Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDger on November 12, 2009, 01:07:14 PM
-
For you fellow WW2 aficionados, next Sunday on the History Channel there is a new 5 part program called ‘WW2 in HD’.
Supposed to be film from ww2 not ‘seen’ before..or something like that. In color I guess. Might be worth a look. :x
-
Topic name fixed
-
Topic name fixed
Your country must have been an agressor that was pwnd.
-
I'll haveta check it out. But I dont understand how they can have WWII in HD when HD recordings didnt exist yet.
That said. I love watching WWII footage. I just wish I could have access to the raw unedited film rather then just watch the little 4-5 second snippets they only show.
No, not for the gore in particular but I dont know how many times I've seen an interesting shot or scene that seemed to me to be cut shorter then I would have liked.
Now I understand they do this for time constraints and so they can get in as much as possible in the time alotted tot he show.
But there may be a scene as simple as a bunch of guys standing around hamming it up for the camera. But I find the stuff going on in the background just as interesting.
-
Dred, have you ever seen that multi-volume documentary the bbc did in the '70s? That has a lot of footage that you might like.
-
I'll be watching it, i think they have remastered the film into HD format, I'm looking forward to seeing it in HD even thou it might not be as crisp never the less its a definite watch.
Did anyone get the see the History Channels WW2 360 over Vets day? the CGI was awesome and put a different aspect into the war.
-
Your country must have been an agressor that was pwnd.
Your country must invent the P51 'Hand brake turn', right?
-
Dred, have you ever seen that multi-volume documentary the bbc did in the '70s? That has a lot of footage that you might like.
No, don't think I have. My favorite WW2 documentary was World at War, with lots of interviews and footage. Haven't seen it in years on TV.
Do you recall the name of the bbc documentary?
I dont know how many times I've seen an interesting shot or scene that seemed to me to be cut shorter then I would have liked.
And I thought I was the only one.
I always wondered where the footage from ww2 films come from. Do you suppose it is in the Library of Congress?
I wonder if you could go to DC and request archived footage. I mean, how do the documentary guys pull all this footage together anyway?
-
If it's the same prog that's been churning out on cable here in Blighty it's the old Nugus WW2 series, reshot in colour and HD.
:cool:
-
No its not 'reshot in color and HD.' Film (not digital) has always been higher resolution than HD and it had to be reduced to fit TV formats. In WWII most footage was in color but had to be reduced to B&W to avoid distribution costs (every theater in the U.S. got the same Newsreels at the same time - approximately). But the essence of what you said (repeat) is probably true.
-
Topic name fixed
You must be stupid stupid stupid
-
ooooo do you know what time? all day?
-BigBOBCH
-
My favorite WW2 documentary was World at War, with lots of interviews and footage. Haven't seen it in years on TV.
Sorry, that's the one I was thinking of. I forgot the name. It's a fantastic documentary because it was made when the people who participated in the events were still alive and lucid.
-
ooooo do you know what time? all day?
Sunday night, starts at 7 or 8. Then each night thereafter until Friday.
Sorry, that's the one I was thinking of. I forgot the name. It's a fantastic documentary because it was made when the people who participated in the events were still alive and lucid.
It really was good, especially as you say the WW2 vets being interviewed at the time were not that old.
I think I am going to see about netflix on those documentaries, I'd like to watch it from an adults perspective now. I think I was a teenager last time I saw any of those.
-
You must be stupid stupid stupid
Then the stupid meets the naive :)
-
The History Channel? :headscratch:
Don't forget who owns tHC.
(http://anythingwhatevs.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mickey_mouse_johor.png?w=344&h=395)
Take that for what it is.
Walt Disney Company
TV
Radio
Publishing
Film
Online Holdings
Other
2008 revenues: $37.8 billion
The Walt Disney Company owns the ABC Television Network, cable networks including ESPN, the Disney Channel, SOAPnet, A&E and Lifetime, 277 radio stations, music and book publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Miramax and Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, the cellular service Disney Mobile, and theme parks around the world.
Visit the Walt Disney Company homepage »
Disney Media Networks, a company whose holdings include:
The ABC Television Network: ABC Entertainment, ABC Daytime, ABC News, ESPN on ABC, ABC Television, ABC Kids, and Touchstone Television.
Production & Distribution Companies: Walt Disney Television, Walt Disney Television Animation, BVS entertainment, ABC Studios, Walt Disney Television, Disney-ABC Domestic Television.
Cable Networks: ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNEWS, ESPN PPV, ESPN Deportes, ESPNU, ESPNHD, ESPN2 HD, ESPNEWSHD and ESPNUHD, Disney Channel HD, Toon Disney, SOAPnet, ABC Family Channel, A&E Television Networks (37.5% equity; includes A&E, the History Channel, the Biography Channel, History en español, Military History Channel, Crime & Investigation Network, A&E HD, The History Channel HD), Lifetime Entertainment Services (50% equity; includes Lifetime Television, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women).
-
Yeah!
According to the all mighty History Channel:
- The USA won the WW2... And save the day. Of course and the rest of us were just a slacking wannabe hang-outs...
- The axis planes are exploding violently every time when even one US .50 super bullet hit... Anywhere...
- The P51 can do a hand-brake-turn
- And more so US blaa blaa blaa
The History Channel in HD? The BS in HD. Any difference?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search2
-
blahbity blah blah. Whatever it is, my husband already asked me to set it up to record.
-
Dred, have you ever seen that multi-volume documentary the bbc did in the '70s? That has a lot of footage that you might like.
You talking about "The World at War?"
Was a great series
-
- The USA won the WW2... And save the day. Of course and the rest of us were just a slacking wannabe hang-outs...
Ohh yeaaa. I forgot how well everyone else was doing before we started lending a hand.And
ships,
Type # Class Years Country
Carrier BAVG 5 Long Island 1941-42 UK
Carrier CVE 29 Brogue 1942-43 UK
Cruiser (CL-5) 1 Milwaukee 1944 USSR
Coast Guard Cutter 10 Lake/Chelan 1941 UK
Weather Patrol (WAG) 3 Wind 1945 USSR
Destroyer (DD) 50 Wicks,Clemson 1940 UK
Destroyer Escort (DE) 46 Buckley UK
Destroyer Escort (DE) 8 Cannon,Evarts Brazil,China
Frigate (PF) 27 Tacoma USSR
Gunboat (PG) 10 Corvette
Patrol Craft (PC) 44 PC-461 FR,USSR
Sub Chaser (SC) 142 SC-497 FR,USSR
Mine Sweepers (AM) 35 Admirable USSR
Motor Torpedo Boat (PT) 185 several USSR
Submarines (SS) 9 R-,S-boats 1941 UK
Oilers (AOG) 3 Halawa France
Liberty Ships ?of 2,710 UK
Landing Ships 35 LST UK, Greece
aircraft
Small Arms,
Artillery
Tanks
Self-Propelled Weapons
Other Combat Vehicles
Artillery Components
Tank and Combat Vehicle Components
Range Finding Equipment
Target and Training Equipment
Prime Movers
Tools and Tool Sets
Airplane Hangars, Barrage Balloon and Airport Equipment
Boats, Outboard Motors, Bridges and Bridging Equipment
Building Construction Supplies and Equipment
Cranes and Shovels
Explosives, Demolition and Blasting Equipment
Electrical Supplies and Power Generating Equipment
Engines
Machine Shop Supplies and Equipment
Pipe and Pipe Line Equipment
Pump Compressors
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Ice Plant Equipment
Road Building Supplies and Equipment
Storage Tanks
Reproduction and Surveying Equipment
Tractors and Prime Movers
Trucks
Trailers and Semi-Trailers
Welding Equipment
and too many to list but you can find a good list here
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html
But soo well off were you all without us that you took all these items not to mention our enlisted men as a favor to us.
And we were paid, in gold C.O.D.
-
i did not know they had HD in WW2.
-
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cry :cry :cry
:rolleyes:
-
:rolleyes:
You are right, I complete misunderstood it.
It's a "History Channel" just for the entertainment by the Walt Disney Company.
-
Yeah!
According to the all mighty History Channel:
- The USA won the WW2... And save the day. Of course and the rest of us were just a slacking wannabe hang-outs...
- And more so US blaa blaa blaa
I've never seen the history channel claim the USA won ww2. The primary demographic for the program is the USA, so it would stand to reason the producers would gear programs with the historic perspective of the USA in mind. That isn't propaganda, that is a free market economy with the intent of drawing likely viewers.
It is true however that the US did save the day in ww2, sorry if that offends your sensibilities. It was the vast industrial capability of the USA that brought so much to bear against the axis that turned the tide. At the time there were many in America who viewed the war in Europe as none of america's business. Thankfully for all of us that sentiment did not prevail.
I know it is a hard pill to swallow for many that American hegemony has been and is so influential on the world stage. Leading in areas such as medicine, science, humanities, literature and technology. No need to hate us for it or be jealous about it, we'd prefer it if you just said thank you and went on your way.
-
Watched it last night, thought it was well put together and informative. I'll be watching the rest of the week.
-
Watched it last night, thought it was well put together and informative. I'll be watching the rest of the week.
I thought exactly the opposite. It was single sided, choppy, and vaguely propagandized. They went through the BoB in about 30 seconds. Most of the films show were simply colorized versions of film already out there. The producers clearly had a myopic vision of what they wished to be portrayed.
But then again, while waiting, I had to sit through five minutes of some show called "Pawn Stars". On "The History Channel".
-
I thought exactly the opposite. It was single sided, choppy, and vaguely propagandized. They went through the BoB in about 30 seconds. Most of the films show were simply colorized versions of film already out there. The producers clearly had a myopic vision of what they wished to be portrayed.
But then again, while waiting, I had to sit through five minutes of some show called "Pawn Stars". On "The History Channel".
Haha, entirely agree -- including the pawn stars part. They covered 5 years in one (albeit longer) episode...makes you wonder how the next 4 episodes will break down. I'll still watch it, but my expectations aren't too high.
-
Tonight at 10, 8th Air Force footage over Germany. :x
(Probably footage I've already seen)
-
Watching it right now.
So far I REALLY enjoy it :aok
-
Watching it now. Its very good.
-
I've enjoyed it so far , and the film is not to shabby . They do skip around alot but the thing that gets me is the Austrian guy who came to the U.S. and goes to the attack in Alaska at Attu Island . His story is a grabber wish there was more there .
Nutte :salute
-
So far after 3 episodes....boooooorrrrrriiii nnnnngggg...all U.S. propaganda the same way it was portrayed in WWII newsreels. Looks like they took a lot of clips from the previously mentioned World at War series, colorized them and then dropped them where they thought would be appropriate.
:rolleyes: boring.
-
Made by Americans for Americans.
Odd how many non-Americans post just because they live here. Love it or leave it.
-
Made by Americans for Americans.
Are you saying Americans need to have biased programming? Ego stroking? Can't we all just handle the truth?
-
All you need to do is watch a few BBC WW2 documentaries and reallize Ego stroking dosen't stop at the borders...
:D
-
Are you saying Americans need to have biased programming? Ego stroking? Can't we all just handle the truth?
Why don't you go visit the graves of all our servicemen overseas. See if you feel any different.
We have no reason to apologise to any other country. We should however quit sending them handouts.
-
I've never seen the history channel claim the USA won ww2. The primary demographic for the program is the USA, so it would stand to reason the producers would gear programs with the historic perspective of the USA in mind. That isn't propaganda, that is a free market economy with the intent of drawing likely viewers.
