Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Battle of Britain

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by E. Rommel phpbb3, May 7, 2005.

  1. cheeky_monkey

    cheeky_monkey New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    england
    via TanksinWW2
    exactly.. in 1945 according to you the soviets subs should have a field day in the baltic and blown everything out of the water... but surfice to say they did not!

    the kreigsmarine provided valuable support to both the land forces and refugees alike during that time.. remember 2 the german navy was no where near the size or capablity of thr rn at that time.

    as far as i am concerend there are too many holes and if and buts in your arguements to take them seriously!!
     
  2. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    Izaak, remember that SU had navies also at black sea, pacific and arctic sea. I'd guess all of those 300 or so subs weren't at Kronstadt.
    And about those german subs in Liepaja, maybe they were training their submarinecrews at there?

    And that blockade was effective from summer 42 to summer 44, before and after that russian subs could do their doings quite well.

    And to add some more problems to russian sub operations against GB, RN was second to no-one when fighting antisubmarine war.
     
  3. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I must admit - I have no green idea where Soviet subs were deployed, apart from the many in Liepaja and some in Leningrad. What I can surmise, they had also some in the Black See to support the invasion of Romania from the sea (they actually started an invasion in June 25 ´41, but quickly withdrew afterwards.

    As to the British proficiency in Uboat fight: not form the start. And in 1941 they were very much deep in trouble, AFAIK. :-?

    Why they didn´t strike harder after deblocking of Leningrad? I don´t know. The crews were very much weakened and without training and all subs probably needed overhaul after rotting for 3 ys. Maybe there was not enough oil and priority was given to ground troops. Why should they concentrate on killing civilians? Not a really profitable business for Stalin. However - AFAIR - the troops in Latvia could not be withdrawn till the end. Wasn´t it due to Soviet subs? Partly? Maybe....

    Of course there are holes in my speculations. I don´t know that much. :D
    My point is only that since the late 1920s USSR has been turned into one great armament and military facility in order to prepare the final push for the world revolution.
    All the purges, de-kulakizations, collectivisations, ethnic cleansing etc. were done to make Stalin unassailable internally and to strenghten the military effort. Soviet history 1929-41 is purely a history of making an absolute "monarchy" and of preparations for war. Nothing else.

    And if there are holes - and there are always some holes in everything - it´s because our knowledge about the whole thing has begun to appear so late. And also because a major part of documentation is either destroyed or will never be accessible. Putin and his followers will look to it. After all, much of the present Russian self understanding and of Russian international prestige rests on the fact that they were crucial in defeating the bad Nazis.
     
  4. Charley

    Charley New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I take your point about Stalin having ambitions to control all Europe, and its certainly not something I would rule out, (I can't say I definatly agree with it either as I havn't looke into it enough) but this thread has developed into a discussion about whether Stalin could have invaded Britain (first assuming he could have reached the Channel). I simply do not see how he could have. To invade Britain you need to establish and maintain control of the sea and Soviet forces in 1940 or the forseeable future simply could not do that. That is not to say Britain would have won a war, alone, against a Soviet controlled Europe obviously not, but such a war would not have ended in a swift invasion and conquest.
     
  5. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    My presumptions are following (I am going to repeat something, maybe, but in short):

    1. RKKA has taken Europe and most of its forces are battleworthy

    2. Almost no, or few amphibious tanks have been used: there have been really many - look into the link above (battlefield.ru), which can cross the Channel at Beaufort 3.

    3. Most of the 1 million parachute force is still usable after the invasion of Europe.

    4. Most or a large part of airplanes out of the original 12 000 (AFAIR) are there - having destroyed most of Luftwaffe on the ground (it was to be a surprise attack and the pilots are only trained for ground attack - in 1940-41 the training course for military pilots was reduced to 3 months!!!!
    Most gliders can be used/reused (some were able to carry artillery and tanks)

    5. Most of European armament industry can produce

    6. Most European (especially German) pilots are there and can be pressed to fly for VVS (blackmail, hostage-families etc.)

    7. Most of European merchant fleet is there, maybe even some Continental navies have survived and can be blackmailed to serve Russians and assist the invasion

    8. The almost 300 Soviet subs fleet are comparatively new and reasonably well trained (sorry - again my Grandfather´s opinion: standards of education and intensity of training and maneouvers (attack only) have been extreme prior to June 22). Some of the crews have got some real fight experiences in the first phase of the war. Most of the subs are either in the Baltic or in the Black Sea and can be moved to the Channel area (RKKA having conquered the Balkan).

