European Union, a military superpower?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes and british forces made no effort to defend these nor the actual colonies themselves fighting...I think not.


I didn't say otherwise. I was merely pointing out that the US alone by far shouldered the burden in the Pacific. After 1941 the Royal Navy ceased to play any role in the Pacific until 1945 throughout that time the British were a nonentity.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Frankly we werent the ONLY ones who got something out of this , comrade, you also got a nice little bit too. You managed to create a several bases in europe in key places thereby increasing your strategic range and you also got a lot of support from your allies, this was not a one way system you know.


Again I didn't say we did not benefit just pointing out that you as in Europe benefited just as much if not more from our presence in post war europe. I personally would say you benefited a great deal more than we did.


Originally posted by devilwasp
And we dont now, if US and UK high command had made the plan to GTFOOT or getie # then we wouldnt be in this mess.


Yeah I completely agree with you on that
Rumsfelf should be shot for his "handling"(I use that term loosely)of the war.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Funny how all this logical thinking comes AFTER the event.


Yeah its called 20/20 hindsight and everybody gets eventually. But that being said the public never gets the full picture until afterwards anyway.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Lol care to rephrase that?
You didnt exactly "save us" you became a FACTOR in our not being overrun by the soviets. Care to tell me how america on its own "saved" europe from total destruction , without ofcourse listing any help you may have had from your allies since then you wouldnt have done it on your own.


My point is you enlisted us. Britain alone couldn't save Europe from either Hitler or Stalin thats my point. Only the with the US could the Normandy landings been achieved(and yes I am aware that of the 5 landing beaches only 2 were American). Even before that it was necassary for US intervention in North Africa to secure that theatre. Enabling the invasions of Sicily and Italy. Could you have liberated North Africa then launch and sustained the Sicilian and Italian campaigns then carried out Normandy on your own? I highly doubt it.




posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
I didn't say otherwise.

You sure as hell implied it.


I was merely pointing out that the US alone by far shouldered the burden in the Pacific. After 1941 the Royal Navy ceased to play any role in the Pacific until 1945 throughout that time the British were a nonentity.

I seriosly doubt after 1941 we stopped playing any role in the pacific since LOTS of our colonies are in that area.



Again I didn't say we did not benefit just pointing out that you as in Europe benefited just as much if not more from our presence in post war europe. I personally would say you benefited a great deal more than we did.

Well thats your opinion but frankly we "gained" something more, a damm stupid parliment that has crippled our country.





My point is you enlisted us. Britain alone couldn't save Europe from either Hitler or Stalin thats my point. Only the with the US could the Normandy landings been achieved(and yes I am aware that of the 5 landing beaches only 2 were American). Even before that it was necassary for US intervention in North Africa to secure that theatre. Enabling the invasions of Sicily and Italy. Could you have liberated North Africa then launch and sustained the Sicilian and Italian campaigns then carried out Normandy on your own? I highly doubt it.

No we would never have had the resources to do so hell our aim probably wouldnt have been to do so, we probably would have tried to cut off thier resources slowly but surely. As I have said it wasnt JUST britain or JUST america , it was a team effort.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I seriosly doubt after 1941 we stopped playing any role in the pacific since LOTS of our colonies are in that area.


Okay what role did the Royal Navy play in the Battle of Coral Sea or the Battle of Midway? We actually asked the Royal Navy to send one aircraft carrier to the Pacific for the defense of Midway but were politely told they couldn't spair one.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Well thats your opinion but frankly we "gained" something more, a damm stupid parliment that has crippled our country.


Yes and that all it is. It may be shared by others but even then its just their opinion then as well. As far as the Parliament goes would you rather have had the Kremlin running Britain?


Originally posted by devilwasp
No we would never have had the resources to do so hell our aim probably wouldnt have been to do so, we probably would have tried to cut off thier resources slowly but surely. As I have said it wasnt JUST britain or JUST america , it was a team effort.


Your right it was a team effort but imo every team has a hero and I feel perfectly comfortable saying that in WWII it was the US. If you don't agree thats fine and I respect that.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Okay what role did the Royal Navy play in the Battle of Coral Sea or the Battle of Midway?

Neither, these where the only two naval engagements of the entire world war in the pacific? I doubt it.


We actually asked the Royal Navy to send one aircraft carrier to the Pacific for the defense of Midway but were politely told they couldn't spair one.

We are one little island , how many carriers do you think we had?



