,700
Total: 40,000

Casualties :
3,500 dead
1,900 wounded
12,000 captured
5,255 Greek Captured

Out of a defending force of 40 000, 22 655 troops were lost, most of them, 17 255 men captured was stranded on the island as the could not be evacuated.

Chris0382
04-03-2007, 05:59 AM
I'm under the impression hitler had no choice but to go after Russia as Russia was going after countries to its West (Lithuania, Lativa, Estonia, Finland, Romania and maybe Poland but Poland eventually as it was invaded along with Germany (correct me here)). We keep forgetting Stalin was quite evil in his own right and deserved a smack-bottom himself (wouldnt let us land planes to refuel after giving them all those supplies). But let's say that all wasn't the case and Germany could forget Russia. Then IMO I believe Germany saved ˝ its airforce to counter the Russian threat and if all resources including this airforce was thrust toward England, then Germany could have controlled the air using airstrips in France.

Germany would have to go into full production of landing craft it didn't yet have a lot of and would need an impressive airlift of paratroopers. Not to mention crates upon crates of wellingtons would be needed. Had Germany accomplished this they, could have gotten ashore as the RN was a blundering navy (just unlucky or Germany very lucky) and too overstretched defending the empire. I don't know what the immediate power of the RN was at the time and would like to know.

Germany could have eventually invaded from Norway had they waited; and with the manpower of all the Western Countries, invaded England from all sides. Could Germany have invaded Ireland as a stepping stone. An interesting discussion.

Germany gains air superiority using planes saved for Russia and keeps up the bombing constantly. Germany builds lots of landing crafts and takes over Norway. Submarines surround the channel entrances or England its self. A massive paratrooper landing equipped with wellingtons keeps the RA occupied inland. Germany launches invasion from Norway and France. The RN appears but is bombed and torpedoed like what happened in Singapore.
Interesting what could have happened had Germany not bombed London or reserved forces for Russia. Hitler had not prepared for any type of sea invasion. Hitler was impatient; and had he a sound mind and not a mind immersed in a fog of anger and delusions, it would have been a different war. And imagine if hitler built another 2 years before angering the UK and France (Me-262's, Rockets, maybe an aircraft carrier, full sub fleet etc).

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:The channel dash was as the name suggests a dash lasting less than 48 hours through the channel with air cover present, it doesn't remotely compare to the scenario we are discussing. The early RN operations in Norway were naval operations with very few aircrafts taking part.

[QUOTE]

How long were you envisaging the German landings to take ? 48hrs is ample given that the success of s seaborne invasion can be decided in the first 24 hrs. How does this not compare? We are looking at heavy ships navigating the exact same spot of water the Royal Navy and Kriegsmarine would have to if SeaLion took place.

[QUOTE] Now you agree with me? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly! Myself and others have already posted several exampls during WW2 where naval forces operated under heavy air attack with minimal losses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That air power is vital for a successful naval operation. It's probably true that the RN would enter the channel without complete air supremacy should an invasion be imminent, but it would be a "at all costs" response rather than a tactical decision. Pretty much the same reasoning that went at Crete: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Royal Navy could accept heavy losses if it meant inflicting losses on the German invading force. My example of 33% losses is in the light that even after suffering such losses the damage inflicted to the Wehrmacht would totally justify them. Germany could never recover from losing an invasion fleet and army in the Channel whereas even afte suffering heavy casualties to the Home fleet the RN still had enough ships and manpower to bottle up the Italians in the Med.

Crete is worst case scenario. If Britain was under invasion the RAF would be able to put up more sorties than the Luftwaffe were historically able to on DDay simply because the RAF was not sending most of its fighters to other theatres in 1942. The RAF had more aircraft than the Luftwaffe in 1942 and even after being weakened would still provide more effective defense of Royal Navy ships operating in the Channel - enough to reduce the accuracy and concentration of German air attacks.

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ofcourse Kufurst ! It must be my reading comprehension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's quite clear to everyone that it is, and that you just argue for arguements sake, sidetracking the thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suppose when you wrote <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span>. Oh Im so sorry Kufurst, perhaps I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the distance between Berlin and London is 575 miles. The range of the Bf 109G is given by various range tables as between 1000-1250 miles, cruising at economical power, and having one droptank under the fuselage - a fairly standard configuration. The math is really easy, the plane can do the trip, but do little else than flying straight at slow speed - that's hardly an escort mission.

