phylo_roadking wrote:Rich, get off your high horse and READ what I'm writing, if you don't mind. I'm not complaning - I'm saying that mustering complete availability totals for AFVs nationally doesn't add much to the debate...unless you can where they ALL were or IF they were likely to be tasked or remain where they were. Your post could be read to say that that meant there were 700 for anti-invasion duties against Sealion...which would not be the complete truth. Nor did I say that all the remainder would be in NI, that's just the one's I have circumstantial evidence for - dated pics etc.
My post that you quoted stated simply that
And there were a plethora of Light Tanks available, of 1,340 built, 321 had been lost in France and 275 were in Egypt, leaving over 700, more than enough in theory to equip the dozen or so regiments formed to War Establishment
Where does that say anything about where they were? Or how they were tasked? How can you take that statement to say "that meant there were 700 for anti-invasion duties against Sealion"?
So get off your own horse and try to contest things I have said, rather than what I haven's said.
OTOH, you give no indication of hwo may were in Ireland according to your "circumstantial evidence" and I was merely making the - admittidly sarcastic - comment that from the one data point - mine (roughly half the known total in divisions accounted for) - and the second data point - yours (tanks in Ireland) there is a lot of room for assumptions. OTOH, we also know of other formations than the two armored divisions were equipped with the tanks and stationed for anti0invasion duties - such as the three regiments of BROCFORCE - and others. So is it possible that some were in Northern ireland? Of course. Is it also possible that the majority were with the light tank units that we know were disposed along the cost to repell an invasion?
2/ I'm afraid I wasn't around here in 2003 when all this kicked off - kindly don't be ignorant to new voices in a debate, it doesn't read well for the NEXT newcomer, does it???
The majority of the relevent threads have been posted in the last few months.
My point about fully active versus fully protected is very simple - one is going to survive a LOT longer in the face of an oncoming invasion force to do more damage than the other....
Really? And the proof of that is....? Since they will be around a "LOT" longer you must have numerous examples you can use for proof?
regarding Neptune, the German attack on the shoreline of the UK would be very different in complexion to June 6th 1944; the Allies relied on saturation bombing of the defences beforehand by the Bomber Command,
Er, sorry, but what "saturation bombing" was done by Bomber Command of the German defenses? Are you speaking of the D-Day bombing itself? That was primarily by Eighth Air Force? BC did attempt 10 precision attacks on German batteries on D-Day, without success.
bombardment on the day by BB-class vessels and downwards and assault parties on the ground by the Rangers, British Airborne etc. The Germans would be using a very limited shore bombardment, but a MUCH heavier reliance on the LW's divebombers. With certainnly a greater degree of accuracy on point than Bomber Command.
Quite possibly the accuracy might be better, but given that by September the dive bomber force was recovering from the heavy attrition suffered in late July and in August it is unlikely they would be available in sufficient quantity to make that accuracy really effective. It is unlikely that more than two dozen sorties would be available for any particular beach sector.
This is sheer ignorance - did YOU read MY post??? you might have worked out for yourself that I was commenting on
It is easier to "work out" what you are commenting on if you actually say what it is you are commenting on. And considering that the following quote was not included in your original post, I rather expect few readers were thinking that it was what you were commenting on.
So yes, sheer ignorance on my part, for thinking that you might have the intelligence to post something comprehensible.
But of course as 25-pounder became available many of the 75mm were re-issued, first to the 'Home Counties' brigades and later divisions and then to the Home Guard. However, a fair number of them may have been shipped to Egypt, since the 75mm shows up there in the Western Desert as well. I'll check but I believe some arrived there as early as November or December of 1940, evidently coming from England?
and NOTHING else. meaning that the Egyptian items couldn't at first sight have come by way of the UK. It was NOTHING to do with how fast they arrived!!!
So that was what you were commenting on when you stated:
As a p.s. - by Summer 1941, I've seen in various locations a total varying from 800 to 900 "75mm guns from America" supplied to the Home Guard as anti-tank weapons; which is remarkably close to the totals mentioned above for overall imports?
Sorry if I have a hard time following how you get there from that or what justification you have for getting on your own high horse when it causes confusion.
And the answer BTW is why yes, they could have and did. Or rather were transhipped, going first to England and then to Egypt.
Rich, have you ever wondered WHY these threads drag on??? Perhaps its becasue some contributors contribute with a verbal baseball bat in their hands and therefore draggin in people to fight with them? How many points in my post is that in total YOU misunderstood and weighed in with all guns blazing? SOME people might ask for clarification....
In this case they seem to be dragging on because somebody wants to rehash points already covered in some detail?
And yes, it would help a lot of us from wasting our time if you would actually post what you intended to in the first place rather than complaining because someone failed to read your mind.