Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 10 Aug 2012 - 0:23

Last chance to correct yourself.... Wink

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 10 Aug 2012 - 0:38

P.S. are you REALLY claiming that article says Urundi carried 45 tanks???

steamship "Urundi" (around 45 tanks). Plus three (3) Neubau Pz.Kpfw.VI types. (this is the "heavy" sized multiple-turreted tank http://hem.fyristorg.com/robertm/norge/Panzer%20Abt.%20z.b.V.40.html

Laughing Laughing Laughing

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Sun 12 Aug 2012 - 0:29

No. & I've no time for your baiting tactics. How many tanks were in each ship is irrelevant to the subject matter. & what I posted was a random sample of data from the link proving the point of Panzers being sent in steamship-s. Your coffin has been lowered, these tit for tat games do not improve your station, they only demonstrate repeat trollism.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Sun 12 Aug 2012 - 22:36

No.

Then kindly go back and change that post, for it gives an entirely and intentional false opinion.

I've no time for your baiting tactics. How many tanks were in each ship is irrelevant to the subject matter.

Really??? Or is that because you suddenly realised you got it wrong....again? Razz

It's ENTIRELY relevant to your putative IKARUS, and your repeated claims that the Germans could basically transport anything they wanted to Iceland by sea across a North Sea and Arctic Ocean controlled by the RN - men, materiel, earthmoving equipment, tanks....

Should we perhaps look at what REALLY happened, eh? study Can't really do better than George Parada! http://www.nuav.net/panzer.html

First of all - EITHER you claimed 45 tanks were in Urundi....OR you're claiming the Germans sent 45 to Norway; but the REAL facts are that the Germans assigned ~45 tanks in total to Pz. Abt. z. B. v. 40 AS A WHOLE......BUT -

On April 9th, first and second companies were sent to Denmark,....

I.E. only 21 of that ~45 were initially dispatched to Norway. I wonder what happened to them, eh?

...while third company was sent to Norway aboard ships "Urundi" and "Antaris H". On April 17th, only single Panzerkampfwagen I and Panzerkampfwagen II arrived in Oslo aboard "Urundi". The rest of the company (single Kleiner Panzer Befehlswagen I command tank, twelve PzKpfw I and six PzKpfw II tanks) went down with "Antaris H" (and other transports), which was sunk in the North Sea by a British submarine.

lol!


SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Mon 13 Aug 2012 - 0:58

Urundi ran aground. yet still 50 out of 69 made it, LOL. You lose huge once again.

http://www.nuav.net/panzer.html


http://www.feldgrau.com/PzAbtzbv40.html

the steamship Urundi ran aground with a number of Panzers aboard,

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Mon 13 Aug 2012 - 1:16

You lose huge once again

Er....no; this is what you get for chopping bits out of articles with NO thought at all about their CONTEXT in the article...

As of April 9th, Pz. Abt. z. B. v. 40 was to have some 69, including:
- 42 PzKpfw I light tanks (12 lost at sea),
- 21 PzKpfw II light tanks (6 lost at sea),
- 6 Kleiner Panzer Befehlswagen I command tanks (1 lost at sea),
Out of original 69 tanks only 50 reached Norway, this included:
- 30 PzKpfw I light tanks,
- 15 PzKpfw II light tanks,
- 5 Kleiner Panzer Befehlswagen I command tanks,
- 3 NbFz PzKpfw VI heavy tanks.



....the vast majority having reached Norway VIA Denmark....AFTER the Luftwaffe established itself in Norway and could protect 100% of the VERY SHORT sea route from Northern Denmark to Southern Norway. Did you not happen to notice...

On April 9th, first and second companies were sent to Denmark...

On April 20th, the first and second company arrived in Oslo....

I DID say....

"....were initially dispatched to Norway" Wink They HAD to be sent to replace the losses to the Third Company on the Urundi and Antaris H and others...caused by the Royal Navy! Rolling Eyes

The ocean voyage to Iceland would NEVER be secure for the Germans under any circumstance - not against a navy that outnumbered theirs 10-1....and far more for the 3-4 months after the Norwegian campaign...AND courtesy of its several carriers in home and Atlantic waters interdict every mile of any German surface vessels' voyage to Iceland...from ABOVE as well as below anbd on the surface.





As a P.S.

the steamship Urundi ran aground with a number of Panzers aboard,
On April 17th, only single Panzerkampfwagen I and Panzerkampfwagen II arrived in Oslo aboard "Urundi".

...guess just what they had to chuck overboard to get it refloated!!! Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Mon 13 Aug 2012 - 2:25

Your conclusion, ( pure unsupported, unproven speculation), has previously been entriely debunked by the fact of destroyers & cargo ships sailed unmolested to narvik, WITH NO AIR COVER. A much futher distance than coast to coast, Norway to Iceland BTW.

Plus you've already forgotten the trojan horse, (get there is harmless looking fishing boats, which was successfully accomplished at Norway), with war accoutrements in the bellys aneuver. Plus there are no RN units near or stationed at Iceland April 1940.




and far more for the 3-4 months after the Norwegian campaign

There is no 3-4 months after the Norwegian campaign, get with the schedule already, 3 years on & you still haven't got it. Germans land BEFORE Britsh do, British landed at Iceland MAY 1940, Germans would land APRIL 1940. No Brtish activity or presence in the area at the time

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Mon 13 Aug 2012 - 3:11

Your conclusion, ( pure unsupported, unproven speculation), has previously been entriely debunked by the fact of destroyers & cargo ships sailed unmolested to narvik, WITH NO AIR COVER.

Cargo ship, Neutral-registered, one of....the other one was stopped by the RN - as was the KM's expected tanker. So that was two out of three stopped...

P.S. I see you've chosen to ignore completely that the KM's destroyers couldn't handle the North Atlantic? Razz One of those heading for Narvik had to turn round in a panic when a heavy sea stoved hull plates in...and that was just the North Sea...

Plus you've already forgotten the trojan horse, (get there is harmless looking fishing boats, which was successfully accomplished at Norway), with war accoutrements in the bellys aneuver. Plus there are no RN units near or stationed at Iceland April 1940.

In reverse order...no, you're fogetting BOTH the Destroyer Picket AND the Royal Naval Patrol Service "grid picket" of armed trawlers in the North Sea....and you expect strange trawlers to be let go past uninspected??? Razz

and far more for the 3-4 months after the Norwegian campaign

There is no 3-4 months after the Norwegian campaign, get with the schedule already, 3 years on & you still haven't got it. Germans land BEFORE Britsh do, British landed at Iceland MAY 1940, Germans would land APRIL 1940. No Brtish activity or presence in the area at the time

Get with the REAL HISTORY of April 1940; by the end of the first week of activity off Norway in April 1940 the RN had accounted for half the KM's destroyers, the Karlsruhe had been sunk, the Blucher had been sunk, the Konigsberg had been sunk....the Lutzow had been very badly damaged and out of commission for over a year, Gneisenau was damaged and required repairs, Scharnhorst was damaged and required repairs, Hipper was damaged and required repairs, Emden was damaged and was retired after Norway....

I.E. It was just the first week of operations off Norway that screwed the Kriegsmarine....

...and - of course - if they DON'T get involved in WESERUBUNG exactly as they did, then there's no Norway to launch IKARUS from....and you can't write that damage out of the record WITHOUT writing WESERUBUNG out too - and that means no Norwegian airfields, or ports....

