 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Agathon,
quote:
You must be joking. The lesson of WWII is that surface ships cannot hope to hold out against air power. Why do you think that the British were so desperate to stop the Bismarck before it reached air cover provided by German naval bombers?
Get a clue man, the wrecks of the Prince of Wales and Repulse are testament to what would have happened had the Home Fleet attempted to defend the Channel in the face of German air superiority. |
Naturally, but look at it like this.
The British Home Fleet and other elements of the Royal Navy sail down the west coast of Britain, out of range of the Luftwaffe and still under friendly air cover. The Admiralty times the fleet movement such that the Home Fleet will enter German air cover during the night, and will cover much of the distance to the Kriegsmarine transport concentrations (such as they are) while the Luftwaffe can't really strike.
Meanwhile, the RAF prepares one major sortie with all of its remaining fighters it can put in the air to cover the Fleet. A massive air battle takes place over the Channel, and while the Luftwaffe might well prevail, they would certainly not be able to go after the Royal Navy at the same time.
While the air battle is going, 6-8 battleships along with a couple of dozen cruisers and several dozen destroyers are shooting up everything in sight in the Channel - troop transports, Kriegsmarine escorts, etc., etc.
No one is arguing that this would be a virtual suicide mission, but it would most likely WORK. Any German transport capacity would be devastated, and any German troops stranded on England would be forced to surrender.
Germany's navy just was not large enough to cover an invasion of England. Period. Even air superiority probably wouldn't have been enough. What the Germans needed was either a large force of battleships to meet the Royal Navy in a gun battle, or a force of carriers able to engage the Royal Navy at a distance. Germany had neither.
As for the Prince of Wales and Repulse, this was a completely different case. The British sent these two ships (a BB and a BC) to try to disrupt Japanese landings in Malaysia. While that may sound similar to what I am describing above, the similarity ends there.
The PoW and Repulse both had to travel across thousands of miles of open ocean, with no possibility of friendly air cover, and the two ships did not really constitute a sufficient force to defeat the IJN in the area anyway. Unlike the Germans, the Japanese were fully capable of covering their landings properly.
GePap,
quote:
And yet, after the US was defeated and forced to leave AND Vietnam stopped China and got rid of the psycho-maoist Khmer Rougue regime, all the Soviets got in South East Asia was naval bases, which did nothing to shift the international balance. |
True, but the US military intervention did at least show support for US allies in the area, such as Thailand, Australia, and even South Korea, as well as showing the Soviets that the US would definitely intervene to prevent communist takeovers in the region.
I still don't support the war, but looked at in a certain light I think it made sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gangerolf
|
 |
huuhh
May 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kitschum
According to this article (with map),
http://www.smb.nu/pos/97/07_per_albin3.asp
Sweden were far gone in preparing for an assault across the sea against the Germans in Sjaelland in Spring 1945, if the Germans hadn't surrendered. Apparently, an invasion force of 60 000, including 4 000 Danes, plus (for Sweden) sizeable sea and air forces, was pulled together to drive out the 28 000 Germans there. No idea how viable it was
|
A "Swedish D-day". Interesting. Well I don't know exeactly what kind of equipment they had or how much was left of the German navy in the area etc, but it doesn't sound that far-fetched...
quote:
The article also claims that a gallup poll found that the Swedish people were against intervention in Norway by 47% to 33% even "if the Germans started massacres", which seems slightly odd to me and perhaps a measure of the effectiveness with which the Swedish government's neutrality stance diffused to the public |
Oh that's nice. But of course, fighting 400'000 well trained Germans to the bitter end would be a massacre in itself...
The threat of massacres was real. In 1945 the German boss in Norway, Reichskommissar Josef Terboven had 10'000 civilian hostages he wanted to shoot, but was (ironically enough) stopped by Hitler and Quisling.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
That wasn't my point at all, I was just trying to corner Berzerker with his claims of bad so-called socialist countries living off the so-called capitalists' hard work.
That is, to simply show that the system in nordic countries is viable. |
Viability cannot be measured by a few years of economic growth due to a devastated Europe. The US is also running into economic trouble because it lost its post WWII advantage while increasing the welfare state. We keep our SS system afloat with a liberal immigration policy.
CO quote:
Did you read my last post at all? Our goverment spendings did not exlude the military. And our Nordic neighbours are rich despite war damage, NATO membership AND welfare systems. |
Scandinavia suffered very little from WWII compared with other countries in Europe. That created an opportunity for Scandinavian countries to get rich off rebuilding the war torn countries while producing welfare states.
Aggie quote:
But it is still doing better than the United States. Read the opening post. These are the facts. |
Why do people keep wanting to compare the US with Sweden? We have a mixed economy here too. And I saw no evidence from the article that Sweden is doing better than the US, on the contrary, Sweden has dropped from 4th to the teens in wealth. I saw evidence of the problems facing Sweden because of its system So what has been their solution? An increase in the welfare state because Sweden is doing so well? Nope, reductions in the welfare state to become more competitive because it isn't doing so well.
