Talk:Battle for the Channel

This would happen directly after the defeat at Dunkirk. Although it's not explicitly written up anywhere, I imagined that the Federated Kingdoms' forces did not get the same window of opportunity to evacuate from Dunkirk as the British did *here*. The FK was forced to a humiliating peace with the Central Powers to save their people. The FK's leaders resolved to return to bat as quickly as possible, first countering a demoralised public. The Battle for the Channel would bring them back into play sooner than I expected - not that I have explored the West European theatre of war any further than this. - AndrewSmith

Looks cool so far! If you need anything on the names of Arvorec Ships or persons, do let me know (the only thing I know about the navy in GW2 is that it comprised around 9000 men and women). However, I must point out that what we call "The English Channel" *here*, they call "The British Sea" *there*. Deiniol 05:02, 22 October 2005 (PDT)

Hmmmmm. So let me get this straight. The FK lost the Second Great War in 1940? Sorry, but that really should be written down in the article on the Second Great War. It really should. Or alluded to somewhere, instead of explicit statements about the FK fighting on with the Allies when the truth was they signed a separate peace. Please delete this whole thing and I'll stop meddling when there are just these HUGE gaps of established knowledge that are nowhere to be found. Sorry, but I feel like I've just wasted a hell of a lot of energy and effort.

And btw, exactly why if the HRE forced a humiliating peace onto the FK did the former allow the latter to keep her navy? That was very, very stupid of Hessler and would probably be the reason for his losing the war. Zahir 07:12, 22 October 2005 (PDT)

I agree, but I think there must be a very great misunderstanding here, and I know I'm not the expert on either WWII or GWII to answer it. Three things are very clear:

• According to the map, the "Allies" (i.e., the Good Guys) consists entirely of Southern France and the Commonwealth.
  
• Germany lost the War (although not so decisively that its pre-war territory was reduced like *here*)
  
• The Allies won the War and the Peace and have stidden into the post-war period rather much like *here* (though without a cold-war).

I think it's clear that Andrew's idea of "humiliating peace" does not spell the end of GWII for Britain or even a loss of the war to Germany. It may have to be altered. Else, Germany could have gobbled up southern France and hey-presto, end of Allied resistence. I think it's also not the case that the FK "lost the war" in 1940. Somewhere in here there is a missing chapter, i.e., when the Allies regroup and (as I understand it with Scandinavians joining in) win the war.

I must agree with Zahir that, as it stands, something ain't right. [PB]

---

It seems perfectly clear that what the Germans were really up to was adding a third Date (i.e., 1940) to world history. . . ."The first Date in British history[1] is 55 B.C. in which year Julius Caesar (the memorable Roman Emperor landed, like all other successful invaders of these islands, at Thanet. [...] For the other Date see Chapter XI, William the Conqueror. [...] In the year 1066 occurred the other memorable Date in British History, viz. William the Conqueror, Ten Sixty-Six. This is also called the Battle of Hastings, and was when William I (1066) conquered England at the Battle of Senlac (Ten Sixty-Six)."

[1] i.e., "world history". ;) [PB]

---

Arvorec Navy

Okay, I know nothing of the Avorec navy so help with detail about that would be most helpful. 9000 persons, btw, is not a particularly large force. My idea is that it would bleed itself white in stopping Operation Brunnhild. Zahir 10:56, 25 October 2005 (PDT)

Nor do I, as it happens, Zahir! And it's not a particularly large force because the Isles aren't a particularly large country (9000, however, is more than the combined military of Ireland *here* however). I don't know much in specifics, just some general outines. The Arvorec military has only one branch- the navy. Most sailors are also trained as marines, and there's a special corps of dirigible pilots. Arvorec ships are much like the Isles themselves- small, quick and cunning. Generally lightly armed and pretty damn close to the cutting edge of naval technology, Arvorec naval tactics value speed and maneuverability over numerical strength (which is why I pictured this conflict as something of a "Battle of Britain" style thing) IIRC I think I once drew up a list stating that during the war the Navy had around 25 ships similar to (say) the LÉ Emer, around 7 or so submarines and 3 combat dirigibles, all based in the large artificial harbour at Rydon. As you're more familiar with the period (and Navies in general, I assume), feel free to make stuff up as you go along. Deiniol 11:44, 25 October 2005 (PDT)

As an afterthought, if you want any names for Arvorec ships just let me know. The prefix for Arvorec ships is LA for Lânc Arvorec, submarines have the prefix LYA for Lânc Ysvor Arvorec. Deiniol

Another afterthought- the Arvorec term for "Admiral of the Fleet" is Ymerodwr. Deiniol

YES! Names of ships would be very, very good. I want to figure that the Avorec Fleet goes up against a larger, but weakened, Kriegsmarine Task Force that is protecting a lot of makeshift troop transports. To me, the crucial thing is that if enough troop transports are sunk, then the whole operation has to be scrubbed and the Task Force returns to port. Zahir 13:45, 25 October 2005 (PDT)

Enen if the arvorec end up overexerting themselves pushing back the germans, I'm sure they could easily rebuilt it afterward with some form of lend-lease deal from the allies.--Marc Pasquin 17:01, 25 October 2005 (PDT)

Deiniol? I was wondering if you had some ship's names I could use? Zahir 11:01, 30 October 2005 (PST)

I knew I'd forgotten something! Here's eleven ships (translations of the names in parentheses):

Clêdhyf Lydaewon (Sword of Lydaewon), Enebaeth Rydon (Honour of Rydon), Gadh Dalyd (Spear of Dalyd), Gal an Ynysaw (Valour of the Isles), Gwalchavad (Galahad), Dâdhwen (a famous sorceress), Seren (Star), Morgan (name of a queen), Carthan (Cartimandua, another queen), Bydhec (Boudicca), Cynvar (Cunomara, "Chiomara" to the Romans, a Gaulish heroine). Let me know if you need more. Deiniol 08:43, 3 November 2005 (PST)

Many thanks! I do need just one more, though. Zahir 08:53, 3 November 2005 (PST)

Hm. Branwen - the white crow. Deiniol 08:56, 3 November 2005 (PST)

Thank you!!!!! Zahir

Format

While I like the storytelling style, I think for an encyclopedic entry it should be more starchy and boring. :) I say keep it for now and we'll see how it all turns out. BoArthur

Perhaps one of the happy differences between *here* and *there*? Zahir 22:49, 31 October 2005 (PST)

I think it might be one of those international and transdimensional thing that encyclopedia try to stay away for lyricism as much to stay neutral as to avoid having the prose judged over the facts.--Marc Pasquin 15:50, 1 November 2005 (PST)

Who said this is an encyclopedia in the first place? --IJzeren Jan 08:47, 3 November 2005 (PST)

Scandinavian Ship Names and Prefixes

Since the ships of the Kriegsmarine were originally SR naval ships, shouldn't some of them have Scandinavian names? What about the prefix for ships of the Kriegsmarine? KMS stands for Kongelige Marineſkip in Scandinavian, but it could also stand for Kaiſerliche Marineſchiff in German. Boreanesia 08:07, 7 November 2005 (PST)

First, thanks much for the prefix!

Your welcome! Incidentally, you could also use KLS (Kongelige/Kaiſerliche Luftskip/Luftſchiff) for airships. Boreanesia 08:57, 7 November 2005 (PST)

Second, I was imagining these ships as being essentially paid for in full by the HRE, which is how they got made. Although it would be unlucky (or considered so *here*) I strongly suspect any ships with Scandinavian names would have been re-named as part of the formation of an actual Kriegsmarine. And certainly those ships built or completed after the start of hostilities would have German names. Does this make sense to you? If not, please offer a name or two and I'll be glad to change them. Zahir 08:24, 7 November 2005 (PST)

That makes sense. Boreanesia 08:57, 7 November 2005 (PST)

Counting Down

This proposal will have been up thirty days (actually a little more) by the end of the week. Any comments before then? Zahir 22:26, 4 December 2005 (PST)

amphibious landing? why?

Why would HRE bother to collect ships for amphibious attack, if they could use zeppelins? A zeppelin of giant-class (types Gigant and Mammut) would have much better properties than those adequate Messerschmidts *here* and they were able to carry more than 11 tons! The zeppelin technology was more developed *there*, moreover, the War over Channel was *there* in 1943, thus giving Germans lot of time to develop them further. Zeppelins are quite versatile, they allow to conduct targeted strikes by landing small, but balanced force groups into the enemy's rear. A four or five small task forces in the rear of FK defence would cause a total panic and effective desintegration of FK defence in southern Britain. Plus, a frontal air attack and fake amphibious attack to decoy. If I would be Hessler, I will go for that; call it "Floh im Pelz". This would be totally impossible *here*, but quite a choice *there*. Believe me, I am quite experienced militarist in silico. -- Jan II.

