gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,623
Likes: 11,338
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jan 16, 2021 4:49:02 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 16, 2021 16:10:53 GMT
Lordroel
On today's WW2 thread you have: Should this be Benghazi or Tobruk as Tripoli is at the western end of Libya and still in Axis hands for another year. There is another Tripoli which is in British hands but that's in Lebanon and hence not really part of the western desert forces.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,069
Likes: 49,466
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 16, 2021 16:20:44 GMT
Lordroel On today's WW2 thread you have: Should this be Benghazi or Tobruk as Tripoli is at the western end of Libya and still in Axis hands for another year. There is another Tripoli which is in British hands but that's in Lebanon and hence not really part of the western desert forces.
Steve
Seems the troll in charge made a slight mistake, the 9th Division (Australia) should be in Syria for garrison duty, will edit it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 17, 2021 17:04:27 GMT
In today's WWII post you mentioned:
Ironically it may not have been the stroke. He was being flown back to Germany for treatment when he suffered severe head injuries as the plane crashed. It says in the wiki article on his death:
Hadn't realised he had been prompted to command AGS so von Paulus was already in charge of 6th army.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 18, 2021 13:04:41 GMT
On today's WWI post you have: but I'm not seeing any cartoon or link?
Further down you have. Scheer was markedly more aggressive but a defeat of the Grand Fleet, unless it was crushing wouldn't really either lift the blockade or make practical an invasion of Britain. The core of the blockade was further north, with cruisers checking neutral shipping for blockade running and this was largely out of range of German destroyers, without which it would have been very dangerous for larger elements to go that few north with the risk of being cut off by the GF.
Similarly an invasion of Britain would require a lot of amphibious capacity that the Germans didn't have. Also maintaining a force on an hostile shore isn't easy, as Gallipoli showed. While the English east coast - the most likely target - doesn't have the mountainous terrain that the peninsula did it does have very good communication routes so Britain could rush units to any landing zone and if necessary recall forces from France a lot easier than Germany could send more forces to England in a continually opposed crossing.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,069
Likes: 49,466
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2021 15:21:59 GMT
On today's WWI post you have: but I'm not seeing any cartoon or link?
Further down you have. Scheer was markedly more aggressive but a defeat of the Grand Fleet, unless it was crushing wouldn't really either lift the blockade or make practical an invasion of Britain. The core of the blockade was further north, with cruisers checking neutral shipping for blockade running and this was largely out of range of German destroyers, without which it would have been very dangerous for larger elements to go that few north with the risk of being cut off by the GF.
Similarly an invasion of Britain would require a lot of amphibious capacity that the Germans didn't have. Also maintaining a force on an hostile shore isn't easy, as Gallipoli showed. While the English east coast - the most likely target - doesn't have the mountainous terrain that the peninsula did it does have very good communication routes so Britain could rush units to any landing zone and if necessary recall forces from France a lot easier than Germany could send more forces to England in a continually opposed crossing. Steve
A my fault, seems i forgotten to add the cartoon, will add it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 18, 2021 17:43:18 GMT
On today's WWI post you have: but I'm not seeing any cartoon or link?
Further down you have. Scheer was markedly more aggressive but a defeat of the Grand Fleet, unless it was crushing wouldn't really either lift the blockade or make practical an invasion of Britain. The core of the blockade was further north, with cruisers checking neutral shipping for blockade running and this was largely out of range of German destroyers, without which it would have been very dangerous for larger elements to go that few north with the risk of being cut off by the GF.
Similarly an invasion of Britain would require a lot of amphibious capacity that the Germans didn't have. Also maintaining a force on an hostile shore isn't easy, as Gallipoli showed. While the English east coast - the most likely target - doesn't have the mountainous terrain that the peninsula did it does have very good communication routes so Britain could rush units to any landing zone and if necessary recall forces from France a lot easier than Germany could send more forces to England in a continually opposed crossing. Steve
A my fault, seems i forgotten to add the cartoon, will add it.
Thanks. Very funny.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 19, 2021 12:00:32 GMT
On today's WWII post you have two separate comments on Malaya i.e.
and
I think the former is redundant. Also I have read that this is a myth and the 15" guns, or at least some of them could fire towards the Johure direction. The main problem was that as they were designed to repel a naval attack they were equipped with AP shells which weren't very good at hitting land targets as they will just bury themselves deeply before exploding, with little effect.
That bit about the delay in digging entrenchments on the north shore of Singapore Island sounds so typical of the entire mess.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,069
Likes: 49,466
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 19, 2021 14:43:47 GMT
On today's WWII post you have two separate comments on Malaya i.e.
and I think the former is redundant. Also I have read that this is a myth and the 15" guns, or at least some of them could fire towards the Johure direction. The main problem was that as they were designed to repel a naval attack they were equipped with AP shells which weren't very good at hitting land targets as they will just bury themselves deeply before exploding, with little effect.
