Nazi Germany, overhyped?

a reply to: crazyewok

Because the Brits lost none, they were just so damned good

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

Because the Brits lost none, they were just so damned good

The Brits chased the German Airfoce away so we where obviously better than the Germans.

Battle of Britain was not German victory remember

a reply to: crazyewok


Jeeps, IIRC.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Forgive my skepticism, but even the U.S. couldn't build 60 carriers. Planned, perhaps, not build.

A source was provided, the British had or were constructing close to 90 total carriers during World War II. You need to think in the context of the times were vessels such as jeep carriers (smaller ships) were commonplace and not all units displaced 40,000 tons. Regardless, this was the case and the United States was also building or had built a large number of units as well.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The Federal Reserve created Nazi Germany.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Funny how an island nation pays attention to a naval force and land locked countries not so much isn't it
Now I want to insert the word genius to be patronising but I won't, because I want to be above that petty stuff, just once in this thread

Overhyped or not, the Nazis were formidable, I think we can all agree?

Go ahead, use the word genius, but apply it to yourself since Germany is of course 'landlocked'.

Must have been another Mandela time slip when I visited Hamburg near the North Sea. Oh, hahaha. You kill me.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I believe that British aircraft carriers would be an asset, of course. Turn the tide? Only if the tide was ready to be turned. If the current Chinese know where the U.S. carriers are, and they do, those carriers are at far more risk than the intended targets inland. JMO, though.

The tide was already turned after the Battle of Britain, Germany could not keep up production of aircraft to match the British.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

Because the Brits lost none, they were just so damned good

The Brits chased the German Airfoce away so we where obviously better than the Germans.

Battle of Britain was not German victory remember

Yeah, the Brits won by crushing an inferior army with no losses at all because the Germans were soft and useless and overhyped, considering they had taken most of Europe and expended much of their munitions and had planes across so many countries
Remember what the Battle of Britain cost Britain, nearly everything

You clearly forget the sacrifice of the British to win that battle, I havnt

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok


Jeeps, IIRC.

Yeah.

Only had one job but did it well.

USA made a few too to escort transport ships in the Pacific.

Of course we had pur large fleet carriers but these escort carriers allowed them to be deployed to more vital dutys like sinking Italians and later Japanese

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Geography is hard.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Geography is hard.

Like history.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

Because the Brits lost none, they were just so damned good

The Brits chased the German Airfoce away so we where obviously better than the Germans.

Battle of Britain was not German victory remember

Quit bragging... Luck play a factor in that victory as well and you know it...

Good OP, by the way. Valuable information.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did I say Germany was land locked genius, did I say they didn't have a navy genius
I said land locked countries, did I say Germany genius?
Can you comprehend English, is it not your first language, let me help, what is your first language

Germany isn't landlocked, but guess what, theynare not an island either, so, they don't need as big a navy like the US or Japan or the UK
Guess what else, just in case you accuse me of saying the US is an island
as well, it's not genius, it's just a long way away, over water genius

That's island, not Ireland, please don't get even more,confused AM

Land locked country like Bolivia small navy
Half land half sea country like Germany medium navy
Island like Japan or Britain , big modern navy

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Forgive my skepticism, but even the U.S. couldn't build 60 carriers. Planned, perhaps, not build.

A source was provided, the British had or were constructing close to 90 total carriers during World War II. You need to think in the context of the times were vessels such as jeep carriers (smaller ships) were commonplace and not all units displaced 40,000 tons. Regardless, this was the case and the United States was also building or had built a large number of units as well.

The jeep units weren't combat units. The U.S. had a horrendous supply line. Out of curiosity, how many carriers did the U.K. have during the war and how old were they? I can only recall The Ark Royal and wasn't she rather out of date?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

Because the Brits lost none, they were just so damned good

The Brits chased the German Airfoce away so we where obviously better than the Germans.

Battle of Britain was not German victory remember

Quit bragging...

Luck play a factor in that victory as well and you know it...

Good OP, by the way. Valuable information.

Is that not the way of evey battle ? Luck?

Hey we all like to brag about a national victory.......like American and saratoga!

Britain we have bragging rights to Agencourt, Trafalgar, Vitoria, burming of DC, waterloo and the battle of britain....o and El Alamein

USA I belive its Saratoga, Yorktown, Guadacanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Battle of the bulge and okinawa.

D-day I think we share join bragging rights.


Yeah lot this information cane pretty new to me through books i am reading.
I decided to read some books from the German side for a change, always good so see the other side.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Quit bragging...

Luck play a factor in that victory as well and you know it...

What I really think made the difference was the Germans bombing civilian targets while the British mostly assaulted military and manufacturing targets. The Germans failed to impact Britain's ability to produce war material and further enraged the populace while Britain crippled Germany's aircraft manufacturing abilities and combined with the number of aircraft lost prevented the Germans from recovering their airforce's capabilities.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I believe that British aircraft carriers would be an asset, of course. Turn the tide? Only if the tide was ready to be turned. If the current Chinese know where the U.S. carriers are, and they do, those carriers are at far more risk than the intended targets inland. JMO, though.

The tide was already turned after the Battle of Britain, Germany could not keep up production of aircraft to match the British.

I doubt that the tide was turned until the arrival of the Rolls-Royce powered P-51Ds and escorted the bombers all the way to Germany. That is what cut German production, not the Battle of Britain, per say.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did I say Germany was land locked genius, did I say they didn't have a navy genius
I said land locked countries, did I say Germany genius?

You didn't have to, that's who we are talking about. Not like this is about the Congo. But nice try, A for effort Mr. Mandela.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I doubt that the tide was turned until the arrival of the Rolls-Royce powered P-51Ds and escorted the bombers all the way to Germany. That is what cut German production, not the Battle of Britain, per say.

German aircraft manufacturing was not able to replace the lost units from the Battle of Britain.

a reply to: Raggedyman

It's so hard to be patronizing when you type like a second grader, and sound like a second grader to boot.