Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work

[KTF]

I see on the 10 they are rolling out the "it will take years" message. They didn't push that line yesterday for some reason...

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

You're confusing political objectives with strategy.

You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.

The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?

The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:

Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.

Sorry to be to logical for you.

The initial objective was to stop the German advance. Sorry to confuse.

You bring up a crucial battle but that doesn't matter for political strategy.

You come up with three rather descriptive terms for what the UK did, but they are not strategy as the first two were forced on us.

As for taking the battle to Germany, that was controlled to a great extent by the USA which dictated what we would do. There was no discussion. Unconditional surrender was the demand of the Americans.

You ask how the Germans could invade the UK.

You do know the Germans had an invasion plan, don't you. You do know that many pilots lost their lives in slow, outdated aircraft when sent to bomb the barges that were building up around the French ports and along the canals? You are aware that had the Luftwaffe been able to secure air superiority and Hitler not intent to attack Russia, in all probability there would have been an invasion?

The cream of the British Army, at least that bit available on the Home Front, was torn apart in the retreat from France. The Germans had soldiers to spare.

I was told that my grandfather was trained to defend Greenwich against the might of the German army with a stick he'd been given. He was to stand in the woods alongside Shooters Hill Road and attack the foot soldiers following the tanks. That's what Churchill meant when he said we'd fight them on the hills. He didn't mention sticks.

Whether any attempt at invasion would have been successful in the short/medium term is open to argument. What is probable is that if the Germans could secure the channel from air and sea attack, they stood a good chance at forming a bridgehead. If Barbarossa hadn't been indulged in, we'd likely have gone against the Churchillian rhetoric and surrendered. The only question is whether London would have been razed in the meantime.

My father was a regular in the army. He was trained on one type of field gun but as he was the regiment's light heavy champion he remained at Woolwich when his unit went to France. He was mucking out horses during the start of the Battle of Britain. He was then trained on another type of gun, and became an instructor. During the bombing of London he was sent to somewhere in NW Kent to be the only regular NCO in the unit. When he got there he found he was in charge of a type of gun he'd never even seen before. He had to read the instruction book to find out how to start the thing.

Some plan, some strategy. We weren't prepared for the war. We had no plans, no reserves, no equipment.

There was no UK overall strategy for the war. We fell into it. There was no post war plan until the Americans told us what it was. Just as well really. The USA secured peace in Europe by their methods. France wanted reparations but were told to wind their necks in. If they did, they'd get Marshall Aid and a bit of Germany to play with.

I'm not criticising the UK's war. We won. It cost us, but a beggared Britain was not entirely against the USA's wishes. They gave us a loan and the bulk of Marshall Aid and we were saved from going under financially. But an overall strategy? Do me a favour.

Survival and entrenchment were not forced on the UK, we could have surrendered.

Strategy also applies in defence, see Soviet strategy 1941 to 1943.

Barges where not suitable for crossing the Channel, particularly against the RN. The wash alone from RN cruisers at speed would have created serious issues for the barges. The German invasion would have lasted as long as it took the RN to arrive in force.

The Allies invaded Normandy with complete air and sea superiority having undertaken successful amphibious landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, and yet June 6th 1944 was still touch and go. The Germans never had the ability to undertake large scale amphibious assaults. Tell me again how the Germans were expected to get large numbers of troops, weapons and material across the Channel.

[V8 Fettler]

southendpier said:

V8 Fettler said:

Derek Smith said:

Timmy40 said:

I don't think that's true at all. At the time it was a desperate struggle to avoid annihilation in which each side took any random piece of luck or mistake by an opponent and aimed to exploit it. I think it's easy to apply a layering of apparent order and strategy over events that during WWII were basically chaotic alot of the time. Such is history. Afterwards a set of institutions were setup as our Empire collapsed with the aim of trying to prevent future wars.....it hasn't really worked very well. But I don't think for a moment there was some kind of clear master plan.

There could hardly have been a 'clear' objective, or a master plan, in a situation that started with an invasion by Germany on an ally, or at least one we had a treaty with. We were forced into the situation.

The first objective was to stop Germany, hopefully defeat them, with the help of France.

That wasn't totally successful.

Then it was a case of survival. That turned out well. But only just. The Battle of Britain was instrumental in putting off any invasion, and then Barbarossa all but solved most of the problems, apart from the supply one. The objective became to keep alive.

The Japanese did us a favour, which solved even more problems.