As far as the Parliament goes would you rather have had the Kremlin running Britain?

If we actually got to keep our country intact I dont think we wouldnt have minded that much, after all most of the world would be living under the nice red flag if it came to that.



Your right it was a team effort but imo every team has a hero and I feel perfectly comfortable saying that in WWII it was the US.

Lol you sure you dont work for steven spielburg?
Come on "hero"? If anything you where the "support" element , russia was clearly the "hero" afterall they were invaded and then invaded germany.



If you don't agree thats fine and I respect that.

Lol I certainly do not.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
ya america did great and all in world war 2 but the russians where the *Heroes* of the war
anyways this thread is not about wwII lol



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlayeR87
ya america did great and all in world war 2 but the russians where the *Heroes* of the war
anyways this thread is not about wwII lol


Heroes?
Then what is America then? Suppliers? Merchants of death? Freeriders?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Neither, these where the only two naval engagements of the entire world war in the pacific? I doubt it.


Okay how about the Battle of the Santa Cruz islands, or the Battle of the Philippine Sea? I've got a number of books giving theb order of battle for these engagements and can't find any Royal Navy ships. Could you name the engagements that the Royal Navy did take part in the Pacific War?


Originally posted by devilwasp
We are one little island , how many carriers do you think we had?


By my count at the outbreak of war in 1939 the Royal Navy possessed 11 fleet sized aircraft carriers(by the Royal Navy designation)compared to the US Navy's 5(all fleet carriers)and Japan's 7(4 heavy, 3 light). By the time war broke out in the Pacific in 1941 three had been sunk but an additional carrier had been added in 1940. While the US had 7 fleet carriers plus one escort carrier compared to Japan's 6 fleet carriers and 5 light carriers.


Originally posted by devilwasp
If we actually got to keep our country intact I dont think we wouldnt have minded that much, after all most of the world would be living under the nice red flag if it came to that.


Oh well if your going on about the current trend in Britain towards devolution I'd say that has little to do with the cold war or even the world wars. And more to do with outmoded nationalistic feelings.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Lol you sure you dont work for steven spielburg?
Come on "hero"? If anything you where the "support" element , russia was clearly the "hero" afterall they were invaded and then invaded germany.


Well thats very debatable conssidering if it weren't for US aid Russia would have been lucky to survive nonetheless win the war.


For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[1][2] US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminium and canned rations were also critical.


Without this equipment the Russians may have been able to hold back the Germans but if your going to take the war to the enemy you've got to advance and to be able to advance you have to keep your troops supplied.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Okay how about the Battle of the Santa Cruz islands, or the Battle of the Philippine Sea? I've got a number of books giving theb order of battle for these engagements and can't find any Royal Navy ships. Could you name the engagements that the Royal Navy did take part in the Pacific War?

Probably if I looked but frankly I find it rather difficult to beleive that the RN had NO presance in the pacific after 1941 I mean come on thats a big claim.



By my count at the outbreak of war in 1939 the Royal Navy possessed 11 fleet sized aircraft carriers(by the Royal Navy designation)compared to the US Navy's 5(all fleet carriers)and Japan's 7(4 heavy, 3 light). By the time war broke out in the Pacific in 1941 three had been sunk but an additional carrier had been added in 1940. While the US had 7 fleet carriers plus one escort carrier compared to Japan's 6 fleet carriers and 5 light carriers.

Wow 11 carriers, wish we had more than 2.
Well then I guess they where either being used or unable to be used.



Oh well if your going on about the current trend in Britain towards devolution I'd say that has little to do with the cold war or even the world wars. And more to do with outmoded nationalistic feelings.

"Outmoded"? care to explain that?
I'm talking about more than just devolution.



Well thats very debatable conssidering if it weren't for US aid Russia would have been lucky to survive nonetheless win the war.
I never said anything against US involvement, I'm saying that without BOTH parties it would have been much bloodier and much more difficult (if not impossible) to break into europe.




Without this equipment the Russians may have been able to hold back the Germans but if your going to take the war to the enemy you've got to advance and to be able to advance you have to keep your troops supplied.

See above comment.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
the EU have many kinds of weapon, but a quantility of each

but never the less, they are still strong



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Dan and DW, it would help the discussion if you both read up on WW2.

What you both seem to be neglecting is that the Pacific and Far East were two completely different theatre's, yet you both argue that they were the same.

The US concentrated on the Pacific islands, whislt the UK concentrated on India/Burma/SE Asia. We were actively campaigning in that area for the whole war fighting the Japanese.