It is true however that the US did save the day in ww2, sorry if that offends your sensibilities. It was the vast industrial capability of the USA that brought so much to bear against the axis that turned the tide. At the time there were many in America who viewed the war in Europe as none of america's business. Thankfully for all of us that sentiment did not prevail.
I know it is a hard pill to swallow for many that American hegemony has been and is so influential on the world stage. Leading in areas such as medicine, science, humanities, literature and technology. No need to hate us for it or be jealous about it, we'd prefer it if you just said thank you and went on your way.
Wow. Both of you have a lot in common.
-
Are you saying Americans need to have biased programming? Ego stroking? Can't we all just handle the truth?
What is it that you mean by 'truth'? The audience for this program are Americans, it makes sense that the narratives and perspective are told from the viewpoint of American history.
I am curious to know what you think should be different? Are you suggesting that the historical accounts are inaccurate? Or that the camera footage is a fabrication?
Silliness.
-
i don't understand why america invaded france in WW2, france was not even at war with america.
-
So far after 3 episodes....boooooorrrrrriiii nnnnngggg...all U.S. propaganda the same way it was portrayed in WWII newsreels. Looks like they took a lot of clips from the previously mentioned World at War series, colorized them and then dropped them where they thought would be appropriate.
:rolleyes: boring.
I have to admit I've found the program moderately entertaining. I think most of the good action shots of the period have been shown or seen before. I even noticed a few clips were shown more than once, representing two distinctly different events.
Calling it 'propaganda' is a stretch....more a leap off the grand canyon but hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not sure how you would have eyewitness accounts and narration done differently to not meet your definition of being propaganda.
What would you suggest be done different?
-
i don't understand why america invaded france in WW2, france was not even at war with america.
:lol :lol :lol
-
i don't understand why america invaded france in WW2, france was not even at war with america.
:rofl
-
What is it that you mean by 'truth'? The audience for this program are Americans, it makes sense that the narratives and perspective are told from the viewpoint of American history.
I am curious to know what you think should be different? Are you suggesting that the historical accounts are inaccurate? Or that the camera footage is a fabrication?
Silliness.
The remake of Pearl Harbor was typically "by Americans for Americans", I thought it was just embarrassing. U-571 too, but at least Hollywood doesn't proclaim historical accuracy like the History or Discovery channels do. Sometime the bias is almost too obvious, like that "Top 10 fighters" show; P-51 won with the Spit coming second. The 109 got an honorable mention at number 7... the 262 wasn't mentioned with one word. And that whispering idiot hosting "Future Weapons" is nothing more than a sales rep for American and Israeli defense industries. Don't get me started on "Dogfights"...
-
The remake of Pearl Harbor was typically "by Americans for Americans", I thought it was just embarrassing. U-571 too, but at least Hollywood doesn't proclaim historical accuracy like the History or Discovery channels do. Sometime the bias is almost too obvious, like that "Top 10 fighters" show; P-51 won with the Spit coming second. The 109 got an honorable mention at number 7... the 262 wasn't mentioned with one word. And that whispering idiot hosting "Future Weapons" is nothing more than a sales rep for American and Israeli defense industries. Don't get me started on "Dogfights"...
Those film producers are from the United States. It is to be expected.
-
All you need to do is watch a few BBC WW2 documentaries and reallize Ego stroking dosen't stop at the borders...
:D
Top Gear being an excellent example of that. I guess people all over the world likes to be pandered to and told they are the best in the world.
-
Why don't you go visit the graves of all our servicemen overseas. See if you feel any different.
I have (well, not all of them obviously). I still don't see why I need biased "historical" shows on TV.
-
I have (well, not all of them obviously). I still don't see why I need biased "historical" shows on TV.
Why are you watching them if they so offend you? What answers are you trolling for? You say American TV shows about WW2 are Bias, They are to a point, its called building morale for your country. i can bet the Other Countries have there "perspective" on how the war looked to there Countries, make you a bet that China, Russia, England, France, have there own Shows that portray them as "Superior" in there Roles in WW2. Anyone with a brain would know that it took ALL of the Countries no matter how big or small to pull together to achieve Victory.
I have no idea where your going with your Logic :headscratch:
-
The remake of Pearl Harbor was typically "by Americans for Americans", I thought it was just embarrassing. U-571 too, but at least Hollywood doesn't proclaim historical accuracy like the History or Discovery channels do. Sometime the bias is almost too obvious, like that "Top 10 fighters" show; P-51 won with the Spit coming second. The 109 got an honorable mention at number 7... the 262 wasn't mentioned with one word.
I agree with you about those two movies and the cringe reflex, but that's not even germane to the topic at hand here. Your presumption is that because this is an american documentary that it does not convey 'truth'. Well, I've seen a few episodes and though there is nothing earth shaking, it has portrayed events accurately based on the study I've done with regards the war.
The underlying theme though in your comment is that america is superficial though, an unsubstantiated sentiment that seems popular in the 'old-europe-blame-america-first' crowd. This narrative is based on a jealousy of the hegemony the USA is able to convey across the world.
Besides, everyone knows the P-51 was a better plane that the spitfire. The spit served its purpose as a defensive plane and turn fighting well. The 51 was much more instrumental in ending the war though when boom-zoom tactics proved most effective in the war of attrition (including it's range and speed advantage). :rock
-
Anyone with a brain would know that it took ALL of the Countries no matter how big or small to pull together to achieve Victory.
No, it mostly took the USA saving their ass. But I agree with you on the other stuff. :bolt:
-
the 262 was not even a factor in WW2, too little too late.
-
The underlying theme though in your comment is that america is superficial though, an unsubstantiated sentiment that seems popular in the 'old-europe-blame-america-first' crowd. This narrative is based on a jealousy of the hegemony the USA is able to convey across the world.