My original statement of course was that "That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London". In your (mis-)interpretation of it, the German border become, somehow, Berlin..

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET_109G_rangetable.jpg

This is one of the tables, there's another that states 1000 or 1050 miles IIRC. The actual German Bf 109F-4 range figures give 1600 km (~1000 miles) with a droptank, and note that the 109G is foreseen to be slightly longer ranged. That was a big improvement over the early Bf 109E, which could not mount a droptank and w/o it's range was limited to about 400 miles max.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Am I wrong to assume that you actually held that belief that the Bf 109 was capable of flying long range escort missions from GErmany to England and had put it forward as an argument on countless occasions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mynameisroland, 1st version :

"the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst."

mynameisroland, 2nd version :

"two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back."

mynameisroland, 3rd version :

"you actually held that belief that the Bf 109 was capable of flying long range escort missions from GErmany to England and had put it forward as an argument on countless occasions."

I am getting a bit dizzy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Funny that Horseback also remembers a seperate incident where you have trawled up the long range capabilities of the Bf 109 to serve your own counter arguments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I agree, it's funny how different people can remember of the same thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So let me see :

Bf 109 has range to reach England from Berlin - So if it was based in West Germany that makes escort missions over London feasible in your eyes? Or do you just post the extreme max ferry range whenever the accusation that the Bf 109 lacked range is levelled at your favourite plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's see. Köln, that is in West Germany, not even on the border, is 310 miles away from London, measured in straight line. The Bf 109G, with a single droptank, even when cruising fast at ca 5-600 km/h, can obtain a range of ca. 750 miles with a single droptank, and a lot more if some of the distance is covered at more economic speeds.

310 miles distance to London. 310 miles distance back from London. The plane has a range of ca 750 miles with droptank on high speed cruise, and 1000-1250 miles on economic cruise; say, 900 miles if the low and high speed cruises are combined in th mission (economic cruise over friendly, fast cruise over hostile territory). The fuel not used to cover the distance can be used for fighting; generally effective penetrating distance is defined as 1/3 of the maximum ferry range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or do you just post the extreme max ferry range whenever the accusation that the Bf 109 lacked range is levelled at your favourite plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the extreme max ferry range (=one way trip) of the Bf 109, with one droptank (some variants used 2), was 1000-1200 miles distance. An 1100 miles one-way ferry trip would be from London to Helsinki, not Berlin. An 1000 mile ferry trip would be from Berlin to Moscow.

Anyone with Google Earth can check the distances in Europe. Maybe you should try it as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dont come crying to the forums when your stupid rhetoric is quoted back to you and say it is out of context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why shouldn't I complain if you mis-quote me out of context, can you tell me?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What operational examples of this long range escort capability do you have? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well as I recall Galland's unit was dispatched to provide air cover for Bismarck in 1941. Bismarck was certainly not very near to JG 26's bases.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know for a fact that no Bf 109s got within 200miles of Glasgow - unless they were caputured examples. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's grand, can you point to the source?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why is it that despite possesing such a long ranged escort fighter the Luftwaffe didnt use it? Even if they didnt escort bombers why not use its range on fighter sweeps over England and Scotland to disrupt the training of new pilots and the forming up of bombers ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't a long range escort fighter, but it wasn't terribly short ranged one either. The Luftwaffe was using them in Russia - where the German bombers were operating, you know? What fighter force was there in the West up to 1943 - just two heavily outnumbered JGs? Would you launch long range penetrations into enemy airspace with such forces? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kufurst keep on posting, your crass, obnoxious, self serving propaganda does more to undermine you than I or anyone else ever could.

Oh and as for Bf 109s operating anywhere near 200miles of Glasgow i suppose I would need a source to back that up would I ? Just like I would need to back up a statement like no Bf 109s flew within 1000miles of Canada ? Im sure you could knock up a document or two 'proving' that the Bf 109 could reach out to the
East coast of the United States if you wanted to.

