What is the Deal with all this US stuff?

[Cobra]

Is it just me, or is Poulette's bellybutton overmodeled?

BTW, this is a very silly argument.

Just be thankful we ALL haven't had to pony up to the bar again.

Cobra

[Vladd]

Originally posted by streakeagle:

As it was, the primary reason Britain won the Battle of Britain was due to Germany shifting focus from airfields, radars, and factories to London hoping to break morale. At the time they switched strategies there were only a handful of Spitfires and Hurricanes left. British production could not match the the Luftwaffe when they were using the correct strategy. Thank Hitler and Goering for being idiots.

Totally, and completely wrong.

Nashwan beat me too it as to why  

Remember, for Germany to invade the UK they had to do it during September. The weather in the channel would prohibit any attempt after then. The clock was ticking. And given on September 14th the RAF was fielding 269 Spitfires and 533 Hurricanes, the LW didn't come close, not remotely.

And as for reading history, check out the damage Royal Navy task groups inflicted on the seaborne invasion of Crete in 1941 under conditions of total LW air supremecy. Now picture RN battleships sailing from Scapa Flow under cover of darkness to arrive at invasion beacheads at dawn. Yes, losses would have been heavy. But the damage done to the invasion would have been catastrophic.

With hindsight, the German invasion of Britain in 1940 was a military impossibility.


This is not to denigrate the US in any way. Eductated Britons fully realise that defeating Germany would not have happened but for US involvement; those who do know their history have the warmest feelings towards Americans for this reason.

It's still true that we mortgaged our own future financially rather than conclude a truce with Germany in 1941 (for which we could have obtained favourable terms).

But I'm damn glad we did so.

Vladd

[Cobra]

Actually Vladd,
I like the ending tagline from a PBS special over here on the BoB.

It said that Britian knew she could not win the war against Germany alone, but during the BoB, she proved she would not loose it!

Cobra

[GRUNHERZ]

No single nation was in a postion to DEFEAT Germany in WW2 after thev fall of France. It took the Combined resources of UK, Russia, and USA to do it.

Now before you attack me and all that just look at it this way.

No way could the UK alone defeat Germany, yes they were able to stop the planned invasion and won Bob, but Its clear tyo us that UK alone couldnt retake Europe.

The Russians couldnt do it alone either. If there was no more UK in the war circa 1941, then the Germans would have much more resouucres free for the east.  Lets examine a few issues.

The Barbarossa plan was delayed several months due to to German deplyoyments in the Balkans. This was due to Italians inability to deal with Greek and UK forces. This also took resources awayt from Barbarossa. One of the reasons poften stated for the inital Barbarossa attack was this late start which put Moscow out of reach before winter.

The British also tied up good sized German forces in the Mediterrainan, and who can forget the Crete losses.

The British tied up the Germans in North Africa, just as the Barbarossa operation was to start.

The RAF had to be dealt with on the Channel coast, so JG2 and JG26 had to kept around in France/Belgium.

Other LW units had to stay around Germany to to defend agasinst British incursions.

The total effect of this British interfearence on LW strenght?

Significant bomber losses in BoB.

and

MORE 109s were used in the 1940 FRANCE attack than were available for the 1941 RUSSIA attack. Just comapre the size of the fronts please.


As for USA.

If there was no UK to provide a base of operations for USA forces, America for all here material strngth could do nothing to DEFEAT Germany ot retake Europe. All they could do was maybe wait for B36s to to conventinally bomb sometime after 1947 or so.

If there was no USA in the effort the russians would not hold on due to vast amounts of supply from the USA.


No Single country could do it. So its simply unfair to say ONE country beat Germany, thats impossible it took all 3 big ones to do it working together.

[jedi]

Hehe bottom line: if the US "stays home," Japan stretches from Japan to, oh, India or so, and the Soviet Union is the REST of the Eurasian continent.

Assuming, of course, that the Germans, fighting a one-front war and being area-bombed at night, don't hold out long enough to get their nukes built (an extra year or two, perhaps possible in the absence of daylight bombing and Normandy invasion).

In which case the Soviet Union is Eastern Russia, Japan still stretches to India, and Central Europe east of Germany to the Urals is a big radioactive parking lot.

So, let's just say the US had a "significant impact" on events during and after WW2 and leave it at that, eh?  

Oh yeah, on the planes...

Re-do your count only don't count varients, and see how many "major, front-line" fighters are "missing" from the non-US planesets.  With the exception of a few Russian planes, I don't see a lot of missing "major players" there other than bomber types.  I'll bet they modeled the MAIN planes they had good data for, and are probably still looking for good data on the others, (anybody seen any reliable He-177 data lately?)  And of course, the emphasis on the second half of the war is going to limit the number of non-US types to begin with, and make modeling the early planes from the other countries kind of a waste of resources...

[ra]

Let me take another stab at this.  If this thread is about a lack of diversity in non-US planes then the fact is that there is also the same lack of diversity in US planes.  Of all the aircraft types the US used in large numbers all over the world, only a handful are modeled in AH.  Planes like the P-40, A-20, F4F, SB2C, and the P-39 are not here yet.  Of the major combattants in WWII probably only the USSR is short-changed in the current planeset.  But those planes are probably very difficult to get hard data on.

