Best War Film Part 2

[Professor Brensec]

I think what brensec means is that all the big surface raiders spent lots of time blockaded in various ports in occupied Europe. Terpitz spent most of it's life at port and Bismark only sailed in anger once.
In the early years some pocket battleships caused a bit of bother, but it was the U-Boat force that did the real damage and caused most concern.

Exactly, thanks Hawker.

I realise that there were large German ships in the Atlantic at times, but the vast majority of damage, hence threat, came from U-Boats and Commerce Raiders.

As I said, my knowledge is limited, but my impression is that apart from trying to halt supplies and materials from the States, their main areas of "battle" activity (Navy ship versus Navy ship) seemed to be the Mediterranean and the Baltic and North Sea areas.

[Woodlouse2002]

You may say that Germany didn't have much if a navy but when you look at the power of there individual battleships then you relise that it was extreemly powerful.

The Royal Navy lived in fear of almost all the germans major warships. They had powerful guns and extreemly accurate fire control systems when compared to the british and american counterparts.

Ever since the start of the war Scharnorst and Gneisneau were top of the British hit list and were only put in second place with the launch of Bismark and Tirpitz.

The size of the German navy or Kreigsmarine in WWII is directly linked to the fact that they had to surrender all there major warships at the end of WWI and could not make warships of over a certain tonnage after WWI. The germans got round this with the pocket battleships and finally gave up and made their famous heavys.

The british in WWII had several WWI era dreadnaughts and battle cruisers aswell as several more built in the interwar years and a few made during the war. The means that we had a huge head start and therefore had a far more powerful navy but of lesser quality.

[Professor Brensec]

While on the subject of ships and Navy power etc.

The difference in the Naval Wars fought in the Pacific and the Atlantic/Med were largely due to the use and need for the Carrier (although it didn't become apparent to all until after Coral Sea/Midway).

I wonder, if Germany had had 3 or 4 good sized Carriers (with suitable aircraft), would the invasion of Britain have been so reliant on the complete destruction of the RAF before it could have gone ahead.
Given the fact that they would have had up to 300 Fighter/Fighter bombers on mobile platforms available in such a small area (plus back-up from France), I think the invasion could have gone ahead and had a reasonable chance of success, so long as the RAF could be kept busy enough.

I know these "what if's" can be difficult and are of no real value except to exersise the brain, I occasionally like to suppose what could have been if just one or two simple conditions had been different.
Of course, we all know the catastrophe that would have been if Britain had fallen. To imagine that this could have been the case but for the lack of a few carriers.

Thoughts?  ;D

[Woodlouse2002]

Well brensec my old mate, the RAF and Royal Navy would have sank the Aircraft carriers before decimating the invasion fleet.

They wouldn't have got us that easy! Besides... If they destroyed the RAF first then there would have been the Royal Navy and the Fleet Air Arm so the invasion would have failed anyway.

So me hearties! We were not in that much danger in 1941 after all!

[HawkerTempest5]

It's an interesting thought brensec pal. I have no doubt that had Germany been able to put a carrier force to sea early in the war (1939/40) they could have inflicted great havoc upon the convoys and indeed upon the Royal Navy. Weather they would have been decisive in the Battle of Britain, I don't know. The Channel is small and they would have been easy to find, unlike the great carrier battles in the Pacific. They would have been well within range of British land based air power and at risk from British warships and submarines.
However, it is a fact that British air and naval power failed to prevent the Channel dash in 1942 when

[Woodlouse2002]

on [quote]It's an interesting thought brensec pal. I have no doubt that had Germany been able to put a carrier force to sea early in the war (1939/40) they could have inflicted great havoc upon the convoys and indeed upon the Royal Navy. Weather they would have been decisive in the Battle of Britain, I don't know. The Channel is small and they would have been easy to find, unlike the great carrier battles in the Pacific. They would have been well within range of British land based air power and at risk from British warships and submarines.
However, it is a fact that British air and naval power failed to prevent the Channel dash in 1942 when

[Smoke2much]

I have to disagree with you woodlouse when you say that the German invasion would have failed in 1940 even if the RAF had been completely destroyed.  Thankfully we will never know what the results would have been but it is my belief that the loss of the RAF in late summer 1940 would have resulted in panzers on the south coast the following spring.

Hitler wanted peace with Britain, he saw us as misguided potential allies.  There was also a huge amount of support for the far right in the British ruling classes at this time.  If the RAF had been destroyed and the German invasion had become probable and not just possible I think we would have sued for peace on German terms.  Documents from the time allude to terms similar to the treaty of Versailles:  ie limits on army and navy etc.  This would have freed the German war machine for it's attack on Russia.  It is possible that the treaty would have required our support in this.  If the war in the atlantic hadn't taken place there would have been no real need for the USA to declare war on Germany.  I think the map would be very differant today if it wasn't for the RAF.

As an interesting side.  If things had happened in the way I have stated above how much quicker would the US have defeated Japan.  After all all of USwar production would have been targeted at one front instead of two.

Will

[Professor Brensec]

Interesting comments all.

It's obvious that Hitler would have preferred that Britain not resist Germanies incursions on mainland Europe.