As for no British presence in the area - I think you should study the RN's movements in April 1940 a little bit more closely....a BIG chunk of Home Fleet, along with French and Polish vessels, was sitting off Norway for two months...nicely in the way Razz

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Tue 14 Aug 2012 - 1:07

And the Germans sent 370 cargo ships & lost 21. Get with the real history. We WERE talking cargo ships in the main. & it doesn't matter than German cruisers were hit, many repaired, they did their job, landed troops, got control of Norway. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau returned top service as did other smaller cruisers. 10 lost destroyers were replaced 1 year later. German navy was stronger in 41-42 than it was in 1940. Bismark & Tirpitz arrived, plus U-boat fleet enlarged dramatically, plus they now had bases in both Norway & France. Bismark, Prinz Eugen, Hipper, Scheer & Raider Atlantis all made Atlatntic sortries. RN's work at Norway prevented none of it.

You've ignored 50 out of 69 tanks were successfully landed at Norway, RN & RAF could'nt even stop the grounded Urundi's Panzers from getting ashore. Pathetic.

Yes, you launch Wesurubung & then Ikarus which does not require any 3-4 months.

& remember, the RN & allied navies lost as much or more warships in the same timeframe.


Actually RN was run "off" central Norways coast by Luftwaffe, nicely out of the way.





the commander of the French troops in Norway, a man with the confusing name of Mittelhauser, admitted later:

At any rate, when the Stuka was revealed to us, when we saw the British fleet giving up before Trondheim (because of it), we had the feeling that we were face to face with something quite new, and of a technical surprise whose employment to be decisive.

_http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin ... stuka.html_





Plus they had 2 rebuilt/redesigned WW 1 era ships with modern 11 inch guns to send to Iceland if they should be wont to do so. They had radar 1 year before Hood did.

longrange 11 inch guns & could do 25 knots.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/schlie_f.htm
Schlesien and Schleswig-Holstein. Radar installed just before war broke out gave these "armor-clads" new battle potential.

They did participate in the invasion of Denmark & Norway, but stayed in Danish waters.


Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Tue 14 Aug 2012 - 1:26

In reverse order...no, you're fogetting BOTH the Destroyer Picket AND the Royal Naval Patrol Service "grid picket" of armed trawlers in the North Sea....and you expect strange trawlers to be let go past uninspected???

You've again ignored the Germans did exactly THAT at Norway, North sea picket missed em completely!! Destroyers & cargo ships went all the way to Narvik, North Sea Picket & destoyers missed em completely!!!! There would only be air cover near Danish waters & around Oslo, unless there were so pro Nazi seagulls between Oslo & Narvik, no AIR COVER whatsoever. What part of North sea picket completely failed at exactly what you're attempting to say they would do can't you grasp????

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Tue 14 Aug 2012 - 1:58

it doesn't matter than German cruisers were hit, many repaired, they did their job, landed troops, got control of Norway.

It matters that they were hit and damaged and required repair in the several weeks following the first week of WESERUBUNG...you know, in the very period you envision the Germans launching IKARUS???

You've ignored 50 out of 69 tanks were successfully landed at Norway, RN & RAF could'nt even stop the grounded Urundi's Panzers from getting ashore. Pathetic.

No - YOU are ignoring that the vast majority of those were sent from Denmark after the short sea route from Denmark to Oslo was safe for them...something that cannot ever be replicated for the voyage to Iceland.

& remember, the RN & allied navies lost as much or more warships in the same timeframe

Really? In the first week? Sure about that? Wink

the commander of the French troops in Norway, a man with the confusing name of Mittelhauser, admitted later:

At any rate, when the Stuka was revealed to us, when we saw the British fleet giving up before Trondheim (because of it), we had the feeling that we were face to face with something quite new, and of a technical surprise whose employment to be decisive.

_http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin ... stuka.html_

How about a working link so we can all see what the FULL passage says? Wink

Plus they had 2 rebuilt/redesigned WW 1 era ships with modern 11 inch guns to send to Iceland if they should be wont to do so. They had radar 1 year before Hood did.

longrange 11 inch guns & could do 25 knots.

Ah yes - the Schlesien and Schleswig-Holstein; warships regarded as SO valuable...that during the initial draft of planning for Sealion it was planned to run them aground and use them as gun batteries? Laughing SO valuable that in the end they were robbed of their crews to man armed trawlers and landing barges for Sealion? Razz

P.S. did you actually miss this bit in that source by accident or by design??? Wink I see you didn't exactly explain why....

They did participate in the invasion of Denmark & Norway, but stayed in Danish waters

I'll do it, shall I? Wink

Short range and poor sea-keeping kept these ships close to Germany

Hopeless in the North Atlantic!

You've again ignored the Germans did exactly THAT at Norway, North sea picket missed em completely!! Destroyers & cargo ships went all the way to Narvik, North Sea Picket & destoyers missed em completely!!!! There would only be air cover near Danish waters & around Oslo, unless there were so pro Nazi seagulls between Oslo & Narvik, no AIR COVER whatsoever. What part of North sea picket completely failed at exactly what you're attempting to say they would do can't you grasp????

They simply didn't pass through the North Sea Picket on their way to their Norwegian objectives...but they wouldn't be able to avoid passing through it on their way to Iceland! It lay directly between Scandanavia and Iceland.


SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Bjørn on Tue 14 Aug 2012 - 20:54

Hello!
I am monitoring this thread, and it is interesting so far. Alas, do not get carried away too much, as it is after so many postings somewhat difficult to follow the red line.

B

Bjørn

Posts : 388
Join date : 2007-11-27
Age : 54
Location : Bodø

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Tue 14 Aug 2012 - 21:58

You're incorrectly assuming these warships that need repair would be required to occupy Iceland.

No - YOU are ignoring that the vast majority of those were sent from Denmark after the short sea route from Denmark to Oslo was safe for them...something that cannot ever be replicated for the voyage to Iceland.

No, you claimed Panzers didn't make it or couldn't to Norway, yet they did, you stand corrected.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Tue 14 Aug 2012 - 22:02

Quote;
They simply didn't pass through the North Sea Picket on their way to their Norwegian objectives...but they wouldn't be able to avoid passing through it on their way to Iceland! It lay directly between Scandanavia and Iceland.

Nope, we just clarified that, RN was nowhere near south & central Noways coast,( Luftwaffe had just run em off), which is directly across from Icelands east coast.

Plus the German raiding warships passed near Iceland en route to Atlantic, & North sea picket missed em all.





Another runway was installed at Bear Island, no rollers, no graders or bulldozers, ( unless of course these were landed by parachute as well, pretty unlikely eh?) Pro Nazi seagulls running air cover I surmise.

another station was set up on Bear Island by the same crew, not before a labour party to clean a landing strip was landing by parachute. http://forums-de.ubi.com/showthread.php/13122-Wetter-im-hohen-Norden-im-WK2-Forums


Lemme guess, the British will then train special woodpeckers to fly to Iceland & destroy the wood Egg Crate runways, or drop termites via para drop.


Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Wed 15 Aug 2012 - 0:13

Another runway was installed at Bear Island, no rollers, no graders or bulldozers, ( unless of course these were landed by parachute as well, pretty unlikely eh?) Pro Nazi seagulls running air cover I surmise.

another station was set up on Bear Island by the same crew, not before a labour party to clean a landing strip was landing by parachute. http://forums-de.ubi.com/showthread.php/13122-Wetter-im-hohen-Norden-im-WK2-Forums

Really? The article does NOT say "a runway was installed"....

Good to see however that you're getting back to Bjorn's "red line"...for that red line is about to come back and slap you very VERY hard Wink

Nope, we just clarified that, RN was nowhere near south & central Noways coast,( Luftwaffe had just run em off), which is directly across from Icelands east coast.

And how many miles...and a destroyer picket and armed trawler picket...separate them? Rolling Eyes

And you're forgetting that Allied naval units spent your window of the two months pf WESERUBUNG crisscrossing from Scotland/Scapa to NORTHERN Norway...