No, that's not it at all. Dredger, I love my country, but the vast majority of WW2 documentaries that come out of the USA are utter drivel.Why are you watching them if they so offend you? What answers are you trolling for? You say American TV shows about WW2 are Bias, They are to a point, its called building morale for your country. i can bet the Other Countries have there "perspective" on how the war looked to there Countries, make you a bet that China, Russia, England, France, have there own Shows that portray them as "Superior" in there Roles in WW2.
That's totally irrelevant. The ethics of professional journalism/history call for a higher standard, regardless of what country you call home.
-
Why are you watching them if they so offend you?
I didn't say I was offended. Most of the shows are at least mildly entertaining, but I find the ego stroking unnecessary.
You say American TV shows about WW2 are Bias, They are to a point, its called building morale for your country.
Isn't it then propaganda as a previous poster claimed?
-
the 262 was not even a factor in WW2, too little too late.
But it was the best fighter by a 100 miles (per hour). The P-51 didn't win the war either (contrary to what you may have heard on TV).
-
. The P-51 didn't win the war either (contrary to what you may have heard on TV).
Sure did help though
-
No, it mostly took the USA saving their ass. But I agree with you on the other stuff. :bolt:
I would say that Russia saved her own bellybutton in Europe, while America saved her own bellybutton in the Pacific, and thus the war was won.
-
Sure did help though
In a minute way perhaps. If the Pony had never existed the only difference would be more P-38's and new long-range Spitfires (they were being developed but canceled when the P-51 became available) over Berlin.
-
I would say that Russia saved her own bellybutton in Europe
What would be the effect of USAAF not being in Europe to bomb the factories off the map?
-
What would be the effect of USAAF not being in Europe to bomb the factories off the map?
I think the question would be, what would have happened if the USAAF had wiped the factories off the map? The affect of the bombing campaigns against German is greatly exaggerated; German industry was very resilient and adaptive. Many industries, particularly aircraft production, actually peaked in 1944, not falling apart until the war was essentially lost.
However I think it's inaccurate to say that American support through industry (providing the UK and USSR war materiel throughout the conflict) was not vitally important, if not essential to the allied war effort.
I've never seen the history channel claim the USA won ww2.
I don't mean this in any sarcastic or derogatory manner but do you watch the History Channel?
-
The ethics of professional journalism/history call for a higher standard, regardless of what country you call home.
Ethics in Journalism seems like a Oxymoron in todays standards of Journalism, It's all about the sensationalism and the WOW factor, Throw it out there and prove it True or False later , Theres no ethics anymore its about "ratings"
-
What would be the effect of USAAF not being in Europe to bomb the factories off the map?
Three to six months perhaps? A few more dead Russians? The Allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe proved a failure. It wasn't until late 1944 that the German industry really started to feel the impact and by that time all the important battles on the Eastern Front had already been lost by the Germans and they were in full retreat. Moscow 1941-42, Stalingrad 1942, Kursk 1943. Truth be told the only important American contribution to the victory in Europe was the lend-lease support given to the Russians.
-
Three to six months perhaps? A few more dead Russians? The Allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe proved a failure. It wasn't until late 1944 that the German industry really started to feel the impact and by that time all the important battles on the Eastern Front had already been lost by the Germans and they were in full retreat. Moscow 1941-42, Stalingrad 1942, Kursk 1943. Truth be told the only important American contribution to the victory in Europe was the lend-lease support given to the Russians.
So your biased against Americans(didn't mean people) but all in favor that the Ruskies won the whole thing? Correct?
-
So your biased against Americans but all in favor that the Ruskies won the whole thing? Correct?
The Russians would have won regardless of what I or you think. Many argue, and not without reason, that Germany lost the war at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 before America even joined the war. There are a few interesting threads on that very subject if I remember correctly. I think Angus wrote a paper on the Eastern Front or something.
-
Ethics in Journalism seems like a Oxymoron in todays standards of Journalism, It's all about the sensationalism and the WOW factor, Throw it out there and prove it True or False later , Theres no ethics anymore its about "ratings"
You're talking about cable TV, and I agree with you there. But it would be ludicrous to use cable TV as the standard for journalistic ethics. Come to your senses. I'm talking about a commitment to impartiality that is the hallmark of ethics for the professions of journalist and historian.
Just because what you see on TV is crap, doesn't mean that what TV is pretending to be is crap. Imitations of the real thing do usually suck, you know.
-
I don't mean this in any sarcastic or derogatory manner but do you watch the History Channel?
Me? Hell no, I don't watch that propaganda. :x
I like some of their science programs, like The Universe. Also the Modern Marvels is pretty cool, being a geeky civil engineer that I am. Some of their biographies I found interesting.
-
But it was the best fighter by a 100 miles (per hour). The P-51 didn't win the war either (contrary to what you may have heard on TV).
Speed does not make it best. It was slow to get there and used very little. I'm sure they used much more criteria.
-
The Russians would have won regardless of what I or you think. Many argue, and not without reason, that Germany lost the war at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 before America even joined the war. There are a few interesting threads on that very subject if I remember correctly. I think Angus wrote a paper on the Eastern Front or something.
You think? Seemed they were short on planes, vehicles and supplies.
-
Speed does not make it best. It was slow to get there and used very little. I'm sure they used much more criteria.
They didn't even mention the 262 at all... and it was the first operational jet fighter in the world. The most revolutionary leap forward in aviation technology in WWII, perhaps of all time. But somehow the F-18 made it to number 3. Yes... the third best fighter in all of history is the F-18!
Yeah right.
-
You think? Seemed they were short on planes, vehicles and supplies.
Why don't you dig up Angus' threads on the subject. Let's not hijack this thread further.
-
Let's not hijack this thread further.
You have permission to hijack my thread, it's interesting discussion and the thread has nowhere else to go anyway. :cheers:
-
I think I'll need Skuzzy's permission... probably in triplicate. ;)
-
I find charts like this one very telling of who pulled their weight in the war:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg/800px-World_War_II_Casualties2.svg.png)
-
You think? Seemed they were short on planes, vehicles and supplies.
And imagine if the Luftwaffe had concentrated on Russia rather than another front with England. Russia would've had no airpower. No factories left, and supply lines cut in half.IMO
And that charts misleading. Germany took over 11 countries. How is that not pulling their weight more. Quality over quantity:rolleyes:
As for the history channel. Life after people was interesting for 10 mins. Did we really need a whole series. 30 days after people. The queen of Englands Corkies are still alive. :rolleyes:
-
And imagine if the Luftwaffe had concentrated on Russia rather than another front with England. Russia would've had no airpower. No factories left, and supply lines cut in half.IMO
Based on what facts? The Luftwaffe was not "concentrated" in the west. At any point in time except during the Ardenne offensive and operation Bodenplatte more than two thirds of the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern Front. For most of the war only two JG's were stationed in France. The air war over western europe was a sideshow to the air war i the east. During the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 the Luftwaffe deployed 2,110 aircraft. The Soviets committed 2,792 aircraft to the battle. Almost at the same time in the west the Mighty Eight launched 376 B-17's and 267 P-47 on the first big raid on Schweinfurt and Regensburg. They were met by around 400 German fighters.
-
And that charts misleading. Germany took over 11 countries. How is that not pulling their weight more. Quality over quantity:rolleyes:
Germany has the second highest number of military deaths on the chart, second only to the Soviets. What's your point?
-
Heh... did some digging. At Kursk the Luftwaffe lost 609 aircraft; that's almost the entire strength of the 8th AAF at the time... in one battle.
-
Heh... did some digging. At Kursk the Luftwaffe lost 609 aircraft; that's almost the entire strength of the 8th AAF at the time... in one battle.
In 1943 the US produced more aircraft than Germany, USSR, and UK combined... They would have replaced all 600 aircraft in 4 days...
;)
-
In 1943 the US produced more aircraft than Germany, USSR, and UK combined... They would have replaced all 600 aircraft in 4 days...
;)
Lol no. Not that far off, but not quite. ;) It should be no surprise to you then that it was only in 1944 the air war in the west gained a significant role in the war. In 1943 the 8th AAF mounted two major raids into Germany... two, and both went disastrously wrong. Some historians argue that the Germans lost the war at Moscow in '41... Some say Stalingrad in '42, and some think the Germans still had a chance of grasping victory from the jaws of defeat at Kursk in 1943... However, what they all agree on is that by 1944 the war in the east was definitely lost for Germany. So yeah... we did save Europe, but not from Germany.
-
In 1943 the US produced more aircraft than Germany, USSR, and UK combined... They would have replaced all 600 aircraft in 4 days...
;)
You realize you're wasting your time with him right?
-
You realize you're wasting your time with him right?
Just like you're doing now?
-
Germany has the second highest number of military deaths on the chart, second only to the Soviets. What's your point?
Smaller country bulling the larger country! :D Eff figures Japan didnt want to attack Russia.
-
So yeah... we did save Europe, but not from Germany.
Half of it maybe.
-
The remake of Pearl Harbor was typically "by Americans for Americans", I thought it was just embarrassing. U-571 too, but at least Hollywood doesn't proclaim historical accuracy like the History or Discovery channels do. Sometime the bias is almost too obvious, like that "Top 10 fighters" show; P-51 won with the Spit coming second. The 109 got an honorable mention at number 7... the 262 wasn't mentioned with one word. And that whispering idiot hosting "Future Weapons" is nothing more than a sales rep for American and Israeli defense industries. Don't get me started on "Dogfights"...
you cannot be serious with this post... Pearl Harbor? ffs
*just read the rest of your posts.... youre serious. :rolleyes:
-
you cannot be serious with this post... Pearl Harbor? ffs
*just read the rest of your posts.... youre serious. :rolleyes:
He's serious.
-
Half of it maybe.
Quite right.
-
Heh... did some digging. At Kursk the Luftwaffe lost 609 aircraft; that's almost the entire strength of the 8th AAF at the time... in one battle.
The Americans had 2069 a/c in July, 2452 a/c in Aug and 2827 a/c in Sept just in the ETO.
-
The Americans had 2069 a/c in July, 2452 a/c in Aug and 2827 a/c in Sept just in the ETO.
Not in the 8th. Not in the ETO. Maybe in the ETO and MTO combined.
-
MTO: July - 4030, Aug - 3700, Sept - 3527
In July 1943 there was 856 (Aug - 907, Sept - 971) B-17s and B-24s in the ETO. VIIIth FC was part of the 8th AF so you can add fighters to the bomber numbers.
Numbers from the Army Air Force Statistical Digest, Tables 89 and 90.
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/index.htm
-
Those tables don't seem to be available at that site. Do you have a copy?
-
However, table no. 100 is available: Losses of All Types of Airplanes Overseas, By Theater and By Type of Loss: 1941 to 1945, and it shows a very clear picture of the level of USAAF involvement in the ETO:
Total losses in 1942: 133 aircraft.
Total losses in 1943 (Jun-Dec): 1,651 aircraft.
Total losses in 1944: 10,447 aircraft.
1944 is when the air war in the west gained a significance in the war... However, Germany had already lost in the east.
