Staline s strategy

Nov 2015
1,916
Kyiv
#53
There was no chance for Hitler to attack and land on any part of British Isles. The Royal Navy and the RAF were too strong.
In fact, the fleet in the WWII was extremely vulnerable to attacks by submarines and aircraft. The British were convinced of the vulnerability of the battleships for torpedo attacks when they lost the Royal Oak battleship at the very beginning at WWII (October 14, 1939) at their main naval base in Scapa Flow.

And two ships - the battleship and battle cruiser - they lost from air strikes of the Japanese (battle in Kuantan) in December 1940.

The vast majority of battleships, cruisers and aircraft carriers during WWII was lost by both sides from air strikes or attacks by submarines.
Both the British and Germans quickly realized this vulnerability, and for most of the war kept their battleships in a secluded place

At the same time, Hitler could not gain air superiority over Britain in 1940 and therefore was forced to postpone the landing for an indefinite period. And getting stuck in a war with Russia, he had to abandon this landing at all.
 
Nov 2015
1,916
Kyiv
#54
Instead or loosing everything in Russia,why didn t Hitler try to debark in England;Staline would have respected the Molotov-Ri bbentrop pact.…...
In the summer of 1940 Stalin violated this pact by annexing the entire territory of Lithuania to the very border with Germany (in eastern Prussia) and annexing Bukovina.
 
Sep 2012
9,156
India
#55
Only one capital ship namely the 'Royal Oak ' was sunk by German submarine U47 captained by its intrepid commander Gunther Prien.





The aircraft carrier ' Illustrious ' was also sunk by the Germans but possibly by aircraft. You yourself agree that the 'Prince of Wales ' and ' Repulse ' were sunk by Japanese planes. Submarine arm of the Germans had a great time sinking slow unarmed merchant ships, true. But tackling Royal Navy was beyond them.
 
Nov 2015
1,916
Kyiv
#56
Only one capital ship namely the 'Royal Oak ' was sunk by German submarine U47 captained by its intrepid commander Gunther Prien.

The aircraft carrier ' Illustrious ' was also sunk by the Germans but possibly by aircraft. You yourself agree that the 'Prince of Wales ' and ' Repulse ' were sunk by Japanese planes. Submarine arm of the Germans had a great time sinking slow unarmed merchant ships, true. But tackling Royal Navy was beyond them.
Yes, German aviation did not touch the British battleships after that. But they did not interfere with Germany too much. Massive attack of Scapa Flow from the air would bring the Luftwaffe significant success - but the losses of their aircraft would be very sufficient. And after the British Air Force and their battleships sank Bismarck in May 1941, I do not see other effective actions of the British battleships. It seems that German aviation did not annoy them, and they did little to annoy Germany.

At the same time, Pearl Harbor and a whole string of other air attacks of large ships in the Pacific Ocean fully confirmed their defenselessness from the air. The only effective protection for them could be a strong carrier-based fighters. American submarines in the Pacific also showed their best side. Of course, the British would send Home Fleet to the English Channel in the event of a Germanlanding. But without the British superiority in the air they would then be left without the Home Fleet. And the chance that the landing would start after that was very high in that case

There is another example of a successful air attack. The Yu-87 attack on the Russian fleet base in Kronstadt on September 23, 1941. The base was covered by one thousand anti-aircraft guns on ships and coastal batteries, and the density of anti-aircraft fire was one of the largest in the whole WWII.

At the same time, Hans Rudel drowned the battleship Marat with one 1000-kg bomb. Losses of the Germans - 2 Yu-87 and 2 Me-109
 

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,156
India
#57
Often it is suggested that Stalin was thinking of an attack by the Soviet forces on Germany preempting the German attack. There is a reference to that in Khlevniuk's book on page 183. " Convincing evidence that Stalin was resolved to go on the offensive is yet to surface. There is no serious basis for revising the traditional view that Stalin was fatally indecisive and even befuddled in the face of the growing Nazi threat. "
 

Similar History Discussions