• There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.

June 6th, 1944

kep-up said:
C'mon now. Donchakno that everything the USA has ever done within the last 300, even before it was a country, years has been wrong for humankind and detrimental to the entire world. :banghead: NE OBLIVISCARIS
Click to expand...
Where did that come from? :hun:
 
The Battle of Britain - A Look Back

Y'all may find this bit of history interesting. I am a WWII 'buff' and read all I can find. A quick Google found this.

Note the part I have highlighted near the end of the response. THAT is the REAL REASON Germany lost the 'Battle of Britain.'






Ross Sharp, Director, Engineering & Airframe Compliance at The People's Mosquito Ltd (2012-present)
Answered May 7 2017 · Author has 75 answers and 69.5k answer views









There are many reasons why the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain, some of them more powerful than others. Below, please find a few of them.

  1. The Luftwaffe’s principal fighter at the time, the Bf 109E, could only spend around 10 minutes over London before having to return to base due to fuel state
  2. Their other fighter, the Bf 110, had a wider radius of action and heavy armament, and could cover large parts of the Midlands (and Luftflotte V’s Bf 110 aircraft, based in Denmark, could reach the North of England if they used an underfuselage overload fuel tank, although this made them very vulnerable), however, the Bf 110 proved to be less maneuverable than the RAF’s fighters, and suffered accordingly.
  3. Careful organisation of Fighter Command into regional Groups - with No 11 Group, covering London and the Southeast - meant that the Royal Air Force could rotate hard-pressed Squadrons away from the main area of the battle, to rest and re-equip (usually these units were sent to either the North of England or Scotland). These Squadrons could even, if necessary, be down-graded to Category ‘C’ units, which meant that they no longer were ‘fit’ to be thrust into the heavy action down South, and acted as training units for those based there.
  4. The Auxiliary Air Force (post-war to become the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, or RAuxAF) was a Territorial-type organisation, which was based on large cities or counties, around the British Isles. Although some of these units were equipped with bombers, e.g. No 612 (County of Aberdeen) Sqn, the majority of the 20 Squadrons were equipped with Hurricanes or Spitfires. The AAF was quickly mobilised at the start of hostilities, and gave a strong boost, in terms of both quantity and quality to the RAF.
  5. Radar, or to give it the then current British term, RDF (Radio Direction Finding) had grown out of a British research experiment to find if it was possible to develop a so-called ‘death ray’ against aircraft (the answer is no, not at that time, as chemical lasers were unknown). However Sir Robert Watson-Watt and others found that it was possible to detect an aircraft that flew through a radio beam. The Chain Home system of towers -later supplemented by the Chain Home Low stations - slowly extended along the British coastline, initially concentrated on the southern and eastern coasts.
  6. The Control Room system. Although the Germans also had radar, it was not fully integrated in a system of defence, as the British had done. Reports from Chain Home Stations, from the Observer Corps, and from other sources were all melded together in Sector Control Rooms, enabling raids to be spotted as they formed up over their bases across the Channel and moved to attack. Markers with a raid number were moved across a very large gridded map by WAAF plotters, as were markers showing RAF fighter units. This allowed the Control to counter raids, scramble more fighters, and attempt to outguess the enemy. It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of these Control Rooms. Without them the RAF would have had to fly standing patrols - massively wasteful in fuel and aircraft hours, and tiring as well for aircrew.
  7. The change in tactics, ordered by Hitler, in going to bomb London (rather than continuing to wear-down the RAF by attacking the fighter bases in No 11 Group and elsewhere) meant that Fighter Command did not have to withdraw to bases to the north and west of the capital (which was being contemplated in some circles). As it was, RAF Manston was so badly hit that it became - for a time - uninhabitable by RAF aircraft.
  8. The Bf 110 was found to be, despite its intended use as a long-range escort fighter, so vulnerable to attack by Spitfires and Hurricanes, that it had to be escorted by Bf 109s towards the end of the Battle!
  9. The Luftwaffe did not persist in attacks on Chain Home stations. Despite damage to several, because mobile units were rushed in to fill their place, there appeared to be no ‘gaps’ in the line. It was fortunate that these attacks stopped, as the quality of reporting of raids would have dropped, markedly.
  10. As well as foreign pilots, from countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and the USA, it must be remembered that No 1 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force also fought in the Battle, equipped with Hurricanes (just not the Canadian-built examples that they had brought with them!)
  11. The Fleet Air Arm, Army Co-operation Squadrons and light bomber Squadrons. When pilot casualties became a major problem for the Royal Air Force, it was able to call for volunteers from the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, and its own Army Co-operation Squadrons (many equipped with the Westland Lysander) and light bomber Squadrons of Bomber Command (many using the Fairey Battle). With a quick conversion course, these were thrust in the Battle.
  12. The Air Transport Auxiliary was a collection of female and male pilots who could not be used on active service. The ATA swiftly moved new and repaired fighters from dispersal points and aircraft factories to the airfields where frontline Squadrons were waiting for them. A vital role.
  13. The German Junkers Ju88 was a very fine and versatile aircraft, and one which would see service until 1945. However, the Junkers Ju87, the famous ‘Stuka’, (although that was a generic term), was the opposite, and despite its efforts over Poland and France, was utterly destroyed whenever it met first-class fighter opposition.
  14. Unless killed or incapacitated, the RAF pilots of aircraft which were shot down, often were able to return to the Battle after making a forced landing or bailing out. German aircrew - in the same situation - were permanently ‘lost’ as PoW (with ONE exception). Attempts to rescue aircrew shot down over the Channel and the North Sea were rather more hit and miss. The British did not have as an efficient system as the Germans, initially, who had dedicated rescue floatplanes (the He59, for example), fluorescein dye to mark the position of aircrew in the sea and other advantages.
  15. The Observer Corps (post-April 1941, the Royal Observer Corps) was a organisation comprised, in the main, of civilain volunteers. These were trained, to a very high standard, in aircraft recognition and reporting, and were deployed in teams of two, from the coast, inland. They report high, speed and direction of any enemy aircraft, to the local Control Room, and their reports were invaluable in building up a picture of what an enemy raid was doing.
16. The night battle which followed the Battle of Britain, the ‘Blitz’, would expose new weaknesses in Britain’s defences. However, improvisation, and a dogged sense of defiance, would see both the RAF and the country survive even that savage attack.
17. The Luftwaffe was left fighting what became a strategic bombing offensive, with what were, in effect, aircraft which were more suited to tactical bombing missions. Their heavy bomber programmes had been cancelled, as Hitler had gambled on a short war.