Table 2 -- Combat Groups Overseas, By Theater and By Type of Group: Dec 1941 to Aug 1945 lists the total number of heavy bombardment groups in both the ETO and MTO in August 1943 at 17. In 1943 a heavy bombardment group had a total complement of 294 officers and 1,487 enlisted men to fly and support 48 heavy bombers. That's a maximum of 816 bombers if all the groups are at full strength. In reality each group operated only between 20 and 30 bombers due to attrition. They also operated a total of 7 fighter groups with anywhere from two to four squadrons in each group. So a total of less than 1,000 aircraft capable of attacking Germany in both the ETO and MTO in August 1943.
On August 17, 1943 the 8th AAF threw their whole operational strength at Schweinfurth and Regensburg. A total of 376 bombers and 268 fighters.
Regensburg Task Force organization
Group / UK Base / Sent / Losses
96th / Snetterton Heath / 21 / 0
388th / Knettishall / 21 / 1
390th / Framlingham / 20 / 6
94th / Bury St. Edmunds / 21 / 1
385th / Great Ashfield / 21 / 3
95th / Horham / 21 / 4
100th / Thorpe Abbotts / 21 / 9
353rd Fighter Group / 37 P-47
56th Fighter Group / 50 P-47
Schweinfurt mission organization
Group / UK Base / Sent / Losses
91st / Bassingbourn / 18 / 7
101st Composite Group / 19 / 6
381st / Ridgewell / 20 / 9
351st / Polebrook / 21 / 1
306th Composite Group / 20 / 0
384th / Grafton Underwood / 18 / 5
306th / Thurleigh / 21 / 0
305th / Chelveston / 20 / 2
92d / Alconbury / 20 / 2
379th / Kimbolton / 18 / 0
103rd Composite Group / 17 / 4
303rd / Molesworth / 18 / 0
78th Fighter Group / 40 P-47
4th Fighter Group / 48 P-47
56th Fighter Group / 51 P-47
353rd Fighter Group / 42 P-47
That was the largest raid conducted by the 8th AAF in 1943.
On August 1, 1943 the 9th AAF in the MTO launched Operation Tidal Wave - The raid on Ploesti. The 9th AAF had only two bombardment groups and had to borrow three groups from the 8th AAF to cobble together a strike force of 178 aircraft. They were met by 52 Axis fighters.
That was the largest raid conducted by the 9th AAF in 1943.
By contrast during the Battle of Kursk the Luftwaffe flew 27,221 sorties in ten days during the initial German offensive from July 5 to July 15, 1943. On July 5 alone they flew 4,475 sorties... one day. The Soviets flew 118,000 sorties during their counterattack from August 5 to 23. 118,000 sorties in two and a half weeks... (Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis, by Niklas Zetterling, Anders Frankson.) It remains the largest series of armored clashes, including the Battle of Prokhorovka, the largest series of air battles including the largest dogfight near Kharkov, a huge melee of more than 500 aircraft fighting at treetop level, and the costliest single day of aerial warfare to date. It was the last strategic offensive the Germans were able to mount in the east.
-
mmm great reading....
Discussions far outperform bickering. :aok
-
Most of it is stuff I haven't seen before. Eniwetok, Guadalcanal, and Tarawa had a LOT of footage I hadn't seen before. And some footage much clearer than what I had seen before. The Pacific parts are extremely interesting. The European parts are usually what I've seen before though.
-
Just like you're doing now?
You're right, America had no part in World War 2, and it should show no part on an American Television Station, shown to mostly Americans, on how they had absolutely no part in World War 2 that was significant, even though they were at the tip of the spear in almost all big battles throughout the war after they came into the war. But hey, they have no right to be thanked for their part in the war, for all that they fought for.
:rolleyes:
-
I find charts like this one very telling of who pulled their weight in the war:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg/800px-World_War_II_Casualties2.svg.png)
Funny I cant find the Norwegians on that list... wonder why that is?
-
See Rule #4
-
Funny I cant find the Norwegians on that list... wonder why that is?
Why should they be? What did they do?
-
nevermind
-
Why should they be? What did they do?
Well didn't they fight valiantly to defend there homeland? They must have lost huge numbers during the defense?
Well... before the surrender and all.
-
I'm sure they fought valiantly and all, but you're making no sense.
-
I'm sure they fought valiantly and all, but you're making no sense.
I see no Norwegians listed... they were not pulling their weight per your previous post.
-
Well... Were they?
-
Well... Were they?
According to you and your chart... No.
-
And you disagree with that?
-
I think the point is that Norway's deaths wouldn't even show up on the scale of that chart. It's like comparing the distance of your drive to work to the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
I find charts like this one very telling of who pulled their weight in the war:
This doesn't imply anything about Norway.
-
Yeah... I'm really at a loss as to what Bronk is on about.
-
By contrast during the Battle of Kursk the Luftwaffe flew 27,221 sorties in ten days during the initial German offensive from July 5 to July 15, 1943. On July 5 alone they flew 4,475 sorties... one day. The Soviets flew 118,000 sorties during their counterattack from August 5 to 23. 118,000 sorties in two and a half weeks... (Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis, by Niklas Zetterling, Anders Frankson.)
The USAAF flew 29,901 combat sorties vs Germany in July 1943. Considering the distances involved, the Germans and Russians could mount 4 or more sorties per day while the Americans could only mount one, almost 100% of the time over German held territory.
Link works fine more me.
-
Yeah... I'm really at a loss as to what Bronk is on about.
What I'm on about is you like to try convince others the US did little for the war to liberate EUROPE. While leaving out the facts on how little certain euro countries did squat to liberate EUROPE.
How do you think the map western europe would look after the war if the US placed the PAC as priority instead of europe?
-
Link works fine more me.
That's weird. The link to the site works yes, but not to tables 89 and 90 which you referred to earlier. Can you post direct links to those two tables please?
-
What I'm on about is you like to try convince others the US did little for the war to liberate EUROPE. While leaving out the facts on how little certain euro countries did squat to liberate EUROPE.
