Seekanone wrote:... Britain fought along from May 40 to June 41, without help from a major power but she was not alone. All of this brings out long held resentments between Anglos and Americans as to the actual share of the war burden
while ignoring the overwhelming suffering of the Soviet Union.
It is really immaterial to day who did what.
Seekanone wrote:Well, lwd, what happened in the war and why?
Let me know so I can clue others in?
By the way, you are now on my ignore list.
Your arrogant remarks can be quite insulting. To some, perhaps, to me absolutely.
I've seen a number of posts in the last few years to the effect that US participation in WWII was superflous, and that the Commonwealth could have defeated the Axis by itself. They have themes centering on the superiority of anything British to anything US. For example, how much better a British fleet would have done at Midway.
What do you guys think? Could the US have just stayed out of WWII if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor?
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Let's do a breakdown here:
1. In the general (overall) view not single allied country (power) could have defeated the germans alone. Not the soviets, not the british, not the US. The combination of the three was just as exact to defeat them.
2. The US defeated almost alone (we must consider the souteast Asia British operations as those of Sims, etc. and the Chinese contribution) the Japanese. It wasn't possible for the British Empire to have done in the Pacific what the US did.
3. The naval victory could have never been won without the US Navy.
Well, just to play devil's advocate ...
There is at least one major poster on the navweaps forum who believes:
1. British carrier aircraft were as good or better than US carrier aircraft.
2. British naval vessels in general were better than those of the USN, especially but not limited to their armored deck carriers.
3. The German navy was easy to bottle up and defeat and the British could have sent a fleet to the Pacific and defeated the Japanese with their superior ships.
And also Karl, you have stated that US (and British) efforts on the Western front were insignificant compared to those of the Russians. That leads one to imply that they were not necessary for the defeat of Germany.
neil hilton wrote:British carriers were designed to operate close to Europe and thus close to massive numbers of land based aircraft thus they were designed to be physically tough. American carriers were primarily designed to operate in the Pacific, far from land and thus only had to oppose smaller groups of aircraft (opposing CAGs). This IMO results in superior British carrier design, for example HMS Illustrious vs Fliegerkoprs X in the Med she took massive amounts of damage and still survived albeit barely.
Comparing British and American FAA aircraft. Swordfish vs Devastator, roughly equal. Dauntless vs Baracuda, roughly equal. Sea Hurricane vs Wildcat, roughly equal. Later American naval aircraft were superior, Hellcat, Corsair, Avenger, Helldiver (later design). Only at the very end of the war do the British get equal or arguably better with the Seafire, Sea Fury, Firefly etc.
... It is clear that German soldiers, man for man, were better than any in the world (generally speaking). They were more willing and motivated than any other nation to fight to the death if necessary and were overall better trained and tactically minded. The US infantry manual from ww2 states that US troops should only engage German troops when they have clearly superior numbers, this is why American divisions were usually very large.
Only in the later stages of the war did Soviet soldiers become this fanatical, British and US soldiers always had an eye for 'surviving the war'.
However, the reality of war is that fanaticism and 'esprit de corps' does not stop bullets or artillery from turning you into jam, so just saying that German troops are better ergo they win is wrong.
neil hilton wrote: ... This IMO results in superior British carrier design, for example HMS Illustrious vs Fliegerkoprs X in the Med she took massive amounts of damage and still survived albeit barely. ...
neil hilton wrote:It is clear that German soldiers, man for man, were better than any in the world (generally speaking). They were more willing and motivated than any other nation to fight to the death if necessary.
German troops didn't have to assault across beaches against prepared defenses. The closest they came to the conditions the USMC had to fight in was at Stalingrad, and they lost. The Marines had to fight in conditions like Stalingrad in almost every single battle they fought in.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests