Single Ship TF Dispersion of Large Vulnerable TFs in danger

[Cap Mandrake]

The Firth of Firth doth flow upon the Bay of Boy and thence upon the Gulf of Golf where one doth find the Isles of Piles and the Cape of Cope

[Cap Mandrake]

Operation Sea Lion would have made the British very cross. Very, very cross. Imagine the carnage inflicted by strafing aircraft on towed barges. Take off from an airfield in Southern England, 3 minutes to the Channel..fire until the barrels turn red hot..back to base..lather, rinse repeat.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Firth of Forth [:D][:D]

I still think that is an inside joke some cartographer made up in the 14th Century.

During bad weather it's the Frothy Firth of Forth!

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Firth of Forth [:D][:D]

I still think that is an inside joke some cartographer made up in the 14th Century.

During bad weather it's the Frothy Firth of Forth!

Yes and after a run of bad weather the captain says to the reluctant crew "Forthooth, we must go forth on the fourth frothy Firth of Forth"

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Firth of Forth [:D][:D]

I still think that is an inside joke some cartographer made up in the 14th Century.

During bad weather it's the Frothy Firth of Forth!

Yes and after a run of bad weather the captain says to the reluctant crew "Forthooth, we must go forth on the fourth frothy Firth of Forth"

For the Seven Salacious Samarians?

[Leandros]

Warspite wrote: BUT, we are talking here about the survival of the United Kingdom. Let us suspend disbelief here and assume the German river barges were able to pootle across the channel.

Well, they were to be towed by proper tugs (450) and 150 freighters (averaging 4.000 tons displacement). Simply to ensure an orderly and timely advance of the various landing parties.

Warspite wrote:….unassailed by the RN light forces or the RAF - both of whom had gone on holiday apparently.

In a way they had. The RN had pulled completely out of the Eastern part, there were some destroyers based in the Western part which had standing orders not to venture out in daytime without fighter escort (we know how that worked out in those days). There was a reason for that curfew. RAF Fighter Command had their hands full recuperating from the daily Luftwaffe onslaughts which, as soon as the Sealion go-ahead (10 days before S-day) was given would have been switched back from the irrelevant London missions. Bomber Command was allergic to anti-ship missions. Oh, yes – they did a nice job night-bombing the stationary targets on the French coast. Unfortunately, the German margins in transport were such that it had little practical importance.

Warspite wrote: German forces are now ashore. The only possibility for the country is that these forces are trapped and without the chance of re-supply.

Couldn‘t have said it better myself…

Warspite wrote: As I have said before, Hitler is simply not going to see Barbarossa compromised for an operation with such a slim chance of success.

We shall all be happy he showed such blatant misjudgement. That said, that isn’t really the subject, is it?

Warspite wrote: You are talking about saving the RN for a rainy day - but that is not something that would be anything but a last resort scenario - and not something you would choose to lose the mother country over.

Oh, yes – the Mother Country, Back Against The Wall syndrome. No more said about that…

Warspite wrote: The German can be stopped pre-invasion. In the highly unlikely event they land, they need to be cut-off.

Exactly what is it you mean, please? They would be cut off because they needed to be cut off? The Germans wouldn’t have any say in that?

Warspite wrote: At that stage the fighting is desperate. Yes the RN will lose ships - of that there is no doubt, but Hitler's plans to the east will have taken a rather big blow given the continued mauling of the Luftwaffe, and a number of their top divisions swimming with the fishes.

Stalin would have been delighted!

Warspite wrote: Of course no one knows exactly what would have happened but the scenario being portrayed by the other two gentlemen makes no sense whatsoever…...

I’m not sure which scenario you are in so I would appreciate to know what does not make sense. I mean concrete examples from the period. Are the facts on the German intentions and resources posted by me faulty? Or the information on British resources and intentions given by me?

Warspite wrote: My fault for saying France in the previous post - apologies.

Really no need for that. It’s just a detail. Like most other things about Sealion….

Warspite wrote: Sorry - but references to D-Day and Sealion in the context above just does not work. Air supremacy, little naval opposition, specialised landing craft, specialised landing equipment, 2-years of planning and huge amounts of training, close inter-service co-ordination.... the list is endless - and the comparison is grim reading for the Germans in every regard.

Except for two years of planning, the German staffs and personnel didn’t need that, you have described Sealion quite succinctly (is that the word..?.) and informative.

Warspite wrote: As for the river barges used on D-Day. I would really welcome a comparison of those that would have been used by the Germans during Sealion and those used by the Allies on D-Day. Of particular interest is the purpose of these vessels in each (and the roles they were required to undertake) and the steps taken in their conversion - engines? armament? Not to mention who would crew each. As has been pointed out previously, the German simply did not have sufficient sailors to man these 3,600 vessels.

I recommend Peter Schenk’s Landung in England. It’s the best book on the German transport fleet.
My point was really to show that barges, which can be many things, aren’t necessarily as unseaworthy to the degree they are often portrayed in Sealion discussions. They weren’t. As for manning the Kriegsmarine vessels some here may well have concluded that they could not be sufficiently manned, but those persons have obviously not conferred with the Kriegsmarine as that institution didn’t know that. Or, rather, according to General Halder’s diary, the Kriegsmarine was on top of it. If they hadn’t the operation could maybe have been cancelled because of this….Or maybe it was…?

Warspite wrote: My understanding is that these barges were largely used to provide water, oil, repair and kitchen services to the troops ashore - not as frontline vessels to land the men in the first instance. As a result the comparison does not hold water (if you will pardon the pun).

Yes, they were anchored outside the beaches as a sort of service vans. I agree there is little comparison except for the point just mentioned by me, seaworthiness. The subject can be found on Wikipedia. Of course, the Thames barges were built in the UK and therefore superior to the Dutch, French, Belgian and German.

Warspite wrote: The Sealion invasion force was stronger than that employed at D-Day? How exactly?

I wrote relatively seen. Enough said…

Warspite wrote:…and, far more importantly, is not backed up by what actually happened before and after the potential Sealion operation date.

If that is your opinion I would love to hear what actually happened before and after the potential Sealion date that gives substance to such an allegation. But, not the one that Hitler decided not to go through with it. We know that. And we are not sorry for it.

I have been through some Sealion discussions and whenever I ask a British proponent (one that is a firm believer in Sealion being doomed…) “when and where would the RN have interdicted and with what forces? Which destroyers would have come from where – at what time?” - I rarely get a reply. Because they don’t know, they haven’t studied it. And, equally, they often know very little about the German plans, organization, intentions and available resources. Not to say: “What actually happened before and after the potential Sealion date”? Weserübung? France? Dunkirk? The Kanalkampf? The ban on daylight Channel operations for the RN? That the British MTB forces internally were called "The Costly Farces"? Greece? Crete? Singapore?

I have studied it to the extent that I put it all together in a 320-page book. Still I cannot say that it would have succeeded or failed. Frankly, I don’t care.

I am not going to use more time on this now. Just yesterday I bought and downloaded a strategic war game – it’s named War in the Pacific – Admiral’s Edition. I have studied it for some weeks and made myself impossible here. It was frightfully expensive, shows up on my screen as a drawn-out Centaur with smallish, grainy letters and symbols and refuse to react to its own advice on loading down eventual recent updates. The attached manual is not able to connect with my Acrobat Reader, either.

I shall probably have the next couple of weeks full to have it all sorted out. I hope to use the game in keeping some order of units and resources in my next book project: “Saving MacArthur”. Hopefully, it shall go faster than the five years it took to write the book on Sealion…

Hals und Beinbruch!

Fred

P.S.: I am happy to tell you that I have been able to update direct from Matrix and connected the manual and Acrobat Reader via the back door. Now I need to abolish the widescreen picture. I hate faulty aspect ratios be it on PC’s or TV’s.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Operation Sea Lion would have made the British very cross. Very, very cross. Imagine the carnage inflicted by strafing aircraft on towed barges. Take off from an airfield in Southern England, 3 minutes to the Channel..fire until the barrels turn red hot..back to base..lather, rinse repeat.

You mean - like the AASF in France? Couldn't help it. I'm out now...[;)]..

Fred

[warspite1]

Well, they were to be towed by proper tugs (450) and 150 freighters (averaging 4.000 tons displacement). Simply to ensure an orderly and timely advance of the various landing parties.

Yes, at 2-3 knots. A nice, slow moving relatively tightly packed, long strung out column, crewed by a mix of experienced and inexperienced personnel. At night, being attacked by the RN it would have been carnage. Tugs being shot up and sinking – taking the barges with them in some cases – or visa-versa. Tow ropes being lost and the barges sitting ducks and drifting. As more and more tug/barge combos become held up in the melee so the situation becomes more and more confused. One word; Carnage.

In a way they had. The RN had pulled completely out of the Eastern part, there were some destroyers based in the Western part which had standing orders not to venture out in daytime without fighter escort (we know how that worked out in those days). There was a reason for that curfew. RAF Fighter Command had their hands full recuperating from the daily Luftwaffe onslaughts which, as soon as the Sealion go-ahead (10 days before S-day) was given would have been switched back from the irrelevant London missions. Bomber Command was allergic to anti-ship missions. Oh, yes – they did a nice job night-bombing the stationary targets on the French coast. Unfortunately, the German margins in transport were such that it had little practical importance.

Apologies but I simply do not understand the point you are making here. The RN had pulled out of nowhere. Here is a list of ships (not including the hundreds of small craft – patrol boats, minesweepers etc – the only smaller vessels noted are MTB’s). All of these are easily within reach of the Channel – remember the Germans have a 24-30 hour crossing!

Dover – 2 x MTB
Harwich – 6 DD, 11 MTB
Portsmouth – 1 CL, 14 DD, 5 x TB 6 x MTB
Southampton – 2 x DD
Sheerness – 2 x CL, 18 x DD
London – 1 x MTB
Lowestoft – 1 x TB, 1 x MTB
Portland - 2 x MTB
Plymouth – 1 x BB, 1 x CA, 1 x CL, 11 x DD
The Humber – 3 x CA, 5 x DD, 11 x MTB
Milford Haven – 1 TB
Rosyth – 2 x BB, 2 x BC, 2 x CL, 1 x CLAA, 17 x DD, 1 x TB
Liverpool – 3 x DD
Dundee – 3 x TB
Belfast – 3 x DD
Clyde – 1 x CA, 10 x DD
Scapa Flow – 1 x BC, 1 x CV, 3 x CA, 1 x CLAA, 7 x DD
Others – 10 x DD, 1 x TB

Note: All the above are readily available in September i.e. there are no units above undergoing repair or otherwise out of action. No allowance has been made for vessels used for convoy purposes – which of course can be recalled in extremis. Finally I have referred to the Town-class as CA (the 6-inch/8-inch distinction was blurred by then).

You also seem to be confusing sound tactical decisions by both the RAF and the RN (in order to husband forces for other purposes) with what would happen in the event that an invasion was underway.

Then there are the sweeping statements that, of course apply only one way: Bomber command was allergic to anti-ship missions – what about the FAA? And the Luftwaffe was full of anti-ship experts? Attacks on naval vessels off Dunkirk and Norway suggested otherwise…. In terms of overall shipping lost at Dunkirk – over 200 – once again it’s all one way. The Luftwaffe was able to inflict those losses (with the help of mines) on the Allies, but the RAF could not possibly do the same come the invasion? That statement simply has no basis in fact.
“RAF Fighter Command had their hands full recuperating from the daily Luftwaffe onslaughts” If you are going to ignore the parlous state of the Luftwaffe by September 1940 then this is a pretty pointless exercise.

“Unfortunately, the German margins in transport were such that it had little practical importance”. This is simply wrong. The barges and tugs were irreplaceable.

quote:

Warspite wrote: As I have said before, Hitler is simply not going to see Barbarossa compromised for an operation with such a slim chance of success.

Leandros wrote: We shall all be happy he showed such blatant misjudgement. That said, that isn’t really the subject, is it?

Sadly this is very much the subject and to ignore this is to simply fail to understand what WWII – at least as far as Europe was concerned – was all about. We can argue back and forth all we like about ships, aircraft, barges and whatever. One FACT is known; Barbarossa was Hitler’s raison d’etre. A quick win against a beaten Britain? Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) – no. But as an exercise in what-if, we can park this.

Oh, yes – the Mother Country, Back Against The Wall syndrome. No more said about that…

Presumably you mean something by this – sadly I have no clue….

Warspite wrote: The German can be stopped pre-invasion. In the highly unlikely event they land, they need to be cut-off.

