Iraqi Republican Guard 'finished'

[zakur]

Iraqi Republican Guard 'finished' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2920989.stm)

The commander of the US-led air campaign in Iraq says Republican Guard units outside the capital Baghdad are "dead", following intense bombardment.

"The Iraqi military as an organised defence in large combat formations doesn't really exist anymore," Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley told Pentagon reporters.Britain says Republican Guard suffering 'comprehensive defeat' (http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-6apr2003-1.htm)

Units of Iraq's elite Republican Guard have suffered a "comprehensive defeat with very heavy losses" as US tanks roll into Baghdad, a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday.

"Tanks have gone into Baghdad to make it clear to the people that whatever the (Iraqi) regime may say, the coalition forces are advancing and there is a determination to see the job through," the spokesman said.

"It is clear that elements of the Republican Guard have suffered a comprehensive defeat with very heavy losses and a number of desertions," he said, without specifying which units he was referring to.

[aerocontrols]

Good news if true. Hopefully more desertions than casualties.

[Supercharts]

Were they trained by the French?

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Were they trained by the French?

Doesn't really make any difference in this case. As our troops have said several times, it wasn't a fair fight and it wasn't intended to be.

--- Argo

[Roadtoad]

It's not over yet. Don't get cocky, gang.

At this point, it's entirely possible that Hussein could let loose with his WMDs. You're not dealing with a rational individual, and he had lots of help in running that country. You can't tell what's going to come next.

The Republican Guard was just one element. There's still the "Guerrilla" element, those fanatics who are willing to throw their lives away to "defend" Hussein.

[Gem]

Were they trained by the French?

No, they were trained by the russians (soviet war strategy/tactics).
My opinion is that Russian strategy is worse than French. Russians require vast ammouts or ressources and manpower (as they so well demonstrated in world war 2), while the French require more "modern" type of warfare (medium size army).

Besides, the "Elite" Republican guard is relativly elite. They're men who are better paid, fed, equiped, and motivated (a gun to their head AND economical benefits, like salaries).

There is no army in Iraq that can challenge the Might of the US army.

However, guerillas, "terrorists" and suicide bombers aren't driving in tanks and wearing uniforms. That's gonna be the challenge for the army, and considering the recent memory of Viet Nam, I pretty sure that they'll figure a way to dispatch them.

Gem
P.S.: I have tremedous affection for the US military, but I disagree on the foreign policy, but that's another threat.

[crackmonkey]

I disagree on the foreign policy, but that's another threat
?
Is this some kind of Freudian slip?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
It's not over yet. Don't get cocky, gang.

At this point, it's entirely possible that Hussein could let loose with his WMDs. You're not dealing with a rational individual, and he had lots of help in running that country. You can't tell what's going to come next.

The Republican Guard was just one element. There's still the "Guerrilla" element, those fanatics who are willing to throw their lives away to "defend" Hussein.
It is pretty unlikely that any of the guerrilla element have WMDs. Do you really think that Saddam Hussein, the most paranoid person in the world, is going to let his WMDs fall into the hands of guerrilla groups when he well knows that a sizable proportion of his people hate him?

My prediction is that there won't be any WMD's used, and if they are, they will come form the military, not the guerrillas. I suspect that the vast majority of the guerillas are not government troops at all, but simply people who feel it is their patriotic duty to repulse invaders.

[crackmonkey]

I doubt it. There are Ba'ath party militia, Fedayeen Saddam militia, and a handful of true-believer wild-eyed Islamist zealots out to bag a Yank. It seems like most of the population are content to sit on the sidelines and point US troops to the local militia HQ and ammo dumps.

[Gem]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree on the foreign policy, but that's another threat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"?
Is this some kind of Freudian slip?"

Oops! I meant "Thread" not "Threat"

Amazing how one letter can change the entire meaning of a phrase, isn't it?

Gem

[Troll]

Originally posted by Gem


No, they were trained by the russians (soviet war strategy/tactics).
My opinion is that Russian strategy is worse than French. Russians require vast ammouts or ressources and manpower (as they so well demonstrated in world war 2), while the French require more "modern" type of warfare (medium size army).

Besides, the "Elite" Republican guard is relativly elite. They're men who are better paid, fed, equiped, and motivated (a gun to their head AND economical benefits, like salaries).

There is no army in Iraq that can challenge the Might of the US army.

However, guerillas, "terrorists" and suicide bombers aren't driving in tanks and wearing uniforms. That's gonna be the challenge for the army, and considering the recent memory of Viet Nam, I pretty sure that they'll figure a way to dispatch them.

Gem
P.S.: I have tremedous affection for the US military, but I disagree on the foreign policy, but that's another threat.

Excellent point. Few realize that the former Russian doctrine on war contained elements that called for the destruction of entire grid squares. Something that can only be accomplished if one has superior firepower available to them.

The guy is a bit of a nutter at times, but I respect all he has done and find this remark of his to be quite accurate when describing the republican guard. It may be off a word or two but the quote is very close:

"You know those french guys that surrendered after 6 weeks in WWII? Well they are storm troopers compared to the republican guard" Colonel David Hackworth

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Were they trained by the French?

i have just been reading some more wwii history. there was nothing wrong with the french soldier, many fought and died bravely. The problem was with the people running the war, who still thought in warfare based on what was learned in WWI, that is, a slight advance in tactics.

Germany, meanwhile, had vastly improved it's tactics and strategies. A modern army that is cut off from command and supplies cannot fight, which is precisely what was done to them.

The generals in france and england were the main reason for the loss. As they could not conceive of a war in which the aim was to create and expoit breakthroughs and then cut off and isolate armies, they had no defensive strategy to meet it.

If you want to see some american debacles, try Kasserine Pass for a start.

[crackmonkey]

How did I know that you'd manage to get in a jab at the US? I don't think it's possible for you to post without including some kind of anti-US sentiment.

[Gem]

i have just been reading some more wwii history. there was nothing wrong with the french soldier, many fought and died bravely. The problem was with the people running the war, who still thought in warfare based on what was learned in WWI, that is, a slight advance in tactics.
The french in world war 2? the americans at kasserine pass...
I sense that the infamous desert fox, Erwin Rommel, is near...

I think Erwin would describe the Iraqis like the Italians.
Brave men, with potential, but horrible officers and commanders.

Gem

[iMoc]

No, they were trained by the russians (soviet war strategy/tactics).
My opinion is that Russian strategy is worse than French. Russians require vast ammouts or ressources and manpower (as they so well demonstrated in world war 2), while the French require more "modern" type of warfare (medium size army).



And the US army doesn't require vast amounts of resources and manpower??

They just ride in with a few special ops guys and take over Ninja style??

Without all the expensive toys and hardware the US forces are pretty much second rate. Look at Somalia, they were begging for help when they didn't have comprehensive air cover, and got their asses whooped by nobody's (in Military terms).

How can you look at WW2 and say that this is how Russians fight. It's like saying the French army of today still use tactics used by Napoleon.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by iMoc
Look at Somalia, they were begging for help when they didn't have comprehensive air cover, and got their asses whooped by nobody's (in Military terms).


In military terms that mission was a win. Wasn't it something like 18 US deaths vs. more than 500 Somalis, and the mission objectives were completed? That's an ass-whooping all right, but technically the Somali's got whooped.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The generals in france and england were the main reason for the loss. As they could not conceive of a war in which the aim was to create and expoit breakthroughs and then cut off and isolate armies, they had no defensive strategy to meet it.




Incidentally, the only serious counter attack in the battle for France was British. Its the truth that the Brits did more to defend France than the French did. Its also false that the British generals were so inferior to the Germans. The British Army was just so much more poorly equiped. For eg. the first decent tank my grandaddy had was an American Grant. British tanks in WWII were so s--t that we lost virtually every tank battle we entered.

When British exported the lessons learned to America, the yanks built the first tanks that could equal the Panzers in combat (except the T-34, but we didnt have any of those). Reliable, reasonably well armoured and with a decent gun. First used in small numbers at Gazala, they almost wrecked Rommels offensive. Had they been available in larger numbers- the history of the war would have been quite different and no-one would ever have heard of Alamein.



Also I have to agree, the reason the French capitulated was that they simply werent expecting anything like what the Germans threw at them. The Brits at least had some Idea of this kind of warfare since it had been invented by Englishmen (although the top-brass did their level best to ignore them).

[iMoc]

In military terms that mission was a win. Wasn't it something like 18 US deaths vs. more than 500 Somalis, and the mission objectives were completed? That's an ass-whooping all right, but technically the Somali's got whooped.



Sorry, in terms of the operation and planning it was unexpected and the whole thing was a failure. They had to get out of there.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Tricky

It is pretty unlikely that any of the guerrilla element have WMDs. Do you really think that Saddam Hussein, the most paranoid person in the world, is going to let his WMDs fall into the hands of guerrilla groups when he well knows that a sizable proportion of his people hate him?