Doesn't matter where the line is drawn - if the Germans STILL have to cross it!

No, you claimed Panzers didn't make it or couldn't to Norway, yet they did, you stand corrected

You initially claimed the Urundi carried 45 tanks to Oslo - I had to draw your attention to the fact it carried ONLY TWO. THEN I noted that the RN did sink the other vessel(s) carrying the thrid company's tanks...


SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Thu 16 Aug 2012 - 2:32

Really? The article does NOT say "a runway was installed"....

Ok, a landing strip for an airplane to land & takeoff from, is that acceptable verb-iage?



Quote;
You initially claimed the Urundi carried 45 tanks to Oslo

No, I didn't. That was made clear to you. An irrelevant point previously cleared up.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Thu 16 Aug 2012 - 2:40

And how many miles...and a destroyer picket and armed trawler picket...separate them?

And you're forgetting that Allied naval units spent your window of the two months pf WESERUBUNG crisscrossing from Scotland/Scapa to NORTHERN Norway...



No 2 months, let's try yet again to get you cleared up on the timeline, ( for the 80th time), Wesurubung began April 8-9 1940, German landings at Iceland also April 1940.

Now, as to North sea picket, let's assume for some strange reason they decide to park in front of the east Fjords of Iceland, AND the north port of Akeyuri, AND at the SW corner near just outside Reykjavic simultaneously, ( the odds of this are infinitesimal, perhaps they wanted to eat some Puffin), then you'd have some sort of point. They didn't have any military reason to do so at the time as Narvik was the only strategic piece of real estate of interest to the British circa 1939 up to April 1940. It was only AFTER, ( key word, AFTER), Germans were successful at south & central Norway that it became a worry that Germany might make a move to occupy Iceland.


http://www.hmshood.com/history/timeline4.htm

You can read through this link & see an ineffective interception attempt RN around Iceland, ( not as foolproof or deadly as you'd like to believe), & also you can see how far & wide the Hood traveled late 39 up to April 1940.


25 November: Departed Plymouth to intercept ship presumed to be Deutschland (actually Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) following sinking of armed merchant cruiser H.M.S. Rawalpindi.

25 November–2 December: Hood and a group of destroyers combined forces with elements of the French Navy (Dunkerque, George Leygues, Montcalm and 2 destroyers) . The entire group was under the command of French Vice Admiral Marcel Gensoul. The objective was to patrol the area south of Iceland and possibly intercept the German raiders. The enemy were not sighted. Hood returned to Greenock.





Picket has 4 routes to patrol also, not just or exclusively around Iceland.

the Orkney-Shetland Gap, the Shetland - Faroe Gap, the Faroe- Iceland Gap, or the Denmark Strait to the west of Iceland.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Thu 16 Aug 2012 - 5:52

As was explained in the other forum, these patrol zones are easily bypassed. Ships debark Trondheim or Bergen, sail north in an arc well away from Shetlands & Faroes, then drop into Akeyuri, & easy Fjords. Some split west, go round top of Iceland & hug the coast & into Rekjavic. North Sea picket a non issue.


& again, note the 2 words "landing & strip" A landing strips purpose is to "land & debark" aircraft.

"another station was set up on Bear Island by the same crew, not before a labour party to clean a landing strip was landing by parachute."



Sorry for putting 3 posts in a row, but putting that much data into 1 makes a muddle.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 3:33

Really? The article does NOT say "a runway was installed"....

Ok, a landing strip for an airplane to land & takeoff from, is that acceptable verb-iage?

Here's a hint relating to your whole mistake...you focused on the wrong word there... Wink

& again, note the 2 words "landing & strip" A landing strips purpose is to "land & debark" aircraft.

"another station was set up on Bear Island by the same crew, not before a labour party to clean a landing strip was landing by parachute."

Indeed - read that VERY carefully... Wink

Now, as to North sea picket, let's assume for some strange reason they decide to park in front of the east Fjords of Iceland, AND the north port of Akeyuri, AND at the SW corner near just outside Reykjavic simultaneously, ( the odds of this are infinitesimal, perhaps they wanted to eat some Puffin), then you'd have some sort of point

The only "strange reason" to assume THAT rubbish is your wish to avoid the slight problen that the "NORTH SEA Picket" had this tendency to patrol THE NORTH SEA....right across the KM's prospective routes to Iceland - it didn't patrol off Iceland at that time! Rolling Eyes

They didn't have any military reason to do so at the time as Narvik was the only strategic piece of real estate of interest to the British circa 1939 up to April 1940.


Patently incorrect; they ALSO intended an onward move to occupy the Gallivare ore fields in Sweden AND the north of Sweden as far south as the prospective "Lake Line"

It was only AFTER, ( key word, AFTER), Germans were successful at south & central Norway that it became a worry that Germany might make a move to occupy Iceland.

Incorrect; Britain's interest in Iceland began immedaitely after the invasion of Denmark; their intention to military occupy Iceland came ONLY after several failed attempts over the next 2-3 weeks at persuading the Icelandic government by diplomatic means to join the Allies and becoming a co-belligerent in the war. It wasn't related to the ongoing military situation in Norway.

Picket has 4 routes to patrol also, not just or exclusively around Iceland.

Home Fleet patrolled the GIUK Gap as required - the destroyer picket patrolled across prospective routes far closer to Scandanavia.

AND you're once again forgetting about the RNPS grid picket of the North Sea and Arctic Ocean.

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 3:39

right across the KM's prospective routes to Iceland -

Wishful thinking doesn't make it so, only a doofus would send these ships into the picket's patrol zones. Plus Norway's coast entirely cleared of Royal navy making debarkation easy.

Here you can see it, easy to bypass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap



"Incorrect; Britain's interest in Iceland began immedaitely after the invasion of Denmark;"

Incorrect, Norway & Denmark invaded same time, hence timeline changes not one iota.

On 9 April 1940, German forces launched Operation Weserübung, invading both Norway and Denmark. Denmark was subdued within a day and occupied. On the same day, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 3:48

Wishful thinking doesn't make it so

You're quite right about THAT!

As was explained in the other forum, these patrol zones are easily bypassed. Ships debark Trondheim or Bergen

German landings at Iceland also April 1940.

Ships departing Bergen have to travel through the North Sea picket and grid picket...

While your putative Iceland invasion force departing Trondheim will have to avoid British ships operating to and from Andalsnes right up to April 30th, and Namsos as late as May 2nd!

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 3:53

Quote;
They didn't have any military reason to do so at the time as Narvik was the only strategic piece of real estate of interest to the British circa 1939 up to April 1940.

Patently incorrect; they ALSO intended an onward move to occupy the Gallivare ore fields in Sweden AND the north of Sweden as far south as the prospective "Lake Line"



All ore traffic when Swedish Baltic/Bothnia ports are frozen pass through Narvik, hence IT is the main strategic objective. Control of it was the main point for both interested parties.




Germans decoded British radio trafiic with ease, very easy to predict when & where RN ships are moving, Andalsnes etc. Plus if you leave at night, you are across the travel routes these ships pass through. Not much to it.



The Germans intercepted the field messages of the British units which were advancing from the Andalsnes area by way of Dombas - Otta - Hamar to Lillehammer in the direction of Oslo. They used code names for their call signs and signatures. The messages themselves could not be solved. However, since the code names ware learned after a short time from captured documents, the chain of command and composition of units were soon clearly recognized and the enemy's movements were followed.
http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Radio-Intelligence-by-Albert-Praun.html

Today it appears incomprehensible why the British seriously impaired the value of their well-disciplined radio organization and their excellent ciphers by transmitting call signs and signatures in the clear. Operating mistakes of this kind provided valuable information to the German intercept service





Last edited by Black Hornet on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 3:57; edited 1 time in total

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 3:57

"Incorrect; Britain's interest in Iceland began immedaitely after the invasion of Denmark;"

Incorrect, Norway & Denmark invaded same time, hence timeline changes not one iota.

Very correct; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Iceland

After a few failed attempts at persuading the Icelandic government by diplomatic means to join the Allies and becoming a co-belligerent in the war against the Axis forces, the British invaded Iceland on 10 May 1940. The initial force of 746 British Royal Marines commanded by Colonel Robert Sturges was replaced on 17 May by a larger Army force, and eventually 25,000 British troops were stationed in Iceland.

But let's see MORE of that article, shall we???

Following the invasion of Denmark on 9 April 1940 Iceland opened a legation in New York City. Iceland, however, unlike Norway, did not closely enforce limitations within its territorial waters and even slashed funding for the Icelandic Coast Guard. Many Axis merchant vessels seeking shelter within the neutral waters around Iceland were sunk by Allied warships. The Chief of the Capital Police Forces, Agnar Kofoed-Hansen, started to train the National Defence forces in early 1940.

London imposed strict export controls on Icelandic goods, preventing profitable shipments to Germany, as part of its naval blockade. London offered assistance to Iceland, seeking cooperation "as a belligerent and an ally", but Reykjavik declined and reaffirmed its neutrality. The German diplomatic presence in Iceland, along with the island's strategic importance, alarmed the British.[2] After a few failed attempts at persuading the Icelandic government by diplomatic means to join the Allies and becoming a co-belligerent in the war against the Axis forces, the British invaded Iceland on 10 May 1940. The initial force of 746 British Royal Marines commanded by Colonel Robert Sturges was replaced on 17 May by a larger Army force, and eventually 25,000 British troops were stationed in Iceland.

SEEMS YOU'VE GOT AN APRIL 1940 ROYAL NAVAL BLOCKADE OF ICELAND TO GET THROUGH TOO!

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:07

The Germans intercepted the field messages of the British units which were advancing from the Andalsnes area by way of Dombas - Otta - Hamar to Lillehammer in the direction of Oslo. They used code names for their call signs and signatures. The messages themselves could not be solved. However, since the code names ware learned after a short time from captured documents, the chain of command and composition of units were soon clearly recognized and the enemy's movements were followed.
http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Radio-Intelligence-by-Albert-Praun.html

THAT comment of yours is wholly irrelevant - as it refers to ARMY radio traffic ASHORE... Rolling Eyes

But yes, let's see what ELSE you've misinterpreted or ignored AS USAL from a source...

Radio messages between Great Britain and Norway were more important. The admiralty station transmitted encrypted orders to the naval officers in command of Harstadt, Andalsnes, and Alesund. Although these messages could not be solved, they provided clues to the most important debarkation ports of the British Expeditionary Force. In particular, they confirmed the landings near Harstadt, which had hitherto been merely a matter of conjecture.

....and perhaps MORE interesting is -

When, in the middle of May, a part of the German command staff was transferred to Trondheim the intercept platoon went along and found especially favorable receiving conditions near this city, which is approximately 1,500 feet above sea level. A large Norwegian radio net regularly transmitted air reconnaissance reports, information on the composition and commitment of the Norwegian 7th Division, and mobilization orders for the unoccupied part of Norway. They mentioned General Fleischer as commander in northern Norway....

....The traffic between Great Britain and Norway, which had already been intercepted near Oslo, was now observed in larger volume from Trondheim. Most of the traffic was between Scotland (possibly Prestwick) and Bode or Tromse. The volume of messages was very large. The average word count was 200 letters. Every evening the Germans intercepted situation reports of the Norwegian High Command in Tromse, orders from the Admiralty in London, mine warnings, SOS calls, government radiograms to England and France, personal messages from King Haakon to King George of England and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, and reports from the Reuter correspondents attached to Norwegian units.

Get that? NOT UNTIL MID-MAY were the Germans picking up "...situation reports of the Norwegian High Command in Tromse, orders from the Admiralty in London, mine warnings, SOS calls, government radiograms to England and France, personal messages from King Haakon to King George of England and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, and reports from the Reuter correspondents attached to Norwegian units."

In other words - no use for identifying ships' movements at sea PRIOR to that I.E. IN APRIL Razz So THIS -

Germans decoded British radio trafiic with ease, very easy to predict when & where RN ships are moving

...is a non-starter (literally!) in April!



SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:10

Yet blockade not actuated until May 1940, when British warships arrived.

Funny how the British considered it a "starter" even after the May 1940 occupation.. You should try & pay more attn to these British authorities you put so much stock in.


Germans as well planned for it June 1940. Operation Ikarus. So much for your April 1940 non starter theory, all the Military higher ups on both sides entirely disgaree with you. You can't be any more outflanked than that.



Radio intercepts began April 8, not only or specifically later in May, sorry no dice yet again.

Up to 8 April this traffic was normal, but on the night of 8 - 9 April it increased to a point of wild confusion. Normal army radio traffic was observed in Sweden. After the platoon's first move to Als on the Kattegat, Norwegian Army messages were also intercepted
http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Radio-Intelligence-by-Albert-Praun.html


Plus it wasn't just Army as you incorrectly posited, double bagels yet again.

The admiralty station transmitted encrypted orders to the naval officers in command of Harstadt, Andalsnes, and Alesund.






German success in Norway represented a severe blow to allied naval prestige. Two of the world's largest and best-regarded navies, the British and French, had failed to stop the Kriegsmarine from landing troops almost at will up and down the long Norwegian coast.

http://www.globeatwar.com/article/april-1940-german-invasion-denmark-and-norway


Last edited by Black Hornet on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:32; edited 1 time in total

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:24

Yet blockade not actuated until May 1940, when British warships arrived.

Er.....NO. It started in September 1939! http://islanda.altervista.org/node/118

In the period between September 1939, at the break of the war, and May 1940 (the british invasion), situation remained unchanged. Gerlack kept on serving in Reykjavik, while military visits of any kind were stopped.
The german victories in Europe obviously pushed the British Admiralty on alarmed positions, as the troops of Hitler were gaining a position of supremacy. Thus London decised to impose to Reykjavik kind of a “forced collaboration” with some unquestionable points: stop to any contact with Germany, in trading as well as in scientific fields. The Royal Navy was operating a naval blockade of Germany, and Iceland was obviously behind the shield. Reykjavik, well aware of the situation, made two requests: England to replace the german supplies and trades to limit at minimum the loss for the country, and that any agreement to be “unformal”, in order not to expose Reykjavik to any direct involvement or the loss of neutrality. London also asked the closure of german diplomatic mission in Iceland, and expulsion from the country of every german, but those last condition were refused by Iceland, as in contradiction with the policy of neutrality.

Some MORE proof from the same article that the Blockade was in place WAY before may 1940???

The agreements represented the new condition of icelandic economy during the british blockade. Even if they were made as joint decision, soon Iceland understood that the “unofficial” label was to be of little defence against the irritation of Germany. The government protested officially the 6th of January 1940...;...


The Icelandic Government protested against the Blockade on 6th january 1940!

As for THIS -
It was only AFTER, ( key word, AFTER), Germans were successful at south & central Norway that it became a worry that Germany might make a move to occupy Iceland.

It's FAR more wrong that you thought - once again http://islanda.altervista.org/node/118 and continuing from above -

....this reaction was expected (as it was discussed at the War Cabinet 3 days before), and the british officials could made a real coup the teatre: Lord Halifax suggested the possibility to present the Icelandic government all guarantee by the King that the icelandic boats were under the protection of the Royal Navy and that Britain was ready to protect Iceland in case of invasion. This note, delivered the 17th of january, left the icelanders speechless, as it moved far beyond the initial intentions all the question, as they never intended to request any military protection.

The British were considering military intervention in Iceland THREE MONTHS before the start of WESERUBUNG!

The military risks to and from Iceland were also being discussed FAR earlier...

The icelandic issue was discussed in the Committe of Imperial Defence in june 1939. Any attempt in Iceland made by Germany had to be considered as very dangerous, as it could be a move for the siege of the British Isles. But it was also obvious that a complete rethinking of anglo-icelandic relationship had to be made. The weakness of icelandic economy could not stand the loss of a vital trading partner as Germany. Between october and december 1939 many informal meetings were held: the icelandic delegation asked to mantain commerce with Germany to a fixed rate, while incresing the ones with other scandinavian countries. The british firmly rejected the first point, as every contact with Germany was not allowed, but the delegations agred in improving interscandinavian trading and also non-strategic trades with Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and also Italy, with the possibility to open new business channels to USA, other american republics, Spain, Portugal and other nations, to be determined by joint commission (29 december 1939).

From the first days of January 1940 to May of the same year (date of the british occupation), every sector of the intelligence services expressed the opinion tha Iceland and Faroer Islands could represent a deadly danger in the hand of the enemy and, in case of german occupation of Scandinavia, establishing bases in Iceland was necessary.


Last edited by SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:34; edited 1 time in total

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:29

Can you PLEASE avoid being such a fool? READ YOUR OWN REFERENCES!!!

You said several posts ago -
Germans decoded British radio trafiic with ease, very easy to predict when & where RN ships are moving

Up to 8 April this traffic was normal, but on the night of 8 - 9 April it increased to a point of wild confusion. Normal army radio traffic was observed in Sweden. After the platoon's first move to Als on the Kattegat, Norwegian Army messages were also intercepted
http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Radio-Intelligence-by-Albert-Praun.html

Plus it wasn't just Army as you incorrectly posited, double bagels yet again.

The admiralty station transmitted encrypted orders to the naval officers in command of Harstadt, Andalsnes, and Alesund

THE ONLY NAVAL OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF HARSTADT, ANDALSNES AND ALESUND "UP TO 8 APRIL" WERE NORWEGIAN ONES!!! Laughing It was Norwegian Admiralty naval traffic they were listening to then!!!

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:33

Germans as well planned for it June 1940. Operation Ikarus.


Would this be the same Operation Ikarus that the Germans CANCELLED because of the inability to resupply etc.? Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes




SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:35

So what? Wegener wrote about occupying Iceland before 1929. Discussing it with Icelanders in Jan 1940 IS NOT the same thing as actually deciding to invade.


Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:40

Unfortunately - You said nothing about when the British DECIDED to invade. What YOU said several posts ago was -

It was only AFTER, ( key word, AFTER), Germans were successful at south & central Norway that it became a worry that Germany might make a move to occupy Iceland

As we NOW see - you were completely wrong again; the British were "worried" about it from three months BEFORE the start of the war Wink

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Fri 17 Aug 2012 - 4:43

Nope, still correct, they considered it, but only REALLY worried about it after Germans moved against Norway. Sept 39 to May 1940 is 9 months. Plus German radio was in Oslo in April, which is just before May.

The traffic between Great Britain and Norway, which had already been intercepted near Oslo, was now observed in larger volume from Trondheim.
http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Radio-Intelligence-by-Albert-Praun.html

When, in the middle of May, a part of the German command staff was transferred to Trondheim

Radio intercept team was already in Oslo before May.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland#Planning
As the military situation in Norway deteriorated, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that Britain could no longer do without bases in Iceland. On 6 May, Winston Churchill presented the case to the War Cabinet.


There you go, May 6 1940. Game set match.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  atccbengt on Sat 18 Aug 2012 - 1:54

Black Hornet wrote:Um, no Phylo, read it again. Snow cleared off with local help, Hurries & Gladiators did fly off it. Runway abandoned due to german advance, not unviability.

Out of pure curiosity I have to ask where you have your information from? This is, to say at least, not correct. This looks like the usual rubbish from the web. This is what the Operational Records Book (ORB) from No. 46 squadron (AIR 27/460 at The National Archives, Kew, London) says about Skånland:

26.5.40:
......The first flight landed at SKAANLAND at 21-30 hrs. and one accident occured owing to the soft surface of the aerodrome. On arrival of the second flight another accident occured for the same reason and the decision was made to send the remaining aircraft to BARDUFOSS, 60 miles to the North. Orders were given to this effect to aircraft by R/T. from aircraft on the ground. These aircraft arrived safely at BARDUFOSS.

27.5.40 Skaanland:
A patrol consisting of S/L Cross, F/O Frost and P/O Bunker took off at 07-20 hrs to intercept 3 He III's approaching the aerodrome. The enemy formation was sighted but as they were going away from the landing ground they were not engaged, orders having been recived that aircraft were not to be attacked unless SKAANLAND itself were attacked. One aircraft crashed on landing from this patrol and permission was asked for 46 Squadron to evacuate SKAANLAND until such time as the aerodrome surface should prove suitable. This permission was recived and by 18-00 hrs. all serviceable aircraft (15) had arrived at BARDUFOSS.

Only one more time was Skånland used by 46 squadron, when Pilot Officer Lefevre used Skånland as an emergency airfield and landed Hurricane L1804 in the evening on May 28th.
As far as AIR 27/1547 (ORB 263 Sqn.) is conserned, no Gladiator landed at Skånland.
As you can see, the airfield at Skånland was "given up" before the brits withdrew from Northern Norway.

Bengt
Bodø

atccbengt

Posts : 5
Join date : 2008-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Sat 18 Aug 2012 - 2:21

Yet it was used & a Hurricane did land on it according to the link you supplied after the move. The point is, these makeshift runways were not hard to put together, & they did work. Not always perfect, but in war you do what you have to.

The more salient current point is... RN wasn't as great at interception as Phylo would have us believe, Channel Dash, failure at finding Scharnhorst & Gneisenau make the point. As does the failure, ( along with the French Navy), to stop German cargo ships & the much smaller German navy from going to Norway.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  atccbengt on Sat 18 Aug 2012 - 3:03

Black Hornet wrote:Yet it was used & a Hurricane did land on it according to the link you supplied after the move. The point is, these makeshift runways were not hard to put together, & they did work. Not always perfect, but in war you do what you have to.

The more salient current point is... RN wasn't as great at interception as Phylo would have us believe, Channel Dash, failure at finding Scharnhorst & Gneisenau make the point. As does the failure to stop German cargo ships & the much smaller German navy from going to Norway.

The topic is: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland
I don't care about RN, Phylo, Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. Stick to the topic and stop mixing all sorts of bullshit into the post. The airfield at Skånland was not used as an operational aerodrome after May 27th 1940, as you are refering in the post. You have obviously not a clue at what you are discussing and you are using useless information directly from the web without checking, or using, any primary sources. In other words, what you are posting is useless, inadequate rubbish from one end to the other.

Bengt

atccbengt

Posts : 5
Join date : 2008-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Sat 18 Aug 2012 - 3:06

Peace & love to you. We've already discussed the runway in detail, Thanks.

The runway was used, so to be technical, it WAS "operational" Not for long as it was found to be not exactly flat. But you are incorrect in your posit. Check your data before issuing your irrelevant rants.

Operational..