You make me p1ss myself laughing with your Willy Messer obsessed ramblings. Funny though it is, I have yet to read a Luftwaffe pilot mentioning the great range capabilities of the Bf 109 or how they felt they had adequate range in 1944.

p.s are you and Josf now trying to out do each other with post length or is it all part of the masterplan that if you repeat your rubbish often enough people will either stop reading or just accept it.

jasonbirder
04-03-2007, 06:50 AM
Despite the long delay in the issuance of evacuation orders and total German Air superiority, the British Navy was able to embark approximately 14,800 men and return them to Egypt...If the Royal navy Light Cruisers and Destroyers were able to acheive that in Crete just imagine what they would have done had the survival of Great Briatain been at stake...

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Despite the long delay in the issuance of evacuation orders and total German Air superiority, the British Navy was able to embark approximately 14,800 men and return them to Egypt...If the Royal navy Light Cruisers and Destroyers were able to acheive that in Crete just imagine what they would have done had the survival of Great Briatain been at stake... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Even when operating under COMPLETE German air superiority the Royal Navy functioned and performed its task. In a SeaLion scenario there is absolutely no way the RAF or Fleet Air Arm wouldnt be able to put up a few Squadrons to disrupt air attacks. Ofcourse there would be losses but the Royal Navy could afford losses - especially if British mainland security was at stake.

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the Bf 109 G actually had a radius sufficient to fly an escort mission from Berlin to London - according to Kufurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't stated that, ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey you must have a really short memory, let me refresh it Kufurst.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: And since when was that a task of the Bf 109s...? It had a range of 800 miles on 'fast' cruise with it's droptank, more on economic cruise. That was a very typical configuration.

That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London, from Kharkov into Moscow or Stalingrad, or from Crete to Alexanderia, or from Calais to Glasgow, or from Helsinki to Vilnius, or to take off from Berlin and chase bombers over the Ruhr and return.

In an Allied config, it would have an escort range from England up to apprx. Hamburg. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back</span>, but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting. It never needed to do that either.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So two weeks agao you claimed the Bf 109 could fly from London to Berlin and back. Now you state you have never said such a thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, he's done that in at least one other thread that I can remember. It may have been my fault, as I had made the arguement that if the LW were flying the much longer ranged Mustangs instead of 109s as their primary high alt fighter, they would have been MUCH better off...and up pops Kurfy and he announces that a 109 could fly from Berlin to London and back.

After a bit of prying, I think that he admitted that the 109 would need 3 droptanks, and have to keep one of them on for most, if not all of its excursion on the other side of the Channel.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

horse, dont worry mate. It seems it was our fault. Kufurst never said or implied anything of the sort. Infact he is so righteous he has come here to defend his unstained virginal honour http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

horseback
04-03-2007, 09:25 AM
I never worry about what goes on in these forums.

However, I suspect that if we keep the pressure up, we can eventually bait Kurfurst into insisting that the 109 with the Galland canopy had a better view to the rear than the P-51D or Tempest...

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
04-03-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I never worry about what goes on in these forums.

However, I suspect that if we keep the pressure up, we can eventually bait Kurfurst into insisting that the 109 with the Galland canopy had a better view to the rear than the P-51D or Tempest...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>NO!!! Would he really try to claim that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I never worry about what goes on in these forums.

However, I suspect that if we keep the pressure up, we can eventually bait Kurfurst into insisting that the 109 with the Galland canopy had a better view to the rear than the P-51D or Tempest...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>NO!!! Would he really try to claim that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No but he would try and twist the argument so that the superiority of view offered by the bubble canopy was so minimal it was offset by the Pilots difficulty in bailing out because the bubble top was more prone to jamming than the Galland Hood so by default the Bf 109 wins again. Thats a 20 pager right there.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 09:44 AM
Take my advice, do the right thing :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/lol.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
04-03-2007, 09:48 AM
WOOT!

I made the list!

First place even!

You slackers are not trying hard enough!

IN YOUR FACE! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

horseback
04-03-2007, 09:59 AM
Golly, I feel like I made the Honor Roll.

RE the Galland hood claim: three or more years ago, a fellow posting under the name 'Isegrim' (long thought to be Kurfurst's prior incarnation) and his fellow traveler Huckebein hijacked and ran a thread out to 30+ pages by diverting it to that very subject. It involved all manner of pilot quotes, descriptions, photos, hand drawn diagrams, hysterics and petty name calling.

I bet he never felt so alive!

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
04-03-2007, 10:11 AM
I believe the Bf109 and the Spit had pretty similar range throughout the war, is that correct?

