|
Post by zos on Feb 18, 2018 15:40:27 GMT
But what would the tonnage be if you only used data AFTER December 11, 1941? Not much different. Tons: Year
| UK | US | 1939 | 31 | - | 1940 | 13,033 | - | 1941 | 31,504 | - | 1942 | 45,561 | 1,561 | 1943 | 157,457 | 44,165 | 1944
| 525,518
| 389,119
| 1945 | 191,540 | 188,573 | Total | 964,644 | 623,418 | Total 1942 - 45 | 920,076 | 623,418 |
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_III think we can see what happened after December 1941. The US was beaten in every year by l'il old us. I'm not a fan of fighting, I'd rather get my mate to do it for me. I do lend him my boxing gloves though (at a price).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 16:08:17 GMT
Not much different. Tons: Year
| UK | US | 1939 | 31 | - | 1940 | 13,033 | - | 1941 | 31,504 | - | 1942 | 45,561 | 1,561 | 1943 | 157,457 | 44,165 | 1944
| 525,518
| 389,119
| 1945 | 191,540 | 188,573 | Total | 964,644 | 623,418 | Total 1942 - 45 | 920,076 | 623,418 |
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_III think we can see what happened after December 1941. The US was beaten in every year by l'il old us. I'm not a fan of fighting, I'd rather get my mate to do it for me. I do lend him my boxing gloves though (at a price). 2 things wrong with that statement 1. Britain was in the war an addition 2 years LONGER than the US. 2. after the Tizard Mission the deal was British give the US every single piece of innovation, We give them MILLIONS of tons of resources access to ,manufacturing plants 3. By 1943 about a quarter of all UK munitions came through Lend-Lease. A quarter of the shipments to Britain were aircraft, followed by land vehicles, ships and, importantly, food. Apart from Canada, the British Empire wasn’t geared for war production. US lost alot of people on those sunken convoys trying to deliver supplies. I will say this- and if this offends people so be it if Britain had to fight alone ( neither Russia nor US support), they would have almost certainly lost the war. They werent strong enough to fight the German Blitzkrieg. Their tanks were inferior to the Germans. German had little resources alone- but so did Britain. And resources are needed to fight a war and win it. If The US had to fight alone- they COULD have won the war- it would have taken much much longer and cost millions more lives( without britain, US would have had to rely on bases in africa or Carriers to launch bomber missions- which would have severely limited if Russia would have had to fight alone They also could have won the war. Again it would have taken much much longer. And keep in mind Germany would have been able to devote 100% of its resources to the Eastern Front. Had Stalingrand been lost to the Germans it would have been the end for Russia. As I said... a GROUP effort for all involved. Every Allied country in WW2 made its contribution. UK winning the Battle of Britain shorted the war by years.
|
|
|
Post by zos on Feb 18, 2018 16:27:05 GMT
I'm not a fan of fighting, I'd rather get my mate to do it for me. I do lend him my boxing gloves though (at a price). 2 things wrong with that statement 1. Britain was in the year an addition 2 years LONGER than the US. 2. after the Tizard Mission the deal was British give the US every single piece of innovation, We give them MILLIONS of tons of resources access to ,manufacturing plants 3. By 1943 about a quarter of all UK munitions came through Lend-Lease. A quarter of the shipments to Britain were aircraft, followed by land vehicles, ships and, importantly, food. Apart from Canada, the British Empire wasn’t geared for war production. US lost alot of people on those sunken convoys trying to deliver supplies. I will say this- and if this offends people so be it if Britain had to fight alone ( neither Russia nor US support), they would have almost certainly lost the war. They werent strong enough to fight the German Blitzkrieg. Their tanks were inferior to the Germans. German had little resources alone- but so did Britain. And resources are needed to fight a war and win it. If The US had to fight alone- they COULD have won the war- it would have taken much much longer and cost millions more lives( without britain, US would have had to rely on bases in africa or Carriers to launch bomber missions- which would have severely limited if Russia would have had to fight alone They also could have won the war. Again it would have taken much much longer. And keep in mind Germany would have been able to devote 100% of its resources to the Eastern Front. Had Stalingrand been lost to the Germans it would have been the end for Russia. As I said... a GROUP effort for all involved. Every Allied country in WW2 made its contribution. UK winning the Battle of Britain shorted the war by years. You conveniently miss the point that America had absolutely no appetite for a fight and had a strong pro-German lobby at the time (ironically replaced by the Jewish one after the war). The US would have stayed neutral if they hadn't been attacked and by the time a successful Reich had gotten around to them they would have been beaten quite easily with the resources they would have been able to command around 1950ish and onwards. It really does need to be remembered how much anti-semetism there was in the US before the war, the US would never had been involved merely to stop the Holocaust.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 16:34:35 GMT
2 things wrong with that statement 1. Britain was in the year an addition 2 years LONGER than the US. 2. after the Tizard Mission the deal was British give the US every single piece of innovation, We give them MILLIONS of tons of resources access to ,manufacturing plants 3. By 1943 about a quarter of all UK munitions came through Lend-Lease. A quarter of the shipments to Britain were aircraft, followed by land vehicles, ships and, importantly, food. Apart from Canada, the British Empire wasn’t geared for war production. US lost alot of people on those sunken convoys trying to deliver supplies. I will say this- and if this offends people so be it if Britain had to fight alone ( neither Russia nor US support), they would have almost certainly lost the war. They werent strong enough to fight the German Blitzkrieg. Their tanks were inferior to the Germans. German had little resources alone- but so did Britain. And resources are needed to fight a war and win it. If The US had to fight alone- they COULD have won the war- it would have taken much much longer and cost millions more lives( without britain, US would have had to rely on bases in africa or Carriers to launch bomber missions- which would have severely limited if Russia would have had to fight alone They also could have won the war. Again it would have taken much much longer. And keep in mind Germany would have been able to devote 100% of its resources to the Eastern Front. Had Stalingrand been lost to the Germans it would have been the end for Russia. As I said... a GROUP effort for all involved. Every Allied country in WW2 made its contribution. UK winning the Battle of Britain shorted the war by years. You conveniently miss the point that America had absolutely no appetite for a fight and had a strong pro-German lobby at the time (ironically replaced by the Jewish one after the war). The US would have stayed neutral if they hadn't been attacked and by the time a successful Reich had gotten around to them they would have been beaten quite easily with the resources they would have been able to command around 1950ish and onwards. It really does need to be remembered how much anti-semetism there was in the US before the war, the US would never had been involved merely to stop the Holocaust. Many of the immigrants that came to the US was to avoid the near-constant state of war. This is a big reason for us not being there in 1914 and 1938.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 16:39:44 GMT
2 things wrong with that statement 1. Britain was in the year an addition 2 years LONGER than the US. 2. after the Tizard Mission the deal was British give the US every single piece of innovation, We give them MILLIONS of tons of resources access to ,manufacturing plants 3. By 1943 about a quarter of all UK munitions came through Lend-Lease. A quarter of the shipments to Britain were aircraft, followed by land vehicles, ships and, importantly, food. Apart from Canada, the British Empire wasn’t geared for war production. US lost alot of people on those sunken convoys trying to deliver supplies. I will say this- and if this offends people so be it if Britain had to fight alone ( neither Russia nor US support), they would have almost certainly lost the war. They werent strong enough to fight the German Blitzkrieg. Their tanks were inferior to the Germans. German had little resources alone- but so did Britain. And resources are needed to fight a war and win it. If The US had to fight alone- they COULD have won the war- it would have taken much much longer and cost millions more lives( without britain, US would have had to rely on bases in africa or Carriers to launch bomber missions- which would have severely limited if Russia would have had to fight alone They also could have won the war. Again it would have taken much much longer. And keep in mind Germany would have been able to devote 100% of its resources to the Eastern Front. Had Stalingrand been lost to the Germans it would have been the end for Russia. As I said... a GROUP effort for all involved. Every Allied country in WW2 made its contribution. UK winning the Battle of Britain shorted the war by years. You conveniently miss the point that America had absolutely no appetite for a fight and had a strong pro-German lobby at the time (ironically replaced by the Jewish one after the war). The US would have stayed neutral if they hadn't been attacked and by the time a successful Reich had gotten around to them they would have been beaten quite easily with the resources they would have been able to command around 1950ish and onwards. It really does need to be remembered how much anti-semetism there was in the US before the war, the US would never had been involved merely to stop the Holocaust. You are partly right but I dont think you are being fair here WW1 was a shock to the world... Never in human history did we see such brutality. The trench warfare was bloody and ruthless. Ottoman Empire Maxim machine guns mowed down British troops at Gallipoli. before this war people were fighting with freaking bolt action rifles! The Germans and French both launched chemical attacks at each other. You cant blame the US for wanting to stay out of it Its a fact that the UK ll broke the Japanese codes and knew that the US was going to be attacked in Pearl Harbor a long time before this Churchill did either 1 of 2 things. 1. He warned FDR and asked to allow the attack to happen 2. He didnt warn FDR and allowed the attack to happen either way the end result is the same- the US, the day before Pearl Harbor was mostly against getting directly involved in WW2 The day after the US population was overwhelmingly pro war against Japan. ( am not kidding- many people killed themselves when they found out they were 4F- they were too embarrassed to live with the stain while others fought) its debatable that FDR was also warned about this and decided to keep quiet- putting all his carriers out to sea( in relative safety) and allowed the attack to move forward,knowing that the US. That part is speculation- but it a little bit too much of a coincidence- and i dont believe in that sort of thing. IN my gut i believe FDR used the men at Pearl Harbor as a necessary sacrifice to save civilization from Nazi and Japanese tyrrany If we didnt get attacked the US might have not gotten involved- this is true- but we did- and the end result is also the same US ended up being a superpower precisely because it was clear that the US involvment in the war was nearly 100% essential to victory. Churchill knew about the attack from the codes and figured that if the US gets attacked they would join the war on their side.. something that the UK desperately needed to survive. If the US were warned , the attack could have been prevented or less of a shock -Support may shift to stay out of the war due to the German diplomats trying to prevent the FDR from flipping out... like you said but most likely the US might still try to stay out of it- insisting on an official apology. Like i said, nobody wanted to goto war in the US after WW1. FDR was called a warmonger before like you said. Churchill did it to save his own ass. This is fact that most British refuse to believe. I personally am glad he did if thats what it took for the US to get into the war. I dont blame him one bit. It needed to be done. You cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs the English are masters of deception( Operation Mincemeat for example) I consider what he did was a little white lie- and a necessary one.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 18, 2018 16:47:20 GMT
if Britain had to fight alone ( neither Russia nor US support), they would have almost certainly lost the war. This is wrong. Britain repelled Germany and was no longer under threat after 1940 (before you lot joined). It was the most significant event in WW2. Britain would not have lost. You can question whether we would have been able to win, but we would not have lost. Battle of Britain, changed the whole course of the war and sealed Germany's fate. If The US had to fight alone- they COULD have won the war- it would have taken much much longer and cost millions more lives( without britain, US would have had to rely on bases in africa or Carriers to launch bomber missions- which would have severely limited Not a hope in hell - all of your overseas efforts have been failures. The only country that has consistently successfully projected its military overseas is Britain. if Russia would have had to fight alone They also could have won the war. After Britain's effort, they prettymuch did. Britain + Russia could have won it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 16:56:51 GMT
if Britain had to fight alone ( neither Russia nor US support), they would have almost certainly lost the war. This is wrong. Britain repelled Germany (before you lot and was no longer under threatjoined) after 1940. It was the most significant event in WW2. Britain would not have lost. You can question whether we would have been able to win, but we would not have lost. Battle of Britain, changed the whole course of the war and sealed Germany's fate. If The US had to fight alone- they COULD have won the war- it would have taken much much longer and cost millions more lives( without britain, US would have had to rely on bases in africa or Carriers to launch bomber missions- which would have severely limited Not a hope in hell - all of your overseas efforts have been failures. if Russia would have had to fight alone They also could have won the war. They prettymuch did. I disagree. the UK - even with US help came close to calling it quits with all the Uboats sinking supplies to the island. Its a fact. Churchill admitted this. The UK did win the Battle Of Britain but Hitler decided to cancel going back there. h If he had the British would have been overrun by the germans That little stretch of 21 miles of English channel -without any doubt- saved the UK from being invaded. Winning the Battle of Britan was important but just winning it wasnt the turning point- KEEPING the germans from coming back to finish the job WAS thats where the Russians came in 1 year later- Germany decided that foolhardily Operation Barbarosa. Hitler was too busy concentrating on the east and North Africa . Hitler was not a military genius LOL Also Hitler did NOT want the US involved for precisely what i was saying. He tried to talk Japan out of it but they needed the oil from those islands to keep fighting. Britain couldnt have kept fighting without food, manpower and supplies. All were provided by US direct intervention( manpower) and supplies( liberty ships 1940 on) They would have thrown in the towel and sued for peace without the US or Russia in the war...... by 1942 or43 History shows us that the choice to invade the USSR was not necessarily a blunder, as Germany very nearly pushed the USSR over the brink and to the negotiating table in both ‘41 and ‘42. Hitler just sucked as a military strategist. as i said- a group effort of all involved.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 18, 2018 20:29:28 GMT
I disagree. the UK - even with US help came close to calling it quits with all the Uboats sinking supplies to the island. Its a fact. Churchill admitted this You can disagree. But the reality is that the German attack force left the western front after they were repelled in the Battle of Britain and headed for the eastern front. Yes, it was close to calling it quits, but that didn't happen. 'Close to calling it quits' does not mean defeated. It's means close, but not out. Reality: Britain repelled Germany. The most important battle in WW2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 23:25:36 GMT
