• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Did Hitler Not Take Gibralter and Malta?

Blucher was damaged by ashore batteries but sunk by multiple torpedo hits.

Lutow was t sunk but her crippling punishment allowed the Royal family to make good their escape. Also if you’ll notice Calais did not surrender until may.
 
Lutow was t sunk but her crippling punishment allowed the Royal family to make good their escape. Also if you’ll notice Calais did not surrender until may.

Lutzow was hit AFTER she turned about (assuming Blucher had hit mines)....

Calais was bypassed as it wasn't a threat. It surrendered September 1944....

Get better history books.
 
Lutzow was hit AFTER she turned about (assuming Blucher had hit mines)....

Calais was bypassed as it wasn't a threat. It surrendered September 1944....

Get better history books.

Here I assume you both are talking about different attacks.

Calais surrendered in May 1940, after a 5 day siege. On the final day as England was sending ships to evacuate the surviving members of their expeditionary force, the Germans attacked and overwhelmed the exhausted defenders.

Many believe that Calais was a sacrifice move, in order to help prepare for the evacuation of Dunkirk. They surrendered on 26 May, the same day that the evacuations started at Dunkirk. In fact, the ships and boats assembled to evacuate Calais were the first ones used at Dunkirk.

3,500 captured, so that 338,226 could be evacuated.

But yea, bragging that it did not "evacuate until May" kind of strikes me as rubbish. The Battle of France did not even begin until 10 May, and the surrender of Calais was only 16 days later. Not sure what there is to brag about that to be honest.

But indeed, after Operation Overlord Calais was largely ignored. It was entirely an outward pointed threat, and one that was easily ignored. The troops that garrisoned the town were mostly sailors without ships, and soldiers of questionable abilities (and frequently either ethnic Germans born outside of Germany, or foreign volunteers). Even their own commander called them "rubbish". Most of the Soldiers in the unit were those to old for front line service, or injured in previous engagements.

The one exception was the Luftwaffe AA gunners, who were mostly young and highly motivated. The rest of the defenders (sailors manning the coastal defense guns and soldiers defending the area) were all of very low morale, and poorly equipped. The taking of this port was left to the Canadian 7th Brigade, as a prelude to the invasion of Belgium. Calais had largely been cut off for almost 3 months, and it was considered of no importance. However, it was a large pocket of German forces that had to be eliminated in the event they tried to break out and cause havoc behind the lines.

But the guns were unimportant. They were easily avoided, the only reason it was taken out was because of the threat that 10,000 German forces posed behind their lines should they decide to attack.
 
Here I assume you both are talking about different attacks.

Calais surrendered in May 1940, after a 5 day siege. On the final day as England was sending ships to evacuate the surviving members of their expeditionary force, the Germans attacked and overwhelmed the exhausted defenders.

Many believe that Calais was a sacrifice move, in order to help prepare for the evacuation of Dunkirk. They surrendered on 26 May, the same day that the evacuations started at Dunkirk. In fact, the ships and boats assembled to evacuate Calais were the first ones used at Dunkirk.

3,500 captured, so that 338,226 could be evacuated.

But yea, bragging that it did not "evacuate until May" kind of strikes me as rubbish. The Battle of France did not even begin until 10 May, and the surrender of Calais was only 16 days later. Not sure what there is to brag about that to be honest.

But indeed, after Operation Overlord Calais was largely ignored. It was entirely an outward pointed threat, and one that was easily ignored. The troops that garrisoned the town were mostly sailors without ships, and soldiers of questionable abilities (and frequently either ethnic Germans born outside of Germany, or foreign volunteers). Even their own commander called them "rubbish". Most of the Soldiers in the unit were those to old for front line service, or injured in previous engagements.

The one exception was the Luftwaffe AA gunners, who were mostly young and highly motivated. The rest of the defenders (sailors manning the coastal defense guns and soldiers defending the area) were all of very low morale, and poorly equipped. The taking of this port was left to the Canadian 7th Brigade, as a prelude to the invasion of Belgium. Calais had largely been cut off for almost 3 months, and it was considered of no importance. However, it was a large pocket of German forces that had to be eliminated in the event they tried to break out and cause havoc behind the lines.

But the guns were unimportant. They were easily avoided, the only reason it was taken out was because of the threat that 10,000 German forces posed behind their lines should they decide to attack.

Yeah, I assumed the discussion was about the later war surrender by the Germans. Calais was bypassed because once the Normandy invasion swept inland it was irrelevant.
 
...Battleships were not decommissioned for that reason at all. In most strategies they were supplanted by aircraft carriers, not missiles. It was realized that carriers were a more effective way to bring large amounts of ordinance to a target, and they could reach out to much greater ranges. Battleships found themselves moved from that of a capitol ship taking out other capitol ships to a support ship, primarily being used for shore bombardments....

So why did countries who didn't have aircraft carriers decommission battleships ?

Yes aircraft carriers proved the be the most effective ship at destroying others ships - though less so in the stormy waters of the North Atlantic.
Though I can't think of too many battleships sunk by carrier borne aircraft in WWII - perhaps the Yamato & Musashi ?

However only the USA has really built fleets of aircraft carriers since the end of WWII

The UK is building/equipping two carriers, France, Italy and Russia have one each.

In the 1960's the UK announced it was scrapping its carriers as guided missiles were going to be the way forward - this was shown in the Falklands conflict when land based aircraft sank two British warships and a supply ship with guided missiles.



Of course if you can fire your guided missile from an aircraft (or SSN) it will be more effective.


...the Soviets (Russians) to this day still use "Battlecruisers", ships roughly the size and displacement of a WWI era Battleship. They are still heavily armored, they simply use missiles instead of guns to attack their targets....

Indeed - that said the Kirov class BC is small for a WWII battle cruiser design, yet heavy for a WWII heavy cruiser design.
It has indeed traded its guns for missiles as I explained to you earlier.

Also modern day destroyers are the size of WWI and WWII cruisers - so size isn't a determination of a class, but rather the role and capability.


So what's the difference between a 9,000 ton Royal Navy destroyer and a 9,000 ton USN cruiser ?


...although to be more accurate, they are actually "Heavy Nuclear Powered Guided Missile Cruisers" (not unlike their "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruisers"). The Soviets (Russians) have long loved their own strange hybrid classes of ships, that are really unlike anything used in any other navy in the world. Hence they never built either "Battleships" or "Carriers", yet still had ships that fulfilled the purposes of those ships.


The problem Russia (and the USSR) have/had is the lack of warm water ports. Those that can operate round the year are boxed in - like the old Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet.

Yes the USSR didn't make a few hybrid ships - like the Moscow class cruiser/carrier. Then again the Royal Navy built three Invincible call "Through Deck Cruisers".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom