UK-France Defence Treaties
- Thread starter The Dread Pirate
- Start date
. Also can the French army go on strike?
So we'll just talk rubbish anyway and completely ignore what I said?
Who in their right mind is going to send landing craft when there are enemy ships about?
Had it not been for the RAF, we would have lost all important air supremacy in the channel and coast. This would have resulted in German control of the seas, be it immediately or after prolonged naval engagements.
Eventially, the debatable bit, landing craft would be crossing unopposed. It wasn't a question of if.
What about Hitler's insanity and insistence on undertaking Operation Barbarossa? Was the Battle of Britain not just to distract from that?
I remember reading that Hitler was advised against invading Russia, as it's one can never win a war fought on two fronts. Hitler replied that it wouldn't be, as he had no intention of invading the UK.
British Imperialism, not English.
British Culture, not English.
Oh, and France didn't 'hold' back British Imperialism either, both the British and French were competing empires along with the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese among others.
There was not some 'good guy' French resistance to the encroachment of the 'evil' British Empire, they were competitors.
Last edited:
Not the only bar, a nice little invention called RADAR helped somewhat.
So we'll just talk rubbish anyway and completely ignore what I said?
You seem to manage it just fine with other people.
Exaclty and since the Luftwaffe wouldn't be able to sink enough of the Royal Navy to enable the Kreigsmarine to safely escort the landing craft then the invasion's off.
How are the german aircraft going to engage fast moving MTBs at night with no guided munitions & night sights?
Far from it.
Agreed, let the French pay toward our defence for a change...as long as they can find the keys for the Charles de Gaulle carriers reactor anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
It's irrelevant. How long would the royal navy have held out with the ports cut off and no communications with command after the german paras had landed and captured all strategic positions due to lack of experienced soldiers to oppose them?
The joint anglo-french defence of the beach at Dunkirk and the selfless sacrifice of the majority of the encircled French soldiers who knew they were not going anywhere is what kept us in the war at the outset.
Last edited:
Who was going to be able to cut off all the ports along the south coast?
How long would lightly armed German Para's have lasted without no heavy weapons, air support or realistic change of re-supply once the ammunition they parachuted in with was expended(providing of course they lasted long enough to use it) in one of the two most militarised countried on earth at the time?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
german paras captured the supposedly un-assailable danish fort on Masnedo island, the Fallschirmjagers first op of the war. with our vetarans cut off and destroyed in dunkirk we would have had a hard fought battle to stop the green devils accomplishing their objectives.
if you cut off the head the body will die, without direction and orders the various bodies of military would be fighting isolated battles with uncoordinated support, you can't win those kinds of battles, it would have been sporadic at best.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
And row.... row... row.... row... row...Agreed, let the French pay toward our defence for a change...as long as they can find the keys for the Charles de Gaulle carriers reactor anyway.
Could work?
Had the RAF lost the battle of Britain, the whole British army would still be in England.
There was actually an interesting program I watched where they assumed we did lose, and mocked up an invasion of Britain.
They used a lot of resources to try and make it as accurate as possible, they came to the conclusion that we would have stopped the German invasion just before it reached London. Remember that in the run up there had been a great deal of defenses built, and we were well on the way to making the country into a fortress.
Of course, we could debate this all day and nobody will ever be correct. Its interesting to think that it might have actually ended the war a lot sooner had they gone ahead and attempted an invasion though.
I personally dont think Hitler would have been patient enough to wait for the Royal Navy to be put out of the game. I think the second he got air supperiority, and as soon as he had a clear path to England, he would have gone for it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
it's true, but the programme (i believe i watched the same one) was only based on the destruction of the RAF, it assumed that the events leading up to the battle of britain (lacking the 330,000 troops that were rescued from dunkirk could have changed history irreversibly) had been the same, but you are right, it could be debated all day and never go anywhere (nor will it go anywhere, it is, after all, in the past).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,184
- Location
- London
"Dr Andrew Gordon, the head of maritime history at the staff college, said it was "hogwash" to suggest that Germany failed to invade in 1940 "because of what was done by the phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command".
"The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The Navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet - destroyers' speed alone would have swamped the barges by their wash."
Even if the RAF had been defeated the fleet would still have been able to defeat any invasion because fast ships at sea could easily manoeuvre and "were pretty safe from air attack".
While admitting it was an "extremely sensitive subject", Dr Christina Goulter, the air warfare historian, supported the argument. "While it would be wrong to deny the contribution of Fighter Command, I agree largely that it was the Navy that held the Germans from invading," she said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html
"The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The Navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet - destroyers' speed alone would have swamped the barges by their wash."
Even if the RAF had been defeated the fleet would still have been able to defeat any invasion because fast ships at sea could easily manoeuvre and "were pretty safe from air attack".
While admitting it was an "extremely sensitive subject", Dr Christina Goulter, the air warfare historian, supported the argument. "While it would be wrong to deny the contribution of Fighter Command, I agree largely that it was the Navy that held the Germans from invading," she said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,184
- Location
- London
my favourite bit:
""As the German general Jodl put it, so long as the British Navy existed, an invasion would be to send 'my troops into a mincing machine'." "
from the above link....and an extremely well known quote to any maritime / military historian.
""As the German general Jodl put it, so long as the British Navy existed, an invasion would be to send 'my troops into a mincing machine'." "
from the above link....and an extremely well known quote to any maritime / military historian.
Isn't this Anglo-Franco hatred spurred on by prancing people like Charles de Gaulle's ego during WW2 and the fact (?) that despite the Brits erecting a staure to him, the French haven't honoured Churchill in the same way?
I heard this a while back so have no idea about it real veracity.
I heard this a while back so have no idea about it real veracity.