Hitler and Sung Tsu

[samneanderthal]

Hi Monty B,
The Italian navy did pretty well and the British navy and army quite badly in Crete. The Italian navy managed to supply Rommel, despite the RN and RAF and although Hitler was sending most of the equipment, fuel, ammunition, etc, to the USSR and little was destined for Rommel.
The main disadvantage of the italian navy was the lack of radar, which should have been corrected by Hitler.
Like I said, without Malta and Alexandria the RN would have been pretty useless in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Imperial navy won all the battles up to the Coral Sea. It forced the British navy to abandon the eastern Indian Ocean, running all the way to Kenya. The British were only able to sail relatively safely in parts of the eastern Indian ocean (far from Burma and East India) when the Japanese withdrew their carrier after the Doolittle raid. In 1939 it was far superior to the British navy and together with the Italian navy and LW could have easily kept the RN away from the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Had Guderian not lived, the Panzer force would have been much weaker, France would have taken at least 6 more months to fall and at a much higher cost and the eastern front would have collapsed at least a year before. Although he was despised by Hitler, Halder, Bock, Kluge, etc, and out of work for a while, he managed to advance more with fewer resources and in a shorter time and against more formidable forces than any other general and then in coordination with Speer made considerable contributions to the fighting effectiveness of the Wehrmacht, despite having to fight Hitler, Himmler, Göring, the artillery officers, etc, constantly.
The famous Rommel was but an apprentice compared to Guderian.
Hitler considered replacing Brauchitsch with Guderian in 1941 (a move which Stauffenberg supported) and it was fortunate for the allies that Hitler himself replaced Brauchitsch.
Besides Hitler, the biggest obstacle that Guderian faced was Göring, whom he considered so lazy that it was useless to talk to him, preferring to use even Göbbels to try to influence Hitler. Unfortunately for Guderian, the LW (and hence Göring) controlled even the production of the Panzers until Speer managed to put it under Guderian, but by then it was too late.
It is unbelievable that the laziest and not very bright nazi would be in charge of the most important LW (which also controlled most of the invaluable 88 mm cannon and some Panzer forces), economy, production, etc, for so long.

 

[George]

But they do have a sense of humor in battle: Waterloo, Sunday June 18 1815

With carnage all around, Wellington and Lord Uxbridge observed how the latter's leg had just been blown off: "By God, Sir. I've lost my leg." "By God, Sir. So you have."

"There seems to be something wrong with our Battle Cruisers today!"

 

[samneanderthal]

Armored artillery and penetration tactics were invented by Agbar the great, who mounted breech loading, steel cannon on rotating fixtures and on armored elephants centuries before Napoleon and Lee were using muzzle loading, bronze cannon with limited mobility. He also used high carbon steel muskets that were much superior to those use used in the west.

In a sense the 1918 German spring offensive was a Blitzkrieg that used airplanes and storm troops to break though the front, achieving in weeks what had not been achieved in years. But by then the Americans were in the war with fresh, well supplied and paid troops. Incredibly,more British troops died in 1918 than in the rest of the war.

 

[lljadw]

Sam is making progress (in making a fool of himself)by saying that the LW controlled the production of the Panzers

 

[lljadw]

Myths?
Their principles and writings that are universally recognized and used today in several military academies. On what do you base these myths.

Charles de Gaulle was one of the pioneers of modern armored warfare. His writings, Vers l'armée de métier from 1934 defended the idea of a small professional army, highly mechanized and mobile, in preference to the static theories exemplified by the Maginot Line, although initially ignored, it eventually led to his assuming command of the newly-created French 4th Mechanized Division in May, 1940.

De Gaulle's concept called for forming a mechanized corps of six divisions plus a light division consisting of armored and motorized elements. The division was to include an armored brigade composed of a heavy tank regiment, a medium tank regiment, and a battalion of light tanks. The second brigade was to include two infantry regiments and a battalion of chasseurs, all mounted in tracked vehicles. There was an artillery brigade with two regiments of howitzers and an antiaircraft group. Finally, the division was to include a reconnaissance regiment, an engineer battalion, a signal battalion, and a camouflage battalion. De Gaulle's proposed division was a relatively balanced force of combined arms, intended for the offense based on the strength of its armored vehicles and not the foot soldiers. His light division was to serve as an advance force with faster vehicles. He also proposed an air element to support operations and create a truly combined arms force.

By the time the war began, the Germans had created a force of several armored divisions similar to what de Gaulle had wanted, but Guderian and others did not agree with de Gaulle on concentrating a force of 3,000 tanks for a front of about fifty kilometers.