Military .
a. of, pertaining to, or involved in military operations.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Sun 19 Aug 2012 - 0:48

The runway was used, so to be technical, it WAS "operational" Not for long as it was found to be not exactly flat. But you are incorrect in your posit. Check your data before issuing your irrelevant rants.

Actually - YOU should; even YOUR source says about aircraft getting bogged down - the problem wasn't that it was/wasn't flat....but that it was soft and muddy! Rolling Eyes

Operational..

Military .
a. of, pertaining to, or involved in military operations.


Not THAT old chestnut again! Actually, I had cause to email the RAF Museum at Hendon several years ago about this EXACT question in relation to whether the ME262 or the Gloster meteor was "operational" first...

In RAF terms - "operational" means able to mount NORMAL operations I.E. fly off and recover a full complement of aircraft as per each morning's availability roster. Skanland patently therefore was NOT operational.

Plus German radio was in Oslo in April, which is just before May

Except YOUR OWN SOURCE says they didn't intercept Admiralty orders to RN shipping until they moved to Trondheim in May...

Suck it up; EITHER your source stands and is correct in ALL its details including that....OR it's all wrong after all. Which is it??? Wink

As the military situation in Norway deteriorated, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that Britain could no longer do without bases in Iceland. On 6 May, Winston Churchill presented the case to the War Cabinet.

There you go, May 6 1940. Game set match

Ahem - you've been saying they were worried about the Germans invading Iceland...NOW you're wriggling and changing your story AGAIN once you've been proved wrong AGAIN??? Laughing Laughing Laughing

Nope, still correct, they considered it, but only REALLY worried about it after Germans moved against Norway.

Oh, so you're standing on the difference between "worried" and "really worried"??? Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Once again you haven't bothered reading a source...

The german victories in Europe obviously pushed the British Admiralty on alarmed positions, as the troops of Hitler were gaining a position of supremacy. Thus London decised to impose to Reykjavik kind of a “forced collaboration” with some unquestionable points: stop to any contact with Germany, in trading as well as in scientific fields. The Royal Navy was operating a naval blockade of Germany, and Iceland was obviously behind the shield.

They were actually ALREADY so "really worried" they were alarmed! Laughing And thought the potential was....

The icelandic issue was discussed in the Committe of Imperial Defence in june 1939. Any attempt in Iceland made by Germany had to be considered as very dangerous, as it could be a move for the siege of the British Isles.

..."very dangerous"...and -

From the first days of January 1940 to May of the same year (date of the british occupation), every sector of the intelligence services expressed the opinion tha Iceland and Faroer Islands could represent a deadly danger in the hand of the enemy and, in case of german occupation of Scandinavia, establishing bases in Iceland was necessary.

...represented a "deadly danger" from January 1940 Razz

That's a lot more than just "really worried" - and came many months before April 1940.

Another cigar-less evening....


SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Sun 19 Aug 2012 - 1:41

There you go, proves you're completely wrong about German capacity to invade Iceland, albeit from a British perspective. & they talked about it, yes, but only really got serious about it as stated May 6 when Churchie spoke up. So still wrong on both counts.


Feb 6 1940
German vessel Konsul Horn safely reaches Norwegian waters from Aruba

Bremen,(51,656 gross tons), New York & Westervald also made it through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Bremen_(1929)

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Sun 19 Aug 2012 - 2:03

There you go, proves you're completely wrong about German capacity to invade Iceland, albeit from a British perspective. & they talked about it, yes, but only really got serious about it as stated May 6 when Churchie spoke up. So still wrong on both counts.

Doesn't matter how YOU choose to misread the source - you'll remain wrong as usual Razz It's clear they DID get serious about the threat...

The german victories in Europe obviously pushed the British Admiralty on alarmed positions, as the troops of Hitler were gaining a position of supremacy. Thus London decised to impose to Reykjavik kind of a “forced collaboration” with some unquestionable points: stop to any contact with Germany, in trading as well as in scientific fields.

...and DID something about it! Razz To continue...

The Royal Navy was operating a naval blockade of Germany, and Iceland was obviously behind the shield. Reykjavik, well aware of the situation, made two requests: England to replace the german supplies and trades to limit at minimum the loss for the country, and that any agreement to be “unformal”, in order not to expose Reykjavik to any direct involvement or the loss of neutrality.

In other words - Iceland accepted that "forced collaboration" to a degree. I.E. action taken to begin alleviating the worries.

The British ALSO discussed with Iceland through 1939 the complete re-jigging their relationship in direct response to the threat...

The icelandic issue was discussed in the Committe of Imperial Defence in june 1939. Any attempt in Iceland made by Germany had to be considered as very dangerous, as it could be a move for the siege of the British Isles. But it was also obvious that a complete rethinking of anglo-icelandic relationship had to be made. The weakness of icelandic economy could not stand the loss of a vital trading partner as Germany. Between october and december 1939 many informal meetings were held: the icelandic delegation asked to mantain commerce with Germany to a fixed rate, while incresing the ones with other scandinavian countries. The british firmly rejected the first point, as every contact with Germany was not allowed, but the delegations agred in improving interscandinavian trading and also non-strategic trades with Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and also Italy, with the possibility to open new business channels to USA, other american republics, Spain, Portugal and other nations, to be determined by joint commission (29 december 1939).
Great Bitain had to accept the opening of the markets to importation of meat and fish, and to supply the Iceland for the share previously granted by Germany (which amounted, for Iceland, to 46% of the need of iron and steel and 52% of chemicals).

It's also VERY clear there was an intent for military intervention...three months BEFORE you said there was. They even warned the Icelanders three months ahead of WESERUBUNG that they would!

The agreements represented the new condition of icelandic economy during the british blockade. Even if they were made as joint decision, soon Iceland understood that the “unofficial” label was to be of little defence against the irritation of Germany. The government protested officially the 6th of January 1940; this reaction was expected (as it was discussed at the War Cabinet 3 days before), and the british officials could made a real coup the teatre: Lord Halifax suggested the possibility to present the Icelandic government all guarantee by the King that the icelandic boats were under the protection of the Royal Navy and that Britain was ready to protect Iceland in case of invasion. This note, delivered the 17th of january, left the icelanders speechless, as it moved far beyond the initial intentions all the question, as they never intended to request any military protection.

You can twist it and turn it any way you want - but the article is quite clear I.E. you're wrong.



SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 0:13

Imposing a fish embargo is not the same thing as sending warships. You're still posting fluff.

& perhaps the pro-British Puffins at Iceland will send telepathic messages to the Psychics the RN has employed at Scapa Flow to stop the German ships.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 0:34

Imposing a fish embargo is not the same thing as sending warships.

And where does the article mention that the British "imposed a fish embargo"? Rolling Eyes

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 0:36

Its called trade. Read this from your link... An Embargo is not an invasion.


The weakness of icelandic economy could not stand the loss of a vital trading partner as Germany. Between october and december 1939 many informal meetings were held: the icelandic delegation asked to mantain commerce with Germany to a fixed rate, while incresing the ones with other scandinavian countries. The british firmly rejected the first point, as every contact with Germany was not allowed, but the delegations agred in improving interscandinavian trading and also non-strategic trades with Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and also Italy,




& on another similiar/related sort of subject, 17 out of 19 Europe to Far east blockade runners made it 41-42.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Ultra/SRH-019.html


It was only after the early war years when Ultra, Radar & such became available & more sophisticated that ship interception became more successful. It was a crap shoot before that.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 0:40

Imposing a fish embargo is not the same thing as sending warships.

And where does the article mention that the British "imposed a fish embargo"?

Its called trade. Read this from your link...

The weakness of icelandic economy could not stand the loss of a vital trading partner as Germany. Between october and december 1939 many informal meetings were held: the icelandic delegation asked to mantain commerce with Germany to a fixed rate, while incresing the ones with other scandinavian countries. The british firmly rejected the first point, as every contact with Germany was not allowed, but the delegations agred in improving interscandinavian trading and also non-strategic trades with Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and also Italy,

Nope, no mention of Britain imposing a fish embargo there...

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 0:49

& on another similiar/related sort of subject, 17 out of 19 Europe to Far east blockade runners made it 41-42.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Ultra/SRH-019.html

Ahem...did you miss something there??? Laughing

Blockade-running by merchant ships between German Europe and the Far East 1941-44

Did you miss the small footnote to the brief text there???

This vessel was damaged by a mine near the Gironde estuary and part of its cargo was destroyed

The Gironde??? Shocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gironde_estuary

These vessels WEREN'T attempting to navigate through Max Horton''s blockade in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and the RNPS' North Sea Picket....EDIT: oh, and umpteen NORTH Atlantic British convoy routes!...they were heading straight out into MID-Atlantic! Laughing Laughing Laughing That's why they were using ports on the Gironde, the Loire etc. Rolling Eyes

Wholly irrelevant.


SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 0:53

Nope, fish is trade, hence commerce, hence part of an embargo.

Yes, we know about trade routes, thankyou, the point was "in general" the RN sucked at ship interception at the timeframe mentioned.

2 out of 19 is pretty lame. 21 out of 370 was also lame at Norway.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Tue 21 Aug 2012 - 1:06

Nope, fish is trade, hence commerce, hence part of an embargo.

You specifically claimed the British "imposed a fish embargo" - the article says nothing of the sort.

You lied. We're getting used to that Sad

21 out of 370 was also lame at Norway.

Those would be the 350+ vessels from Germany and Denmark that sailed EITHER through German waters and Neutral waters closed to the Royal Navy before the invasion...and wholly German controlled waters AFTER the invasion began?

How many German vessels reached Narvik AFTER the Allied fleet imposed a blockade around their Northern Enclave to stop men and materiel reaching Dietl, for instance? Laughing Laughing Laughing Time for you to start comparing apples with apples....not apples with oranges!

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Wed 22 Aug 2012 - 2:28

No lie, fish was embargoed, your lie to infer otherwise.

Quote;
closed to the Royal Navy before the invasion...and wholly German controlled waters AFTER the invasion began?



Someone's on LSD, how do you reckon it was closed? Did the germans demand tickets for entry?


Here's a free History lesson... Operation Wilfred.

On the 5th April 1940 she sailed as part of the destroyer escort to the battle-cruiser HMS Renown and the cruiser HMS Birmingham in Operation Wilfred, an attempt to intercept the expected German invasion force, and if necessary, mine Norwegian waters

the Von Arnim was packed with invasion troops and soon both it and the Paul Jakobi turned and fled into a rain squall. Lt Cdr Roope gave chase despite guessing that they were trying lead him onto their main force in an attempt to discover there whereabouts and inform the Admiralty.
As the Glowworm emerged from the squall she came face-to-face with 14,000 ton the German Heavy Cruiser, Admiral Von Hipper armed with eight 8 inch and twelve 4 inch guns. The Glowworm laid smoke and conducted torpedo attacks from the cover of the smoke screen but failed to hit the Hipper. Glowworm had sustained substantial damage by this time and Lt Cdr Roope gave the order 'Stand by to ram'. The Hipper, realising what was happening tried to turn and ram the Glowworm but was too slow. The Glowworm tore into the starboard side of the Hipper amidships and tore 100 feet of armour plating away, damaged her starboard torpedo tubes and punctured two fresh water tanks. After ramming the Hipper, Glowworm drew clear, but received another close range salvo from the Hipper to which the single gun, commanded by Petty Officer Walter Scott responded. Glowworm by this time had sustained massive damaged and started to sink and Lt Cdr Roope gave the order to abandon ship. He went down to open the sea cocks himself and the ship started to sink, forcing men into the freezing water or onto her bow. The Captain of the Hipper, Helmuth Heye, gallantly stayed for over an hour picking up survivors. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_HMSGlowworm.html



Closed to the Royal Navy, absolutely absurd.


& Hippers captain spent an hour picking up survivors, unlike the British at Narvik & after Scharnhorst sinking.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Wed 22 Aug 2012 - 2:50

No lie, fish was embargoed, your lie to infer otherwise.

You're the one saying the article says that an embargo on icelandic fish was IMPOSED by the British, the article does not say that. No way round that I'm afraid Wink

Someone's on LSD, how do you reckon it was closed? Did the germans demand tickets for entry?

Oh dear, do you not even understand the international rules for belligerents' naval vessels entering Neutrals' territorial waters?

What the BRITISH did in entering Norwegian waters and mining the Leads was an act of war on Norway....if events hadn't played out in the NEXT few hours and days as they did, and if the Norwegians had chosen to regard it as such Razz

Here's a free History lesson... Operation Wilfred.

On the 5th April 1940 she sailed as part of the destroyer escort to the battle-cruiser HMS Renown and the cruiser HMS Birmingham in Operation Wilfred, an attempt to intercept the expected German invasion force, and if necessary, mine Norwegian waters

the Von Arnim was packed with invasion troops and soon both it and the Paul Jakobi turned and fled into a rain squall. Lt Cdr Roope gave chase despite guessing that they were trying lead him onto their main force in an attempt to discover there whereabouts and inform the Admiralty.
As the Glowworm emerged from the squall she came face-to-face with 14,000 ton the German Heavy Cruiser, Admiral Von Hipper armed with eight 8 inch and twelve 4 inch guns. The Glowworm laid smoke and conducted torpedo attacks from the cover of the smoke screen but failed to hit the Hipper. Glowworm had sustained substantial damage by this time and Lt Cdr Roope gave the order 'Stand by to ram'. The Hipper, realising what was happening tried to turn and ram the Glowworm but was too slow. The Glowworm tore into the starboard side of the Hipper amidships and tore 100 feet of armour plating away, damaged her starboard torpedo tubes and punctured two fresh water tanks. After ramming the Hipper, Glowworm drew clear, but received another close range salvo from the Hipper to which the single gun, commanded by Petty Officer Walter Scott responded. Glowworm by this time had sustained massive damaged and started to sink and Lt Cdr Roope gave the order to abandon ship. He went down to open the sea cocks himself and the ship started to sink, forcing men into the freezing water or onto her bow. The Captain of the Hipper, Helmuth Heye, gallantly stayed for over an hour picking up survivors.

Here's a free GEOGRAPHY lesson....

Glowworm sank at 64.27N 06.28E - outside Norwegian territorial waters as of the MLOS in 1940. The Hipper and the two accompanying destroyers were running outside Norwegian waters when they encountered the Glowworm...which along with the Renown and the other destroyers were providing cover out to sea for the minelaying operations inshore.

In 1940, Norway was content with the traditional three-mile limit on her territorial water...hence German uboats being able to sit just outside the three-mile limit off Narvik and torpedo British iron ore carriers when they crossed the limit. The Glowworm-Hipper encounter took place over 70 miles north-east from froya island, the closest piece of Norwegian territory. Thus this encounter took place at least 67 miles outside Norwegian waters.

Apples and oranges again Rolling Eyes

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Fri 24 Aug 2012 - 23:03

Irrelevant as usual. it WAS in the invasion routes,( the German destroyer was carrying invasion troops the Gloworm encountered). British did not avoid neutral waters or respect Norwegian territorial waters either. Your comment about these waters being closed off totally wrong as usual.

Irrelevant that the article didn't mention fish, fish were part of Icelandic economy, hence part of the embargo, no way round that I'm afraid.