My prediction is that there won't be any WMD's used, and if they are, they will come form the military, not the guerrillas. I suspect that the vast majority of the guerillas are not government troops at all, but simply people who feel it is their patriotic duty to repulse invaders.

Perhaps, but he's trusted enough people over the years to help him carry out his reign of oppression, there's a possibility that someone else besides him will use them.

On the other hand, his dis-information minister is denying the Americans are even inside the country, so who knows what could happen?

[Baggle]

Relying on vastly superior firepower to win can only work for one of the sides, since "superior" can only apply to one of them. The USA does have vastly superior firepower, and Iraq doesn't. Therefore, the strategy works for one of the groups involved and does not work for the other.

-Baggle

[John Harrison]

Sorry, in terms of the operation and planning it was unexpected and the whole thing was a failure. They had to get out of there.

Sorry, but the objective of the day in question was to capture Aidid's lieutenants, which was completed successfully. If you are referring to the objectives of Task Force Ranger in general, I suppose you are correct in that we failed because we pulled out as soon as we took casualties.

[iMoc]

Sorry, but the objective of the day in question was to capture Aidid's lieutenants, which was completed successfully. If you are referring to the objectives of Task Force Ranger in general, I suppose you are correct in that we failed because we pulled out as soon as we took casualties.

It's all about perspective, the big picture and mindless assumptions.

It is also clear that without helicopter strafings a lot less untrained Somalians would have been killed, and a few more spec. ops. personnel.

http://www.peoplesvideo.org/bhd_js.htm

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12175

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12253

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/aidid.48w.html

http://www.pen.eiu.edu/~cutjt5/Blackhak.html

[Kthulhu]

Originally posted by iMoc

Without all the expensive toys and hardware the US forces are pretty much second rate. Look at Somalia, they were begging for help when they didn't have comprehensive air cover, and got their asses whooped by nobody's (in Military terms).
Do you know what the biggest advantage American military spending currently gives? It isn't the equipment. That is an advantage (and not a small one at that) but the biggest advantage is the amount of comprehensive training we can afford. The US has one of the best trained militaries in the world. Very few can even compare with the exception perhaps of Britain, France, and Germany (I'll address Russia a bit later) but they have drastically smaller forces. NOTE: I realize many countries can probably afford to train a smallish "elite" force but I'm talking about the military as a whole.

Why do you think with all the ambushes the Iraqis have sprung we recieve zero to minimal casualties yet they suffer massive in return? Why is it when American or British tanks engage Iraqi tanks the Iraqis are invariably wiped-out? It's not that the tanks Iraq has are impotent or that their soldiers are idiots or cowards, quite the opposite, it's that they lack sufficient training to compete.

As for Somalia, even with an overly ambitious plan that put US troops in the line of fire, we were able to complete the mission and incur a massively lopsided casualty ratio. Somalia wasn't a military disaster it was a PR disaster.

Second rate my ass.

Originally posted by iMoc

How can you look at WW2 and say that this is how Russians fight. It's like saying the French army of today still use tactics used by Napoleon.
1) This may not be obvious but there has been little change in infantry or armored tactics since WW2 for anyone except perhaps that now the focus tends to be on smaller engagements and greater mobility.

2) Soviet military doctrine is well documented. Hell, we have a whole division devoted to replicating it (complete with actual Soviet equipment) at the National Training Center in CA.

Soviet tactics were based on overwhelming force and speed. If they could bypass a strong point they would, leaving a pinning down force and continuing on towards the objective(sound familiar?). Nothing wrong so far, it's a very common and often smart tactic.

However, the objections raised by Gem and Troll refer to how the Soviets took on a strong point they could not bypass. In this case their methods of artillery barrage and frontal assault were brutal both to themselves and the enemy. Acceptable losses for the Soviets were extremely high. There was almost no such thing as a Pyrrhic victory to Soviet military doctrine in WW2 and this philosophy remained unchanged throughout the cold war.

That's all starting to change only in recent years after the fall of the USSR into 15 or so individual states. They can no longer afford the upkeep of the massive forces the Soviet military doctrine called for. The reason why I did not include them in my list of the most highly trained militaries is that they are having trouble simply paying their troops let alone getting them all the training needed for a modern force. This will probably continue until they are able to convert into a much lighter and more focused modern military model.

I don't care if you're against the war but stick to arguing the politics of it all if you're ignorant of how the military actually operates. I do not claim to be a military expert myself but I'm somewhat of a hobbiest and I can pick my spots.

