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 12-31-2018, 08:39 PM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
Without Churchill's determined leadership, the Allies would've lost the war in the west. Maybe that stubborn attitude came from his American half.
No it never. That stubbornness that only came in when attacked and declared war on?

 
Old 12-31-2018, 08:48 PM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
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
The soviets were quite capable of making simple trucks. They made tanks which the U.S. military would drool over. The U.S. said we will give you simple trucks (the U.S. Corporations could make existing commercial based stuff quickly and cheaply) so the Soviets never made them. Why should they, when the Americans are supplying them?

The U.S. ran out of carriers, that is why HMS Victorious was requested by the U.S. Do not tell yourself lies.

What don't you understand about 10% to the British and 5% to the USSR? Mainly raw materials.
 
Old 01-01-2019, 04:46 AM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
The Pacific Naval War was a US show, while the Royal Navy ran the Atlantic & Med.
Roughly correct. The Australians were also in the Pacific. The British continually fought the Japanese all through the war on land, the U.S. never. The British Pacific Fleet of over 700 vessels in total operated in the Pacific. The armoured carriers were impervious to kamikazes. They operated close in off Okinawa supporting the US ground troops also off Formosa. That is besides the Eastern fleet off Burma and Malaya supporting the 2.6 million who were marching into Burma.

That oddball MacArthur would not allow the British Pacific fleet to base in the Philippines, having to base at Manus atoll 2,500 miles from Okinawa.

Churchill did not want to send the BPF, being overruled by the top brass. He wanted it to accompany the Eastern Fleet with multiple troop landings on the Burma/Malay coast.
 
Old 01-01-2019, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
7,980 posts, read 7,974,573 times
Reputation: 6441
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The soviets were quite capable of making simple trucks. They made tanks which the U.S. military would drool over. The U.S. said we will give you simple trucks (the U.S. Corporations could make existing commercial based stuff quickly and cheaply) so the Soviets never made them. Why should they, when the Americans are supplying them?

The U.S. ran out of carriers, that is why HMS Victorious was requested by the U.S. Do not tell yourself lies.

What don't you understand about 10% to the British and 5% to the USSR? Mainly raw materials.
We didn’t run out of carriers as I listed. You should say “ ran short of carriers” (for a few months) and you would be correct. Yes, we needed all the help we could get in 1942 in the Pacific, and the UK & its Commonwealth nations graciously responded.

But I guess according to you the soviets didn’t really need anything the US gave them? Even Zhukov later admitted the US supplied war materiel was a major help to their effort, as was that of the other allies.

It is generally acknowledged over here that the US tanks were inferior tin cans compared to Soviet, German, and Brit armor. I ought to know, as my father commanded a tank regiment in the 2nd Armored Division in the postwar years.

All things said, I am not one of those who thinks the US “won the war”, but we certainly did affect the outcome on most fronts.
And as far as current US involvement, I and many Americans are of the mind that we should withdraw all our armed forces out of Europe, the ME, and Far East. Let them defend themselves from any future threats.
 
Old 01-01-2019, 11:58 AM
 
30,514 posts, read 15,642,236 times
Reputation: 16058
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
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.
Seems the XIVth is doomed to remain the forgotten army. Field Marshall Slim is a serious contender for the best general of WWII, and hardly anyone recognizes his name.
 
Old 01-01-2019, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
7,980 posts, read 7,974,573 times
Reputation: 6441
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Roughly correct. The Australians were also in the Pacific. The British continually fought the Japanese all through the war on land, the U.S. never. The British Pacific Fleet of over 700 vessels in total operated in the Pacific. The armoured carriers were impervious to kamikazes. They operated close in off Okinawa supporting the US ground troops also off Formosa. That is besides the Eastern fleet off Burma and Malaya supporting the 2.6 million who were marching into Burma.

That oddball MacArthur would not allow the British Pacific fleet to base in the Philippines, having to base at Manus atoll 2,500 miles from Okinawa.

Churchill did not want to send the BPF, being overruled by the top brass. He wanted it to accompany the Eastern Fleet with multiple troop landings on the Burma/Malay coast.
MacArthur wasn’t an oddball, he was a primadonna in the extreme - similar to Patton. He certainly bumbled some things with our allies, but he was the best thing that could’ve happened to Japan after the surrender on the Missouri.
Yes, the UK did very well in SE Asia to liberate your colonies and to support US forces around the Pacific Rim - but it was the US “island hopping” & naval blockade campaign that finally brought Japan to the surrender table.
 