Dan, you are quite correct we didn't fight much in the Pacific, yet we had nothing to defend there.

DW, you are right we had colonies, but they were mainly from India through to Singapore. A significant difference between the two theatres.

Here is an interesting snippet about UK Pacific roles, mind you:


Okinawa and Japan

In their final actions of the war, substantial British naval forces took part in Operation Iceberg, the invasion of Okinawa, and the final naval strikes on Japan. The British Pacific Fleet operated as a separate unit from the American task forces in the Okinawa operation. Its job was to strike airfields on the chain of islands between Formosa and Okinawa, to prevent the Japanese reinforcing the defences of Okinawa from that direction. British forces made a significant contribution to the success of the invasion.

During the final strikes against Japan, British forces operated as an integral part of the American task force.

Only a small British naval force was present for Japan's surrender. Most British forces had been withdrawing to base to prepare for Operation Olympic, the first part of the massive invasion of Japan.

Source



I am not going to go into a 4000 word tirade about WW2 in the Far East or the Pacific, just going to request you actually do some research first.

Also, Dan, your comments that the Royal Navy was defunct, or even worse, been taking losses from U-boats is ill-informed.

We requested the Destroyers not as replacements, but as cover for our own, advanced ships so they could be released from convoy duty. We had the largest fleet on the planet with the most advanced warships of the time. We just needed the ships.....guess where.... the Far East and North Africa, not babysitting convoys waiting for U-boats.

U-boats had an almost insignificant impact on the operations of the Grand Fleet and the Royal Navy, when out and about, could operate with releative impunity, only fearing air attack from land based planes.

The merchant marine, on the other hand, did take in alot of those Liberty Ships you mass produced...


As for the comment about the Army being ill-equipped and being mainly provided with American Equipment. This may have been true only in Overlord, when he had a huge amount of the god-awful Shermans. We actually had huge numbers of our own indiginously produced tanks such as the Crusader, for example, which were much more apt at facing off against the superior German tanks than the paper-armoured, pea-shooter equipped Shermans. We fought much of the North Africa campaign without US support at all.

Anyhoo, suggest you both take time to read about what actually happened before entering a slanging match were you both half-right, half-wrong.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Unfortunately Stu Mason, most Americans have an almost inbred and entirely lopsidedly incorrect view of what their country did during World War Two.

I blame Hollywood. The American film industry seems to have forgotten that the USA did not enter the war until Pearl Harbour and only got involved in the European Theatre after Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the United States, and even then, they were only bit part players until Overlord.

This was a major blunder for the Axis and involved a country who they could never hope to defeat, either militarily or on an industrial level.

Whilst Hollywood produced some great war films, culminating with The Longest Day, Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbour to name three great films, Hollywood has got loads of facts wrong.

We Brits nicked the Enigma Machine and it was we Brits who decoded it's secrets at Bletchley Park; It was we Brits who took on the mighty Luftwaffe in 1940 and gave it a damned good spanking;

We also hunted down and sank the Bismark, we wasted the Tirpitz with miniature submarines (another brit invention) 617 Squadron bombed all the dams in the Ruhr whilst 615/619 [?] Squadron beat hell out of the German heavy water plant in Norway - the story being told in the film, 633 Squadron.

The mighty Desert Rats took on Rommel and sent him back to Berlin in disgrace with his tail between his legs; the Special Air Service roamed Egypt and Lybia at will, blowing everything up in it's path, then transferred it's activities to France before the invasion, tying down hundreds of thousands of Axis troops in the process.

So what have the Americans ever done for us?



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
There is equal ignorance of the facts from both sides of the fence. I would prefer people argue with each other with the correct facts, rather than confusing the issue.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
There is equal ignorance of the facts from both sides of the fence. I would prefer people argue with each other with the correct facts, rather than confusing the issue.

I have a rather ok knowledge of world war two but it centres on the european field rather than far east. Plus I have dont have the time to research the entire war in detail, I do have college work to complete.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Dont take it personally, DW. You baffle me sometimes with stuff you chat about. It just so happens that I am (and have been since the age of 8) a WW2 buff.

Hope you or Dan don't take it the wrong way, I'd rather you tore each other's eyes out using facts, than arguing over misconceptions.




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Unfortunately Stu Mason, most Americans have an almost inbred and entirely lopsidedly incorrect view of what their country did during World War Two.