In the military realm, Liddell Hart’s theories about mechanised warfare, mobility, surprise attack and air warfare developed during the 1920s and 1930s were put into practice in World War II initially, and with great effectiveness, by the Germans with the blitzkrieg offensives. His enemies acknowledged their debt. General Heinz Guderian during the war said "I was one of Captain Liddell Hart’s disciples in tank affairs." And Field Marshal Erwin Rommel opined that "The British would have been able to prevent the greatest part of their defeats if they had paid attention to the modern theories expounded by Liddell Hart before the war."

What Guderian said after the war,was at the instigation of LH,who wrote the following to Guderian :
"you might care to insert a remark (in the English translation of Panzerleader)that I emphasized the use of armoured forces for longrange operations against the opposing Army's communications,and also the proposed type of armoured division combining Paner and Panzer-infantry units-AND THAT THESE POINTS PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED YOU."
Guderian did as requested.(a copy of the letter has been found by K.Macksey)
Liddell Hart used the same method with the widow of Rommel,and with Manstein.
LH has been accused of deceit ,tendentious report of history and of a fabricated version of history ,and of distorting and falsifying facts .
Before WWII,his influence was very limited.This changed after the war,by his using of sneaking methods,and by his writing of a modern version of the Tales of Baron von Munchhausen :the German generals talk (it could be written by Sam)
And about DeGaulle :his proposed division was not a balanced form of combined arms :he proposed something that never could work :a panzerdivision of 500 tanks .

 

[MontyB]

Hi Monty B,
The Italian navy did pretty well and the British navy and army quite badly in Crete. The Italian navy managed to supply Rommel, despite the RN and RAF and although Hitler was sending most of the equipment, fuel, ammunition, etc, to the USSR and little was destined for Rommel.
The main disadvantage of the italian navy was the lack of radar, which should have been corrected by Hitler.
Like I said, without Malta and Alexandria the RN would have been pretty useless in the eastern Mediterranean.

No offence but you are seriously maligning the Royal Navy here, in Greece and Crete the RN managed to execute two major evacuations under constant attack and they did it very effectively.

At Cape Spatha, a British naval task force prevented reinforcments arriving sinking both troop transports and its Italian escorts which in turn prevented any further attempt to land troops by ship on the island.

Say what you like but the RN of all the branches in the British armed forces performed very well in the first few years of the war when things looked rather bleak for the UK and this especially goes for its Destroyer forces who sacrificed a lot to rescue troops in evacuations, recover prisoners (Altmark/Cossack incident) or extract an Enigma and its code books (HMS Bulldog).

As for the bit about Malta and Alexandria I agree without ports a Navy is generally not going to do well but your comment is misleading as using the same logic I could say without airfields in England the RAF would have been ineffective over southern England.

The Imperial navy won all the battles up to the Coral Sea. It forced the British navy to abandon the eastern Indian Ocean, running all the way to Kenya. The British were only able to sail relatively safely in parts of the eastern Indian ocean (far from Burma and East India) when the Japanese withdrew their carrier after the Doolittle raid. In 1939 it was far superior to the British navy and together with the Italian navy and LW could have easily kept the RN away from the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

umm sorry the Japanese navy in the Red Sea now, I assume they were going to sail up the Suez (but only at night so the British wouldn't see them), as for the Italians well the best thing they could have done for the German war effort would have been to join the Allied cause as they were nothing more than a millstone around the neck of the Germans.

Had Guderian not lived, the Panzer force would have been much weaker, France would have taken at least 6 more months to fall and at a much higher cost and the eastern front would have collapsed at least a year before. Although he was despised by Hitler, Halder, Bock, Kluge, etc, and out of work for a while, he managed to advance more with fewer resources and in a shorter time and against more formidable forces than any other general and then in coordination with Speer made considerable contributions to the fighting effectiveness of the Wehrmacht, despite having to fight Hitler, Himmler, Göring, the artillery officers, etc, constantly.

How do you know this, Guderian was rather a late comer to the armoured scene had it not been for the likes of Volckheim, von Fritsch, von Blomberg, Wilhelm Brandt, von Altrock, von Seeckt, Ludwig von Radlmeier, Heigl, Lutz all of whom were shaping the future of German armoured doctrine, training and vehicle development 5-10 years before Guderian even saw a tank, without these men the German armoured force of 1939 would have been vastly different.

In my opinion if you want to see the true father of the German armoured forces go find out more about Ernst Volckheim.