There are several european countries listed on the chart and only a few of them had more deaths than America. I guess those that made the chart didn't care to list every country in the world, just the top 15 allied nations. Do you think the chart is wrong and Norway merits to be in the top 15?
How do you think the map western europe would look after the war if the US placed the PAC as priority instead of europe?
A lot of Soviet "democratic republics" I guess.
-
The Russians would have won regardless of what I or you think. Many argue, and not without reason, that Germany lost the war at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 before America even joined the war. There are a few interesting threads on that very subject if I remember correctly. I think Angus wrote a paper on the Eastern Front or something.
What a guy, that Stalin.
He already had the Nazis whupped and didn't need us, yet he graciously kept begging us to hurry and open a second front because he wanted us to share in his victory and have tremendous influence in post-war Europe.
How insulting for you to say the US role in defeating the Nazis was "insignificant."
Who pushed the German forces out of North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg?
Not the Russians, but the British and Americans.
While the Russians might have won without us, they didn't have to and they hadn't had the war won before we got there. Tens of thousands of dead GI's prove that.
I'm guessing the war would have lasted much longer than 3 to 6 more months without our efforts and there would have been more like a few hundred thousand more dead Russians rather than just a few.
-
A few hundred thousand sounds about right. Maybe even a million or more. A million more would be about 5% increase in their total loss of lives during the war. However, after the summer of 1943 the Germans never again had the strategic initiative; they were on a long, but relentless retreat to Berlin. The western Europeans should be grateful that we intervened and saved them from the Russians, but Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before. I'm sorry if you find these facts insulting, but I am in no way disrespecting the soldiers who fought and died in the war, regardless of their nationality.
-
....but Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before. I'm sorry if you find these facts insulting, but I am in no way disrespecting the soldiers who fought and died in the war, regardless of their nationality.
While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war. You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.
Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia. England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive. And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.
If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different. Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East. Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything.
-
While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war. You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.
Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia. England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive. And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.
If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different. Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East. Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything.
Diehard doesn't get that.
-
A few hundred thousand sounds about right. Maybe even a million or more. A million more would be about 5% increase in their total loss of lives during the war. However, after the summer of 1943 the Germans never again had the strategic initiative; they were on a long, but relentless retreat to Berlin. The western Europeans should be grateful that we intervened and saved them from the Russians, but Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before. I'm sorry if you find these facts insulting, but I am in no way disrespecting the soldiers who fought and died in the war, regardless of their nationality.
Facts don't insult me and I believe much of what you say is true, however, much is conjecture that cannot with certainty be validated.
While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war. You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.
Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia. England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive. And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.
If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different. Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East. Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything.
Exactly.
The only thing for certain is the fate of the German advance in the east was sealed.
Had they been able to concentrate all their forces against the Russian advance, the war could have ended in something less than unconditional victory.
Another point:
If I recall correctly, Germany had it's own atomic weapon program. Whose to say that whatever difference the US involvement effected in the duration of the war might not have been the time that Germany's program could have come to fruition.
Deployment of atomic weapons in the east would have dramatically changed the equation.
But it's all conjecture isn't it?
-
In a minute way perhaps. If the Pony had never existed the only difference would be more P-38's and new long-range Spitfires (they were being developed but canceled when the P-51 became available) over Berlin.
Instead of Ponies we could have had 38k's... :noid
-
"Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before."
Looking at the large picture of history, I can't help thinking that Germany was screwed the day it elected a mad sod named Hitler to the Reichstag.
:cool:
-
i don't understand why america invaded france in WW2, france was not even at war with america.
:rofl
-
Double post.
-
While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war. You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.
Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia. England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive.
...
If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different. Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East. Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything.
The Germans held western Europe with minimal effort.
The German forces stationed in Germany and western Europe after Operation Barbarossa in 1941 were reserve units, training units and front line units rotating from the Russian front to rebuild their strength. In 1943 Russian and eastern European "volunteer" units known as "osttruppen" were transferred to France after suffering from mass desertions on the Russian front. There were never more than 9 German divisions in Africa during the war; for most of the war there were no more than 3. From the summer of 1941 to January 1944 there were never more than 56 German divisions stationed in western Europe; for most of that time there were less than 40. Even on D-Day when the Germans knew the invasion was imminent there were only 66 divisions stationed in western Europe, and 1 in 6 German soldiers in France were "osttruppen" and of negligible combat efficiency. August 1943 there were 226 German divisions on the Russian front, including Finland, the Balkans and South Eastern fronts. February 1945, with the Allied armies marching on the Rhine, there were still only 68 German divisions on the western front. At the same time there were 186 German divisions on the eastern front. In May 1945 with Hitler contemplating suicide in his bunker there were 89 German divisions frighting the Russians; only four divisions were left to fight the Western Allies. (Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS 1939-1945, by Georg Tessin.)
And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.
From page 4:
Three to six months perhaps? A few more dead Russians? The Allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe proved a failure. It wasn't until late 1944 that the German industry really started to feel the impact and by that time all the important battles on the Eastern Front had already been lost by the Germans and they were in full retreat. Moscow 1941-42, Stalingrad 1942, Kursk 1943. Truth be told the only important American contribution to the victory in Europe was the lend-lease support given to the Russians.
If I recall correctly, Germany had it's own atomic weapon program. Whose to say that whatever difference the US involvement effected in the duration of the war might not have been the time that Germany's program could have come to fruition.
Read up on it. It would never have come to fruition.
-
Well, it seems to me that there were some pretty tough fights from Africa through Sicily to D-day and the Battle of the Bulge etc, fights that likely wouldn't have happened except for American involvement.
That those German forces killed, captured, redirected and otherwise neutralized during action against the western allies would have made no difference if they had intact, and in desperation been recalled to the defense of the German homeland from a Russian invasion is something I cannot understand how you can be sure of.