I guess that depends on where you live. I never said Britain didn't have victories on its own or contribute to the war I merely gave what most Americans believe to be an accurate picture of what they brought to the war. And that was the opportunity for total victory. I never said that the US would win alone without Britain or Russia(though technically I believe it might have been possible after 1945).


Originally posted by fritz
I blame Hollywood. The American film industry seems to have forgotten that the USA did not enter the war until Pearl Harbour and only got involved in the European Theatre after Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the United States, and even then, they were only bit part players until Overlord.


Hardly accurate. US involvement was crucial to victory in North Africa.

Operation Torch

Without the Anglo-American landings in Morocco and Algeria(which the British couldn't have done alone)Rommel could've halted his advance at Tobruk or at Benghazi or Tripoli in Libya.


Originally posted by fritz
This was a major blunder for the Axis and involved a country who they could never hope to defeat, either militarily or on an industrial level.


Quite correct as the German High Command said at the time bringing the US into the war made it possible for the allies to open a second front therefore forcing keeping the Germans from continuing to concentrate on Russia alone.

Whilst Hollywood produced some great war films, culminating with The Longest Day, Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbour to name three great films, Hollywood has got loads of facts wrong.


Originally posted by fritz
We Brits nicked the Enigma Machine and it was we Brits who decoded it's secrets at Bletchley Park; It was we Brits who took on the mighty Luftwaffe in 1940 and gave it a damned good spanking;


Yeah thats true I never said Britain didn't have victories on its own or contribute to the war I merely gave what most Americans believe to be an accurate picture of what they brought to the war. And that was the opportunity for total victory. I never said that the US would win alone without Britain or Russia(though technically it might have been possible)


Originally posted by fritz
We also hunted down and sank the Bismark, we wasted the Tirpitz with miniature submarines (another brit invention) 617 Squadron bombed all the dams in the Ruhr whilst 615/619 [?] Squadron beat hell out of the German heavy water plant in Norway - the story being told in the film, 633 Squadron.


Ah no, the Tirpitz was sunk by the RAF bombers using massive tallboy bombs.


In October, as Tirpitz was no longer considered to be a major warship, she was moved further south to Tromsø, to act as a floating gun battery against the expected Allied invasion of Norway. She was now within range of air operations from Scotland. The smokescreen was not active on the third attempt - "Operation Catechism". Tirpitz was finally sunk immediately to the west of Tromsø, in the bay of Håkøybotn, on 12 November 1944 by 617 and 9 Squadron Lancasters with Tallboys on their third attempt. The ship was struck by three Tallboys. One glanced off turret armour, but the other two bombs pierced the ship's armour and blew a 200 foot hole in her port side. Soon after, internal fires set off a magazine and blew off "C" turret. The Tirpitz capsized within minutes of the attack, and close to 1,000 German sailors, out of 1,700 aboard, died.


And the Italians have a claim to the midget sub as well.

Italian Manned Torpedo


Originally posted by fritz
The mighty Desert Rats took on Rommel and sent him back to Berlin in disgrace with his tail between his legs; the Special Air Service roamed Egypt and Lybia at will, blowing everything up in it's path, then transferred it's activities to France before the invasion, tying down hundreds of thousands of Axis troops in the process.


Yeah after being beaten by him countless times. Rommel was defeated mainly because of his lack of equipment and his horrible logistics not to mention the constant interference from Der Fuhrer. And also please see my link to Operation Torch.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Whilst American involvement in Torch was usefull, it was hardly the pivotal thing that defeated Rommel.

Poor supply lines defeated him in Egypt/Libya and if you look at the geography between El Alamein and Tripoli, there is no where to land large amounts of supplies, hence the twoing and froing of the North Africa Campaign.

The British had already pushed the Germans back to Tripoli once before, but suffered the same fate as Rommel, namely long and stretched supply lines and were themselves pushed back to Egypt. The campaign could have gone on indeffinately, going back and forth, had the Royal Navy and RAF off Malta not been sinking all the supplies sailing into Tripoli.

Rommel was defeated by logistics, or the lack thereof and the bravery of the men who fought in the desert. All Torch did was give him something to think about after he lost the Battle at El Alamein, which was pivotal in pushing them back to Tripoli.

Also, the Yanks were only given the lead in Torch so the French would hopefully not fight back, as they held a resentment against the British for a variety of reasons (we sank part of the French Fleet when France fell in 1940). They still did and had a full on naval battle before they eventually surrendered.