Krop quote:
You're mixing apples and oranges. Are you trying to make a fruit salad? |
Did I say the hypocrisy of Euros who make that argument is proof of Sweden's problems? You did the mixing, not me.
LC quote:
You're seriously overestimating Sweden's military strength in 1941/42. They Germans estimated, in 1943, that the occupational forces in Norway alone should be enough to, should it become necessary, defeat and occupy Sweden, and while that might have been overly optimistic, it does say something about the relative strengths.
The amusing bit is that we might have ended up fighting against Finland in a such scenario ... |
The Finns were just itching to invade Sweden because Finns just loved Hitler? C'mon... As for what Sweden should have done, the Finns withstood at least 2 Russian invasions but Sweden could do nothing in conjunction with the allies even after Barbarosa made Germany vulnerable? I imagine the allies would have invaded mainland Europe sooner if they could get the Scandinavians to attack Germany from the north.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
Not really. They would have only had to say 'no wait, we changed our minds and we want to fight too', and that's it. The distance wouldn't have been a problem. You do realize that we are not hostile nations?  . They would have not attacked us and we would have not attacked them, simple.
Strategically, if SU had pressed us down fast enough, there could have been a possibility to take out Sweden, in theory. Nazis in Norway, what do you want, you want to take control of the whole NOrthern Europe. No reason to stay and stop, better to control the region and have some advantages of that. Except of course attacking a neutral country could have been a bit of a problem politically, but hey it wasn't an obstacle before
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
Yeah imagine everyone jumped on the Germans and Joe sniped Hitler out before he got to his plans. It really would be a complex situation if Sweden had attacked the Germans. THey would have given up neutrality, Germans in Norway, SU would now want the northern Europe including Sweden AND Norway, because Finland would be the last lock before that and the ones who woudl be accepting German help against them, so they would have wanted their own little blietzkrig in north. Germans would have seen this and wanted to put the pressure in there as well.
Before you know it, you would have had to pull off two landings, in Normandy and in Norway.
Then there's the factors that we can't count. And what would have we been supposed to do. Hitler would have pressured us to fight Sweden, which we would have denied, that could have endangered their material support to us, leading to our total defeat against SU in matter of days or weeks. Knowing this Hitler would be in a boggle master too, but he would decide to take the northern europe as a whole, as it geographically would make more sense than not, and taking us out earlier than planned.
For us, and Sweden, we don't want SU OR Germany in here.
What Sweden did was now, retrospectively looking maybe the ONLY right decision, even if it didn't seem right at the moment for many others.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
"SU couldn't even get passed the Finns, they weren't about to attack a Sweden that declared war on the Germans who were flooding a 1,000 miles of Russia. And there was no way the west would have "given" up Norway and Sweden in any post war negotiations, the Russians might not have even got back their own country by the time Germany fell.
"
Guessing, guessing, guessing. Finland wasn't exactly playing with the SU as much as they were trying to survive the onslaught. They did, fortunately, but it wasn't very sure thing you know. There were several days and weeks and months, where the onslaught and major offensives could have snapped our backs like a twig in storm. No one knew what would happen, no one.
They wouldn't have attacked Sweden if they declared war on Germany, right. Guessing.
And SU is supposed to believe Germany cant' take out Sweden? What about making sure about that. These big powers weren't exactly allying themselves with bunch of countries, rather sweeping and taking control. They didn't actually take leap of faiths.
Would they have given Sweden the promise not to come and 'strengthen' their forces fighting Germany, that would have meant coming through us. Do you honestly think SU would have had lots of problems with Sweden's moral dilemma? Not really. But knowing it, they would have instead more likely sweep through, had they got pass us and had Germans be in Sweden. You suggest Sweden would have passed the waters and land in there? And Germany would have not attacked Sweden via Norway?
Germans in Finland already? It's not really that simple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
What's your point? Mine is that combined with a final RAF sortie, and properly utilizing the cover of darkness, the RN could survive long enough to seriously disrupt the invasion.
In addition to the major units of the Home Fleet, also think about ships smaller than destroyers - patrol boats, torpedo boats, motor launches, etc., that could be used to disrupt the mix-matched Kriegsmarine invasion fleet.
The Luftwaffe just would not be able to paste everything quick enough to prevent the Brits from destroying the invasion fleet. Britain would come out of the affair minus most of it's navy and airforce, true, but the Germans would have lost most of their's, as well, along with their airborne forces and a few high-quality infantry divisions stranded in England. What would hurt the most, though, would have been the likelyhood of an immediate American response.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2005 01:19
|