Russia to mark 70 years since Battle of Stalingrad

[Jimbuna]

I find it difficult to comprehend such a foolish individual as being an Englishman.

On the other hand a great wartime leader of the UK (not chamberpot) was guilty of caving in to the wishes of Stalin at the cessation of WWII hostilities.

Any idea what that was?

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I find it difficult to comprehend such a foolish individual as being an Englishman.

On the other hand a great wartime leader of the UK (not chamberpot) was guilty of caving in to the wishes of Stalin at the cessation of WWII hostilities.

Any idea what that was?

The idea was that UK alone or together with France would have never won a battle against Germany and USSR if those united gainst Allies. UK never had a powerfull land army but she had a powerfull naval force, despite that, UK realized it could not last long without support from western nations such as Canada or USA. Chemberlain knew it would have been a suicidal decision to make war with Germany and USSR at once without USA support, so he pretended to go blind that Poland is attacked from Russia together with Germany. Only Churchill later dared to aproove that the Hitlers and Stalins regime is very familiar before 1941 06 22. When after the british got themselves a first Allies - Russians.

[Jimbuna]

I seem to recall we (the commonwealth included) stood almost alone for somewhere in the region of two years.

England declared a state of war with Germany on September 3rd and Canada shortly thereafter on 10th.

While the response to war was initially intended to be limited, resources were mobilized quickly. The Convoy HX-1 departed Halifax just six days after the nation declared war, escorted by HMCS St. Laurent and HMCS Saguenay. The 1st Canadian Infantry Division arrived in Britain on January 1, 1940.By June 13, 1940, the 1st Battalion of The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment was deployed to France in an attempt to secure the southern flank of the British Expeditionary Force in Belgium.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I seem to recall we (the commonwealth included) stood almost alone for somewhere in the region of two years.

England declared a state of war with Germany on September 3rd and Canada shortly thereafter on 10th.

Agreed, Canada declared support 7 days latter after Great Britain declared war to Germany, but Canada had no escort ships to cover the cargo ships and this was the first flaw By the time nor UK or Canada realized to what threat they are up against in Atlantic.

I bow my head against RAF who actually did all that was needed to escape a land invasion of Germans by covering its air space during Battle of Britain. This was also a key factor on Hitlers decission to change the priorities of the war again.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Troublous_Haze

Agreed, Canada declared support 7 days latter after Great Britain declared war to Germany, but Canada had no escort ships to cover the cargo ships and this was the first flaw By the time nor UK or Canada realized to what threat they are up against in Atlantic.

I bow my head against RAF who actually did all that was needed to escape a land invasion of Germans by covering its air space during Battle of Britain. This was also a key factor on Hitlers decission to change the priorities of the war again.

Please don't forget the exploits and achievements of the 'senior service'...the Channel was and always was their domain

Most of the German units that left port failed to return...Graf Spee, Bismarck and Narvik destroyers immediately spring to mind.

Still awaiting a response to #46

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Please don't forget the exploits and achievements of the 'senior service'...the Channel was and always was their domain

Most of the German units that left port failed to return...Graf Spee, Bismarck and Narvik destroyers immediately spring to mind.

Still awaiting a response to #46

The channel that I believe was breached by Gneisenau and Shnarchorst in 1942 from Brest to Wilhelsmhaven, was crossed with minority of british resistance proves that nothing could stop Germans from passing the straight of Dover at the time they did it. Somewhat a disapointment moment to royal navy wasn't it ?

Braking through the Channel

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Troublous_Haze

The channel that I believe was breached by Gneisenau and Shnarchorst in 1942 from Brest to Wilhelsmhaven, was crossed with minority of british resistance proves that nothing could stop Germans from passing the straight of Dover at the time they did it. Somewhat a disapointment to royal navy wasn't it ?

Not breached...more like sprinted through with a huge slice of good fortune due to the absence of the RN in the area at the time....not that they entered the channel to actually do any fighting...more like running for cover to a safer haven.

Wondering what happened to those naval units such as the Gneisenau and the Scharnhorst....best not mention Tirpitz I suppose.

Still no answer to #46

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Troublous_Haze

The channel that I believe was breached by Gneisenau and Shnarchorst in 1942 from Brest to Wilhelsmhaven, was crossed with minority of british resistance proves that nothing could stop Germans from passing the straight of Dover at the time they did it. Somewhat a disapointment to royal navy wasn't it ?

Braking through the Channel

One breakout in six years does not constitute naval control. Admittedly though, kudos to the Kriegsmarine, it was a ballsy move, we were expecting them to make a break at night, not in the middle of the day. Caught completely off guard.
Several dozen uboats, and eboats were not so lucky in the channel though.

Furthermore, honestly, it was better for the Royal Navy and Britain as a whole for those two ships NOT to be in France, where they could threaten Atlantic convoys, but to be cooped up safely protecting against an imaginary invasion of Norway.

Originally Posted by Oberon

One breakout in six years does not constitute naval control. Admittedly though, kudos to the Kriegsmarine, it was a ballsy move, we were expecting them to make a break at night, not in the middle of the day. Caught completely off guard.
Several dozen uboats, and eboats were not so lucky in the channel though.

Furthermore, honestly, it was better for the Royal Navy and Britain as a whole for those two ships NOT to be in France, where they could threaten Atlantic convoys, but to be cooped up safely protecting against an imaginary invasion of Norway.

Speaking about naval control you used to forget about influence of U-boats thread here mate Surface ships played just a secondary role in that battle

[HundertzehnGustav]

The subs were a threat.
That threat was kicked in the balls by whom? surface and air.
so who is the major player in the atrantic? the DD, the PBY or the VII?

The subs were dangerous, and scary as hell.
but too few were active, and the intel was soon known.
control, in the sense of controlling who is using that space (2D or 3D) over a given timeframe.........
the subs never managed to do that.

so the subs never controlled anything. not the large areas, not the channel. Not the rivers and harbors, not the convoy routes.
because the enemy poured more and more ships on that battlefield.
The subs didnt even control their own front garden, the bay of biskay after 1942.

subs never controlled anything.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^

They were the gods of the Eastern American seaboard in 1942.

[August]

I don't think the Japanese were all that good at fighting a defensive campaign. They were masters at camouflage and good at setting up fields of interlocking fire, but their command and control structure was too centralized. Any hint of innovation or personal initiative from their junior officers and especially NCOs was severely discouraged to the point they couldn't adjust to changes in the tactical situation.

They also had a tendency to commit suicide rather than go down fighting. There are many stories of Marines finding groups of Japanese soldiers dead from self inflicted wounds although they still had the means to continue resisting. Even their Banzai charges were more about dying gloriously for the emperor than killing the emperors enemies.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

They also had a tendency to commit suicide rather than go down fighting. There are many stories of Marines finding groups of Japanese soldiers dead from self inflicted wounds although they still had the means to continue resisting. Even their Banzai charges were more about dying gloriously for the emperor than killing the emperors enemies.

They gave up on those Banzai Charges after Saipan. After that, it largely became a matter of fighting to the last man, like they did on Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. This attitude, which had been intstilled in the home civilian populace, is what would have made an invasion of the Home Islands so incredibly costly, and why the atomic bombs were used.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Troublous_Haze

Speaking about naval control you used to forget about influence of U-boats thread here mate Surface ships played just a secondary role in that battle

In what battle?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Not breached...more like sprinted through with a huge slice of good fortune due to the absence of the RN in the area at the time....not that they entered the channel to actually do any fighting...more like running for cover to a safer haven.

Wondering what happened to those naval units such as the Gneisenau and the Scharnhorst....best not mention Tirpitz I suppose.

Still no answer to #46

Cherry picking ones responses is not a way of maintaining ones credibility.

Still awaiting an answer to#46 or are you all done maistro?