The fact that it's widely accepted that Hitler didn't allow the full "might" of the German Army and Luftwaffe to bear on the trapped British at Dunkirk and his many "assertions" that he had no designs on Britain or her Empire would suggest that he would possibly have been amenable to the simple subduing of British forces and a small occupation forces to see that there was no chance of more hostilities (which Britain would have needed US support for, anyway).

This leaves me wondering how serious he really would have been about Operation Lion, had it been possible.
I've have read that the Germans didn't have anywhere near enough landing craft or vessels of the kind needed to transport the necessary equipment.

On the European front, there was comparatively little activity on either side from October '40 until 18 months (9 in the East) later when the US had arrived in Britain in any force. The majority of the action was either in Africa or in the Atlantic. The Atlantic action being solely a result of American aid and supplies being shipped. So given this, the one thing that does puzzle me is the fact that Hitler, having just become bogged down in Russia by the worst winter in memory, decided to declare war on the US at such a time.
I know anyone else had to honour the Tri-partite Pact, but he had never shied from breaking his word or ignoring treaties before. Why support Japan at that time, when things were just beginning to turn bad for him?

[Oso]

Read "Hitler's War" by David Hemmings. It discusses Hitler's attitude towards Britain in detail, and after considering his sources, I believe it.

One thing few take into consideration is that at that time few knew of the atrocities committed by the Nazis then. It is common knowledge now, but even Eisenhower didn't know the scope of the concentration camps until they liberated them. They suspected, but the mind couldn't grasp. So most didn't know or didn't take it as seriously as they should have. Brits and Americans both.

With that in mind, and considering the "England as errant cousins" theory, and if the Germans had a couple three carrier task groups in the Atlantic. Which way would the war have gone. Probably not even of started. Remember that Churchill had to drag Britian into the war kicking and screaming all the way, Roosevelt followed as soon as he could manipulate it.

Roosevelt was grasping for reasons to declare war on Germany. He instigated war with Japan to get it in a round about way. Hitler wanted nothing to do with war with the States and avoided it as much as possible. He was quite put out when his pact with Japanese made him declare after Dec 7.

[Woodlouse2002]

Smoke2much, you would realise why a german invasion would have failed if you saw there landing craft. They were simply barges with the bow cut off. It would have taken the Germans 4 days to unload the amount of men and equipment that we landed in the first day of D-day. The Panzers would of had to of waited intill the infantry had established a huge beach head which could have taken weeks. In that time the Royal Navy would have decimated the invasion fleet and stopped the invasion.

[Professor Brensec]

All hypothetical, I know.
But for the sake of argument, as I said, I've read that the Germans didn't have the craft to do the job. I'm pretty sure that's the case. They certainly didn't have anywhere near what the Allies had when they invaded.

However, if you consider that they weren't invading "Fotress Europe" through anything like the "Atlantic Wall". They were invading "Worlmington-on-Sea" which would ostensibly be defended in the beginning by "Capt Mainwerring and the crew" (Dad's Army for those who aren't familiar). I don't mean to belittle or insult the British or their efforts, they were magnificent. But they were on their last legs at this time (Sept '40). Let's face it, it's widely agreed that if Hitler hadn't foolishly blundered by turning his air attacks on London and giving the RAF the time to recover, the BoB would have been lost. And without the RAF the RN would have been hard stretched to repel and invasion once any kind of foothold had been established.

So, who knows what may have happened.
All we know is that due to the courage and will of the pilots and crew and indeed the English people, the battle was won.  ;D

[Professor Brensec]

Was down at Blockbuster today and came across one of those "obscure" titles in the area well away frrom the "quality New Releases" called "Dark Blue World".

On the cover was a Spitfire and a pic of an WWII RAF Officer. Obviously I had to pick it up and see if it was something worth seeing.
But after reading the usual "wonderful dogfight sequences, superb cinematography blah blah blah" I also read "SUBTITLED".
It is apparently a Csech movie withEnglish subtitles.

I can't stand subtitled movies, but I'll see this one if the aircraft stuff is plentiful and decent.

Has anyone seen it. Can someone recommend or debunk?

[Ivan]

Das Boot
Saving Private Ryan

and for something not too much a film but still good
Band of Brothers TV series

[ATI_7500]

are you sure,woodlouse?

i think that the stukas, battleships and u-boats would have sunk the british ships and without being covered by the RAF,the royal navy would never have had a chance to win. especially not against such battleships like the "bismarck" (what if the bismark had shot down that swordfish,before it could drop its torpedo??).
i think,hitlers biggest mistake was the declaring war on america. america declared war on germany after germany declared war on america...what if..

"dark blue world"? gotta watch that movie. i hope it's almost as good as "the battle of britain". and brensec,why didn't you watch it? for me,it would not matter,if there were undertitles.

[Hagar]

ATI. The point is that nobody will ever know. Historians all have their own pet theories. We could play the "ifs & buts" game for an eternity & still not know the answer.  ::)

I think Brensec is just as interested in the commentary as the actual pictures. I would have snapped up that video too.

PS. Your excellent English is better than some on this forum for whom it's their mother tongue. You & Bonzonie make me ashamed that I know no German, Japanese or other languages.