I was surprised to see that the FW190 has less range than the Bf109 on that chart?

The FW190 hood looks really well designed, as it has amazing view all around, but doesnt look to have the performance inhibiting shape that a bubble has. Just my thoughts.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 10:17 AM
British air intelligence paper from 1945 :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/AI1945_range109G-190A.jpg

luftluuver
04-03-2007, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">who're </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is this a mis-spelling or an attempt to insult?

horseback, I can't believe he would even try to. I have read some of his old posts and would not call his 'petty name calling', petty. Any other person would have been gone from here.

I think he left a name or two off his list from what I have seen. Notice those on his list are not taken in by his German was uber agenda. At least now when he posts his alternate history we (the forum) will not have extra pages added to a thread when 'we' show the board real truth.

stathem
04-03-2007, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
WOOT!

I made the list!

First place even!

You slackers are not trying hard enough!

IN YOUR FACE! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

D@mn I want first place back!

luftluuver
04-03-2007, 10:45 AM
Instead of the so-so document Kurfurst posted, here is an official document for a tropicalize Mk VIII.

Please note the differences between the data Kurfurst is trying to flog and what is on the official document. It is understandable that Kurfurst would not post the Aussie doc, which he knows about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit8adsaussie-1.jpg

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 01:19 PM
Lol Kufurst's propaganda 'radio' no longer picks up any stations which dont subscribe to his Bf 109 bulls1ht.

WWSpinDry
04-03-2007, 01:42 PM
I think some Brit intell folks are mathmatically challenged.

Spit1: 112 gal/460 mls
Spit2: 85 gal/434 mls
190: 110 gal/500 mls
109 88 gal/615 mls

The mls are underlined, but make no proportional sense at all in relation to the gallons carried. In fact, the 109 has the lowest fuel load of all, 88 gals, but has the longest range, 615 miles?

Somebody had more than tobacco in their pipe. Now I know why good intel is so rare.

Xiolablu3
04-04-2007, 09:39 AM
I was sure that the SPitfire had comparable range to the Bf109.

ARe you sure about 615 miles for a 'stock' Bf109? Or are we comparing the longest range Bf109 with the Shortest range Spitfire on that sheet? WHats the range of Bf109F4's or Bf109E's on internals fuel for example?


The Spitfire VIII had longer range on internal fuel than Spitfire IX's or V's.

Mr_Nakajima
04-04-2007, 10:33 AM
Numbers of aircraft produced:

Germany
1940 10,247
1941 11,776
1942 15,409

Great Britain & Commonwealth
1940 16,149
1941 22,694
1942 28,247

From Richard Overy's 'The Air War 1939-1945'. It is difficult to see how Germany could have defeated a foe in 1942 it had failed to do in 1940 and was by then producing almost twice as many aircraft.

Kurfurst__
04-04-2007, 10:35 AM
It's a stock 109. 88 gallon (400 liters) is the standard internal fuel capacity of of the 109E-K. 154 gallon is the capacity with it's single 300 liter/66 gallon droptank that was commonly used.

The 109E was shorter range, it's range manual gives the range as 660 km (~410 miles) at economic cruise speeds, without droptank. The first one able to mount a droptank was the E-7, being first around from August 1940. The early Spitfires like the Mk I was longer ranged, somewhere between 585 miles ('economic range') and 395 miles ('combat range'), but subsequent models were both more fuel thirsty and draggier.

The 109F was much longer ranged than the E, both because it was cleaner and the engine was more efficient.
Range is stated as 520 miles on internal fuel, and 995 miles with droptank. The 109G had slightly longer range, presumably because of it's more fuel efficient engine (CR was increased again).

The F-4 figures include fuel spent for warmup, taxy, climb, reserves, and 15% extra for safety.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109GvsFrange.jpg

The longest ranged 109 would be the Bf 109G-4/R3s, which were long range armed recce fighters carrying two 300 liter underwing droptanks. Armament was reduced to a single 20mm cannon, as the cowling was used for extra oil tank capacity for long trips. Camera was installed in rear fuselage.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109G4R3recce.jpg

luftluuver
04-04-2007, 11:45 AM
It so nice when Kurfurst's posts his data.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109E was shorter range, it's range manual gives the range as 660 km (~410 miles) at economic cruise speeds, without droptank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His economic range is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">MAX</span> economy.