That bit about the delay in digging entrenchments on the north shore of Singapore Island sounds so typical of the entire mess. Steve
Thanks. will edit the double post regarding Malaya. Regarding the former is redundant stevep, i based it on this: Churchill learns from ABDA Commander General Wavell that there are no defences protecting Singapore against Japanese attack from Malaya across the Strait of Johore.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 25, 2021 14:33:35 GMT
A quick question with today's WWI post.
Did the fighters of the time have the range to reach Britain from Belgium or was this referring to them preforming over the British held lines in France? Churchill was at this time in France preforming as the commander of a unit of the army so he would be seeing this over the trenches, hence the 'wrote letters home'. Not saying that fighters, like the bombers later on definitely couldn't reach Britain but I'm wondering if they could at this time, at least on more than rare occasions.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,069
Likes: 49,466
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 25, 2021 15:17:59 GMT
A quick question with today's WWI post.
Did the fighters of the time have the range to reach Britain from Belgium or was this referring to them preforming over the British held lines in France? Churchill was at this time in France preforming as the commander of a unit of the army so he would be seeing this over the trenches, hence the 'wrote letters home'. Not saying that fighters, like the bombers later on definitely couldn't reach Britain but I'm wondering if they could at this time, at least on more than rare occasions. Steve
Think you are right stevep , should be dominate the skies over Britain and France lines.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 27, 2021 14:41:18 GMT
In today's WWI post, where your talking about conscription coming in in Britain it says
Given that un-widowed men are either single or married and single are already mentioned while it states later on that conscription was expanded to married men I suspect this should be widowed men. That would also fit in with an understandable desire to try and keep married men, with wives and probably families to look after out of conscription. Although it would be difficult for widowed men with children to look after so they might be one of the groups for which exemptions existed.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,069
Likes: 49,466
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 27, 2021 15:30:57 GMT
In today's WWI post, where your talking about conscription coming in in Britain it says
Given that un-widowed men are either single or married and single are already mentioned while it states later on that conscription was expanded to married men I suspect this should be widowed men. That would also fit in with an understandable desire to try and keep married men, with wives and probably families to look after out of conscription. Although it would be difficult for widowed men with children to look after so they might be one of the groups for which exemptions existed.
Steve
Well i got the Wikipedia article here: Military Service Act 1916The Act specified that men from 18 to 41 years old were liable to be called up for service in the army unless they were eligible for exemptions listed under this Act, including men who were married, widowed with children, serving in the Royal Navy, a minister of religion, or working in one of a number of reserved occupations, or for conscientious objection. A second Act in May 1916 extended liability for military service to married men, and a third Act in 1918 extended the upper age limit to 51.Is this the same as mentioned in my update.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,865
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Jan 27, 2021 18:15:34 GMT
In today's WWI post, where your talking about conscription coming in in Britain it says
Given that un-widowed men are either single or married and single are already mentioned while it states later on that conscription was expanded to married men I suspect this should be widowed men. That would also fit in with an understandable desire to try and keep married men, with wives and probably families to look after out of conscription. Although it would be difficult for widowed men with children to look after so they might be one of the groups for which exemptions existed.
Steve
Well i got the Wikipedia article here: Military Service Act 1916The Act specified that men from 18 to 41 years old were liable to be called up for service in the army unless they were eligible for exemptions listed under this Act, including men who were married, widowed with children, serving in the Royal Navy, a minister of religion, or working in one of a number of reserved occupations, or for conscientious objection. A second Act in May 1916 extended liability for military service to married men, and a third Act in 1918 extended the upper age limit to 51.Is this the same as mentioned in my update.
I would say no because that seems to suggest to me that both married men and those who are widowed but have dependent children are exempt from conscription. What you said was that "obliging single and un-widowed men under the age between 18 and 45 to enroll in military service". By unwidowed men you would include married men, whether they have children or not among those who would be conscripted.
What I think it and you meant was that single men and 'widowed men who have no children' were liable to be conscripted which is different from what you said.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,069
Likes: 49,466
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 27, 2021 18:18:58 GMT
Well i got the Wikipedia article here: Military Service Act 1916The Act specified that men from 18 to 41 years old were liable to be called up for service in the army unless they were eligible for exemptions listed under this Act, including men who were married, widowed with children, serving in the Royal Navy, a minister of religion, or working in one of a number of reserved occupations, or for conscientious objection. A second Act in May 1916 extended liability for military service to married men, and a third Act in 1918 extended the upper age limit to 51.Is this the same as mentioned in my update. I would say no because that seems to suggest to me that both married men and those who are widowed but have dependent children are exempt from conscription. What you said was that "obliging single and un-widowed men under the age between 18 and 45 to enroll in military service". By unwidowed men you would include married men, whether they have children or not among those who would be conscripted. What I think it and you meant was that single men and 'widowed men who have no children' were liable to be conscripted which is different from what you said.
Steve
A okay.
|
|