I won't bother dropping flowers I don't suppose now after the dirt has been shoveled onto the casket.





and if necessary, mine Norwegian waters

On the 8th April, the Glowworm sighted a destroyer who when challenged, identified itself as Swedish. It was in fact the German von Röder class destroyer, Bernd Von Arnim. the Von Arnim was packed with invasion troops.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_HMSGlowworm.html



http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_norway_1940.html

The naval operations to support the mine laying did mean that a number of British ships were in Norwegian waters on 8 April, as the invasion fleet took up its place. This led to two clashes between British and German ships.


Nothing closed off about these waters to the Royal Navy. Complete load of bollocks.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  SecondFront on Sat 25 Aug 2012 - 0:50

Irrelevant that the article didn't mention fish, fish were part of Icelandic economy, hence part of the embargo, no way round that I'm afraid

No matter how often you wriggle - you still lied, I'm afraid. ANOTHER case of a source NOT supporting what you say....getting repetitive, that! Laughing

Irrelevant as usual. it WAS in the invasion routes,( the German destroyer was carrying invasion troops the Gloworm encountered). British did not avoid neutral waters or respect Norwegian territorial waters either. Your comment about these waters being closed off totally wrong as usual.
and if necessary, mine Norwegian waters

On the 8th April, the Glowworm sighted a destroyer who when challenged, identified itself as Swedish. It was in fact the German von Röder class destroyer, Bernd Von Arnim. the Von Arnim was packed with invasion troops.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_HMSGlowworm.html

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_norway_1940.html

The naval operations to support the mine laying did mean that a number of British ships were in Norwegian waters on 8 April, as the invasion fleet took up its place. This led to two clashes between British and German ships.

Nothing closed off about these waters to the Royal Navy. Complete load of bollocks.

Seems I'm going to have to teach you some VERY basic history after all!

UNTIL the Royal Navy entered the Jossingfjord to liberate the POWs on the Altmark, the Royal Navy abided by international rules on naval vessels operating in neutrals' territorial waters. It CHOSE not to break these rules again UNTIL the part-actioning of Operation Wilfred.

YOUR point has been that the Royal Navy ONLY stopped 21 out of 370 invasion vessels...

...neglecting the fact that the initial invasion did NOT consist of 370 bessels - it only consisted of the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as distant cover, plus 10 destroyers with 2,000 mountaineering troops under General Eduard Dietl to Narvik; the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper and four destroyers with 1,700 troops to Trondheim; the light cruisers Köln and Königsberg, artillery training ship Bremse, transport Karl Peters, two torpedo boats and five motor torpedo boats with 1,900 troops to Bergen; the light cruiser Karlsruhe, three torpedo boats, seven motor torpedo boats and Schnellboot mothership (Schnellbootbegleitschiff) Tsingtau with 1,100 troops to Kristiansand; the heavy cruiser Blücher, heavy cruiser (formerly pocket battleship) Lützow, light cruiser Emden, three torpedo boats and eight minesweepers with 2,000 troops to Oslo; and finaly four minesweepers with 150 troops to Egersund.

Doesn't look like 370 vessels to me! Razz Razz Razz

You've chosen to exaggerate your position by conflating this number with the large number of cargo vessels and smaller vessels that took troops and materiel to Norway from Germany and Denmark AFTER the main invasion forces landed I.E. travelling in and out of the Baltic to Norway's easternmost ports, or crossing the Skaggerak, in many cases sailing to and fro behind the cover of the minefields now laid in the Skaggerak by BOTH sides I.E. where the Royal Navy couldn't operate.

But let's have a look at that list of Kreigsmarine vassels in the first wave of the invasion again, shall we?

...it consisted of the battleships Scharnhorst (DAMAGED) and Gneisenau (DAMAGED) as distant cover, plus 10 destroyers (SUNK) with 2,000 mountaineering troops under General Eduard Dietl to Narvik; the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper (DAMAGED) and four destroyers with 1,700 troops to Trondheim; the light cruisers Köln and Königsberg (DAMAGED), artillery training ship Bremse (DAMAGED), transport Karl Peters, two torpedo boats and five motor torpedo boats with 1,900 troops to Bergen; the light cruiser Karlsruhe (SUNK), three torpedo boats, seven motor torpedo boats and Schnellboot mothership (Schnellbootbegleitschiff) Tsingtau with 1,100 troops to Kristiansand; the heavy cruiser Blücher (SUNK), heavy cruiser (formerly pocket battleship) Lützow (DAMAGED), light cruiser Emden (DAMAGED), three torpedo boats and eight minesweepers with 2,000 troops to Oslo; and finaly four minesweepers with 150 troops to Egersund.

What else, I wonder?

ALSO intended to arrive at Narvik at the same time as the warship group...

Bärenfels (army equipment, guns, and ammunition) – diverted to Bergen and sunk by Fleet Air Arm air attack
Rauenfels (army equipment, guns, and ammunition) – sunk by British destroyers Havock and Hostile while entering the Ofotfjord.
Alster (motor transport and military stores) – captured by the British destroyer Icarus near Bodø
Jan Wellem (tanker) – arrived at Narvik, sunk 13 April
Kattegat (tanker) – scuttled by crew after being intercepted by Norwegian patrol boat Nordkapp

ALSO intended to arrive at Trondheim at the same time as the warship group there...

Sao Paulo (supply ship) (mined off Bergen, mine laid by Norwegian minelayer Tyr),
Levante (cargo ship)
Main (supply ship) (captured and sunk by Norwegian destroyer Draug)
Skagerrak (tanker) (scuttled when intercepted by the Royal Navy cruiser Suffolk)
Moonsund (tanker) (sunk by UK submarine Snapper)

...and a number of torpedo boats and S-boats were also sunk or damaged Razz


In other words....

When German transports passed back and forth in waters the Allies couldn't reach they were indeed relatively safe...

But when they operated in seas open to or dominated by Allied naval operations - they were decimated Razz

Note that - "seas open to or dominated by Allied naval operations" - that describes the North Atlantic and Artic oceans all the way from the coast of Norway to the coast of Iceland Wink The lesson of Norway....once we remove your intentional exaggerations and conflations...is that ANY German transports trying to sail from Norway to Iceland through seas dominated by the Allies are going to be similarly decimated.

The second point is, of course... as I noted before, after THESE losses of the first week of WESERUBUNG...NONE of those damaged or sunk vessels are available to the Kriegsmarine for an invasion of Iceland. In fact, when you add in the loss of other KM vessels during late 1939 and early 1940 as they escorted German minelayers off the coast of the UK...by the end of the first week of WESERUBUNG the vast majority of the KM even theoretically capable of reaching Iceland was either sunk or damaged Laughing Laughing Laughing

SecondFront

Posts : 130
Join date : 2011-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Black Hornet on Sun 26 Aug 2012 - 3:17

Quote;
UNTIL the Royal Navy entered the Jossingfjord to liberate the POWs on the Altmark, the Royal Navy abided by international rules on naval vessels operating in neutrals' territorial waters. It CHOSE not to break these rules again UNTIL the part-actioning of Operation Wilfred.

Right and operation Wilfred was before April 9th, when the Germans invaded. British warships were in the area April 8th mining Norwegian teritorial waters. You've once again demonstrated you don't know anything of any relative value to the subject matter.


& You've already been told & (given names for said ships), german cargo & warships ships passed right through North sea picket through Giup gap without any trouble. You're fantasies about their interception abilities remain pure fantasy.





http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_norway_1940.html

The naval operations to support the mine laying did mean that a number of British ships were in Norwegian waters on 8 April,


Try & read it this time.

Black Hornet

Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sommerfeldt runway Skanland

Post  Sponsored content Today at 17:19


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum