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.
Again...The Empire in total could raise a massive amount of troops. Men wasn't the real limiter. It was supplying and training them quickly when rapidly expanding an army.
You were saying that without US boots on the ground WW2 could not have been won. That is poppycock. British forces were mean and lean to US forces. They carried fewer men for the same firepower.
The US versions of the Sherman could not knock out a Tiger from any angle. It wasn't designed to. Although the Brits made it do it. The fully tracked tank destroyers were artillery pieces on tracks. No more.
I never wrote that.
I do not think you read that excerpt which indicate the serious manpower issues within the BC regarding suitable fodder for ground forces. Indian Army were volunteers and formed 25 divisions. The vast majority who volunteered were not combat forces. In view of political and specific social issues it is a stretch to believe conscription would be welcome.
British infantry divisions used different TOO than the US triangular. U.S.doctrine would have independent units attached for a mission to increase firepower as needed-tank battalions, 4.2"mortar units. A battalion, actually a company commander, could call on artillery through corps level as needed. Tremendous flexibility in U.S. doctrine.
I never wrote anything about U.S. ground forces being needed to win WW2. I do not do alternative history. I deal with what actually happened.
Tiger was not ubiquitous and they were disabled by Stuart 37mm fire which is much less AP penetration than the short 75mm equipped Sherman which also came with the long 76mm, 3",etc... The fully tracked TDs also had a 90mm equipped version.
You indicated British and German armor usage were similar in NA and I pointed out the contrary.
Chamberlain did allow Hitler to move into other neighboring nations, which Hitler was surprised he did. Chamberlain was ready for war at the time but Hitler's war machine was far from being ready to mount a large scale war with any of the European powers.
The UK had always imported food from the USA. Much of US industry and farms were British owned. When war broke out this normal trade became the US supplying the UK. The USA was preparing for WW2 upping its industry to suit. In May 1940 Roosevelt announced the US was to build 50,000 planes per year which put Hitler into a panic - the most they built was 86,000 in one year and the UK 25,000. The US was to enter the war but when was the question. In anticipation of this massive air fleet coming his way Hitler attacked the USSR for its resources - economics was the reason for the attack.
You make the good point that Churchill prepared the US for what was to come.
The vast majority who volunteered were not combat forces.
They could be very quickly. Support and reserve are part of armies. Look at the size of the US military in 1945 and how many were combat. Conscription was not necessary in India as they joined in their millions.
The Tiger was not ubiquitous and overrated indeed. Only the 17pdr, better than the 88mm, could knock one out from any angle and later 6pdrs using discarding sabot ammunition. British and German armor usage did become similar after many trial and errors. The US doctrine of not having tank to tank engagements and bringing up tank destroyers from the rear was seriously flawed. It resulted in the US not having heavy well armoured tanks.
Both the U.S. Army and the British Army had far more servicemen than were in combat. This is elementary.I think you overrated the suitability of then contemporary non-martial caste Indians, emotionally or physically, for modern warfare as practiced by the British Army. Particularly if pitted against Germans.
But we are entering the realm of alternative history which I detest so here it ends unless you wish it to continue.
U.S. doctrine was actually correct in that there were no massed tank vs. tank battles in the ETO/MTO. It was a creeping form of warfare from cover to cover with infantry support. Germans typically on the defensive and used their afv as mobile anti-tank/fire support weapons. British wasted resources developing cruiser vs. infantry tanks. What was applicable in NA was immaterial in MTO/ETO. British author David() Fletcher wrote a number of fine books on British armor development and their failures and successes during the war.
You may also wish to read Colossal Cracks about the limitations of the British Army in the ETO.
Seriously, you need to read more on these subjects before starting another Little Englander thread or post.
Of the Big Three, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill was Churchill a real partner or just the chubby kid that the bigger boys let hang out with them. After all, outside of defeating the Germans Churchill's wartime objectives, thwarting the invasion of France, keeping Poland out the Soviet sphere and more importantly the preservation of the British Empire were pretty much ignored by Roosevelt and Stalin. In short would it have matter who was Britain's prime minister during the war, the outcome would have been the same.
(I may have to take JohnUK off my ignore list just for the amusement of it all)
How could you ask? Sir Winston kept the Britons' spirits up and fighting when Roosevelt and others were telling them to throw in the towel, that they were defeated anyway. He saved the British from going down the tube when all they had to fight with was spirit. And, if you are in America, just imagine that the strafing London took during the Blitz may have kept the Germans to busy to turn their attention onto New York City or Washington or Toronto.
Sir Winston Churchill was of equal value to Roosevelt and Stalin, both of whom had ulterior motives behind their efforts to discourage Churchill. He taught us the meaning of perseverance. He had his problems. Who hasn't? Especially in war time. But he pulled Britain through. To paraphrase the old quote: Without him, you might be speaking German today. We Americans did not do it alone! We just think we did!
How many know that Roosevelt tried over and over to get Churchill to turn over the British fleet to America to protect our shores because - FDR said - Britain was already defeated and might as well give up.
If you were fighting your most treacherous battle and your alleged "friend" said such to you, what would you do? Bless Sir Winston's heart, he just fought on, no doubt thinking he and Britain were alone in that war, and he kept his citizenry fighting on. France had given up. Our president was discouraging and UK kept going.
How I wish I could remember the name of that book. Was it "Five Days in London"? I'll search for it. It was quite an eye-opener about our role in WW II. Yes, we contributed a lot but don't belittle Sir Winston and the British who stood with him. He was not a little hanger-on.
How many know that Roosevelt tried over and over to get Churchill to turn over the British fleet to America to protect our shores because - FDR said - Britain was already defeated and might as well give up.
If you were fighting your most treacherous battle and your alleged "friend" said such to you, what would you do? Bless Sir Winston's heart, he just fought on, no doubt thinking he and Britain were alone in that war, and he kept his citizenry fighting on. France had given up. Our president was discouraging and UK kept going.
How I wish I could remember the name of that book. Was it "Five Days in London"? I'll search for it. It was quite an eye-opener about our role in WW II. Yes, we contributed a lot but don't belittle Sir Winston and the British who stood with him. He was not a little hanger-on.
FDR was the greatest friend Winston Churchill could have had. He took a nation that was strongly isolationist because of our experience in World War I and slowly converted that nation to the Allied cause.
If you have a source that FDR tried to get the British to turn over his fleet to the Americans than please cite it. I've never heard this before. Its possible that some suggestion was made that IF Britain were to be defeated that they should do this with their fleet before surrendering. In fact, Churchill himself alluded to the idea that if somehow Britain were beaten by the Nazis that he would carry on the war from Canada.
For those who think Britain could have beaten the Nazis all alone, you might reflect upon the letter Churchill sent FDR just prior to FDR pushing the "Lend Lease" program through Congress. In that letter, Churchill tells FDR that Britain is out of money to pay for armaments and that America needs to come up with a way to get Britain arms without the necessity of payment. Lend Lease was FDR's response and under that program billions of dollars of arms were eventually sent to both Britain and the USSR.
[Read the section of this article that says Britain's Plight]
Seriously, I find all this going "back and forth" about who won the war or who contributed more than other countries to be counter-productive. World War II was a tremendous undertaking. Over 20 million Americans served in the armed forces before the war ended. The contribution of all countries: America; Britain; and the USSR was necessary for the Allies to be victorious. Its wrong for those from any of these nations to minimize what the other nations did.
Last edited by markg91359; 05-11-2014 at 10:21 AM..
FDR was the greatest friend Winston Churchill could have had. He took a nation that was strongly isolationist because of our experience in World War I and slowly converted that nation to the Allied cause.
If you have a source that FDR tried to get the British to turn over his fleet to the Americans than please cite it. I've never heard this before. Its possible that some suggestion was made that IF Britain were to be defeated that they should do this with their fleet before surrendering. In fact, Churchill himself alluded to the idea that if somehow Britain were beaten by the Nazis that he would carry on the war from Canada.
For those who think Britain could have beaten the Nazis all alone, you might reflect upon the letter Churchill sent FDR just prior to FDR pushing the "Lend Lease" program through Congress. In that letter, Churchill tells FDR that Britain is out of money to pay for armaments and that America needs to come up with a way to get Britain arms without the necessity of payment. Lend Lease was FDR's response and under that program billions of dollars of arms were eventually sent to both Britain and the USSR.
[Read the section of this article that says Britain's Plight]
Seriously, I find all this going "back and forth" about who won the war or who contributed more than other countries to be counter-productive. World War II was a tremendous undertaking. Over 20 million Americans served in the armed forces before the war ended. The contribution of all countries: America; Britain; and the USSR was necessary for the Allies to be victorious. Its wrong for those from any of these nations to minimize what the other nations did.
Citing is necessary. I agree with you. I've sent a letter to a friend to whom I'd given a copy of that book. When she gets back with me, I'll do my best. And, yes, the idea was to keep the British navy from falling into German hands. But the comment was made that FDR suggested using that navy to protect our shores. This was a book in which some of FDRs private papers were being released. I'll do my best to find it.
You are also right that FDR worked to convert an isolationist attitude to one that saw the bigger problem.
I am not trying to put FDR down. He worked in his way to help when we, the people, would rather he kept out of it. I am simply trying to defend Sir Winston from the OPs description of him. Well, not the OP's own description but the comparison that is proposed which isn't pretty. Churchill kept his country going when many thought it could not possibly go on. He was a great man of no less prestige than FDR or Stalin. He had his flaws. Don't we all? FDR had his flaws. Stalin, his. But they worked together when the chips were down and Churchill held up his own end of it.
"Never Stop. Never Weary. And Never Give Up." (Sir Winston Churchill, London, 1940).
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.
