Re-Fighting WWII

[chuck34]

Over in the Israel vs Iran Thread we (mainly me) have been re-fighting WWII. This time with the US as the enemy????

My contention is that the 4 Allies (France, England, Russia, and the US) were pretty much on equal terms, with the US being just slightly more important. Hey, I'm American I think on those terms. But may are trying to say that since the French fought longer, or that the Russian had more casualties, that they are more important.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

[Mark]

Over in the Israel vs Iran Thread we (mainly me) have been re-fighting WWII. This time with the US as the enemy????

My contention is that the 4 Allies (France, England, Russia, and the US) were pretty much on equal terms, with the US being just slightly more important. Hey, I'm American I think on those terms. But may are trying to say that since the French fought longer, or that the Russian had more casualties, that they are more important.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Well it depends which way you look at things. I personally would argue that Britain (not England!), was more important because we stopped the Germans taking over the whole of Europe from the outset, otherwise it would have been job done, goodbye. America wouldn't have been able to mount a response on its own without the UK not being occupied.

Of course the USA is very important because they helped tip the balance in favour of the allies, but it could be argued that Hitler did that himself by concentrating on Russia.

You have to remember in an historical context, before WWII the USA wasn't very important at all on the world stage, it was all about the UK and France and their respective empires.

It's WWII and Americas response to it that made them the world power they are today; it's easy to think that they have always been that way.

[Tazio]

Anyway, what are your thoughts?Currently I'm reminded that somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 million Homo sapiens died in that little Ho-down :eek:

[BDunnell]

I don't think there's any point having a discussion as to who was most important. What is worth remembering, however, are the individual examples of particularly important contributions and particularly important mistakes.

In the latter context, the decision to allow the Soviets to occupy Berlin and then to 'rule the roost' there for some time before the other Allies were allowed in has to rank as one of the most important. It was one of the seeds of the Cold War.

[Tazio]

I don't think there's any point having a discussion as to who was most important. What is worth remembering, however, are the individual examples of particularly important contributions and particularly important mistakes.
The Battle of Monte Cassino holds a lot of interesting history! And one very unlikely hero. The Alied stars of the protracted engagement were the Poles, The French (Largely Morrocans), and the most highly decorated American unit in the European Theatre, The Nisi. Japanese Americans, mostly
Hawiians and Californians. Their motto "Go for broke" But I digress! About the unlikely hero:

Evacuation of the abbey:
In the course of the battles, the historic monastery of Monte Cassino, where St. Benedict first established the rule that ordered monasticism in the west, was entirely destroyed by the U.S. Army Air Forces. (This was not the first time that monastery had been destroyed. The Saracens had burned it down more than a millennium earlier, in 883, and it was also sacked at least twice, once by the army of Napoleon.) Prior to the offensive, German Lieutenant Colonel Julius Schlegel had initiated a transfer from the monastery of the library (which consisted of approximately 1,200 documents and books including manuscripts of Cicero, Horace, Virgil and Seneca) and further art treasures (including masterpieces by Titian, Raphael, Tintoretto, Ghirlandajo, Brueghel, and Leonardo da Vinci) to the Vatican in Rome in order to prevent them from being destroyed.




While the original manuscripts and rare artifacts were safely removed from the site, there were several sick and bed-ridden monks and nuns who remained in the monastery. Several of the healthier nuns refused to leave the bedsides of the sick unless they too could be removed. After very limited, unsuccessful attempts by German officers to have the healthier nuns evacuate, German forces retreated down the north side of the mountain late on May 11, leaving the ill nuns in the complex. Several Catholic German soldiers protested this order, but it was ironically a 36-year old Lutheran Obergefreiter of the German 305th Infantry Division, 305th Artillery Regiment who defied the order to abandon the nuns. Eugen Schmid of Stuttgart, a veteran of the Battle of Stalingrad who was one of the few surviving members of the 305th to return to action, told his superior officers that he could not in good conscience let the ill nuns succumb to bombing. German officers refused to give Schmid any motorized equipment or personnel assistance, telling him that he would undertake the operation solo and at his own risk. At around 0100 on May 12, Schmid borrowed a rickety, wooden cart and horse from a nearby farmer and defiantly organized a squad of mostly privates to accompany him to the monastery. Once at the top, Schmid pleaded with the nuns to come, telling them that he brought a cart to evacuate the ill monks and nuns, along with each of the attending nuns. Schmid and his team carried the ill nuns and monks to the cart. They slowly started down the mountain, reaching the north side of Monte Cassino by around 0700 on May 12. Schmid was given no decorations by German authorities for his daring rescue, but received a centuries-old, gold medal bearing the likeness of St. Benedict from the Mother Superior of Monte Cassino, who placed the medal around his neck and said a short prayer with him and his volunteers. She wished for them health and safety, and that they each return home with God's will and with the praise and thanks of each of the nuns and brothers of Monte Cassino.[39]

[Eki]

I wonder how much Normandy contributed to the loss of Finland. If the US had not joined the war against Germany and the battle of Normandy had not happened, could Finland and Germany have finished the Soviet Union off already in the 1940s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala


After the initial Finnish advance of 1941, the Continuation War was stabilized to trench warfare with very little activity on either side. When the Siege of Leningrad was lifted January 1944, Stavka received orders to plan an offensive against Finland to push it out of the war.

The Soviet attack on the Finnish front commenced on the Karelian Isthmus on June 9, 1944, (coordinated with the Allied Invasion of Normandy). Three armies were pitted there against the Finns, among them several experienced Guard formations.

The attack soon breached the Finnish front line of defence in Valkeasaari on June 10 and the Finnish forces retreated to their secondary defence line, the VT-line (Vammelsuu-Taipale). The Soviet attack was supported by a massive artillery barrage, air bombardments and armoured forces.

[Tazio]

As if that last post wasn't long enough I am adding an addendum. One of the rules of engagement during the war was military personnel were not to occupy historically or religiously valued structures. Though the Americans Bombed the Abbey It was ordered by a Kiwi General (I think), after the allies suffered terrible carnage during multiple disastrous assaults!

United States military history reviews
The U.S. government’s official position on the bombing of Monte Cassino underwent remarkable changes over a quarter century. The certainty of “irrefutable evidence” of German use of the abbey was removed from the record in 1961 by the Office of the Chief of Military History. A congressional inquiry to the same office in the 20th anniversary year of the bombing produced the statement: “It appears that no German troops, except a small military police detachment, were actually inside the abbey” before the bombing. The final correction to the U.S. Army’s official record was made in 1969 and concluded that “the abbey was actually unoccupied by German troops.”

[chuck34]

Mark, you are right in saying that the US was not a world power before the war, but to say they weren't important isn't exactly true. If we weren't important why was Churchill courting FDR for so long trying to get support?

BD, You have a good point there about the Soviets holding Berlin. However, it was a case of Eisenhower/Truman living up to the Yalta agreement, and Stalin didn't.

Eki, weren't you arguing that the US wasn't that important over in the Israel/Iran thread? You seem to be saying that the US, by way of Normandy, were very important to the Allies winning. Unless you are showing your Finnish pride and saying that the Allies winning was a bad thing?

Tazio, very interesting about Mote Cassino. I'm not too up on most of what happened in the Italian front.

[Eki]

Eki, weren't you arguing that the US wasn't that important over in the Israel/Iran thread? You seem to be saying that the US, by way of Normandy, were very important to the Allies winning. Unless you are showing your Finnish pride and saying that the Allies winning was a bad thing?

I'm saying nothing is black and white. It all depends on whose side you're on, or you can even be somewhere in between. This is not "you're either with us or against us" world like George W Bush likes to believe.

Ronald Reagan put the "ruskies" on their knees single handedly in the 1980s, like Americans like to believe. And they think it was a good thing, but if the Germans and the Finns would have done the same 40 years earlier, it would have been a bad thing? Hey, even if Al Gore hadn't invented the internet, somebody else would have, maybe even a German or a Finn.

[chuck34]

I'm saying nothing is black and white. It all depends on whose side you're on, or you can even be somewhere in between. This is not "you're either with us or against us" world like George W Bush likes to believe.

Sorry, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm pretty sure that the Allies winning WWII was a pretty "white" good thing.

[Eki]

Sorry, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm pretty sure that the Allies winning WWII was a pretty "white" good thing.

Yes, fundamentalists tend to be narrow-sighted. They believe they are right and others are wrong. You´re in the same league with Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and George W Bush.

[BDunnell]

Yes, fundamentalists tend to be narrow-sighted. They believe they are right and others are wrong. You´re in the same league with Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and George W Bush.

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted on these forums (though I realise that saying that makes me as bad as Hitler in your view.)

[veeten]

Awww... I thought this thread was about 'Call of Duty', 'Brothers in Arms' or any of those games.

what a letdown... :(

:p :

[Captain VXR]

In my opinion, it should have started when Hitler went into Czechoslovakia, and apparently, a lot of Polish and Canadian pilots saved our asses at the Battle of Britain

[Rollo]

Over in the Israel vs Iran Thread we (mainly me) have been re-fighting WWII. This time with the US as the enemy????


I don't doubt the contribution that the US made in turning the tide of the war, but the theory that the USA "saved" Britain from Nazi Germany is materially nonsense when you look at the events in sequence.

[BDunnell]

In my opinion, it should have started when Hitler went into Czechoslovakia, and apparently, a lot of Polish and Canadian pilots saved our asses at the Battle of Britain

I don't think 'saved our asses' is correct at all. 'Made a significant contribution alongside British pilots to the Battle of Britain, along with French, Czech, Australian, New Zealand and many other Allied pilots' would be better.

[chuck34]

Yes, fundamentalists tend to be narrow-sighted. They believe they are right and others are wrong. You´re in the same league with Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and George W Bush.

Help me here Eki, I'm really trying to see your point of view. I just don't see how defeating Hitler could be considered bad by anyone (maybe Neo-Nazis?). Now exactly who is being narrow-sighted, this is the second time that you have brought up George W Bush in a thread about WWII. ...Hello, Pot. This is Kettle. You're Black!

You are letting your obvious hatred for GWB color your whole perspective of America throught World History. That is a very dangerous thing.

[chuck34]

Awww... I thought this thread was about 'Call of Duty', 'Brothers in Arms' or any of those games.

what a letdown... :(

:p :

I love those games as well. Wanna start a new topic?

[chuck34]

I don't think 'saved our asses' is correct at all. 'Made a significant contribution alongside British pilots to the Battle of Britain, along with French, Czech, Australian, New Zealand and many other Allied pilots' would be better.

That's all I'm trying to say. Without any one piece of anything that actually happened, the whole thing falls apart.

Plus if Hitler hadn't made some really stupid decisions we'd all be speaking German today. It is really interesting, to me anyway, how minor things have had a really big impact on world events. Case-in-point, what would have happend had Hitler not taken a sleeping pill on the night of June 5, 1944?

[Tazio]

Case-in-point, what would have happend had Hitler not taken a sleeping pill on the night of June 5, 1944? From every thing that I have read Hitler or anyone else would have needed a crystal ball to have been able to put t0gether enough information as to know the Anglo-Russian strategy that was the D-Day invasion!

By the way all of my referance to the battle of Monte Cassino came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

I was remiss not to post a link!

[chuck34]

From every thing that I have read Hitler or anyone else would have needed a crystal ball to have been able to put t0gether enough information as to know the Anglo-Russian strategy that was the D-Day invasion!

By the way all of my referance to the battle of Monte Cassino came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

I was remiss not to post a link!

You are correct PRE-EARLY MORNING JUNE 6, 1944. However, by early that morning most German Commanders on the Western Front (including Rommel) knew that the invasion had begun.

Now for extra credit, what does a sleeping pill have to do with the outcome?

[Rollo]

Now for extra credit, what does a sleeping pill have to do with the outcome?

Nothing :D

Panzer divisions were held in reserve because of: Operation Fortitude, support of ground troops from the air and resistance activity. In all seriousness, the sleeping pill itself had little to do with it because even if Hitler had been awake, the deployment of SS Panzer divisions would have been ineffectual. Which SS Panzer Division do you think could have reached Omaha beach on D-Day anyway?
If they had actually have managed to have been deployed properly, then the Tactical Air Force would have met them up front instead of later at Falaise.

As far as Hitler was concerned, the main force was to come at Calais, not Normandy - thanks to Fortitude.

[chuck34]

Nothing :D

Panzer divisions were held in reserve because of: Operation Fortitude, support of ground troops from the air and resistance activity. In all seriousness, the sleeping pill itself had little to do with it because even if Hitler had been awake, the deployment of SS Panzer divisions would have been ineffectual. Which SS Panzer Division do you think could have reached Omaha beach on D-Day anyway?
If they had actually have managed to have been deployed properly, then the Tactical Air Force would have met them up front instead of later at Falaise.

As far as Hitler was concerned, the main force was to come at Calais, not Normandy - thanks to Fortitude.

Perhaps. However, had Hitler been awake in the overnight hours of June5-6, '44, maybe he would have seen it differently and sent the 2nd and 116th division down from Calais. They might not have reached Normandy on D-day, but the quicker the better (from their point of view). If they get there the 7th, 8th or even 9th they might not have met much resistance.

Wasn't there some division/regiment in the area that day, but they ended up having to back-track because of poor communication? I can't find it right now, but I could swear to it.

[chuck34]

Oh, and Fortitude/Overloard was very effective, that was the point of the whole d@mn thing!

[Hawkmoon]

Germany made two mistakes. Firstly, they didn't pursue the invasion of the British Isles after losing the Battle of Britain. That left the UK to the Allies to use as a staging point for the D-Day invasions. The impact of the US in the war would have been dramatically less if the Allies had to use North Africa and the Middle East as their starting point.

The second mistake was Operation Barbarossa. Hitler let his ideological hatred of the Russians get in the way of sound military thinking. He was advised to pursue the destruction of the UK and avoid a multiple-front war but couldn't help himself. In 1941 the Soviets weren't a threat to Germany. Hitler should have secured Britain then turned his attention to East if needs be.

So who was more important in the defeat of Germany? I think the Soviets have to take much of the credit as they drained the Wehrmacht of valuable resources that should have been used against the British and Americans in North Africa and elsewhere.

The British deserve credit for being the first nation to withstand the Germans in the begining and their stubborn refusal to give in played a vital role in the war's endgame.

The Americans also deserve credit for getting involved in something that didn't directly affect them and for supporting the British whilst fighitng the Japanese who were a more immediate threat to the US.

All-in-all I think the Soviets played the greatest role in deciding the outcome of the war, but not by much. All three of the major Allies played their part.

[Eki]

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted on these forums (though I realise that saying that makes me as bad as Hitler in your view.)
No it doesn't if you realise that it's just your opinion, not the absolute universal truth, and that someone else might feel differently and has the right to do so.

[janvanvurpa]

You seem to be saying that the US, by way of Normandy, were very important to the Allies winning.
You are aware, aren't you, that the US had just 2 of the 5 invasion beaches on 6 June 44.?

My point in the other thread was that in the passage of years since the war there has been in the culture a simplifying of the huge mess and a continuous, slow erosion from the American consciousness of the SCALE of the FIGHTING that all the other countries saw.

And in defending this simplified view, many Americans come up with insulting suggestions such as the huge death tolls is "proof of poor fighting abilities".

Funny thing is I never meet a single American who can guess what the actual US combat losses were, any idea of what the war time population was, what the other countries war time populations was and any guess what their losses were, and so with the population and the losses attempt to imagine what th feelings in each country,m even the "winners' must have been at losses 10 and 20 times US losses.
Particularly odd now since you need not even open a book to see US battle dead in all theatres was just 292,000. (and another 120,000 in accidents, training and ferrying aircraft, car crashes etc.)

The figures alone of troops engaged in actual contact--shooting at the enemy--shows the US did little of the FIGHTING in defeating Germany and Japan, we let our Allies bleed: The Soviets in Europe and the Chinese in Asia.
Until Aug 1944 there were more British (Including Commonwealth) troops engaged in contact with the enemy in all theatres than US including CBI.

The point being that while Boeing made lots of B17s about 1 mile from where I sit now, and Consolidated made even more B24s, and our shipyards churned out ships by the score and Jeeps by the ship load and Studebaker 6x6s and all the other stuff sold (for a nice tidy profit a cynic might add) you still gotta go kill the baddies who have invaded these other countries.

And the Soviets did 80-85% of the job of killing the Germans.

Now the thread starter uses a phrase which i don't know if he's serious or not but since I have heard from far too many Americans of nearly all social and educational lvels these same type of defensive phrase, when he says "Now with USA as the enemy" it makes me wonder if they can't see that that type of language is PART of why there is such widespread contempt for Americans now in much of the world.

YOU, OP, are the enemy of truth and the memory of those millions of our dead allies when you don't give the historical record of who did the fighting---remember at least 10 to 20 times the killing of "the enemy" that we did---its due.

I'll improve yet again on the insultingly jingoistic and agressive bumpersticker loved by idiots here "If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, that a Soviet soldier.


(And re Lend-lease supplied weapons etc to Soviet union do remember that nearly all the tanks and aircraft sold were not up to the standards of the Eastern Front and we used in second line units often. They weren't fast enough, lethal enough and often required too much service.
The Trucks and jeeps were good.)

[Garry Walker]

I wonder how much Normandy contributed to the loss of Finland. If the US had not joined the war against Germany and the battle of Normandy had not happened, could Finland and Germany have finished the Soviet Union off already in the 1940s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala
There are many "ifs" with that.

1) How to finish off Soviet Union? They were so vast in territory that just conquering Moscow would have done nothing. All of their industry was in the far east siberian territories.
2) West-allies provided huge amount of help to USSR: cars, tanks, planes. Not to mention draining the resources of Germany by bombing them.
3) If Germany had managed to start their offensive a little bit earlier and the winter had not been so cold, things could have been a bit different.
4) If the italian army had not consisted of men with fighting skills equal to that of teenage girls...

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted on these forums (though I realise that saying that makes me as bad as Hitler in your view.)
Soviet Union winning the war was in no way better than Germany winning the war.
In the perfect scenario, those two countries would have destroyed eachother and western allies would have taken over, but of course, that was impossible to happen.


That's all I'm trying to say. Without any one piece of anything that actually happened, the whole thing falls apart.

Plus if Hitler hadn't made some really stupid decisions we'd all be speaking German today. It is really interesting, to me anyway, how minor things have had a really big impact on world events. Case-in-point, what would have happend had Hitler not taken a sleeping pill on the night of June 5, 1944?
What stupid decisions are you referring to? Not that I am denying it at all, just curious.
By D-day the war was over and even if Germany had destroyed the forces at normandy, they were too weak to stand up to USSR.


Germany made two mistakes. Firstly, they didn't pursue the invasion of the British Isles after losing the Battle of Britain. That left the UK to the Allies to use as a staging point for the D-Day invasions. The impact of the US in the war would have been dramatically less if the Allies had to use North Africa and the Middle East as their starting point.

The second mistake was Operation Barbarossa. Hitler let his ideological hatred of the Russians get in the way of sound military thinking. He was advised to pursue the destruction of the UK and avoid a multiple-front war but couldn't help himself. In 1941 the Soviets weren't a threat to Germany. Hitler should have secured Britain then turned his attention to East if needs be.

So who was more important in the defeat of Germany? I think the Soviets have to take much of the credit as they drained the Wehrmacht of valuable resources that should have been used against the British and Americans in North Africa and elsewhere.

The British deserve credit for being the first nation to withstand the Germans in the begining and their stubborn refusal to give in played a vital role in the war's endgame.

The Americans also deserve credit for getting involved in something that didn't directly affect them and for supporting the British whilst fighitng the Japanese who were a more immediate threat to the US.

All-in-all I think the Soviets played the greatest role in deciding the outcome of the war, but not by much. All three of the major Allies played their part.
1) After losing the airbattle, it was impossible for Germany to invade GB. Hitler should have dumped drug-addicted Goering earlier.
2) Operation Barbarossa was out of neccesity. If Germany had not attacked USSR, USSR would very soon have attacked Germany, which was Stalins plan all along. Only Hitler had been a bit too successful in Europe for his liking.

As for, who played the most important part in defeating Germany. I am amazed it is even in question. Just look at how big the armies in the western front were and then compare it to eastern front.




I'll improve yet again on the insultingly jingoistic and agressive bumpersticker loved by idiots here "If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, that a Soviet soldier.
Or alternatively, thank the german soldier for not speaking russian at the moment.

[Garry Walker]

If the English would have surrendered in early 1940 (as most of the government wanted), the Western Front would have been non-existent, the Russians would have been over-run, then who knows what would have happend to America.


If GB had surrended in 1940, the war between USSR and Germany would have lasted far longer, but ended with the same conclusion. The resources of the USSR were just too great compared to Germany.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If GB had surrended in 1940, the war between USSR and Germany would have lasted far longer, but ended with the same conclusion. The resources of the USSR were just too great compared to Germany.

You say it would have the same conclusion, but wouldn't the USSR have continued west after Germany? Spreading communism to Western Europe.

[BDunnell]

You say it would have the same conclusion, but wouldn't the USSR have continued west after Germany? Spreading communism to Western Europe.

I'm not sure I've ever seen any evidence to show that this might have happened, though I suppose it is a possibility.

[BDunnell]

No it doesn't if you realise that it's just your opinion, not the absolute universal truth, and that someone else might feel differently and has the right to do so.

I quite agree, but likening people to Hitler and Stalin is way off the mark. It's damn discourteous for one thing.

[chuck34]

Janvanvurpa, of course I realise that the US had "only" 2 beaches on D-Day. But they were arguably (and I'm sure you and others will) the toughest beaches to take. And just because the US only had 2 beaches doesn't mean that operation Overlord wasn't pretty much an American operation on the whole. Remember Churchill and Monty wanted to attack the "soft underbelly of the croc."

I really take offence with the last part of your post. You are trying to say that I have not been honoring the memories of all those that fought no matter what their nationality. This is a bold face LIE! Show me where I said anything of the sort. My unfortunate comment about "Proof of fighting abilities" was ment in jest, but I guess that went over your head. I have consistently been saying that all the Allies deserve pretty much the same amount of credit, but maybe the Americans get slightly more due to the operational/organizational lead they supplied. I started this because some in the other thread were trying to marginalize the impact of the US on the war effort.

Again, I'm not trying to dimminsh anyone, but I'm sick of the revisionist history that seems to be so in fashion right now.


Eki, I really hope that I am still missing your point or something. You seem to be saying that from a certain point of view Hitler loosing was a bad thing. Please clear this up for me, because I sure don't know who (in their right mind) could think this. Maybe you are trying to say, like Garry, that the USSR winning the war would not have been any better?


Garry, I'm refering to all the stupid decsions. Diversion of resources away from projects that could have helped, Barbarosa, etc., etc. And the war was by no means over by D-Day. Sure the odds were that the Allies were going to win. However, if the Germans could have pushed us back into the sea on D-Day the course of the war would have been MUCH different. You are probably right that the USSR would have eventually won. But, then again had we been pushed back, the odds are we would have sued for peace. Then the bombs stop dropping on the industrial heart land of Germany, and they can re-arm?????

[Eki]

You seem to be saying that from a certain point of view Hitler loosing was a bad thing. Please clear this up for me, because I sure don't know who (in their right mind) could think this. Maybe you are trying to say, like Garry, that the USSR winning the war would not have been any better?
From Hitler's point of view him losing was certainly a bad thing. And also some others might have benefited from Hitler winning. And the USSR winning wasn't necessarily a much better option, for example to the Baltic countries, and at least Finland would probably now have about 10% more land if the USSR had lost.

[anthonyvop]

The figures alone of troops engaged in actual contact--shooting at the enemy--shows the US did little of the FIGHTING in defeating Germany and Japan, we let our Allies bleed: The Soviets in Europe and the Chinese in Asia.
Until Aug 1944 there were more British (Including Commonwealth) troops engaged in contact with the enemy in all theatres than US including CBI.
.)

You lack of any grasp of Military History is amusing.

So the US had a smaller percentage of causualties.
The US soldier was a much better fighter than The Russians and the Brits.
US Military Tactics were superior than the Brits and Soviets.
The US strategic and Tactical bombing campaign plus the combined forces tactics invented by the US overwhelmed the Germans in the west and took away resources that could have been used against the USSR. The USSR basic battle plan was a war of attrition. Millions of Soviet soldiers were wasted in stupid mass wave attacks.

The US was also fighting a war in the Pacific in which the theatre of operations was practically an entire Hemisphere.

As for the Idea tha if Germany had invaded the UK then the US would have no jumping off point for an invasion of europe you obviously have forgotten North Africa. An invasion could have come through Italy or the Southern coast of France. I am not saying it would be easy but it could have been done.

The US Military has never lost a war. The closest it came to that was the War of 1812 which could best be described as a draw.
Vietnam was a Political(Democrat) loss not a military one.

[Eki]

The US Military has never lost a war.
Yes it has. At least the Civil War.

[BDunnell]

You lack of any grasp of Military History is amusing.