SL
max continous - 2300rpm, 245.8mph, 1.05hr, 267mi
max econo - 1300rpm, 164.5mph, 2.20hr, 404mi

9842'
max continous - 2300rpm, 282.7mph, 1.00hr, 280mi
max econo - 1300rpm, 186.4mph, 2.05hr, 410mi

16404'
max continous - 2400rpm, 323.2mph, 0.55hr, 286mi
max econo - 1400rpm, 217.5mph, 1.50hr, 413mi

19865'
max continous - 2400rpm, 310mph, 1.10hr, 323mi
max econo - 1600rpm, 223.7mph, 1.40hr, 395mi

Since he likes to post the RAF data, here is another RAF document,
Note the 109G has 3 66gal drop tanks.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange5.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-04-2007, 11:48 AM
Problem is the 109 never carried 3 droptanks, plus of course the first two pages of the report are being ommitted as usual - they list the conditions the figures are standing for - and we all know why that is so.

luftluuver
04-04-2007, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Problem is the 109 never carried 3 droptanks, plus of course the first two pages of the report are being ommitted as usual - they list the conditions the figures are standing for - and we all know why that is so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, I am privilaged; on the ignore list but got a reply. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Problem is Kurfurst you have a reading comprehension problem, for the 3 dts were not for a 109E but a 109<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">G</span>

You want the other 2 pages? Here they are,

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange3-1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange4-1.jpg

stathem
04-04-2007, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The longest ranged 109 would be the Bf 109G-4/R3s, which were long range armed recce fighters carrying two 300 liter underwing droptanks. Armament was reduced to a single 20mm cannon, as the cowling was used for extra oil tank capacity for long trips. Camera was installed in rear fuselage.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, odd, the longest ranged Spits were also Recce versions. Mind they didn't need guns, being pretty much untouchable 'till the 262 arrived.

Kurfurst__
04-04-2007, 03:43 PM
They couldn't have guns, the guns were in the wings, and fuel was placed in the guns place. On the 109 that mounted guns in the fusalage that wasn't an issue, nor deleting to guns would decrease drag. Utouchable? Hardly. The first victim of the 109G-1s (which was really meant to that task with it's pressurized cocpit and GM-1 boost) was a recce Spit, and IIRC Knoke knocked down a recce Spit, in an old battered 109E nonetheless, in Norway IIRC. Looks like it was rather possible, but hard - a single aircraft cruising at high speed is very difficult, climbing to altitude, vectoring onto the target before it leaves the area requires good skills from both the interceptor and the ground radar control. It's not about max speed, it's the difficulty of the task itself and the quick move of the target. Even recce He 177 went in and out over Britain in mid-1943, penetrating the airspace at high altitude - by the time the buggers arrived to invastigate and were climbing at 170 mph to 30 000 feet, it was long gone in a shallow dive at 400 mph.

Nothing mythical about it, just tactics.

stathem
04-04-2007, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
and IIRC Knoke knocked down a recce Spit,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you don't RC, his wingman was credited. And there's absolutley nothing to indicate that it was 'old and battered' Tomorrow I will check that it wasn't an 'F', as I suspect. And if I'm wrong I will admit it, unlike you.

My point being, why do you mention the Recce 109?

You know that recce Spits had huge range also.

Recce versions are a different ballpark, and whether or not the G4/R3s retained a residual cannon has f/a to do with it. It ain't a fighter.

The-Pizza-Man
04-05-2007, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
They couldn't have guns, the guns were in the wings, and fuel was placed in the guns place. On the 109 that mounted guns in the fusalage that wasn't an issue, nor deleting to guns would decrease drag. Utouchable? Hardly. The first victim of the 109G-1s (which was really meant to that task with it's pressurized cocpit and GM-1 boost) was a recce Spit, and IIRC Knoke knocked down a recce Spit, in an old battered 109E nonetheless, in Norway IIRC. Looks like it was rather possible, but hard - a single aircraft cruising at high speed is very difficult, climbing to altitude, vectoring onto the target before it leaves the area requires good skills from both the interceptor and the ground radar control. It's not about max speed, it's the difficulty of the task itself and the quick move of the target. Even recce He 177 went in and out over Britain in mid-1943, penetrating the airspace at high altitude - by the time the buggers arrived to invastigate and were climbing at 170 mph to 30 000 feet, it was long gone in a shallow dive at 400 mph.

