Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Too many unsubstantiated and fantasy-like posts beginning with the feasibility of recruiting 45 million Indians for a phantom British Army. National Enquirer type of statements which ruins what may be have been a productive discussion.
The British Commonwealth today has 2.3 billion people in it. The British Empire morphed into the Commonwealth. Note the figure 2.3 billion. A little knowledge of arithmetic will give you a clue.
The British Commonwealth today has 2.3 billion people in it. The British Empire morphed into the Commonwealth. Note the figure 2.3 billion. A little knowledge of arithmetic will give you a clue.
Again we are way off the OP question. So this is my last post thats off base and I appoligize to this OP for getting so far off base.
John UK who cares if they have 30 billion none are trained troops other then the British. Man you gotta let me have some of the stuff you are smoking. Ron
Again we are way off the OP question. So this is my last post thats off base and I appoligize to this OP for getting so far off base.
John UK who cares if they have 30 billion none are trained troops other then the British. Man you gotta let me have some of the stuff you are smoking. Ron
You cannot understand something so simple. The British had access to 45 million men to raise an army. That is obvious having one third of the world's population in your empire. Again....it was equipping and training them in a short space of time was the problem. I have to keep repeating this - maybe it will sink in sometime. It is amazing that some cannot understand something so simple.
Thanks I never knew that. But her effectiveness was miniscule, as was the case with all battleships in WW2. They were good for naval gunfire support, not much else. Very expensive offshore cannons. Despite them being made obsolete in the early part of WW2, the UK and USA still kept making these relics. The carrier was the ship that mattered, and cheap to make, with the USA adopting the UKs armoured carrier approach.
Yamato and Bismarck were both sunk by planes. The Bismarck was sunk by biplanes, the Swordfish. The planes had on-board radar dived down in cloud, levelled out at sea level and approached below the capability of the AA guns firing home their torpedoes. One hit the rudder. Not one was shot down. The Germans on the Bismarck could not believe that these antiquated planes were heading towards them in open sea. The Swordfish sunk more ships than any other plane in WW2.
The Swordfish did not "sink the Bismark". In fact out of the several attacks on the Bis by that antiquated biplane, most were utter failures that failed to hit or damage her. One plane got an incredibly lucky hit that damaged the rudder(s), making it impossible for her to maneuver. This allowed the much larger British fleet to finally catch and heavily damage her.
The Swordfish did not "sink the Bismark". In fact out of the several attacks on the Bis by that antiquated biplane, most were utter failures that failed to hit or damage her. One plane got an incredibly lucky hit that damaged the rudder(s), making it impossible for her to maneuver. This allowed the much larger British fleet to finally catch and heavily damage her.
The hit on the rudder by the Ark Royal's plane's was not lucky, the plane was aiming for the Bismarck and got it. It was not aiming for another ship. The Bismarck was reduced in speed because of a hole in the fuel tanks created by the Swordfish from the carrier HMS Victorious, which also killed a man. One boiler room was flooded and abandoned. The Swordfish clearly contributed to the sinking of the Bismarck. 15 inch shells and larger torpedoes from ships did the rest. There was no need to sink her as she was disabled and the superstructure ruined. The RN ships could have gone up to her and took off the crew and scuttled her by opening the seacocks. But the RN officers wanted the ship sunk with all on board.
"succeeded in putting a torpedo into the battleship's midship section, which opened up a fuel tank on the Bismarck. Unfortunately, the injury was insufficient to stop the ship, which then managed to shake off the cruisers. With a dawn air search from the Victorious failing to re-establish contact, there began an anxious 32 hours until a Consolidated Catalina sighted her, trailing oil"
HMS Prince of Wales also fired at Bismarck damaging her early in the chase. The British knew Bismarck was heading for Breast and moved between her and Breast.
The hit on the rudder by the Ark Royal's plane's was not lucky, the plane was aiming for the Bismarck and got it. It was not aiming for another ship.
You seem to be attempting to equate intent with capability. There was much more at play here than the intent of that particular Stringbag's pilot. Its like the old saying, "If wishes were fishes / we'd have food for all time."
There was an element -- a strong element -- of luck (or random chance) in that hit. For one thing, they survived the withering AA fire from Bismarck. The pilot's intent had nothing to do with that, because it was cancelled out by the intent of Bismarck's AA crews. For that matter, the pilot's capability at taking evasive action only had a little to do with it, because it was at least partially cancelled out by Bismarck's capabilities.
Regards as always,
-- Nighteyes
Last edited by Nighteyes; 08-12-2014 at 10:35 AM..
"Yamato and Bismarck were both sunk by planes. The Bismarck was sunk by biplanes, the Swordfish. "
Ok I have to pop in once more to show you this John-UK. Here you say the Bismark was sunk by the swordfish.
"The Swordfish clearly contributed to the sinking of the Bismarck. 15 inch shells and larger torpedoes from ships did the rest. "
Now when you are challeneged by someone telling the facts I had been saying all along you change your words and now say the swordfish contributed to the sinking of the Bismark as now your not saying the swordfish SUNK the Bismark. Where are the facts on that ?? I would say I have the facts you want on this. Ron
You cannot understand something so simple. The British had access to 45 million men to raise an army. That is obvious having one third of the world's population in your empire. Again....it was equipping and training them in a short space of time was the problem. I have to keep repeating this - maybe it will sink in sometime. It is amazing that some cannot understand something so simple.
What is the point in counting them if they cannot be trained and equipped in time? The U.S. today could draft 350 million troops if we include everyone from grandmas to illegal aliens. But we couldn't equip or train all of them.
If the British had access to so many millions of men, why did they only produce 5 million total during WW2? The British had 8 years to draft troops and only produced 5 million TOTAL. Why were they struggling to field an army capable of fighting Rommel in North Africa? Your "facts" seem out of touch with reality.
Last edited by Nolefan34; 08-12-2014 at 08:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ron
