USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Oh and I amost forgot!! The Royal Navy sank the Bismark and the Tirpitz, a pretty hard task if the Royal Navy never left its ports.

And by the way Ted, Americans landed on main land Italy on september 3rd 1943. The 6th army at Stalingrad surrendered on february 2nd 1943 which was the largest military defeat that Germany and its allies had ever suffered. If im not mistaken thats 7 months before U.S. landed in Italy. So please explain how the Russians were loosing the war before the U.S. involvement.

 

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Oh, and the Tirpitz was sunk by the RAF in Nov'44, not the RN.

 

only by the RAF??? I thought that the RN played a role?

 

Rn...sent some submarines in...but, had a tough time getting it done. So the RAF sent some planes in to get it done.

One of the squad leaders was a Canadian Lt Robert Gray RCNVR. Who won praise, from his commanders and squad leaders for imppressive leadership and skill, in ingaging the Tripitz.


Lt Robert Gray RCNVR, won the last Victoria Cross of World War 2

Lt Robert Gray RCNVR, Corsair fighter-bomber pilot with "Formidable's" 1841 Squadron pressed home an attack on shipping in Onagawa harbour, north-eastern Honshu on the 9th. Under heavy fire, he sank his target before crashing in flames and was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross

 

thanks for the info JTF-2 I wasnt sure, now I know.

 

"The smokescreen was not active on the third attempt - "Operation Catechism". Tirpitz was finally sunk immediately to the west of Tromsø, in the bay of Håkøybotn, on 12 November 1944 by 617 and 9 Squadron Lancasters with Tallboys on their third attempt. The ship was struck by three Tallboys. One glanced off turret armour, but the other two bombs pierced the ship's armour and blew a 200 foot hole in her port side. Soon after, internal fires set off a magazine and blew off "C" turret. The Tirpitz capsized within minutes of the attack, and close to 1,000 German sailors, out of 1,700 aboard, died."

 

Thanks

 

Yes poor Ted!-but his silly and ignorant view that ''England''was fighting alone in WW2-England hasn't fought a war on her own since 1707- is only to be expected as most Americans will never own a passport and never travel furth of the North American continent and thus are very ignorant about the true nature of Europe/Great Britain. So we shouldn't be too tough on poor, insular dears like 'Ted''- he can't help being American, he was born that way.

 

Take it easy, Brian, Ted came into this forum to share his views, not to be abused, same as anyone else. If his best knlowledge source is the History Channel at least he made an effort, and we are bound to help him broaden his outlook.

Have you noticed his decent syntax and lack of spelling errors? That has to have some meaning.

 

Another great point Miguel!!!


speling ise empartent!!

 

Hukd un Fonicks wurkd fer me!

 

Maybe fear wasn't the right term to use. But they were pretty much boxed in their own harbor. The term "fear" wasn't an insult to the royal navy, I apologize if some of you may have interpretted it that way. But I assure you all it was never intended to be an insult. The men of the royal navy as in all the english military branches and the militaries of most other nations were extremely courageous. i never once doubted that. it must have taken extreme courage to go out in water that were crawling with u boats. But aside from that you cannot ignore the facts. England was not afraid to go out in the sense that they were cowards. It just was a huge risk. It wasn't tactically intelligent. It would be like us dropping a division of paratroopers in berlin in 1942. England's resources were drained. they couldn't afford to send boats out (essentially to their deaths). It was just not a smart decision. And yes they had several major naval victories before we came over. Yes they sank the Bismark. But at what cost? I seem to recall several major British ships being sunk in the process.
Same with the Brit's bombing raids. They bombed at night. They couldn't afford to lose alot of planes because their resources were too low. Night bombing involved minimal risk but it was largely ineffective. The bombs always fell but not always on their intended targets. They would sometimes explode miles from their intended targets. We used daylight bombing tactics. We did this because we could afford to lose a lot more aircraft. We would, 9 out of 10 times, hit our intended targets. But we would lose many times the number of aircraft that england would. England also used our tanks, so did russia (to a lesser extent).

