Battle of Britain: Failure

If it doesn't fit .. It fits here .. - -

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby ATI_7500 » Sun Nov 23, 2003 5:01 am

if you look at my war plans,hagar,you'd see that i already had taken care of it by building more long-range bombers before the war.

hitler thought that d-day was a major bluff by the allied forces ,so he didn't want to send more ground forces to the french coast.
just imagine what would have happened,if loads of tigers and panthers had welcomed the allies at the beaches, covered by the luftwaffe...
ATI_7500
 

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Hagar » Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:10 am

if you look at my war plans,hagar,you'd see that i already had taken care of it by building more long-range bombers before the war.

This would have involved a completely different strategy. As I understand it, Blitzkreig tactics was based on relatively short-range air strikes swiftly followed up on the ground. You would also need long-range fighters to protect the bombers to guarantee any sort of success. It would take much longer this way & with its lack of material resources a prolonged campaign would not have suited Germany.

[quote]hitler thought that d-day was a major bluff by the allied forces ,so he didn't want to send more ground forces to the french coast.
Last edited by Hagar on Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30864
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby ATI_7500 » Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:41 am

well,this is almost a "what if..." thread, or at least a "how would you..." one.

p.s: 109s with drop tanks?
ATI_7500
 

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Hagar » Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:47 am

well,this is almost a "what if..." thread, or at least a "how would you..." one.

I think "how would you" is best. If we keep going over the same old stuff we'll still be arguing about it this time next year. ;)

p.s: 109s with drop tanks?

I'm sure this was tried. I don't remember when or how successful it was.
Last edited by Hagar on Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30864
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby ATI_7500 » Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:49 am

no,this was a sort of comment on your long-range fighter proposal. 109s could surely carry drop taks,but (if i'm right) just from the "friedrich" upwards...
ATI_7500
 

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Woodlouse2002 » Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:33 am

The Luftwaffe were unable to gain the air superiority an I don't know enough about the Kriegsmarine to make an educated assessment.


The Kreigsmarine in WWII was never fit to tackle a fleet engagement with the Royal Navy.
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains c
User avatar
Woodlouse2002
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: Cornwall, England

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby ATI_7500 » Sun Nov 23, 2003 11:39 am

i wouldn't say this. take many submarines plus the bismark, the scharnhorst and many airplanes as air cover and you get a nice little slaughter.
ATI_7500
 

Is There Any Way?

Postby Scorpiоn » Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:33 pm

Oh yeah, this is before the Bismark is even completed!

Okay, lets say nearly the entire German force is there to support the invasion, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht.
Last edited by Scorpiоn on Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Devil's Advocate.
Image
User avatar
Scorpiоn
Major
Major
 
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 7:32 pm
Location: The Alamo

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Woodlouse2002 » Sun Nov 23, 2003 4:11 pm

Bismark was a full fathom five by the time germany was planning to invade. ;)
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains c
User avatar
Woodlouse2002
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: Cornwall, England

Rats!

Postby Scorpiоn » Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:40 pm

>:( Is there any way Germany could have done what it planned to sucessfully!? :P
The Devil's Advocate.
Image
User avatar
Scorpiоn
Major
Major
 
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 7:32 pm
Location: The Alamo

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Professor Brensec » Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:28 am

I haven't read the whole thread, I've just breezed through. I don't have the stamina for that right now. But to answer the original question posed by Scorpion.
(What would have to have happened for the Battle of Britain to have been lost?).
I say this.

I think it's quite simple (and may already have been said, so my apologies if it has).

Hitlers biggest mistake of that period was his Sept 7th decision to stop hitting the RAF airfields and to start bombing the cities.
This gave the RAF the breathing space it needed to recover. No-one can possibly argue that the RAF were on their knees at this stage and if Hitler hadn't have changed tactics, the BoB at least, in my opinion, would have been lost and Germany may well have acheived air superiority.  ;D ;)

That's the answer to the fundimental question that Scorpion asked. What would have happened after Germany won the BoB, I don't know, but that is how Germany couls easily have won that particular battle, in a relatively short time.  ;)
Image
Image
http://www.ra.online-plus.biz


I cried because I had no shoes - until I saw a man who had no feet.
User avatar
Professor Brensec
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 10:40 pm
Location: SYDNEY - AUSTRALIA

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Professor Brensec » Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:50 am

I've gone back and done a bit of reading now.

Notwithstanding Hagars knowledgable comments regarding the reserve fighters and airfields in the rear, I don't think these would have saved the day in the BoB had Germany kept the pressure on the RAF.

With regard to:
A program that I watched recently implied, well stated, that sealion was an elaborate bluff intended to get Britain to negotiate peace.



I have heard this. I have also read that Germany didn't have half the amount of landing craft and support shipping to support this kind of landing operation.
She also had absolutely no experience whatsoever in amphibious operations.

As for 109's and drop tanks:

The 109 was not a stable enough aircraft to mount that kind of weight on. It was also a very small plane, one of the smallest. The were dangerous enough to get off the ground and land, let alone with an extra 800 to 100 lbs on the wings (if the wings could take the weight and hardpoints!
I have seen a few pictures of 109's with drop tanks (or a drop tank under the belly), but I don't think I've ever seen one in the air.
I also read that Germany didn't have the aluminium to spare for drop tanks. In fact those that did carry them towards the end were under strict orders not to drop them unless it was a matter of life and death, because they couldn't spare the resources. ;D ;)
Image
Image
http://www.ra.online-plus.biz


I cried because I had no shoes - until I saw a man who had no feet.
User avatar
Professor Brensec
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 10:40 pm
Location: SYDNEY - AUSTRALIA

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Hagar » Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:18 pm

I also read that Germany didn't have the aluminium to spare for drop tanks. In fact those that did carry them towards the end were under strict orders not to drop them unless it was a matter of life and death, because they couldn't spare the resources. ;D ;)

This shouldn't have been a problem. I believe the RAF drop tanks were made of compressed cardboard. Aluminium was far too valuable a resource to waste on things like that.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30864
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

Postby Professor Brensec » Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:56 pm

This shouldn't have been a problem. I believe the RAF drop tanks were made of compressed cardboard. Aluminium was far too valuable a resource to waste on things like that.


Is that so.........................I'll have to see if I can find where I read it. It was fairly recently too. I recall it distinctly.  ;D

Although, as we've discussed on many occasions, there is so much 'fiction' kicking about concerning this period.  ;) ;)
Image
Image
http://www.ra.online-plus.biz


I cried because I had no shoes - until I saw a man who had no feet.
User avatar
Professor Brensec
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 10:40 pm
Location: SYDNEY - AUSTRALIA

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 472 guests