Leandros wrote: Exactly what is it you mean, please? They would be cut off because they needed to be cut off? The Germans wouldn’t have any say in that?

Sealion would have been carnage for the Germans because they would never have landed – or if some units did, they would be in such disarray that they would easily have been mopped up. However, this comment was in response to the fanciful notion that if, by some miracle, the Germans had landed, then the RN would not have thrown everything at the invasion forces, they would not seek to have them cut-off. Instead they would have sailed for Canada!!!

I recommend Peter Schenk’s Landung in England. It’s the best book on the German transport fleet.
My point was really to show that barges, which can be many things, aren’t necessarily as unseaworthy to the degree they are often portrayed in Sealion discussions. They weren’t. As for manning the Kriegsmarine vessels some here may well have concluded that they could not be sufficiently manned, but those persons have obviously not conferred with the Kriegsmarine as that institution didn’t know that. Or, rather, according to General Halder’s diary, the Kriegsmarine was on top of it. If they hadn’t the operation could maybe have been cancelled because of this….Or maybe it was…?

As far as I can tell the book has not been translated into English. However that is not really the point. The inadequacies re the barges and tugs have been made repeatedly*. You say the Kriegsmarine were unaware that they had insufficient experienced seamen to man the vessels. This is the same Kriegsmarine that did not believe this operation was possible? Halder? Come now Leandros, you are intimating that the army and the navy actually spoke to one another about this operation! Basically the army said what they wanted, Raeder said it was impossible and so Hitler agreed with the army at a meeting Raeder was not even present at.

But of course as you say re planning for the operation “the German staffs and personnel didn’t need that”……..

*Aside from the pitifully slow speed that the tugs and their barges would be travelling at you have not mentioned how exactly these barges were supposed to land the troops and the need for the tugs to wait around to link up with them so they could be taken back for follow-up waves (all this time the British are doing nothing of course). You have not mentioned the fact that the Germans has ONE very small scale practice at landing against an uncontested beach and that this practise session went very badly – but as you say, the Germans didn’t need planning and preparation…..

The subject can be found on Wikipedia. Of course, the Thames barges were built in the UK and therefore superior to the Dutch, French, Belgian and German.

I assume that is sarcasm?

Warspite wrote: The Sealion invasion force was stronger than that employed at D-Day? How exactly?

Leandros wrote: I wrote relatively seen. Enough said…

Er… okay.. but makes no sense relatively or otherwise.

Warspite wrote:…and, far more importantly, is not backed up by what actually happened before and after the potential Sealion operation date.

Leandros wrote: If that is your opinion I would love to hear what actually happened before and after the potential Sealion date that gives substance to such an allegation. But, not the one that Hitler decided not to go through with it. We know that. And we are not sorry for it.

Again this was a response in to the earlier comment that the British would not throw everything at the Germans in the event that the invasion looked like it was succeeding. As I said, “That scenario simply beggars belief. Yes the Senior Service will risk losing battleships to assist a Division or so off Norway, a corps off Crete, to save the island of Malta, to save the colony of Malaya/Singapore - but the UK? No way.....”

[mind_messing]

Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) – no. But as an exercise in what-if, we can park this.

Hey, you've changed your tune! I'll consider that great progress towards making your thinking a little less dogmatic!

Sealion would have been carnage for the Germans because they would never have landed – or if some units did, they would be in such disarray that they would easily have been mopped up. However, this comment was in response to the fanciful notion that if, by some miracle, the Germans had landed, then the RN would not have thrown everything at the invasion forces, they would not seek to have them cut-off. Instead they would have sailed for Canada!!!

Again this was a response in to the earlier comment that the British would not throw everything at the Germans in the event that the invasion looked like it was succeeding. As I said, “That scenario simply beggars belief. Yes the Senior Service will risk losing battleships to assist a Division or so off Norway, a corps off Crete, to save the island of Malta, to save the colony of Malaya/Singapore - but the UK? No way.....”

You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?

It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude decades after the fact, but the actual commanders on the ground don't think that way. The Home Fleet was a massive strategic asset to the UK, and to commit it without a force in reserve would have been exceptionally reckless.

It's worth noting that even when the Grand Fleet sortied for Jutland (at the opposition possessed a far stronger naval force) it didn't send "the kitchen sink".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) – no. But as an exercise in what-if, we can park this.

Hey, you've changed your tune! I'll consider that great progress towards making your thinking a little less dogmatic!

Sealion would have been carnage for the Germans because they would never have landed – or if some units did, they would be in such disarray that they would easily have been mopped up. However, this comment was in response to the fanciful notion that if, by some miracle, the Germans had landed, then the RN would not have thrown everything at the invasion forces, they would not seek to have them cut-off. Instead they would have sailed for Canada!!!

Again this was a response in to the earlier comment that the British would not throw everything at the Germans in the event that the invasion looked like it was succeeding. As I said, “That scenario simply beggars belief. Yes the Senior Service will risk losing battleships to assist a Division or so off Norway, a corps off Crete, to save the island of Malta, to save the colony of Malaya/Singapore - but the UK? No way.....”

You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?

It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude decades after the fact, but the actual commanders on the ground don't think that way. The Home Fleet was a massive strategic asset to the UK, and to commit it without a force in reserve would have been exceptionally reckless.

It's worth noting that even when the Grand Fleet sortied for Jutland (at the opposition possessed a far stronger naval force) it didn't send "the kitchen sink".

warspite1

THIS IS POINTLESS. You either misquote me or continue to insist I have said something I haven't WHY????

a) Here is the quote Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) Now look what I have written previously - there is no change AT ALL in my stance on this.....

b) "You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?" READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN "It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude" I REPEAT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

tm.asp?m=3773378&mpage=2&key=

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) – no. But as an exercise in what-if, we can park this.

Hey, you've changed your tune! I'll consider that great progress towards making your thinking a little less dogmatic!

Sealion would have been carnage for the Germans because they would never have landed – or if some units did, they would be in such disarray that they would easily have been mopped up. However, this comment was in response to the fanciful notion that if, by some miracle, the Germans had landed, then the RN would not have thrown everything at the invasion forces, they would not seek to have them cut-off. Instead they would have sailed for Canada!!!

Again this was a response in to the earlier comment that the British would not throw everything at the Germans in the event that the invasion looked like it was succeeding. As I said, “That scenario simply beggars belief. Yes the Senior Service will risk losing battleships to assist a Division or so off Norway, a corps off Crete, to save the island of Malta, to save the colony of Malaya/Singapore - but the UK? No way.....”

You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?

It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude decades after the fact, but the actual commanders on the ground don't think that way. The Home Fleet was a massive strategic asset to the UK, and to commit it without a force in reserve would have been exceptionally reckless.

It's worth noting that even when the Grand Fleet sortied for Jutland (at the opposition possessed a far stronger naval force) it didn't send "the kitchen sink".

warspite1

THIS IS POINTLESS. You either misquote me or continue to insist I have said something I haven't WHY????

a) Here is the quote Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) Now look what I have written previously - there is no change AT ALL in my stance on this.....

b) "You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?" READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN "It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude" I REPEAT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

tm.asp?m=3773378&mpage=2&key=

HIS IS POINTLESS. You either misquote me or continue to insist I have said something I haven't WHY????

a) Here is the quote Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) Now look what I have written previously - there is no change AT ALL in my stance on this.....

b) "You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?" READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN "It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude" I REPEAT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

You'd be surprised!

fb.asp?m=3773387

Let me quote the part, and make it nice and clear before I am accused of a misquote or not reading what you've typed.

czert2, there are few things in life that are certain. Death - check, taxes - check, Spurs won't win the Premiership in my lifetime - check. I will never get it on with a playboy model - check.

There is one positive item you can add to that depressing list - a successful Operation Sealion was simply impossible. It would have been a complete and utter disaster for the German armed forces - shame in a way they didn't attempt it. I suspect there would have been no question of Barbarossa in 1941 if they had...

Last time I checked, "minuscule chance" is something that is not "impossible".

That was the crux of the other thread. Good to see you've changed your tune.

[Cap Mandrake]

There is actually a pretty good historical precedent of night action in the Channel with landing ships.

Operation Tiger (the Slapton Sands rehearsal). It was such a disaster that Eisenhower forbade
any news leaks. These were LST's that were armed (so to speak) and didn't require towing.

A huge convoy(s) making 3-5 kts, half the ships towed. Sure, the defense might have been less inept but the intercepting forces would have been substantial. It would have been Slapton Sands on
steroids with the other side winning. Then the sun comes up and the Hurris and Spits go into action. Oy vey!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



Hey, you've changed your tune! I'll consider that great progress towards making your thinking a little less dogmatic!



You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?

It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude decades after the fact, but the actual commanders on the ground don't think that way. The Home Fleet was a massive strategic asset to the UK, and to commit it without a force in reserve would have been exceptionally reckless.

It's worth noting that even when the Grand Fleet sortied for Jutland (at the opposition possessed a far stronger naval force) it didn't send "the kitchen sink".

warspite1

THIS IS POINTLESS. You either misquote me or continue to insist I have said something I haven't WHY????

a) Here is the quote Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) Now look what I have written previously - there is no change AT ALL in my stance on this.....

b) "You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?" READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN "It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude" I REPEAT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

tm.asp?m=3773378&mpage=2&key=

HIS IS POINTLESS. You either misquote me or continue to insist I have said something I haven't WHY????

a) Here is the quote Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) Now look what I have written previously - there is no change AT ALL in my stance on this.....

b) "You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?" READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN "It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude" I REPEAT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

You'd be surprised!

fb.asp?m=3773387

Let me quote the part, and make it nice and clear before I am accused of a misquote or not reading what you've typed.

czert2, there are few things in life that are certain. Death - check, taxes - check, Spurs won't win the Premiership in my lifetime - check. I will never get it on with a playboy model - check.

There is one positive item you can add to that depressing list - a successful Operation Sealion was simply impossible. It would have been a complete and utter disaster for the German armed forces - shame in a way they didn't attempt it. I suspect there would have been no question of Barbarossa in 1941 if they had...

Last time I checked, "minuscule chance" is something that is not "impossible".

That was the crux of the other thread. Good to see you've changed your tune.

warspite1

Read post 58. You are splitting hairs again. I have maintained that Sealion was impossible unless EVERYTHING goes right for the Germans and wrong for the British over an extended period of time. For all intents and purposes that is an impossibility.

You have not commented upon the Charge of the Light Brigade manoeuvre in this last post so can I assume you have now understood what I have said at least in that regard??

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

There is actually a pretty good historical precedent of night action in the Channel with landing ships.

Operation Tiger (the Slapton Sands rehearsal). It was such a disaster that Eisenhower forbade
any news leaks. These were LST's that were armed (so to speak) and didn't require towing.

A huge convoy(s) making 3-5 kts, half the ships towed. Sure, the defense might have been less inept but the intercepting forces would have been substantial. It would have been Slapton Sands on
steroids with the other side winning. Then the sun comes up and the Hurris and Spits go into action. Oy vey!

warspite1

Yes and the incident off Crete is another. The Germans had air supremacy but the RN got in amongst a convoy at night and suffice to say, things did not turn out well for the Axis.....

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

I am not going to use more time on this now. Just yesterday I bought and downloaded a strategic war game – it’s named War in the Pacific – Admiral’s Edition. I have studied it for some weeks and made myself impossible here. It was frightfully expensive, shows up on my screen as a drawn-out Centaur with smallish, grainy letters and symbols and refuse to react to its own advice on loading down eventual recent updates. The attached manual is not able to connect with my Acrobat Reader, either.

I suggest looking at some of the threads on setting the command line switched here on the forum. One is -altFont, which some people find more readable. There are also switches that make the game work faster on multi-core computers. I've always been able to open the manual files with Acrobat. I'm not sure what is up there.

Bill

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Leandros

I am not going to use more time on this now. Just yesterday I bought and downloaded a strategic war game – it’s named War in the Pacific – Admiral’s Edition. I have studied it for some weeks and made myself impossible here. It was frightfully expensive, shows up on my screen as a drawn-out Centaur with smallish, grainy letters and symbols and refuse to react to its own advice on loading down eventual recent updates. The attached manual is not able to connect with my Acrobat Reader, either.

I suggest looking at some of the threads on setting the command line switched here on the forum. One is -altFont, which some people find more readable. There are also switches that make the game work faster on multi-core computers. I've always been able to open the manual files with Acrobat. I'm not sure what is up there.

Bill

Thank you, Bill - I shall look into it. As for the Acrobat thing I believe it perhaps is in connection with my new PC - administrator settings and such. Anyway,
I can open them with Word 2013 even if they are Acrobat Reader files. The pure Reader, too.

