U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2018, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
5,135 posts, read 3,280,989 times
Reputation: 15374

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
They did not, the Battle of Britain ensured that Britain would not be invaded, the British would most certainly NOT have had the power to invade Europe in 44 without the Russians and the US (and others) is true but there again neither would the US or Russia without Britain, the US likes to think it 'saved our ass' (surprise surprise eh) that is apparent the reality is though that the RAF 'saved our ass'. Or as Churchill so eloquently put it - Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
I have never once stated that the U.S. would have been able to pull off D-Day without Great Britain. I think that if England had fallen, there's a 99.9% likelihood that there would have been no D-Day and a 0.1% chance that a tiny sliver of an invasion could have been mounted from across the sea, which would have almost certainly failed. So yes, there's no argument that we needed the UK.

However, those American convoys weren't being sent across the Atlantic for no reason. Hitler may not have been able to invade the UK, but he certainly could have blockaded it. And without U.S. assistance, how long could the Royal Navy have held out against the U-boats? And how would Great Britain have been supplied, with its trade routes cut off, were it not for American intervention?

There is no shame at all in admitting that, in order to defeat Nazi Germany, the US needed the UK and the UK needed the US. (To say nothing about the Soviet Union.)

 
Old 12-28-2018, 04:18 PM
 
30,514 posts, read 15,642,236 times
Reputation: 16058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
In the last couple of years of the Vietnam War, I did B-52 "bomb scoring." Even though the fifty 500-lb bomb load devastated an area larger than a football stadium, it was startling how often they totally missed the target.

Through the Vietnam War, the statistic for aerial bombing accuracy was that it took 21 sorties to hit a target. If the Vietnamese thought we were bombing indiscriminately, they sure had good reason. We didn't intend to be indiscriminate--sending aircrews out on re-strike missions was dangerous and wasteful--but statistically we almost always missed what we were aiming at.

I was scoring attacks during the Persian Gulf War as well. For sure, the image-directed Tomahawks and laser-guided glide bombs were awesomely accurate. They amazed me every night with their precision. We never missed what we aimed at. We might not have aimed at the right target, but if we hit it, we had aimed at it.

But the dumb bombs dropped by the B-52 were just as dumb in the Persian Gulf War as they were in the Vietnam War.
Guided munitions completely changed the air attack game. (Some other games as well. Laser-guided mortar shells are effin' terrifying.)

In WWII, the Mosquito raids did at times achieve amazing things against point targets (I like to point to the Shell House raid in Copenhagen, everybody knows of Operation Jericho in Amiens), but they depended on surprise and still suffered unacceptable loss rates.
 
Old 12-28-2018, 04:22 PM
 
30,514 posts, read 15,642,236 times
Reputation: 16058
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
There is no shame at all in admitting that, in order to defeat Nazi Germany, the US needed the UK and the UK needed the US. (To say nothing about the Soviet Union.)
It is a cliche and as such slightly glib, but it's not wrong: The UK bought time, the US provided supplies, and the USSR paid their part in blood. Not that all three didn't bleed and suffer, mind.
 
Old 12-28-2018, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,418 posts, read 1,462,055 times
Reputation: 6302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
It is a cliche and as such slightly glib, but it's not wrong: The UK bought time, the US provided supplies, and the USSR paid their part in blood. Not that all three didn't bleed and suffer, mind.
That may be the most succinct summary of Allied effort I've ever read.
 
Old 12-31-2018, 01:32 PM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Why didn't the British stopped America from nuking Japan?

The simple answer is that they had little knowledge of the bomb and no authority to do so anyway.
The British MAUD Committee figured out how to make the A-bomb. They were at Los Alamos all along.
 
Old 12-31-2018, 01:43 PM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
It is a cliche and as such slightly glib, but it's not wrong: The UK bought time, the US provided supplies, and the USSR paid their part in blood. Not that all three didn't bleed and suffer, mind.
The U.S. provided about 10% of British supplies and about 5% of Soviet. The US concluded just before Dec 1941 that the British and Soviets would defeat the Axis. The U.S. was not pivotal.

