"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

In message
, Ken
S. Tucker writes
I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.

In the same way that the Japanese could have conquered the US in five
days in 1941 if they'd only bothered to try? (Land in California,
commandeer weapons and transport from the cowardly fleeing populace,
race the bad news to Washington, impose Imperial hegemony, declare
victory while forcibly recruiting all white females between seven and
seventy for "recreational services"?)

I think whoever was telling you this, was pulling your leg so hard it's
still out of its socket, and they're still telling the story of "some
clueless guy called Tucker" who didn't just swallow the hook but took
the line, and the sinker, and tried to eat the rod as well.




--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

On Mar 17, 6:38*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
In message
, Ken
S. Tucker writes

I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.

In the same way that the Japanese could have conquered the US in five
days in 1941 if they'd only bothered to try? (Land in California,
commandeer weapons and transport from the cowardly fleeing populace,
race the bad news to Washington, impose Imperial hegemony, declare
victory while forcibly recruiting all white females between seven and
seventy for "recreational services"?)

I think whoever was telling you this, was pulling your leg so hard it's
still out of its socket, and they're still telling the story of "some
clueless guy called Tucker" who didn't just swallow the hook but took
the line, and the sinker, and tried to eat the rod as well.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

Remember the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific ran 40 hour trains
from San Francisco and Los Angeles to Chicago, seven days a week. If
you could get past all the GIs riding those buggers even in 1941-2 you
had to have enough real U.S.A. green to pay for your meals.

In message , Bill Kambic
writes
Remember, too, the old saw: Amatuers study tactics; professionals
study logistics. There is no way the KM could have protected the sea
lift necessary to make any invasion possible.

Of course we see these things with the aid of 20/20 hindsight. At the
time I suspect there was more "fog of war" involved in decision
making.

There was a fair amount of realism on the German side: the Kriegsmarine
were trying to get out of the operation, or to make sure that if it
happened its failure wasn't their fault. The Army leapt at it, then
tried to leap back as they realised it was more than just an opposed
river crossing. The Luftwaffe is more complex and you wonder how much of
their planning and politicking depended on Goering's morphine intake on
any given day...

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
{snip}


I was told the Nazi's could have easily taken England, no sweat.
What saved England is Hitler didn't write up an invasion in Mein
Kampf, if he had a pencil and added footnotes, Brits would be
goose-stepping and the Scots would be wearing underwear.
Ken

A country can have a big army or a big navy but not both. (Britain
is still paying for the Napoleonic Wars when she tried having both.)
To invade Britain a country needs both. Germany had a big army but only
a medium sized navy. With war in France, Scandinavia and later USSR
Germany could not deploy a large number of troops against Britain for
long. Germany's air force was not significantly larger than Britain's
so it could not be used as an equaliser. The Empire gave Britain
a big advantage in man power and resources that could not be bombed.
Once the UK had chosen to fight a long war to even draw with Britain
Germany would have had to give up its plans to conquer eastern Europe.
There is no easy German victory there.

Andrew Swallow

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Mar 17, 4:31*pm, Peter Skelton wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Chris



wrote:
On Mar 17, 7:38 am, Jim Wilkins wrote:

In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?

They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.

The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
for the RN submarines.

They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo. The RN did not muster
subs in or near the channel, they had better use for them
elsewhere.

Peter Skelton

I still say a spread across the opening in the anti-submarine nets as
the first tow boat emerges would put a major bend in the German desire
to finish the game. Just make an explosive noise somewhere a head of
the bulk of the force.

That or die in the mine field every base was protected with.


Peter Skelton

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:43:32 -0400, Bill Kambic
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:31:00 -0400, Peter Skelton
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:

On Mar 17, 7:38*am, Jim Wilkins wrote:

In the presence of U-Boote how would British subs communicate that
they were friendly to attacking British destroyers?