So is your lack of any grasp of the fact that US military history is littered with mistakes and failures, just as any country's military history is, while your mindless jingoism would be even funnier were it not so sadly blinkered. I value the more open-minded opinions being voiced here from all sides of the argument far higher than any predictable (and badly-written) bluster about how the US has done nothing other than exercise utter superiority other than when it has been ruled by Democrats.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You lack of any grasp of Military History is amusing.

So the US had a smaller percentage of causualties.
The US soldier was a much better fighter than The Russians and the Brits.
US Military Tactics were superior than the Brits and Soviets.
The US strategic and Tactical bombing campaign plus the combined forces tactics invented by the US overwhelmed the Germans in the west and took away resources that could have been used against the USSR. The USSR basic battle plan was a war of attrition. Millions of Soviet soldiers were wasted in stupid mass wave attacks.

The US was also fighting a war in the Pacific in which the theatre of operations was practically an entire Hemisphere.

As for the Idea tha if Germany had invaded the UK then the US would have no jumping off point for an invasion of europe you obviously have forgotten North Africa. An invasion could have come through Italy or the Southern coast of France. I am not saying it would be easy but it could have been done.

The US Military has never lost a war. The closest it came to that was the War of 1812 which could best be described as a draw.
Vietnam was a Political(Democrat) loss not a military one.

What a load of Nationalistic twaddle.


The US soldier was a much better fighter than The Russians and the Brits.
US Military Tactics were superior than the Brits and Soviets.

This is your opinion. You can't insult someones knowledge of history if they have a different opinion.

[TOgoFASTER]

The US Military has never lost a war. The closest it came to that was the War of 1812 which could best be described as a draw.
Vietnam was a Political(Democrat) loss not a military one.

LOL You need to get over the rudimentary boot camp indoctrinations and read some factual history. Most figure that out while they were still in the service.
You give two great examples of why the US is greater than just it's military and also good reasons why it's a good thing the military doesn't run the government.


Fulgencio still loves ya.

[Mark]

I think they were pretty comprehensively beaten in Vietnam.

[Tazio]

Yes it has. At least the Civil War
That is technically incorrect. The Rebels suseeded from the Union
The U.S. Government basically quelled an uprising
A REALLY BIG ONE!!!

All american casualties in every other war that they were involved in did not exceed the number of casualties from our Civil War alone untill Desert Storm!


I think they were pretty comprehensively beaten in Vietnam.. Personally I agree! However technically Viet Nam was a "Police Action" not a formal declaration of war.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="janvanvurpa"]Yo


The figures alone of troops engaged in actual contact--shooting at the enemy--shows the US did little of the FIGHTING in defeating Germany and Japan, we let our Allies bleed: The Soviets in Europe and the Chinese in Asia.




Id agree with alot of the rest but that statement is absolute horse shi+.

[Eki]

That is technically incorrect. The Rebels suseeded from the Union
The U.S. Government basically quelled an uprising
A REALLY BIG ONE!!!


True. It's funny how when Lincoln quelled an uprising where 600,000 people died, he was a hero, and when Saddam Hussein quelled Kurdish and Shiia uprisings with fewer casualties, he was a hideous monster.

[Tazio]

Ever hear of Iwo Jima :rolleyes:

[anthonyvop]

Insults alone does not counter the fact that nobody here has been able to prove me wrong!

The US Military has never lost a war.

The US Military was the superor Fighting force in WW2.

[janvanvurpa]

Chuck34, I read your stuff, OK? But it's clear that you have, as you have said, a rather Americo-centric view of the war, I look at US involvement as one piece of a very complicated puzzle.

And ironically we both say we are fed up with "revisionist history" (though I doubt you say that with a parody like Russian accent as i do).
The difference is when I grew up in the 50s, I watched B movies from just 10-13 years before focusing on "Our brave Russian Allies fighting the brutal savage Nazis " or "Our brave Chinese Allies helping us fight the sub-human treacherous Japs" or "Our brave merchantmen saving Britain (or Russia) by bringing their convoys thru" or "Our brave British RAF bombing...." "Our brave Naval forces sinking the Bismark" , "our plucky Ozzie troops at Tobruk" or the "brave Long Range desert patrols..." and on and on in addition to the normal B movie stuff featuring US soldiers, sailors, etc.
We also saw countless documentaries about all the same, and of course in those days, we little ones actually read the Encyclopedia and it just so happened I preferred Britannica because it was "meatier" in the areas I hadn't been exposed to already. (Should mention I grew up son of a US Naval Officer, and by 8 had been shown around all sorts of US Naval aircraft, shown maintenance and repair facilities with a good guide --"Thats a R1830, same as we used in a ......., seen US infantry weapons and how they worked---still remember 1st time I was allowed to fire a Browning .30 cal LMG---so I was deep into US stuff. Naturally I was more hungry to find out about the "other guys stuff"---and what they did with their 'stuff".)

But the then current mid50s "official line" was now miraculously reversed.
The Germans were our best friends (smoooooooochies) and the "Communists" or Soviets (they were Russians in the old films and documentaries) were relentless, aggressive bloodthirsty automatons. In the far East, the Japanese were making transistor radios obediently for their benevolent new Masters, and the Chinese were now the sub-human, interested soley in killing us all Yellow Peril.
I knew something was up, literally hundreds of millions of people could not have POOF transformed from brave allies to deadly implacable and irrational enemies.

But by the late 60s---incidentally as the whole country grew weary of the endless pointlessness of our guys dying in Viet Nam AND our killing of "them", we began to see less of these movies and and less references to our Allies contribution and more a tunnel vision view culminating in unbelievable stupid comments like you've just seen from the fool from South Florida.

So my comments were aimed at the loud-mouthed, ignorant utter fools so totally out of touch with reality as you see in the stupid and aggressive opinions vomited up by Captain America's cousin, the brave combat hardened grizzled veteran Vop.
(Just as one example of the degree of stupidity when Vop says "it was a war of attrition"---any half literate 10 year old, even one from FLORIDA could look at the maps of the action the whole war long and see that virtually every campaign---bar the siege of Leningrad----the operative tactic was constantly and consistently one of single or double envelopment. One both sides.

Another is the fatuous claim that Americans invented the "combined forces tactic invented by the US"---geeze wonder what the Germans and Russians had been doing the whole war long? gee golly".
What unbelievable bull.

For him to be able to blurt out his outrageous nonsense and go unpunished, be allowed to vote, drive, breed---shows how sad the state of affairs is in Florida)

So Chuck, go read some about the sheer staggering numbers involved, the sheer milage (Caen to Berlin 1200km-Berlin to Stalingrad 2250km) The insane SQUARE MILEAGE to be held, its multiple orders of magnitude more than all the rest.
Read the performance of US tanks delivered under Lend Lease vs the performance of T34, they were second rate, and relegated to lesser roles.
Dig into the details of Soviet aircraft production, its all a click away now, its fascinating reading, the amazingly rapid rates of increased performance, and increased firepower from 1939-40 to 41-42 and then again to 44.
Amazing increases, and they did that themselves.

So yeah, each country did its part, but Russia was the center and the focus, all the rest was sideshow. (Again the numbers give an idea of weight of importance. Germans lost in battle a smidge over 4.1 million men (and her Romanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Italian allies lost huge numbers in the East as well) and all but 330,000 were lost in Russia. Just 330,000 for Poland, France, Africa, Italy and the retreat to the end of the war thru France and Germany. Over 175 Divisions written off the books in the East.)

Claims that Americans were the "best soldiers" are absurd.

That is not saying they were not good, and brave but our portion of killing the ememys soldiers was a far smaller portion than you'd expect from a country with the largest population by far among the major Allied combatants. (look up war time populations, we were twice the size of Germany, 3 times bigger than UK or France, nearly the size of Soviet Union)(and 49 times larger than poor Finland left to fend for themselves by the Western Democracies, virtually pushed into the arms of Germany yet so intense was their portion of the fighting they lost in battle roughly 1/3 the numbers USA lost in all combat operations worldwide---and by many measures, THEY were the best soldiers of the war).
So again most of my comments were to the sort of fool that repeats crap which is insulting to the historical record.

Oh and it should be noted that the stupid comments "America has never lost a war" well they have only fought 3rd rate opponents alone in essentially Empire building operations and while they've killed hundreds of thousands, even millions, they haven't beaten so many, and that is a defeat in itself.
Did we "win" in Korea, or the Philippines, or in all the decades in Central America or in Afganistan or in Iraq this time?

[Eki]

Ever hear of Iwo Jima :rolleyes:
Ever heard of Suomussalmi or Raate Road :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raate_road

[TOgoFASTER]

Insults alone does not counter the fact that nobody here has been able to prove me wrong!

The US Military has never lost a war.

The US Military was the superor Fighting force in WW2.

The military goes along with the country and not something that stands on it's own as no military can.
The US was the superior manufacturer of war goods in numbers, not quality nor effectiveness on the battlefield.
It's factories weren't being bombed like most of the rest of the world's and at the time that had nothing to do with the greatness of the military, but two oceans. The production of these goods had to do with the civilian work force, laborers as well as farmers, the country's nature resources and the correct decision making from the civilian government.
Without the effort of all allied nations putting aside their nationalistic natures and working together against the common foes brought about victory.
The US walked away at the end of the war very fortunate to have it's infastructure intact and strengthened by innovations that came to it's shores from overseas.

A P-51 without a Merlin engine would still be a slow useless recon plane. The main brains behind the A bomb and it's manufacture. Few of many examples.

A short synopsis
The military by the way got it's butt handed to it in the War of 1812.
Two major attempts to invade and conquer Canada failed badly (a major reason that the US went to war), Washington DC was over ran and burnt, Detroit surrendered, one navel victory kept the Brits out of Boston and the complete NE US.
The Brits by the way had an arm and a half tied behind their backs as they were in the middle of fighting Napoleon Bonaparte most of that timeframe and when that was over they were coming full force. The US found it time to negotiate as the military as well as the rest of the US would have been beaten more extensively and the government knew when to fold the tent. The Battle of New Orleans had nothing to do with the war, as it was over.

The military could have never won in Vietnam, and losing in absentia is still losing. The forces left there were fully militarily trained, backed and supplied by the US and they got a good corrupted governement via a sponsored coup that the mass majority of the citizens didn't trust or support as well in that military deal.

Your 'refined' view based on seperating the military from the rest of the country or by political party in power doesn't work. Poor attempt relying on ridiculus technicalities stated in simplistic boot camp indoctrination. Rah rah. LOL

Oh and the Democrats being in charge didn't hurt the outcomes of either WWI or WWII.

Vito still loves ya too!

[chuck34]

Jan, where do I start? I guess thanks for the trip down the revisionist memory lane. You described exactly what I am against. So for that we are on the same page, I guess. What I am proposing is to sort of put youself back in the time of the events and weed out the propaganda. A couple of examples, I don't think the Japaneese were some bloodthirsty devils, or that all Germans were Uber Nazis. For that I would take cues from Patton and McArthur.

Sometimes I'm not sure who you are refering to, so if you were not refering to me on some of this I'm sorry. But you seem to be implying that I made the statement "Americans invented the "combined forces tactic invented by the US"". I never said such a thing. We clearly did not. However, we did use these tactic to great effect. The one glaring example, that I can think of off the top of my head, of not using them to great effect was Market Garden.

I have never said that Russia did not "pull their weight". Again, maybe that is something that I am incorrectly implying from your comments. But this goes to my central point. Russia was not happy with the way thing were going early in the war. There were some thoughts about suing for peace. Churchill did all he could to prevent that. This was a great source of tension all the way up till D-Day actually happened. Stalin repeatadly threatened to "get out" unless a second front was started. So again I go back to the US being important (maybe more on the diplomatic front) to the winning of the war.

No one has disputed my assertion that Eisenhower probably did more to win the war than any other single person involved in the war. He litterally held the coalition together while it was trying to rip itself apart. Churchill didn't like Stalin from the start, and was probably too stuck on FDR. FDR liked Churchill, but knew that Stalin would be the greater threat after the war. So he tried to use his "personal diplomacy" on him, much to Churchill's disapointment. And Stalin didn't really like either man. Eisenhower did quite a bit with his trip to Moscow to smooth this over. Then you have the Monty, Marshall, DeGaulle BS that Ike also patched things up over.

The central point that I take away from my studies (granted rather limited) of the war was that there was way more to winning that war than who had more casualties, and who took more land. If that is the measure that you want to go with then Russia probably wins. Although I don't know as much about the Pacific Theater as I would like. By area that may overshadow the European Theater. Come to think of it there were only two players that fought a two front war, the US and Germany. Hmmm, something to ponder????

[Hawkmoon]

Insults alone does not counter the fact that nobody here has been able to prove me wrong!

The US Military has never lost a war.

The US Military was the superor Fighting force in WW2.

What a load of rubbish!

Fewer than 25% of US infantrymen fired their weapon combat during WWII. By the time US troops got their hands dirty the war had been going on for three years. Go read Patton's thoughts on the performance of his own troops upon their entry into North Africa in 1942. He was far from inpressed. Rommel kicked seven shades of out the US in Africa until he ran out resources.

During one battle in the desert the American commander put half his force on one hill and the other half on another hill a few miles away. That left a bloody huge gap which the Panzers rolled through and picked off each group of Americans in turn. The stupid American commander had spilt his force apart so far that each group was unable to help the other. They were completely routed. Not exactly the actions of a "superior fighting force" are they?

There is was no clearly better army during WWII. All the combatants had victories and suffered defeats, including the US. The Red Army gets denigrated but it was a very effective fighting force. Read up on the Battle of Kursk and you'll get the picture.

Anthony, I recommend you go and read books that weren't written by Americans. I'm sure you'll find them an interesting read.

[chuck34]

Oh yeah, I forgot something. No one (at least I don't think anyone would) argue that the Sherman was inferior to the T-34, or any of the German tanks, in heads up battle. But that's really the point isn't it? We tried not to get into heads up battles, and therfore carried the day.

TgF, Most of what you say is correct. But I do take two exceptions. To say that the Battle of New Orleans had nothing to do with the War of 1812 is to take a VERY revisionist view of things. Neither side knew that the war was over, so they thought like it was still on. And the British did get their @sses handed to them there. Granted that was probably the only bright spot for the American in that war. And from what I know, which isn't much, the US never suffered a military defeat in Vietnam. We just lost the will to fight. One last point to you. You are correct about the Merlin and the P-51. However, with out GE the English version of the jet would have never been a success. In the end, that was not really a factor, but if the war had dragged on into '46 who knows????

[chuck34]

Hawk, that isn't exactly fair. If I remember right those weren't even Patton's troops. And no one is arguing the fact that the US military was in sad shape pre mid '42, probably after that even

[Tazio]

True. It's funny how when Lincoln quelled an uprising where 600,000 people died, he was a hero, and when Saddam Hussein quelled Kurdish and Shiia uprisings with fewer casualties, he was a hideous monster.You will not get an arguement out of me on that one.
It should be duely noted that Lincoln was not loved for his actions by a large percentage of his countryman at the time, and directly afterwards.
He was after all assasinated by a southern sympathizer, Europeans for the most part were pissed off at the whole affair,
The Naval blockade stopped the trade of cotton.
As for Iraq:
I thought that Amercan, and UN actions after Sadam had his b@lls cut off in '92 were effective
The ocasional lobing of a cruise missile into Iraq after a violation of the No Fly Zone seemed to be a very effective deterrent.
Remember the report The 700 pages Iraq turned over to the U.S. (and UN)disclosing the information regarding Sadam's WMD's
I still marvel at the absurd stupidity,
or arrogance of the Bush administration in not caring to understand that NO LEADER of a Country
(that is in an area as potentially dangerous, and internally unstable as Iraq)would say
" YOU CUT MY B@!!$ OFF IN 1992 I DON"T HAVE JACK $HIT IN TERMS OF SERIOUS WEAPONS."
It was a poker hand that the Bushies won! Unfortunately the pot we won was a heap of $hi+

[Hawkmoon]

Hawk, that isn't exactly fair. If I remember right those weren't even Patton's troops. And no one is arguing the fact that the US military was in sad shape pre mid '42, probably after that even

It's probably beside the point but "his troops" or "his country's troops" are essentially the same thing for the purposes of this discussion.

As for the Sherman vs T-34 vs Panzer debate, I would argue that the Sherman was inferior to the T-34 as a main battle tank until the Brits got a hold of it and turned it into the Firefly. Until then the Sherman wasn't a match for the heavier Panzers. It was a good tank because it was easy to produce in large numbers and was a very versatile tank that was easily adapted to a number of roles. But as a main battle tank I think it was inferior to the T-34 and the Panther in it's original form.

As I say, the up-gunned Firefly variant was a good main battle tank but it needed a bit help from the Brits. ;)

[Tazio]

Ever hear of Iwo Jima :rolleyes:

Eki This post was not directed at you!
It was in support of Jimmy Mac's post#42

[chuck34]

It's probably beside the point but "his troops" or "his country's troops" are essentially the same thing for the purposes of this discussion.

As for the Sherman vs T-34 vs Panzer debate, I would argue that the Sherman was inferior to the T-34 as a main battle tank until the Brits got a hold of it and turned it into the Firefly. Until then the Sherman wasn't a match for the heavier Panzers. It was a good tank because it was easy to produce in large numbers and was a very versatile tank that was easily adapted to a number of roles. But as a main battle tank I think it was inferior to the T-34 and the Panther in it's original form.

As I say, the up-gunned Firefly variant was a good main battle tank but it needed a bit help from the Brits. ;)


Sorry Hawk, I don't know much about the Firefly variant, was that a flamethrower deal? And again, you will get no argument from me that the T-34 and Panzers were better tanks in every respect except for produceability (sp?). And honestly, can you say that wasn't the Shermans greatest asset?

[chuck34]

Tazio, you last statement about Iraq, "It was a poker hand that the Bushies won! Unfortunately the pot we won was a heap of $hi+" You will not get any argument from me about that. However, that is hindsight. Let's again look at "now-sight". When the war started Bush had in front of him reports from numerous intelligence agencies about the capabilities of the Iraqi military, that said Saddam must be taken care of. Had he NOT acted, the Dems would have called for his impeachment then and there.

GWB acted on the best intelligence he had at the time. Granted it was probably flawed, but there was no way of knowing that at the time.


Here I go hijacking a thead again. This is the last word you will hear from me about this in this thread.

[Hawkmoon]

Sorry Hawk, I don't know much about the Firefly variant, was that a flamethrower deal? And again, you will get no argument from me that the T-34 and Panzers were better tanks in every respect except for produceability (sp?). And honestly, can you say that wasn't the Shermans greatest asset?

No, the flamethrower variant was called the Croccodile I think. The Firefly was fitted with, from memory, the British 17 pounder gun which gave the Sherman the stopping power it lacked with it's original armament.

I agree with the value of the Sherman's ease of production. The same can be said for the T-34. The flip side is the complexity of the Panzers, particularly the MkV and MkVI, or Panther and Tiger as they were called, which, when combined with deteriorating German production capacity, meant that they never entered the field in enough numbers to provide the punch they so clearly were capable of.

The T-34 was the best battle tank of the war as it had great firepower and armour and coud be produced quickly allowing for numerical superiority. Nothing the Germans, British or Americans came up with was a match for the T-34 in all those areas.

But this discussion isn't really about WWII tank design, rather who's army had the biggest balls. Maybe it is about tanks.... :)

[Rollo]

But this discussion isn't really about WWII tank design, rather who's army had the biggest balls.

If that's the case then the army who has the biggest balls is either Australia or New Zealand. They've both been off to fight other people's wars and never started any. Neither have been successfully "invaded" and the New Zealand Navy is still the only military force which has the issue of rum as standard.

[Tazio]

Tazio, you last statement about Iraq, "It was a poker hand that the Bushies won! Unfortunately the pot we won was a heap of $hi+" You will not get any argument from me about that. However, that is hindsight. Let's again look at "now-sight". When the war started Bush had in front of him reports from numerous intelligence agencies about the capabilities of the Iraqi military, that said Saddam must be taken care of. Didn't the document state in "Now-Time' the reality of the situation?
In less than 24hrs gwb discarded it saying that it was incomeplete.
Which is true if you take into cosideration the imagenary, and Unsubstantiated ones! :dozey:
In "Now Time" "Back Then" that b@stard pissed me off for not persuing more diplomatic solutions!
In hindsight it is all too obvious the motive was war profiteering with a heathy dosage of hubris!

[Mark]

The US Military has never lost a war.


They lost the vietnam war. You can dress it up however you want and say it wasn't a war because it wasn't declared etc, etc. The fact is that a war doesn't need to be 'delcared' to be real. The US military were at war in Vietnam and they lost that war, plain and simple.

You don't give up and go home and allow the enemy to have what they want without it being a defeat.

[Hawkmoon]

They lost the vietnam war. You can dress it up however you want and say it wasn't a war because it wasn't declared etc, etc. The fact is that a war doesn't need to be 'delcared' to be real. The US military were at war in Vietnam and they lost that war, plain and simple.

Yes they lost it, because they didn't win it. They weren't however, beaten militarily. The politics surrounding the conflict prevented the US from achieving a military victory that I believe they otherwise would have achieved.

The North Vietnamese Army, though capably led and bravely fought, would not have been able to hold back the US Army without the political intervention that prevented the US Army from doing such things as entering Laos and Cambodia, which the Vietnamese had no problem doing. The resulting strategic nightmare meant the US essentially had to fight a defensive war when the enemy was fighting a highly mobile war.

Of course, a US force fighting properly may very well have forced the Chinese into an active role in the war and the outcome of that would have been much worse than it was.

You're point stands though Mark, as the US did lose the Vietnam War because a country's military and it's government aren't completely seperate entities. There is a case to be made for the fact that Hitler's incompetence in military matters was one of the reasons for Germany's defeat in WWII. Stalin meddled in the affairs of the Red Army in an extremely bloody fashion and even Churchill stuck his nose into military business when he diverted badly needed resources from the North African campaign to the defense of Greece.

Anthonyvop, mate, your're wrong. The US doesn't have an unbeaten record.

[Mark]

Yes they lost it, because they didn't win it. They weren't however, beaten militarily.

Yep, to say they weren't beaten is like saying the German army in World War 1 wasn't beaten because they just gave up, rather than being overrun.

[Eki]

Yes they lost it, because they didn't win it. They weren't however, beaten militarily. The politics surrounding the conflict prevented the US from achieving a military victory that I believe they otherwise would have achieved.

If Anthonyvop can claim that the US didn't lose in Vietnam, I can claim that Finland didn't lose in WW2. The politicians made a peace both in Winter War and Continuation War while the military was still standing. In fact, of the European countries in WW2, Helsinki was the only capital together with Moscow and London that was never occupied by foreign troops.

[schmenke]

...GWB acted on the best intelligence he had at the time. Granted it was probably flawed, but there was no way of knowing that at the time....

Not true. The reports that the Bush administration was provided by the CIA indicated NO evidence of WMD or nukes :mark: . Bush knew this but lied to the American public and pursued military action anyways.

Sorry, off topic, I know.

Back to tanks! :D

[Eki]

Not true. The reports that the Bush administration was provided by the CIA indicated NO evidence of WMD or nukes :mark: . Bush knew this but lied to the American public and pursued military action anyways.

Sorry, off topic, I know.

Back to tanks! :D

Also Blix told they hadn't found anything and wanted more time, but Cheney told him "he's better find something, or else... :evil: "

[Garry Walker]

You say it would have the same conclusion, but wouldn't the USSR have continued west after Germany? Spreading communism to Western Europe.

Absolutely. USSR was just as evil an empire as Nazi Germany and their goal was domination on a far larger scale than what happened in real life. For that, in a weird way, we have to thank Hitler because he attacked USSR a bit before they were ready to attack him and rest of europe.


I'm not sure I've ever seen any evidence to show that this might have happened, though I suppose it is a possibility.

The whole policy of USSR was directed at that. Stalins idea was to let Germany bleed out the whole of europe and then take it all over. This was his whole thinking behind MRP. There were massive plans, even to attack UK. But Germany was very successful, invaded countries with not too big losses and then attacked USSR before they attacked Germany.



Garry, I'm refering to all the stupid decsions. Diversion of resources away from projects that could have helped, Barbarosa, etc., etc. And the war was by no means over by D-Day. Sure the odds were that the Allies were going to win. However, if the Germans could have pushed us back into the sea on D-Day the course of the war would have been MUCH different. You are probably right that the USSR would have eventually won. But, then again had we been pushed back, the odds are we would have sued for peace. Then the bombs stop dropping on the industrial heart land of Germany, and they can re-arm?????

If Allies had lost on D-day and pushed back, there was ZERO chance they would have asked for peace. Zero. They already had decided at Teheran conference in 1943 that Germany would have to unconditionally surrender. Besides, there was a front at italy already.

Of course, if D-day had been lost and considering it would have probably given Germany more than 6 months before another such attack would take place, so it would have allowed huge transport of resources and men to eastern front, but not enough of it to change the course of war. After Kursk, the war, in my opinion, was not possible to win from German point of view.

As for Hitlers mistakes, his stance regarding Stalingrad was idiotic, as was his decision to halt the attack on Kursk when Manstein thought a breakthrough was possible. A victory at kursk could have altered the course of war quite a bit.


You lack of any grasp of Military History is amusing.

So the US had a smaller percentage of causualties.
The US soldier was a much better fighter than The Russians and the Brits.
US Military Tactics were superior than the Brits and Soviets.

Better than the soviet soldier? I don`t think that is true at all. At the start of the war yes, but by the end of the war USSR forces were very competent, also in leadership (Zhukov was one of the most brilliant generals of WW II)
Of course, they were nowhere near the level of your average Waffen-SS soldier.



The US Military has never lost a war.
Do you actually believe that?


Russia was not happy with the way thing were going early in the war. There were some thoughts about suing for peace. In 1941, apparently yes. Not after that.


Stalin repeatadly threatened to "get out" unless a second front was started. Bull.



No one has disputed my assertion that Eisenhower probably did more to win the war than any other single person involved in the war. Again, Bull.



He litterally held the coalition together while it was trying to rip itself apart. Churchill didn't like Stalin from the start, and was probably too stuck on FDR. FDR liked Churchill, but knew that Stalin would be the greater threat after the war. So he tried to use his "personal diplomacy" on him, much to Churchill's disapointment. And Stalin didn't really like either man. Eisenhower did quite a bit with his trip to Moscow to smooth this over. Then you have the Monty, Marshall, DeGaulle BS that Ike also patched things up over. Politics between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had little to do with liking or not liking eachother, it had to do with who gets the upperhand politically. It is a shame Roosevelt croaked so late, he was a weak opponent to Stalin.
The coalition held itself together by more important issues than Eisenhower.

Come to think of it there were only two players that fought a two front war, the US and Germany. Hmmm, something to ponder????
I guess you are forgetting USSR attacking manchuria?

[BDunnell]

I think the idea of attributing any more success to one significant figure in WW2 than any other is a bit laughable, to be honest.

[AAReagles]

... My contention is that the 4 Allies (France, England, Russia, and the US) were pretty much on equal terms, with the US being just slightly more important... But many are trying to say that since the French fought longer, or that the Russian had more casualties, that they are more important.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Actually I don't think that Mark is off from the truth...





... Of course the USA is very important because they helped tip the balance in favour of the allies, but it could be argued that Hitler did that himself by concentrating on Russia.

You have to remember in an historical context, before WWII the USA wasn't very important at all on the world stage, it was all about the UK and France and their respective empires.

It's WWII and Americas response to it that made them the world power they are today; it's easy to think that they have always been that way.


From best I can recollect, America was mostly useful in the sense that it was one of the leading industrialized nations, therefore was able to offer supplies and goods as well as manpower (eventually) to commit on the western Europe campaign.

Why I say that is, like most other countries prior to WWII, America really only had world-size element in Navy, not so much in army or in aircraft numbers.

Productivity was up some after WWI, but at that time aircraft research & developement was in it's infancy, electricity, cars, refrigeration (for food storage not as a luxury) were still needing improvements. Only after other comfort products were being introduced to a curious, anxious society did the necessary demands require a greater supply to match - creating more industries - not necessarily for civilian requests but for military as well.

Case in point: After WWI (1919), a 28 yr. old Lt. Col. named Eisenhower took part on a first time-ever Army motorized cross-country journey to evaluate the military response from the east coast to the west coast (Washington - San Francisco). Eisenhower duly noted the unfavorable conditions of roads, particularly the unpaved sections outside most cities in those days. If it rained the units would become bogged down.

Hence as to why he took a great appreciation of the German Autobahns and the efficiencey of their designs. Stirring him to create the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.


The U.S. wasn't important in the world as far as the Europeans are concerned; but within the Pacific region, where rubber and tin (Malaya), iron ore (Phillipines), rice (Indo-China/Burma), as well as oil, coal and other resources... Japan however disagreed.

[AAReagles]

... The US soldier was a much better fighter than The Russians and the Brits...

Though I realize there is some anti-american sentiments being expressed from time to time, I must say as an American I even am offened that our Allies then are regarded as such.

BD had it right from the beggining; ALL Allies were important in fighting the war, doesn't matter if it was American bombers raiding Berlin or bands of Italian-communist hitting german supply lines in the country side.

[Rollo]

Hence as to why he took a great appreciation of the German Autobahns and the efficiencey of their designs. Stirring him to create the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.


aided and abetted by Charles Erwin Wilson who was his "Secretary of Defence" and not at all connected to his former post of CEO of General Motors :D

We need interstate highways for national defence... and isn't it lovely that there are all these nice new roads for me to fill up with new cars? Hmm.

[anthonyvop]

Better than the soviet soldier? I don`t think that is true at all. At the start of the war yes, but by the end of the war USSR forces were very competent, also in leadership (Zhukov was one of the most brilliant generals of WW II)
Of course, they were nowhere near the level of your average Waffen-SS soldier.



Zhukov Brilliant? BULL.

Here is his tactic for every battle.

Where are the Germans? OK Send a lot of troops there. What? Not Working? Send more troops!

In every battle Zhukov won he had a large superiority in Numbers.

[Hawkmoon]

Zhukov Brilliant? BULL.

Here is his tactic for every battle.

Where are the Germans? OK Send a lot of troops there. What? Not Working? Send more troops!

In every battle Zhukov won he had a large superiority in Numbers.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you? Numbers are only part of the equation.

Who had the numerical superiority in North Africa when the US finally got there? Here's a hint, it wasn't Rommell. Who had the numerical superiority after D-Day. Again it wasn't the Germans. If Zhukov only won because of numbers then the same can be said for Montgomery and the other Allied generals. It simply isn't true.

There are dozens of cases of numerically inferior forces defeating their larger opponents. The Battle of Thermopylae saw 7000 Greeks fight 200,000 Persians to a standstill before they were betrayed. They did that by using superior tactics and the use of advantageous terrain. The Australians defeated a much larger Japanese force on the Kokoda Trail and Napolean won many battles against larger foes.

Your US Rangers defeated a much larger force in the Battle of Mogadishu. That was a perfect example of a small force winning through courage, discipline and tactics. The media turned that battle into a defeat but it was most certainly a military victory, even if it wasn't a political one.

So how about a little credit where it's due?

[anthonyvop]

Hawkmoon,


The D-Day invasion included a 3,000 mile supply line and was one of the great Military moves in modern history where a numerically inferior force invaded a continent.
Montegomery's name should never be used when discussing great Military leaders. If he was a U.S. General he would have been relieved of duty at the front and shipped back home quickly.

[Hawkmoon]

Hawkmoon,


The D-Day invasion included a 3,000 mile supply line and was one of the great Military moves in modern history where a numerically inferior force invaded a continent.
Montegomery's name should never be used when discussing great Military leaders. If he was a U.S. General he would have been relieved of duty at the front and shipped back home quickly.

Your point? Over half the Allied troops were British and Commonwealth forces and all the generals involved were British expect for Bradley and Eisenhower. The Germans opposing them, though greater in number were scattered all over France and the rest of Europe. Most German divisions were at no better than half strength.

You don't rate Monty? Try this quote from Wikipedia:


Montgomery's strategy of drawing the bulk of the German armour units around the vital town of Caen so the American units could break out to the west meant that British and Commonwealth units had to face over 70% of all German armour deployed during the Battle of Normandy, as well as almost all the elite, well-equipped SS units which contained the fearsome Tigers and Panthers. Thus, despite the relatively low number of Panthers and Tigers deployed, they would almost all be facing British and Commonwealth troops

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

Yes, he definently was rubbish. :rolleyes:

The belief that Montgomery wasn't any good is a myth that some Americans have been trying to perpetuate for 60 years. Montgomery was a very good general and I would argue he was the equal of or superior to anybody the US had during WWII. He was, in my opinion, better than Patton and makes MacArthur look like the joke he was. That's just naming the two of the more high profile US Generals of the period.

Get over it Anthony, your Americans played a great part in winning WWII but they didn't do it single-handedly and nor were they any better than their allies or their opponents.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Hawkmoon"]. :rolleyes:

and makes MacArthur look like the joke he was. .

Now hold on there! What about his masterstroke at Inchon, Korea 1951. which turned the war around. Admittedly he proceeded to nearly start WW3 and had to be relieved of his command, but you can't deny his abilities as a tactician.

[Hawkmoon]

After reading things like this below I struggle with the idea that MacArthur was a great general.

From: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/macarthursfailures.aspx



Although with all the warnings of an imminent attack, the actual Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had taken nearly all Americans by total surprise. None the least was MacArthur, who when informed of the attack was reported to have exclaimed, "Pearl Harbor! It should be our strongest point."[41] As a seasoned commander and ex-Chief of Staff of the United States Army, MacArthur should have been one of the most stalwarts of the stalwarts in the Philippines. Instead, as Costello states, MacArthur was in an "apparent cataleptic state," and that "The shock of events seemed to have clouded his [MacArthur's] judgment, leading him to believe, according to President Quezon, ‘that the Philippines would remain neutral and would not be attacked by the Japanese.'"[42] Morris supports this when he relates that, "An air of unreality gripped MacArthur at his headquarters in the ‘House on the Wall,'"[43] a penthouse on top of the palatial Manila Hotel built for him by Philippine President Manuel Quezon.[44]

Unlike MacArthur, however, Major General Lewis H. Brereton, Commander United States Far East Air Force, was quick to react. Upon hearing the news of the Pearl Harbor attack, he immediately put his planes on alert and headed for the Manila Hotel. Arriving at MacArthur's headquarters at approximately 5:00 a.m., Brereton requested permission to launch a preemptive strike against the known concentration of Japanese aircraft on the island of Formosa.[45] Unfortunately, the shock and confusion that reigned in MacArthur's headquarters would prove fatal to Brereton's air forces, and the Philippines. As Costello relates, "a fatal paralysis gripped MacArthur's command that morning. His Chief of Staff [General Richard Sutherland] insisted on a preliminary reconnaissance mission because there was little information about what they were going to find to bomb on Formosa."[46]

[anthonyvop]

Hawkmoon,

If you are going to use Wikipedia as your source then this debate is over.

[BDunnell]

Hawkmoon,

If you are going to use Wikipedia as your source then this debate is over.

And if you are not prepared to state in detail what is wrong with that account — for, not knowing the answer, I would be interested — then it isn't a debate, is it?

PS — 'The Americans never did anything wrong' is not an acceptable response.

[markabilly]

They lost the vietnam war. You can dress it up however you want and say it wasn't a war because it wasn't declared etc, etc. The fact is that a war doesn't need to be 'delcared' to be real. The US military were at war in Vietnam and they lost that war, plain and simple.

You don't give up and go home and allow the enemy to have what they want without it being a defeat.


By that definition, the US has lost a number of wars, when for purely political reason, the USA just went home.


However in Nam, if the US had fought a proper war, without the politics, North would have surrendered and indeed, pretty much did so by signing a peace treaty. The reason for the peace treaty was the expanded B-52 bombing of the north, that forced the commies to agree to stop the war and to peace.

So the commies lost the war against american forces. They turned over the POWs which included John McCain

Then the US went home. And then later, the the war started again, without much involvement of the very few american forces left there. The commies broke the peace treaty

[Tazio]

Not true. The reports that the Bush administration was provided by the CIA indicated NO evidence of WMD or nukes :mark: . Bush knew this but lied to the American public and pursued military action anyway.
And today as a sign of ever loving appreciation for gwb's contribution to his country there is this little snipett:
Angry Iraqi throws shoes at Bush in Baghdad
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
(CNN) -- President Bush made a farewell visit Sunday to Baghdad, Iraq, where he met with Iraqi leaders and was targeted by an angry Iraqi man, who jumped up and threw shoes at Bush during a news conference :laugh:

[Eki]

And today as a sign of ever loving appreciation for gwb's contribution to his country there is this little snipett:
Angry Iraqi throws shoes at Bush in Baghdad
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
(CNN) -- President Bush made a farewell visit Sunday to Baghdad, Iraq, where he met with Iraqi leaders and was targeted by an angry Iraqi man, who jumped up and threw shoes at Bush during a news conference :laugh:
The funny thing is that Bush getting the shoe is front page material in American media, while him wasting 100 billion dollars of AMerican taxpayers' money on rebuilding Iraq is hardly mentioned. I'd like to hear Anthonyvop explain how this was in the best interests of his country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm


The US media has just published details of a US government report saying that post invasion reconstruction of Iraq was crippled by bureaucratic turf wars and an ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society.

The report is circulating among US officials in draft form, says the New York Times.

It reveals details of a reconstruction effort that cost more than $100bn (£67bn) and only succeeded in restoring what was destroyed in the invasion and the widespread looting that followed it, the newspaper said.

[Hawkmoon]

Hawkmoon,

If you are going to use Wikipedia as your source then this debate is over.

I agree that Wiki can be a bit dodgy at times but unless you can come up with an alternate source that contradicts what's in the Wiki, then the debate is indeed over.

You've provided little or no evidence to back up your claims that the Americans were the best troops of the war and that Montgomery and Zhukov were rubbish generals. If you've got any evidence I'd like to see it because I enjoy debating WWII and miltiary history in general.

The ball's in your court Mr Vop.

[Tazio]

The funny thing is that Bush getting the shoe is front page material in American media, while him wasting 100 billion dollars of AMerican taxpayers' money on rebuilding Iraq is hardly mentioned!
Eki even when you and I are in agreement, I feel like you are trying to put us at odds! :confused:
Don't do that! The wasting of contractor money is old news.
For god sake the fact that millions upon millions were delivered in gunny sacks stuffed with cash was common knowledge 3 years ago.
Someone getting a clean shot at gw is great news to those of us that despise this little man.
He has the lowest approval rating in his own country than any Pres in my lifetime.
The only solace I get from his miserable administration is I have considered him a dead man walking for over 5 years!

[janvanvurpa]

The funny thing is that Bush getting the shoe is front page material in American media, while him wasting 100 billion dollars of AMerican taxpayers' money on rebuilding Iraq is hardly mentioned. I'd like to hear Anthonyvop explain how this was in the best interests of his country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm

Eki you silly boy it works like this:
All those big defense Corporations get to make lots more of everything from trucks and tanks to shoes and bullets, and no just for the combat expentitures but even more for wear and tear. Reports are that much if the military equipment is in sad state of repair and will need replacements son.
That good business, lots of jobs making all that, and so lots of money for the workers producing stuff and even more for the big Corporations.

The civilian contractors building stuff also get to make massive huge profits and are completely exempted from ever finsihing anything and since it's all on a cost+ basis, so if they decide they need a platton of "security" that's just the cost of doing business.

And that brings us to the 180,000 "Contractors" all of whom are making wages at anywhere from 3 to 10 times what they get as simple soldiers.
That's a lot of money in people's hands and they're Americans, so that means "NO SAVING----Gotta SPEND SPEND SPEND!!!!"

The owners and shareholders will need new trophy houses, and private jets, the Boeing and Lockhees and Halliburton employees will be rolling in cash and will need new Pickups and SUVs and Jaccuzis and other luxury goods and somebody has to make all that stuff.

See? The whole thing is a "Stimulus Program".






Or from another point of view if one were cynical, Corporate Welfare.

[Eki]

Eki you silly boy it works like this:
All those big defense Corporations get to make lots more of everything from trucks and tanks to shoes and bullets, and no just for the combat expentitures but even more for wear and tear. Reports are that much if the military equipment is in sad state of repair and will need replacements son.
That good business, lots of jobs making all that, and so lots of money for the workers producing stuff and even more for the big Corporations.

The civilian contractors building stuff also get to make massive huge profits and are completely exempted from ever finsihing anything and since it's all on a cost+ basis, so if they decide they need a platton of "security" that's just the cost of doing business.

And that brings us to the 180,000 "Contractors" all of whom are making wages at anywhere from 3 to 10 times what they get as simple soldiers.
That's a lot of money in people's hands and they're Americans, so that means "NO SAVING----Gotta SPEND SPEND SPEND!!!!"

The owners and shareholders will need new trophy houses, and private jets, the Boeing and Lockhees and Halliburton employees will be rolling in cash and will need new Pickups and SUVs and Jaccuzis and other luxury goods and somebody has to make all that stuff.

See? The whole thing is a "Stimulus Program".






Or from another point of view if one were cynical, Corporate Welfare.

Well, if you put it like that.

[chuck34]

Ok, it has become abundantly clear to me that the USA is the source of all evil in the world. It all started when the election of 2000 was stolen from the great Al Gore. Had he been elected we would have have to be wearing Parkas in July because he would have turned this global warming thing around so well. Also, we would be hip deep in all the roses that the whole world would have thrown at us in adjulation. Instead, we are the most dispicable country ever to blight the face of the earth. This blight is so great that it didn't just start in 2000, it goes all the way back to the time when Columbus figured out there was something over here. Then he figured that the Indians had to be wiped out, proceeded to do so, and we've been on a downward spiral ever since. On behalf of the entire American population, oh I'm sorry, US population (because we all know that the Canadians and Mexicans are perfect in every way) I am truly and deeply sorry. We will do all that we can to rid the world of all US influence and erase our names from History books.

On a bit more serious note (although I'm not sure how far off my last paragraph is to some people's reality), if you want to see another view point of how people viewed Monty then go read something, anything, besides Wikipedia. Sure in hindsight maybe Monty stalling in Caen drew some Germans away from the main thrust of the Americans. But this is only when viewed in hindsight. It was not the plan before, durring, or after. At the time EVERYONE from the lowest private up to Eisenhower, Churchill, and FDR were all begging him to get on with it.

The man was a meticulous planner. He wouldn't do anything until everything was "just so". This was his biggest downfall.

[donKey jote]

This blight is so great that it didn't just start in 2000, it goes all the way back to the time when Columbus figured out there was something over here. Then he figured that the Indians had to be wiped out, proceeded to do so, and we've been on a downward spiral ever since.

and there I was thinking it was the cowboys who dunnit :dozey: :rolleyes:

[Hawkmoon]

On a bit more serious note (although I'm not sure how far off my last paragraph is to some people's reality), if you want to see another view point of how people viewed Monty then go read something, anything, besides Wikipedia. Sure in hindsight maybe Monty stalling in Caen drew some Germans away from the main thrust of the Americans. But this is only when viewed in hindsight. It was not the plan before, durring, or after. At the time EVERYONE from the lowest private up to Eisenhower, Churchill, and FDR were all begging him to get on with it.

The man was a meticulous planner. He wouldn't do anything until everything was "just so". This was his biggest downfall.

The fact that he could stall the Germans says something about the fighting abilities of the British and Commonwealth troops, does it not? Anthonyvop is of the mistaken belief that if it wasn't American in WWII is wasn't worth anything. He's wrong.

As for Montgomery, what is it with you Americans? You have a thing about the man that I don't get. Spielberg even felt the need to take a dig at him in Saving Private Ryan. It's because of Market Garden isn't it? You can't win them all. Anzio didn't exactly go well for the Americans either. Nobody got out of WWII with an unblemished record.

[chuck34]

The fact that he could stall the Germans says something about the fighting abilities of the British and Commonwealth troops, does it not? Anthonyvop is of the mistaken belief that if it wasn't American in WWII is wasn't worth anything. He's wrong.

As for Montgomery, what is it with you Americans? You have a thing about the man that I don't get. Spielberg even felt the need to take a dig at him in Saving Private Ryan. It's because of Market Garden isn't it? You can't win them all. Anzio didn't exactly go well for the Americans either. Nobody got out of WWII with an unblemished record.

I'm not quite on the same page as Anthonyvop. Yes, we are both American and proud. However, he may get a bit over zelous at times (as do I).

I have never said that the British and Commonwealth troops did anything other than fight very valiantly.

As for good 'ole Monty... Maybe it is because of Market Garden. However, Caen was, quite obviously, before then and that was not one of his most shining moments. And Spielberg wasn't the first to take a shot at him. Ike didn't really like him at the time and would pretty much tell anyone who would listen. Churchill was on the same page as Ike, so was Alexander. But they all knew that the British, and to some extent American, public were not on the same page. The "common folk" had some sort of almost hero worship for him. That is what I have never understood. Therefore, for political reasons Ike had to keep him around. (another point to my thesis that Ike deserves a lot of the credit for keeping the Allies together, thus winning the war).

[Rollo]

See? The whole thing is a "Stimulus Program".

Or from another point of view if one were cynical, Corporate Welfare.

Cynical? Not at all, merely government policy.

The ironic thing is that it was suggested by... Charles Erwin Wilson, former CEO of General Motors and then Secretary of Defence. By its very nature an institutionalised war economy is a semi-command type. Congress, the Department of Defence and the subsidised war industries form an "Iron Triangle" which as we have seen in practice has been government policy since 1951.

How strange that whilst fighting commies and pushing forward the ideals of capitalism, the US was in fact operating a part Marxist economy.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm not quite on the same page as Anthonyvop. Yes, we are both American and proud. However, he may get a bit over zelous at times (as do I).

I have never said that the British and Commonwealth troops did anything other than fight very valiantly.

As for good 'ole Monty... Maybe it is because of Market Garden. However, Caen was, quite obviously, before then and that was not one of his most shining moments. And Spielberg wasn't the first to take a shot at him. Ike didn't really like him at the time and would pretty much tell anyone who would listen. Churchill was on the same page as Ike, so was Alexander. But they all knew that the British, and to some extent American, public were not on the same page. The "common folk" had some sort of almost hero worship for him. That is what I have never understood. Therefore, for political reasons Ike had to keep him around. (another point to my thesis that Ike deserves a lot of the credit for keeping the Allies together, thus winning the war).

Montgomery was certainly a prickly character but he was a very good general. Bradley and Patton didn't like him but respected his skills and he was even awarded the Legion of Merit by the US Government for his leadership of the 8th in North Africa.

He annoyed the Americans, and Patton in particular by changing the plans for the invasion of Sicily. It sounds like he had a running battle with the Americans from that point onwards.

He had a major influence on the planning of Overlord. Caen wasn't an accident, Monty planned to use Caen as a pivot by capturing the city with the Brits and Canadians which would allow the Americans to wheel around the city to the south and then strike into the flank of the Germans. The weather and supply issues hampered the operation but Montgomery adapted his strategy to suit. The delays apparently angered the Americans but the end result was the same. The Allies captured Caen, in the process drawing the bulk of the German armour towards the city which facilitated the American break out and the defeat of the Germans in Normandy. I don't see how this is a negative against Montgomery.

Sure, the failure to close the Falaise Pocket quickly enough resulted in many Germans escaping but the fault there lies with the nature of combined army operations as it does with any one individual. Both Bradley and Montgomery can take some of the blame for this but I think it's only hindsight that allows for the apportioning of blame at all.

I think Montgomery has become a focal point for all the bickering that went on between the Brits and the Americans, alot of which was probably caused by his personality. You say that Eisenhower didn't like him and that maybe true on a personal level but, and I stand corrected if I'm wrong, didn't Eisenhower apoint him as commander of the Allied forces for the Normandy invasion? Eisenhower must have respected Monty's ability.

Leaving Monty alone for a moment, who do you think were the best military leaders of the war?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Best military leader of the war? (excuse me but I have to join this thread after close to a year of not going to Chit Chat). The Best leader of the war was....well It depends on what kind of General you wanted. To say who is the best leader of men in this war to end of all wars is not really an easy question. What should be asked is who was the best at the front general or who was the best staff general.

To this day, the skills needed to play the political game and insulate the men doing the fighting are entirely different than drawing up battle plans on the fly, or planning operations and then implementing them.

For a staff guy, Ike was the best. He had to keep all those egos going in the same direction and make sure the guys at the front had what they needed. If you were in a situation where someone needed to take the bull by the horns because the enemy just rendered your best plans useless, then Patton was the man.

If you wanted to prepare a set piece battle plan and minimize casualties, Monty was pretty tough to beat. All of them had their faults and positives.

Omar Bradley was likely the most well rounded leader, along with lesser known Generals like Guy Simonds of Canada.

If I knew more about the men of the Wehrmacht or the Red Army or even the Japanese army, I might suggest some of those names but I don't know enough of them to hazard a guess. I would suggest Rommel was one of the great ones no matter which side he was on, and I would hardly say Smiling Al Kesselring and his defense of Italy was incompetant. The Germans were pretty good.....but I wouldn't know if I could compare to them Patton, Monty, Bradley or any other name.

I would suggest tho that the Allies couldn't have had all the brains....

[Hawkmoon]

I would suggest tho that the Allies couldn't have had all the brains....

No, they most certainly didn't. Rommel is well known and was a very bold, some would say reckless, commander but was a very good exponent of Blitzkreig. I also think von Arnim was pretty good in the latter part of the African campaign as he gave the Allies a bloody nose or two but his bickering with Rommel didn't help.

Guderian, arguably the father of mechanised warfare, also rates very highly. He fell out with Hitler and the German High Command on a couple of occasions to the detriment of the German war effort. He had to fight tooth and nail to get the creation of the Panzer divisions through the High Command. Once he did the result was pretty plain to see. He was at the forefront of the early German gains and was instrumental in the rout of the BEF. If Hitler had not called him off he would have made a mess of the Brits and French at Dunkirk.

I know little of the Japanese commanders as I haven't read that much about the Pacific Theatre. Likewise the Soviets remain largely unfamiliar to me though Zhukov, by all accounts, was a good tactician. I'm about to read a book on Stalingrad so that should give me a better idea of the Soviets.

[BDunnell]

The man was a meticulous planner. He wouldn't do anything until everything was "just so". This was his biggest downfall.

You are absolutely right. This is precisely why he wasn't chosen to lead a push on Berlin from the north. One quote I have read about him, from papers of the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces, reads: '...if anything was to be done quickly, don't give it to Monty... Monty would have needed at least six months to prepare an attack on Berlin.'

[chuck34]

Best military leader of the war? (excuse me but I have to join this thread after close to a year of not going to Chit Chat). The Best leader of the war was....well It depends on what kind of General you wanted. To say who is the best leader of men in this war to end of all wars is not really an easy question. What should be asked is who was the best at the front general or who was the best staff general.

To this day, the skills needed to play the political game and insulate the men doing the fighting are entirely different than drawing up battle plans on the fly, or planning operations and then implementing them.

For a staff guy, Ike was the best. He had to keep all those egos going in the same direction and make sure the guys at the front had what they needed. If you were in a situation where someone needed to take the bull by the horns because the enemy just rendered your best plans useless, then Patton was the man.

If you wanted to prepare a set piece battle plan and minimize casualties, Monty was pretty tough to beat. All of them had their faults and positives.

Omar Bradley was likely the most well rounded leader, along with lesser known Generals like Guy Simonds of Canada.

If I knew more about the men of the Wehrmacht or the Red Army or even the Japanese army, I might suggest some of those names but I don't know enough of them to hazard a guess. I would suggest Rommel was one of the great ones no matter which side he was on, and I would hardly say Smiling Al Kesselring and his defense of Italy was incompetant. The Germans were pretty good.....but I wouldn't know if I could compare to them Patton, Monty, Bradley or any other name.

I would suggest tho that the Allies couldn't have had all the brains....


Pretty much word for word what I would say.

Ike was hands down the best staff general. Like I said, I believe he kept the whole deal together (just imagine what might have happened if Ike wasn't between Monty and DeGaulle). Patton was the best "at the front" general. Monty was a great planner, but couldn't command "at the front" anywhere near a lot of the others. This, and political concerns were why Ike picked him to do a lot of the planning for Overlord.

Rommel would have to be pretty high on the list, as well as Zukov.

Like many others have said, I don't know too much about Pacific Theater players. Other than bits and pieces about MacArthur from my readings about Ike and Truman.

[chuck34]

Hawk, I agree that Caen wasn't an accident as far as being the pivot for the whole operation. But Monty said he could take it much quicker than he actually did. And as much as weather does play a part in every action, it should not be used as an excuse. Did Patton use the poor weather as an excuse in delaying the relief of Bastone???

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hawk, I agree that Caen wasn't an accident as far as being the pivot for the whole operation. But Monty said he could take it much quicker than he actually did. And as much as weather does play a part in every action, it should not be used as an excuse. Did Patton use the poor weather as an excuse in delaying the relief of Bastone???

Patton would have driven through anything to get to a fight. Weather was never his issue.

Monty's deliberate planning was always couched in his concern to minimize casualties. AT some point however, the war actually has to be fought and the casualties are going to happen. That said, the relatively few casualties on D-Day (Ike was expecting 10 times the casualties they received) was part and parcel to the planning and meticulious thinking that Monty put into the planning of "Overlord".

That said, if your unit was 5 miles from capturing a town and ending the war, by the time Monty got a handle on things...the enemy would be long gone or building a wall 30 feet thick to stop you. Patton would have had the whole thing mopped up before you had time to think about taking the town.

Both have their places.....


As for Guderin...I forgot his contributions but he and Rommel I would rate VERY high on any list of great generals from ANY era.

[Hawkmoon]

I think Monty's approach was coloured by his experience in WWI. He was appalled by the waste of life and I think he never wanted to see that again with troops under his command. Perhaps this made him over cautious at times.

Chuck, I disagree with Monty not being an effective battlefield commander. His effect on the 8th Army in North Africa was huge. He lifted morale out of sight and was constantly among his troops. Auchinleck had let morale fall very low, understandable I suppose with Rommel and the Afrika Corps kicking seven shades out of you, but Monty turned that around by being on the ground with his men. The 8th became a much more effective army under his leadership. I don't think that could be solely down to meticulous planning.

Monty certainly didn't display the daring of Rommel or Patton. As I say, perhaps his experience in WWI had something to do with that. I think a better comparison would be with Guderian. Both were stategic thinkers that could also think tactically when they were on the ground.

[jim mcglinchey]

Yeah, I think that most of the British commanders had the horrors of the first world war fresh in their memories, and they went to great lengths to minimise their casualties. They saw what worked against Gerry at Amiens, 1918 and they wouldnt take them on again without a coordinated and overwhelming force.

Best commander of the war ? Bill Slim of the Forgotten Fourteenth who turned the Burma rout into total victory.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Monty learned in the trenches of WW1 but Patton was there too and it didn't change his attitude. I would suggest both took different lessons from the experience. Monty thought wasting lives was bad and planned to the last detail to try to avoid it. Patton realized the best way to end the casualties on your side was to inflict a nasty beating on the other guy. For anyone who has watched the first 10 minutes of the film "Patton" I believe he says : "The goal is not to die for your country, it is to make the other dumb b@stard die for HIS country." Crude...but it is a fact of war that your enemy cannot prosecute a war against you if he is dead.

[janvanvurpa]

Patton's real words are interesting and hard to argue with the effectiveness and as a kid I read his little idea and adopted it in my race prep, in race tactics and now even in the rally products I make:
A Good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

His utter contempt for the democratic institutions which define our country, not just in the extraordinary times of war but in peacetime as well make him a flawed and dangerous man.
His stated desire to "just continue on---and attack those Rooskie bastids" shows maybe a madmad lurking.
I know contemporary military officers who were disgusted with his pronouncements and his silly showiness.

[Hawkmoon]

I've struggled to get past the riding boots and pearl-handled six shooters. Who did Patton think he was, Wyatt Earp?

[airshifter]

I've struggled to get past the riding boots and pearl-handled six shooters. Who did Patton think he was, Wyatt Earp?

It's not uncommon that quite a few military leaders have come to be known for such things. As I see it, had they been insignificant military leaders nobody would know about these things.

I think both Montgomery and Patton had their places in leading battle, but neither of them had something we do, which is the hindsight. All people in such positions must trust their own best decisions, and only history will show which decisions worked.

Having the advantage of hindsight, Patton was one of the leaders of the western world in adopting what came to be known as high intensity conflict. It seems to me that the Germans were aware of and using the tactic long before the west was, and actually it went back to before the ruthless days of Genghis Khan. Though the modern day world rejects the tactic, history has proven that disregard for dire conditions of the enemy or it's civilian population are often the best offense, even if it costs more lives on your side.

[chuck34]

Sure Patton was a bit of a show-off. Name a general that wasn't (Bradley?). And perhaps Patton was right about rolling on East, maybe it would have saved us some trouble the last 60 years or so?

Probably not, I'm sure we would have had many other issues. But hey he saw a problem before many did. So in that respect, maybe he was just a little right, just a little.

Mark, I love that quote from Patton. Did he really say that, or was it just in the movie?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sure Patton was a bit of a show-off. Name a general that wasn't (Bradley?). And perhaps Patton was right about rolling on East, maybe it would have saved us some trouble the last 60 years or so?

Probably not, I'm sure we would have had many other issues. But hey he saw a problem before many did. So in that respect, maybe he was just a little right, just a little.

Mark, I love that quote from Patton. Did he really say that, or was it just in the movie?


I don't know if he said it for real; That said, I have no problem believing he was capable of saying it and with the amount of research the writers of that movie did, I wouldn't bet against it.

AS for his theory we should fight the Russians, that was George just ignoring the political realities. As much as I found the old Soviet Union's political machine reprehensible in its treatment of the average man, I think Patton's idea was just not even worth discussing. The amount of suffering to all invovled would be just off the charts and what would have really been accomplished? At what cost? Patton was just looking for another war to fight and that was also part of his weakness. George was a glory hound....but in certain applications such as wiping out a regime that committed a lot of evil, he had his place.

Omar Bradley is the General I would put up against anyone for being human and realisitic and above all....competentant. No ego...and holding up the best standards of what an American military man should be. If all Americans were like Bradley, the world's view of the USA would be far better.....and it should be anyhow...but it would be easier with more Bradley's....

[AAReagles]

aided and abetted by Charles Erwin Wilson who was his "Secretary of Defence" and not at all connected to his former post of CEO of General Motors :D

We need interstate highways for national defence... and isn't it lovely that there are all these nice new roads for me to fill up with new cars? Hmm.


That information definetly indicates a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, in retrospect of that timeline when environmental concerns, fuel economy requirements and population density were not hot-button issues as they are these days, I have to guess that the controvesy of Mr. Wilson's involvement would be a neglible footnote at best.

Certainly not as interesting (or controversial) as a hypocritical congress drilling the big 3 auto makers for seeking financial assistance (bailout), when they themselves slacked off on the C.A.F.E. requirements they imposed on GM, Ford & Chrysler years ago.

[AAReagles]

Ok, it has become abundantly clear to me that the USA is the source of all evil in the world... we are the most dispicable country ever to blight the face of the earth... it goes all the way back to the time when Columbus figured out there was something over here. Then he figured that the Indians had to be wiped out, proceeded to do so, and we've been on a downward spiral ever since..

It's true there are some biased opinions on here, but overall I thought it has gone relatively well, compared to some other threads. Anyways I think you got about as much chance of gaining a good approval rating of America here, as about as much a chance as anyone (be it an American or otherwise) will ever convince me that it wasn't necessary to drop the bomb on Japan - not once, but twice.

Nevertheless, here is a good reference to check out in one particular opinion as to how much of a factor America was in WWII, from one of Japan's aces. RIP Saburo Sakai:

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/02/local/me-30217

[AAReagles]

....I'll improve yet again on the insultingly jingoistic and agressive bumpersticker loved by idiots here "If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, that a Soviet soldier.

Nothing against the Soviet soldier or anything, including Axis soldier's ability, but I guess if I was to narrow it down to one effort for maintaining the English language, I would have to thank the German who fled his country because of his Jewish ancestory and went on to appeal to the FDR administration that the Germans were working on a potentially devasting weapon, which got the Manhatten Project off the ground; Albert Einstein

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nothing against the Soviet soldier or anything, including Axis soldier's ability, but I guess if I was to narrow it down to one effort for maintaining the English language, I would have to thank the German who fled his country because of his Jewish ancestory and went on to appeal to the FDR administration that the Germans were working on a potentially devasting weapon, which got the Manhatten Project off the ground; Albert Einstein

Jan doesn't want to hear that AA....he is very quick to point out the victories of the Soviet soldier for what reason I don't know.

Lets note something Jan. The Russians fought Germany because they were doublecrossed. They had NO problem splitting Poland with the Germans or helping the Nazi's train their officers illegally (Germany was paying lip service to the Armistice agreement they signed to end WW1). In short, I am not sympathetic entirely to the brain trust of the Soviet Union of that time, Stalin couldn't have cared less to help us fight the Germans until he himself was attacked.

No...I admire people who were at least consistent in their opposition to the evil of that time, such as Winston Churchill and FDR.

[Mark]

No...I admire people who were at least consistent in their opposition to the evil of that time, such as Winston Churchill and FDR.

hmm, it does seem that most leaders in the world were either ambivalent or scared of Germany in the 1930's and didn't want to oppose a seemingly unopposable force.

The UK could have quite easily sued for peace with Germany, and indeed we tried. But to think the UK could have lived at peace with a nazi occupied Europe was dreamland, Hitler would not have stopped until Britain was crushed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

hmm, it does seem that most leaders in the world were either ambivalent or scared of Germany in the 1930's and didn't want to oppose a seemingly unopposable force.

The UK could have quite easily sued for peace with Germany, and indeed we tried. But to think the UK could have lived at peace with a nazi occupied Europe was dreamland, Hitler would not have stopped until Britain was crushed.

From what I have read, FDR was more aware of the threat and the reality that sooner or later the USA would be involved than most Americans at the time. As for Winston..well his views were well known. Some in the UK thought he was as big a kook as Mosely going on and on about Hitler....except unlike Mosely, Winston knew a war was coming and why...

[Hondo]

Ivory grips on Patton's revolvers, not pearl or mother of pearl.

[AAReagles]

Jan doesn't want to hear that AA....he is very quick to point out the victories of the Soviet soldier for what reason I don't know..

Yes Mark In Oshawa, I noticed his Soviet agenda as well. I don't agree with some of his views, but in all fairness to Jan, I could see why he expressed himself the way he did, considering prior comments made about Russian soldiers.

To Jan's credit he did point out a couple of striking subjects:

1) The Russian soldier (as with any soldier really) should not be underestimated. Though there was quite a bit of "who's team is better" exchange taking place on here, that I didn't care to debate about it at all, I will say however that there's 3 soldiers I wouldn't want to go up against.

The German - which as Mr. Walker stated already, were perhaps the best trained soldiers with the best equipment.

The Japanese - who lived and died by the Bushido code. Whether it is regarded as an extroardinary measure of insanity or not, anytime someone is so determined to crash his own plane into a ship, he's got my immediate respect of the threat he poses.

The Russian - another determined fighter as well when one considers the social/economic hardships that were imposed on the majority Russian population even before the war was started. Including, but not limited to famine.



2) Jan also pointed out that we Americans (not necessarily all of us on the forum mind you) could use a further effort to educate ourselves on such a subject as WWII. My high school history classes were great (back in the early 80's), but with so much to cover in so little time, some events were not able to be discussed/learned thoroughly. If it weren't for some research on my own, I wouldn't get to know more of the whole story on some things.

For instance, as much as I won't waiver from my views as seeing the U.S. drop the bomb on Japan was appropriate, I cannot deny that Japan itself had numerous reasons to launch a war against what it identified as Occidental domination in the region - Great Britain, France, Holland and perhaps more importantly at that time, the U.S. with its Pacific Fleet.

Not to mention attempting peace negotiations was not necessarily a secured measure during that timeline. Like other governments back then, the word of the U.S. was about as good as $2 salesman living in a $20 world.

[AAReagles]

Finally used the right search words to find this story I first discoved years ago at aircraft museum in Arizona:

Charlie Brown (a 21-year old) was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England. His B-17 was called “Ye Olde Pub” and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters while on a mission to bomb a factory in Bremen, Germany. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.

After flying over an enemy airfield, Charlie Brown stated that his heart sank. A pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he “had never seen a plane in such a bad state.” The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed, and there were holes everywhere.

Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
Brown stated that he noticed Stigler’s plane flying alongside him: It seemed amazing that the heavily damaged B-17 remained in the air. But it did, and Brown hoped to keep it flying until he reached the shores of England 250 miles away.

Drawing of the English B-17 “Ye Olde Pub” in front, and the German BF-109 in back as escort. Notice the damage on the B-17: the nose is gone, one propellor is not working, the back turret is gone, the tail section is shredded and missing, holes in the hull.

Still partially dazed, Lt. Brown began a slow climb with only one engine at full power. With three seriously injured aboard, he rejected bailing out or a crash landing. The alternative was a thin chance of reaching the UK. While nursing the battered bomber toward England, Brown looked out the right window and saw a BF-109 flying on his wing.

Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to and slightly over the North Sea towards England. He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe.

When Franz landed he told the commanding officer that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.

More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. Franz had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions. They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion in 1989, together with five people who are alive now—-all because Franz never fired his guns that day.


After the war, Brown remained in the Air Force, serving in many capacities until he retired in 1972 as a Lieutenant Colonel and settled in Miami as head of a combustion research company. But the episode of the German who refused to attack a beaten foe haunted him. He was determined to find the enemy pilot who spared him and his crew. He wrote numerous letters of inquiry to German military sources, with little success. Finally, a notice in a newsletter for former Luftwaffe pilots elicited a response from Franz Stigler, a German fighter ace credited with destroying over two dozen Allied planes. He, it turned out, was the angel of mercy in the skies over Germany on that fateful day just before Christmas 1943. It had taken 46 years, but in 1989 Brown found the mysterious man in the ME-109. Careful questioning of Stigler about details of the incident removed any doubt.

Stigler, now 80 years old, had emigrated to Canada and was living near Vancouver, British Columbia. After an exchange of letters, Brown flew there for a reunion. The two men have visited each other frequently since that time and have appeared jointly before Canadian and American military audiences. The most recent appearance was at the annual Air Force Ball in Miami in September (1995), where the former foes were honored. In his first letter to Brown, Stigler had written: “All these years, I wondered what happened to the B-17, did she make it or not?”

She made it, just barely. But why did the German not destroy his virtually defenseless enemy?
“I didn’t have the heart to finish off those brave men,” Stigler later said. "I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do it. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute.”

Franz Stigler passed away on March 22, 2008.

[janvanvurpa]

Jan doesn't want to hear that AA....he is very quick to point out the victories of the Soviet soldier for what reason I don't know.[quote]

I am certain that is just one of many many things that you don't know.`

[quote:15oyhyiz]Lets note something Jan.
OK. I am always soooooo eager to read your insightful tomes.


The Russians fought Germany because they were doublecrossed.

Really!!!???

Damn I knew you would have a fresh, original take on the historic record.
That's so amazing.
I had always laboured under the misapprehension that the the Soviets fought the Germans and their Allies because the dirty bastids invaded them in the the largest invasion in History with over 4.5 million troops

You see I though all the follow people just waltzing across grenze and killing thousands of your citizens and blowing up all sorts of infrastructure and aircraft etc was a pretty serious provocation
The follow list of Armies seems like a lot of uninvited guests.

22 June 1941
# Armee Norwegen

* Höheres Kommando z.b.V XXXVI
* Gebirgskorps Norwegen

# Heeresgruppe Nord

o XXIII. Armeekorps
o Befehlshaber rückw. Heeresgebiet 101
* 18. Armee
o I. Armeekorps
o XXVI. Armeekorps
* 4. Panzergruppe
o XXXVIII. Armeekorps
o XXXXI. Armeekorps (mot.)
o LVI. Armeekorps (mot.)
* 16. Armee
o II. Armeekorps
o X. Armeekorps
o XXVIII. Armeekorps

# Heeresgruppe Mitte

* LIII. Armeekorps
* Befehlshaber rückw. Heeresgebiet 102

* 9. Armee
o VIII. Armeekorps
o XX. Armeekorps
o XXXXII Armeekorps
* 3. Panzergruppe
o V. Armeekorps
o VI. Armeekorps
o XXXIX. Armeekorps (mot.)
o LVII. Armeekorps (mot.)
* 4. Armee
o VII. Armeekorps
o IX. Armeekorps
o XIII. Armeekorps
o XXXXIII. Armeekorps
* 2. Panzergruppe
o XII. Armeekorps
o XXIV. Armeekorps (mot.)
o XXXXVI. Armeekorps (mot.)
o XXXXVII. Armeekorps (mot.)

# Heeresgruppe Süd

* 17. Armee
o IV. Armeekorps
o XXXXIX. Gebirgs-Armeekorps
o LII. Armeekorps
* 6. Armee
o LV. Armeekorps
o XVII. Armeekorps
o XXXXIV. Armeekorps
* Panzergruppe 1
o XIV. Armeekorps (mot.)
o III. Armeekorps (mot.)
o XXIX. Armeekorps
o XXXVIII. Armeekorps (mot.)
* 11. Armee
o XI. Armeekorps
o XXX. Armeekorps
o LIV. Armeekorps

Well I always say live and learn, so fascinating to learn that the Soviets were just hunky dory, chillin out, just mellow with being invaded, but they fought because they were doublecrossed.





They had NO problem splitting Poland with the Germans or helping the Nazi's train their officers illegally (Germany was paying lip service to the Armistice agreement they signed to end WW1). In short, I am not sympathetic entirely to the brain trust of the Soviet Union of that time, Stalin couldn't have cared less to help us fight the Germans until he himself was attacked.

Yes that slimy bastid Stalin was just letting UK and Oz and NZ and Canada, with some help from India and South Africa bear the full might of the German war machine all alone.

What possible reason could have been behind the dastardly Stalin staying out of the war?
Why that makes my blood boil.
What sort of slackers would hold back when the Commonwealth, including brave Canada had been fighting since the beginning?


No...I admire people who were at least consistent in their opposition to the evil of that time, such as Winston Churchill and FDR.[/quote:15oyhyiz][/quote:15oyhyiz]

No?
Wait I admire people who are consistent, as I am, in their opposition of evil.
I'm confused by Churchill and Roosevelt on your list since they both made common cause with the Soviets and with the Guomungdong or Kuomintang depending on spelling, regime of Chiang Kai Shek
Everybody knows KMT was essentially the same as Nazis in nearly all important points, in power by force,. Why would FDR and Churchill support somebody, seriously support, which was evil incarnate?

Why did both FDR and Churchill seem to support seriously ban regimes in some places
Why did they
force back 20,000 Cossacks into the hands of the NKVD where so many were shot the day the returned to Soviet soil?
I'm confused, and I need more enlightenment.

Were they double-crossed as well?

[Daniel]

I had always laboured under the misapprehension that the the Soviets fought the Germans and their Allies because the dirty bastids invaded them in the the largest invasion in History with over 4.5 million troops

That was faked just like the moon landings were! the siege at Stalingrad totally didn't happen :p

Silliness aside the Russians weren't double crossed, they knew EXACTLY what Hitler was up to and just used the extra time and physical space the pact with Germany gave them to build an army to hold the Germans off and then push them right back to Berlin.

[Mark]

That's quite a touching story. But does leave me wondering if the German pilot got in trouble with his superiors for not following his orders to down the B17?

It's the age old question in war of how much damage do you inflict on a beaten enemy? During the first Gulf war the destruction of the retreating Iraqi forces certainly brought this point into sharp focus.

[AAReagles]

That's quite a touching story. But does leave me wondering if the German pilot got in trouble with his superiors for not following his orders to down the B17?



As the article mentioned:

When Franz landed he told the commanding officer that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody.






It's the age old question in war of how much damage do you inflict on a beaten enemy? During the first Gulf war the destruction of the retreating Iraqi forces certainly brought this point into sharp focus.

Which is why Gen. Powell declared it was enough once reports were confirmed of the death & destruction being inflicted on the retreating troops. Iraq's Army at that time was estimated to possibly be one of the largest in the world.

If I was Powell I would have done the same thing, destroy enough of the enemy and their equipement just so there would be a less obstacle to deal with if necessary at a later time.

Bush Sr., as you probably know already, had decided to leave Saddam with a enough military to maintain "stability" within the region, as a precautionary measure of keeping the es and Sunnis from compromising oil supplies should civil war arise.

[jim mcglinchey]

I hope Franz Stigler was proud. He let that crew return to England, tool up again and go back and blast the crap out of Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne, Berlin etc the stupid git!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jan doesn't want to hear that AA....he is very quick to point out the victories of the Soviet soldier for what reason I don't know.


I am certain that is just one of many many things that you don't know.`


OK. I am always soooooo eager to read your insightful tomes.



Really!!!???

Damn I knew you would have a fresh, original take on the historic record.
That's so amazing.
I had always laboured under the misapprehension that the the Soviets fought the Germans and their Allies because the dirty bastids invaded them in the the largest invasion in History with over 4.5 million troops

You see I though all the follow people just waltzing across grenze and killing thousands of your citizens and blowing up all sorts of infrastructure and aircraft etc was a pretty serious provocation
The follow list of Armies seems like a lot of uninvited guests.

22 June 1941
# Armee Norwegen

* Höheres Kommando z.b.V XXXVI
* Gebirgskorps Norwegen

# Heeresgruppe Nord

o XXIII. Armeekorps
o Befehlshaber rückw. Heeresgebiet 101
* 18. Armee
o I. Armeekorps
o XXVI. Armeekorps
* 4. Panzergruppe
o XXXVIII. Armeekorps
o XXXXI. Armeekorps (mot.)
o LVI. Armeekorps (mot.)
* 16. Armee
o II. Armeekorps
o X. Armeekorps
o XXVIII. Armeekorps

# Heeresgruppe Mitte

* LIII. Armeekorps
* Befehlshaber rückw. Heeresgebiet 102

* 9. Armee
o VIII. Armeekorps
o XX. Armeekorps
o XXXXII Armeekorps
* 3. Panzergruppe
o V. Armeekorps
o VI. Armeekorps
o XXXIX. Armeekorps (mot.)
o LVII. Armeekorps (mot.)
* 4. Armee
o VII. Armeekorps
o IX. Armeekorps
o XIII. Armeekorps
o XXXXIII. Armeekorps
* 2. Panzergruppe
o XII. Armeekorps
o XXIV. Armeekorps (mot.)
o XXXXVI. Armeekorps (mot.)
o XXXXVII. Armeekorps (mot.)

# Heeresgruppe Süd

* 17. Armee
o IV. Armeekorps
o XXXXIX. Gebirgs-Armeekorps
o LII. Armeekorps
* 6. Armee
o LV. Armeekorps
o XVII. Armeekorps
o XXXXIV. Armeekorps
* Panzergruppe 1
o XIV. Armeekorps (mot.)
o III. Armeekorps (mot.)
o XXIX. Armeekorps
o XXXVIII. Armeekorps (mot.)
* 11. Armee
o XI. Armeekorps
o XXX. Armeekorps
o LIV. Armeekorps

Well I always say live and learn, so fascinating to learn that the Soviets were just hunky dory, chillin out, just mellow with being invaded, but they fought because they were doublecrossed.






Yes that slimy bastid Stalin was just letting UK and Oz and NZ and Canada, with some help from India and South Africa bear the full might of the German war machine all alone.

What possible reason could have been behind the dastardly Stalin staying out of the war?
Why that makes my blood boil.
What sort of slackers would hold back when the Commonwealth, including brave Canada had been fighting since the beginning?



No?
Wait I admire people who are consistent, as I am, in their opposition of evil.
I'm confused by Churchill and Roosevelt on your list since they both made common cause with the Soviets and with the Guomungdong or Kuomintang depending on spelling, regime of Chiang Kai Shek
Everybody knows KMT was essentially the same as Nazis in nearly all important points, in power by force,. Why would FDR and Churchill support somebody, seriously support, which was evil incarnate?

Why did both FDR and Churchill seem to support seriously ban regimes in some places
Why did they
force back 20,000 Cossacks into the hands of the NKVD where so many were shot the day the returned to Soviet soil?
I'm confused, and I need more enlightenment.

Were they double-crossed as well?

I said the Russians were double crossed. They had no problem training Germans in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. They signed a non-agreession pact with Germany and agreed to split Poland. Then Hitler invaded and there is lots of material out there that states Stalin was taken by surprise by the invasion. So EXCUSE ME if you think I am wrong.

AS for FDR and Churchill looking the other way on the KMT and some of the other slimy characters they were allied with (Stalin being the most obvious), it was what most Western leaders have done over time, basically trading one evil for the more obvious threat. Realpolitik is what Bismarck called it.

As for your problems with my posts, just grow up and get over it.....because I will say my piece and I don't mind being wrong, but I do take exception to an arrogant jerk ripping my opinion because he is "intellectually superior". That's ok though..because you of course wouldn't know one of those people now would you?

[janvanvurpa]

[quote="Mark in Oshawa":242dw0iz]Jan doesn't want to hear that AA....he is very quick to point out the victories of the Soviet soldier for what reason I don't know.

I said the Russians were double crossed. They had no problem training Germans in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. They signed a non-agreession pact with Germany and agreed to split Poland. Then Hitler invaded and there is lots of material out there that states Stalin was taken by surprise by the invasion. So EXCUSE ME if you think I am wrong.

AS for FDR and Churchill looking the other way on the KMT and some of the other slimy characters they were allied with (Stalin being the most obvious), it was what most Western leaders have done over time, basically trading one evil for the more obvious threat. Realpolitik is what Bismarck called it.

As for your problems with my posts, just grow up and get over it.....because I will say my piece and I don't mind being wrong, but I do take exception to an arrogant jerk ripping my opinion because he is "intellectually superior". That's ok though..because you of course wouldn't know one of those people now would you?

You said the Russians fought because they were doublecrossed.
I made some effort to rebut that statement which served really as a very good example of the sort of sloppy talking---which reflects equally sloppy thinking-- which permeates all your writing.

You stated further that Stalin would have been happy or some such words to sit by while Britain and the Commonwealth, including Canada (who I point out to stupid Rednecks in this country who, like you, know history only extremely superficially, that in proportion to population, Canada fought longer and suffered very much more causalities, and therefore can said to have suffered more from the fighting than did the USA)....
wait here are your exact words:

Stalin couldn't have cared less to help us fight the Germans until he himself was attacked.[/quote:242dw0iz]

And again is this extremely selective condemnation or intellectual dishonesty.
Do I really need to point out explicitly that Russia entered the war about 6 months before the USA? Seems your accusations, obviously prejudicial, could be levied against the Americans.
Yeah yeah I saw you said that there was facilities and some resources made available to the Germans in the early 30s for some training as if it was an unusual thing that they later fought.
(I have to wonder what you think of the US Army training people on US soil from all over who we later have to fight as they fall from temporary favor.)
(No I don't wonder what you think, I know you are so blindingly "Pro-America" you believe that nothing this country EVER DOES is wrong either morally of tactically or strategically.)

Could it maybe be just what somebody here, Daniel I think it was, suggested, that the Soviets , aware of the deplorable state of their officer and staff corps after the '37s purges, aware that much better equipment was to be arriving in serious numbers by late '41, were buying time to prepare?

Could that have been USA's reasoning, preparation, why it let all the worlds Democracies fight alone until sometime in late '42--(don't correct me, I know the attack on Pearl harbor was 7Dec41, but there were barely 12000 US troops, completely isolated in the Pacific fighting anywhere until Guadalcanal, and even then it was 1/150-1 200 the SCALE of of the fighting on the Eastern Front.) nearly 3 full years after the war started?

Why such condemnation of Stalin but none for the exact same thing from leaders of the Great Democracies? (Do not attempt to pervertedly twist that into implying a supporting statement for the savage Stalin. The implied subject of that sentence was YOU and the verb was why do you not condemn equally)


Whatever your name is, is it really Mark?, intellectually superiority does not enter into these simplistic barrages you fire off and and the counter batter fire they generate.

*But don't you understand if you write flat statements which contain within the statements words which convey demeaning and belittling and abrasive meaning, that it is only natural that your silly comments--so frequent--should eventually be returned with the same tone that you, consciously or not, imbue your writing with?

Or if you write things which are just flat absurd, is it just "superior intellect" that points out these atrocities of thought like "The Russian fought because they were doublecrossed"? (those are your words, an honest man would have owned the words, and admitted that they were stupid, rather than digging the heels in to defend an unsupportable position. But you are not honest nor honestly interested in dialog or you would not argue as you do never conceding a single point, never a statement of "Oh sheeet, I didn't think of that from that point of view" NEVER.
You are interested in writing vast tracts of unreflective, gut feelings, stating thing always as flat declarative statements---never a qualifying phrase., ("It seems...." or "It appears.." or "could it be..." or rarely a question...

And that is just occasional more that one can bear looking at.

I am no sterling intellect, for a living, I build rally car parts, build performance engines, import and export motorsport stuff mostly rally related.
But I do know languages, logical thinking, and history, especially mid century European history especially some of what occurred just BEFORE my memory starts and what led to those events.
I have NEVER even hinted that i am smart, but I do say there are a lot of people who talk unreflective nonsense.

Merely not talking as you do is not elevated intellectual affectations.

If you don't mind being wrong, and you mustn't since you have such vast experience at it, why not add some qualifiers to your sentences to change the tone from bombastic flat out apparent statement of inarguable facts, to something more akin to how people actually speak when they are unsure of a fact or subject they know they know only lightly?

Finally, seriously Mark: Have you considered that the replies you get are intended to be in the exact some tone as your writing is percieved by some?
In other words: has it occured to you that your writing strikes people as arrogant (in addition to being wrong)?

[Malbec]

Monty thought wasting lives was bad and planned to the last detail to try to avoid it.

This British and also French attitude towards avoiding casualties was not only Monty's, it pervaded the entire British administration and armed forces, and it is an attitude that in my experience many Americans simply don't understand.

It does indeed stem from WW1, not so much from the trenches but from the villages, towns and cities back home.

Mark, if you ever get to travel across Britain and France you will find even in the smallest of villages a list of the dead from WW1, often with an added section for WW2. The lists are long but don't fully reflect what effect the dead from WW1 had on British society, the empty factories, the widows and spinsters left behind. No family was left unaffected. Many were shattered.

There was a strong feeling that if there ever was a war like WW1 again, it really would be touch and go as to whether Britain and France would survive as functioning societies, let alone great Empires.

This is the belief that pointed Britain and France towards appeasement, why Neville Chamberlain was greeted with cheers and applause when he held that paper signed by Hitler aloft.

This is also the belief that affected the British military entirely throughout the war, that minimising casualties was far more important than winning a quick victory, after all British blood could never be replaced.

It is not merely due to Monty. He is the final product of such beliefs, not the progenitor.

[Mark]

I hope Franz Stigler was proud. He let that crew return to England, tool up again and go back and blast the crap out of Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne, Berlin etc the stupid git!

The crew might have been saved but by the sounds of it the aircraft was finished, and I believe it was equipment, rather than crew that was in the shortest supply.

[janvanvurpa]

The crew might have been saved but by the sounds of it the aircraft was finished, and I believe it was equipment, rather than crew that was in the shortest supply.

No actually the time it took to make competent pilots for EVERYBODY was what led to a huge pilot shortage.
Of course there was also attrition in combat, and policies----ever changing policies both in the US 8th and 9th, but also your Bomber Command.


There were differences in the tactics of Bomber Command and the US Army Air Forces which brought with different difficulties which both required LOTS of training to reach a competent level. You Anglais flew off to target trusting pilot and Navigator to plot their own courses, so while your lot were mounting 1000 bomber raids by May of 42, and at night, too, each had to get there and back on their own, while the Amis flew in extremely strict three dimensional "boxes" for mutual defense and so they wouldn't collide (which happened in the British night raids, 4 air collisions alone on the May 42 1000 bomber raid on Cologne), or drop their bombs on the planes below---and that type of flying took a great deal of training and skill especially in the US bombers, especially the underpowered , slow B17. Flying an entire mission constantly in the turbulence of the aircraft in front too training.

The thing that gave me a idea on the difficulties of training air crew----aside from the fact I grew up around, in, on US Navy aircrew training operations, and some of my earliest reading was internal flight safety publications of the US Navy---was the HUGE amount of losses of aircraft and crews in training.
For a taste: (from somewhere)

“The cost of a conflict is often tallied in battle casualties. But the enormity of mobilization for WW II can also be seen in the observation that four years of war claimed the lives of 14,900 airmen in 6,000 fatal crashes of military aircraft within the continental United States. This one fatal day at Douglas [Army Air Field—referring to a crash of four training planes in one day that claimed six lives] was a microcosm of that larger sacrifice.” These stateside fatalities represent 12.5% of the approximately 120,000 U.S. Army Air Forces casualties during the war.

[jim mcglinchey]

The American and British bomber forces had different philosophies. The Brits just wanted to fly over german cities at night and kill as many germans as possible, while the Americans attacked by day in the hope that precision bombing of selected targets would knock out the german war machine.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You know what John (if that too is your real name), I can live with you debating me. I can live with you maybe being right (Not that you proved anything other than YOUR supposition that Stalin was buying time. I am sure someone believes that besides you, but it is my OPINION based on things I have read that this was NOT the case. Did Stalin trust Germany? I will agree not likely but they were NOT exactly ready for the Germans).

No, I can argue this with you but for a guy who claims humility you are the one sounding arrogant. You have taken runs at what I do for a living, you have said I get my information from Talk radio (hardly the limit of where I get and attain information) and what is more, it is only YOU that seems to take exception to my posts. What is more, I haven't heard anyone else claim that I may or may not have a point without at least debating me in some sort of intelligent way. You have something personal against me for reasons I haven't really a need to figure out. The feeling is mutual. I will let the rest of the forum debate the merits of all of this.

AS far as your thoughts on Russia, it is FACT that they had a non-agression pact with Germany, trained their military against the Treaty of Versailles, and agreed to split Poland down the middle. I stated that Germany double crossed Russia. You say I am full of crap and Stalin was preparing to defend himself in time. Great, think what you want but how many innocent Russians died because of his grand "strategy?" Stalin's ability to use his own people for cannon fodder isn't my opinion, it a reality that has been written about before. Whatever one might think of the Russian soldier, he was brave but he was as afraid of his own nation at times as he was of the Germans.

If you are going to dispute this, read Gulag Archipeligo and again tell me how wonderful the Communist Government of the USSR was.

[Mark in Oshawa]

One more thing John. Canada entered WW2 and WW1 ahead of the Americans it is true. That said, I wont diminish what the USA did or didn't do in either conflict. I am at least going to congratulate you for noticing this since most Americans are unaware of it but I failed to see where it was germain to the argument about The Russians and their being involved in WW2.

The reasons any nation go to war at any time are usually on one of two things: You are attacked or you have an interest in going to war to defend someone else or fight for something your nation wants.

Why did the USSR go to war with Germany? They were ATTACKED. The USA went to war because they were ATTACKED. Was the USA doublecrossed by Japan? In a sense yes...but since there was no promises of non-conflict in this case then no they were not doublecrossed. The USSR was not prepared for Operation Barbarossa and THAT is history....

[janvanvurpa]

The American and British bomber forces had different philosophies. The Brits just wanted to fly over german cities at night and kill as many germans as possible, while the Americans attacked by day in the hope that precision bombing of selected targets would knock out the german war machine.

Yes that's the "official story".
And the Americans did have a real High Tech Whiz bang "best in the world" Norden bombsight, and bragged----as they unfortunately always do---- that "they could drop a bomb straight down the smokestack of....."
They trained bomber crews, especially bombardiers, in the clear skies of the vast American south west deserts.

The weather in Europe seems to have been a rude surprise to them.
Nobody seems to have realised the the North Atlantic generated clouds year round. What to do when you can't see the target?

Redefine what success is.

You know how "precision" was defined?

50% of the bombs in a circle with a 4km radius.

There was another weeeeee little problem. The Poms had realised that using bombs of "only" about 500 pounds really didn't destroy the hell out of buildings and their contents, so they built bombs much larger, MUCH LARGER,
and of course built excellent aircraft capable of hauling 2 to 5 times the tonnage of bombs on the same runs as could the US bombers, especially the enormously overrated B17, which on longer runs deep in might be able to carry no more bombs than the excellent 2 man de Havilland Mosquito, or just barely 2 tons.
And they were just 500 lb bombs.


That may go a ways toward explaining the none too dramatic results US bombing achieved----at great expense and at great cost in lives.

[chuck34]

Yes that's the "official story".
And the Americans did have a real High Tech Whiz bang "best in the world" Norden bombsight, and bragged----as they unfortunately always do---- that "they could drop a bomb straight down the smokestack of....."
They trained bomber crews, especially bombardiers, in the clear skies of the vast American south west deserts.

The weather in Europe seems to have been a rude surprise to them.
Nobody seems to have realised the the North Atlantic generated clouds year round. What to do when you can't see the target?

Redefine what success is.

You know how "precision" was defined?

50% of the bombs in a circle with a 4km radius.

There was another weeeeee little problem. The Poms had realised that using bombs of "only" about 500 pounds really didn't destroy the hell out of buildings and their contents, so they built bombs much larger, MUCH LARGER,
and of course built excellent aircraft capable of hauling 2 to 5 times the tonnage of bombs on the same runs as could the US bombers, especially the enormously overrated B17, which on longer runs deep in might be able to carry no more bombs than the excellent 2 man de Havilland Mosquito, or just barely 2 tons.
And they were just 500 lb bombs.


That may go a ways toward explaining the none too dramatic results US bombing achieved----at great expense and at great cost in lives.

Oh I get it now. Damn those Americans for not inventing the precision laser guided bomb about 40 years earlier. Our bombers were more "precision" than anyone else at the time. That is unless you wanted to drop a couple of pop caps with a Stuka.

Stop being a revisionist with your anti-American glasses on. Sure we are no angles, never have been, never will be. But go back and read some source material, particularly from Churchill and Stalin, and see what they thought about the American effort in the war.

[chuck34]

One more thing John. Canada entered WW2 and WW1 ahead of the Americans it is true. That said, I wont diminish what the USA did or didn't do in either conflict. I am at least going to congratulate you for noticing this since most Americans are unaware of it but I failed to see where it was germain to the argument about The Russians and their being involved in WW2.

The reasons any nation go to war at any time are usually on one of two things: You are attacked or you have an interest in going to war to defend someone else or fight for something your nation wants.

Why did the USSR go to war with Germany? They were ATTACKED. The USA went to war because they were ATTACKED. Was the USA doublecrossed by Japan? In a sense yes...but since there was no promises of non-conflict in this case then no they were not doublecrossed. The USSR was not prepared for Operation Barbarossa and THAT is history....


Everyone forgets that we were in the war before we were in the war. I don't want to take anything away from you Canadians, you did every bit as much as anyone else so sorry if I come off that way.

Anyway, Americans were fighting in the far East, WITH the Canadians/British, and selling (lend lease) arms to the Brits before we were actually in the war.

But we didn't join the fight until mid-late '42. That fits better with some people's world view I suppose.

[Garry Walker]

Why did the USSR go to war with Germany? They were ATTACKED.If Germany had not attacked, USSR would itself have attacked not long after. Stalins only reasoning for MRP was to make europe bleed out and then march in, but he was not quite prepared for how successful Wehrmacht would be.



Was the USA doublecrossed by Japan? In a sense yes...but since there was no promises of non-conflict in this case then no they were not doublecrossed.Maybe they shouldn`t have frozen all japanese bank accounts before Pearl Harbour then.



The USSR was not prepared for Operation Barbarossa and THAT is history.... Indeed, they were rather prepared for an offensive war.



Whatever one might think of the Russian soldier, he was brave but he was as afraid of his own nation at times as he was of the Germans.

If you are going to dispute this, read Gulag Archipeligo and again tell me how wonderful the Communist Government of the USSR was.

USSR government was just as bad as Nazis or red khmers, possibly even worse.
They were they treated their own soldiers was quite astonishing, they had special brigades whose job were to shoot anyone who retreated even a little or who was preparing to desert.

[BDunnell]

USSR government was just as bad as Nazis or red khmers, possibly even worse.
They were they treated their own soldiers was quite astonishing, they had special brigades whose job were to shoot anyone who retreated even a little or who was preparing to desert.

And after the war their behaviour in Berlin confirms your view, in my opinion.

[Malbec]

Was the USA doublecrossed by Japan? In a sense yes...but since there was no promises of non-conflict in this case then no they were not doublecrossed.

You're right, the US was not doublecrossed by Japan, the Americans were spoiling for a fight and did everything possible to provoke an attack.

Freezing Japanese assets, imposing an embargo on Japan regarding oil and metal that would have ground the Japanese economy to a halt and then rebuffing a direct attempt by the Emperor of Japan to Cordell Hull, then secretary of state and to date the only time the Emperor has ever attempted to make direct contact with a foreign country by himself. Only a fool wouldn't have seen an attack coming.

[cdn_grampa]

Good chr!st - some of you have watched too many John Wayne movies during your misspent youth - and believed them.


Kill a commie for christ !!!

[janvanvurpa]

Oh I get it now.[quote]

Unfortunately, it's clear you don't.


[quote:19dvisx0]

Damn those Americans for not inventing the precision laser guided bomb about 40 years earlier. Our bombers were more "precision" than anyone else at the time. That is unless you wanted to drop a couple of pop caps with a Stuka.


Completely without realising it you did make an excellent point.
The results of the US so called "Precision Bombing" campaign were presented in agonising---and damning----detail of just how ineffective the bombing was in light of the cost. I presume you have spent some hours reading the Strategic Bombing Survey, but in case you don't have it at your fingertips, I just happen to have a link for you:
http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/USSBS/USSBS.pdf

If you note somewhere in the Summary I was wrong, the definition was 20% of the bombs in a 1000 fort rdaius


Stop being a revisionist

I am not, it is that which I am fighting against.


with your anti-American glasses on.

Sorry but I usually find people throwing the Anti-American insults to those who show the least what this country stands for.



Sure we are no angles, never have been, never will be. But go back and read some source material, particularly from Churchill and Stalin, and see what they thought about the American effort in the war.[/quote:19dvisx0][/quote:19dvisx0]

But we claim constantly the so called "Moral High Ground", and the disconnect between our history and our claimed moral superiority is the root of much of the worlds opinion that the USA is filled with superficial, uneducated, loudmouthed poseurs.

[chuck34]

Completely without realising it you did make an excellent point.
The results of the US so called "Precision Bombing" campaign were presented in agonising---and damning----detail of just how ineffective the bombing was in light of the cost. I presume you have spent some hours reading the Strategic Bombing Survey, but in case you don't have it at your fingertips, I just happen to have a link for you:
http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/USSBS/USSBS.pdf

If you note somewhere in the Summary I was wrong, the definition was 20% of the bombs in a 1000 fort rdaius




I can't open your pdf here at work for some reason. I'll open it when I get home later this afternoon.

But I suppose that in there it will tell me what heavy bomber in the war could put better than 20% of it's bombs in a radius tighter than 1000 feet?

[Garry Walker]

And after the war their behaviour in Berlin confirms your view, in my opinion.

Are you referring to the millions of rapes or something else?

[BDunnell]

Are you referring to the millions of rapes or something else?

The rapes, the indiscriminate violence, the looting, etc.

Unfortunately the Soviet attitude to defeated Germany was utterly primitive and would have been deeply counter-productive had it been allowed to persist. Thankfully the Western powers soon became far more enlightened, and it was to Germany's great benefit.

[janvanvurpa]

I can't open your pdf here at work for some reason. I'll open it when I get home later this afternoon.

But I suppose that in there it will tell me what heavy bomber in the war could put better than 20% of it's bombs in a radius tighter than 1000 feet?

Seriously, if you've not read it, then have a look. It is facinating the conclusions reached immediately after the war. See they (the researchers) knew just the mix of bomb loads sent on what dates and what conditions, they knew what they had concluded from the photo recon and analysis immediately after the missions, and this was complimented with interviews of factory personnel, military people, an importantly, factory production records which were then compared at the recon assesments.

It is a relevant question because while the Survey was well known in military circles and the subject of vigorous debates Inter and intra service--- I remember many discussions around the dinner table when i was 5-6-8 years old (and read summaries when I was maybe 10 since the tone and heat of my fathers discussions, and they open disdain bordering on contempt that Naval Aviators had for the "Air Farce" made me curious why the US Air Force was such a darling child and centerpiece of Cold War defense policy.. Nothing gets a kid interested like a contradiction between what the "Official Party line" is and what you read and hear in reality.), the conclusions about the negligible effect that the huge majority of the bombing accomplished, so costly to the Allies, somehow was not back then in the 50s common knowledge, and nothing since has changed that ignorance.
Indeed the mythos has been strengthened over the years.

And THAT is my particular gripe that some of the obviously younger guys can't and won't understand regarding the respective roles of the various belligerents in WWII.
In my lifetime I have witnessed in US media, films and discourse a slow but steady erosion of the roles of the partners to the USA, ALL of whom were in the fight for a LOT LONGER, suffered proportionately far far far more than the USA, but now scarcely merit but a brief mention at most, and often not even that.
Indeed from my view point there has been serious increasing revisionism of history on the US side, to the point that we have films and TV and documentary often repeating the EXACT SAME FALLACIES agian and again (" June 6th, 1944 was THE LARGEST INVASION IN HISTORY!!!" I have heard that hundreds of times in the last 20 years---never specify that it was the then largest amphibious invasion, and heaven forbid mentioning that the invasion which landed what 7 divisions or about 130,000 men in the first 24 hours pales a bit compared to the 3 1/2 years of constant ferocious warfare that began with an invasion by 4,500,000 troops of the Axis powers.

Simultaneously I have watched a ever increasing chourus which is properly called "triumphalism" relentlessly mythologizing just the US portion of the war, so I seek to gently remind folks of the context in which US involved was occurring.
It is not anti-American, it is anti hype and bullsheet.

The reality of what occurred everywhere is much more interesting then just repeating simplistic superficial phrases.

[chuck34]

Seriously, if you've not read it, then have a look. It is facinating the conclusions reached immediately after the war. See they (the researchers) knew just the mix of bomb loads sent on what dates and what conditions, they knew what they had concluded from the photo recon and analysis immediately after the missions, and this was complimented with interviews of factory personnel, military people, an importantly, factory production records which were then compared at the recon assesments.

It is a relevant question because while the Survey was well known in military circles and the subject of vigorous debates Inter and intra service--- I remember many discussions around the dinner table when i was 5-6-8 years old (and read summaries when I was maybe 10 since the tone and heat of my fathers discussions, and they open disdain bordering on contempt that Naval Aviators had for the "Air Farce" made me curious why the US Air Force was such a darling child and centerpiece of Cold War defense policy.. Nothing gets a kid interested like a contradiction between what the "Official Party line" is and what you read and hear in reality.), the conclusions about the negligible effect that the huge majority of the bombing accomplished, so costly to the Allies, somehow was not back then in the 50s common knowledge, and nothing since has changed that ignorance.
Indeed the mythos has been strengthened over the years.

And THAT is my particular gripe that some of the obviously younger guys can't and won't understand regarding the respective roles of the various belligerents in WWII.
In my lifetime I have witnessed in US media, films and discourse a slow but steady erosion of the roles of the partners to the USA, ALL of whom were in the fight for a LOT LONGER, suffered proportionately far far far more than the USA, but now scarcely merit but a brief mention at most, and often not even that.
Indeed from my view point there has been serious increasing revisionism of history on the US side, to the point that we have films and TV and documentary often repeating the EXACT SAME FALLACIES agian and again (" June 6th, 1944 was THE LARGEST INVASION IN HISTORY!!!" I have heard that hundreds of times in the last 20 years---never specify that it was the then largest amphibious invasion, and heaven forbid mentioning that the invasion which landed what 7 divisions or about 130,000 men in the first 24 hours pales a bit compared to the 3 1/2 years of constant ferocious warfare that began with an invasion by 4,500,000 troops of the Axis powers.

Simultaneously I have watched a ever increasing chourus which is properly called "triumphalism" relentlessly mythologizing just the US portion of the war, so I seek to gently remind folks of the context in which US involved was occurring.
It is not anti-American, it is anti hype and bullsheet.

The reality of what occurred everywhere is much more interesting then just repeating simplistic superficial phrases.


Just got home. I've downloaded it now, but it's quite long, it'll take me a while to get through it. Comment more later.

Give me one upshot from it though. Is there a bomber in that report that could deliver as much ordinance to a higher degree of accuracy than either the B-17 or B-24? That was the standard of precision AT THE TIME. Sure it is pathetic by today's standards. But you can not hold a weapon system from 60 years ago to the same standards that we hold today. That is the very meaning of revisionism. That's how this all started, by you claiming that the Norden bombsight was not "precision". All I am trying to say is that it WAS AT THE TIME.

I pretty much always hear D-Day called the largest Amphibious Invasion. But even if it is talked about without that modifier, who cares? It's still one hell of a feat that something like that came off at all. I see a lot of things like that happening in all areas of life now-a-days, you must bring one thing down so that everything is equal. Sure Operation Barbarosa had a whole boat load more troops involved, but you know what, none of them were related to me. So yeah, I care a whole lot more about D-Day (and the Battle of the Bulge) than a lot of other things. Is that wrong now? Of course there were other important factors in the war. We should all know as much as we can about all the factors. But you can't fight human nature, we all care about things directly effecting ourselves way more than things effecting others.

There may be people that try to minimize the contribution to the war of the Russians (or Soviets). I am not one of them. They did a lot. If I ever give the impression that I am slighting them, please let me know and I will correct the record. But you sure are comming off like you are slighting the American contribution to the war effort.

[BDunnell]

Give me one upshot from it though. Is there a bomber in that report that could deliver as much ordinance to a higher degree of accuracy than either the B-17 or B-24? That was the standard of precision AT THE TIME. Sure it is pathetic by today's standards. But you can not hold a weapon system from 60 years ago to the same standards that we hold today. That is the very meaning of revisionism. That's how this all started, by you claiming that the Norden bombsight was not "precision". All I am trying to say is that it WAS AT THE TIME.

I couldn't agree more. One might argue at the policies being pursued that led to certain events of World War Two, such as the bombing of Dresden, but to be critical of the equipment used by making a comparison with today's equivalents is futile. Would one criticise a B-17 for not being as fast as a B-1, for instance? Of course not.

[chuck34]

I couldn't agree more. One might argue at the policies being pursued that led to certain events of World War Two, such as the bombing of Dresden, but to be critical of the equipment used by making a comparison with today's equivalents is futile. Would one criticise a B-17 for not being as fast as a B-1, for instance? Of course not.

Or why did it take Lewis and Clark 3 years to go from St. Louis to Seatle and back again? I can do that in a couple days in a car, or a couple hours by plane.

But anyway, you are right, it is valid to argue the policy but not the equipment.

[chuck34]

the conclusions about the negligible effect that the huge majority of the bombing accomplished

Hold the phone right there.

I've been just skimming it for now (I got other stuff going on, probably wont actually read it for a while), but I did come across the following on pages 37-40 (edited for brevity, although not too brief).

Some Signposts

1. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion
of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of
helplessness.

2. The significance of full domination of the air over the
enemy-both over its armed forces and over its sustaining
economy-must be emphasized.

3. As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were
unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their
economy.

4. The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is
significant .

5. The importance of careful selection of targets for air attack is
emphasized by the German experience.

6. The German experience showed that, whatever the target
system, no indispensable industry was permanently put out of
commission by a single attack.

7. We need more intel. (My words)

8. As a result of this progress, the air forces eventually
brought to the attack superiority in both numbers and quality of
crews, aircraft, and equipment.

9. The achievements of Allied air power were attained only with
difficulty and great cost in men, material and effort.



So out of nine points two of them (6 and 9, maybe 7, but that could be said about anything in any war) somewhat support your claim that the bombing had negligible effect. And that support is thin at best. If anything they are arguing that air power is the best way to subdue an enemy.

[janvanvurpa]

Hold the phone right there.

I've been just skimming it for now (I got other stuff going on, probably wont actually read it for a while), but I did come across the following on pages 37-40 (edited for brevity, although not too brief).

Some Signposts

1. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion
of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of
helplessness.

2. The significance of full domination of the air over the
enemy-both over its armed forces and over its sustaining
economy-must be emphasized.

3. As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were
unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their
economy.

4. The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is
significant .

5. The importance of careful selection of targets for air attack is
emphasized by the German experience.

6. The German experience showed that, whatever the target
system, no indispensable industry was permanently put out of
commission by a single attack.

7. We need more intel. (My words)

8. As a result of this progress, the air forces eventually
brought to the attack superiority in both numbers and quality of
crews, aircraft, and equipment.

9. The achievements of Allied air power were attained only with
difficulty and great cost in men, material and effort.



So out of nine points two of them (6 and 9, maybe 7, but that could be said about anything in any war) somewhat support your claim that the bombing had negligible effect. And that support is thin at best. If anything they are arguing that air power is the best way to subdue an enemy.

Well how do you copy and paste stuff from PDF?
Cause i can go and then select the suporting stuff to my position.
But here's a review from somewhere:


In Europe, the American Eighth Air Force conducted its raids in daylight and their heavy bombers carried smaller payloads than British aircraft in part because of their heavier (as needed) defensive armament. USAAF leaders firmly held to the claim of "precision" bombing of military targets for much of the war, and energetically refuted claims that they were simply bombing cities. In reality, the day bombing was "precision bombing" only in the sense that most bombs fell somewhere near a specific designated target such as a railway yard. Conventionally, the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. .[27]In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000 feet of their aim point.

Nevertheless, the sheer tonnage of explosive delivered by day and by night was eventually sufficient to cause widespread damage, and, more importantly from a military point of view, forced Germany to divert resources to counter it. This was to be the real significance of the Allied strategic bombing campaign—resource allocation.

Oh look I found it in HTML:
from page 4-5 of the Survey Summary:

The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets. The rest spilled over on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged from poor to excellent. When visual conditions were favorable and flak defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best. Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area.


I stress that I say the BULK of the bombing was largely ineffective and had little effect on shortening the war.
SOME of the bombing and the sheer volume obviously in some areas was eventually effective in paralyzing German war effort: transportation by rail and water, fuel and coal etc
Here's another review of the survey:
Strategic bombing survey (Europe)
"Strategic bombing survey (Europe)" was a US Army report issued September 30, 1945. The major conclusion of the report was that strategic bombing, particularly the destruction of the oil industry and truck manufacturing had major impact on the success of the Allies in World War II.

However, despite the overall contribution of the bombing, the survey concluded that the impact of strategic bombing could not be separated from the general collapse of Germany in 1945.

Success in Europe

The greatest claimed successes came in three crucial industrial areas:

* Oil: This shortage was decisive in the eventual immobilization of the German military.
* Ammunition: Production fell markedly in 1944 and the arms industry shipped bombs and shells packed partly with rock salt., as Germany ran out of nitrate, a vital ingredient. Finally, Albert Speer, head of the Nazi economy, shifted the last nitrogen from the war effort to agriculture because he believed the war was lost and next year's crops were more important.
* Truck manufacturing: Concentrated in three factories. Opel and Daimler Benz works were bombed. The Ford Motor Company plant at Cologne was not bombed, but went out of production because its suppliers had been bombed out.
* Submarine manufacturing was halted.

Limited effects and production increases

* Aviation: "In 1944 the German air force is reported to have accepted a total of 39,807 aircraft of all types -- compared with 8,295 in 1939, or 15,596 in 1942 before the plants suffered any attack." According to the report, almost none of the aircraft produced in 1944 were used in combat and some may have been imaginary.
* Armor production "reached its wartime peak in December 1944, when 1,854 tanks and armored vehicles were produced. This industry continued to have relatively high production through February 1945."
* Ball bearings: "There is no evidence that the attacks on the ball-bearing industry had any measurable effect on essential war production."
* Steel: The bombing greatly reduced production, but the resulting shortage had no contribution to the defeat.
* Consumer goods: "In the early years of the war -- the soft war period for Germany -- civilian consumption remained high. Germans continued to try for both guns and butter. The German people entered the period of the air war well stocked with clothing and other consumer goods. Although most consumer goods became increasingly difficult to obtain, Survey studies show that fairly adequate supplies of clothing were available for those who had been bombed out until the last stages of disorganization. Food, though strictly rationed, was in nutritionally adequate supply throughout the war. The Germans' diet had about the same calories as the British."

The survey concluded that one reason German production rose in so many areas was in part that the German economy did not go on a complete war footing until late 1942 and 1943. Up until then, factories had been on a single shift in many industries and the German economy was generally inefficient and not operating at full capacity.

[chuck34]

Ok I don't even know what to say anymore. You are claiming that the bombing didn't do anything to shorten the war, wasn't "precision", and wasn't effective. You then put up a report as the basis for your claims. That report clearly states that the bombing of Germany led to a general collapse of their economy, thus making it easier to eventually capture Germany.

The report then goes on to point out mistakes, areas of weakness, and ways to improve strategic bombing in the future. You latch on to that as "proof" that the bombing of Germany was ineffective. What can I say to that?

The last part of your last response is very telling actually. The greatest successes were in disrupting oil supplies, amunition, truck manufacture, and sub manufacturing. The limited effects were on aviation, armor, ball bearings, and steel.

Did it occur to you that perhaps that was the strategy? Perhaps the Allies understood that we needed to disrupt the German "war machine" BEFORE we destroyed their actual armaments? That by taking out their munitions factories, oil refineries, and trucks that even if they had planes, subs, and armor that those things would be worthless. Because with no oil you can't fly a plane? Because without bullets to shoot at your enemy, no amount of armor will protect you? Because without trucks no amount of ball bearings will help if you can't get them where they are going?

Why do you think it was by that by early '45 the Mustangs, P-38's, and other fighter escorts stopped flying bomber support missions, and re-tasked to fly ground attack missions. Then fairly soon after that had to start shooting cows because they had run out of "military" targets. Hint: because the bombing campaing WAS EFFECTIVE.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck, it is ok, his arguments are interesting but don't prove the point.

For anyone to claim a bombing campaign that the Allies of WW2 to be ineffective is to not read the accounts of those who were able to survive the bombing. That said, the Germans never collapsed and fought pretty hard to the end, in spite of the pounding they took. If you look at the way the British people rode out the "Blitz" it is proof that bombing civilian populations is demoralizing only a bit and the real damage is done by eventually grinding the industry down through attrition. The bombing of the civilians was part and parcel of this through the inaccuracies by modern standards of bombers of the time. Eventually though, industrial production and oil production was ground down in Nazi Germany though air attacks. That much is pretty much known.

Having said that, it was like eradicating a nest of carpenter ants in your basement by burning down the house.....

[janvanvurpa]

Ok I don't even know what to say anymore. You are claiming that the bombing didn't do anything to shorten the war, wasn't "precision", and wasn't effective. You then put up a report as the basis for your claims. That report clearly states that the bombing of Germany led to a general collapse of their economy, thus making it easier to eventually capture Germany.

The report then goes on to point out mistakes, areas of weakness, and ways to improve strategic bombing in the future. You latch on to that as "proof" that the bombing of Germany was ineffective. What can I say to that?

The last part of your last response is very telling actually. The greatest successes were in disrupting oil supplies, amunition, truck manufacture, and sub manufacturing. The limited effects were on aviation, armor, ball bearings, and steel.

Did it occur to you that perhaps that was the strategy? Perhaps the Allies understood that we needed to disrupt the German "war machine" BEFORE we destroyed their actual armaments? That by taking out their munitions factories, oil refineries, and trucks that even if they had planes, subs, and armor that those things would be worthless. Because with no oil you can't fly a plane? Because without bullets to shoot at your enemy, no amount of armor will protect you? Because without trucks no amount of ball bearings will help if you can't get them where they are going?

Why do you think it was by that by early '45 the Mustangs, P-38's, and other fighter escorts stopped flying bomber support missions, and re-tasked to fly ground attack missions. Then fairly soon after that had to start shooting cows because they had run out of "military" targets. Hint: because the bombing campaing WAS EFFECTIVE.


Chuck, we have a problem with language and of culture.
I have said as clearly as the software of this forum will allow since I cannot make letters huge or bright colors but can only bold and underlined.

I have said THE BULK of the allied bombing did little---and supplied the Chair Forces own figures showing at time as little as 7% of the bombs in a 1000 foot radius of the targets, an average of 20% "accurate" by the generous standards used,,
I have supplied their own report detailing the areas WHERE ENORMOUS EFFORT and BLOOD were expended, where their beliefs in the effectiveness at the time of bombing were found by the Survey to be wildly WILDLY optimistic, where the at the time assessment of degree of permanent damage wrong by orders of magnitude, and where the at the time analysis of the effect on the war effort was totally wrong.

I have supplied you with a report that should you really read it you will find the words of the Germans themselves saying that over the course of the campaign, major effect of the bombing was enormous "re-allocation of resources to fight the bombers" including over 1,000,000 men repairing/clearing damage, 10s of thousands of the Flak 88 deployed and serviced by hundreds of thousands troops, sitting on enormous piles of ammunition, often doing absolutely nothing for months at a time..

I have tried to have a conversation with some nuance.

You continue to look at the entire subject as black and white, you took issue---and accused me of being anti-American---with my report that the much vaunted, still to this day bragging of accuracy (which was placed in context---yes in the crystal clear skies of the SW American desert peacetime trained crews (lots of practice), flying when nobody was shooting at them, could achieve great accuracy) was indeed "accurate".
You take issue with my words "effective", and somehow ignore the Air Forces own reports of only 2 out of 10 bombs being anywhere near "aimed".
You ignore the German's own reports that the US bombs were largely ineffective compared to British bombs 4 to 6 times or more larger.

Since only black or white, all or nothing types discussion is acceptable, a lamentable cultural trait, I guess i have to concede: You're right, history is wrong, 20% of bombs within 1000 feet is perfect accuracy and the B17 won the war...

[chuck34]

I have supplied you with a report that should you really read it you will find the words of the Germans themselves saying that over the course of the campaign, major effect of the bombing was enormous "re-allocation of resources to fight the bombers" including over 1,000,000 men repairing/clearing damage, 10s of thousands of the Flak 88 deployed and serviced by hundreds of thousands troops, sitting on enormous piles of ammunition, often doing absolutely nothing for months at a time..



So the Germans re-allocating resources to fight the bombers had no effect on the war effort? Interesting.

[chuck34]

I have said THE BULK of the allied bombing did little---and supplied the Chair Forces own figures showing at time [b][u]as little as 7% of the bombs in a 1000 foot radius of the targets, an average of 20% "accurate" by the generous standards used,,

So what heavy bomber of that time was better? Simple question, no?

[chuck34]

Since only black or white, all or nothing types discussion is acceptable, a lamentable cultural trait, I guess i have to concede: You're right, history is wrong, 20% of bombs within 1000 feet is perfect accuracy and the B17 won the war...

I never once said that 20% of bombs within 1000 feet is perfectly accurate. I have said over and over again that that is the best of any heavy bomber of the time. So for it's time that is accurate.

And I don't have to say the B-17 won the war, and neither do you. Your own report says that.

"The significance of full domination of the air over the
enemy-both over its armed forces and over its sustaining
economy-must be emphasized."

[chuck34]

Jan look, if you want to take a deep breath and start over, let's do that.

I am saying that for it's time the B-17 with the Norden bomb sight was the most accurate heavy bomber around. Good weather or bad, all conditions beeing equal I would put that up against anything else made during the war. If you can find data that says otherwise, please let me know. I have had trouble finding hard data. I will readily admit my wrong on this point when presented with facts.

You seem to be saying that it wasn't good enough. That's fine if that is the point you are trying to make, I can accept that. But the only thing I am getting out of your posts is that "as little as 7% of the bombs in a 1000 foot radius of the targets, an average of 20% "accurate" by the generous standards used,," And that means that the bombing had little to no effect on the war effort. To that I say BS.

If I am missing what you are saying please try to correct me.

[chuck34]

I have supplied their own report detailing the areas WHERE ENORMOUS EFFORT and BLOOD were expended,

Name one area of the war effort where enormous effort and blood were not expended.

[janvanvurpa]

Chuck, it is ok, his arguments are interesting but don't prove the point.

For anyone to claim a bombing campaign that the Allies of WW2 to be ineffective is to not read the accounts of those who were able to survive the bombing. That said, the Germans never collapsed and fought pretty hard to the end, in spite of the pounding they took. If you look at the way the British people rode out the "Blitz" it is proof that bombing civilian populations is demoralizing only a bit and the real damage is done by eventually grinding the industry down through attrition. The bombing of the civilians was part and parcel of this through the inaccuracies by modern standards of bombers of the time. Eventually though, industrial production and oil production was ground down in Nazi Germany though air attacks. That much is pretty much known.

Having said that, it was like eradicating a nest of carpenter ants in your basement by burning down the house.....

"For want of a rapier, a bludgeon was used"
"Bomber" Harris

And in both places it was found in both wars the the aerial bombing "stiffened the will to resist."

And, go read the report, not just the summary.
(after all it was being written by the very people who stood to benefit from post-war budgets, and indeed, the US Air Force became the darling child of Congress despite similarly over-hyped results in every conflict it was used right to the current. )

You might see that it was not simple attrition but interruptions and delays from damaged rail and water transport 9recall that road transport acoounted for a less than 5% of freight.
Read the report and you'll see that blast damage had little effect on machinery inside factories and was usually quickly repaired.

Look at the INCREASING outputs of tanks and aircraft etc for a negation of the idea of attrition of production as leading to the collapse of the economy.

[chuck34]

You might see that it was not simple attrition but interruptions and delays from damaged rail and water transport 9recall that road transport acoounted for a less than 5% of freight.
Read the report and you'll see that blast damage had little effect on machinery inside factories and was usually quickly repaired.


What, pray tell, caused the damage to the rail transport?

I think I'm begining to see your confusion here. You appear to not understand the concept of "total war" that was used in WWII. That ment that we (the Allies) went after anything and everything that could possibly help the enemy. And that started with their infrastructure.

You see if you "kill" an enemy tank, but he still has the ability to produce a new one, get it to the battle field, and shoot amunition at you, you really haven't done anything. However, if you destroy the enemy's ability to make new weapons, amunition, and other stuff needed to fight, then when you take out his tank/airplane/whatever, he can not replace it and fight again.

[chuck34]

Look at the INCREASING outputs of tanks and aircraft etc for a negation of the idea of attrition of production as leading to the collapse of the economy.

Yes the Germans had more "aircraft" and "tanks" at the end of the war. But what good did they do? The planes were sitting on the tarmac because there was no fuel for them to take off. And the tanks couldn't get to the front, and even if they could they had no shells to shoot at us. So what was the point of all these "paper dragons"?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes the Germans had more "aircraft" and "tanks" at the end of the war. But what good did they do? The planes were sitting on the tarmac because there was no fuel for them to take off. And the tanks couldn't get to the front, and even if they could they had no shells to shoot at us. So what was the point of all these "paper dragons"?


The Luftwaffe was reporting from their Air Ministry that they were getting more planes. The reality the USAAF and RAF/Commonwealth Air Forces were seeing over Germany tells us the truth. In 1944 German Aircraft were hardly in the air at all and most of the ones that did get in the air were not always the designs such as the Me 262 that could have changed things and even those were in very small numbers.

WW2 Bombers were awfully inaccurate and a lot of people were killed in their missing their targets but it would be a fallacy to state that flattening a city didn't hurt its industrial output. Homeless people or dead people don't man factories to the level needed to win wars.

That's ok though, someone seems to think that the bombing campaigns of WW2 were pointless and viewed through the prism of modern warfare and reality, that is accurate enough, but it was the way things were done in WW2 and both sides were very willing to do it to each other. What is also true though is large bombing raids knocking the crap out of your major cities week after week, year after year cannot ever be seen as something that wasn't effective. Inhumane yes...ineffective? No. Inefficient yes....ineffective, NO.

[janvanvurpa]

Name one area of the war effort where enormous effort and blood were not expended.

US Navy submarine warfare against Japan.
Enourmously effective at cutting off the Home Islands from the rest of the world, and at relatively low cost.

[chuck34]

The Luftwaffe was reporting from their Air Ministry that they were getting more planes. The reality the USAAF and RAF/Commonwealth Air Forces were seeing over Germany tells us the truth. In 1944 German Aircraft were hardly in the air at all and most of the ones that did get in the air were not always the designs such as the Me 262 that could have changed things and even those were in very small numbers.

WW2 Bombers were awfully inaccurate and a lot of people were killed in their missing their targets but it would be a fallacy to state that flattening a city didn't hurt its industrial output. Homeless people or dead people don't man factories to the level needed to win wars.

That's ok though, someone seems to think that the bombing campaigns of WW2 were pointless and viewed through the prism of modern warfare and reality, that is accurate enough, but it was the way things were done in WW2 and both sides were very willing to do it to each other. What is also true though is large bombing raids knocking the crap out of your major cities week after week, year after year cannot ever be seen as something that wasn't effective. Inhumane yes...ineffective? No. Inefficient yes....ineffective, NO.

Thanks Mark. That's what I have been doing a bad job at trying to say.

The bombing campaign was inefficient but effective. Maybe even inhumane, that was debated at the time as well, but I have a hard time believing that anyone can think it was ineffective.

[chuck34]

US Navy submarine warfare against Japan.
Enourmously effective at cutting off the Home Islands from the rest of the world, and at relatively low cost.

So there was no "blood, sweat, or tears" shed in the Pacific theater? Specifically sub warfare? Cool, didn't know that.

[Malbec]

Unfortunately the Soviet attitude to defeated Germany was utterly primitive and would have been deeply counter-productive had it been allowed to persist. Thankfully the Western powers soon became far more enlightened, and it was to Germany's great benefit.

Much of that was deliberate wasn't it? Didn't Stalin personally order troops raised from prisons, ie the worst dregs of Russian society, be involved in the sweep through Eastern Germany and specifically Berlin as retribution?

And I thought the policy changed as it became clear that the Soviets would not be merely 'liberators' but occupiers and needed a better relationship with the East Germans.

[janvanvurpa]

So there was no "blood, sweat, or tears" shed in the Pacific theater? Specifically sub warfare? Cool, didn't know that.

Come on Chuck are you trying to be argumentitive?

You alone cannot redefine "accurate" to mean "whatever tiny percentage being up to .4 miles from the target, since that what it was then that is accurate".

And likewise you cannot take my words about enormous casualties suffered by Allied bomber crews (120,000 killed)(nearly 50% KIA) and when I say that US submarine warfare against Japan was fantastically successful at low cost (circa 3500 men killed or missing, presumed squished) and twist them to an absurd "so, there was no........."

That is patently dishonorable twisting of intent, and not discussion that I want to take part in, something I contend is your main intent.

You extremely flexible use of language and slimey mischaracterization of my words leads me to say.... well politely, go have a good time amusing yourself.


Just remember, you'll go blind if you keep up what you're doing.

[chuck34]

Come on Chuck are you trying to be argumentitive?

You alone cannot redefine "accurate" to mean "whatever tiny percentage being up to .4 miles from the target, since that what it was then that is accurate".

And likewise you cannot take my words about enormous casualties suffered by Allied bomber crews (120,000 killed)(nearly 50% KIA) and when I say that US submarine warfare against Japan was fantastically successful at low cost (circa 3500 men killed or missing, presumed squished) and twist them to an absurd "so, there was no........."

That is patently dishonorable twisting of intent, and not discussion that I want to take part in, something I contend is your main intent.

You extremely flexible use of language and slimey mischaracterization of my words leads me to say.... well politely, go have a good time amusing yourself.


Just remember, you'll go blind if you keep up what you're doing.


Wow sorry man, just trying to make a point. Admitadly badly.

And I am not the one trying to apply modern accuracy levels to WWII bombers. That is dishonorably twisting things.

How am I slimely mischaracterizing your words? I do not mean to.

[chuck34]

You alone cannot redefine "accurate" to mean "whatever tiny percentage being up to .4 miles from the target, since that what it was then that is accurate".


