Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

War winning weapons

Both of which were Japanese in 1941, or was it 42?

Want a second go?
Deleted my reply because @Soluton Architect said the same. Date doesn't matter, circumstances do. No air power your navy is vulnerable. Doesn't mean the Germans win, just means it isn't as cut and dried as some would have us believe.
 
Deleted my reply because @Soluton Architect said the same. Date doesn't matter, circumstances do. No air power your navy is vulnerable. Doesn't mean the Germans win, just means it isn't as cut and dried as some would have us believe.

In theory you are correct... apart from an entire landing barge full of reasons.

Lets go with the big one. Time. It would take the German invasion flotilla at least 24 hours to get across the channel. If memory serves they were due to set off during the night. That would mean there'd be some six hours or so of darkness left before they started their landing operation (which in itself was half baked by any ones plans!) These six hours would happen to coincide when the fleet arrives from Scapa flow... To give you a slight indication, that's 60 odd destroyers alone, plus the big boys. The Germans with the best will in the world could manage 10, the rest being slightly sunk after running into the RN at Norway.
Now with Britain under imminent threat do you think the RN going to say "oh no, better not attack" or "all hands to any weapon, you get billed for any ammo left in the lockers by sunrise!"?

But what of the other 40 odd destroyers in UK home waters, I've not mentioned them (total number of DD's in UK home Waters was 104 in September). The other 40 were based in the two invasion area's, so right under the Luftwaffe's nose, and they managed to do what to them? Sink loads or... have bugger all effect. I mean the RN could easily have pulled them a bit further north, but didn't feel the need.

But that might be a bit unfair to the Luftwaffe, so let's look at Operation Dynamo. Here they are attacking Stationary or DD's moving at very slow speed. The Luftwaffe managed to sink how many (Memory says it was 1-4). Now, put that same ship up to full speed, and give it room to manoeuvre, and your chance to hit drops to a miniscule chance.

Finally, we come to the battleships. The Luftwaffe did not have any bombs capable of penetrating the armour of anything over a light cruiser.

You'll note that all the successful Air attacks on shipping came in 1941 or later. This was because the Germans suddenly needing coastal aircraft, something they'd never needed before. So they went out and learnt how to do it. But in 1940, they were just a tactical air force used to bombing land targets with no capability in anti-shipping work. What we're seeing here is applying who war capabilities, to a period when no such capability existed.

Oh, and for shits and giggles. In small armed craft for Sealion, the Germans had 217 vessels. In the two invasion area's alone the RN had over 2,000.
 
In theory you are correct... apart from an entire landing barge full of reasons.

Lets go with the big one. Time. It would take the German invasion flotilla at least 24 hours to get across the channel. If memory serves they were due to set off during the night. That would mean there'd be some six hours or so of darkness left before they started their landing operation (which in itself was half baked by any ones plans!) These six hours would happen to coincide when the fleet arrives from Scapa flow... To give you a slight indication, that's 60 odd destroyers alone, plus the big boys. The Germans with the best will in the world could manage 10, the rest being slightly sunk after running into the RN at Norway.
Now with Britain under imminent threat do you think the RN going to say "oh no, better not attack" or "all hands to any weapon, you get billed for any ammo left in the lockers by sunrise!"?

But what of the other 40 odd destroyers in UK home waters, I've not mentioned them (total number of DD's in UK home Waters was 104 in September). The other 40 were based in the two invasion area's, so right under the Luftwaffe's nose, and they managed to do what to them? Sink loads or... have bugger all effect. I mean the RN could easily have pulled them a bit further north, but didn't feel the need.

But that might be a bit unfair to the Luftwaffe, so let's look at Operation Dynamo. Here they are attacking Stationary or DD's moving at very slow speed. The Luftwaffe managed to sink how many (Memory says it was 1-4). Now, put that same ship up to full speed, and give it room to manoeuvre, and your chance to hit drops to a miniscule chance.