The reason it looks like AH has a US-heavy planeset it is because in late WWII the planeset was US-heavy.

We all want more planes, but I don't see a slant toward a particular country.


re BoB:  A good book on this battle is 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'.  Sorry, I forget the author's name.  He makes a pretty good case that the BoB was not nearly as close as it is made out to be.  The Germans just didn't plan it thoroughly like they did all the other European campaigns, in fact Hitler didn't want war with England.  

The LW ended up losing as many planes in accidents as they had expected to lose in combat against the RAF.  

The author also gives credit to the British radar system, which was well thought-out and integrated with Fighter Command.  It was one of the few things that worked as advertised during the war, right out of the box.

ra

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:

If there was no UK to provide a base of operations for USA forces, America for all here material strngth could do nothing to DEFEAT Germany ot retake Europe. All they could do was maybe wait for B36s to to conventinally bomb sometime after 1947 or so.

B-29, atomic bomb, and Berlin.  

-- Todd/DMF

[GRUNHERZ]

B29 cant get to Berlin, no Atom bomb either without US/UK cooperation.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by watjen:
Hmm... I would say that the US pretty much defeated Japan on it's own, except for some shreckless participation by the UK/Commonwealth.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: watjen ]

Tell that to the Aussies, Kiwis, Winnipeg Rifles, etc.  What a careless, stuipid comment.

[Fariz]

Only thing which is really puzzles me now is the reason why there are not japaneese buff modeled yet. May be HTC just do not have enough data on them?

Fariz

[LePaul]

You know, I can only imagine that HiTech and Pyro are rolling their eyes while reading this and mumbling "They're never quite satisfied"  

<chuckle>  Sounds to me like a damned if you do, damned if you do not situation  

[Serapis]

Assuming, of course, that the Germans, fighting a one-front war and being area-bombed at night, don't hold out long enough to get their nukes built (an extra year or two, perhaps possible in the absence of daylight bombing and Normandy invasion).

jedi
 

Not even close. The Nazis' weren't even in the ballpark with their heavy water research and had no real interest in the concept. Perhaps the Moron Race could have used a few more of those "Untermensch" scientists that fled in the 1930s.

   

B29 cant get to Berlin, no Atom bomb either without US/UK cooperation.  GRUNHERZ

True, that’s why we developed the B-36. The Manhattan Project was a go from the start in the U.S., and was developed with surprisingly massive Govt. and political support. Very likely, the U.S. would have seen an influx of the British brain trust had the Nazis threatened G.B., and the bomb would have been built well before anyone else could even establish the foundation behind the weapon. Look to massive night-time A-bombing that stars off gradually in 1945/46 and builds in intensity by the month. All speculative anyway, except the total lack of interest shown in the A-bomb concept by the Nazi regime.

Fortunately, Nazi Germany did not particularly value creativity -- whether it was modern art or theoretical physics. If they couldn't easily rationalize something as possible they dismissed it -- Enigma cracking and centimetric radar for example. A great focus on engineering though and the V-2 was an amazing development except for its enormous impracticality. The ballistic missile didn’t become practical until A-bombs shrunk and payload capabilities increased dramatically some 15 years after the war.

In the end, the Reich's days were numbered once Churchill ruled out a peace settlement, American sympathy shifted strongly during the Blitz, and particularly after the Invasion of Russia.

Charon

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
B29 cant get to Berlin, no Atom bomb either without US/UK cooperation.

B-29s certainly could have gotten to Berlin and back again from Iceland, but they'd be on fumes upon return.  I calculated the air distance between Reykjavik, Iceland and Berlin, Germany as about 1,480 miles according to this nifty website.

Most stats I've read about the B-29 (here and here for example) show it as having a range in excess of 3,000 miles.

In addition, the B-29 has enough range to fly from Iceland to Berlin, and then from Berlin to North Africa or the Middle East (or vice-versa).  So range would likely not be an issue.  Could the US have developed the atomic bomb without an autonomous UK's help?  Well, probably, but it would have taken longer.  There's also no reason to believe that British brain power would suddenly disappear because of Nazi occupation, and in all likelihood US/UK participation would have continued with the UK's government in exile somewhere.

-- Todd/DMF

[Sorrow[S=A]]

DMF, The B-29 couldn't do those figures with an atom bomb, both Fat man and Little boy cut her flight time by a third due to the wieght.

All that Uranium weighs allot!  

[Pyro]

<points hijackers at history forum>

There are holes throughout the entire planeset, that's why we keep adding more and more.  It sounds as if you want some sort of affirmative action for AH planes.  How do you do that?  How can you not have a lot more U.S. than Italian?  You can look at it as if that Italy has the least representation, but you can also look at it and see that Italy has the fewest holes to fill.  

Let's put the shoe on the other foot.  Tell me what U.S. planes you wouldn't have done to make room for the planes that you're advocating.  Stay within the work cap too, i.e., you can't trade something that requires little work for something that requires a lot of work.  Tell me what you'd do in my role and then I'll take your role as a customer.

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Pyro ]