Nothing mythical about it, just tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wings tanks were forward of the main spar, the guns and ammunition (in fighter spits) were behind the main spar(excluding the barrels of course). The fuel, strictly speaking, wasn't in place of the armament.

Xiolablu3
04-05-2007, 04:17 AM
The armament was reduced on SPits , and possibly other RAF recon planes like hte Mossie, because by far the most important thing was to get back with the photographs, so every ounce of speed and performance was used for this.

If the pilot was attacked he was definitely not supposed to engage, he was supposed to run, as fast as he possibly could, and owing to his usually superior performance mount, he usually got back.

I am actually surprised that the Recce 109's carried guns at all, possibly because it was a tough job to get the 20mm cannon out? Or possibly because they liked to keep one gun 'in case'.

RAF recce pilots certainly were not supposed to engage the enemy at all. Far,far safer to run to cloud or dive for the deck and escape with the photos than fight back when you are alone. hose photos were far more important than one single kill, and definitely too important to lose.

I remember the Recce Spit in Knockes book, he stated how they roamed almost freely over Germany taking pictures. This one came past every day for a while, and he thought to himself 'I am gong to get you', and planned greatly for it. To get that one he had to ensure it took the same route every day (probably rare) and then be waiting for it when it arrived.

I dont belive they actually saw it crash did they? I will check up later.

Xiolablu3
04-05-2007, 04:31 AM
Just checked :-

The Germans hear this SPitfire taking pictures day after day, Knocke goes after him a few times but cannot catch him, no matter what he does.

He goes up on the 26th,27th and 28th chasing hte same Recce Spitfire. on the 28th he manages to get close. He has a few shots but the Spitfire soon pulls away.

'This Spitfire is a terrific plane. The gap between us widens slowly. We reach the open sea.'

'I give up the chase'

5th March 'He is back again!'

This time Knocke is more clever and climbs to 25,000 feet intending to wait until the Spit is circling the target taking photos, then he will dive on him and use his speed to get him.

He takes up position well above the SPitfire and watches as the Tommy starts to circle his 'target' taking photos. He waits until he has done 2 passes so that he is slower and then begins his attack.

Knocke damages him, and gets his windscreen full of oil. His wingman finishes the job.

He sees the Spitfire flaming on its way down 'Get out, lad! Get out!' he shouts to himself. He sees the pilot fall from the cockpit and the parachute open.

Knocke, his friends and the PIlot Officer of the RAF share a bottle of brandy and sing the night away.

Nice story actually. I have shortened it a lot from the book, but its generally what happens.

Its 4th March 1942, so its very much likely a 109F4 or at best a 109G1. I guess he would need breathing apparatus to get to 25,000 feet wouldnt he? I am not too sure myself as I know little about that stuff.

stathem
04-05-2007, 04:44 AM
Actually no, if you check the picture of his a/c when he had to force land it in hte snow on the way back from Norway in March 42, it shows the Horizontal Stab struts of an Emil (although it doesn't seem to show any wing guns), so K is right on that, and I was wrong.

Still no indictation it was 'old and battered' though, K appears to have made that up. Old by default I suppose. Round nosed spinner.

btw you missed my favourite bit

"the Spitfire is now just a dot in the distance. My engine is boiling"

Xiolablu3
04-05-2007, 05:54 AM
WOw, still using Emils in March 1942?

I was always told on this forum how quickly the germans moved onto the newer versions of the planes...

I think the 'Old and Battered' comes from the Emil that Knocke was flying versus theRussians in 1941, not sure if hes still in the same one or not. Actually the book isnt too good in that respect. I remeber it just announced one day that he was really starting to like his 109F, and it was much better than his old Emil. And I was like 'What? He didnt even mention it when he got his new plane!'.

My copy of the book is very old, around 1955-60 and doesnt have the picture of the Emil in the snow in it.


'The Spitfire goes down like a meteor shooting through space. That plane is certainly a magnificant piece of work, and it is being flown by alad who knows what he is doing and has plenty of nerve.

20,000 feet : he is in my sights, and again I open fire.
18,000 feet : range too great, estimate 1000 feet
12,000 feet : My engine is beginning to boil
10,000 feet : the dive is now steeper than before
6000 feet : The Spitfire is faster.

