America didn't do much in World War II (in Europe)

originally posted by: introvert
I wouldn't say that America didn't do much in WW2, but anyone that has studied this time in history knows that the Russians took the brunt of the damage on the Eastern Front.

D-Day would have turned out much differently if the Russians didn't keep the Germans busy.

yes but that is like saying the Britains took the brunt of the assault in the battle of Britain.
Of course they did, the eastern front is right in their front yard.

Not belittling their losses, though love to shoot their commanders who though the idea of over stuffing bodies into a meat grinder was a sound tactic.
But if someone starts a fight in your own front yard, yes you will bear the brunt of that.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As for the American side, D-Day remains a historical feat many modern armies today could not muster, both Germany and the Soviets didn't have huge ability to lunch grand amphibious attacks from water to land at this scale. In fact it was only the Americans suppling so much materials to the allied soldiers that allowed it

I see you are a fully paid up member of " The Myth Of D Day Club "

Of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British. Indeed, 31% of all U.S. supplies used during D-Day came directly from Britain, while two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, as were two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France

edition.cnn.com...

U.S. had the most troops on the ground at D-Day, so naturally the focus is on them.

originally posted by: misterbananas
alot of Americans say that their country was the big hero in WW2 they always say that they did the most to win the war. but they didn't even fight as hard as the The Soviet Union did... The Soviet Union had 8 million military casualties during world war 2 and 14 million civillian casualties during WW2 with a population of over 186,000,000 total people the USA had 416,000 military deaths with a population of over 131,000,000 total people with only around 1000 civilian deaths... now the Soviet Union had around 13.50% total population lost as compared to 0.32% lost in the USA... now they also say that Canada did not do as much as they did. we had .40% population lost with 0 Civillian casualties, also Canada had been the first country to declare war on Germany. (September 9th 1939.)

US Ammunition was being made in 1939 and sold to Nazi Germany until Decemeber 1941 which is when Pearl Harbour happened and then the USA declared war on Japan and tphen Germany, Japan's allie, declared war on the USA, the things sold to Germany until 1941 would include mortars and bullets.

[I know how poorly written this actually is but you should just make it understandable in your head so you could get my point]

Now, americans always talk about fighting nazis in World War 2 but if you try to find them actually doing so on a search engine you will not find barely anything about the USA in Germany inbetween 1941-1945 except Omaha and Utah squadrons on the beach in Normandy being the only times i could find records of the USA fighting Germany... not to mention the war in Japan had continued 2 months after the war in Europe. yes I do know of the POW camps in Canada i live near one, Neys Park, where Japanese people were held obviously as Prisoners Of War.

I missed alot so feel free to PM me alot of the Facts I missed, have a good day ATS.



oh yea and the point of this was that they didn't do as much as they say in Europe

As a guy who takes of for Russia a lot on ATS, I have to disagree. I LOVED "Orthodox Christian-Pre Bolshevic Russia", I hate Communist-Russia but I give credit to whom-ever, where credit is do, But I have to disagree, The Bolshevics Killed almost 100% of Russia's Industry Owners AND Workers, when they took over in 1917 to the point that by 1922 The new commie Russia WAS A 3rd World Nation. Years before WW-2 began THE U.S. built The Soviet industry, during WW-2 The U.S. gave The S.U. ALL the war stuff, including the T-34 Tank, it was "earthed in the U.S.", and The Elite Bankers who controlled both The U.S. & Soviet Russia told their agents in The U.S. Government to allow The S.U. Military to fight Germany much more than the U.S.

a reply to: misterbananas

Write the damn thing so it makes sense.

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As for the American side, D-Day remains a historical feat many modern armies today could not muster, both Germany and the Soviets didn't have huge ability to lunch grand amphibious attacks from water to land at this scale. In fact it was only the Americans suppling so much materials to the allied soldiers that allowed it

I see you are a fully paid up member of " The Myth Of D Day Club "

Of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British. Indeed, 31% of all U.S. supplies used during D-Day came directly from Britain, while two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, as were two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France

edition.cnn.com...

U.S. had the most troops on the ground at D-Day, so naturally the focus is on them.

Barely!
Britain took two beaches like the US and although our forces were 60,000 not 75,00 we had another 20000 common wealth troops as back up.

It was a multinational force!

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As for the American side, D-Day remains a historical feat many modern armies today could not muster, both Germany and the Soviets didn't have huge ability to lunch grand amphibious attacks from water to land at this scale. In fact it was only the Americans suppling so much materials to the allied soldiers that allowed it

I see you are a fully paid up member of " The Myth Of D Day Club "

Of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British. Indeed, 31% of all U.S. supplies used during D-Day came directly from Britain, while two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, as were two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France

edition.cnn.com...

It's ironic that the only reasons American get center stage on D day and all the films is cause they messed Omaha beach up.

British troops seizing a beach with combined arms in a organised fashion that goes to plan with light losses makes a poor movie.

Sure they won but at a massive lost that should not have happened.
General bradly should of been court marshalled!

21 pages about a title and an opening post that is patently false......reminds me of the thread about the Sun circling the earth and how many pages were wasted on that

originally posted by: jimmyx
21 pages about a title and an opening post that is patently false......reminds me of the thread about the Sun circling the earth and how many pages were wasted on that

I think its just turned in to a general World war 2 thread.

It what you get when ATS doesnt supply a actual history forum!