It is QSS that the Avorec navy stopped the proposed invasion. Given that, I had to come up with a reason that the Prussian invasion force in effect lacked air cover. As is explained in the article, the Luftwaffe's resources were a bit over-extended. Had Hessler and von Runstedt waited a few more months then the Luftwaffe would have brought on their air battleships (like the Ludendorff). But Hessler didn't want to wait. He wanted the FK out of the war now. Most of the Royal Navy was out of range. The new government in London had just taken office. And the FK had little or no air force of their own, for now. Better, the argument went, to strike immediately and go for a knock-out blow while Britain is relatively defenseless.

And while Hessler was an extremely well-educated military scholar, he tended to lose his way when confronted with something for which there was little or no precedent.

Plus, the Luftwaffe had simply not been designed for troop transport. In retrospect, it is easy to see that as a mistake, the kind with which military history is riddled. And the General Staff hadn't thought of that either, focussing their efforts on something more conventional.

Does that answer your question? Zahir 07:49, 5 December 2005 (PST)

I bow once again before QSS ;) Well, your explanation fits the logic of QSSed Avorec navy intervention. So, Hessler was oppo to Hitler; no sense for extraordinary ideas (aka Ardennes break-through in 1940), but in result, where Hitler was a reckless amateur, on a same spot Hessler was a grey-minded militarist without phantasy. So be it. -- Jan II.

Well--and I realize I'm being picky here--I see Hessler as an excellent military scholar who cunningly applies the lessons of history with great daring, but is at a loss with anything unprecedented. For that, he leans on a few trusted experts. And if they are wrong, he won't even see the possibility. Likewise, Hessler it seems to me was less reckless or flighty. He didn't panic in the middle of operations and change objectives, that sort of thing. That's MHO anyway. Zahir 07:40, 6 December 2005 (PST)

Hmm... if I be also picky, I do not believe such a general e.g. to let Scandinavia to break his plans by him attacking Rygen. It is simply stupid. I am fighting on two fronts, versus Allies and versus Russia, and I am going to open the third front? I believe that SR, a sleeping (and thus quite fresh) giant will tolerate direct attack on its territory? That is too "hitlerish" act, act of questionable mind. Also, with *there's* Göring /I forgot the name/ or Udet /who will not suffer *there* cos of political crisis/, I still do not believe he would not think about the airship task forces. Diachronically, this concept must be known even before GW2, it is too obvious (may be you know it, *here* there was an Italian military theoretist /gosh, those names/, who casted the theory on superiority of air forces, which theory was quite popular in nazi Germany > German tactical air forces; Stuka or Me 110). In no case I want in this particular case go against QSS, but I have my doubts. As I have them for late comp development in IB, cos it also lacks "diachronic" logic, but I am not all-knowing, so I let it be.

We both fight the same battle, see, I disscus regularly with one Czech profi expert on Roman Empire the possibility of how Venedians and Slevans may develop and I have a damned difficult positions, cos there are two many things which are historically against. But both nations are QSS and thus there "must/need to" be way to them; but to find it, that is an unenviable job ;) but quite a challenging hobby. I appreciate, that we discuss, it is the essence of IB and I love it. -- Jan II.

To me, the decision to build an airship armada expressly for offensive bombing only is comparable to Nazi Germany's refusal to put jet fighters into mass production or her failure to build long-range bombers. In retrospect, obvious mistakes. But at the time? Simply a matter of priorities regarding use of limited resources. The invasion of Rygen is another matter, but that took place many years after Hessler had absolute power. It is a common phenomonen, of those given such unquestioning authority losing touch to some extent with reality. Hitler, who judged so many political acts and their military consequences so well in the early stages of WW2 made increasing errors as time went on. On a smaller scale, Lyndon Johnson did some startlingly foolish things in his second term--things a politician as experienced and canny as himself should have known better than to try. The Nixon White House even moreso. Besides, as has also been established as QSS, Hessler became increasingly erratic as the war progressed. And even the most brilliant minds make enormous mistakes sometimes. Robert E. Lee, one of the greatest generals in history, ordered his men to cross a mile of open country on foot to attack a larger force entrenched on higher ground with strong artillery in broad daylight. They were of course slaughtered. People make mistakes all the time, even far superior minds to that of Hessler. At least that is my take on it. Zahir 02:25, 7 December 2005 (PST)

I got the point ;) -- Jan II.