Rich Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 II/StG 1 was based at Pas-de-Calais. Isn't this Northern France? II/StG 1 was part of the II FK. The the bulk of the Stuka strength in September was apparently with VIII FK. Why have you listed some Stuka units but not others? In checking sources, total Luftwaffe Stuka strength as of 1 October 1940 was around 375-400 aircraft. Why would Sealion would go in with 133? Rich says the other groups were training? Training for what? The invasion of the Moon? Sealion was intended to end the war. Just which "sources" did you "check" Glenn that said that "total Luftwaffe Stuka strength as of 1 October 1940 was around 375-400 aircraft"? Please stop with the strawman arguments Glenn. I did not say the Stuka units were simply "training". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 total Luftwaffe Stuka strength as of 1 October 1940 was around 375-400 aircraft.​Total a/c strength is irrelevant. What matters is how many are serviceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Bayerische Flugzeugewerke also changed name to Messerschmitt in 1938. As far as I can tell, "Bf-" may have been the official Reich Air Ministry designation, but "Me-" was more often used even in official documents. The aircraft were invariably called Messerschmitts by Allied personnel and the "Me-" prefix was normally used into the seventies for the 109 and 110. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam_S Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Agreed, but Sealion could never force the British to “surrender”. At some point moving north the front would stabilize and the Americans come in. In terms of North Africa, the Axis are using different resources there, (Italian navy), but the British are using the same Royal Navy, which if tied down in the Channel isn't as effectively protecting the SLOC in the Atlantic or Egypt. Remind me again, how big was the US Army in 1940? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kennedy Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 So what do you guys think would happen if the Allies attempted Operation Overlord in 1943? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 So what do you guys think would happen if the Allies attempted Operation Overlord in 1943?Berlin gets nuked in 1945.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 It would have placated Stalin at least. I think it gets ashore and contained, with the end result being more casualties for the Allies on the western front than historical. Southern France instead of the Italian campaign might have been an alternative option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 So what do you guys think would happen if the Allies attempted Operation Overlord in 1943?I recall lots of detail discussion about whether or not it was possible to launch that front in France sooner. That discussion was mostly spured from the angle of whether or not it was possible for the US and UK to open the front sooner so as to reduce the burden on the SU front or if there was a little of just letting the SU-and Nazi Germany bleed on each other before launching the front in France. IIRC, general conclusion was that the US/UK side weren't yet able too. War materials for it were not ready, for example, DD tanks were not even perfected by the historical D-Day in June 1944. Earlier would have seen less material available for the job. Another reason was that the US/UK side had some lessons learned the hard way in the war experience in 42/43 which helped them become more competent by 1944. Launching operation overload in 1943 would also be from the basis of less war lessons learned thus unlikely to have been execuited at a similar level of competence in the historical June 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Wasn't there a looong discussion on this grate site about a `1943 invasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Bayerische Flugzeugewerke also changed name to Messerschmitt in 1938. As far as I can tell, "Bf-" may have been the official Reich Air Ministry designation, but "Me-" was more often used even in official documents. The aircraft were invariably called Messerschmitts by Allied personnel and the "Me-" prefix was normally used into the seventies for the 109 and 110.Not exactly. Bayerische Flugzeugewerke, formed in 1916, became BMW in 1922, but a new Bayerische Flugzeugewerke AG was formed in 1926 from the former Udet-Flugzeugbau GmbH. Willi Meserschmitt became a board member and chief designer in 1928 and Bayerische Flugzeugewerke AG merged with Messerschmitt AG in 1938. However, the Generalflugzeugmeister continued to refer to the aircraft produced according to the pre-1938 company designation in the contracts. They also appear that way in the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen and Einsatzbereitschaft der Fliegenden Verbände throghout the war, although yes, they were colloquially referred to as Messerschmitt's as well...but that does not change what the correct designation was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kennedy Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Lol I will never troll again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Lol I will never troll againYeah dude, we kinda did that one to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 All Messerschmitt production after the Komet taking the Me designation is an elegant answer to the eternal question, if correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 There was also the designation 8-109. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 It's good to know the official designation, but if the unofficial one is used almost to the exclusion of the "correct" one, then it isn't wrong to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 It's good to know the official designation, but if the unofficial one is used almost to the exclusion of the "correct" one, then it isn't wrong to use it. Uuuuh, careful there, unless you want to cal the M113 the Gavin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 It's good to know the official designation, but if the unofficial one is used almost to the exclusion of the "correct" one, then it isn't wrong to use it. Uuuuh, careful there, unless you want to cal the M113 the Gavin... Be doubly careful there unless you want to invoke the internet poster that no one dares mention their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) Ah, with the mention of the 'G@v1n', if only the Germans had thought just five years ahead of when they did...... A large number of Schutzenpanzerwagen auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen 38(t), with added flotation devices, should have been ready to carry an assault Seebattalion / marine infantry division or two across the Channel / Englisch-Kanal / Chaîne anglaise with relative ease and able to deal with any annoying straffing Spitfires / Hurricanes / Whirlwinds / Martlets / Tiger Moths. If the 'Hetzer' has been developed just five years earlier it could have also been floated across with the same flotation devices and dealt decisive blows against the British defences. By the way, where were the Seebattalion troops in the planning of Sealion? Edited February 15, 2020 by DougRichards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Seebataillone were a thing of pre-WW I and post-WW II. The Kriegsmarine initially had no infantry at all. A Marine-Stoßtruppkompanie was raised from III. Marine-Artillerieabteilung in 1938 and a reinforced platoon deployed to Spain on Deutschland with the mission to blow up a radio station on Ibiza. The company suffered heavy losses in the attack on the Westerplatte at Danzig in 1939 and later participated in the occupations of Gdynia (Gotenhafen), Drontheim and Narvik. The Norway campaign also saw several small Marine-Bataillone temporarily established under 3. Gebirgsdivision from the crews of sunk ships, mostly destroyers, to defend against counterattacks and ptotect the Iron Ore Line to Sweden. Earlier in 1940, a new Marine-Stoßtruppabteilung was raised in Gotenhafen. It participated in the conquest of Normandy and occupied the Channel Islands in the French campaign. For Barbarossa it was merged with Marine-Artillerieabteilung 530 and Marine-Erfassungsabteilung Wilhelmshaven and used as a battlegroup under Infanterieregiment 505, 291. Infanteriedivision, in the occupation of Libau, again with heavy losses. In summer 1941 it was used to fight partisans in Latvia, and after the Narva crossing deployed by companies for various coast protection missions. In early 1942, it was reorganized and renamed Marine-Artillerieabteilung 531, and remained engaged on the Eastern Front for the rest of the war. All subsequent major infantry formations of the Kriegsmarine were emergency establishments, particularly using surplus personnel of a shrinking fleet from late 1943 on. Source: Bernd Bölscher, Hitlers Marine im Landkriegseinsatz 1939-1945, Norderstedt 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Lol I will never troll again So do you think reactivating the Iowa class battleships would be a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 It's good to know the official designation, but if the unofficial one is used almost to the exclusion of the "correct" one, then it isn't wrong to use it. Uuuuh, careful there, unless you want to cal the M113 the Gavin... The difference is that just about everyone at the time called the Bf-109 the Me-109. No users officially or unofficially called a certain APC by the name we won't mention save ironically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) . Edited February 15, 2020 by R011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 It's good to know the official designation, but if the unofficial one is used almost to the exclusion of the "correct" one, then it isn't wrong to use it. Uuuuh, careful there, unless you want to cal the M113 the Gavin... The difference is that just about everyone at the time called the Bf-109 the Me-109. No users officially or unofficially called a certain APC by the name we won't mention save ironically. They did? The British and Americans certainly did, but I don't believe the Germans did other than casually. Every surviving Luftwaffe document that I have run across refers to them as Bf 109 and Bf 110. IIRC the USSBS also referred to them as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Excellent summary Banshee. The WWI amphibious landings on the two Baltic Islands Oesel and Muehn in Oct 1917/WWI [Fall Albion] remained the German amphibious model, landing army troops on undefended beaches, exploiting inland with infiltration and storm tactics. If anything the Germans paralleled the IJN and Russians in raising a limited amount of naval landing specialists to lead the [typically bewildered] army troops ashore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Page from a K-4 manual​ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now