    If it´s not some important arguments then I don´t know what it is.... :roll:

    I am eager to see what the British would have done in case of Stalin´s successful occupation of the Continent and upon apparent preparation to Soviet Sea Lion (Morskii Lyev). (souds good to me!) :wink:
     
  6. Charley

    Charley New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Thats a very, very big if

    Assuming the tanks can cross the channel they would still have to cope with warships operating against them, I can't see them doing that. Even if the tanks can get past the navy where are the infantry, artillery suplies etc coming from?

    Again, quite a big if. As we can discount all 1 million being dropped at once the first wave would need to secure bridgeheads etc and would need an army crossing the channel PDQ to relieve them. All this is assuming the RAF are unable to inflict losses on the transport planes

    Again its a very big if, to assume they could have overun an entire continent without taking sizeable losses. How well trained were they in attacking ships? In 1940 it took a lot of planes to take out a battleship even with no enemy fighters defending them.

    A factor in a long war, but not in a quick invasion

    But how many would have survived such a overwhelming Soviet victory as you envisage? Even if you can blackmail them into flying how effective would pilots fighting for a cause they despise, on the side of their nations traditional enemies and with their morale on the floor after a crushing national defeat really be against pilots fighting to defend their homeland and freedom?

    The merchant fleets could have supplied an invasion once ashore, but they would still require naval supremacy to protect them, meaning the Soviets would need to take, intact, substantial naval forces. The only fleets that would have made such an operation possible would have been a combination of the French and Italian navies. The French navy had already been weakened by British action in case it fell into German hands and what was left was commanded by the fiercely anti communist Darlan. To take the Italian fleet would necesitate a conquest of Italy, and as the allies discovered later on that was neither quick nor easy. Even after that would the Italian fleet be waiting in port, intact for Soviet use?

    The Soviet Black sea subs would first have to run the gauntlet of the Dardanells, then the British mediteranean fleet at Alexandria, the Italian fleet operating from Tarranto and the French fleet at Toulon. they would then have to get past Force H at Gibralter passing through the narrow straights. If any of them survived they would then have to operate in the bad submarine waters of the English channel in the role of fleet warfare not as convoy hunters.

    It would have been a similar situation to Napoleon and Hitlers invasion attempts - had the Soviets got ashore in strength and been able to keep the sealanes open to supply their forces they would have won. Britains survival would depend on denying the enemy control of the sea, which given the naval balance of power it was more than capable of doing.
     
  7. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Izaak,

    Do you have any details on the million man partrooper force?

    The western allies had at best 12 divisions (5 US, 2 British para divisons, plus enough independant units for another US para divison, and enough odd allied units for maybe another para divison, plus 2 British "Air Landing" divisions, a US mountian divison that could have been easily air transported (ala Germans at Crete). 12 divisions would only be 120,000 - 180,000 men. Air transport would be another problem. It took almost everything the US and Brits had to move 15,000 - 20,000 men in three divisions for Overlord and Garden. Even at 50 men per plane (good for WWII aircraft) it would require 20,000 plane loads to drop 1,000,000 men. At it's peak 8th USAAF managed about 40,000 sorties in a month, including fighters. I think Bomber Command's peak month was about 20,000 sorties.
    This gives me a picture of 600+ Soviet transports an hour dropping paratroopers over Britain 12 hours every day for 30 days. Not to mention supplying them.
     
  8. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Hej, canambridge. Nice that you managed to drop in and share your doubts. I love good, a little pitched discussion. Sometimes it can sound academic but why not? Partly we are exercising our logical cortex and partly – our “imagination cortex” plus – the language exercise for those, who don´t write it daily.
    Charley – I thank you for your critical comments and I hope you will in your next answer will try to be maybe a little bit less partial. I´ll explain, why I think you were maybe a bit partisan, below.