 

[VDKMS]

"There seems to be something wrong with our Battle Cruisers today!"

Who's quote was that?

 

[MontyB]

Who's quote was that?

Admiral David Beatty said it to his flag captain Alfred Chatfield on the bridge of HMS Lion during the Battle of Jutland after hearing the news that the Princess Royal had exploded although apparently he just said "there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

 

[lolwhassup]

The truth is that Guderian can not be said to be the father of Blitzkrieg. He studied and translated the works of Basil Henry Liddell Hart and Charles de Gaulle and most specifically John Frederick Charles Fuller which is considered as the inventor of mechanized warfare techniques. Fuller collaborated with Hart in developing these ideas. These ideas were not implemented in England but ironically they did in Germany notably by Heinz Guderian. His book Achtung - Panzer! is largely based on the theories of Fuller. Not a direct copy (he refined some of these theories) but much of his work is strongly based on Fuller, Hart and also to a lesser degree on Charles de Gaulle.

On a side note, an obscure fact that many don't know is that J.F.C. Fuller also collaborated with an American General named Frank Parker in the early 1920's. Parker had similar ideas on mobile warfare with Fuller and both of their ideas were ahead of their time and went well unnoticed in the U.S. military.

Source: Through Mobility We Conquer, The mechanization of U.S. Cavalry by George F. Hofmann

 

[MontyB]

On a side note, an obscure fact that many don't know is that J.F.C. Fuller also collaborated with an American General named Frank Parker in the early 1920's. Parker had similar ideas on mobile warfare with Fuller and both of their ideas were ahead of their time and went well unnoticed in the U.S. military.

Source: Through Mobility We Conquer, The mechanization of U.S. Cavalry by George F. Hofmann

Indeed and one of the guys that spent a lot of time in the USA studying American armoured car tactics and doctrine in the early 1920s was Major Ritter Ludwig von Radlmeier who later became Generalleutnant Ludwig Ritter von Radlmeier who went on to command the 4th Panzer Division.

 

[samneanderthal]

I don't think in 1939-41 the RN did nearly as well as the much smaller KM or as the Imperial navy, losing the Royal Oak in its base, an aircraft carrier to cannon in Norway, allowing German torpedo boats to sneak in and sink ships in Dunkirk, where they lost so many destroyers that Roosevelt had to send 50 WW I destroyers. It simply does not make sense that the largest navy in the world would depend on old American destroyers for several months.
The carriers, its most expensive and important weapon had obsolete planes, the ships had inferior artillery and radar to that of the Germans (relatively new comers in ship, heavy artillery and radar design).
The simple fact that the lone Bismarck required two torpedo plane attacks and a whole fleet which launched 2,800 shells, 700 of which were 14" to 16" and only 4 of the latter hit the ship and dozens of torpedoes to be sunk says a lot about the capabilities of the RN, as does the trouncing in the Pacific by a small nation discounted as primitive by the mighty British Empire.

 

[MontyB]

I don't think in 1939-41 the RN did nearly as well as the much smaller KM or as the Imperial navy, losing the Royal Oak in its base, an aircraft carrier to cannon in Norway, allowing German torpedo boats to sneak in and sink ships in Dunkirk, where they lost so many destroyers that Roosevelt had to send 50 WW I destroyers. It simply does not make sense that the largest navy in the world would depend on old American destroyers for several months.
The carriers, its most expensive and important weapon had obsolete planes, the ships had inferior artillery and radar to that of the Germans (relatively new comers in ship, heavy artillery and radar design).
The simple fact that the lone Bismarck required two torpedo plane attacks and a whole fleet which launched 2,800 shells, 700 of which were 14" to 16" and only 4 of the latter hit the ship and dozens of torpedoes to be sunk says a lot about the capabilities of the RN, as does the trouncing in the Pacific by a small nation discounted as primitive by the mighty British Empire.

I was reading something the other day about the Battle of the Denmark Straights which put forward a theory that it was a shell from the Prinz Eugen and not the Bismarck that sunk the Hood.

Now on to Dunkirk:
Destroyer Losses Britain 29th May - 1 June 1940:
HMS Grenade H-86 (G Class Destroyer) Sunk by air attack
HMS Wakeful H-88 (W Class Destroyer) Sunk Torpedoed by E-Boat.
HMS Grafton H-89 (G Class Destroyer) Sunk by U-62
HMS Basilisk H-11 (B Class Destroyer) Heavily damaged by air, sunk by HMS Whitehall to prevent capture.
HMS Havant H-32 (H Class Destroyer) Heavily damaged by air and scuttled by HMS Saltash after a failed recovery attempt.
HMS Keith D-06 (B Class Destroyer) Sunk by air attack.

Total British Destroyers lost at Dunkirk = 6

Now I think the Home Fleet had 85-90 Destroyers available to it in June 1940 so while I am sure it missed those 6 ships the losses were far from catastrophic so now we move on to the 50 US destroyers which were loaned by Roosevelt as part of the Destroyers for Bases deal and used primarily for convoy escort duty to free up the newer Destroyers for other operations.

Here is a good little write up on the deal...

Destroyers for Bases Agreement

The Destroyers for Bases Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, September 2, 1940, transferred 50 obsolete destroyers from the United States Navy in exchange for land rights on British possessions.
1 Background
For the United Kingdom, the Second World War started in September 1939 and after the brief non-events of the Phony War, the Battle of France saw France and the Low Countries overrun with Nazi German Blitzkrieg. This left the United Kingdom and her Empire standing alone against Hitler.

The United States was sympathetic to the British cause, though they officially following the policy of isolationism, and were constrained by elections. The British were in immediate need of ships; they took long to build and were now facing the Second Battle of the Atlantic in which German U-boats threatened Britain's supplies of food and other resources.

2 The deal
The British Ambassador, the Marquess of Lothian, sent a request to the United States Secretary of State, Cordell Hull. Who returned a positive response on September 2.

In exchange for "naval and military equipment and material" the US was granted land for the establishment of naval or air bases, on 99-year rent-free leases, on:

Avalon Peninsula
South and eastern coasts of Newfoundland
Great Bay of Bermuda
Eastern side of the Bahamas
Southern coast of Jamaica
Western coast of St. Lucia,
West coast of Trinidad
Gulf of Paria,
Antigua — Antigua Air Station
British Guiana within fifty miles of Georgetown.
The US were allowed all the rights, power, and authority within the bases leased.

The US accepted the "generous action... to enhance the national security of the United States" and immediately transferred fifty United States Navy' destroyers "generally referred to as the twelve hundred-ton type." Forty-three went to the Royal Navy and seven to the Royal Canadian Navy.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Destroyers:for:Bases:Agreement.htm

 

[George]

I was reading something the other day about the Battle of the Denmark Straights which put forward a theory that it was a shell from the Prinz Eugen and not the Bismarck that sunk the Hood.

Now on to Dunkirk:
Destroyer Losses Britain 29th May - 1 June 1940:
HMS Grenade H-86 (G Class Destroyer) Sunk by air attack
HMS Wakeful H-88 (W Class Destroyer) Sunk Torpedoed by E-Boat.
HMS Grafton H-89 (G Class Destroyer) Sunk by U-62
HMS Basilisk H-11 (B Class Destroyer) Heavily damaged by air, sunk by HMS Whitehall to prevent capture.
HMS Havant H-32 (H Class Destroyer) Heavily damaged by air and scuttled by HMS Saltash after a failed recovery attempt.
HMS Keith D-06 (B Class Destroyer) Sunk by air attack.

Total British Destroyers lost at Dunkirk = 6

Now I think the Home Fleet had 85-90 Destroyers available to it in June 1940 so while I am sure it missed those 6 ships the losses were far from catastrophic so now we move on to the 50 US destroyers which were loaned by Roosevelt as part of the Destroyers for Bases deal and used primarily for convoy escort duty to free up the newer Destroyers for other operations.

Here is a good little write up on the deal...



http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Destroyers:for:Bases:Agreement.htm

One ref says R.N. had 184 DD @ the beginning of the War. One year later 21 new DD added & 34 sunk reducing number to 171, but half of those in dockyards due to damage from various sources. 16 damaged in Norway & a further 16 during Dunkirk. This would seem to leave apx 50 in service, so 50 flush deckers was a substantial reenforcement.

 

[MontyB]

One ref says R.N. had 184 DD @ the beginning of the War. One year later 21 new DD added & 34 sunk reducing number to 171, but half of those in dockyards due to damage from various sources. 16 damaged in Norway & a further 16 during Dunkirk. This would seem to leave apx 50 in service, so 50 flush deckers was a substantial reenforcement.

Yep but I suspect you will find that the 184 Destroyers was the total for the RN and they were spread out world wide the only Destroyers in action at Dunkirk were the ones attached to the Home Fleet of which they lost 6 and I have no doubt a further 16 were damaged there as well either way those losses are still not catastrophic.