[edit on 2/12/06 by stumason]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6

Yeah after being beaten by him countless times. Rommel was defeated mainly because of his lack of equipment and his horrible logistics not to mention the constant interference from Der Fuhrer. And also please see my link to Operation Torch.



Hmmm... As i said above, the geography did not allow for a running battle. You lost at the gates of tripoli and you go back to Egypt. Lose in egypt and it's back to Tripoli for you. Rommel didn't beat them "countless" times, I think you'll find. Rommel showed up after the first time British got to Tripoli. He organised the Afrika Korps into a good defensive. when that worked, all he had to do was follow the British back to Egypt in their retreat, harrassing the rear-guards as he did so.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The US concentrated on the Pacific islands, whislt the UK concentrated on India/Burma/SE Asia. We were actively campaigning in that area for the whole war fighting the Japanese.


True however the US did also play an important part in those theatres as well.

For example.

Merril's Marauders


Originally posted by stumason
Here is an interesting snippet about UK Pacific roles, mind you:


Actually I am well aware that the Royal Navy sent significant forces to the Pacific in 1945 but after the Fall of Singapore in Mar. 42 the UK was a non-entity until in the Pacific theatre until 1945.


Originally posted by stumason
Also, Dan, your comments that the Royal Navy was defunct, or even worse, been taking losses from U-boats is ill-informed.


Well I didn't say defunct I said neglected which by many contemporary accounts from Royal Navy officers and seamen seems an accurate statement to me.


The belief that Asdic had solved the submarine problem, the acute budgetary pressures of the 1930s depression and the pressing demands for many other types of re-armament meant that little was spent on anti-submarine ships or weapons. Most British naval spending, and many of the best officers, went into the battlefleet. As a result, the Royal Navy entered the Second World War in 1939 without enough escorts to protect shipping or enough officers and men with experience of anti-submarine warfare. The situation in the Royal Air Force’s Coastal Command was even more dire.


And the Royal Navy had been taking losses from U-boats practically from day one.


But some British naval officers, and particularly the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, sought a more ‘offensive’ strategy. The Royal Navy formed anti-submarine hunting groups based on aircraft carriers to patrol the shipping lanes in the Western Approaches and hunt for German U-boats. But this strategy was deeply flawed because a U-boat, with its tiny silhouette, was always likely to spot the surface warships and submerge long before it was itself sighted by them. The carrier aircraft were little help. Although they could spot submarines on the surface, at this stage of the war they had no adequate weapons to attack them. Any submarine found by an aircraft was long gone by the time surface warships arrived. The hunting group strategy proved a disaster within days. On September 14, 1939, Britain’s most modern carrier, the Ark Royal, narrowly avoided being sunk when three torpedoes from U-39 exploded prematurely. The unlucky U-39 was promptly sunk by the escorting destroyers, becoming the first U-boat loss of the war. Failing to learn the lesson, another carrier, the Courageous, was sunk three days later by U-29.



German success in sinking the Courageous was surpassed a month later when Günther Prien in U-47 penetrated the British base at Scapa Flow and sank the battleship HMS Royal Oak. Prien immediately became a war hero in Germany.



Originally posted by stumason
We requested the Destroyers not as replacements, but as cover for our own, advanced ships so they could be released from convoy duty. We had the largest fleet on the planet with the most advanced warships of the time. We just needed the ships.....guess where.... the Far East and North Africa, not babysitting convoys waiting for U-boats.


Now that is actually correct the destroyers lended to the RN by the US were mainly used to free up other ships. But that just goes more to my point that the RN wasn't as prepared for the war as you stated.


The Royal Navy’s main anti submarine weapon was the convoy escort, typically a destroyer, armed with asdic and depth charges. The British Royal Navy, like most navies, had neglected anti-submarine warfare during the 1920s and 1930s. Unrestricted submarine warfare had been outlawed by the Treaty of Versailles; anti-submarine warfare was seen as ‘defensive’; and many naval officers believed that the development of an early form of sonar, known as ‘Asdic’ (from the initials of the Anti-Submarine Detection Investigation Committee), had solved the submarine problem. Asdic was an early form of sonar, housed in a dome beneath the ship that sent out a narrow beam of sound in a series of pulses that would reflect back from a submerged object within a maximum range of about 3,000 yards. The echo produced an accurate range and bearing to the target. But differences in the temperatures at different depths could create false echoes, as could currents, eddies and schools of fish, so Asdic needed experienced operators to be effective. Asdic was only effective at low speeds. Above 15 knots or so, the noise of the ship going through the water drowned out the echoes. When an enemy submarine was located, the destroyer or other escort would run over the target, dropping depth charges that were set to explode at particular depths. To sink a submarine a depth charge had to detonate within about 20 feet of the submerged hull. The navy had failed to test its anti-submarine weapons and tactics in realistic conditions. Exercises in anti submarine warfare had been restricted to one or two destroyers hunting a single submarine whose starting position was known in daylight and calm weather. Worse, German U-boats could dive far deeper than British or American submarines, to well below the deepest setting on the British depth charges.



Originally posted by stumason
U-boats had an almost insignificant impact on the operations of the Grand Fleet and the Royal Navy, when out and about, could operate with releative impunity, only fearing air attack from land based planes.


That doesn't track from the history I've read. While its correct that the U-boats couldn't drive the RN from the sea that wasn't their purpose in the first place. Their mission was to sunk merchant shipping and strangle Britain's life line from America and the rest of the British Empire and they came close to achieving that objective on a number of occasions.


Originally posted by stumason
The merchant marine, on the other hand, did take in alot of those Liberty Ships you mass produced...


Yeah typical Model T of the sea.

My favorite quote of all time.



Quantity has a quality all its own



Originally posted by stumason
As for the comment about the Army being ill-equipped and being mainly provided with American Equipment. This may have been true only in Overlord, when he had a huge amount of the god-awful Shermans. We actually had huge numbers of our own indiginously produced tanks such as the Crusader, for example, which were much more apt at facing off against the superior German tanks than the paper-armoured, pea-shooter equipped Shermans. We fought much of the North Africa campaign without US support at all.


Yeah the Sherman were pretty crappy no doubt about it. However I would say that they were more or less equal to their Brititsh counterparts. The Sherman lacked the protection that the late war Churchills(Mk IV and up)had but possessed greater cross country moblity. Yeah at first that didn't count for much in Boqague of Normandy but once we broke out the mobility of the Shermans was a great asset.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Hmmm... As i said above, the geography did not allow for a running battle. You lost at the gates of tripoli and you go back to Egypt. Lose in egypt and it's back to Tripoli for you. Rommel didn't beat them "countless" times, I think you'll find. Rommel showed up after the first time British got to Tripoli. He organised the Afrika Korps into a good defensive. when that worked, all he had to do was follow the British back to Egypt in their retreat, harrassing the rear-guards as he did so.


What about Tobruk? I know after Rommel stop the British Army at Tripoli they retreated to Tobruk. I know that at first Rommel didn't succeed but he eventually was able to lay seige and defeat several relief attempts by the XIII Corps.

Tobruk



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Whilst American involvement in Torch was usefull, it was hardly the pivotal thing that defeated Rommel.


No but it was essential to securing North Africa. With Operation Torch after the Battle of El Alamein Rommel couldn't just simply halt the British at with a rear guard action at Tobruk.


Originally posted by stumason
Poor supply lines defeated him in Egypt/Libya and if you look at the geography between El Alamein and Tripoli, there is no where to land large amounts of supplies, hence the twoing and froing of the North Africa Campaign.


Yeah after El Alamein Rommel still faced a horrendous supply situation and the problem wasn't as acute for the British by that time. But whether that alone could have won the North African campaign I'm not so sure. As Rommel's line of supply shortened and he was equiped with the new Panther and Tiger tanks.


Originally posted by stumason
The British had already pushed the Germans back to Tripoli once before, but suffered the same fate as Rommel, namely long and stretched supply lines and were themselves pushed back to Egypt. The campaign could have gone on indeffinately, going back and forth, had the Royal Navy and RAF off Malta not been sinking all the supplies sailing into Tripoli.


Its true that the RAF and RN were eventually able to curtail supplies sent to Rommel but they weren't able to severe them completely because German aricraft could defend the convoys(with varying degrees of success)and africa was close enough for the Germans to be able to directly resupply by aircraft.


Originally posted by stumason
Also, the Yanks were only given the lead in Torch so the French would hopefully not fight back, as they held a resentment against the British for a variety of reasons (we sank part of the French Fleet when France fell in 1940). They still did and had a full on naval battle before they eventually surrendered.


Yeah I'm sure it didn't have anything to do wth the fact that of 8 major land units the made up the invasion force 6 divisions were American plus one independent Airborne Brigade and the British contributed the 78th Infantry.

Operation Torch





new topics
 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join