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As for the American side, D-Day remains a historical feat many modern armies today could not muster, both Germany and the Soviets didn't have huge ability to lunch grand amphibious attacks from water to land at this scale. In fact it was only the Americans suppling so much materials to the allied soldiers that allowed it

I see you are a fully paid up member of " The Myth Of D Day Club "

Of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British. Indeed, 31% of all U.S. supplies used during D-Day came directly from Britain, while two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, as were two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France

edition.cnn.com...

U.S. had the most troops on the ground at D-Day, so naturally the focus is on them.

Barely!
Britain took two beaches like the US and although our forces were 60,000 not 75,00 we had another 20000 common wealth troops as back up.

It was a multinational force!

Yes, that is true. But Omaha was messy because of the terrain, not because the troops were somehow inept. There will be heavier losses when trying to scale cliff faces as opposed to flat beaches.

My Uncle Reginald Clark was KiA Christmas Eve 1944 by a Nazi torpedo.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As for the American side, D-Day remains a historical feat many modern armies today could not muster, both Germany and the Soviets didn't have huge ability to lunch grand amphibious attacks from water to land at this scale. In fact it was only the Americans suppling so much materials to the allied soldiers that allowed it

I see you are a fully paid up member of " The Myth Of D Day Club "

Of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British. Indeed, 31% of all U.S. supplies used during D-Day came directly from Britain, while two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, as were two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France

edition.cnn.com...

U.S. had the most troops on the ground at D-Day, so naturally the focus is on them.

Barely!
Britain took two beaches like the US and although our forces were 60,000 not 75,00 we had another 20000 common wealth troops as back up.

It was a multinational force!

Yes, that is true. But Omaha was messy because of the terrain, not because the troops were somehow inept. There will be heavier losses when trying to scale cliff faces as opposed to flat beaches.

It still would have gone a hell of a lot more smother if the bombers had hit there targets like the other beachs and the tank support had landed on time in the right place.

I would argue the Canadian beach was just as bad as it not only had a high sea wall but a large town. But coordination between tanks and airsupport blunted the resistance faced.

a reply to: Talorc

Why would they choose to land there, then? Why not put more troops in better areas and encircle the German fortifications?

Keep just enough pressure to pin the Germans down there, so they don't leave and reinforce other areas.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Talorc

Why would they choose to land there, then? Why not put more troops in better areas and encircle the German fortifications?

Keep just enough pressure to pin the Germans down there, so they don't leave and reinforce other areas.

The worry was if one of tye other beaches had gone wrong too then you would have had a huge gap. Landing on five beaches meant if one had failed it would have been less critical.

They did not expect omaha to be as bad as it was anyway. Infact it was the Canadian beach they expected the most trouble as it had a high sea wall and a town. But as the bombing went off to plan and the tanks landed it went off with lightish losses, though Juno beach was still the secound worst.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Talorc

Why would they choose to land there, then? Why not put more troops in better areas and encircle the German fortifications?

Keep just enough pressure to pin the Germans down there, so they don't leave and reinforce other areas.

There was no-where else to land. They had to land there, especially after Monty insisted on expanding the landings to the East side of the Cotentin Peninsula to get hold of Cherbourg earlier than the COSSAC plan. What made Omaha harder than it should have been was the fact that the bombing was off course and the DD tanks were launched too far off shore. In fact Bradley's failure to use more of the specialised armour devised by Hobart's 79th Division was a scandal. That said, as bad as Omaha was, the beach was still open by Noon, with the men moving inland.

Have to politely disagree with you OP. USA did a lot in WW2 and were the catalyst for winning it, in my opinion.

As an earlier poster said, number of causalities doesn't necessarily show how much you did or how hard you fought. I like the if 5 of you attack me and I fight back and kill all 5 of you, I definitely fought harder than you even with fewer casualties.

I think what you might mean to say and what I'd agree with is that other countries fought very hard and contributed mightily to WW2, and that we (USA and Allies) might have even lost without other countries participation. Who can deny the contribution to WW2 that the russians had or the English or the Chinese or the Australians or the French and on and on. How much did having two fronts contribute to Germany's loss? But to say that USA did nothing or not too much really distorting the truth.

a reply to: mbkennel

Why would they choose to land there, then?

Rommel was in daily contact with Bletchley park reporting detailed German troop strengths and locations.
The German cryptography team working with Rommel has never been declassified AFAIK

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: mbkennel

Why would they choose to land there, then?

Rommel was in daily contact with Bletchley park reporting detailed German troop strengths and locations.
The German cryptography team working with Rommel has never been declassified AFAIK

????????????????????????
Do you have any evidence for this remarkable statement? Besides, did any of them even survive the hell that was the Falaise Gap?

a reply to: Cauliflower

I don't suppose you have some references (and links) to back that assertion?

I've never run across any references to Rommel being anything other than a loyal Wehrmacht general, later Field Marshal. He wasn't a Nazi, but he was a loyal German.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Cauliflower

I don't suppose you have some references (and links) to back that assertion?

I've never run across any references to Rommel being anything other than a loyal Wehrmacht general, later Field Marshal. He wasn't a Nazi, but he was a loyal German.

I've never seen anything that even comes close to what he claims.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The details are probably still classified but German cryptographers knew their enigma could be broken, it was just a field authentication cipher with a weak "day key". Bletchley Park was receiving advance notice of troop movements as early as the Battle of Kasserine Pass.

Rommel saved a lot of German lives by not having a heavy troop presence at the Omaha beach landing site so I would not call him a traitor. There may be some new declassified information after all these years.

This being military secrecy "they" may want people to find it on their own. The usual story involves Rommel believing some high ranking Italian spy leaked the German decrypts of his troop movements as plain text but what if?