I disagree. the UK - even with US help came close to calling it quits with all the Uboats sinking supplies to the island. Its a fact. Churchill admitted this You can disagree. But the reality is that the German attack force left the western front after they were repelled in the Battle of Britain and headed for the eastern front. Yes, it was close to calling it quits, but that didn't happen. 'Close to calling it quits' does not mean defeated. It's means close, but not out. Reality: Britain repelled Germany. The most important battle in WW2. You are talking about events that happened WITH US support -and it was a lot of support. What i am talking about is a scenerio where Britain is without any US or Russian support. If you take that support away they wouldnt have had much of a chance- a few british pilots Where did the fuel from the british spitfires and hurricanes came from? Where did the aircraft parts come from? US and Canada. UK even had a bolstered navy from US selling them ships.( not all) andBattle of Britain was very important- but Stalingrad was still the most important battle of WW2- Had Russia lost it, Germany could have been unstoppable.. the US and UK would have had to invade and liberate not only france but , italy, germany ,poland PLUS ALL of russia- including the brutal winters! Thats alot of land to conquer. And meanwhile Germany could have gain access to oil fields in the middle east and russia and they would have had their juggernaut.would have been all over then. Napoleon tried to conquer russia- and the russian winter conquered HIM. the US-( i will admit even as an american-) wouldnt have been used to the Russian winter like the Russians has. British also had no experience fighting in a winter like Russia has. its a real game changer. So thank god Russia won Stalingrad.
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Feb 18, 2018 23:38:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 2:47:22 GMT
This is the best documentary ive seen on WW2
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Feb 19, 2018 3:12:06 GMT
This is the best documentary ive seen on WW2 I never realized that prior to Pearl Harbor 76% of the US population demanded neutrality. Damn, if the Jappers hadn't attacked us we probably wouldn't have ever been involved, Germany would've been slowly steamrolled by the Russians and all Europe from the Urals to the Channel would've been "Warsaw Pact".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 19:35:37 GMT
This is the best documentary ive seen on WW2 I never realized that prior to Pearl Harbor 76% of the US population demanded neutrality. Damn, if the Jappers hadn't attacked us we probably wouldn't have ever been involved, Germany would've been slowly steamrolled by the Russians and all Europe from the Urals to the Channel would've been "Warsaw Pact". Strange isnt it. like i said, WW1 warfare was unlike the world had ever seen. The sheer brutality was a wake up call. Many had post traumatic stress disorder as well as shell shock. probably more than any other war. It was so awful that even HITLER refused to use chemical weapons on the battlefield in WW2!( he was a corporal in WW1 and knew how devastating it was) HITLER! Churchill was a smart mofo to allow the attack to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Feb 20, 2018 1:55:55 GMT
Its a fact that the UK ll broke the Japanese codes and knew that the US was going to be attacked in Pearl Harbor a long time before this Churchill did either 1 of 2 things. 1. He warned FDR and asked to allow the attack to happen 2. He didnt warn FDR and allowed the attack to happen either way the end result is the same- It is also a fact that America knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked - in a sense. That is to say, messages about the attack were intercepted by the US, no UK involvement, but they were just a few messages among thousands, and got drowned out in the general noise. The conspiracy theory that the top men in England and America knew about Pearl and let it happen for their own purposes has been going for a very long time, but it does not stand close scrutiny. I would recommend Gordon W Prange's At Dawn We Slept on this, except it's incredibly long and incredibly boring. But for those who are interested, he does cover this question in some detail.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Feb 20, 2018 2:03:14 GMT
Its a fact that the UK ll broke the Japanese codes and knew that the US was going to be attacked in Pearl Harbor a long time before this Churchill did either 1 of 2 things. 1. He warned FDR and asked to allow the attack to happen 2. He didnt warn FDR and allowed the attack to happen either way the end result is the same- It is also a fact that America knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked - in a sense. That is to say, messages about the attack were intercepted by the US, no UK involvement, but they were just a few messages among thousands, and got drowned out in the general noise. The conspiracy theory that the top men in England and America knew about Pearl and let it happen for their own purposes has been going for a very long time, but it does not stand close scrutiny. I would recommend Gordon W Prange's At Dawn We Slept on this, except it's incredibly long and incredibly boring. But for those who are interested, he does cover this question in some detail. I just don't see how a detail like "Oh yeah, they're gonna attack the Pacific Fleet" could just get drowned out or slip someone's mind. Then you have the carriers, by then the principle warships, being out of the harbor. Quite convenient.
|
|