Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Isolationist USA means German victory in the East?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mycroft Holmes View Post
    Roddoss72 wrote:

    Ok, this priceless, you admit that Britian and Canada did provided LL to the Soviet Union, do you know why? Because the US had signed on as an Ally after it was attacked by the Japanese on the 7th December 1941.


    Do you ever do any research before you post? Britain and Canada began sending aid to the USSR well before Pearl Harbor. Here are details of the early PQ convoys:

    Dervish departed Hvalfjörður, Iceland August 21;
    PQ 1 departed Hvalfjörður September 29;
    PQ 2 departed Liverpool, England, October 13;
    PQ 3 departed Hvalfjörður November 9;
    PQ 4 departed Hvalfjörður November 17;
    PQ 5 departed Hvalfjörður November 27;
    PQ 6 departed Hvalfjörður December 8 (the day after Pearl Harbor, but the ships had already been gathered);

    Almost all the supplies on these convoys were provided by Britain and Canada. Losses in the PQ convoys were 7% of those sent - not 50%.

    I actually had stated before, that Britian (inc Canada) was providing supplies to the Soviets. From 22nd June 1941, and until the Americans could be in a position to do so, the British (inc Canadians) still sent supplies to the Soviets and continued to do so throughout the war. I have never disputed that so get your facts right before you shoot off accusations

    You also seem to hold the fatuous belief that the US is the centre of the universe, and that the British in WWII are compelled to do things in exactly the same way that the US did. Clearly if the US is not in the war and not providing LL then things would be done very differently - and in some respects better. Probably LL to Russia would consist of fewer tanks and aircraft (because they'd be needed to equip British formations in order to make up for the absence of the US) but more raw materials and trucks.

    And you are counter fatuous in your belief that it seems that the British would and could wage a complete TOTAL WAR against the Germans, without any impact on Britian and its ecconomy, also you accuse me of not doing ANY research, but you have avoided doing the same at the diabolical ecconomic situation of Britian and how desperate she was in pleading for Materiel help from the Americans, and how many times Churchill pleaded eith via telephone or direct face to face talks. You avoid this vital part of Britians ecconomic plight like the plague, because it is too much for you to comprehend.

    I'd also point out that much of the American contribution to WWII arrived far too late to make any difference. For example, it's often stated that there were 60 US divisions in Europe at VE-Day, and only 20 British, but putting aside the fact that the British used a lot more non-divisional troops (notably the independent Tank and Armoured Brigades and the AGRA's), 15 of those US divisions were only shipped in at the last minute and were (it has been suggested) entirely unfit for combat, being composed of men who were either too old, or mentally and/or physically unfit. This is inherently plausible, since by December 1944 the US was running out of manpower and had been compelled (horror of horrors!) to allow black soldiers to fight - which they would hardly have done if they'd really had 15 fresh, battleworthy divisions in reserve. Basically the whole exercise was a matter of 'smoke and mirrors' intended to give the impression that the US contribution was larger than it was in fact. Of course the US had done exactly the same at the end of WWI - shipping masses of completely untrained men to France so that they could claim there were X million Americans present at the time the Armistice came into force.
    I have read some arrogant posts, but this goes beyond the pale, let see, you failed in the Battle of France, you found that your position in Norway was untenible, in both instants you lost almost 1 million short tonnes of supplies enough equipment to fully kit out 14 division, and had suffered 66,000+ casualties. You stuffed up at Dieppe, a complete disaster. Up to the 2nd Battle of El-Alamein British forces were in continual retreat after losing Tobruk and 34,000 troops now in Axis PoW camps.

    Then you go onto arrogantly say that the US arrived to late in WW2, then what about Operation Torch, what about the 35,000 US Troops that were part of the Western Taskforce that sailed from the USA (No British forces were part of Western Taskforce). What about the 18,500 US Troops that were part of Centre Taskforce (As far as i can find no British Troops were part of Centre Taskforce apart from those of the RN). Also the plethora of US Built and manned Aircraft that took part in supporting the landing.

    Then you arrogantly go on to with your Anti-US rant that you fail to mention the US Participation in the help they gave in the eventual defeat of Axis forces in North Africa, to a point of denegrating the US efforts. Without them it would have taken long to defeat Rommel, if you could defeat Rommel in the first place, which i hardly believe you could. But then you have the knock on effect of the eventual defeat of the Italians, you arrogantly belive that the US seems to play a very poor role in that, again to a point of denegrating their effort, without the US you could not even defeat Italy let alone Germany.

    Then you actually beileve that you could carry out a major landing in not only Southern France but completely carry out a fully supported Operation Overlord style landing with all the bells and whistles and thus leading to the destruction of the entire German Army in the west with just 20 division and a few tank Battlaions.

    Oh and this is the priceless bit, you then go on a rant that You (the British) could it better without US Lend-Lease and certainly without US Troops, but here is the ultimate bloody arrogance, you weren't there, you never will know what it is like to go through a Total War with rationing, starvation, disease, your backyard being bombed by thousands of bombers it seems per day, you will never know of the effect of seing Canadian Cities bombed to a point of seeing hundreds if not thousands of buildings gutted and mass evacuation of millions leaving the cities, sending kids to the North then off to another country only to have them killed by U-Boat attack, which thousands did.

    Then to go on and completely forget that the US was fighting a massive bloody battle in the Pacific as well.

    To finish off you are in La-La Land when you think that your Total War will not cost any money and you have minimum casulties, if Britian could do what you say she could do without the Americans that why didn't she get on with it and not go to the US pleading for help. She couldn't.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
      Up to the 2nd Battle of El-Alamein British forces were in continual retreat after losing Tobruk and 34,000 troops now in Axis PoW camps.
      Wrong again. You might want to get your own facts straight.

      Operation Crusader
      Operation Brevity
      Operation Compass

      Even Operation Battleaxe, though ultimately a failure, started off as an attack.

      So we can see that yet again you've made an incorrect statement in one of your rants and called your own credibility into question. British forces were not as you claim in "continual retreat" until 2nd El Alamein but managed to conduct a number of offensives of their own.

      As to your comments about "seing Canadian Cities bombed to a point of seeing hundreds if not thousands of buildings gutted and mass evacuation of millions leaving the cities, sending kids to the North then off to another country only to have them killed by U-Boat attack, which thousands did", that just makes no sense.
      Last edited by CarpeDiem; 20 Jun 13, 18:48.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
        Then you go onto arrogantly say that the US arrived to late in WW2, then what about Operation Torch, what about the 35,000 US Troops that were part of the Western Taskforce that sailed from the USA (No British forces were part of Western Taskforce). What about the 18,500 US Troops that were part of Centre Taskforce (As far as i can find no British Troops were part of Centre Taskforce apart from those of the RN). Also the plethora of US Built and manned Aircraft that took part in supporting the landing.
        What about the Western Task Force? - it only existed because the US insisted, the British did not want a landing on the Atlantic shore.

        The British could easily replace US landing forces - there were other trained and combat capable divisions in Britain which never made it to North Africa.

        Plethora of US aircraft - backed off your claim of 1000 US heavy bombers?

        Then you arrogantly go on to with your Anti-US rant that you fail to mention the US Participation in the help they gave in the eventual defeat of Axis forces in North Africa, to a point of denegrating the US efforts. Without them it would have taken long to defeat Rommel, if you could defeat Rommel in the first place, which i hardly believe you could. But then you have the knock on effect of the eventual defeat of the Italians, you arrogantly belive that the US seems to play a very poor role in that, again to a point of denegrating their effort, without the US you could not even defeat Italy let alone Germany.
        The US deployed 1 corps to North Africa - there were 5 British and 1 French.

        The British first beat Rommel in December 1941, although this is often forgotten.

        It took the US a long time to get more than 1 corps in action in Europe - the US Fifth Army in Italy often included a British corps. The British deployed more units to NW Europe than there were US units in Italy, and so probably could have defeated Italy without US.

        Then you actually beileve that you could carry out a major landing in not only Southern France but completely carry out a fully supported Operation Overlord style landing with all the bells and whistles and thus leading to the destruction of the entire German Army in the west with just 20 division and a few tank Battlaions.
        I'm not seeing anyone else suggesting this apart from you creating a strawman.

        Oh and this is the priceless bit, you then go on a rant that You (the British) could it better without US Lend-Lease and certainly without US Troops, but here is the ultimate bloody arrogance, you weren't there, you never will know what it is like to go through a Total War with rationing, starvation, disease, your backyard being bombed by thousands of bombers it seems per day, you will never know of the effect of seing Canadian Cities bombed to a point of seeing hundreds if not thousands of buildings gutted and mass evacuation of millions leaving the cities, sending kids to the North then off to another country only to have them killed by U-Boat attack, which thousands did.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
          Wrong again. You might want to get your own facts straight.

          Operation Crusader
          Operation Brevity
          Operation Compass

          Even Operation Battleaxe, though ultimately a failure, started off as an attack.

          So we can see that yet again you've made an incorrect statement in one of your rants and called your own credibility into question. British forces were not as you claim in "continual retreat" until 2nd El Alamein but managed to conduct a number of offensives of their own.

          As to your comments about "seing Canadian Cities bombed to a point of seeing hundreds if not thousands of buildings gutted and mass evacuation of millions leaving the cities, sending kids to the North then off to another country only to have them killed by U-Boat attack, which thousands did", that just makes no sense.
          So i looked at what you posted and the links, well here is what i found out.

          Operation Crusader was as pointed out in Wikipedia was an allied victory.
          Operation Brevity was inconclusive
          Operation Compass was a complete allied victory against the Italians in 1940.


          But you left out the Battle of Gazala (inc.. Tobruk) between 26th May 1942 to 21st June 1942 lasting 25 days in which was a complete Axis Victory, the Allies lost 50,000 killed, wounded or captured and lost 1,188 tanks. This included 35,000 Prisoner captured at Tobruk. So in the wash-up the allies had lost all that territory gained from Operation Crusader. And Operation Battleaxe was an allied failure.

          You point out that the British was not in continual retreat until 2nd Battle of El-Alamein, but i have looked at the map of Lybia and it occured to me, but not to you that after the Capture of Tobruq, the British lost Bardyah, El-Salloum, Buqbuq, Sidi Barrani, Mersa Matruh, Zawya Sidi Mousa, El Dabaa, and closed in on Marina El-Alamein, when the 1st Battle of Marina El-Alamein took place and it was a tactical stalemate. Now i know geography, the British were forced to retreat eastward from the time Rommel went on that grand offensive
          Last edited by Roddoss72; 21 Jun 13, 00:41.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Aber View Post
            What about the Western Task Force? - it only existed because the US insisted, the British did not want a landing on the Atlantic shore.

            Ok so that leaves the Vichy French Garrisons unmolested in that part of the woods, free to send troops.

            The British could easily replace US landing forces - there were other trained and combat capable divisions in Britain which never made it to North Africa.

            I absolutely agree, the British could land all those forces, then what, you still need to feed untried troops into the meatgrinder once you start taking casualties, just to ram home the point, the average consumption of troops per division from the original divisions landing during Torch to the Surrender of Italy in 3rd September 1943 was around 100,000+ plus troops per division.

            Plethora of US aircraft - backed off your claim of 1000 US heavy bombers?

            Well, i have to concede that there were no 1,000 US heavy bombers, however looking at the situation of air support, the US had deployed the XII Bomber Command commanded by Colonel CE Duncan, supporting the Landings

            97th Bomb Group (H) B-17's
            340th Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            341st Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            343rd Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            414th Bomber Squadron (H) B-17

            301st Bomb Group (H) B-17
            32nd Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            352nd Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            353rd Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            354th Bomber Squadron (H) B-17

            319th Bomb Group (H) B-17
            327th Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            438th Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            439th Bomber Squadron (H) B-17
            440th Bomber Squadron (H) B-17

            This also included the XII Fighter Command, XII Air Support Command and XII Air Force Service Command, plus the 60th Troop Carrier Command (TE) C-47, 62nd Troop Carrier Command (TE) C-47, 64th Troop Carrier Command (TE) C-47 and 3rd Photo Command (SE) F-4 & F-5

            I have looked at the RAF's contribution to Operation Torch and i discovered that RAF Bomber Command did not support the Landing with Lancasters, Halifaxes and Stirlings, to do what the US did RAF Bomber Command would need to divert at least 12 Heavy Bomber Squadrons, 12 Fighter Squadron and dozens more squadrons of mixed roles. The RAF could do it but their air offensive against Germany would suffer dramatically, and those left to carry the can would suffer more losses and achieve less.


            The US deployed 1 corps to North Africa - there were 5 British and 1 French.

            The British first beat Rommel in December 1941, although this is often forgotten.

            And was in full retreat until the 1st July 1942.

            It took the US a long time to get more than 1 corps in action in Europe - the US Fifth Army in Italy often included a British corps. The British deployed more units to NW Europe than there were US units in Italy, and so probably could have defeated Italy without US.

            I agree but you add the Northern African Campaign and Italian Campaign you will suffer more than 500,000 casualties.



            I'm not seeing anyone else suggesting this apart from you creating a strawman.

            Care to back that up



            All the while you stay confused

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
              You point out that the British was not in continual retreat until 2nd Battle of El-Alamein, but i have looked at the map of Lybia and it occured to me, but not to you that after the Capture of Tobruq, the British lost Bardyah, El-Salloum, Buqbuq, Sidi Barrani, Mersa Matruh, Zawya Sidi Mousa, El Dabaa, and closed in on Marina El-Alamein, when the 1st Battle of Marina El-Alamein took place and it was a tactical stalemate. Now i know geography, the British were forced to retreat eastward from the time Rommel went on that grand offensive
              Roddoss, you made the claim the British were in continual retreat until 2nd Alamein. I showed you that they weren't. I'm well aware of what the British lost, the results of the Battle of Gazala and where the British forces ended up and it makes not a whit of difference to the incorrectness of your initial claim that the British were in "continual retreat". Your knowledge of geography aside, you seem to have a poor grasp of the English language if you fail to understand what "continual retreat" means. No one forced you to make this incorrect claim but in your over eagerness to make a point, you chose to ignore the historical evidence and all your trying to evade the issue by bringing up irrelevant information does not change the basic fact you were wrong in your initial assertion.

              It's become obvious to me that your easily visible dislike for the British means that having a rational discussion with you is impossible. I extend my best wishes to everyone in this thread who tries to continue with that futile effort.
              Last edited by CarpeDiem; 21 Jun 13, 08:21.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                All the while you stay confused
                Because your posts are poorly sourced, and often descend into rants.

                I agree but you add the Northern African Campaign and Italian Campaign you will suffer more than 500,000 casualties.
                Really? - total US Army casualties in the MTO were MUCH lower than that.

                Comment


                • I'd also point out that during this period of 'continual retreat' the British managed to liquidate the Italian empire in East Africa, and defeat Iraq, Syria and (in conjunction with the USSR) Iran. It's rather amusing to note that the British managed to beat the Iraqi army and air force using a handful of regulars, some local levies and a gaggle of mostly-ancient training aircraft - and without the heavy-handedness that resulted in the current insurrection.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
                    Roddoss, you made the claim the British were in continual retreat until 2nd Alamein. I showed you that they weren't. I'm well aware of what the British lost, the results of the Battle of Gazala and where the British forces ended up and it makes not a whit of difference to the incorrectness of your initial claim that the British were in "continual retreat". Your knowledge of geography aside, you seem to have a poor grasp of the English language if you fail to understand what "continual retreat" means. No one forced you to make this incorrect claim but in your over eagerness to make a point, you chose to ignore the historical evidence and all your trying to evade the issue by bringing up irrelevant information does not change the basic fact you were wrong in your initial assertion.

                    It's become obvious to me that your easily visible dislike for the British means that having a rational discussion with you is impossible. I extend my best wishes to everyone in this thread who tries to continue with that futile effort.
                    Ok, have it your way, the British weren't in "CONTINUAL RETREAT", som what about "PERIODICLE RETREAT" that should satisfy you for my lack of understanding the English Language.

                    There is an old addage that once someone raises the RACIST CARD as you have, you have lost the argument. You have my dear boy have lost the argument, although you never really argued your case from the get go.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mycroft Holmes View Post
                      I'd also point out that during this period of 'continual retreat' the British managed to liquidate the Italian empire in East Africa, and defeat Iraq, Syria and (in conjunction with the USSR) Iran. It's rather amusing to note that the British managed to beat the Iraqi army and air force using a handful of regulars, some local levies and a gaggle of mostly-ancient training aircraft - and without the heavy-handedness that resulted in the current insurrection.
                      Yes, your point being, the Italians as i have found out that the Italians in East Africa was poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly supplied, poorly led, and most had a gutful of war and surrendered in their droves, because most of them were starving, so that is like the Italians gloating over their victory against the Ethiopians.

                      Defeat of Iraq, please spare me, the Iraqiis were more poorly equipped that the British and never fought as a co-ordinated force, the Iraqiis were ad hoc at best, you might as well gloat over your victory against Zanzibah.

                      Also i looked at the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. The Soviets supplied 3 Armies, whilst the British supplied 2 divisions, plus 3 Brigades although aircraft numbers are hard to find, however the Iranian Army had 9 Divisions spread throughout the country and the Iranian Air Force amounted to just 60 aircraft of mostly inter-war period aircraft. Also you left out that at the time Iran was Neutral, but i grant you that Reza Shah Pahlavi had talks with the Axis, and so on the morning of 25th August 1941 and without warning the USSR and British invaded, Operation Countenance was launched. The main reason of the invasion was to secure Iranian oilfields and to secure the Persian Corridor supply route from the USA, the Iranian were unprepeared for the invasion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aber View Post
                        Because your posts are poorly sourced, and often descend into rants.



                        Really? - total US Army casualties in the MTO were MUCH lower than that.
                        You should stop .

                        Comment


                        • Roddoss72 wrote:

                          Yes, your point being, the Italians as i have found out that the Italians in East Africa was poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly supplied, poorly led, and most had a gutful of war and surrendered in their droves, because most of them were starving, so that is like the Italians gloating over their victory against the Ethiopians.
                          If you think the Italians in East Africa gave up easily you ought to do a lot more research - in fact any research at all. The fighting around Keren was extremely bitter and the Italians put up a very creditable resistance. Indeed one British soldier who fought there, and later at Monte Cassino, rated the Italians as tougher opponents than the German paratroops.

                          I also have a very low opinion of anyone who starts bleating about Britain suffering a string of defeats in 1940-1. From June 1940 to June 1941 Britain faced the full strength of Germany and Italy alone - something no other country had to do in the whole of WWII. Before you start whining about US support, I'd just point out that if you go down that route you need to remember that Germany received far more aid from the USSR in this period than Britain got from America.

                          Comment


                          • Some members have been making, or arguing about, comments on the personal attributes of other members.

                            Please refrain from doing this, regardless of who you think started it.

                            Engage with the topic itself; not the personality traits (be they perceived or real) of other members.

                            Thank you for your co-operation.

                            ACG Staff
                            "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                            Comment


                            • UP,

                              N/T
                              "I am Groot"
                              - Groot

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X