Finally, we come to the battleships. The Luftwaffe did not have any bombs capable of penetrating the armour of anything over a light cruiser.

You'll note that all the successful Air attacks on shipping came in 1941 or later. This was because the Germans suddenly needing coastal aircraft, something they'd never needed before. So they went out and learnt how to do it. But in 1940, they were just a tactical air force used to bombing land targets with no capability in anti-shipping work. What we're seeing here is applying who war capabilities, to a period when no such capability existed.

Oh, and for shits and giggles. In small armed craft for Sealion, the Germans had 217 vessels. In the two invasion area's alone the RN had over 2,000.
You're expecting the Germans to play by your script?

Who says they have to go for a straight out invasion there and then?

Dynamo wasn't with air superiority.

Battleships. U-boats or torpedoes delivered by other means.

They're all "what if's" is all I was saying and discounting airpower is foolish.

You need air superiority. If you don't have it you're in a world of pain. As true then as it is now.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
You're expecting the Germans to play by your script?

Who says they have to go for a straight out invasion there and then?

Dynamo wasn't with air superiority.

Battleships. U-boats or torpedoes delivered by other means.

They're all "what if's" is all I was saying and discounting airpower is foolish.

You need air superiority. If you don't have it you're in a world of pain. As true then as it is now.

air superiority then wasn't going to get (jack)boots on the ground and keep them resupplied enough to support an invasion. look what the allies had to put together to successfully invade in 1944. and that was with AS in a country where they wouldn't (for the huge part) have to watch their backs and their supply links when the beachhead was established and they began to push inland.
 
Here's a totally bone question but perhaps no more bone than the general who looked at the motorised kite that the Wright brothers had built and laughed at the idea that it could ever replace two thousand years of horse flesh dominating the battlefield.

Have drones now eliminated the need for massed armies? In the future, which will prove to be the wiser choice an army of 200,000 men and say 2,000 tanks (or planes or whatever) with all the vast expense involved in training, feeding, clothing, housing, maintenance, administration etc or 10,000 specialists with 50,000 drones that cost $500 a piece and can be kept in a big warehouse until needed?

Need a small country armed with such a cheap force ever fear a huge lumbering super power on its borders? Is it time to start binning all previous manuals on strategy and generalship?

I am sure people can come up with many counter-measures to the drones but ultimately are the days of massed infantry and armour now numbered?
And therein lies the vulnerability of cheap drones, the big warehouse.

Any opponent will expend great efforts to find the warehouse(s). Once they've done that, they'll target them with the likes of LORA or Rampage. It then becomes a case of who fires first.

In times of tension, if the drone side starts to deploy, does the LORA/Rampage side launch before the drone launch vehicles can deploy in large numbers? You might not need all that many tactical ballistic missiles to destroy large numbers of drones in the nest as it were.



So you don't store them in big warehouses but do you go as far as Hamas and store them in civilian areas?
Of course having said all that, a drone launch vehicle is potentially very vulnerable to a single enemy drone.
 
There it is

Whether being used on V-1's, Kamikazes, or massed german Infantry in the Ardennes
Very little publicity about this absolute game changer not sure why, it rarely gets mentioned in documentarys. The Japanese for some time (till it was too late) were astonished by the accuracy and effectiveness of American AA gunners. I don't know when it reached or what effects had it in other theatre's. It's probably a good job german AA gunners didn't have it.
 
air superiority then wasn't going to get (jack)boots on the ground and keep them resupplied enough to support an invasion. look what the allies had to put together to successfully invade in 1944. and that was with AS in a country where they wouldn't (for the huge part) have to watch their backs and their supply links when the beachhead was established and they began to push inland.
It's all counterfactual, which I'm not a fan of but, there's no evidence that we wouldn't have collapsed PDQ as our continental allies had were they able to get a foothold.

I personally think that if they'd gained control of the air they'd have bombed London and the SE a wee bit more, a negotiated settlement being more on the cards then.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
It's all counterfactual, which I'm not a fan of but, there's no evidence that we wouldn't have collapsed PDQ as our continental allies had were they able to get a foothold.