They wouldn't be able to. However, it is very unlikely that the
British destroyers would be worrying that much about U-boats. Their
best defense against U-boats would be speed: by moving fast (which
they will want to do anyway to avoid all those Luftwaffe planes, to
find and bring to battle the KM forces, and even to tip over the
invasion barges with their bow waves) they won't give submerged
submarines much of a chance to get into position: unless the submarine
is already in the correct position they won't be able to engage.

The KM invasion forces, on the other hand, will be tied to the 3-4
knot invasion barges, so there will be a lot of slow, tempting targets
for the RN submarines.

They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo. The RN did not muster
subs in or near the channel, they had better use for them
elsewhere.

Peter Skelton

Wouldn't it take a particularly stupid admiral to try and use subs as
an invasion barge escort?

rather

Also, while barges were a critical lift, there were also a fair number
of larger, coastal trade vessels that would have to be pressed into
service to carry the heavy stuff, including supplies of fuel. These
would have made fine targets for RN subs.

And land the stuff how?

The U-Boat force would not be messing around with barges in the
Channel. They'd be setting up to intercept the Home Fleet as it came
south to "welcome" the invasion force.

The Home Fleet was not expected to do much against an invasion.
It would arrive after the destruction had been done.
ANti-invasion was small ship work.

Remember, too, the old saw: Amatuers study tactics; professionals
study logistics. There is no way the KM could have protected the sea
lift necessary to make any invasion possible.

Of course we see these things with the aid of 20/20 hindsight. At the
time I suspect there was more "fog of war" involved in decision
making.


Peter Skelton

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:

On Mar 17, 4:31*pm, Peter Skelton wrote:

They'll have to surface and use their guns. Not much of the
invasion fleet was big enough to torpedo.

The barges + tugs certainly weren't, but there would be a fair number
of coasters and the like that would certainly detonate a torpedo if
hit. And in a Sealion scenario, I can see putting everything the RN
has out there for the fight. No sense in giving the Germans even a 1%
chance of success...

We know what the RN did. It did not keep a force of subs within
anti-invasion range.

Peter Skelton

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:48:13 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Bill Kambic
writes
Remember, too, the old saw: Amatuers study tactics; professionals
study logistics. There is no way the KM could have protected the sea
lift necessary to make any invasion possible.

Of course we see these things with the aid of 20/20 hindsight. At the
time I suspect there was more "fog of war" involved in decision
making.

There was a fair amount of realism on the German side: the Kriegsmarine
were trying to get out of the operation, or to make sure that if it
happened its failure wasn't their fault. The Army leapt at it, then
tried to leap back as they realised it was more than just an opposed
river crossing. The Luftwaffe is more complex and you wonder how much of
their planning and politicking depended on Goering's morphine intake on
any given day...

Indeed.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:12:54 -0400, Peter Skelton
wrote:

Wouldn't it take a particularly stupid admiral to try and use subs as
an invasion barge escort?

rather

Also, while barges were a critical lift, there were also a fair number
of larger, coastal trade vessels that would have to be pressed into
service to carry the heavy stuff, including supplies of fuel. These
would have made fine targets for RN subs.

And land the stuff how?

Siezing appropriate channel ports undamged. Paratroopers, likely. Or
maybe some form of "commando" force.

That would be the plan. Execution of the plan might be problematical.

The U-Boat force would not be messing around with barges in the
Channel. They'd be setting up to intercept the Home Fleet as it came
south to "welcome" the invasion force.

The Home Fleet was not expected to do much against an invasion.
It would arrive after the destruction had been done.
ANti-invasion was small ship work.

No, not really. Anti-invasion work is work for whatever you have. If
Taffy Three had not shown hyper-aggressivness there would have been a
very painful demonstration of just how effective large ships can be in
an anti-invasion role.

Bill Kambic wrote:
{snip}


No, not really. Anti-invasion work is work for whatever you have. If
Taffy Three had not shown hyper-aggressivness there would have been a
very painful demonstration of just how effective large ships can be in
an anti-invasion role.


As in examples such as single British warships taking out entire army
regiments without losing a single man?

Trench warfare where no-mans land is 30 miles wide. Where German tanks
and artillery are not allowed to fire back.

Andrew Swallow