Germany's biggest mistake was declaring war in the first place. Once they waged war when was the point they could not win? That was when the British refused to make peace in June 1940. With Britain still in the war the Royal Navy blockade starved Germany, and the Axis, of vital resources, including food (animal & human) and oil. The Royal Navy controlled the eastern Atlantic, the Atlantic entrance to the Mediterranean, and the eastern Mediterranean with even a base all through the war off Italy at Malta. Britain's land forces were from Turkey to Libya. Essentially the British surrounded Europe, controlling the sea lanes. The Royal Navy ensured the conflict with Germany would continue. Germany could not win from this point onwards. Being a largely landlocked country, Germany's forces were heavily based on its army, while Britain's was heavily based on its navy and air force with a small highly mobile army. Germany could not remove Britain from the war having pretty well no surface fleet to Britain having the largest navy in the world.

Britain's approach was that every operation was to bleed Germany of resources, especially oil. Britain was even buying up rare metals from Turkey to ensure the Germans did not have them. Operations in Norway and Greece forced the Germans to deploy troops to these areas but also its surface fleet, which mainly was destroyed in Norway. The German occupied countries were also under the blockade, which were also a drain of German resources.

The British, because of its armed forces structure of massive navy, large air force and small highly mobile army were unable to engage the Germans on the European land mass, on which Germany had a massive army. Apart from the air, the two countries could not get at each other. Britain's war then was partially an economic war. Every German operation against the British had to be decisive whereas the British could lose to the Germans while still asserting economic pressure in its favour. This was the British way of war being very good at it. Britain used similar tactics against Germany in WW1 to devastating effects. This approach was used against the French on multiple occasions over 200 years. Smaller nations in Europe would follow Pax Britannica due British naval dominance. Britain could dictate any war's outcome by blocking trade and resources to one side or another.

The Germans like most of Europe relied on imported oil, raw materials and food (animal & human). For the Germans these resources can only come from two regions - the USSR or the rest of the world. By removing the rest of the world from the Axis, the British forced the Germans to acquire Soviet oil - Romania did not produce enough. Hitler had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941 because of the resources situation. He needed the resources of the USSR to fight the coming air war with Britain. In May 1940 Roosevelt stated the USA would produce 50,000 planes per year. Most of these would be directed towards Germany with British production on top. Germany greatly expanded its U-Boat fleet. The popular view was that this fleet was to starve Britain into submission. That was valid but a high hope, however, it was also to divert and lock up Royal Navy resources in convoy protection and U-Boat hunting, allowing merchant ships to enter Germany and the occupied countries more freely.

Germany had been forced into a situation by the British that they knew they could not escape from. Even if Germany had seized the Caucuses' oil fields intact (the Soviets sabotaged them to the point new deep bore wells would need to be drilled) the British would have focused them for their bombing campaign operating from the Middle East - there were plans to bomb them as Britain held nearby Iraq and occupied Iran. This was to drain Germany of vital oil. Every British victory in Africa was decisive and every German victory was not, even if Germany won an operation, they were still being bled. Unless Germany could seize the Suez Canal and beyond, the British could just come back year after year and counter attack with new tanks and new men, with resources not being a problem for them.

Germany knew that they could not invade Britain as the royal Navy was just too powerful. The RAF could replace losses far quicker than they could, as they found out in the air Battle of Britain. Germany could not put their large army on British soil.

After June 1940 Germany has an enemy it cannot defeat not entertaining peace, economically throttling the Axis every day of the war. Germany never had time, the British did. The German invasion of the USSR with an army short of resources due to the Royal Navy blockade, may have quickened the war's end for Germany, however it was not the point that Germany was doomed. Germany had already lost the war it was just a matter of time when Germany collapsed.

Last edited by John-UK; 12-31-2018 at 02:10 PM..
 