Sorry man, I just can't let this go, although I probably should.

Where have I ever tried to say that the bombers of WWII are accurate to our standards?

All I want you to do is tell me one heavy bomber from the WWII era that was more accurate than the B-17.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The only reason the American campaign against Japanese shipping was SO effective was the Japanese basically did nothing to stop it. Still lots of blood, sweat and tears though even with that. American subs did get sunk...

[BDunnell]

Much of that was deliberate wasn't it? Didn't Stalin personally order troops raised from prisons, ie the worst dregs of Russian society, be involved in the sweep through Eastern Germany and specifically Berlin as retribution?

I believe this was the case, and it was certainly deliberate, at least in part. Doesn't stop the Soviet policy towards Germany in the aftermath of WW2 having been primitive, counter-productive and morally bankrupt.



And I thought the policy changed as it became clear that the Soviets would not be merely 'liberators' but occupiers and needed a better relationship with the East Germans.

I think they saw themselves as occupiers of a defeated enemy more than they did as liberators, hence the punitive reparations they sought from Germany and the widespread plundering of the infrastructure in their zone. It is, with hindsight, no wonder that East Germany ended up in such dire straits.

[janvanvurpa]

Sorry man, I just can't let this go, although I probably should.

Where have I ever tried to say that the bombers of WWII are accurate to our standards?

All I want you to do is tell me one heavy bomber from the WWII era that was more accurate than the B-17.

Yeah you should let it go because this careful squirming and parsing of language to try and make me prove to you that the words you used can only be used in a particular way that YOU meant is childish and absurd.

I don't care what you think you were trying to say.
I said that people constantly repeat BS that (and this is what is called sotto voce "the British did area bombing, and the Americans did "daylight precision bombing".

I am not bring up todays standards---that is a strange attempt to twist the meaning of the words that people used then and what they meant THEN.

Precision means precision.

The Norden bombsight was also found on other US bombers---ever heard of B24s.
NOBODY is arguing that in crystal clear skies, when nobody was shooting at you, the Norden was the best.
However only an idiot would argue that, regardless of if it was the best bombsight, it was of much use when there was one cloud cover at 6000' and another at 12,000' and you are flying at 24,500' and being shot at by FlaK or determined fighters.
If you can't SEE the target, then the bombsight was useless.
Have you ever flown over Europe at all?
Have you sent any time enough to see just how frequently it is overcast?

Did you read the Survey where they said European weather conditions, smoke, haze, camouflage, etc made SEEING the target

You do understand it is an optical sight, don't you?

That means for it to work you need to see the target and fly at a specific speed, straight and level, and you do understand that both winter and summer it's very often not just overcast but very cloudy over all of Western Europe.

Further, only a BIG IDIOT would argue that the Norden was indespensible.
There is ample record of people such as the Italians and the Japanese with far far cruder bombsights scoring excellent hits and sinking first class warships travelling at speed doing evasive maneuvers.

So to summarize, at the time and for ever after it has been claimed by most that "The Americans did daylight Precision bombing", and that is the thing I have taken issue with and supplied more than ample evidence that that was not the case at all if the word precision is to retain any meaning.

Were you and some others able to discuss like most people I know, there could be a very interesting discussion on how the outcome of the war was so luckily favorable for the Allies when so many serious errors were made and how the results, much like most motosport I have competed in since 1967(this is allegedly a motorsport forum so token motorsport reference), is so often "Who made LESS major blunders, and who caught their major blunders sooner" rather than some silly fantasy of relentless perfection triumphing over evil.


Again, so you don't miss it: What good was the Norden bombsight is there is double overcast over the whole Continent just when the fun starts?

Closing and this is it for arguing with you:
Operational efficiency

The Norden was developed during a period of United States non-interventionism when the dominant US military strategy was the defense of the United States and its possessions. A considerable amount of this strategy was based on stopping attempted attacks at sea, both with direct Naval power, and starting in the 1930s, with US Army Air Force airpower.

Airpower had been coming into its own as an anti-shipping weapon, but hitting a moving ship at sea was a difficult task. Most forces of the era invested heavily in dive bombers or torpedo bombers, but these generally had limited range and were only suitable in a strategic sense for carrier basing. The Army instead invested in the combination of the Norden and B-17 Flying Fortress, which it was believed would have enough accuracy to allow formations of B-17s to successfully attack shipping at long distances from the USAAF's land bases. Using the Norden, bombardiers could, in theory, drop their bombs within a 100 foot (ca 30 m) circle from an altitude of well over 20,000 feet (ca. 7 km). The high altitude would allow for long cruising ranges and keep them out of range of most ship-borne anti-aircraft fire while the bomb pattern would still give an acceptable probability of a "hit". The Norden was marketed as the tool to win the war; and it was often claimed that the bombsight could drop bombs into pickle barrels.

In practice the Norden never managed to produce accuracies remotely like those of which it was theoretically capable. The RAF were the first to use the B-17 in combat, and reported extremely poor results, eventually converting their aircraft to other duties. USAAF anti-shipping operations in the far east were likewise generally unsuccessful, and although there were numerous claims of sinkings, the only confirmed successful action was during the Battle of the Philippines when B-17s damaged two Japanese transports, the cruiser Naka, and the destroyer Murasame, and sank one minesweeper. However these successes were the exception to the rule; actions during the Battle of Coral Sea or Battle of Midway, for instance, were entirely unsuccessful. The USAAF eventually replaced all of their B-17s with other aircraft, and came to use the skip bombing technique in direct low-level attacks.

In Europe the Norden likewise demonstrated a poor real-world accuracy. Under perfect conditions only 50 percent of American bombs fell within a quarter of a mile of the target, and American flyers estimated that as many as 90 percent of bombs could miss their targets.[3][4][5] Nevertheless many veteran B-17 and B-24 bombardiers swore by the Norden.

Many factors have been put forth to explain the Norden's poor performance. Over Europe the cloud cover was a common explanation, although performance did not improve even in favorable conditions. Accuracy did improve with the introduction of the "master bomber" concept, under which only a single aircraft would actually use the Norden while the rest simply dropped on their command. This suggests that much of the problem is attributable to the bombardier. Over Japan, bomber crews soon discovered strong winds at high altitudes, the so-called jetstreams, but the Norden bombsight worked only for wind speeds with minimal wind shear. Additionally, the bombing altitude over Japan reached up to 30,000 feet (9,100 m), but most of the testing had been done well below 20,000 ft (6,100 m) An additional factor was that the shape and even the paint of the bomb mantle greatly changed the aerodynamic properties of the weapon; and, at that time, nobody knew how to calculate the trajectory of bombs that reached supersonic speeds during their fall.[2]

In both theaters of war, one vulnerability was that when the bombardier auto-piloted the aircraft using the bombsight, the aircraft was more susceptible to anti-aircraft fire and collisions with other allied aircraft.[2]

As a mechanical device, the Norden bombsight used complex machinery consisting of many gearwheels and ball bearings, which were prone to produce inaccuracies if not properly maintained. In fact, many bombsights were rushed to war use without thorough testing. Often the bombardier had to oil and repair failures himself. For some time into the war equipped and qualified groundcrew technical staff were simply not available in sufficient numbers.[2]

[chuck34]

Jan, you are right, you have proven me wrong. The B-17 (and 24 for that matter, I did bring that up before, just so you know) was completely ineffectual. It was horrid, should have never been used, and was the worst mistake of the war. The report you offered proved that to me despite the 9 points I outlined from said report earlier.

And since you can not tell me ONE bomber from the war that was more precise than the B-17 or B24 that MUST mean that you are correct. As I said it was a horrible mistake. We should have used our resources to put a sub blockade around Germany because that is the only thing that was effective in the war, aparently.

Look man if you want to discuss what tactics should have been used or what would have been better that is fine. I am just sick of discussing how "precision" then is not "precision" now. It's a stupid argument that you don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around. Bottom line is that B-17's and B-24's with Norden bomb sights WERE PRECISION FOR THE TIME.

As an example: I have been told about the missiles used in the first Gulf War. They could target a window in a building. The missiles that we have now can target a gnat in that window. Does that mean that the missiles of the first Gulf War were not precision?

[chuck34]

Oh yeah Jan, one more thing. Just because the Norden bomb sight was not perfect doesn't mean that it wasn't the best anyone had. Every time I try and tell you that it was the best for the time, you just keep on telling me how it failed in this condition, or that situation. I completely agree. It was not perfect. It needed to be updated or replaced which it has been many times over. But having said that, it WAS THE BEST THING AROUND. You have not provided one shred of evidence that contridicts that. Therefore your argument about how bombing was ineffective is based on NOTHING.

[chuck34]

Nevertheless many veteran B-17 and B-24 bombardiers swore by the Norden.

Man I guess I'm just a glutton for punnishment or something. Or maybe it's just that you keep making it so easy.

If you are going to try to prove me wrong on something, perhaps you should make sure that your "proof" doesn't have a statement such as the above in it.

Do you not understand that bombardiers swearing by the Norden means that they knew it was the best around?

[BDunnell]

Precision means precision.

Yes, but the technical ability to achieve precision improves over time. This is a big and significant difference.

[janvanvurpa]

Yes, but the technical ability to achieve precision improves over time. This is a big and significant difference.

Yeah, yeah.
Howevber the WORD precision means Precision.
It was not, and did not mean,"whell it was the best it could be at the time compared to everything else"

Precision, which the Yanks have bragged incessantly of then and now 65 years later, meant P-R-E-C-I-S-I-O-N.

BDunnell, I have read your writing, I do not think that you cannot grasp the idea of what has been clearly conveyed: That in the clear skies of the American desert, that obsessively trained in peacetime bombardiers, in steady still air at lower atltitude than later, with the aid of the best Bombsight in the World (by a small factor over the very similar Zeiss) could indeed be very accurate, but in wartime, in the European theatre , that the Norden was unable to show its accuracy when, as too often the case was, the targets could not be seen and identified.
And so the Americans resorted to, despite their ballyho, the same drop massive tonnage of bombs and hope a slim tiny percentage of the thousands of tons might accomplish something.

The discussion is not one of relative merits of then and now, but what was then bruited, done then, published and repeated enough at the time that even now people long removed, or never near a Norden, repeat "Americans or "WE" did daylight precision bombing.

The infantile "but you didn't prove what was more accurate.." coupled with the steadfast refusal to even superficially address the various reports where the problems of visibility, FlaK, turbulence, drift, rushed wartime training of crews etc etc shows me the guy Chuck is solely concerned with "scoring" his point.

It is lamentable.
He could learn something.

[chuck34]

Ok let's try another tactic then. What bomber of WWII would have been better in the desert?

And don't give me this BS about refusing to address the report you posted. I read the damn thing, I'm not sure you have. What I get from it (which is the same 9 points I outlined earlier) is that the bombing of Germany caused the general collapse of their economy, which led to the general collapse of their military, which led to the occupation of said country. However, along the way there were some issues (this can be seen in every "after action report"), so here's what they were, and how we should address said issues.

And I do not need to address the problems of visibiliy, Flak, turbulence, drift, rushed wartime training, etc. until you show one system OF THE TIME that COULD deal with these things.

I have never said that the bombing "systems" that were used in WWII were perfect. I freely admit that nothing was perfect. I have said over and over again that it was the best we had.

Call me infantile if you want, but I'm starting to really wonder about your reading comprehension skills.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Glad to see it isn't just me he holds in contempt Chuck. Remember, we are not fit to argue with him since we fail to grasp his points.

I will take a stab at this. The Norden sucked. By any modern standard it sucked. By WW2 standards it was not nearly as effective as the people who liked it would think. There....we established it didn't work well. The USAAF of the time still called it "precision bombing" and we should grant them that illusion. They didn't have laser guidance. They didn't have gyro stablity auto pilots in jets. They didn't have modern technology as we know it. They missed a lot. Big deal. Every military bombing campaign of this era was filled with collaterial damage and civilian casualities. This argument is as lame as taking the British to task for their failure to kill and not maim the French Archers in the 1300's with their long bows.

WW2 was fought by a people desparate to win and all the rules were thrown out or bent as nations fought for survival. Like most wars, it was messy, ugly and not very nice. Criticiszing the USAAF for their belief in the Norden bombsight is giving style points to someone else because their system worked better. The point still is that the bombing of Nazi Germany by the RAF and the USAAF was crude and nasty and it WORKED. Maybe not as effective as some other strategy, but there is no point in knocking the victors for how they did it at this point. IT changes nothing and the last time I looked, there wasn't a groundswell in Germany to either refight the war or hate the US and UK for bombing the heck out of Hamburg and Dresden.

[janvanvurpa]

Ok let's try another tactic then. What bomber of WWII would have been better in the desert?

And don't give me this BS about refusing to address the report you posted. I read the damn thing, I'm not sure you have. What I get from it (which is the same 9 points I outlined earlier) is that the bombing of Germany caused the general collapse of their economy, which led to the general collapse of their military, which led to the occupation of said country. However, along the way there were some issues (this can be seen in every "after action report"), so here's what they were, and how we should address said issues.

And I do not need to address the problems of visibiliy, Flak, turbulence, drift, rushed wartime training, etc. until you show one system OF THE TIME that COULD deal with these things.

I have never said that the bombing "systems" that were used in WWII were perfect. I freely admit that nothing was perfect. I have said over and over again that it was the best we had.

Call me infantile if you want, but I'm starting to really wonder about your reading comprehension skills.

Yes then I will. I cannot imagine that you are older than maybe 14 years old, You argue you one point that nobody is arguing, and every effort to try to have a back and forth conversation is responded to with a monomaniacal "What bomber was most accurate!!!??? You didn't tell me what bomber was most accurate!!!!!"

It is indeed a studid and childish argument.

You inability to display any hint of nuanced thinking lead several days ago to me concoludiong your only concern was not to have a DIALOG, but to prove your point.

You STILL think it is about what YOU said. That is always a sign of a person of shall we say, dimisnished understanding.
The subject is not YOU.

What you are trying to dispute is what The US Army Air boys and media and books SAID back then, and then ignoring the record in of a TACTIC actual.

I have said, and most people can look at things and see that a large portion of the Allied, both British and American, did in their own words, little or nothing to end the war.
BUT! Some specific targets, chosen much later, after years of thrashing around, and thousands of bombers shot down, 10s of thousands of Allied aircrew lost, did yield great results.

Those targets were not bombed by "dropping a bomb down a pickle barrel"
as the Pre-War proponents of the USAAC bragged, but by dropping tens of thousands of TONS on target areas..

You are so fixated with your childish notions, and defending some foolish idée fixe that you miss the real triumph of particularly the American contribution to the war:
The American worker and the US Industrial organization's ability to churn out so many orders of magnitude MORE stuff of every sort, and to get it all over the whole world.


Done wasting time talking to you.

[janvanvurpa]

Glad to see it isn't just me he holds in contempt Chuck. Remember, we are not fit to argue with him since we fail to grasp his points.

I will take a stab at this. The Norden sucked. By any modern standard it sucked. By WW2 standards it was not nearly as effective as the people who liked it would think. There....we established it didn't work well. The USAAF of the time still called it "precision bombing" and we should grant them that illusion. They didn't have laser guidance. They didn't have gyro stablity auto pilots in jets. They didn't have modern technology as we know it. They missed a lot. Big deal. Every military bombing campaign of this era was filled with collaterial damage and civilian casualities. This argument is as lame as taking the British to task for their failure to kill and not maim the French Archers in the 1300's with their long bows.

WW2 was fought by a people desparate to win and all the rules were thrown out or bent as nations fought for survival. Like most wars, it was messy, ugly and not very nice. Criticiszing the USAAF for their belief in the Norden bombsight is giving style points to someone else because their system worked better. The point still is that the bombing of Nazi Germany by the RAF and the USAAF was crude and nasty and it WORKED. Maybe not as effective as some other strategy, but there is no point in knocking the victors for how they did it at this point. IT changes nothing and the last time I looked, there wasn't a groundswell in Germany to either refight the war or hate the US and UK for bombing the heck out of Hamburg and Dresden.

Actually the thing that makes examining the Pre-war claims and the in war record interesting is the long subsequent history of US weapons systems manufacturers and their paid whores in the media cliaming similar Panacea like storieds for ever more and more and more weapons systems, and simultaneously generating the "intellicence" and the "News" to justify the "need" for more and more and more weapons and selectove fighting of little wars---preferably against third of 4th rate "enemies" so that those that like to do this sort of thing can brag about how "WE won".

In Gulf War 1, they showed you lots of vids of "smart bombs" hitting targets, but of course didn't show the other 9 or of 10 that missed..

The point is there is a continuity in the excessive pre-war claims and post war analysis of effectiveness.

[chuck34]

*Sigh*

I guess I am a 14 year old child. You said so, it must be true.

If you want to have a dialog, as you say, then please explain how you can defend your point about the Allied bombing being ineffectual. Especially in light of the article you put up as "proof" says otherwise.

1. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion
of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of
helplessness.

2. The significance of full domination of the air over the
enemy-both over its armed forces and over its sustaining
economy-must be emphasized.

3. As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were
unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their
economy.

4. The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is
significant .

5. The importance of careful selection of targets for air attack is
emphasized by the German experience.

6. The German experience showed that, whatever the target
system, no indispensable industry was permanently put out of
commission by a single attack.

7. We need more intel. (My words)

8. As a result of this progress, the air forces eventually
brought to the attack superiority in both numbers and quality of
crews, aircraft, and equipment.

9. The achievements of Allied air power were attained only with
difficulty and great cost in men, material and effort.


All I have heard from you is some BS about how the bombing was ineffectual, and then a bunch of namecalling. Who's 14 again?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actually the thing that makes examining the Pre-war claims and the in war record interesting is the long subsequent history of US weapons systems manufacturers and their paid whores in the media cliaming similar Panacea like storieds for ever more and more and more weapons systems, and simultaneously generating the "intellicence" and the "News" to justify the "need" for more and more and more weapons and selectove fighting of little wars---preferably against third of 4th rate "enemies" so that those that like to do this sort of thing can brag about how "WE won".

In Gulf War 1, they showed you lots of vids of "smart bombs" hitting targets, but of course didn't show the other 9 or of 10 that missed..

The point is there is a continuity in the excessive pre-war claims and post war analysis of effectiveness.

Beware of the Miltary-Industrial Complex.......right.

In Gulf War 1 they showed you the smart bombs hitting the target because they WORK. The first Gulf War they dropped more tonnage than most of the campaigns of WW2 yet most of the munitions were unguided. You saw the pretty pictures because yes, the Pentagon isn't going to show you bombs falling on sand in the desert or a village.

That said, the second time around the news was agog of how the munitions were almost all guided and most of the war damage in the Invasion of Iraq isn't from bombs, but rather the ground fighting.

You like to believe the military and "whores" who make this stuff are just capitalist thugs who sell shoddy stuff I guess. Funny, military men usually just like to get stuff that works.

[Mark in Oshawa]

*Sigh*

I guess I am a 14 year old child. You said so, it must be true.

If you want to have a dialog, as you say, then please explain how you can defend your point about the Allied bombing being ineffectual. Especially in light of the article you put up as "proof" says otherwise.

1. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion
of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of
helplessness.

2. The significance of full domination of the air over the
enemy-both over its armed forces and over its sustaining
economy-must be emphasized.

3. As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were
unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their
economy.

4. The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is
significant .

5. The importance of careful selection of targets for air attack is
emphasized by the German experience.

6. The German experience showed that, whatever the target
system, no indispensable industry was permanently put out of
commission by a single attack.

7. We need more intel. (My words)

8. As a result of this progress, the air forces eventually
brought to the attack superiority in both numbers and quality of
crews, aircraft, and equipment.

9. The achievements of Allied air power were attained only with
difficulty and great cost in men, material and effort.


All I have heard from you is some BS about how the bombing was ineffectual, and then a bunch of namecalling. Who's 14 again?

I read his posts and wonder where the heck he is going a lot Chuck. It isn't just you. It is ok though...he will insult you for a while because you refuse to see things his way..whatever way that is.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actually Chuck, as for the most accurate way to deliver bombs with WW2 era aircraft, I would submit to you that the divebombers of this era were the most accurate aircraft. Helldivers, Stuka's, Sturmoviks, Skua's, Val's and Dauntlesses were all more or less aircraft that were very good at hitting pin point targets. The problem of course was they were damned slow and needed a lot of protection and you couldn't lay waste to a city far away with such weaponry. That said, area bombing was considered the way to go by all sides in WW2 if they had the planes to do the job. You can say that the B24 and B17 were the most accurate of that era, and I suppose they were since the British Lancasters and the like weren't too fussy about what they dropped on other than the flares they were using as targets. That said, the Pathfinder Squadrons of the RAF using Mosquitoes ( the coolest little bomber of the war ) were pretty good at finding their IP's and dropping their flares so I suppose the RAF wasn't completely out to lunch either...

[chuck34]

Actually Chuck, as for the most accurate way to deliver bombs with WW2 era aircraft, I would submit to you that the divebombers of this era were the most accurate aircraft. Helldivers, Stuka's, Sturmoviks, Skua's, Val's and Dauntlesses were all more or less aircraft that were very good at hitting pin point targets. The problem of course was they were damned slow and needed a lot of protection and you couldn't lay waste to a city far away with such weaponry. That said, area bombing was considered the way to go by all sides in WW2 if they had the planes to do the job. You can say that the B24 and B17 were the most accurate of that era, and I suppose they were since the British Lancasters and the like weren't too fussy about what they dropped on other than the flares they were using as targets. That said, the Pathfinder Squadrons of the RAF using Mosquitoes ( the coolest little bomber of the war ) were pretty good at finding their IP's and dropping their flares so I suppose the RAF wasn't completely out to lunch either...

Yeah I'm well aware of Sukas and the like, even brought them up earlier. That is why I have been very careful to say heavy bomber this whole time.

I do like the Lancasters and Mosquitoes quite a bit. They were pretty good for what they were tasked to do. But I'm not sure about the whole night bombing concept. Anyway, I wish I could see one of those Brit Bombers up close. I've been in a B-17 and found it quite impressive.

[janvanvurpa]

Beware of the Miltary-Industrial Complex.......right.

In Gulf War 1 they showed you the smart bombs hitting the target because they WORK. The first Gulf War they dropped more tonnage than most of the campaigns of WW2 yet most of the munitions were unguided. You saw the pretty pictures because yes, the Pentagon isn't going to show you bombs falling on sand in the desert or a village.

That said, the second time around the news was agog of how the munitions were almost all guided and most of the war damage in the Invasion of Iraq isn't from bombs, but rather the ground fighting.

You like to believe the military and "whores" who make this stuff are just capitalist thugs who sell shoddy stuff I guess. Funny, military men usually just like to get stuff that works.

You'd think you must have learned to read in the American South.
Let me cut and paste for you since you can't recall things if they're a line or two up:
The reference to paid whores is here:

and their paid whores in the media claiming similar Panacea like stories

Now it clearly says weapons systems manufacturers and their paid whores in the media claiming similar Panacea like stories.

Is that so hard to grasp?

The sneer on your lips when you seem to try to dismiss the idea of "the Military Industrial Complex" would do your idol Mr Bush proud, but sorry Mark, I'll take the warnings of a man who worked with and within and oversaw a massive portion of it more than you casual dismissal.
Eisenhower trumps Mark from Oshwa.

And the intertwined military/Government/industry cess-pool has only gotten worse since Eisenhower wrote way back then.
Perhaps you've heard of a greaseball named Cheney and Halliburton and KBR?
How many billions in no-bid contracts were tossed their way?

No in addition to poor reading skills and selective mis-quoting., seems understanding things obviously implied escapes your keen eye. The point the slime balls at the Pentagon "News briefings" were implying and their mostly willing lapdogs in the Press happily replayed and regurgitated was that these vids were representative of the performance of the '91 generation "smart" bombs etc.

That was the point, and that is the connection to the old discredited claims repeated by folks with superficial, distant connections to the subject only through so called "discussion" forums.

And no I don't "believe" the people who have made military hardware are capitalist thugs. The OWNERS of the companies a lot of systems which get adopted and procured for the military---and the selection process is extremely politicized----are probably disgusting people solely interested in power and money. But the people that make the stuff are just folks who don't think past their paycheck--and don't wonder or care what the systems will be used for.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am poking fun at your paranoia...or whatever it is. Bush isn't my hero either...if you read my posts instead of reading into them what you feel like reading into them you would figure out that I don't think Bush is a genius but hardly the clown you think he is. I have thought him wrong and simple minded on a lot of his inititives at times but again, he is a politician. I find most of them kind of stupid at one point or another.

As for Eisenhower, he was a very wise man and I respect his point of view and why he made it, but I suspect your rants are not based on the same information his was.

Again, you choose to insult in your arguments and it is a mystery to me why you have to be so damned obnoxious about making your points. News Flash pal.....you are NOT as smart as you try to make yourself sound.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You'd think you must have learned to read in the American South.
Let me cut and paste for you since you can't recall things if they're a line or two up:
The reference to paid whores is here:


Now it clearly says weapons systems manufacturers and their paid whores in the media claiming similar Panacea like stories.