I personally think that if they'd gained control of the air they'd have bombed London and the SE a wee bit more, a negotiated settlement being more on the cards then.

but as @Listy and others have pointed out on previous occasions, the germans would only have been able, in 1940, to muster a small part of the force the allies eventually went in with, and there's no guarantee they would have been able to get any of them onto the beach. quite the opposite. they were dependent on river going barges that were far from suitable for the open sea and had to be towed. any amount of swell or the backwash from an RN big ship going at any speed and they would have been swamped. then having to repeat the exercise to keep them all supplied. as listy says, the plan was half baked to begin with. when you add in the logistical complications, they may have been able to get a small force on a UK beach, but with very little in the way of support arms or armour and then the complications of keeping them supplied.
 

ACAB

LE
Just as your confidence in the new and shiny reflects the unshakeable confidence in the Dynamite and Torpedo battleships and torpedo boats of the late 19th century. Or perhaps the revolutionary small arms advances of the late 20th century. Or the immensely successful FCS and FRES programmes, perhaps?

Now I didn’t say that. I said that the sort of drone army you propose has weaknesses that a super power can defeat by refusing to fight you on your terms. Much like has been identified in this thread already, if you are substantially weaker than your opponent, having a slight technological advantage in one or two areas doesn’t help as your opponent can switch his focus to where you are weak.

Your choice of words is interesting; it crops up alot in this sort of debate. “big” is slow and cumbersome and stupid and “traditional“ is hidebound and ignorant. While it may or may not be true, you may also want to consider that “big“ can also mean powerful and “traditional“ can mean proven and effective.


People keep thinking that the new situation is exceptional, not realising that we’ve gone over the ground before. The idea that if we do something new then it has to be better than building on what has gone before. It’s the sort of wishful thinking that means that FRES-alikes keep rearing their head, to consume vast sums of money only to discover that the enemy has a say in the outcome of an engagement and you’ve beggared the rest of your force to no effect. The last is especially dangerous when the new concept was relying on the old system to cover for its weaknesses, which is something that has been explicitly stated to be the case for Strike (or FRES Mk2)


Not that new developments should be waved away and discounted out of hand, but nor should they be seen as an all-encompassing solution that renders everything else obsolete.
You can rest easy in the knowledge that @Mike Barton is a cock.
 
You're expecting the Germans to play by your script?

Who says they have to go for a straight out invasion there and then?

Dynamo wasn't with air superiority.

Battleships. U-boats or torpedoes delivered by other means.

They're all "what if's" is all I was saying and discounting airpower is foolish.

You need air superiority. If you don't have it you're in a world of pain. As true then as it is now.

By all means tell me the cunning plan the Germans have for defeating the Allies and mounting a successful invasion? Remember the earliest you have all your toys in place is September. And I don't think that waiting longer is going to help (Lets mount the invasion in December! That sounds like a winner!)

Seeing as I've seen every plan known to mankind, include German submarines towing concrete containers to provide some level of re-supply. Remember German plans were for resupply every four-five days. You have to spent 24 hours crossing each way, plus load and unload times. So that's multiple 12 hour night time, with the never ending wave of RN ships landing on your head.

But first I'd like to discuss one fact you mention, Torpedo's and submarines. As is well know all the German Rhine barges were in removed from Germany and sent to the Channel ports to provide target practice for Bomber Command. Now the Rhine barges existed as they were a rather important part of Germany's logistical network, removing them would be like deleting the railways of the UK, it was goign to cause some interesting problems.
So Germany's peace time economy was in severe trouble. So much so that the production of Torpedo's had dropped to almost nothing. At the rate of use they were being fired off the Germans would have run out around late August.
So no Torpedo's for the Luftwaffe or the U-boats.

This didn't apply to the UK, indeed we actually had more submarines in the channel than the Germans did. Every night they watched the channel ports, as soon as the Germans set off, they'd break contact transmit a warning, and then return to slam spreads of torpedo's into the German barges.
We also had the Fleet air Arm and a carrier or two to play with.

