La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 To invade, Hitler need air superiority.Sealions sucess would have relied on that. In addition, IMPO I think he realised his surface fleet would never be a match hence the decision to go instead for the U Boat campaign. As I was saying, not necessarily. Success ultimately depended on eliminating the Royal Navy, not just achieving air superiority. In such a way, it was the Royal Navy that was the decider of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 To invade, Hitler need air superiority.Sealions sucess would have relied on that. In addition, IMPO I think he realised his surface fleet would never be a match hence the decision to go instead for the U Boat campaign. As I was saying, not necessarily. Success ultimately depended on eliminating the Royal Navy, not just achieving air superiority. In such a way, it was the Royal Navy that was the decider of success. no u had to have both to complete it, if the uk had air superiority and no navy it still coulden have been done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 no u had to have both to complete it, if the uk had air superiority and no navy it still coulden have been done If Britain didn't have air superiority or more precisely could offer no opposition whatsoever then it would offer the Luftwaffe the ability to target the the ports and destroy the ships, but this would have been easy! Successfully bombing small ships whilst avoiding anti-aircraft gunfire would have been difficult and would have taken a long time. Overall, Operation Sealion had little chance of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 Going slightly off tangent here. Just think, a small nuke in the channel would have made things rather awkward. And just think if they'd had them. Scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 LDV, how the hell did you become a expert on strategy ? I though you where more a thinker than a fighter...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I am grateful to him and his ilk, Very bizarre idea to be grateful in respect of WW1. But this guy earns my respect (or more my recognition and interest) in leading such a colourful life during those times. Oh right, but this old fella who has just died passed away fought in WW1, not WW2. LDV he may not have fught in ww2 but he did his bit to fight To invade, Hitler need air superiority.Sealions sucess would have relied on that. In addition, IMPO I think he realised his surface fleet would never be a match hence the decision to go instead for the U Boat campaign. As I was saying, not necessarily. Success ultimately depended on eliminating the Royal Navy, not just achieving air superiority. In such a way, it was the Royal Navy that was the decider of success. Going slightly off tangent here. Just think, a small nuke in the channel would have made things rather awkward. And just think if they'd had them. Scary. Pakistan under Taliban / extreme Musilm rule... scary.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 LDV, how the hell did you become a expert on strategy ? I though you where more a thinker than a fighter...lol Well you have to think to be a strategist and strategists aren't fighters. I am no strategist, I am only refering to strategy in WW2. I've undertaken strategic studies at university, so have touched upon this aspect of WW2 on some occasions in respect to naval warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 LDV, how the hell did you become a expert on strategy ? I though you where more a thinker than a fighter...lol Well you have to think to be a strategist and strategists aren't fighters. I am no strategist, I am only refering to strategy in WW2. I've undertaken strategic studies at university, so have touched upon this aspect of WW2 on some occasions in respect to naval warfare. arrr fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 How the fuck did a tribute to one of the last survivors of WWI turn into a totally inane discussion of WWII? And how does it end up with LDV being called 'a thinker?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 BBC news 503 just finished televising the funeral. A good send off for the gentleman. RIP http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8175751.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 How the fuck did a tribute to one of the last survivors of WWI turn into a totally inane discussion of WWII?And how does it end up with LDV being called 'a thinker?' Because he watches the Military History channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 How the fuck did a tribute to one of the last survivors of WWI turn into a totally inane discussion of WWII?And how does it end up with LDV being called 'a thinker?' Suppose i am partially to blame, just his posting about stuff he knows only from books, riles me and so i have to argue against him. any way back on thread. RIP Old Fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Suppose i am partially to blame, just his posting about stuff he knows only from books, riles me and so i have to argue against him. Can you not see the sillyness of your point of view. This is a political discussion about the military. Matters and credibility of opinions relating to the military are not the preserve of the military. Public perceptions of the situation for soldiers in WW1 is not something that only a military person can credibly comment on. If we were talking about a 'day in the life' of a WW1 soldiers and what it is really like then it is another matter. But we're not. I am talking about the inhumane, patriotic, propaganda rubbish that emanates from government and is placed in the media. It completely distorts the reasons for the war, how these men entered into this conflict, and what their thoughts on it were (unless of course they didn't get chance to comment on this having been killed in that war) If you want I can try and organise a seance with Kitchener, French, Nivelle, Falkenhayn, Fisher, and a bunch of British tommies and let you know what they think about how this generation is remembered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Suppose i am partially to blame, just his posting about stuff he knows only from books, riles me and so i have to argue against him. Can you not see the sillyness of your point of view. This is a political discussion about the military. Matters and credibility of opinions relating to the military are not the preserve of the military. Public perceptions of the situation for soldiers in WW1 is not something that only a military person can credibly comment on. If we were talking about a 'day in the life' of a WW1 soldiers and what it is really like then it is another matter. But we're not. I am talking about the inhumane, patriotic, propaganda rubbish that emanates from government and is placed in the media. It completely distorts the reasons for the war, how these men entered into this conflict, and what their thoughts on it were (unless of course they didn't get chance to comment on this having been killed in that war) If you want I can try and organise a seance with Kitchener, French, Nivelle, Falkenhayn, Fisher, and a bunch of British tommies and let you know what they think about how this generation is remembered. I was not talking about this thread par-se... all I ever hear from you on these militry threads is the be-littlment of the efforts of the service men and women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I was not talking about this thread par-se... all I ever hear from you on these militry threads is the be-littlment of the efforts of the service men and women. Depends on what instances you are talking about. I may disagree with the motives and behaviour of the military, but in this I am complaining about the lies that distorted views of the servicemen in WW1. If you want to have a view and understanding of WW1 distorted by patriotic attitudes to war, then that is up to you. That is your understanding. But I would prefer to remember those who have died with some idea of the truth behind their situation and not with drivel about them making sacrifice and being representative of noble qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.