But still the 50 replacement "obsolete" destroyers from the US were earmarked for convoy defence on the Atlantic routes allowing the RN to maintain its combat efficiency.

 

[samneanderthal]

The few foreign destroyers (Polish, Dutch, etc) were also very helpful excorts for convoys, etc, in 1940. The supposedly mighty RN was rather ill equipped and used.

 

[MontyB]

One ref says R.N. had 184 DD @ the beginning of the War. One year later 21 new DD added & 34 sunk reducing number to 171, but half of those in dockyards due to damage from various sources. 16 damaged in Norway & a further 16 during Dunkirk. This would seem to leave apx 50 in service, so 50 flush deckers was a substantial reenforcement.

I think I can finally give you fairly accurate numbers...

In early June 1940 the Home Fleet consisted of:

127 Destroyers.
22 Of them were being repaired.
4 More were being refitted.

Further to this attached to the Home Fleet were:
2 Norwegian Destroyers
1 Dutch Destroyer
2 Polish Destroyers both of whom were under repair until mid July.
5 Canadian Destroyers 1 of which was refitting.

Destroyers that were due back in service within 10 days I recorded as fit for service so they are not counted in the damaged numbers, this number includes Destroyer Escorts.

 

[George]

Admiral David Beatty said it to his flag captain Alfred Chatfield on the bridge of HMS Lion during the Battle of Jutland after hearing the news that the Princess Royal had exploded although apparently he just said "there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

Looks like you got the quote correct, but it was after Indefagitable & Queen Mary blew up...

 

[MontyB]

Looks like you got the quote correct, but it was after Indefagitable & Queen Mary blew up...

Fair enough.

Here is the information I had used...

The loss of Queen Mary left Beatty stunned. He had engaged Hipper fully confident of his numerical superiority of six battlecruisers to the German five. Now within the space of three quarters of an hour he had lost two of them. No sooner had the report of Queen Mary’s destruction reached him than Princess Royal was engulfed in a torrent of shell splashes that completely hid her from view, and a signalman on Lion’s bridge reported in dismay, “Princess Royal blown up, sir!” Nonplussed, Beatty turned to Captain Chatfield and blurted out, “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!” Just then Princess Royal steamed out of the splashes, smoke, and spray and spat a broadside at Moltke.

http://warandgame.com/2011/06/04/“there’s-something-wrong-with-our-bloody-ships-today”-part-ii/

 

[samneanderthal]

The Polish destroyer Grom had just been lost in Narvik also in June 1940 and the French navy was still in the game but would soon drop out, making a big difference.

 

[42RM]

Are there are any limits on how many stupidities the British Empire has committed?

Britain was central to Allied victory in World War II. Some British contributions: The Royal Air Force defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle Of Britain (1940/41), thus destroying the myth of Germany's invincibility. Southern England was the staging ground for D-Day. If Britain had fallen to the Nazis, there would have been no springboard to invade Normandy and ultimately defeat Hitler. Britain supplied and trained resistance movements all over Europe. British commandoes wreaked havoc on German submarine bases and other communication and supply lines. British, ANZAC and South African troops first drove the Italians out of North Africa and then defeated the Germans at El Alamein in 1942. The Axis defeat in North Africa provided the opportunity for the invasion of Europe via Italy as the newly-arrived American troops joined forces with the British and colonial soldiers. British and Indian forces tied up the Imperial Japanese Army in Burma for the duration of the war. ​

Britain's airborne divisions shared the responsibility for vital pre-D Day landings with the US. British airborne troops of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry captured the key Pegasus bridge the night before the Normandy invasion - renowned US military historian Stephen E Ambrose believes the invasion might have failed without this.
British and Canadian soldiers were responsible for Gold, Sword and Juno beaches on D-Day June 6 1944. ​

British commando and long-range recconaissance troops were the pre-cursors of modern-day special forces and fought successfully behind the lines on many fronts. The Royal Navy captured a German submarine carrying an Enigma coding machine which enabled the Allies to decipher German radio traffic. ​

It is incorrect to consider the British as minor allies of the United States in WWII. That perception is a modern one, brought about no doubt by Britain's relative military insignificance today. Britain's imperial power was on the wane when the war started but she still commanded vast resources, notably the allegiance of the soldiers of the Empire: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and India. Britain was the mainstay of the struggle against the Nazis for two years before America entered the war. America would certainly not have defeated the Nazis on her own, while Britain would most likely have eventually been forced into a treaty with Hitler if America had not supplied her with money and weapons and later entered the war. ​