Old 01-01-2019, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
5,135 posts, read 3,280,989 times
Reputation: 15374
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The British continually fought the Japanese all through the war on land, the U.S. never.
Am I misunderstanding what you meant to say? Because what I read is that you are claiming that the Americans never fought the Japanese on land. And that is a flat-out lie, unless you don't count islands as "land."
 
Old 01-02-2019, 04:30 AM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
Am I misunderstanding what you meant to say? Because what I read is that you are claiming that the Americans never fought the Japanese on land. And that is a flat-out lie, unless you don't count islands as "land."
What I wrote was clear: The British continually fought the Japanese all through the war on land, the U.S. never. If you know the history and timeline of WW2 you will know that after the initial Japanese successes, the USA never fought them on land resorting to naval warfare. Only when the U.S. went small island hopping did they resume fighting Japanese ground troops. The British fought them on the ground from 7 December 1941 until they surrendered. In Fact, the Japanese attacked the British a few hours before the U.S.
 
Old 01-02-2019, 04:53 AM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
MacArthur wasn’t an oddball, he was a primadonna in the extreme - similar to Patton. He certainly bumbled some things with our allies, but he was the best thing that could’ve happened to Japan after the surrender on the Missouri.
Yes, the UK did very well in SE Asia to liberate your colonies and to support US forces around the Pacific Rim - but it was the US “island hopping” & naval blockade campaign that finally brought Japan to the surrender table.
The U.S. produced some oddball generals and admirals in WW2 with MacArthur one of them. His performance in the defence of the Philippines can only described as dire - the Japanese had to get there by long sailings by sea, no short hop. Korea proved how much of a buffoon the man was as a military man with him being removed. His insistence on retaking the Philippines, which was strategically unimportant using up valuable resources, was another act of buffoonery. Just about all top U.S. commanders were against it. The British equally had an idiot in the Far East named Percival. The Japanese at Singapore went to the negotiating table ready to surrender as they exhausted their ammunition. They amazingly found Percival was talking of a British surrender, so they quickly bluffed it at the table which paid off.

The war against the Japanese was split into spheres of interest, influence and ease of access. The British took the South East Asia mainland with the U.S. taking the Philippines and islands. U.S. and Australians taking the south section towards Australia. However the British did move over to the U.S. sector supplying the British Pacific fleet to assist U.S. ground forces on Okinawa, fight against Formosa and bombard parts of Tokyo.

Many historians put the Japanese surrender down to Soviet troops on Japan proper. The U.S. troops were 350 miles away in Okinawa. The final straw was the Soviets. The A-Bomb? Debatable. Just another small Japanese city wiped out to them.

Last edited by John-UK; 01-02-2019 at 06:06 AM..
 
Old 01-02-2019, 05:06 AM
 
Location: London
3,952 posts, read 3,409,344 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Seems the XIVth is doomed to remain the forgotten army. Field Marshall Slim is a serious contender for the best general of WWII, and hardly anyone recognizes his name.
Correct. Slim was a brilliant man. Forgotten like his army. He started the jungle war training along with Wyngate. Even today the British are the world experts at jungle fighting, teaching many other countries on how to fight in jungles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2S75SWfq8

My vote for best general of WW2 goes to Montgomery. He commanded all ground forces in Normandy coming in ahead at D-Day+90 with 22% less casualties than forecast. He had to take command of the U.S. Ninth and First armies when the Germans pounded through U.S. line in the Ardennes, stopping the advance and turning the Germans back to their start line. He stayed in command of the Ninth army until the end of the war just about. Montgomery went through nine countries, commanded armies of many nations not once suffering a reverse.
  • Eisenhower:
    ‘General Montgomery is a very able, dynamic type of army commander’.
  • Eisenhower on D-Day and Normandy:
    'He got us there and he kept us there'.
  • General Günther Blumentritt:
    ‘Field Marshall Montgomery was the one general who never suffered a reverse’
  • Genral Hasso von Manteuffel on the Bulge:
    ‘The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough’.
  • Patton on Monty:
    'small, very alert, wonderfully conceited, and the best soldier - or so it seems - I have met in this war’.
  • American Major General Matt Ridgway liked and praised Monty.
    - Major General Matt Ridgway, commander of the US XVIII Airborne Corps, 17 Jan 1945

    "It has been an honored privilege and a very great personal pleasure to have served, even so briefly, under your distinguished leadership [Montgomery]. To the gifted professional guidance you at once gave me, was added to your own consummate courtesy and consideration. I am deeply grateful for both. My warm and sincere good wishes will follow you and with them the hope of again serving with you in pursuit of a common goal".

Last edited by John-UK; 01-02-2019 at 06:19 AM..
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