Yep it all going to start hurting and I imagine the RAF will be enjoying their air superiority.They're probably low on ammunition too.
Yep it all going to start hurting and I imagine the RAF will be enjoying their air superiority.They're probably low on ammunition too.
But Mark Clarke was in charge and refused a naval bombardment...Salerno did.
The opinion of the Royal Navy is that ships are there to be used.I doubt it. ships like that are too precious, and too vulnerable to aircraft or artillery to be worth risking in such a way.
They could be potentially useful in tying down Japanese forces on the Thailand-Burma border.
They also can't fly without fuel, and if the convoys aren't getting through to Tripoli it's running out quickly.They're probably low on ammunition too.
Yes but you need a fleet in being as well to deal with other possible enemies, it takes many years to rebuild.The opinion of the Royal Navy is that ships are there to be used.
Well that didn t take you long.🥳The Air Ministry
the slips are full of new ones on the way.......then of course the reserve fleet from america is a building.Yes but you need a fleet in being as well to deal with other possible enemies, it takes many years to rebuild.
Thus losing cruisers and below or slow battleships is not an issue. Modern capital ships are an issue, for example the losses of aircraft carriers have affected their operations.
Used, but not abused, sending a handful of rare and rather precious amphibious warfare ships and enemy (comparative) stronghold is not a smart move.The opinion of the Royal Navy is that ships are there to be used.
True. OTOH, I suspect they've got at least some reserves of av-gas.They also can't fly without fuel, and if the convoys aren't getting through to Tripoli it's running out quickly.
But that is not the way the RN thinksYes but you need a fleet in being as well to deal with other possible enemies, it takes many years to rebuild.
Thus losing cruisers and below or slow battleships is not an issue. Modern capital ships are an issue, for example the losses of aircraft carriers have affected their operations.
“It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition.”But that is not the way the RN thinks
They'd be risking them to cut off the retreat of the enemy to a position in a nominally neutral country from which they can potentially continue the fight and widen the war.Whatever the traditions of the RN, they're not keen on losing ships without need. Risking ships to save an embattled battalion, fine, risking them to insert a battalion into a fight that's already over bar the shouting, maybe not so much.
Except they wouldn't, because you suggested (post #1483) an amphibious assault on Tripoli itself.They'd be risking them to cut off the retreat of the enemy to a position in a nominally neutral country from which they can potentially continue the fight and widen the war.
Doing something entirely different,on the hop ,never having planned for it just really doesn t sound like a good idea,especially when everything is going just fine.Just my opinion, but if you're a British Planner and believe that a massive invasion of Sicily is required in the near future, then doing a test run of equipment, tactics and C&C on a depleted force in North Africa, makes a ton of sense, even if only structured as raids on the weakest possible defenses.
Yeah, better to try it somewhere on the coast if Cyrenaica, where the 'enemy' won't be so unsporting as to use live ammunition.Doing something entirely different,on the hop ,never having planned for it just really doesn t sound like a good idea,especially when everything is going just fine.
Rhodes. (Assuming that the Axis still have it.)Just my opinion, but if you're a British Planner and believe that a massive invasion of Sicily is required in the near future, then doing a test run of equipment, tactics and C&C on a depleted force in North Africa, makes a ton of sense, even if only structured as raids on the weakest possible defenses.