HE162 Salamanda a how did it even work?

[MorgothNL]

Originally Posted by RCfalcon

Yeah, those crazy Germans and their similarly numbered planes. lol

Yeah, the americans are way better at that . P-40, P-47, P51, P-38 etc . Why cant they just give them cool names ? Just call them jug, mustang, lightning.. get rid of those lame numbers. Thats so old fashioned

[RCfalcon]

Originally Posted by MorgothNL

Yeah, the americans are way better at that . P-40, P-47, P51, P-38 etc . Why cant they just give them cool names ? Just call them jug, mustang, lightning.. get rid of those lame numbers. Thats so old fashioned

Yes we are =P

Speaking of the P-38. Where is it? I want my Lightning.

...and the Horton flying wing, but I know that's a longshot. lol

[Doktorwzzerd]

Originally Posted by RCfalcon

Yes we are =P

Speaking of the P-38. Where is it? I want my Lightning.

...and the Horton flying wing, but I know that's a longshot. lol

Hear! Hear! The two highest scoring American aces of WW2, Richard Bong and Tommy McGuire, both flew P-38s exclusively. I need to feel all that speed, kinetic energy, and weight of fire; screw turning radius!

As to the other points in this thread, IMHO: 1) Sea Lion could have never succeeded as the Royal Navy would have obliterated the invasion fleet even if the RAF had been significantly reduced by the Luftwaffe. 2) Hitler was thoroughly sub-genius. German successes in France in 1940 and Russia in 1941 were due entirely to Guderian's genius as well as the excellent quality of the Prussian military machine, which the Nazis fully inherited and had nothing to do with. On the other hand all of the German reverses post-1941 were due almost entirely to Hitler's taking a direct role in the day to day tactical and strategic management of the war, a task for which he was eminently unqualified.

[Swagger7]

Originally Posted by Doktorwzzerd

Hear! Hear! The two highest scoring American aces of WW2, Richard Bong and Tommy McGuire, both flew P-38s exclusively. I need to feel all that speed, kinetic energy, and weight of fire; screw turning radius!

As to the other points in this thread, IMHO: 1) Sea Lion could have never succeeded as the Royal Navy would have obliterated the invasion fleet even if the RAF had been significantly reduced by the Luftwaffe. 2) Hitler was thoroughly sub-genius. German successes in France in 1940 and Russia in 1941 were due entirely to Guderian's genius as well as the excellent quality of the Prussian military machine, which the Nazis fully inherited and had nothing to do with. On the other hand all of the German reverses post-1941 were due almost entirely to Hitler's taking a direct role in the day to day tactical and strategic management of the war, a task for which he was eminently unqualified.

Yeah, Hitler was a 'tard, but I think Sea Lion could have succeeded. It just wouldn't have had a big impact on the final outcome of the war. The problem with using the Royal Navy to stop the invasion is that the invasion wouldn't have started until the RAF was thrashed. Then, the Luftwaffe could have seriously mangled the navy if it tried to interfere. Look what a couple of squadrons of Japanese bombers did to HMS Wales & HMS Repulse. Also, the Kriegsmarine could have filled the channel with dozens of U-boats, waiting silently at periscope depth to launch down the throat torpedo attacks on the RN. The Germans could also have mined the channel at night to deny the navy access.

[Doktorwzzerd]

Originally Posted by Swagger7

Yeah, Hitler was a 'tard, but I think Sea Lion could have succeeded. It just wouldn't have had a big impact on the final outcome of the war. The problem with using the Royal Navy to stop the invasion is that the invasion wouldn't have started until the RAF was thrashed. Then, the Luftwaffe could have seriously mangled the navy if it tried to interfere. Look what a couple of squadrons of Japanese bombers did to HMS Wales & HMS Repulse. Also, the Kriegsmarine could have filled the channel with dozens of U-boats, waiting silently at periscope depth to launch down the throat torpedo attacks on the RN. The Germans could also have mined the channel at night to deny the navy access.

OK good points, no doubt the RN would take very heavy losses, but I still think they would have had the power to impede the landings and keep the Germans from adequately supplying their beachheads. All of your points about the RNs vulnerability to aerial attack are true, however also don't forget how immensely difficult amphibious landings are, both tactically and logistically.

Let's compare D-Day to a hypothetical Sea-Lion. The Germans had no air superiority, no surface navy and a much longer coastline to defend in 1944. Also in 1944 the allies possessed naval, manpower and logistical resources that the Germans contemplating Sea-Lion could never hope to match, and Overlord was still, in the words of Ike "the damned closest run thing you ever saw".

The Wehrmacht attempting Sea-Lion would have a much more limited range of potential landing sites, making it easier for the British to concentrate their defense. Sea-Lion would both lack a surface fleet of its own and it would be harassed by the largest navy in Europe. Also the Wehrmacht had absolutely no experience with amphibious landings, whereas the Allies by 1944 had considerable experience gained from Dieppe, Sicily, Italy, Norway, North Africa and the Pacific theater.

Could Sea-Lion have worked in the event that the RAF was neutralized? Maybe, but I think the odds are heavily against it. My guess is that it would have looked less like D-Day and more like Dieppe or Gallipoli.

[Swagger7]

Originally Posted by Doktorwzzerd

OK good points, no doubt the RN would take very heavy losses, but I still think they would have had the power to impede the landings and keep the Germans from adequately supplying their beachheads. All of your points about the RNs vulnerability to aerial attack are true, however also don't forget how immensely difficult amphibious landings are, both tactically and logistically.

Let's compare D-Day to a hypothetical Sea-Lion. The Germans had no air superiority, no surface navy and a much longer coastline to defend in 1944. Also in 1944 the allies possessed naval, manpower and logistical resources that the Germans contemplating Sea-Lion could never hope to match, and Overlord was still, in the words of Ike "the damned closest run thing you ever saw".

The Wehrmacht attempting Sea-Lion would have a much more limited range of potential landing sites, making it easier for the British to concentrate their defense. Sea-Lion would both lack a surface fleet of its own and it would be harassed by the largest navy in Europe. Also the Wehrmacht had absolutely no experience with amphibious landings, whereas the Allies by 1944 had considerable experience gained from Dieppe, Sicily, Italy, Norway, North Africa and the Pacific theater.

Could Sea-Lion have worked in the event that the RAF was neutralized? Maybe, but I think the odds are heavily against it. My guess is that it would have looked less like D-Day and more like Dieppe or Gallipoli.

That's true. Hitler did have really crappy landing craft (as Tentacle19 mentioned) Although you don't need much in the way of transport if you can make the landing unopposed. Keep in mind that during the beginning of the Battle of Britain the British Army was short on manpower and had little armor. If the panzers could have gotten ashore early in the battle they'd probably have rolled right over England. If they couldn't get off the beach then it'd be more like Gallipoli like you said. In the end it's all just speculation. Although if Hitler had done the following:
1. Attack the British Army at Dunkirk, rather than forcing his generals to hold back.
2. Built proper landing craft
3. Concentrated solely on destroying the RAF on the ground & in the air.
...then it's probable that Britain would have fallen. But he didn't do any of that ('cause he was a frikkin moron), so this is all just speculation.

[Doktorwzzerd]

Originally Posted by Swagger7

That's true. Hitler did have really crappy landing craft (as Tentacle19 mentioned) Although you don't need much in the way of transport if you can make the landing unopposed. Keep in mind that during the beginning of the Battle of Britain the British Army was short on manpower and had little armor. If the panzers could have gotten ashore early in the battle they'd probably have rolled right over England. If they couldn't get off the beach then it'd be more like Gallipoli like you said. In the end it's all just speculation. Although if Hitler had done the following:
1. Attack the British Army at Dunkirk, rather than forcing his generals to hold back.
2. Built proper landing craft
3. Concentrated solely on destroying the RAF on the ground & in the air.
...then it's probable that Britain would have fallen. But he didn't do any of that ('cause he was a frikkin moron), so this is all just speculation.

Ahhh but you really have to think about the logistical side of Sea Lion, panzers need fuel, infantry needs ammo, food and LOTS of it. The problems of supply are what I think would really dog Sea-Lion, much more so than any battles on the beaches. I would guess if the British could stop the Germans before they could get to London (and I think they could) the supply problems would become a MAJOR headache for the Germans. Logistics is something the Germans were never very good at, look at the North Africa campaign, Russia etc. Their inability to keep their supply lines open over water was a major reason why Rommel lost and they would face the exact same situation in any cross channel adventure, RAF or no RAF.

[xNikex]

There's a new line of private jets made by Cirrus that looks just like an He-162 called the Cirrus Vision.

BTW, glad to be back and to see many others have joined the forum.

[Swagger7]

Originally Posted by xNikex

There's a new line of private jets made by Cirrus that looks just like an He-162 called the Cirrus Vision.

BTW, glad to be back and to see many others have joined the forum.

Welcome back. Personally, I think that the Cirrus Vision is an incredibly ugly plane, but maybe that's just me. The name is kind of lame too. It sounds like a cheap sedan. I'd take one of those Cessna twin-props over the CV any day!