Old 12-31-2018, 01:48 PM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
Hitler may not have been able to invade the UK, but he certainly could have blockaded it. And without U.S. assistance, how long could the Royal Navy have held out against the U-boats?
Hitler tried and failed to blockade the UK. The British invented just about all the anti-sub technology and even perfected anti-sub ships.
 
Old 12-31-2018, 01:51 PM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
They did not, the Battle of Britain ensured that Britain would not be invaded, the British would most certainly NOT have had the power to invade Europe in 44 without the Russians and the US (and others)
The Royal Navy ensured the Germans would never come (fools if they did). Churchill would have aimed at Germany from the Med, not the Channel. All the time starving them as they moved towards Germany

Last edited by John-UK; 12-31-2018 at 02:32 PM..
 
Old 12-31-2018, 01:58 PM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
The British stood strong and held the line against Hitler, and set the indispensable groundwork for the ultimate victory over the Nazis. But in so doing, they completely wore themselves out, and ultimately needed to be saved by the Americans and the Russians.
That is new to the British and its empire, who never thought anything like that at all. The British launched 2.6 million against the Japanese on the ground, far more than what the USA fielded.

Churchill said "give us the tools and we will do the job". In short fully open US industry to the British Empire. BTW, British industrial output was similar to Germany's. They produced more planes than Germany with Canada producing more wheeled vehicles than them, etc, etc.

During the vital Battle of Moscow in Dec 1941 the British supplied 40% of the Soviet tanks. They were also pushing back the Germans 1,000 kms in North Africa. After Dec 1941 the British moved over to the Western Atlantic and even protected the approaches to NYC harbor as the U.S. concentrated on the Pacific, losing 600 vessels in six months on the Atlantic Seaboard through not employing convoys. The British gave 43 anti-sub ships to the U.S., as they had none. They even lent a carrier, HMS Victorious (code named USS Robin), to the US fleet for the South Pacific as they ran out of carriers. Victorious operated planes with US marking with Fleet Air Arm pilots.

Last edited by John-UK; 12-31-2018 at 02:28 PM..
 
Old 12-31-2018, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
7,980 posts, read 7,974,573 times
Reputation: 6441
Without Churchill's determined leadership, the Allies would've lost the war in the west. Maybe that stubborn attitude came from his American half.

Seriously, there was good reason for Time Magazine to name him "Man of the Century".

However, the Soviets would've had a much more difficult time rolling up the Germans without the 375,000 Dodge & GM cargo trucks to haul all their men & supplies around, not to mention the 1,800 locomotives & 11,000 rail cars sent from the USA.
Dunno why we gave them 331,000 liters of alcohol though - their Red Army grunts would polish that off in the first round of drinks on Saturday night.

https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/03...st-hour_575559

"More than 14,000 U.S. airplanes, 8,000 of which came from Alaska, were given to the Soviet Union in the course of the war.
The USSR received a total of 44,000 American jeeps, 375,883 cargo trucks, 8,071 tractors and 12,700 tanks. Additionally, 1,541,590 blankets, 331,066 liters of alcohol, 15,417,000 pairs of army boots, 106,893 tons of cotton, 2,670,000 tons of petroleum products and 4,478,000 tons of food supplies made their way into the Soviet Union."

Plus the thousands of tons of gun powder & explosives sent over. Evidently the Rooskies put most of it to very good use.

Those supplies made it a lot easier for the Soviets to defeat the Nazis in the East, but without all that I believe they still would've overwhelmed Berlin in the longer run.

And John, the US did not "run out of carriers" after Pearl Harbor - The US Navy still had the fleet carriers Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise. Of course that was pretty short compared to the Imperial Navy of Japan, but by the end of the war we had 28 large fleet carriers and scores of smaller escort flattops.
The Pacific Naval War was a US show, while the Royal Navy ran the Atlantic & Med.

Interestingly enough, the excellent Museum of the Pacific War is located in the old German frontier town of Fredericksburg, Texas (hometown of Admiral Chester Nimitz - US Pacific Fleet commander), just an hour or so west of my home.

Last edited by ScoPro; 12-31-2018 at 07:27 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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top