It's no surprise that you asked about the Solomon islands campaign. Most people are like "Huh"? when I say that. At first galnce it doesn't seem like it makes any sense, but it does.
From Wikipedia.com:
"According to U.S. historian Gerhard L. Weinberg, Guadalcanal's broader effect on the war has often been overlooked. Japan's leaders planned a major offensive in the Indian Ocean and so notified their German ally, but the ships and planes required for the undertaking were instead drained into the Guadalcanal quagmire. At the time Guadalcanal began, Britain was struggling to hold the Afrika Korps away from the Suez Canal. Resupply and reinforcements who contributed to the victory at El Alamein could be sent because the Indian Ocean was still open to Allied shipping.
In addition, vital Lend-Lease supplies from the U.S were able to travel through the Indian Ocean and across Iran just as the Soviet Union was struggling to defeat Germany's Operation Blue. British power in India was at its weakest in 1942; the Axis' one and only chance of toppling the Raj, and severing the last supply routes to Nationalist China, slipped away in the Southwest Pacific." I have also read about this in other locations and books.

England used it's own planes for the most part. I just put that little statement about American planes to poke fun. However we did give quite a few planes to Britain although I can't give the exact number.

Britain could have never launched it's Italian offensive without our help. It did not have the reasources to do such a thing. America made up the bulk of the invasion forces in Italy.

Germany was stopped in its 43 summer offensive because we (Allies) invaded Sicily and Italy in the summer of 1943. Germany had to pull troops of the E. front to fight in the "boot". this slowed them down and we cooridnated with the ruskies and they agreed to launch their own offensive against the germans around the same time we launched our italy invasion.

While hitler was persuaded that Itlay was strategically unimportant he nonethe less sent men to fight there. He did not send 10's of thousands of men to fight. But he did send some. I can't name the specific units at this time. Italy more or less distracted hitler for a while. It was a large enough operation to detract his attention from russia long enough for the russians to launch an offensive.

I said IF Japan invaded. And it is not too far fetched to believe. They were allies (germany and japan). And as I said before Japan notified hitler of its planned Indian ocean offensive. So even though japan working with germany was not a regular affair in the war it wasn't so far-fetched that it was inconcievable.

Normandy turned the tide of the war. I don't see how you can't agree. Its a fact. Hitler sent whole divisions of men from the east to fight. He took tanks from all fronts and sent them to normandy. He sent so many they had to offically name it as a new army; Panzer Group West. While many of the men defending normandy were conscripts there were equal numbers of battle-hardened veterans, such as the SS panzer division.

I do mean the article when I say "the article fails to mention."

"That I agree."-- Za

I'm glad to see you agree with me on one thing.

I'd also like to add this: If America wasn't such a threat to germany then why did hitler launch his last major offensive against us. Why did he take huge amounts of tanks, troops, etc off the E front to use in it. Yes we were spread thin and were a pretty easy target for a surprise offensive. But us just being more suceptible to an attack is not a good enough reason to launch one. There has to be a strategic objective also.

And why did hitler get so upset that Japan attacked us. Because hitler saw that the biggest mistake that germany made in wwi was the zimmerman note. He took note that bringing America into the war was germany's biggest mistake in wwi and cost them the war. He was determined not to make the same mistake and blow the good thing he had going for himself. That is why he condemned japan for attacking us. He knew it was a stupid thing to bring the U.S. into the war. especially while he was busy in russia. He knew he wouldn't have been able to fight us at the same time he was fighting the russians.

As I said before. America entering the war turned the tide (for lack of better words ). Europe most likely would have fallen if it weren't for us. But we needed the british and the russians to win. Russia was sending in women (something unheard of at that time) to fight on the front lines for goodness sake. That alone proves that they were running drastically low on able bodied troops. This coupled with the fact that in many cases there wasn't enough guns/ammmo to go around and be evenly distributed throughout their military. It isn't inconcievable to state that germany would have been defeated anyway without the U.S.'s involvement. But how long would it have taken? And at what cost? While you can debate whether or not germany would have lost with or without American involvement. You cannot argue the fact that America entering the war on the allies side no doubtably sped up the ultimate destruction of the Nazi empire and brought a quicker, less costly end to the war. Europe might have won without our help. But it certainly would not have won in the relatively short time it did without us.

I hope this info is sufficient enough to answer the questions you have asked concerning my arguement.

P.S. Za, I appreciate your complements and that you and I (and some others) can discuss these topics respectfully. Even though you and I apparently do not agree on some things you have my respect and I hope I have yours. I rarely watch the History channel. Whenever I turn it on there is always something about Rome or Toothbrushes or something on there. I really don't watch a whole lot of T.V. I prefer books as a primary source for WWII knowledge. Although I do watch the Military Channel occasionally. You gotta love the Military Channel. And I'd like to apologize for the lack of capitalized words (both in names and at the begining of sentences); I'm a slow typer and I frankly do not have the time to keep slowing down to press shift and my computer does not automatically capitalize them for me like on microsoft word.