Sorry for the long post but when people are critical of military actions yet show a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject it chaps my ass. At home all I can do is groan and yell at the TV when various newscasters do it but here I can write long rambling posts to let off steam. :D


~The Thing That Should Not Be

[John Harrison]

It's all about perspective, the big picture and mindless assumptions.

Perspective? After visiting those sites it apparently is mostly about incorrect information. There is so much wrong I don't know where to start, and I'm not going to hijack this thread any longer. I'm up for another thread on the subject if you are.

[Troll]

Originally posted by iMoc


It's all about perspective, the big picture and mindless assumptions.

It is also clear that without helicopter strafings a lot less untrained Somalians would have been killed, and a few more spec. ops. personnel.

http://www.peoplesvideo.org/bhd_js.htm

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12175

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12253

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/aidid.48w.html

http://www.pen.eiu.edu/~cutjt5/Blackhak.html

Agenda much?

sorry after the first link it came to my knowledge that you seek to promote an agenda of anti-american superior military force. Perhaps you could help your agenda better by jopining the american military and then leaving to go train the enemy of america of your choice? France could use an assload of help in learning how to fight to the death as opposed to surrendering.

[iMoc]

Do you know what the biggest advantage American military spending currently gives? It isn't the equipment. That is an advantage (and not a small one at that) but the biggest advantage is the amount of comprehensive training we can afford. The US has one of the best trained militaries in the world. Very few can even compare with the exception perhaps of Britain, France, and Germany (I'll address Russia a bit later) but they have drastically smaller forces. NOTE: I realize many countries can probably afford to train a smallish "elite" force but I'm talking about the military as a whole.



There's a well known saying in military circles outside the US, it goes like this, "The US Army man's the equipment, but other armies equip the man"

If you hear enough times that the US forces are the best in the world, guess what, you end up believing it".

I have met and worked with ex-servicemen from the Gulf, they themselves admit that they were not as well battle prepared as European and Australian troops, and I mean not even their kitchens, there was even a moral problem over it as their ego's had been pumped up so much. The British army is horribly equiped in comparison and the troops even have to buy half their own kit, but their proffessionalism is to be admired.

Here's an exerpt from an e-mail from an ex British marine friend of mine, I had asked him a while back if he had worked with American troops, and what his experience was.

"Seemed to me like the good ol Uncle sam had the best kit bar
none............but, and it's a big but, crap troops! All gob and no
substance. Worked with a Gunnery Sgt who served with the USMC in Nam and he
was an outstanding soldier. Others who I have worked with were a bunch of
*unts full of their own piss and wind and would wrap their hands in when the
going got tough, it got cold or it rained! Great kit though!

Lots of press here about how our brave lads off to the Gulf are having to
buy their own kit etc.

Nothing new here! When I went to Brunei I had to buy me own boots etc,
Richie took me to the govt surplus place in Crwys Road to purchase same! I
also had to buy my own waterproofs, decent sleeping bag, bergen (rucksack)
and all for £16.16 a day!!

On a number of occasions I would have gone hungry if it wasnt for the Yank
field kitchens complete with coke machines! Even fed by the Ghurkas on a
number of occasions!!

So if we could have our boys, yank kit and german higher command I think we
would be ok!!

Take it for what it's worth, but he's a honest straight taking guy.

Why do you think with all the ambushes the Iraqis have sprung we recieve zero to minimal casualties yet they suffer massive in return? Why is it when American or British tanks engage Iraqi tanks the Iraqis are invariably wiped-out? It's not that the tanks Iraq has are impotent or that their soldiers are idiots or cowards, quite the opposite, it's that they lack sufficient training to compete.


If you know so much and I so little, why don't you know that the US and UK tank guns out range the older Iraqi tanks by as much as half a mile, hence the ability to sit back and fire in comfort. Not to mention the 100% air domination which lets the tank buster planes do a lot of damage (to both sides of course). It's also harder to kill US soldiers as they are covered in kevlar as I understand it.

Have you considered stamp collecting instead of military studies as a hobby. Besides it doesn't seem like a healthy interest. Do you wear fatigues in your leisure time??

[Denise]

Obviously you have never seen the marines running up and down the mountains in California? I have.

[iMoc]

Perspective? After visiting those sites it apparently is mostly about incorrect information. There is so much wrong I don't know where to start, and I'm not going to hijack this thread any longer. I'm up for another thread on the subject if you are.

Hey, I'm a big boy, educate me.

I'll look for a new thread tomorrow.

However, I will be looking for clearly unbiased journalistic reporting on the subject, and definately by non-american reporters.

[Denise]

Originally posted by iMoc


Hey, I'm a big boy, educate me.

I'll look for a new thread tomorrow.

However, I will be looking for clearly unbiased journalistic reporting on the subject, and definately by non-american reporters.

A clue for you, live video doesn't lie.

[iMoc]

Agenda much?

sorry after the first link it came to my knowledge that you seek to promote an agenda of anti-american superior military force. Perhaps you could help your agenda better by jopining the american military and then leaving to go train the enemy of america of your choice? France could use an assload of help in learning how to fight to the death as opposed to surrendering.

It's only an agenda to you as you can't handle the truth. It's hard for most americans to understand how something about America can suck ass. We are so pompous. Everything we do has to be so much better than everyone else.

Provide some rebuting links for me to read, but not by an American journalist, as they cannot tell the plain truth.

OK yeah, I'll join Delta Force in the morning.

You have been totally sucked in by anti french propaganda. how does it feel to such a sheep, a sap, a mindless non questioner. The French have a glorious military history, sure there is a long list of defeats to examine, but any country with a history has that.

Just for your information, though, France fought like dogs to defend themselves in WW1, their modest male population was reduced considerably, and they were not strong at the start of WW2. Still they fought to the best of their ability, made a huge tactical error in relying on the Maginot Line (an exquisite piece of military invention, nevertheless). No one was prepared for WW2, Germany could have beaten anyone at the time. If the US was as close as France to Germany, the same fate would have befallen us in 1939. Only bad weather on the English channel saved the Brits.

Oh, and I never heard anyone calling the French Foreign Legion a bunch of woosies.

[Denise]

If the US had the maginot line Germany would have defeated us? Biggest bunch of bs I have ever heard. England had no Maginot line and yet Germany could not invade them. Care to tell us why?

[Denise]

Hint... It wasn't the weather.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
How did I know that you'd manage to get in a jab at the US? I don't think it's possible for you to post without including some kind of anti-US sentiment.

Just pointing out that America has it's failures too. And I seem to recall that this post was in response to a gratuitious jab at the French when the topic was supposed to be the Republican Guard.

[iMoc]

Obviously you have never seen the marines running up and down the mountains in California? I have.

No but I did read read in the paper and see on the news that they like child porn and are prone to shooting gay movies of eachother. I think one place was in Camp Pendleton, Ca. Sounds very camp to me.

A clue for you, live video doesn't lie.

Tell the cops who got off after beating Rodney King that.

Your not really a skeptic are you!! Shouldn't you be checking your horoscope or something?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london




Incidentally, the only serious counter attack in the battle for France was British. Its the truth that the Brits did more to defend France than the French did. Its also false that the British generals were so inferior to the Germans. The British Army was just so much more poorly equiped. For eg. the first decent tank my grandaddy had was an American Grant. British tanks in WWII were so s--t that we lost virtually every tank battle we entered.

When British exported the lessons learned to America, the yanks built the first tanks that could equal the Panzers in combat (except the T-34, but we didnt have any of those). Reliable, reasonably well armoured and with a decent gun. First used in small numbers at Gazala, they almost wrecked Rommels offensive. Had they been available in larger numbers- the history of the war would have been quite different and no-one would ever have heard of Alamein.



Also I have to agree, the reason the French capitulated was that they simply werent expecting anything like what the Germans threw at them. The Brits at least had some Idea of this kind of warfare since it had been invented by Englishmen (although the top-brass did their level best to ignore them).

The German tanks of the time were not that much better than the French and English tanks, it was how they used them that was new. Tanks were largely relegated to infantry support roles, not the new way, which was to use infantry to support tanks. Also, the use of massed tank attacks.

The German prototype Blitz was first tried at the end of WWI, and worked quite well, except that by then the war was over. And you are correct, the modern use of tanks was first proposed by the English. Some Germans found their books interesting reading. There were, of course, plenty of old style Generals in the German Army, but the new ones had enough influence and were not afraid to resort to deceiving their superiors about their tactics.

Funnily enough, the oldest of the old school was Hitler himself. His WWI tactics can be seen again and again in the German defeats.

I would have to disagree about the English Generals. Monty appears to have been a personality with flair hiding a general with a totally conservative approach against Rommel.

And Rommel was the person behind much of the German successes. If Hitler had bothered listening to him once in a while, Germany might have won the war. Fortunately for us, he didn't.

[Denise]

Well, care to give a source for your assertion? As for Rodney King
they were eventually convicted were they not? What kind of skeptic are you?

[iMoc]

f the US had the maginot line Germany would have defeated us? Biggest bunch of bs I have ever heard. England had no Maginot line and yet Germany could not invade them. Care to tell us why?

Do you know what the Maginot Line was??

Do you know where England is in relation to the rest of Europe??

Well, I do care to tell you why Germany couldn't invade England. You see, there is abou 20 miles of ocean between France and England... ok. Well, big bad Hitler had a plan to invade England, it was called, ready.... Operation Sea Lion. Big bad hitler could have gone over any time and kicked Englands butt, but he didn't know how weak and unprepared they were. So...he told his airforce that before the invasion could take place that he wanted the Royal Air Force destroyed. OK mein Fuhrer, said the aeroplane men, and up they went, lots and lots of them.

Now , when the English saw what was happening they said, "crikey chaps, this isn't cricket, there's only a few of us, but lets damn well show Jerry what we've got. And up went the englishmen (plus a few canadiens, some very brave Poles and Czecks and even a couple of fine oversexed yankee boys.

Well, the long and short of it was that those few brave Royal Air Force boys really stuck it o the Huns, and saved jolly old Englands butts so they could fight another day.Big Bad Hitler got very angry with his aeroplane men and refused to conquer Britain. The Brits then spent the next 2 years asking their good american friends to help them, but the american friends were still friends with Mr. Hitler at the time and said that they could only lend the british men lots of money at high interest rates. But that's another story.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
If the US had the maginot line Germany would have defeated us? Biggest bunch of bs I have ever heard. England had no Maginot line and yet Germany could not invade them. Care to tell us why?

Germany lost the battle of britain, when it was on the verge of having it won. They fought it at first on their usual principles of cutting off the command and control and destroying the airfields. This was working well until some German bombers accidentally bombed London. In retaliation, the English bombed Berlin.

Hitler had one of his famous tantrums, and ordered a bombing war against London to 'break the will' of the English. This was a new theory of warfare, attack the civilians and support for the war will fail. Kind of a super terrorism. Only theory had never been tested, and as it turns out, it can just as easily cause people to unite and back the war even more.

While the erman airforce was going after civilian targets, the RAF got back on it's feet, and had the luxury of being the hunter rather than the hunted.

Once again, a bit of luck saved the day.

[Denise]

A bit of luck? That's pretty funny.

[a_unique_person]

Also, the US at the start of WWII, was in no shape for fending off an attack.

Now, why they have to over-react and be the single, strongest military force in the world by a long way, is a little bit of over compensation in my books.

[Denise]

Originally posted by iMoc


Do you know what the Maginot Line was??

Do you know where England is in relation to the rest of Europe??

Well, I do care to tell you why Germany couldn't invade England. You see, there is abou 20 miles of ocean between France and England... ok. Well, big bad Hitler had a plan to invade England, it was called, ready.... Operation Sea Lion. Big bad hitler could have gone over any time and kicked Englands butt, but he didn't know how weak and unprepared they were. So...he told his airforce that before the invasion could take place that he wanted the Royal Air Force destroyed. OK mein Fuhrer, said the aeroplane men, and up they went, lots and lots of them.

Now , when the English saw what was happening they said, "crikey chaps, this isn't cricket, there's only a few of us, but lets damn well show Jerry what we've got. And up went the englishmen (plus a few canadiens, some very brave Poles and Czecks and even a couple of fine oversexed yankee boys.

Well, the long and short of it was that those few brave Royal Air Force boys really stuck it o the Huns, and saved jolly old Englands butts so they could fight another day.Big Bad Hitler got very angry with his aeroplane men and refused to conquer Britain. The Brits then spent the next 2 years asking their good american friends to help them, but the american friends were still friends with Mr. Hitler at the time and said that they could only lend the british men lots of money at high interest rates. But that's another story.

Um, yes I took History of the Western World in college.

[iMoc]

Hint... It wasn't the weather.

Sorry, I forgot that bit of the story, with the german invasion force ready and primed to go accross the English channel, a very bad storm developed, and the operation was postponed, despite urgings from the generals that they should not delay. They were right, Britain was defensless.

So, I'm sorry to say, the weather was Britains first ally in the war.

[Denise]

Um, they were bombed for days and days, surely weather wasn't the reason they survived.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
A bit of luck? That's pretty funny.

The Germans had their own luck in the war too. There were several times when the war against France might have gone wrong and degenerated into a static war. This was all Hitler and most of his general expected before the war started, conquer half of France and beat them after a protracted war.

When they won in such a short amount of time, there were several points at which luck went their way and turned the course of the war.

Now, if you don't think it was luck that saved the British, what was it? You keep hinting without just saying it.

[Denise]

Originally posted by iMoc


Sorry, I forgot that bit of the story, with the german invasion force ready and primed to go accross the English channel, a very bad storm developed, and the operation was postponed, despite urgings from the generals that they should not delay. They were right, Britain was defensless.

So, I'm sorry to say, the weather was Britains first ally in the war.

And why didn't they storm England when the weather was good?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise


And why didn't they storm England when the weather was good?

They no longer had air cover, the Luftwaffe had been severly beaten by the Battle of Britain, and Hitler was already off another escapade, the conquest of the USSR, which was his main intention all along, 'Lebensraum'.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
Um, they were bombed for days and days, surely weather wasn't the reason they survived.

Hitler had ceased the attack of military objectives, he hoped to reduce them to a passive state of terror. This resulted in massive losses for the air force.

[Denise]

I don't believe in luck, thank you very much. Germany could not have never invaded the UK.

[Denise]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Hitler had ceased the attack of military objectives, he hoped to reduce them to a passive state of terror. This resulted in massive losses for the air force.

Can you say backfire?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
I don't believe in luck, thank you very much. Germany could not have never invaded the UK.

you still haven't said why you believe this.

[iMoc]

Originally posted by Denise
Well, care to give a source for your assertion? As for Rodney King
they were eventually convicted were they not? What kind of skeptic are you?

Wind and Briseno were acquited.

And just to prove I wasn't lying about the other thing....http://qsfmagazine.com/qsf/9711/barry.html

I didn't even know about this little gem.......
http://www.militarycorruption.com/redfaced.htm

Go Marines!

Be aware that the links above link to porn sites. thanks

[Denise]

Um, not into gay porn.

[iMoc]

Originally posted by Denise
I don't believe in luck, thank you very much. Germany could not have never invaded the UK.

I'm sorry to say this, but there's nothing else for it, you don't know what your talking about.

[iMoc]

Originally posted by Denise
Um, not into gay porn.

Really, then why did you ask for evidence??

[Denise]

Originally posted by iMoc


Really, then why did you ask for evidence??

Porn is not evidence.

[iMoc]

Originally posted by Denise


Porn is not evidence.

I didn't send any porn, I'm much too nice for that, I merely sent you a reference to the event and another in for good measure. I would never bismirch this forum with such evildoings, if i were a marine however.........

[Denise]

Originally posted by iMoc


I didn't send any porn, I'm much too nice for that, I merely sent you a reference to the event and another in for good measure. I would never bismirch this forum with such evildoings, if i were a marine however.........

And I merely edited your post.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise


And I merely edited your post.


Might be worth putting that warning before the links.

[LW]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


you still haven't said why you believe this.

In one word: The Royal Navy. OK, that's three words.

The Germans probably could have landed with a division or so, but on the next night their supply flotilla would have been in the bottom of the Channel. Their barges were so slow that crossing Channel would have taken about 24 hours. This means that they would have had to be on sea at night time, that is, without air cover. A single destroyer that gets through German defensive screen can sink a whole fleet of barges. The Navy had dozens of destroyers.

The German defensive screen would have been composed of minefields and submarines with few destroyers and larger craft thrown in for good measure. The conquest of Norway showed that submarines were not that effective against fast-moving warships and that German torpedoes were faulty (if a U-boat dived for too long time (as it would have to do in the Channel), the depth-control settings of torpedoes malfunctioned, this wasn't discovered and fixed until 1941, IIRC).

Again, in Norway Kriegsmarine suffered horrible losses of light craft and many of its larger warships were damaged and out of action. It simply was not strong enough to resist an all-out attack of The Royal Navy. Sure, the British might lose a few craft to mines, maybe a few lucky submarines might sink a ship or two. But they had enough ships to come through and sink every German ship in the Channel, if desired.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LW


In one word: The Royal Navy. OK, that's three words.

The Germans probably could have landed with a division or so, but on the next night their supply flotilla would have been in the bottom of the Channel. Their barges were so slow that crossing Channel would have taken about 24 hours. This means that they would have had to be on sea at night time, that is, without air cover. A single destroyer that gets through German defensive screen can sink a whole fleet of barges. The Navy had dozens of destroyers.