The target was to get a success for PR purposes and so North Africa became a must do and, with help, we did it.

Our new ally eventually took over and told us what the new objective was against Germany.

One of our objectives in the war was to secure our empire. That didn't go too well.

Another objective was not to be bankrupt, but with the help of our ally, we went broke, completely and utterly.

As you say, there was no order. There was no overall strategy. We fell into the war, the Americans fell into it. Neither of us would have gone to war if we hadn't been forced to do so.

The only time there was a strategy was when the Americans dictated it to its allies at Casablanca: the unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan, although Potsdam had a say in the latter.

So from early in 1943 the USA had a target.

However, there was internal pressure to approach the Japanese before the bombs were dropped, but this didn't get a lot of support, for various reasons.

In effect, the UK had no strategy. We did what we were told. We may have well wanted to demand Germany's total, unconditional surrender, but then we might not.

We were successful, but not through strategy.

One might suggest that the the intent of the Americans was to come out of the war twice as rich as when they went in. It is just as logical.

Whilst I accept the need to be seen to do something in response to the attack in France, and perhaps do something useful, I'm not sure bombing is the best thing, but then I have no idea what would be better.

All I am certain is that we need a strategy that makes sense. The 'Vienna agreement is pure fantasy. 18 mnths, I ask you.

You're confusing political objectives with strategy.

You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.

The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?

The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:

Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.

stop Russian advance into western Europe.

That (undeclared) strategy element probably followed after Kursk, but was unlikely to have been a consideration for the British in the summer of 1940.

[fatboy18]

V8 Fettler said:

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

You're confusing political objectives with strategy.

You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.

The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?

The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:

Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.

Sorry to be to logical for you.

The initial objective was to stop the German advance. Sorry to confuse.

You bring up a crucial battle but that doesn't matter for political strategy.

You come up with three rather descriptive terms for what the UK did, but they are not strategy as the first two were forced on us.

As for taking the battle to Germany, that was controlled to a great extent by the USA which dictated what we would do. There was no discussion. Unconditional surrender was the demand of the Americans.

You ask how the Germans could invade the UK.

You do know the Germans had an invasion plan, don't you. You do know that many pilots lost their lives in slow, outdated aircraft when sent to bomb the barges that were building up around the French ports and along the canals? You are aware that had the Luftwaffe been able to secure air superiority and Hitler not intent to attack Russia, in all probability there would have been an invasion?

The cream of the British Army, at least that bit available on the Home Front, was torn apart in the retreat from France. The Germans had soldiers to spare.

I was told that my grandfather was trained to defend Greenwich against the might of the German army with a stick he'd been given. He was to stand in the woods alongside Shooters Hill Road and attack the foot soldiers following the tanks. That's what Churchill meant when he said we'd fight them on the hills. He didn't mention sticks.

Whether any attempt at invasion would have been successful in the short/medium term is open to argument. What is probable is that if the Germans could secure the channel from air and sea attack, they stood a good chance at forming a bridgehead. If Barbarossa hadn't been indulged in, we'd likely have gone against the Churchillian rhetoric and surrendered. The only question is whether London would have been razed in the meantime.

My father was a regular in the army. He was trained on one type of field gun but as he was the regiment's light heavy champion he remained at Woolwich when his unit went to France. He was mucking out horses during the start of the Battle of Britain. He was then trained on another type of gun, and became an instructor. During the bombing of London he was sent to somewhere in NW Kent to be the only regular NCO in the unit. When he got there he found he was in charge of a type of gun he'd never even seen before. He had to read the instruction book to find out how to start the thing.

Some plan, some strategy. We weren't prepared for the war. We had no plans, no reserves, no equipment.

There was no UK overall strategy for the war. We fell into it. There was no post war plan until the Americans told us what it was. Just as well really. The USA secured peace in Europe by their methods. France wanted reparations but were told to wind their necks in. If they did, they'd get Marshall Aid and a bit of Germany to play with.

I'm not criticising the UK's war. We won. It cost us, but a beggared Britain was not entirely against the USA's wishes. They gave us a loan and the bulk of Marshall Aid and we were saved from going under financially. But an overall strategy? Do me a favour.

Survival and entrenchment were not forced on the UK, we could have surrendered.

Strategy also applies in defence, see Soviet strategy 1941 to 1943.

Barges where not suitable for crossing the Channel, particularly against the RN. The wash alone from RN cruisers at speed would have created serious issues for the barges. The German invasion would have lasted as long as it took the RN to arrive in force.