Ted

[ 20. October 2006, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Ted ]

 

This is directed to sloniksp.

As for America not fighting the war on it's own territory. That is not true. Pearl Harbor. Dutch Harbor. Guam. Philipenes. Wake. Aleutian islands. U boats in the Gulf of Mexico and all along our eastern sea board. America largely doesn't have to fight on its own soil because of the prime piece of land which we inhabit. It is an island like England, only farther away from everything. WWII effected our homeland too. Just because our capital wasn't leveled doesn't mean our soil went untouched. England pleaded for our help in the time before we entered the war. It needed resources so it came to its BEST friend: America. If England could have won without us then why'd they ask for our help tenaciously before we entered the war.

Directed to Duns Scotus:

I am sorry I haven't visited England or any part of Europe for that matter (I hope to some day). I am only 16. Last time I checked I couldn't get a passport at my age. It's a big world you can't expect everyone to see and experience it all. Have you been to the USA lately, experienced it? As for being born an American, I guess thats just my blessing to bare. This isn't a national pride forum but if you are going to play that "stupid American" card then I must say: I am proud to be an American and I wouldn't want to have it any other way. but please, lets not make this into a "my country's better than your's. Nah nah nah!" type of forum. It is perfectly okay in my book to be proud of your nationality and the contributions it has made to the world (and WWII) but lets not purposely insult one another based on nationality.

[ 21. October 2006, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Ted ]

 

Ted

Pretty pretty please with sugar on top. Stop typing England.

During WW2 England did not fight. It was a placename, a country. As Duns Scotus points out England lost her perogative to declare war in 1707.

When refering to Britain, use UK or Britain.

The reason why Duns Scotus is throwing a fit is comparable with writing Detroit instead of America in relation with the war.

If you are to take some time in military study, you will learn why the Wehrmacht attacked the Anglo-American 1st Army.

As for the U-boat peril. Who invented the Huff-Duff? What about the Ultra intercepts? Fast convoys?

Hope you enjoy this forum. It is most educating.

 

sorry I'll work on that. I didn't know it was so offnesive. I never meant it to be. I won't use the E word anymore.

 

Hi Ted,

I’m not going to reply to you word for word as your post is too long for the time I have available, and I had a long time today rerouting some wiring in the house and I’m tired as a mechanical hare in a dog race course! So I’ll pick here and there.

Anyway, thank you for your frankness, and as I suspected you are rather young. That is not a handicap, as everyone here had to be 16 at some time, and I am sure not all were so articulate. I certainly wasn’t then. Your ideas may not be very well formed, but if you do not fall into hubris you will certainly profit a lot from this highly diversified forum, with some very varied points of view. On the other hand we ‘the others’ have to understand that you simply could not physically have the time to read all that ought to be read, so you will have that excuse.

I hope I am not being paternalistic. However I am ready to give you a bit of slack for the reasons above, but if you say what is blatantly rubbish (see below ) then please be prepared to be treated appropriately. Treat it as a learning experience . On my mind seeing a good willing young man having an interest in those momentous events is something not to be wasted. Oh, and on the England bit, before any Pom blows a gasket please bear in mind that the United Kingdom is so called for being for a long time the union of England, yes, plus Wales, Scotland and Ulster.

 

Ted, here are two fundamental texts by Col D. Glantz, USArmy, for you to read if possible:

American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II
The Soviet-German War, 1941-45, Myths and Realities

(warning - this one is a 8.7 Mb PDF)

 

"Yes, but what article?" --Za Rodinu

I am talking about the article that this whole thread concerns. The one posted by Richard.

Anyway, regarding the different bombing techniques. American bombing missions were far more effective, in terms of achieving their objectives, than the British night bombing misions. When you could clearly see your target through the cross hairs in full daylight you would naturally hit the bulls eye. While our military commanders would do all they could to protect the lives of their pilots they had to send them in harms way. We did, to some extent, think of our crews as expendable. If we didn't we would never get anything done. While our bombers were well equipped and armed we still lost many more than Britain. Because we bombed at daytime. Yes as the war dragged on we developed very effective strategies and tactics as did most other militaries. So in time we began to lose less, this coupled with our enemies becoming weaker. And as for our fighter escorts. they were largely inefective. our fighters, mustangs, hell cats, etc., had a limited range. the range of our bombers was much more than that of our fighters. Our fighter would escort them as far as they could go and then had to turn around and leave the bombers to fend for themselves. The germans took notice of this. And eventually they learned the approx. range of our fighters down to a few miles. There are first hand accounts of fighter pilots saying "you could see the german fighters circling in the distance just beyond where we had to turn around." They would be waiting just outside our range. And then when our fighters left they would attack. And while our bombers were formidable targets and could fire back, and had shot down many german adversaries, they still were outclassed in air combat against fighters.

WWII was just as much a war of logistics and attrition as it was a war of indivual valor. The only feasable way we could come up with to beat the germans was to out produce, out manufacture, and out supply them. Look at the mustang and the Me-262. Look at the sherman and the tiger or panzer. Any one on one battle between a german tank or plane and it's American counterpart would result in the death of the Americasn opponent. one sherman against a tiger; well you know who'd win. But 5 shermans against a tiger was overwhelming. 3 or four sherms would be lost going up against the tiger but the remaining sherman(s) would sneak around and put a 75mm round in the tiger's rear quarters (for lack of a better word), the tiger's only weak spot. Sherman rounds (75mm) would bounce of a tiger's armor. But one tiger round anywhere on a sherman would cause it to go up in flames. This was very disconcerting for the individual American tank crews. But it was an ingenius (or the only) strategy we saw fit. We beat them not through quality, but through quantity. You could not put those tactics or that strategy in place without seeing/treating your troops as even somewhat expendable.

There were many American fighters loaned to the RAF. Also bombers. Also tanks to the British Army. But the fighters loaned to Britain, although not a massive number, were not a small number either. But they still didn't make up a large percent of the RAF's fighters.

The Invasion of Sicily was July 10th. hitler immediately sent a division, the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, to Italy after the landings on sicily.
The Soviet counter offensive in the north was launched on July 12. The Soviet counter offensive in the south was not launched until August 3rd.

It appears I was wrong about the coordination between Russian and American forces. I remember reading at sometime something about that. But upon further reading I have discovered no evidence at this time indicating any sort of coordination between us and the USSR. Now that I think about it really wouldn't make much sense anyway. Russia hated us and we weren't to fond of them either. We just fought the same enemy, but weren't really on the same side. We both had different pre and post-war goals. We allied because we knew we had to fight together in order to beat hitler.

However, I find it interesting to note that Operation Citadel was cancelled when hitler recieved word of the Sicily landings. Landings which were conducted 2 days earlier than the Russian counter offensive in the north, on July 12th. OP: Citadel was going to be a major german offensive to try and beat back the russians at kursk. It is very probable that this operation, if commensed, would have lead to a german victory at Kursk. I wonder if OP: Citadel was called off because of the Sicily landings and the Russian counter offensive in the north. I find it very peculiar that these two major operations (husky and Kutuzov) were conducted within 2 days of each other. While I could not locate any records that proves a coordinated effort between us and the russians. The chronological time frame of these two events being so close together suggests, and causes one to speculate, that there may have been some form of communication/coordination between the U.S. and the USSR concerning these two operations. While I'll acknowlege that I cannot find any cold hard proof/record of this event being a coordinated one by both U.S. and Russian forces. I also wouldn't be so quick to deny it as a possibility. True, there is no proof that these operations were conducted within 2 days of each other on purpose. But the strange and peculiar data seems to say otherwise.

Hitler declared war on America in hopes of Japan declaring war on the USSR. True, he was not forced to declare war on us. But I think that he also felt somewhat compelled to do so. And it is fact that Hitler acknowledged that Germany's biggest mistake (or one of their biggest mistakes) in WWI was declaring war on us. And he secretly was mad at Japan for declaring war on us.

From http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/e-front.htm a.k.a. American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II :
"WARNING!

The views expressed in FMSO publications and reports are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. "
While the essay you reccommended was very interesting to read. (I did read it) It appears to be mostly the personal opinion(s) of Col D. Glantz. And while I am not denying his credibility, (he is after all a Col. and probably has more knowledge than both of us on the subject) I am just stating that the essay's subject is largely made up of his personal opinion(s).

 

Just wondering how often the targets could actually be seen through those crosshairs - in Europe, we have thick cloud even in high summer. Many 'targets of opportunity' were dumped on simply because the primary targets couldn't be found or seen, and the 'togglier' system tended to negate the idea of precision bombing ; a Group would toggle as the lead ship bombed, effectively carpeting an area, not an exact target.

 

Not worth the time & effort.