    So, let´s continue:

    According to Viktor Suvorov (Icebreaker”), based on his extensive research of the subject, before the German attack there were formed 8 paratroop airborne corps. “He established his airborne troops in 1930. By the beginning of the war, the S.U. had more than one million trained paratroopers – 200 times more than all other countries put together, inc. Germany. The S.U. was the first country in the world to create airborne assault troops. When Hitler came to power, Stalin already had several airborne assault btigades.(…) (He) built great silk-producing complexes and parachute producing factories and covered the country with a network of airfields and aero clubs, put up parachute towers in every municipal park, trained thousands of instructors, built drying rooms and storage depots for parachutes to train one million parachutists and to buy the arms, equipment and parachutes they needed.(…)
    In the 1930s, the western regions of the country were repeteadly shaken by very large-scale maneouvres. These m. had only one theme. That was operation in depth, a surprise attack launched by a vast number of massed tanks striking at great depth. The scenario was always simple, but formidable. (…) the surprise attack by the land troops (was) always preceeded by a no less unexpected and no less crushing strike by VVS against enemy airfields. The first wave of parachutists would be followed by a second wave of paratroopers carrying heavy weapons, who would land by plane and then disembark on the captured airfields.
    In the course of the maneouvers held in Kiev in 1935, a parachute assault force of 1200 men was dropped, immediately followed by an air-landed assault force of 2500 men armed with heavy weaponry inc. artillery, armoured cars and tanks.
    In Byelorussia in 1936, in the course of practising the same theme, a parachute assault force of 1800 men was dropped. They were followed by 5700 men armed with heavy weaponry. In the same year, the full complement of the 84th Rifle Division made an air-landed assault in the course of offensive maneouvres in Moscow discrict.
    In 1938(…) S. established a further six airborne brigades with a strength of 18 000 parachutists. In 1939 he established new assault landing sub-units, regiments and batellion, each one with a strength of 500-700 men.
    (…) first parachute landings in combat in June 1940. The 201st and the 204th Brigades landed in Romania, and the 214th in Lithuania(…). Both assault landings seriously worried Hitler.
    April 1941 five airborne CORPS were(…) set up and deployed in the western part of USSR. All the airborne corps had fairly powerful artillery and even batallions of light, amphibious tanks. All the corps were given intensive training for assault warfare. They were aimed against Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia nad Austria.One of their missions was to cut the oil pipelines in the mountains through which they passed from Romania to Germany.(…)another FIVE airborne corps in August 1941.(…) Apart from the corps, brigades and regiments, there were also a great number of airborne batallions in the ordinary Soviet infantry. (…)
    Apart form parachute units, some ordinary rifle divisions were trained to make air-landed assaults in the rear of the enemy.”

    So much for the airborne troops.

    CHARLEY, your turn:
    “Assuming the tanks can cross the channel they would still have to cope with warships operating against them, I can't see them doing that. Even if the tanks can get past the navy where are the infantry, artillery suplies etc coming from?”
    See above – through air. Transport planes, bombers, cargo gliders.
    Suvorov: “Even before Hitler came to power, S.U. had the first cargo glider in the world – G-63.(…)Heavy gliders were invented, capable of lifting a FREIGHT- CARRYING VEHICLE. (…) Rubber, inflatable gliders were created(…). They could be loaded on a transport plane and returned(…) to be used again.
    In 1939 alone, the S.U. had 30 000 trainees simultaneously under instruction in glider-flying. Piloting skills often attained a very high level. In 1940, f.eks., a demonstration was given in the S. U. of a flight of ELEVEN gliders being towed by ONE aircraft.
    The burst of cargo glider production (spring 1941) has interesting implications. All the hangars, and there were not many of them, had long been crammed full of the gliders which had been produced earlier. (Gliders must not be stored in the open). The 1941 production boom meant that they were intended for use in 1941.
    (…) C-47 “dakota”formed the base, upon which Soviet military transport aviation was built. (…) U.S. governmanet sold Stalin the kicence to produce it before the war(…)So many of these C-47s were produced in the Su that some American experts believe that, when the war began, the SU had more of these aircraft than the US did.
    In addition to the c-47s, the SU had several hundred obsilete TB-3 bombers, which had been downgraded to transport. All the large-scale air-drops had been made in the 1930s were made from TB-3s. Stalin had enough of them to airlift several thousand parachutists and heavy weapons, incl. light tanks, armoured cars and artillery, simultaneously. the tansport of all the parachute units would in any case require weeks and was only posible in the conditions of full supremacy in the air. The surprise operation to knock out enemy air force had to be so powerful that the enemy air force would not be able to recover from it before the war ended. “
    This was the purpose of creating SU-2 ground attack bomber (2000 planes), Pe-2 and many other planes.

    One should not forget that in case of Soviet surprise atack, Stalin would have !00% of Soviet production capacity and not as in 1942 – mere 15%. Alone in ys 1932-37 there was already produced over 20 000 aircraft. The production would have continued during the Continental war (alongside training of new pilots).

    And nobody said that Stalin would necessarily have to invade England at once. He could possibly start with a sub + aerial blockade and bombardmants.

    Foreign pilots (esp. German) would certainly have survived due to the destruction of Luftwaffe on the ground. They would not have had the opportunity do die!

    Darlan might get invited for “negotiations” and “detained”. Whatever – he also had some family in France, hadn´t he?

    You concentrate exclusively on Black Sea subs. Why? There would probably have been enoug from the Baltic. Besides, bombing of the British positions with long-range Soviet bombers would also allow the Black Sea Fleet to pass by under the umbrella of bombers.

    What do you say tothese speculations?
    :D
     
  9. Charley

    Charley New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I'll reply properly tommorow when I've sobered up :wink:
     
  10. cheeky_monkey

    cheeky_monkey New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    england
    via TanksinWW2
    german pilots fighting for the russians...what a joke!!

    in such an event most of the luftwaffe pilots would have escaped to the west much as did all the occupied air forces did after being overun by the germans.
     
  11. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    You may be cheeky, but you are also funny, cheeky! :lol:

    You really don´t know Stalin´s subtle charms.
    He would have put their (the pilots´) families in a camp and promised not to send them to Gulag or just starve to death, providing they behaved themselves and shot at least five Brits a man (confirmed), for example. And they would oblige, you bet they would! They would fight better than for hitler. You can be more than sure.
    Just as they did when Stalin did come in 1945. Suddenly every 4th German was a perfect collaborator (even though there was still a chance to fly before the Wall was built).

    So, you know - everything is relative. DDR´s army was also very trustworthy. They shot everything that moved near the Wall, didn´t they?

    You have to have a feeling for Stalin and communism to understand it.
    I´ll help you: imagine a gang of real tough gangsters become a government and everybody has to obey. Such a system it was, in short. Most brutal methods have never been too brutal in USSR at that time.
     
  12. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Okay Izaak, I'll take the bait.
    1,000,000 out of 5,000,000 are paratroopers.
    How were they to be dropped? At 50/plane that's still 20,000 plane loads. Did the Soviets have even 5,000 DC-3s or TB-3s?
     
  13. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Why use a million?
    Honestly, I don´t know how they would have done it.
    BUT: If in 1936 the weree able drop 1800 (let´s say - near an airfield), so they could certainly do the same thing in an even greater proportion near a major British military airfield in England (following intense bombardment of all infrastructure minus the tarmac) followed by a massive landingwith tanks, guns and everything. Times X, during one day. Don´t forget the multi-use condom-gliders :lol: . One could also consider bombing a middlesize port opposite France to pieces and then send parachute boys, just in case.

    At the same time they seal the Channel with the 300 subs plus the German ones (if any - the method of recruitment of German subs sailors - as above + one NKVD commisar per boat) plus the combined Soviet and remaining Continental fleets, while an armada of German and Soviet pilots in Yaks, LaGGs and Migs and remaining and newly produced Fw190s and Bf109s hover over the waters. Then - sail off with everything that can sail - to the above port.
    Any forces trying to approach the cozy landing port is being harrassed by ground attacking Pe-2s, Su-2s, Il-2s and, of course - the fine Stukas etc.
    The rest you can hopefully imagine.

    Game over. :lol:
     
  14. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Sorry, I forgot the 3-4000 amphibious tanks, a trifle. Of course providing the weather allows. :wink:
     
  15. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Point, set and match! :lol:
     
  16. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    Izaak, some points:
    First, those ambfibious tanks aren't main battle tanks, they could be destroyed by AA-guns and AT-guns.
    Second, that 300 subs is not realistic number, as far as I know, about 300 subs served during WW2. Not all of them were available at 1941 because some of them weren't built yet and others were already sunk. And some others were probably inoperative, refitting etc.

    "As to the British proficiency in Uboat fight: not form the start. And in 1941 they were very much deep in trouble, AFAIK"
    Still, they were best in the world. 1941 they got radarsets on escort ships, active sonar was in use already in 1939. And why they were in trouble? Because those subcrews were very proficient.

    And remember, russians didn't have that many long range boats to start with. Therefore their fleet wasn't that good when doing atlantic blocking. And besides, most of the Russian subss were more noisier than their enemies subs.

    Hmm, what else?
    If Stalin had such a large paraforce in use, why didn't he use it? I dont remember any incidents during Winter War where SU used paratroopers (discounting some spies and desants).

    Oh and one more thing: Remember, Britain 1941 was much more prepared to invasion than it was 1940.

    Yet more: Timetable etc: You have said (in this or another thread) that Stalin was ready to attack at july 1941. How long time does it take to reach English channel? And how long after that SU is ready to start landings? And will weather permit that before summer of 1942? This will allow Great Britain even more time to prepare.
    And what does USA do when Europe falls under bolshevik regime? Will Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
     
  17. cheeky_monkey

    cheeky_monkey New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    england
    via TanksinWW2
    also u have not explained how the soviets get the rest of their material across the channel?

    dont forget as notmi points out the allies would be well prepared for an invasion. I wager a mass air drop would be impossible no such undertaken has ever been tried b4 save crete and even that would be small fry compared to what is being sugested.... and that was nearly a disaster!

    i dont believe there would be collaboration by the germans on the scale u suggest either the country would be under occupation, the ddr was a seperate state altogether.
     
  18. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Conc. the U boat number available: AFAIK there were all incl. Ca. 280 seaworthy Soviet U boats as of 22 June 1941. If you allow for some loss during continental war (mainly ground troops) and the boats under construction at that time (unknown number – to me) plus the possible Continental Navies´ U boats with crews – you still get a substantial number. Or what?

    Conc. Proficiency: as described above, it would have been exceedingly to encourage German sailors to cooperate: see the example of DDR: the most trustworthy ally of USSR, throughout the decennia. Why should the Germans in 1941-2 act altogether different than the same Germans in 1945 and later?

    Why should Soviet Uboat crews be idiots all of them in 1941, and after the war – suddenly they operate their boats all over the world. Who taught them????

    You don´t need long-range boats to block the Channel. You sail from some German or French port, take a nice place and cruise around, slowly…

    Conc. Noise: I mentioned the constant presence of aircraft over the waters. It might be a factor. Besides – the sheer numbers involved: A nice little destroyer looking for one sub, while another one or two are torpedoing him, ´cause there´s so many of them. Plus the constand bombing form above: Stukas, Pe2s, whatever.
    I imagine, Stalin might induce older pilots with many children to take a heavy plane full of bombs or whatever that destroys and ask him to Kamikaze a Prince of Wales or another Royal Oak. Otherwise – all the children will be slowly tortured with rats eating into their flesh or whatever else the officer on duty might fancy.

    He didn´t use paratroops because they are by definition an aggressive weapon for surprise actions.

    In 1940 they were used in Btaking Baltic states (mostly to train), Bessarabia and in June 1941 some folks landed in Romania, do be withdrawn a few days later. There were some drops under the battle of Moscow too. And, once in 1943.
    The problem is that in 1941-2 when Stalin badly needed troops, he disbanded his Corpses and made Rifle divisions of them who died, almost all of them (having only lighter weapon, as parachooters) . A very expensive way to make war, but at that point of time – maybe the only. So, by 1945, there were none left.

    "Britain 1941 was much more prepared to invasion than it was 1940". You can be more than sure, that Stalin would be MUCH more ready for an invasion in 1942 than he was in June ´41.

    How much time from USSR to the Pyrenees…. You know, the 5000 of BTs could theoretically ride 100 km/h on good roads. So, with a clean breakthrough there might be a chance for them to run to the Ocean within a couple of days. LOL!

    But really – I would say – with the whole German army under attack and lacking petrol (all deliveries from Romania cut and all wells either burning or under Soviet control: there was only 180 km to Ploesti from Soviet border in 1941) and a continental blockade, French army under ground in Maginot bunkers or in super-fast tanks (sitting ducks, Sorry my French friends – I just can´t stop insulting people). I don´t know. Three months, no more, I would say.