Finally, we have the immortal BLACKBIRD. This was the message that admiralty would send. It told the receiving ships: Invasion Channel. Make best possible speed, and start blowing shite up!
Remember Cunningham's "It takes the Navy three years to build a ship. It will take three hundred years to build a new tradition. The evacuation will continue." There is no way the RN would not throw itself into that fight. At the outbreak of War they had some 400 Destroyers. We know in September 1940 there were 104 in Home Waters. We also know the Germans had 10 destroyers for Sealion. Odds of 10-1 sounds unhappy. Odds of 10-1 sounds even worse when you realise that's just the first wave! The German's would be facing odds of 10-1 every night (We're also assuming the Germans wouldn't take any losses).

On larger ships The Germans are in a slightly better position. They have parity with the ships in home waters. IIRC it was heavy Cruisers and above they reached parity. But once again BLACKBIRD sort of trashes that, as suddenly any British losses get replaced.

So in short you have on the German side:
No air force at night time.
Outnumbered
No Reinforcements
No torpedo's
Oh did I mention that you're also at about -5000 trained personnel to crew the barges. The Germans conducted a survey of every male in the Armed forces to find those with some aquatic experience (Going boating a couple of times a year on a German lake counted as experienced the Germans were so desperate). Even scraping the barrel like this they still came up at -5,000 crew.

As I said, if you have a cunning plan to win Sealion, please do advance it, as I've yet to see one that works, and doesn't get instantly crushed by the RN arriving with massive numbers of warships and murdering the Germans wholesale.

Remember the 1970's Wargame at Sandhurst where they had the actual people involved umpiring it, using the actual plans. Even when they tilted the deck so unbelievably in favour of the Germans (Right you British types are no longer allowed to us the RAF or the RN! That sort of basis) they couldn't get anything past a small self contained prison camp.
 

Tyk

LE
You're expecting the Germans to play by your script?

Who says they have to go for a straight out invasion there and then?

Dynamo wasn't with air superiority.

Battleships. U-boats or torpedoes delivered by other means.

They're all "what if's" is all I was saying and discounting airpower is foolish.

You need air superiority. If you don't have it you're in a world of pain. As true then as it is now.

The what if's for Sealion have been analysed, wargamed and every scenario tested on many occasions. Sealion was a total non starter even if Germany had all the ships they started the war with.

The RN could afford to lose literally dozens of destroyers, MTB/MGB, submarines and a few capital ships if it smashed any invasion force and the chances they'd actually lose more than a few were negligible. Over the channel the RAF would have put up one hell of an air defence and Coastal Command would have put every bomber and torpedo dropper on splashing the slow moving barges. Oh RN had a few aircraft available too.
Minelaying on a massive scale that far off the Kent coast would have taken no time and sweeping would have been prevented.

Even IF the Germans had managed a bridgehead they could never have held it as resupply would be royally screwed.

The reason Overlord worked in the other direction was the monumental quantity of resources put in by the allies, hundreds of multiples of vastly superior shipping than the Germans had access to at any point in the war.
 
hundreds of multiples of vastly superior shipping
Some of which was purpose built for particular roles...

The Germans were looking at a first day effort of 70,000 men using :
170 cargo ships, 1277 barges, and 471 tugs I Battlecruiser, 1 Heavy Cruiser 10 Destroyers and 20 U-boats

Overlord landed 156,000 men using:
1,213 combat ships; 4,126 landing ships/craft; 736 support ships; 864 merchant ships.

I can't find a source for Luftwaffe Transport and glider inventory with which they proposed landing 8000 Airborne troops. But I think it would fall short of the scale required by the Allies in Normandy of 2,395 aircraft and 867 gliders to deliver 22000 troops..

The arithmetic just doesn't work....
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
1603184497348.png



Close the thread.
 

Latest Threads

Top