There we are - just a few aspects of why the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain
http://peoplesmosquito.org.uk Home - The Peoples Mosquito Store


2.7k Views · View Upvoters












​
Joe T.
 
Joe T. said:
Y'all may find this bit of history interesting.
Click to expand...

What you have written is true.....except it wasn't the subject. The statement in question was that with the Normandy Invasion the threat of a German invasion of the British Isles ended and the answer was no, the invasion threat ended with the Battle of Britain (air war over the UK 10 July 1940 through 31 October 1940). Normandy was the Allied invasion of Continental Europe and the prelude to the end of the war. The Russians were already making progress from the East and begging Churchill to begin a battle from the West to aid their effort.

Goering had promised Hitler he could defeat the British with a bombing campaign and that almost came to pass as he was on the edge of taking out virtually all the RAF airfields, manufacturing plants and airmen. For some inexplicable reason Goering switched his targets from military to civilian (London and other cities) which gave the RAF time to rebuild, regroup and decimate the German aircraft. When the air battle ended Hitler did not have control of the skies over the UK nor did he have an invasion fleet. He then went defensive building the Atlantic Wall anticipating an eventual Allied invasion.

The Allies tricked the Germans into believing the invasion would come at the Pas de Calais - the narrowest point of the English Channel so that is where his largest panzer groups were placed. Normandy was a huge surprise and when it took place those panzer groups could not move fast enough from the Pas de Calais to Normandy to properly defend it. This trickery gave the Allies a toe hold in France and the rest is history.

There were two unplanned events that aided the invasion as well: (1) Rommel, who was in charge of the Atlantic Wall, had gone home to Germany for his wife's birthday believing that the weather was too poor for an invasion and (2) Hitler was a night owl who frequently went to bed early in the morning and slept late. When the Allies attacked he was asleep and had left orders not to be disturbed which prevented the movement of the Pas de Calais panzer group to Normandy to oppose the landings.
 
RinconRyder said:
In the future it would behoove you to refrain from speaking out your ass. Since you don't know me I will fill you in - then go ahead with your inaccurate and inflammatory statements.

I was born in late 1944 - just a week or so after my father was very seriously wounded in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. He was an amphibious tank commander during the invasion and lived the remainder of his life with those severe injuries and the pain that goes with them. He had a pit in his upper arm the size of a softball that a Japanese mortar fragment had taken out. The corpsmen had sewn back together as much of his arm as could be found but for the rest of his life this man, who was an accomplished horseman (he originally joined the US Army in 1940 as a member of the 7th Cavalry then was switched to armor later in the war), guitar player, writer, leather and wood worker had to learn to use his one remaining functioning hand. He spent several years at Letterman Hospital in San Francisco relearning to use both arms but particularly his battered right arm.