Oh well, I'm done here.
-
Funny I cant find the Norwegians on that list... wonder why that is?
I also dont see the canuk either. As a child I was told we won the war,we sent our mosquitoes over there to pester the germans and if that didnt work we were prepared to send our black flies to deal the final blow.As luck would have the germans succomed to bengay fever and quit so the blackflies were unneeded and put into storage.
Ya I guess every country has their own prospective of what happened in the war.... :devil
:salute
Lest we forget.
-
The Germans held western Europe with minimal effort.
The German forces stationed in Germany and western Europe after Operation Barbarossa in 1941 were reserve units, training units and front line units rotating from the Russian front to rebuild their strength. In 1943 Russian and eastern European "volunteer" units known as "osttruppen" were transferred to France after suffering from mass desertions on the Russian front. There were never more than 9 German divisions in Africa during the war; for most of the war there were no more than 3. From the summer of 1941 to January 1944 there were never more than 56 German divisions stationed in western Europe; for most of that time there were less than 40. Even on D-Day when the Germans knew the invasion was imminent there were only 66 divisions stationed in western Europe, and 1 in 6 German soldiers in France were "osttruppen" and of negligible combat efficiency. August 1943 there were 226 German divisions on the Russian front, including Finland, the Balkans and South Eastern fronts. February 1945, with the Allied armies marching on the Rhine, there were still only 68 German divisions on the western front. At the same time there were 186 German divisions on the eastern front. In May 1945 with Hitler contemplating suicide in his bunker there were 89 German divisions frighting the Russians; only four divisions were left to fight the Western Allies. (Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS 1939-1945, by Georg Tessin.)
While I still disagree with you on this point of conjecture, I did find your paragraph above an interesting read.
-
Wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed on everything? ;)
As long as we can all debate without getting too emotional, respecting different opinions shouldn't be a problem, even if we don't agree with them.
-
Wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed on everything? ;)
As long as we can all debate without getting too emotional, respecting different opinions shouldn't be a problem, even if we don't agree with them.
Yup. One thing for certain, no matter who you are, you will be proud of your own country. I of my American History, you of your Russian History, and others of their countries history.
-
However, there is such a thing as being too proud... and taking offense to differing opinions.
-
.....you of your Russian History....
I tell you one thing, I bet the Ruskies would have fared much better early on had Stalin not decimated his officer ranks during the great purge.
-
Indeed.
-
However, there is such a thing as being too proud... and taking offense to differing opinions.
Never heard of anyone being "too proud".
Just Proud..... and not so much Proud.
-
Never heard of anyone being "too proud".
Really? You've never met anyone too proud of him/herself? You must not get out much...
-
Really? You've never met anyone too proud of him/herself? You must not get out much...
Never heard of anyone being "too proud".
Just Proud..... and not so much Proud.
I'm 50... lived in or been to every state in the US except Alaska and Hawaii. Lived in South America, Mexico, and Canada. I have never seen anyone take too much pride in their Country.
-
Never heard of anyone being "too proud".
Just Proud..... and not so much Proud.
I'm 50... lived in or been to every state in the US except Alaska and Hawaii. Lived in South America, Mexico, and Canada. I have never seen anyone take too much pride in their Country.
pride can be a bad thing!
-
Too proud.
(http://brettgundlock.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/0265-82_-copy.jpg)
-
Too proud.
(http://brettgundlock.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/0265-82_-copy.jpg)
haha, yeah.
-
However, there is such a thing as being too proud... and taking offense to differing opinions.
Well, there are ways of expressing oneself, like saying the Russians bore the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, that Russian victory in Operation Barbarossa depleted so much of the German war machine that the allied victory was assured. That would have been hard to dispute, but saying the US war effort against Germany was insignificant?
Can you not see why that might be offensive?
I for one, don't think that the US alone would have beaten the Nazi's. Certainly not without a much larger expenditure of blood and treasure.
There are just too many variables to play a "what if" game.
Russia did not defeat the Nazi's on the western front. The US and England did.
The US did not defeat the Nazi's on the eastern front. The Russians did.
The western allies actions tied up resources that could have been used against Russia and vice-versa. Even the arguably ineffective bombing campaign did degrade German morale and had to have had some effect on Germany's industrial capabilities.
Even the Pacific campaign certainly ensured that Japan could not turn any of it's attention to Russia.
We all won the war, and if a US produced show concentrates on the US role, that is to be expected.
I wouldn't expect a Russian produced documentary to even mention anything other than Russia's Great Patriotic War.
Die-hard, if you are of Russian heritage, then be proud, but don't you go being too proud either.
-
Too proud.
(http://brettgundlock.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/0265-82_-copy.jpg)
So your saying if a black, white, brown or any other race is proud of their race they are too proud... interesting.
Anything thing else you disagree with? I'm sure they are too proud too...... maybe sexual orientation or such?
Odd how your turn being proud of one's country into something that has nothing to do with what we were talking about....
-
So your saying if a black, white, brown or any other race is proud of their race they are too proud... interesting.
There's quite a difference between simply being proud of your heritage and being a nationalist.
Are you implying that there's nothing wrong with nationalism?
-
There's quite a difference between simply being proud of your heritage and being a nationalist.
Are you implying that there's nothing wrong with nationalism?
I'm said what I said.. till it was all turned to race... some love the race card for most anything..... I hate racists. They are almost always the one to pull the race card.
Personally I am an American...... not a hyphenated wannabe. :aok
-
I'm said what I said.. till it was all turned to race... some love the race card for most anything..... I hate racists. They are almost always the one to pull the race card.
Personally I am an American...... not a hyphenated wannabe. :aok
You were talking about pride... is racial pride somehow not pride? How is talking about racial pride pulling the race card?
-
sigh good conversation, now I'm going to have to say IN