The Allies invaded Normandy with complete air and sea superiority having undertaken successful amphibious landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, and yet June 6th 1944 was still touch and go. The Germans never had the ability to undertake large scale amphibious assaults. Tell me again how the Germans were expected to get large numbers of troops, weapons and material across the Channel.

Respectfully, we can all cherry pick bits out of WWII and attempt to make comparisons but this is different, Is there a Leader or head person of Dash? I've no idea? Have we declared War and is our country now at War? I've no idea on that one either? Sending our limited Air Force to blow up targets in Syria bothers me because I believe it will stir up a Hornets nest here in the country I reside in. I was going to say My Country, but sorry to say I don't like it much anymore

[funkyrobot]

The bombing will achieve nothing but more trouble.

Have the idiots running this country not learned a single lesson from the past?

[Tango13]

V8 Fettler said:

Survival and entrenchment were not forced on the UK, we could have surrendered.

Strategy also applies in defence, see Soviet strategy 1941 to 1943.

Barges where not suitable for crossing the Channel, particularly against the RN. The wash alone from RN cruisers at speed would have created serious issues for the barges. The German invasion would have lasted as long as it took the RN to arrive in force.

The Allies invaded Normandy with complete air and sea superiority having undertaken successful amphibious landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, and yet June 6th 1944 was still touch and go. The Germans never had the ability to undertake large scale amphibious assaults. Tell me again how the Germans were expected to get large numbers of troops, weapons and material across the Channel.

V8 Fettler is spot on with this /\

Derek, your assesment of Germanys' ability to invade in 1940 is way off the mark, read these two...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Invasion-1940-Battle-Brita...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/184854698X/ref=pd_lpo_s...

This also provides some insights into the political situation of the time...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighter-True-Story-Battle-...

[V8 Fettler]

fatboy18 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

You're confusing political objectives with strategy.

You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.

The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?

The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:

Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.

Sorry to be to logical for you.

The initial objective was to stop the German advance. Sorry to confuse.

You bring up a crucial battle but that doesn't matter for political strategy.

You come up with three rather descriptive terms for what the UK did, but they are not strategy as the first two were forced on us.

As for taking the battle to Germany, that was controlled to a great extent by the USA which dictated what we would do. There was no discussion. Unconditional surrender was the demand of the Americans.

You ask how the Germans could invade the UK.

You do know the Germans had an invasion plan, don't you. You do know that many pilots lost their lives in slow, outdated aircraft when sent to bomb the barges that were building up around the French ports and along the canals? You are aware that had the Luftwaffe been able to secure air superiority and Hitler not intent to attack Russia, in all probability there would have been an invasion?

The cream of the British Army, at least that bit available on the Home Front, was torn apart in the retreat from France. The Germans had soldiers to spare.

I was told that my grandfather was trained to defend Greenwich against the might of the German army with a stick he'd been given. He was to stand in the woods alongside Shooters Hill Road and attack the foot soldiers following the tanks. That's what Churchill meant when he said we'd fight them on the hills. He didn't mention sticks.

Whether any attempt at invasion would have been successful in the short/medium term is open to argument. What is probable is that if the Germans could secure the channel from air and sea attack, they stood a good chance at forming a bridgehead. If Barbarossa hadn't been indulged in, we'd likely have gone against the Churchillian rhetoric and surrendered. The only question is whether London would have been razed in the meantime.

My father was a regular in the army. He was trained on one type of field gun but as he was the regiment's light heavy champion he remained at Woolwich when his unit went to France. He was mucking out horses during the start of the Battle of Britain. He was then trained on another type of gun, and became an instructor. During the bombing of London he was sent to somewhere in NW Kent to be the only regular NCO in the unit. When he got there he found he was in charge of a type of gun he'd never even seen before. He had to read the instruction book to find out how to start the thing.

Some plan, some strategy. We weren't prepared for the war. We had no plans, no reserves, no equipment.

There was no UK overall strategy for the war. We fell into it. There was no post war plan until the Americans told us what it was. Just as well really. The USA secured peace in Europe by their methods. France wanted reparations but were told to wind their necks in. If they did, they'd get Marshall Aid and a bit of Germany to play with.

I'm not criticising the UK's war. We won. It cost us, but a beggared Britain was not entirely against the USA's wishes. They gave us a loan and the bulk of Marshall Aid and we were saved from going under financially. But an overall strategy? Do me a favour.