    The behavior of the USA in Europe will obviously depend on Stalin´s progress. Providing the success will be decisive and UK is taken within short time, the public opinion in the USA (at first made happy by the Press because Uncle Joe killed the bad Uncle Adolf and freed all peace lovers in Europe) will only have the short time during the last days of preparations of the invasion of the Islands and a few days during the invasion, will maybe realize that Uncle Adolf was not so bad, after all…. Too little time for US Army to prepare anything, I guess, even by today´s standards.

    How to get material over the Channel? At first – the reusable and other gliders and transporter planes – DC-47s, TBs etc. Later – normal sea transport to a beachhead in an occupied British port where RKKA first made a beachhead.

    You say Germans wouldn´t cooperate with Uncle Joe???? Do YOU know what Uncle Joe can? He can do with your body and soul things you have never ever imagined. He can do the same – before your very eyes, with your girlfriend, wife, children etc……
    Enough to say, that the Germans were most trustworthy after the war, even without such unpleasantnesses. What difference does it make if there is the whole country or only DDR: the other way round: from DDR, they had a possibility to escape before tha Wall to another half of Germany. If Stalin took the whole Europe, an escape would have become a bit more complicated. See, with the possibility to fly, they chose to cooperate, most of them. And without torture, even! :lol:
     
  19. Charley

    Charley New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    But they would still have to get these fleets of slow moving vulnerable transport aircraft past the RAF, flying huge numbers of sorties, even if the paras could get down and take their initial objectives keeping them supplied from the air would have been horrendusly difficult

    That would have been the threat - invasion would have been impossibe

    Assuming Stalin achieved total surprise and a total overwhelming victory, possible but it cannot be taken as read.

    Unless he just buggered off with them to Algeria :D anyway Britain would not let the French fleet fall into the hands of an enemy as had already been shown

    To take on the British fleet would need a hell of a lot of subs (I doubt you could do it with subs alone full stop) so he would need his Black Sea subs. To provide an umbrella of bombers would require Stalin to hold all of Europe they would also be going into action without fighter cover and don't forget the Royal Navy was able to operate in the Med in the teeth of German and Italian air supremacy for several years. Few if any Black Sea subs would got past the Straights of Gibralter.

    This whole theory is based on the assumption that the Soviets could have conquered an entire continent with only minimal casulties and then with no real navyjust a combination of submarines, aircraft and amphibious tanks defeating the RAF and the British fleet, it is quite simply inplausible
     
  20. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    True, you probably get substantial amount of them. My copy of "Fleets of world War II" names only around 240-250 boats for SU (I might miscalculate something) for whole war. I think I need to ask author if that is actual number.
    And getting continental navies submarines to your system, it takes some time to integrate them to your system.

    I didn't say they were idiots. Just ill-trained and badly lead. After WW2 someone in SU (Stalin?) managed to understand that in order to be a worldwide superpower, you need to have a credible navy. As you know, before WW2 SU navy wasn't very good or trusted by leaders (See Kronstadt rebellion). This all change after WW2.

    True. Actually, small, nimble coastal boats are better at those confined waters than oceangoing boats. But you said earlier (and that was what I was replying):
    "And nobody said that Stalin would necessarily have to invade England at once. He could possibly start with a sub + aerial blockade and bombardmants. "
    SU definitely didn't have enough long range boats to start sub blockade. Aerial blockade, on the other hand, is very difficult. You need long range bombers to do that (did SU have these?) and remember, near british isles those convoys had aircover.

    Remember, Great Britain also had many nice fighters and good fighter pilots too.
    Therefore he should have used them against Finland, especially when fighting was most intense at Karelian isthmus. Division or two of angry paratroopers in the middle of Finland won't go unnoticed. And Finnish AA and airforce wasn't that numerous back then.

    In what way more ready?

    Didn't German conquer French just year earlier? Whatever, say three months. That would be october. And preparing for invasion (settling down, resupplying, making airfields, fixing roads and communications, crushing RAF etc). Winter 41/42 earliest. And waiting for good weather...

    First you need airsuperiority. Not going to be an easy task. And mind you, British AAA was quite numerous back then.
    Second, you need to get that British port intact. For sure they will scuttle some useless ships at port entrances and mine them too. And blow up piers and cranes etc. It will take weeks, even months to clear all those obstacles and rebuild piers and ports again.
     

Share This Page