Fred

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Leandros

I am not going to use more time on this now. Just yesterday I bought and downloaded a strategic war game – it’s named War in the Pacific – Admiral’s Edition. I have studied it for some weeks and made myself impossible here. It was frightfully expensive, shows up on my screen as a drawn-out Centaur with smallish, grainy letters and symbols and refuse to react to its own advice on loading down eventual recent updates. The attached manual is not able to connect with my Acrobat Reader, either.

I suggest looking at some of the threads on setting the command line switched here on the forum. One is -altFont, which some people find more readable. There are also switches that make the game work faster on multi-core computers. I've always been able to open the manual files with Acrobat. I'm not sure what is up there.

Bill

Thank you, Bill - I shall look into it. As for the Acrobat thing I believe it perhaps is in connection with my new PC - administrator settings and such. Anyway,
I can open them with Word 2013 even if they are Acrobat Reader files. The pure Reader, too.

Fred

Try SumatraPDF instead of Adobe PDF Reader. There are others too if you like. Or, Windows 8/8.1 can use Google Chrome to open PDFs.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Firth of Forth [:D][:D]

I still think that is an inside joke some cartographer made up in the 14th Century.

During bad weather it's the Frothy Firth of Forth!

Yes and after a run of bad weather the captain says to the reluctant crew "Forthooth, we must go forth on the fourth frothy Firth of Forth"

I think I have a headache coming on.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Try SumatraPDF instead of Adobe PDF Reader. There are others too if you like. Or, Windows 8/8.1 can use Google Chrome to open PDFs.

Thank you again for your effort. It seems I have found what generates the problem. After a restart I was able to open both the Acrobat and WitP manual
in Acrobat Reader. Worked all the time. But, after having tried to open it via the WitP menu on the desktop (which didn't work!), there was again no response
on the other shortcuts, be it Acrobat Reader in general or the links supposed to open any Acrobat document.

Another restart and the shortcuts worked again but still not the one in the WitP desktop menu. After having tried this the others again showed no response.
Restart again and the shortcuts worked (but not from the WitP menu).

It seems that trying to open the Acrobat document (the manual) from the WitP desktop menu blocks the start-up of any Acrobat documents or links in the computer.

Well, now I know what to do and what not to...[:)]

Fred

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

THIS IS POINTLESS. You either misquote me or continue to insist I have said something I haven't WHY????

a) Here is the quote Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) Now look what I have written previously - there is no change AT ALL in my stance on this.....

b) "You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?" READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN "It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude" I REPEAT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

tm.asp?m=3773378&mpage=2&key=

HIS IS POINTLESS. You either misquote me or continue to insist I have said something I haven't WHY????

a) Here is the quote Maybe, but an operation like Sealion, with a miniscule chance of success (read none unless absolutely everything went right for the Germans) Now look what I have written previously - there is no change AT ALL in my stance on this.....

b) "You wouldn't have considered it prudent for the RN keeping a force in reserve for any eventualities?" READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN "It's all well and fine you've a blood and guts and damn the torpedoes attitude" I REPEAT READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

You'd be surprised!

fb.asp?m=3773387

Let me quote the part, and make it nice and clear before I am accused of a misquote or not reading what you've typed.

czert2, there are few things in life that are certain. Death - check, taxes - check, Spurs won't win the Premiership in my lifetime - check. I will never get it on with a playboy model - check.

There is one positive item you can add to that depressing list - a successful Operation Sealion was simply impossible. It would have been a complete and utter disaster for the German armed forces - shame in a way they didn't attempt it. I suspect there would have been no question of Barbarossa in 1941 if they had...

Last time I checked, "minuscule chance" is something that is not "impossible".

That was the crux of the other thread. Good to see you've changed your tune.

warspite1

Read post 58. You are splitting hairs again. I have maintained that Sealion was impossible unless EVERYTHING goes right for the Germans and wrong for the British over an extended period of time. For all intents and purposes that is an impossibility.

You have not commented upon the Charge of the Light Brigade manoeuvre in this last post so can I assume you have now understood what I have said at least in that regard??

warspite1

No response. I will take that as a yes...at last!

England and Scotland - two nations divided by a common language [:D]