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.
Duly noted John, I won’t argue about it, I just remember from my trucking days around Europe, that the Mercedes, Scanias, and Volvos that I pushed across France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany, felt very superior to the occasional Bedford that I was stuck with on local U.K. jobs.
Oh, and not for nothing, and very politely, it’s Bedfords, not Bedford’s, (I think).
In WW2 the quality of Bedford was very good. The Germans would put them to use when captured. Later versions lost the plot in refinement but still reliable. Bedford's? I did a double take before writing it. Possessive? The "build quality and reliability"belongs to the Bedford - possessive? I may be wrong.
In WW2 the quality of Bedford was very good. The Germans would put them to use when captured. Later versions lost the plot in refinement but still reliable. Bedford's? I did a double take before writing it. Possessive? The "build quality and reliability"belongs to the Bedford - possessive? I may be wrong.
And so may I, can we forget that I said it?
I hereby apologise for maybe annoying someone that I don’t even know, okay?
And just to try and show that I’m not just rubbishing British trucks, in the late 70s, I drove an ERF on a regular round trip from London to Poznań, Poland for 6 or 7 months, very reliable, but governed down to a max of 63 mph, and slow to warm up in freezing conditions in Poland, and East Germany, (as it then was).
In the vital Battle of Moscow the British supplied 40% of the tanks; before the US was in the war.
FDR signed the Lend-Lease bill, which permitted the US to supply Allies with war materiel on March 11, 1941, and the first American convoys were already being sent to the USSR by August 1941, well before The Battle of Moscow (Oct 2, 1941 – Jan 7, 1942).
Last edited by Rumann Koch; 03-12-2019 at 09:26 AM..
And so may I, can we forget that I said it?
I hereby apologise for maybe annoying someone that I don’t even know, okay?
And just to try and show that I’m not just rubbishing British trucks, in the late 70s, I drove an ERF on a regular round trip from London to Poznań, Poland for 6 or 7 months, very reliable, but governed down to a max of 63 mph, and slow to warm up in freezing conditions in Poland, and East Germany, (as it then was).
Firstly, no one ever annoys me. ERF Edward Robert Foden. They made trucks, not the engines they used.
FDR signed the Lend-Lease bill, which permitted the US to supply Allies with war materiel on March 11, 1941, and the first American convoys were already being sent to the USSR by August 1941, well before The Battle of Moscow (Oct 2, 1941 – Jan 7, 1942).
Again, in the vital Battle of Moscow the British supplied 40% of the tanks; before the US was in the war.
If you know WW2, the Germans were stopped in the west at the Battle of Britain, and in the east at the Battle of Moscow. The British were instrumental in both.
The real issue is with Hitler taking his focus off Britain and turning to Russia. If he puts 100% into Britain they win and Stalin would have been kept at bay.
Without Britain as a basis the Americans would have had a far far more difficult time gaining footholds in Europe. Likely in that case we would have had to focus on fighting Japan at first. Meaning a much more naval focused war with likely far far higher death tolls.
Well I talked to my other friends about it and they definitely have a strong stance against the US's decision to nuke Japan. Maybe it's a Canadian thing since all my friends are Canadian but the conversation was brought up again in a larger group and they concurred that the nuking of Japan was morally wrong, and when I tried to point out some of the points made on here, they said that no matter how bad a war gets, you don't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, period. One of them said even if not nuking means the war will get even worse, you just be men and deal with it he said.
So I guess that is some people's opinions on it...
You have two choices
1) - Nuke a couple cities 225,000 people die
2) - Invade Japan and have 100 million people die
You have two choices
1) - Nuke a couple cities 225,000 people die
2) - Invade Japan and have 100 million people die
You choose.
You are assuming the A-Bomb ended the war.
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.
ERF Edward Robert Foden. They made trucks, not the engines they used.