The German defensive screen would have been composed of minefields and submarines with few destroyers and larger craft thrown in for good measure. The conquest of Norway showed that submarines were not that effective against fast-moving warships and that German torpedoes were faulty (if a U-boat dived for too long time (as it would have to do in the Channel), the depth-control settings of torpedoes malfunctioned, this wasn't discovered and fixed until 1941, IIRC).

Again, in Norway Kriegsmarine suffered horrible losses of light craft and many of its larger warships were damaged and out of action. It simply was not strong enough to resist an all-out attack of The Royal Navy. Sure, the British might lose a few craft to mines, maybe a few lucky submarines might sink a ship or two. But they had enough ships to come through and sink every German ship in the Channel, if desired.

links.... links.....

[a_unique_person]

From mid July the Luftwaffe stepped up the military pressure by attacking the channel ports and shipping to establish command of the Straits of Dover, while German heavy guns were installed around Calais to bombard the Dover area where the first shells started to fall during the second week of August. By the end of July the Royal Navy had to pull all its larger warships out of the channel because of the threat from German aircraft. All seemed to be going to plan; perhaps this mounting military pressure and the prospect of invasion would break British spirits and make Operation Sealion unnecessary?



So they would have only had smaller ships, while the Germans would have had land based guns and larger ships for cover.

[LW]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


links.... links.....

OK, here are two:

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

[egslim]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From mid July the Luftwaffe stepped up the military pressure by attacking the channel ports and shipping to establish command of the Straits of Dover, while German heavy guns were installed around Calais to bombard the Dover area where the first shells started to fall during the second week of August. By the end of July the Royal Navy had to pull all its larger warships out of the channel because of the threat from German aircraft. All seemed to be going to plan; perhaps this mounting military pressure and the prospect of invasion would break British spirits and make Operation Sealion unnecessary?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So they would have only had smaller ships, while the Germans would have had land based guns and larger ships for cover.

Not true. The German plan was to transport troops, equipment and a continuous flow of supplies across the Channel in fresh water ships transportships - they didn't have any other.
These would be protected by the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. At that point in time, the Kriegsmarine could only commit mines, submarines, destroyers and smaller ships, perhaps a few cruisers and a pocketbattleship.
The Royal Navy had many more cruisers and destroyers a couple of hours away. These ships would have been able to race to the Channel with some 30 knots, much faster than the German fresh water ships could move. So they didn't need to be as close.
Above Dunkirk the Luftwaffe showed it's relative impotence in attacking fastmoving warships.
The simple bowwave of a destroyer at 30 knots would have been enough to sink the German transports.

Now add to that the RAF, with even at it's weakest some 400 first line fighters. And remember that getting the troops across isn't even half the work, you need to keep getting supplies to them.

[Troll]

Originally posted by iMoc


It's only an agenda to you as you can't handle the truth. It's hard for most americans to understand how something about America can suck ass. We are so pompous. Everything we do has to be so much better than everyone else.

Provide some rebuting links for me to read, but not by an American journalist, as they cannot tell the plain truth.

OK yeah, I'll join Delta Force in the morning.

You have been totally sucked in by anti french propaganda. how does it feel to such a sheep, a sap, a mindless non questioner. The French have a glorious military history, sure there is a long list of defeats to examine, but any country with a history has that.

Just for your information, though, France fought like dogs to defend themselves in WW1, their modest male population was reduced considerably, and they were not strong at the start of WW2. Still they fought to the best of their ability, made a huge tactical error in relying on the Maginot Line (an exquisite piece of military invention, nevertheless). No one was prepared for WW2, Germany could have beaten anyone at the time. If the US was as close as France to Germany, the same fate would have befallen us in 1939. Only bad weather on the English channel saved the Brits.

Oh, and I never heard anyone calling the French Foreign Legion a bunch of woosies.

I can handle the truth. I even know the truth about US Military training quite well. I also know what it's like on the other end of the US Marines, having played the bad guy many times during training. Leaving Somolia after Mogadishu wasn't a military call, it was the call of politicians.

sure there's going to be mistakes made, they're made on all sides in wars and battles. Never claimed any military to be flawless.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LW


OK, here are two:

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

hmmm, interesting. You wouldn't catch me on a river barge across the channel.

I have just been reading a book that stated that the war could have been won just by Hitler giving Rommel enough troops to conquery north africa and hence lock up the mediteranean. No Malta, British Navy or Gibraltar. Hence, no Torch, Avalanche etc.