Battle of Britain

Amphibious tanks are great for crossing rivers, but the English Channel?

300 submarines - fine, except, as already noticed, the English Channel is bad news for subs.

Any attempt by sea will come up against the RN. I don't want to imagine the effect of a destroyer's wake on an amphibious tank...
Remember that the VVS had less ship-busting capability than the Luftwaffe.

The parachutists & gliders - bad news for Britain. The only saving grace is the hope that the RAF could take out a fair few of the transports. With our air defence network, and qualitative edge over the 1941 Soviet aircraft, this could well happen. btw - they had 1,000,000 paratroops - did they have 35,000 transport planes to deliver them? (assuming 30 troops per plane)

Given the 'parachute paranoia' that gripped Britain after the Germans captured the Belgian forts & Crete with paratroops, and the anti-glider defences we put in place, well...
Still bad news, but hopefully containable. Especially as they are unlikely to be reinforced except by air...

 

Yes, tanks through the channel. It was tried and worked (all form a gorup of tanks that had to go across a huge Lake Ilmen made it in stormy weather). In quiet weather the Channel would be much calmer.

Of course, they didn´t have so many planes. Most would have been dropped on subsequent occasions. I doubt, Stalin would have used all the million in britain.... They had all been trained in comitting diversion and terrorist acts.

My grandfather told me that before the war in EVERY town park in USSR there was a high tower for jumping with a parachute and a boy without a little parachute sign on him had no chances with the girls.

Yes, yes, RN rules the waves. But it would first have to reach the Channel. I doubt if Stalin´s 300 subs would stand by and watch it happen.

As to "ship busting capacity" - why not mention the 3000 thousands SU-2 : "stormoviks of the period, almost identical with Mits. Zero.

:kill:

 

I really can't see Stalin being able to launch a cross channel invasion. His supply lines would be incredibly strained and unlikely to have been anything like intact after fighting their way across Germany and France (assuming he could defeat the German and French armies).
Even if his amphibious tanks could swim accross how are the troops, guns supplies etc going to join them without the navy making mincemeat of them? His subs were numerous but on no occasion in either World War were submaines able to play any role at all in a fleet engagement. I also can't see the Red Air Force doing better than the Luftwaffe at getting air supremacy which kind of takes the Russian paras out of it.
Obviously a Soviet dominated Europe would not have been good for Britain (or the US) in the long run, but an invasion can be largely discounted as a possibility.

 

Maybe in European waters, the Japanese might have had a different idea after the Battle of the Philipine Sea (Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot). Two IJN fleet carriers sunk by US Subs. US subs also seriously depleted the heavy crusiers of the IJN center force during the Leyte campaign.

 

Oh yeah......forgot about that even so though taking out two carriers and a few heavy cruisers wouldn't have stopped the navy messing up an invasion force.

 

Charley,

I don't think it would have even slowed them down.

 

I almost forgot that there were also flying tanks (Antonov´s experimental construction) which threw the flying gear upn landing and functioned like normal tanks. The production was not started.

As to RN: Imagine 300 subs blocking both approaches to the Channel. Funny idea, not?

As to amphibious tanks in the Channel: look at lake Ilmen (not far from Skt. Petersburg) and imagine it in stormy weather (the tanks had no problems then). And now – the Channel in a quiet night…..

Stalin´s supply lines would have been very short – just from the ports of France. By then the Continent would have been in his hands.

And having taken Europe, he would have used all of Europe´s merchant and maybe parts of Navies (not previously destroyed: I am sure he had his agents on al major ships – communist agents, of course, to prevent destruction).

Sure, the Soviet pilots were very bad. But there was one thing in which they were trained (the only thing, actually): to destroy the enemy ground bases (incl. Airfields) and other infrastructure. Don´t forget that VVS was several times greater than Luftwaffe. Su-2 was alone made 3000 of (a better Stuka or a worse Il-2).

 

Thanks but not really necessary. I wasn't trying to imply that the Germans would have done any more to GB than they did anywhere else, perhaps other than wholesale deportation of the male military population. I was trying to point out the Nazi's would not have treated the British any better than they did anyone else, including plundering the country and using it as they saw fit. I don't think any GB defeat would have involved turing the empire over to Hitler, but who knows? I don't think Hitler actually had that much love and respect for GB as has been implied in other posts.

 

As to RN: Imagine 300 subs blocking both approaches to the Channel. Funny idea, not?

Imagine the RN destroyers depth-charging those 300 subs.... Who would need ASDIC, you could just chuck your charges overboard, you'd probably hit something anyway... :lol: (LOL exept for the poor submariners ofcourse...)

And now – the Channel in a quiet night…..

I live near it, no such thing really I'm afraid, why do you think Met reports were so important for Overlord?

And having taken Europe, he would have used all of Europe´s merchant and maybe parts of Navies (not previously destroyed: I am sure he had his agents on al major ships – communist agents, of course, to prevent destruction).

Not forgetting that Facists were also a fairly popular force, in many cases they were considered the preferable alternative to Bolsheviks, but if Hitler couldn't manage it why particularly could Stalin?

Su-2 was alone made 3000 of (a better Stuka or a worse Il-2).

Yep, fine, more fodder for the Spitfires and Hurricanes then.....

 

How many destroyers left?

Is it easy to use ASDIC when attacked aerially all the time?

Why not use European (German, French, Italian pilots ? – f. eks. By taking their dear families as hostages in case). USSR had enough Yaks, LaGGs and Migs by then…Plus the ones the European industry – incl. The German would have produced. Who would have been fodder for whom?

I repeat: these tanks were capable to sail in storm weather. They were built for this purpose.
There were actually more of these produced than I originally realized:
T-37: 2900, T-37A: 3200, OT-37: 3200, T-40: 5500

http://www.battlefield.ru/t40.html

 

From the site:

"All this allowed hte tanks to cross (....) choppy seas (up to sea force 3."

 

Not read the site so...

Force what...? Beaufort force? Gale force? I'm not particularly up on meteoroligical expressions, perhaps someone could fill me in on what this equates to...

 

Russians use Beaufort.

http://www.r-p-r.co.uk/beaufort.htm

 

here we go again.. first it the red army steamrollering the german army.. next they waltz throught the rest of europe with ease....now they are popping across the channel with out any problems at all... next i suspect they will be jumping over the bearing staits to conquer an unsuspecting and ill prepared north america?

assuming the red army could defeat the german army and conquer all europe... how are the y going to get any supplies to their tanks and paratroops. they have no trucks fuel food ammunition logistics? they going to send through the post?

the red army would be no more prepared for an invasion than the germans, napoleon learnt it, as did hitler if u havnt got control of the seas you havnt got a hope!

 

Stagg and his team got it right every time in practice (and on the day) without computers, satellites etc - todays weatherpeople couldn't lick their boots.

 

Neither hitler nor Napoleon had such an army and such plenty of means and time to prepare everything in absolute secrecy.

I am not telling, he actually would be able to take Britain waltzing. :lol:

I am just trying to show you how well prpared he was. It seems so impossible for you, Brits, that this idiotic Georgian peasant might invite himself for tea to Buckingham Palace.
Let´s enjoy the fact that he didn´t manage.

 

I am extremely glad he never made it to tea at Buckingham palace, but seriously you cannot invade Britain without control of the seas and amphibious tanks even if they could cross twenty miles of Channel are no match for the sea power of the British battle fleet, nor in those seas were submarines. The threat to Britain would not have been invasion and conquest but starvation from a protracted submarine blockade backed up by the rescources of an entire continent.

 

i got 2 be honest i think it is you that is living in fanatsy land.. i really dont understand why you keep hammering on about this scenario on a daily basis?

 

How many of those subs were operational at any given time? Besides, russian subs and their crew weren't considered top notch team.
Allow me to quote a certain mr. Richard Worth from his book "Fleets of World War II"
"In 1939, the Soviet submarine force was the world's largest; by 1945, almost 300 boats gave service. Yet this undersea powerhouse underarchieved. Its torpedoes sank only 20 warships, eight small craft, and 91 merchant ships (231,058 grt). Submarine-laid mines added 13 more warships, two tugs, and 18 merchantmen (38,291 grt). Meanwhile, Soviet losses topped 100 boats."

This really isn't stellar record.

 

Charley may be right with his point about blockade, I think. But it´s not Stalinist enough. Stalin just didn´t think or act in this way. Even though he could be extremely patient if necessary (and f.eks. waiting with killing someone for many years), his idea was that if you want to rule some people, they have to be awed by your power. I definitely think he would have oreder preparations for nan invasion, provided his strategists told him that it was feasible. (his another trait being – doing doable things, or not doing at all.

A propos: Stalin subs were not around because they were waiting for the moment the Germans no longer control Danish Straits!!!! Which German general told that there were so many subs in Libau port (Liepaja) as herrings in a barrel.

Cheeky – I appreciate your openness. Because this has, throughout the whole Cold War (and in spite of it) The best guarded secret on both sides. Largely – it still is. On May 9 this year a bunch of fools were sitting in front of Kremlin. And only one president invited: Latvia´s president – refused to come (ok,ok, not because of the primary guilt but her point was that Latvia was a victim of Soviet occupation both before and after the German war).
This is a sort of taboo in today´s world. And many of people here seem still not to be aware of the proportions of the disaster that was forming in the East in 1941. That´s why.

Notmi: throughout the war there was no possibility to operate these boats. The losses of 100 subs: what do you think the Germans did with all these dozens of subs in Liepaja?
Only in 1944-5 was there a few months to operate subs from St. Petersburg(Kronstadt) but not from Latvia nor Estonia. One of these bastards sank "Gustloff". Many other ships with refugees were sunk in the last weeks or months. And operations from St. Petersburg (Leningred) during blockade: impossible. No oil. My wifes granddad was on "Marat" cruiser at that time.

I don´t know how good the subs crews were. The only thing I know is that in the Soviet military academies they were not wasting their time. Go and read some German generals who had studied there before they became higher officers. (I won´t mention Guderian´s impressions from his long visit in USSR to learn what tanks mean in modern battlefield - I believe it was in 1932. Yes, yes. Guderian saw it and wanted to emulate it. If you are serious - you´ll read him)-