The distance between us is increasing. My eardrums are popping. The engine has boiled'

I guess its not cut and dried that the SPitfire was a slower diver than the Bf109. In the game I can escape Spitfire V's in a dive in a 109EZ/B (cant remember the exact name, the 1941 Jabo model)

horseback
04-05-2007, 08:01 AM
Could it have been a 109T? As I understand it, the T was more stable at high alts because of its extended wings. I do know that they were operational until 1944 because of this, when other 109s of that generation had long been retired from frontline service.

cheers

horseback

Bewolf
04-05-2007, 08:29 AM
Very possible. The T's were also operating in that rough area.

stathem
04-05-2007, 08:36 AM
It occurs to me that we should do this the easy way and let everyone make their own mind up

http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/Images/109E42JGLo2m_V3050.jpg

from

here (http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/Norway.htm)

Blutarski2004
04-05-2007, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Very possible. The T's were also operating in that rough area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Approx 50+ 190T-2 series fighters were ultimately completed and put into ground-based operational service. They flew out of Drontheim, Norway from early 1941 through June 1942 with I/JG77 (later re-named I/JG5). Between June 42 and April 43 they were used by a Norway-based training unit. Sixteen T2's(transferred from Norway?) served from April 1943 with Jagdstaffel Helgoland (re-named 11/JG11, and yet later re-named 8/JG4). The surviving a/c were finally transferred in Apr 1944 to IV/JG5 for service in Luftflotte 5 (West).

Blutarski2004
04-05-2007, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
Just as the Romans did, the Germans would have gotten a taste of the nasty constant cold rain and would have gone into full retreat back across the channel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get it, but keep in mind that the Romans occupied Britain for 400-odd years. A little bit more than "a taste". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Wow. 400 years of nasty constant rain? Those Romans were gluttons for punishment!

luftluuver
04-05-2007, 08:57 AM
Ok all that is out of the way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, could the Germans have been successful with an Operation Sealion in 1942?

Blutarski2004
04-05-2007, 09:13 AM
Lot of comment about the vulnerability of ships to aerial attack. Examine the experience of the RN w/o air cover during the evacuation of Crete. Then consider the experience of the Home Fleet, based for the entire war at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands with air cover. Proper air cover makes a great deal of difference to the survivability of warships at sea.

It's also important to keep in mind that once those German divisions were landed, they had to be kept supplied. Assuming 3 infantry + 1 armored division landed, that force would have required approx 4,000 tons/day of supplies to be transported from France, off-loaded, stored and distributed ashore. This means that the beachhead and proximate Channel waters had to be secured against air and naval attack both day and night - IMO, not an achievable task for the Germans.

Xiolablu3
04-05-2007, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
It occurs to me that we should do this the easy way and let everyone make their own mind up

http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/Images/109E42JGLo2m_V3050.jpg

from

here (http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/Norway.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice pics!

Wenneckers BF109, (Knockes mate) is certainly an EMil, you can see the wing guns.

http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/Images/Nor/Norway_Bf109E_42_Wennekers_V0050a.jpg

I was just surprised to see them still flying 109E's in March 1942. Just like I would be shocked to hear of the RAF flying Spitfire mk1's in combat in March 1942. (Did this also happen btw?)

stathem
04-05-2007, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ok all that is out of the way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, could the Germans have been successful with an Operation Sealion in 1942? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1942 no.

If they'd made the decision to take their time, develop the weapons and put up a serious and long term effective submarine and aerial blockade then possibly by 1944. Maybe they'd have even finished that carrier.

But Hitler wasn't one for taking his time. If he'd have started trying to throw across units in 1942 and continued to compound his errors like he did on the EF, then casualties could have reached EF proportions.

stathem
04-05-2007, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I was just surprised to see them still flying 109E's in March 1942. Just like I would be shocked to hear of the RAF flying Spitfire mk1's in combat in March 1942. (Did this also happen btw?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not perhaps Mk I's but in all probability Mk II's in the rear areas, NI, Wales. In this context Norway would be pretty much a rear area to the Germans.

The RAF were still using Hurris on Circus ops for the summer '41 season

Xiolablu3
04-05-2007, 10:30 AM
I'll bet they would actually have been glad of some SPitfire Mk1's in Malta, March 1942.