Is that so hard to grasp?

The sneer on your lips when you seem to try to dismiss the idea of "the Military Industrial Complex" would do your idol Mr Bush proud, but sorry Mark, I'll take the warnings of a man who worked with and within and oversaw a massive portion of it more than you casual dismissal.
Eisenhower trumps Mark from Oshwa.

And .

THis little section of this posting is why you are quite annoying John. You don't debate...you attack. Believe me....you don't bother me that much. If you did, I would have just out and out banned you but for whatever reason I keep answering your rants. Your love of attacking anything to do with the US Military doesn't bother me either. Hey..your tax dollars bud, not mine, you have that right. Just I find your loathing of just about anything that has happened in the last decade or so pathetic. Attacking me or Chuck is just pointless...but that's ok, we have put up with it on this thread for a while. I guess it is a hobby....

[chuck34]

Rethought post. Don't want to be brought down to Jan/John's level.

[janvanvurpa]

THis little section of this posting is why you are quite annoying John. You don't debate...you attack. Believe me....you don't bother me that much. If you did, I would have just out and out banned you but for whatever reason I keep answering your rants. Your love of attacking anything to do with the US Military doesn't bother me either. Hey..your tax dollars bud, not mine, you have that right. Just I find your loathing of just about anything that has happened in the last decade or so pathetic. Attacking me or Chuck is just pointless...but that's ok, we have put up with it on this thread for a while. I guess it is a hobby....

Look, different people find different stuff annoying.
I find nearly everything your write as annoying.
You find my writing style annoying.

You are acting butt-hurt for me describing brown-nosing journalists and TV airheads who are little better than shills as paid media whores as an attack.
Well unless you are some paid media whore then you are not being attacked, what the f**k?

What do you call reporters and media types who are just lackeys for those they supposedly are to report on?


And yeah I've been sickened by the rampant corruption in the procurement of weapons systems and the power the defense contractors have in the decision making process resulting in decades of bad policy decisions.
What these influential corporate entities have done has led to policies that have tarnished and shat upon the admirable ideals that most of us here in this country thinks make us who we are.

These bad policy decisions have lead to Americans, people I know, people I have to live with, and their substitutes killing millions upon millions of civilians in the decades since the end of the Second World War, but I guess all that was justified cause they're better Dead than Red, eh?
Or they're all just Arabiac terr'ists....

The policies were founded on flawed assessments of threats, absurdly exaggerated reports of whatever this year is described as the "threat-du-jour", and it's just so convenient that huge numbers of key decision makers and their advisors move in and out of the highest levels of the corporate, military and Government operations so seemlessly.

And just for the record for both you armchair experts, my suspicion of the conclusions drawn by those who stand the most to benefit for various reports--upon which procurement policy was based, comes not merely from casual reading but first from 16 years of dinner table conversations with the guys who fought in that war and who continued to serve---and be frustrated with equipment, systems, STUFF, being delivered that so often was hugely expensive, maintenance intensive or flat didn't work in the field--or the air in the case of those I was listening to around my house.

Oh and these guys showed me how the Norden worked way back when I was hell 5? or 6?
That was the impetus to read, study and observe as much as I could, because getting past the facile Party line, finding true assessment of what occurred, how, etc is so difficult.
Nearly 40 years of reading on these narrow subjects, I remain thankful to those guys for voicing such strong skepticism, even contempt with in front of an impressionable mind.

Those men talked, they could discuss.

[janvanvurpa]

Yeah I'm well aware of Sukas and the like, even brought them up earlier. That is why I have been very careful to say heavy bomber this whole time.

I do like the Lancasters and Mosquitoes quite a bit. They were pretty good for what they were tasked to do. But I'm not sure about the whole night bombing concept. Anyway, I wish I could see one of those Brit Bombers up close. I've been in a B-17 and found it quite impressive.

Go to RAF Duxford.
Look at the bomb bay of a B17---built about 1.25 miles from me.
Then look at the cavern of a bomb bay in a Lancaster.
Then you'll understand why the British found the B17 not up to snuff as a first rate heavy bomber.

[airshifter]

I don't care what you think you were trying to say.


Well folks, that pretty much sums up the latest "debate" tactics. Please come to the reality that as it suits, Janvanvurpa will substitute his version of your thoughts. Apparently noboby else realizes what they were trying to say!

:laugh:

:laugh:

[janvanvurpa]

Well folks, that pretty much sums up the latest "debate" tactics. Please come to the reality that as it suits, Janvanvurpa will substitute his version of your thoughts. Apparently noboby else realizes what they were trying to say!

:laugh:

:laugh:

Good ol' Air "Pro War, You're a filthy un-American Commie bastid if you don't lock a liplock on George Ws love muscle like Monica did for Bill" Shifter!

I see you're still around and still quoting carefully parsed portions of people quotes for your own ultra clean appearing ends, when you're really just trying to keep a pretty facade up, good on you!
Consistency above all, eh Airshifter?

So, still 100% behind Mr Bush and Cheney, and their whole program?

Look, should I care what everybody thinks they meant to say?

Or should I comment on what they said/wrote.

We've really seen some great claims here like "The Russians fought because they were double crossed".... not because they were invaded and such gems claiming that 20 out or 100 bombs striking within 1000 feet is precision because that's they best they could do therefore it's precision.

I cannot believe people not drunk would say/write stuff like that and mean it, so Airshofter ol' chum, ol bean should I care when folks write stuff like the above quoted flat statements?

(glancing at ac lock wondering how long some oblique, strictly squared away but fundamentally dishonest response will take...................)

Rather than come here to insult---which is why you have added your reply, why don't you tell us what you think of "The Russians fought because they were double crossed". Or "20 out or 100 bombs striking within 1000 feet is precision because that's they best they could do therefore it's precision.

That's been the subject for a couple of days, and you were military for a short while so you just have to be an expert on all manner of subject not connected with whatever it was you did so long ago, and this is supposed to be a discussion forum so do tell......

Take a hint from one of the 2 boys here when he said "I don't care if I'm wrong. I'm going say what I think....."

[chuck34]

What do you call reporters and media types who are just lackeys for those they supposedly are to report on?



The Obama media.

[chuck34]

And just for the record for both you armchair experts, my suspicion of the conclusions drawn by those who stand the most to benefit for various reports--upon which procurement policy was based, comes not merely from casual reading but first from 16 years of dinner table conversations with the guys who fought in that war and who continued to serve---and be frustrated with equipment, systems, STUFF, being delivered that so often was hugely expensive, maintenance intensive or flat didn't work in the field--or the air in the case of those I was listening to around my house.


Ok so as "proof" of your great assessment of the situation from all of your kitchen table conversations you put up a report that completely condridicts your points. Then you go on to insult myself and Mark for "parsing words" and worse. You completely refuse to show how you think the report you put up as supporting your views is now wrong.

Face it you had a point of view. Thought this report supported it. Didn't think anyone would read it, and just assume you knew what you were talking about, and you would "win" your point. Then when we call you on it, you resort to insults.

You keep claiming to want to have a discussion, but I have yet to see a point by point assessment (from your point of view that bombing was ineffectual) of how YOUR report is wrong. That would be having a discussion. Not calling me infantile, or saying that I am "parsing" words, or calling Mark annoying, or calling Airshifter anything and everything but a civil person.

So please stop the insults and have a discussion. I suspect you will now insult me once again. Have fun.

[chuck34]

Go to RAF Duxford.
Look at the bomb bay of a B17---built about 1.25 miles from me.
Then look at the cavern of a bomb bay in a Lancaster.
Then you'll understand why the British found the B17 not up to snuff as a first rate heavy bomber.

Now we're getting somewhere. So you think that we should have used the Lancaster instead of the B-17. I can live with that. At the very least it's a position to have (a first for you on this thread).

Now expand on that a bit and tell me why.

[Garry Walker]

The rapes, the indiscriminate violence, the looting, etc.

Unfortunately the Soviet attitude to defeated Germany was utterly primitive and would have been deeply counter-productive had it been allowed to persist. Thankfully the Western powers soon became far more enlightened, and it was to Germany's great benefit.

Well, soviet soldiers raped millions of women across Germany, but they were pretty much as bad outside germany to people of other nationality (poles, people from baltic states). I have talked to many people who lived through the war and they all agree that soviet soldiers were the most uncivilized and barbaric "animals" of the WW2 (here I am not including such units as the sturmbrigade Dirlewanger and such, which consisted of equally barbaric people and were non-soviet). Rape, looting and such things was natural for these soldiers. Of course, they were not the only ones guilty of doing that.

Far too little has been spoken about what kind of army the Red Army really was and the crimes they committed and all the attention has been put on the Wehrmacht and the Imperial Army of Japan.

[BDunnell]

Well, soviet soldiers raped millions of women across Germany, but they were pretty much as bad outside germany to people of other nationality (poles, people from baltic states). I have talked to many people who lived through the war and they all agree that soviet soldiers were the most uncivilized and barbaric "animals" of the WW2 (here I am not including such units as the sturmbrigade Dirlewanger and such, which consisted of equally barbaric people and were non-soviet). Rape, looting and such things was natural for these soldiers. Of course, they were not the only ones guilty of doing that.

Far too little has been spoken about what kind of army the Red Army really was and the crimes they committed and all the attention has been put on the Wehrmacht and the Imperial Army of Japan.

I am sure that equal attention should be paid to all three. After all, this is not a competition.

[Tazio]

I am sure that equal attention should be paid to all three. After all, this is not a competition.Might as well throw the French Morrocan Forces into that group!!

The Moroccan Goumiers, represened a figting force totalling some 7,800 fighting men,[35] broadly the same infantry strength as a division atached to the French Expeditionary Corps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#cite_note-35

"The Italian campaign of World War II is perhaps the most famous and most controversial in the history of the Goumiers. The 4th Group of Moroccan Tabors shipped out for Italy in November 1943, and was followed in January 1944 by the 3rd Group, and reinforced by the 1st Group in April 1944.[3]

In Italy, the Allies suffered a long stalemate at the German Gustav Line. In May 1944, three Goumier groupes, under the name Corps de Montagne, were the vanguard of the French Expeditionary Corps attack through the Aurunci Mountains during Operation Diadem, the fourth Battle of Monte Cassino. "Here the Goums more than proved their value as light, highly mobile mountain troops who could penetrate the most vertical terrain in fighting order and with a minimum of logistical requirements. Most military analysts consider the Goumiers' manoeuvre as the critical victory that finally opened the way to Rome."[2]

The Allied commander, U.S. General Mark Clark also paid tribute to the Goumiers and the Moroccan regulars of the Tirailleur units:

In spite of the stiffening enemy resistance, the 2nd Moroccan Division penetrated the Gustave [sic] Line in less than two day’s fighting. The next 48 hours on the French front were decisive. The knife-wielding Goumiers swarmed over the hills, particularly at night, and General Juin’s entire force showed an aggressiveness hour after hour that the Germans could not withstand. Cerasola, San Giorgio, Mt. D’Oro, Ausonia and Esperia were seized in one of the most brilliant and daring advances of the war in Italy... For this performance, which was to be a key to the success of the entire drive on Rome, I shall always be a grateful admirer of General Juin and his magnificent FEC.

However, the military achievements of the Goumiers in Italy were accompanied by widespread reports of war crimes: "...exceptional numbers of Moroccans were executed—many without trial—for allegedly murdering, raping, and pillaging their way across the Italian countryside. The French authorities sought to defuse the problem by importing numbers of Berber women to serve as "camp followers" in rear areas set aside exclusively for the Goumiers."[3] According to Italian sources, more than 7,000 people were raped by Goumiers. [4] The victims, later known in Italy as Marocchinate, included women, children and men, including some priests.

The mayor of Esperia (a comune in the Province of Frosinone), reported that in his town, 700 women out of 2,500 inhabitants were raped and that some had died as a result. In northern Latium and southern Tuscany, it is alleged that the Goumiers raped and occasionally killed women and young men after the Germans retreated, including members of partisan formations.[5]

The French Expeditionary Corps executed 15 soldiers by firing squad and sentenced 54 others to hard labor in military prisons for acts of rape or murder.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goumier

[airshifter]

Look, should I care what everybody thinks they meant to say?




No, you shouldn't care. You should accept the fact that the people making those statements KNOW the intent of the statements, not that they are open to your vastly paranoia based assumptions on the reason for their statements.


Why don't you simply respond to the question first posed about the statement you seem so obsessed with? What targetting systems were superior in accuracy to what was claimed to be the "precision" bombing? Rather than trying to justify that precision in accuracy terms has obviously changed over the years and claim his statement is untrue, why don't you show that much more precise weapons delivery was already taking place?


You might want to also consider that the "military industrial complex" you show such great disdain for is the very machine that created greater precision and lessened innocent deaths.

[janvanvurpa]

No, you shouldn't care. You should accept the fact that the people making those statements KNOW the intent of the statements, not that they are open to your vastly paranoia based assumptions on the reason for their statements.


Why don't you simply respond to the question first posed about the statement you seem so obsessed with?


You might have seen, had you not been your normal insufferably smug self, that I said that nobody was diputing the accuracy of the Norden bombsight. But in your normal complete disdain for anybody's opinions but your own, you must have missed that in skimming what i have written.

Now just how the Norden stacked up against other bombisghts developed just prior to the war in Germany and sespecially in Britain, what degree of "Better" the Norden was, I have never seen a peep.
And I've been hearing as I said people like you and your friends bray about it for nearly 50 years.



What targetting systems were superior in accuracy to what was claimed to be the "precision" bombing?

Do you like the sound of your own typing so much that you have to argue points not in dispute, or are you just what I have always taken you to be: an argumentative troll?



Rather than trying to justify that precision in accuracy terms has obviously changed over the years and claim his statement is untrue, why don't you show that much more precise weapons delivery was already taking place?

Still arguing?
Again, you are trying to prove something that nobody is arguing.

But you and he have not conceded that calling the RESULTS IN PRACTICE in which so often the entire target COUNTRY was obscured by levels of overcast, and which resulted in the USAAF giving up on their fatuous pre-war claims and just carpeting wholesale sections of citiies or the whole city itself,
accuracy is absurd in the extreme.

You and he are the ones who keep bringing up the false idea of comparing the piss poor accuracy IN PRACTICE then to now.
I am comparing the pre-war claims and the in theatre results.

In putting the American claims of accuracy into a context of how they arrived at their claims, how that experience gained in the deserts of SoCal, Utah, Arizona etc led to mistaken tactics and decisons, I am AGREEING that in clear blue skies with steady level flight, the Norden was the best thing going (surely even a low level ex-grunt should be able to comprehend agreeing with that) but in practice in Europe, it was to use the words quoted above "disappointing" and "never came close to the promise"..

Argue with them.

I presume you are trying to confuse the discussion because you wish to avoid discussing the 20% in a 1000 foot radius---or [b]80% outside a 1000 foot radius---which no resonable person THEN could conclude was "accurate" in any imaginable sense of the word.

Be your brilliant logic back in the smooth-bore musketry days, if 2 shots hit within ONE FIFTH of a MILE even if nobody hit the target, that would be accuracy.
That disrespects language and logic.



You might want to also consider that the "military industrial complex" you show such great disdain for is the very machine that created greater precision and lessened innocent deaths.

Well judging by the vastly increased percentage of civilian deaths to military deaths, especially US military deaths in combat, in all conflicts since WWII, I think once again you are talking as the Aussies say BULLDUST.

And of course I show disdain for the "Military Industrial Complex", it has done more to undermine what was traditional American democracy than any threat from any enemy has.
Are you so arrogant (he asked knowing the answer would be a doozie) to suggest that Eisenhower's impassioned warning was just him crying wolf?
Or that precisely what he warned of has not come to pass with a vengeance?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think Eisenhower was crying wolf. He was saying what he thought. I also don't know if what he said applies to today or not. Not thinking he was all wrong, but in light of the way Obama spends money, it is more like Beware of the Social Engineering/Union/Government Employee complex. THAT however is for another thread.

No Jan, you have yet to enlighten us with your supposed wisdom of WHY you think the Lancaster is better than the B-17. I think it was a better bomb platform due to the sheer capacity but whatever one might think of the Norden, the B-17 and B-24 were pretty tough aircraft and took a pounding and brought their crews home often with a lot parts missing. The liquid cooled Merlins on the Lanc had the issue of having to worry about losing glycol. If the Yanks used Lanc's during the day, I don't think a lot of people would bet on less casualties.

Now that Jan has insulted Shifter, Chuck and myself ( Mr. Dunnell, keep your head down, he might go postal on you next) he has pretty much run his course and maybe he can have an intelligent thought or two without the rancor. I personally doubt it but I enjoy watching his insults. I realized it wasn't personal with him, he hates everyone it seems....

[chuck34]

1) You might have seen, had you not been your normal insufferably smug self,

2) Do you like the sound of your own typing so much that you have to argue points not in dispute, or are you just what I have always taken you to be: an argumentative troll?

3) But you and he have not conceded that calling the RESULTS IN PRACTICE in which so often the entire target COUNTRY was obscured by levels of overcast, and which resulted in the USAAF giving up on their fatuous pre-war claims and just carpeting wholesale sections of citiies or the whole city itself,
accuracy is absurd in the extreme.

4) You and he are the ones who keep bringing up the false idea of comparing the piss poor accuracy IN PRACTICE then to now.
I am comparing the pre-war claims and the in theatre results.

5) I am AGREEING that in clear blue skies with steady level flight, the Norden was the best thing going

6) I presume you are trying to confuse the discussion because you wish to avoid discussing the 20% in a 1000 foot radius---or [b]80% outside a 1000 foot radius---which no resonable person THEN could conclude was "accurate" in any imaginable sense of the word.



1) Great way to start a post ... throw out the insults.

2) Keep going, you are a great insulter.

3) So the allies should only have bombed Germany when it was clear. I believe you are the one that doesn't know the difference between theory and practice. In theory you strive for the best you can do. In practice you make due with what you have.

4) Speeking of false ideas, I have never said that the Norden lived up to it's pre-war claims. And by the way I don't think anyone ever would claim that an optical sighting system could see through clouds. You seem to be saying that the Norden was the only weapon to ever not live up to it's claims. Anyway, you want to talk about "in practice" all the time. So my point still stands. What bomber would you have used that would have been "better".

5) That is the first time I have seen you agree with that idea. That's a good place to start, let's go from there. Would you not agree that all system developments are done incrementally? If so then is this not a monumental leap over the WWI practice of hand droping bombs and praying? But not as good as the laser/GPS guidance we have now?

6) You are the only one arguing this point. Perhaps no one then would argue that as being acurate. But you still have not shown me how using bombers with this "piss poor acuracy" was such a bad choice for the US Army Air Corp. You see for this to be a bad CHOICE there must be something else to choose from. What is this mystical other system for them to choose?



Listen perhaps I have completely miss understood your whole argument. The way I have understood it is as follows, please tell me I am wrong. You started this whole deal by stating "That may go a ways toward explaining the none too dramatic results US bombing achieved" in post #129. And "The results of the US so called "Precision Bombing" campaign were presented in agonising---and damning----detail of just how ineffective the bombing was in light of the cost." in post #136. Then you offered up "proof" in the form of a report that completly contridicts your conclusion with the 9 points I have outlined twice now, do I need to do it a third time? So I have been assuming that you are against the bombing of Germany because it was ineffective and the bombers were not precice or accurate enough for you. Do I have this wrong, and if so please tell me how I am wrong. Also, if I have it right then please explain how the 9 points from your "proof" report are wrong.

[airshifter]

Now that Jan has insulted Shifter, Chuck and myself ( Mr. Dunnell, keep your head down, he might go postal on you next) he has pretty much run his course and maybe he can have an intelligent thought or two without the rancor. I personally doubt it but I enjoy watching his insults. I realized it wasn't personal with him, he hates everyone it seems....

No, he only hates everyone that doesn't bow to his rants and raves. Yet he seems to struggle with the fact that training and practice are more accurate results than a real war time situation.

This from someone who often claims others are arm chair generals. :laugh:

Maybe the fact that even most modern day targetting systems are often subject to weather limitations should be a clue, but I somehow doubt it.

[chuck34]

No, he only hates everyone that doesn't bow to his rants and raves.

That's why I think he's so PO'd. He put up a big long article as "proof" of his argument fully expecting that no one would take the time to read it. Then I did read it, (granted I have no life) and found out that it completely contridicted what he had been saying. Then notice nothing from him about that. Interesting, no?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck...I gave up trying to figure out what he was driving at when I realized I couldn't get past the bile for me and yourself personally. There is no right or wrong answers here, we are just kicking around what we THINK. Until he shows up and dazzles us with his vast superiority in paranoia and double speak. At first I was pi$$ed he was going after me until I realized he was going at you guys too. Now I realize, he is one of those posters who put upon everyone else their greatest failings.

Anyhow, as for you wanting to take a look at a Lancaster or a Mossie, there isn't much hope for you finding the latter unless you go to Britain and I wonder if there is one left there. The wood doesn't hold up well over time in damp climates and according to one of the guys at the Canadian Warplane Heritage I talked to a few years back, there was one in Florida but it was ruined by the humidity.

A Lancaster however is to be found at that same Canadian Warplane Heritage in Hamilton Ontario. There are only two Lanc's left flying in the world and the Battle of Britain flight of the RAF has the other. I have seen the Lanc a few times and I just get chills every time I hear that Merlin throbbing roar. Whatever might think of WW2 aircraft as insturments of war there is nothing like the sound of a Merlin, whether it is on a Lancaster or in a Spitfire.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Or of course in the P51....

[janvanvurpa]

That's why I think he's so PO'd. He put up a big long article as "proof" of his argument fully expecting that no one would take the time to read it. Then I did read it, (granted I have no life) and found out that it completely contridicted what he had been saying. Then notice nothing from him about that. Interesting, no?

Some people work.

[chuck34]

A Lancaster however is to be found at that same Canadian Warplane Heritage in Hamilton Ontario. There are only two Lanc's left flying in the world and the Battle of Britain flight of the RAF has the other. I have seen the Lanc a few times and I just get chills every time I hear that Merlin throbbing roar. Whatever might think of WW2 aircraft as insturments of war there is nothing like the sound of a Merlin, whether it is on a Lancaster or in a Spitfire.

How far is Hamilton from Mississagua? My sister lives there, and I tend to go up and see her about once a year or so. That could be a good side trip.

Last year I went to the 8th AF museum in Savannah. That place is awesome. One of the exibits had a guide that was a navigator on a B-24. He went down in Switzerland. He said he feared the Swiss keeping him in the country more than he feared the Germans. Eventually he got out and back to the UK, and flew again. Really interesting guy to talk to, wish I could have talked to him longrer.

Also if you haven't been to Wright-Patt in Ohio, you should check it out.

[chuck34]

Some people work.

Good for you, I work too. It's just really slow right now.

Good come back though. I thought you wanted to have a discussion. Haven't seen you discuss one thing for about 3 pages now.

[chuck34]

Or of course in the P51....

I've seen Chuck Yeager's fly before, and I saw Jack Roush's on the ground. Those planes are amazing.

Do you know anywhere in North America that has a Spitfire?

[airshifter]

I've seen Chuck Yeager's fly before, and I saw Jack Roush's on the ground. Those planes are amazing.

Do you know anywhere in North America that has a Spitfire?

The National Air and Space Museum has one. That place can take days to enjoy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How far is Hamilton from Mississagua? My sister lives there, and I tend to go up and see her about once a year or so. That could be a good side trip.

Last year I went to the 8th AF museum in Savannah. That place is awesome. One of the exibits had a guide that was a navigator on a B-24. He went down in Switzerland. He said he feared the Swiss keeping him in the country more than he feared the Germans. Eventually he got out and back to the UK, and flew again. Really interesting guy to talk to, wish I could have talked to him longrer.

Also if you haven't been to Wright-Patt in Ohio, you should check it out.

If you have a sister in Mississauga, you are about 35 minutes away. Trust me, you have no issues at all getting to the Warplane Heritiage.

Here is their link: http://www.warplane.com/

It isn't on the scale of Wright Patterson or the Air and Space division of the Smithsonian but it is full of planes that can and DO fly and they have that Lancaster. They also have a Spitfire full size replica but lost their Spit in a Hangar fire that hit them in the early 90's. They lost a Hurricane in that as well.

No p-51 tho. There is a flying Spitfire that a gentleman down in Niagara Falls ON owns and I have seen it at the "avaition days" at the local airport. I suspect he may display the plane down in Niagara but I wouldn't be 100% sure.

I know another place that is on my travels to visit and I wonder if you guys have been to is the museum at Warner Robins AFB in Georgia. My company delivers to Anchor Glass just a stone's throw away and I have to get myself across the highway for a few hours to check it out.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actually, tracked down the owners of the Spitfire in Niagara Falls, it is a group called the "Russel Aviation Group" Apparnetly they have a Me109 with a Daimler motor which is REALLY unique since most of the Me's left around have Merlins from their time in the Spanish Airforce...