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.
What was the plan? You said it was a definite plan. How come you're the only person who's ever heard of it?
It sounds like General LeMay going with the USAAF prejudice trying to prove strategic bombing alone could win wars before the atom bomb. So proposed an alternative to the invasion and ground conquest of Japan.
I would see it like the scenes from the movie Patton where the different Generals are pushing for their plan for the invasion of Sicily.
US historian Victor Davis Hanson constantly refers to it.
About 7,400 Lancasters were built along with about 7,800 Mosquitos (same bomb load as the B-17 but could outrace fighters, with only a 2 man crew). That is on the British side alone. Then the US bombers, with over 12,000 B-17s built alone. Taking into account losses, that will give around 15,000 allied bombers very comfortably. Then those still being manufactured.
The Lancaster could carry the grand slam and tallboy bombs. Not much of Japanese industry would be left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)
The US made them under licence after WW2 using one or two in Viet Nam.
Long range Tempest fighters were to be used. One version of the Tempest that was to used was under development with a target speed of over 500 mph. At the end of the war it was dropped for jets.
WW2 was not like you think it was, was it?
Your "Tiger force" was to be at most 40 squadrons. 12 planes to a squadron...…..=480 planes...……..
Your 15,000 figure is fantasy...……..
by the way.. your link to Tiger force says the end of the war was brought about by the dropping of the atomic bomb...…….
Last edited by jeffdoorgunner; 03-28-2019 at 10:07 AM..
Reason: additional information
The Japanese never surrendered after the Tokyo fire-bombing or the A-Bomb drop on Hiroshima. Their mentality was different to ours.
They also didn't surrender after losing the Battle of Midway, or the Guadalcanal campaign, or the Battle of the Philippine Sea, or the Battle of Leyte Gulf, or after losing Iwo Jima, or Okinawa. In fact, they never surrendered at all -- until the cumulative effects of losing their navy, having their cities burned to cinders by conventional and atomic bombings, being nearly starved by the blockade, and having the Soviet Union suddenly show up at their back door finally became too much for them to bear.
I get your recurring point about the role of the "British" in WW2. You are correct in it being under recognized.
There has been a tradition of belittling Britain's contribution, especially in the USA. The British fought a highly technological and industrial war and did so very efficiently. Britain used not only her vast empire but her even larger trading empire to maximum effect. "Steel not flesh" was the mantra. Having massive armies is inherently inefficient, with the bigger the army the higher the casualties. Britain consciously chose to keep numbers of front line troops as low as possible building machines and technology advances instead - the BEF in France was the first army were men never marched - fully motorised. The Kangaroo was the first armoured personnel carrier developed in WW2 from adapted tanks, saving many lives, in contrast to the horrendous US casualties. It was a policy that worked because at the end, and despite fighting for the duration and all around the globe, the country had lost around 440,000 - half the dead of the 1914-1918 war, which lasted two years less. In contrast, both Germany and the Soviet Union lost considerably more troops than they had a generation earlier.
From the war came innumerable British inventions: the cavity magnetron, the electronic computer, the world’s most advanced jet engines, as well as the Liberty ship ( a Sunderland design), to name but a few. Huge developments in engineering, with a staggering 132,500 aircraft and over a million military vehicles. From the moment the first US soldier arrived in Britain until VE Day, they provided the USA with 31 per cent of all their supplies in the European Theatre of Operations. In other words, Britain was pretty amazing – and not just because of their pluck in continuing the fight in 1940, but because of the enormous contribution they made to winning the war and the effect that had on the future of the world. It is time we moved on from the myths and declinist view of Britain in the war for good.
My take: Nazis would have been the biggest force and USSR would eventually have truce with Germany. Rest of Europe: small and would be like Swiss after all. U.S., the same but with weaker economy since it would not have good international trading partner. Japan would have been hobbled by USSR. German Nazis would be 2 super power nation but benign by now, that it would have just about everything it wants. It would have mellow out by few years ago since it was a ruthless regime that has taken over France and nearby countries and wanting to improve relations around the world.
Hi,
I love your optimism, and perhaps you would be correct, however I would not want to live in such a superpower (although I'd grow up not knowing any different and that's a whole other debate!).
The cynic in me considers that Hitler wanted the German Empire back, and was going to try to keep going. Like some people who become power hungry I think his endorphins from 'winning' were raging in overtime and he would've just carried on and on until he got as large a power as possible- or he was stopped. He had no interest in appeasement which is how we needed up in WWII in the first place.
I consider this may be why the Japanese needed some retribution for Pearl Harbour? As a 'super power' they historically wanted to take and exert certain control and take over (we could include Vietnam/ the indo-china wars here?... please correct me if I'm mistaken as my knowledge on this is VERY poor). The return of the Japanese Empire could've been a certain wish by certain persons.
What then comes into play is how a country is 'run' and how communism in its negative state can affect civilians living in those countries (again linked to Vietnam??), but with the end of WWII, heavily linked to the splitting of Europe into East/ West, and the conditions that those in the East lived in during those times. People shot trying to 'escape' East Germany over the Berlin Wall because they can't gain permission to travel west. The lack of fruit such as bananas in the East.... many things that we take for granted as being available, really not!
As for your comment on peaceful trade deals... democracy etc. the UK is not at war within Europe but look at the chaos of exiting the European Union, and we could look more deeply (but its off topic) into trade/ other deals made that have not necessarily been in the UK's best interests (in some peoples opinions). Society moves on, wants change, new generations have different ideas and generally we as people baulk at control and suppression.
As another poster had written, each country has self interests, unfortunately it's when someone runs away with an idea that used to be really good, but then goes to the extreme and isn't willing to work together with the other countries that it tends to go a bit pear shaped. It is a careful balance I'm sure!
"We would mostly all be like Switzerland". Switzerland is an individual country. They govern themselves, that is a very different state to what you re suggesting, as Hitler would want control (I should imagine?!). I cannot imagine for a moment that the UK (never mind many other countries) would tolerate being dictated to by Hitler forever. It would beg the question as to whether Hitler would 'take over' Switzerland and there would be no such model to follow had he taken over completely, or shared with the USSR.
Lastly, I don't think we can even consider forgetting that Hitler was, at the minimum, killing and had killed millions of Jews; would he have continued this if he had 'won' until there was no-one left who he didn't 'dislike'? People can be unpredictable and rise up against the 'powers that be' and this could have taken place. If we consider how many countries have (and sadly remain) in civil war, or have had a revolution.... To me, it feels similar as to why the USA reacted to Japans attack on Pearl Harbour; what is the hidden message you're sending out to your own country, and the world about many things: how strong and powerful you are, whether you're an easy target to be 'taken over', whether you care about your people, how you as a nation will be to deal with, with regards to trade etc.. If the message you're sending out is that you don't care about your people... who's going to join your armies (although, I suppose in your scenario, we wouldn't need armies?).
In what I have seen travelling across the USA, and the image that is portrayed here from the UK, is that the USA are a proud nation and they support and back their military down to the last wo/man. It most certainly would not have that image (rightly or wrongly, it is an individuals prerogative to decide) had there not been a reaction by the USA.
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.
Optimism