The single time I ever heard him complain was one night when he dropped his Thermos trying to open our front door. He received a military disability for the rest of his life as a result of that injury. But he was one of the lucky ones he used to say. At least he came home and lived a pretty normal life.

When I was a pre-teen he would invite other vets to our house for dinner or just to play cards. Most seemed pretty normal on the surface but it was easy to tell that some were deeply troubled by what they had gone through. My dad used the term "shell shock" to describe some of them and I never remember them talking about the war except to describe their respective units.

He did share some of his experiences with me, his only son at that time, and unintentionally convinced me I didn't want to be a soldier when the time came. My time came in 1962 just five days after high school graduation when I joined the US Navy and was sent to Viet Nam one year later. We didn't know about Viet Nam then. When I was in high school it was called Indo China. I didn't learn was a quagmire it was until we landed just two weeks before the infamous Gulf of Tonkin attack. I was "lucky" though and left two years later with just a little blue mark in my left shoulder from a mortar round. Had I not been carrying a field radio on my back I likely would have joined my dad in severe injury or worse. I lost one cousin over there, a helo pilot and have had several other close childhood friends die young of injuries during that conflict. My cousin had been in-country only a few weeks. He wasn't lucky. When I got home my country was kind enough to require me to join the active reserve and threaten me with mandatory reactivation. I won't spell out what my answer was as I am sure you can guess.

Suffice to say you do not know what you are talking about and I am absolutely positive you would not have said what you did to my face. I do not want your thanks for serving as it was not my choice. I also don't want any pity for many thousands have suffered much more than I. I would just request you to shut your pie hole about things of which you have no personal knowledge. Your comment was disgraceful.
Click to expand...

After reading your bio, and seeing you have some knowledge of WWII, your initial comment shows it was made in a contrary and argumentative way rather than based on ignorance of the date.
I do not understand the reason for your initial comment except as to provoke an argument.There are more than a few here who seem to post for that reason only.
I think many of us here have family that was impacted greatly by the war. And more than a few who were impacted by the activity in southeast Asia. Most of us do not need to post our military experiences to get pats on the back. And posting the loss of parents and other family in WWII to get attention is not needed.
My comment was not disgraceful in that it questioned your knowledge based on what you said.
I will not thank you nor do I have the pity for you that you seek. Those of us who served do not look for that, nor do we need it.
As for me not saying something to your face-that is the classic line of the internet chicken.
Oh, and by the way, I would.
To you and the other sour negative posters, I offer the suggestion of switching to decaf and adopting taking Metamucil as a daily event.
Why all the arguing and negativity?
My God, you woke up on the right side of the sod. Be thankful and be happy. Enjoy the day.
Many of us do not have that many years left, why spend them being pains in the butt to those around us?
 
ofdave said:
After reading your bio, and seeing you have some knowledge of WWII, your initial comment shows it was made in a contrary and argumentative way rather than based on ignorance of the date.
I do not understand the reason for your initial comment except as to provoke an argument.There are more than a few here who seem to post for that reason only.
...
Click to expand...

Here is my initial post on the subject: "How would you separate the right "D-Day" to commemorate out of the several dozen that took place during a long ago war?

How did the soldiers, sailors and airmen differ from the landings at Normandy from those who were sacrificed at Tarawa, or Dieppe?

We just celebrated Memorial Day a few days ago. That date is to honor all those who died in the effort to remain free. Why do you feel we need to celebrate every significant event and fail to celebrate others?"

The original post by Denman suggested that it was some sort of oversight or tragedy that a significant observance of the Normandy Invasion didn't happen in his neighborhood (although it did in others). My post, which was not addressed to anyone in particular, was to illustrate that Normandy, while the "popular" invasion of WWII was not nearly the only one and not nearly the most tragic in terms of those killed or wounded in action. I also attempted to clear up the misinformation about the Blitz (which ended in October 1940 and ended any possibility of a German invasion) and another poster's opinion that the Normandy Invasion (June 1944) was responsible. These are facts, not opinions, and there is a gigantic number of written works that cover this period of time. I have read most of them and it is obvious not everyone else has so I was just trying to correct a wrong impression.

