Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Seelowe
MMM
Posted: February 12, 2009 02:47 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



I have to - again - disagree! If the Germans would have succeeded in putting two divisions on the English soil (motorized and/or armored, of course), I really don't think there would have been forces to stop them! And, of course, provide a base for Luftwaffe to operate against RAF.
Anyway, this would have eventually led to a Soviet Republic of France (to get back to Suvorov...) - quite a nausea!

This post has been edited by MMM on February 12, 2009 02:48 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dead-cat
Posted: February 12, 2009 05:14 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



with what? river barges? ever seen one? William's boats were more seaworthy in 1066.
and armored divisions? tanks usually don't swim very far, or they'd belong to the KM instead of the Heer. A brief glance at the equipment used during "Overlord" will show all sort of specialized landig equipment, build after the experience of 2 and a half years of fighting amphibious operations in the pacific, of which the german army had none.

2 divisions, makes 30.000 men, give or take a few. certainly, although mauled in france, the british army had enough resurces of all sorts, to repell such a feeble landing attempt.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on February 12, 2009 05:15 pm
PMYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: February 12, 2009 05:41 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ February 12, 2009 02:47 pm)
I have to - again - disagree! If the Germans would have succeeded in putting two divisions on the English soil (motorized and/or armored, of course), I really don't think there would have been forces to stop them! And, of course, provide a base for Luftwaffe to operate against RAF.

Britain conquered with just 2 divisions? Come on.
PM
Top
MMM
Posted: February 12, 2009 05:57 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



All right, it was an understatement - maybe five divisions...
QUOTE
tanks usually don't swim very far

Was this a joke?
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dead-cat
Posted: February 12, 2009 09:52 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



a brief glance at the british defence would suffice to dismiss the 5 divisions as much to few as well. the german command estimated to have to put around 100.000 men on british soil as the first wave only to have a chance to succeed. what it requires to sustain those 100.000 men could be easliyimagined, together with the required facilities to unload those.

PMYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: February 13, 2009 08:03 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Perhaps the lessons of the Red Army in what concerns re-supplying would be of use...
Don't forget the ancient phrase of wisdom of English origin: "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it". Not very well applied to the Wehrmacht, but as the divisions landed, they would undoubtedly have captured some supplies.
Anyway, we're just wild goose chasing right now, aren't we?
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dead-cat
Posted: February 13, 2009 08:13 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



the Red Army hardly conducted many amphibious operations.

"supplies" does not mainly mean food. it means also ammunitions, which, for a different caliber are not usable.
PMYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: February 13, 2009 09:07 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



I know, but the advancing troops usually capture some weaponry. I remain to my oppinion: if the Germans really wanted (political and militar will) to invade England, regardless the cost, they could have done it! IMO, at least!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Radub
Posted: February 13, 2009 09:41 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



MMM,
I think you underestimate the British, their resolve, their manufacturing power, their colonies and... their US friends. :ph34r:
Maybe the Germans could get a foothold and maybe even gain some ground for a while, but then the British would summon troops and resources from every corner of the empire, then ask for the help of their US allies and push the Germans back into Germany. Oh wait... that actually happened! :lol:
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: February 13, 2009 10:23 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ February 13, 2009 09:07 am)
I know, but the advancing troops usually capture some weaponry.

And you really expect 2 divisons to make up for their lack of supplies with captured weapons?

Come on, such a statement is worthy of Elena Udrea maybe (who is a so-called "expert" in national defense). For a person that will allegedly have a Ph.D. on a military-related subject, I do hope you're just joking.
PM
Top
MMM
  Posted: February 13, 2009 10:45 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Imperialist, I honestly thought this entire thread was a joke! Counter-factual history is not really a science, right?! And I came back: I said 5 divisions - as much as the allied forces landed on D-Day! We're just talking, you know, "ne aflăm n treabă"...
As for Elena, the expert :D , two things:
1. She's a minister and a professor (at UCDC, this AC/DC of private universities...) - so she's a valuable asset of our nation
2. Shouldn't we just let her talk with the president of Norway and stop bothering her?
:D
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dead-cat
Posted: February 13, 2009 11:04 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



actually, on D-Day the allies landed 130.000+ men, significantly more than 5 divisions.

the thread started as a split from another, with my affirmation that Seelwe was nothing more than a bluff, that the german command never seriously contemplated actually conducting this operation during 1940, given the military realities of the day. as it didn't serve to subdue the british, BoB was initiated.

so far i see nothing, non-factual here.
PMYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: February 13, 2009 11:54 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Indeed. The Germans didn't even expect to invade France, nevertheless UK. They hadn't planed it, therefore hadn't prepaired it. Otherwise, they would have had more naval capacity or something...
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
mabadesc
Posted: February 13, 2009 04:14 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



I'm not going to speculate on this issue, as I don't have time right now to dig up the material I've read on the subject. However, just a couple of points:

1. There is a very interesting article in last month's WWII Magazine about Churchill's preparations for resisting a German invasion of Britain in 1940. According to it, Churchill and his military commanders were worried that just several (not many, but I don't recall the exact number quoted) German divisions could reach London.

2. As a consequence, they prepared for the short-term threat by organizing a paramilitary network of saboteurs/resistance fighters. Their tactic was not to prevent the Germans from reaching London, but rather to wage guerilla-type warfare against the potential occupation. If I recall, Ian Fleming's brother (future creator of James Bond) was one of the officers put in charge of this operation.

3. From a german standpoint regarding Operation Seelowe (all political hesitations implications left aside), the main problem was crossing the Channel, not land-based British military resistance on English soil.

4. As one poster noted above, the Germans did not have the Navy for it. However, in the 1930's buildup, Hitler allocated the majority of resources to the Army and Luftwaffe to the detriment of the Navy. Then again, had he allocated more to the Navy, perhaps the Army & Luftwaffe couldn't have pulled off their victories in France. Sort of a vicious circle...

P.S. I highly recommend the article in WWII Magazine, as it goes into details on Britain's preparation for a war of attrition on British soil.
PM
Top
MMM
Posted: February 13, 2009 05:00 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



1+PS: Give me please the address of the magazine or a copy or something. I am really interested...
2. I supposed Churchill thought at that, but I never knew precisely.
3. My point of view, as well.
4. True, but had they organised their economy from like Speer did it, only 5-6 years sooner, they would have had more. Fortunately, they didn't! :o
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0319 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]