Survival and entrenchment were not forced on the UK, we could have surrendered.

Strategy also applies in defence, see Soviet strategy 1941 to 1943.

Barges where not suitable for crossing the Channel, particularly against the RN. The wash alone from RN cruisers at speed would have created serious issues for the barges. The German invasion would have lasted as long as it took the RN to arrive in force.

The Allies invaded Normandy with complete air and sea superiority having undertaken successful amphibious landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, and yet June 6th 1944 was still touch and go. The Germans never had the ability to undertake large scale amphibious assaults. Tell me again how the Germans were expected to get large numbers of troops, weapons and material across the Channel.

Respectfully, we can all cherry pick bits out of WWII and attempt to make comparisons but this is different, Is there a Leader or head person of Dash? I've no idea? Have we declared War and is our country now at War? I've no idea on that one either? Sending our limited Air Force to blow up targets in Syria bothers me because I believe it will stir up a Hornets nest here in the country I reside in. I was going to say My Country, but sorry to say I don't like it much anymore

That is the point with the comparison; in WW2 the political objectives were clear, the political objectives behind the decision to bomb Syria are not clear.

[XJ40]

V8 Fettler said:

That is the point with the comparison; in WW2 the political objectives were clear, the political objectives behind the decision to bomb Syria are not clear.

I think the political objectives are very clear. Show solidarity with France and coalition partners, be seen to be actively doing something, whilst not really committing too much in the way of military resources in the field. I don't think air strikes will achieve an awful lot but it seems good politics to me and I'd have voted for it.

Edited by XJ40 on Friday 4th December 10:53

[remkingston]

Some food for thought here:
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.p...

[anonymous-user]

The Indy shows a sense of humour for a change -

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-half-of-bri...

[Alpinestars]

Breadvan72 said:

The Indy shows a sense of humour for a change -

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-half-of-bri...

Brilliant!

[V8 Fettler]

XJ40 said:

V8 Fettler said:

That is the point with the comparison; in WW2 the political objectives were clear, the political objectives behind the decision to bomb Syria are not clear.

I think the political objectives are very clear. Show solidarity with France and coalition partners, be seen to be actively doing something, whilst not really committing too much in the way of military resources in the field. I don't think air strikes will achieve an awful lot but it seems good politics to me and I'd have voted for it.

Edited by XJ40 on Friday 4th December 10:53

It is possible that there is cynical irony in your post.

[turbobloke]

Alpinestars said:

Breadvan72 said:

The Indy shows a sense of humour for a change -

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-half-of-bri...

Brilliant!

BV72 scored it right, seeing it in the Indy is the best bit - as for the content it's OK; not too bad even for a well-known left-wing comedian and former long-standing member of the Socialist Workers Party. The last couple of paragraphs, however, are well below par. He'd clearly run out of steam.

[BlackLabel]

telegraph said:

Britain's controversial air campaign in Syria has been branded a “non-event” after it emerged that the Air Force has carried out only one attack on the country in the last four weeks.
Since MPs voted for war over Syria on 1 December, more than a month ago, RAF Tornados and Typhoons have mounted only three strike missions – all in the first five days of the operation.
No RAF manned strikes have been conducted on any Syrian target since 6 December, 28 days ago, it can be revealed. The only further strike was made on Christmas Day by an unmanned, remote-controlled Reaper drone, bringing the total number of British strike missions to four.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12078395/RAF-bomb-raids-in-Syria-dismissed-as-non-event.html

[hornetrider]

Four raids. Hardcore.

[Joey Ramone]

I suspect that the majority of attention has been on the recent battle for Ramadi, simultaneously interdicting either reinforcements or remnants, and helping to shape the forthcoming battle for Mosul. Once Iraq is cleared of IS/Daesh, then the battle will move into Syria proper.

I think.

[ninja-lewis]

Joey Ramone said:

I suspect that the majority of attention has been on the recent battle for Ramadi, simultaneously interdicting either reinforcements or remnants, and helping to shape the forthcoming battle for Mosul. Once Iraq is cleared of IS/Daesh, then the battle will move into Syria proper.

I think.

Pretty much.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-stri...

[Rollin]

What happened to all the lefty predictions of collateral damage?

[RYH64E]

Rollin said:

What happened to all the lefty predictions of collateral damage?

Four raids? I doubt there's much damage of any sort.