70-odd years after the fact it is not appropriate to single out one military operation, however large and successful, from all the other dozens which took place from 1939-1945. We have Memorial Day to recognize those sacrifices and if the media choose to use that day to publish their observances then that is the proper method and should not deserve any criticism. After all, if you want to honor the men and women of that day, or in any battle, there is no limit on how you can do so.
 
RinconRyder said:
...The original post by Denman suggested that it was some sort of oversight or tragedy that a significant observance of the Normandy Invasion didn't happen in his neighborhood (although it did in others).
Click to expand...

Now, it's your words: certainly not mine... nojoke
 
Last edited:
RinconRyder said:
Here is my initial post on the subject: "How would you separate the right "D-Day" to commemorate out of the several dozen that took place during a long ago war? How did the soldiers, sailors and airmen differ from the landings at Normandy from those who were sacrificed at Tarawa, or Dieppe? We just celebrated Memorial Day a few days ago. That date is to honor all those who died in the effort to remain free. Why do you feel we need to celebrate every significant event and fail to celebrate others?"

The original post by Denman suggested that it was some sort of oversight or tragedy that a significant observance of the Normandy Invasion didn't happen in his neighborhood (although it did in others). My post, which was not addressed to anyone in particular, was to illustrate that Normandy, while the "popular" invasion of WWII was not nearly the only one and not nearly the most tragic in terms of those killed or wounded in action. I also attempted to clear up the misinformation about the Blitz (which ended in October 1940 and ended any possibility of a German invasion) and another poster's opinion that the Normandy Invasion (June 1944) was responsible. These are facts, not opinions, and there is a gigantic number of written works that cover this period of time. I have read most of them and it is obvious not everyone else has so I was just trying to correct a wrong impression.

70-odd years after the fact it is not appropriate to single out one military operation, however large and successful, from all the other dozens which took place from 1939-1945. We have Memorial Day to recognize those sacrifices and if the media choose to use that day to publish their observances then that is the proper method and should not deserve any criticism. After all, if you want to honor the men and women of that day, or in any battle, there is no limit on how you can do so.
Click to expand...
John, why does it matter? Seriously.
 
UtahPete said:
John, why does it matter? Seriously.
Click to expand...

All I ask was a question. I never got any answers as to why a poster considers the Normandy Invasion THE single event that turned the tide of WWII in the European theater but I did get a bunch of hate mail and incorrect opinions. I figured the subject was important enough to clear the air and so I responded to the errors. Seems to me if someone is serious enough about their history they could at least do some research before responding with the big guns. I offered my facts and the reasons behind them but instead of a serious rebuttal I got a personal attack. What I presented are not my personal opinions but rather the efforts of hundreds of professional historians over the past seven decades.
 
RinconRyder said:
All I ask was a question. I never got any answers as to why a poster considers the Normandy Invasion THE single event that turned the tide of WWII in the European theater but I did get a bunch of hate mail and incorrect opinions. I figured the subject was important enough to clear the air and so I responded to the errors. .
Click to expand...


Now, it's your words: certainly not mine... nojoke

One more time... :banghead:
​
 
RinconRyder said:
All I ask was a question. I never got any answers as to why a poster considers the Normandy Invasion THE single event that turned the tide of WWII in the European theater but I did get a bunch of hate mail and incorrect opinions. I figured the subject was important enough to clear the air and so I responded to the errors. Seems to me if someone is serious enough about their history they could at least do some research before responding with the big guns. I offered my facts and the reasons behind them but instead of a serious rebuttal I got a personal attack. What I presented are not my personal opinions but rather the efforts of hundreds of professional historians over the past seven decades.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but in the end, what does it matter if you're right or they are right. The purpose of the thread was to recognize June 6 as D-Day.
 
UtahPete said:
Yeah, but in the end, what does it matter if you're right or they are right. The purpose of the thread was to recognize June 6 as D-Day.
Click to expand...

I took the OP to be complaining that "D-day" was not being recognized by our media. My answer was that there were many (several dozen) "D-day's" throughout the war as it was the common military designation for "go" day. June 6, 1944 was only one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ARtraveler
September 11, 2001
Replies
9
Views
1K
ARtraveler
ARtraveler
Little Blue
  • Locked
Your Weather News @ June 2024
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
31K
Little Blue
Little Blue
troop
  • Locked
U.S. Residents: Get out and VOTE !!!
Replies
1
Views
337
ARtraveler
ARtraveler
Little Blue
  • Locked
Your Weather News @ June Edition 2023
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
canamjhb
canamjhb
P
2021 RTL stuck in 1st gear - any help or suggestions would be welcome!?
Replies
9
Views
504
Spyter
Spyter
Back
Top