Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Muzzy on January 17, 2011, 11:48:00 PM
-
Starting a new thread to continue this discussion.
Here's the statistics regarding the U.S. vs Soviet Union efforts in World War II.
Casualties
Soviet Union: Anywhere from 8 to 10 million deaths.
United States: 137 000 dead.
Overall, half the casualties in the entire war were Russian.
Effects of Lend Lease
U.S. Lend Lease provided for critical deliveries of food and raw materials, but only accounted for 14% of the Red Air Force's planes and a fewer percentage of tanks. However, logistical support in the form of locomotives, rail cars, and trucks were indispensable to the Soviet war effort. So, not much in the way of arms, but very important in terms of logistics.
In terms of territory the front line ran a distance equal to that between Baltimore Maryland and Cheyenne Wyoming, so if you can imagine almost a third of the United States being churned into a battle zone where 20 million people were killed, and Chicago being battered and starved for 900 days, then you kind of get the picture.
Give the devil his due. The Red Army defeated the bulk of the German Army on the battlefield, and probably could have won the war even if D-Day never happened. They could not have won without our M-3's though.
-
Or how about the dictator that forced millions of Russians to their death. Germans could not keep up as they where being over run.
-
:salute USSR for defending their Motherland.
Germans could not keep up because they could not finish what they started.
Again these threads will contain no input from any Germans.
-
I'm not Canadian but I did grow up in Detroit with access to two Canadian TV channels, so maybe I'm sympathetic to them.
I find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_II)
Particularly:
Over the course of the war, 1.1 million Canadians served in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Of these more than 45,000 lost their lives and another 54,000 were wounded.[5]The financial cost was $21,786,077,519.12, between the 1939 and 1950 fiscal years.[6] By the end of the War, Canada had the world's fourth largest air force,[7] and third largest navy.[8] As well, the Canadian Merchant Navy completed over 25,000 voyages across the Atlantic.
and
On June 6, 1944, the 3rd Canadian Division landed on Juno Beach in the Battle of Normandy and sustained 50% casualties in their first hour of attack. By the end of D-Day, the Canadians had penetrated deeper into France than either the British or the American troops at their landing sites, overcoming stronger resistance than any of the other beachheads except Omaha Beach.
Given how many "powers" are considered to be in WW2, its interesting to consider which of them ended up smaller in size than Canada's Navy and Air Force. Also interesting Canada's casualties compared to the size of its population when compared to the US's.
-
Canadian force's were all volenteers? :salute
-
Starting a new thread to continue this discussion.
Here's the statistics regarding the U.S. vs Soviet Union efforts in World War II.
Casualties
Soviet Union: Anywhere from 8 to 10 million deaths.
United States: 137 000 dead.
Overall, half the casualties in the entire war were Russian.
Effects of Lend Lease
U.S. Lend Lease provided for critical deliveries of food and raw materials, but only accounted for 14% of the Red Air Force's planes and a fewer percentage of tanks. However, logistical support in the form of locomotives, rail cars, and trucks were indispensable to the Soviet war effort. So, not much in the way of arms, but very important in terms of logistics.
In terms of territory the front line ran a distance equal to that between Baltimore Maryland and Cheyenne Wyoming, so if you can imagine almost a third of the United States being churned into a battle zone where 20 million people were killed, and Chicago being battered and starved for 900 days, then you kind of get the picture.
Give the devil his due. The Red Army defeated the bulk of the German Army on the battlefield, and probably could have won the war even if D-Day never happened. They could not have won without our M-3's though.
im no expert on world war two, but while russia was fighting on the ground, american/british bombers were pounding away at the german homeland way before russia even got close to it. the german war machine on the russian front failed to get resupplyed many times due to the massive bomb raids conducted by the 8th airforce and others. if it wasent for us destroying the german factories in the motherland, then those german troops on the russian front would of been much better equiped and supplyed. and from what ive learned, russia only reached berlin first because we let them. something about a treaty between the u.s and russia. we give them berlin in exchange for there help in the pacific.
-
Give the devil his due.
This thread will not end well...
-
Hitlers father was his Uncle explains a lot that.
-
Canadian force's were all volenteers? :salute
no we were still part of british commonwealth back then, so we went where you guys did
-
Just read a article that only non conscripted men fought in the war from Canada and any conscripts were for canadian defense only :old:
-
sorry bout that, I opened my mouth before I understood what you were saying/asking
-
United States: 137 000 dead.
I wonder which source this figure is from?
The figure I've seen usually varies a bit but is usually over 290,000 KIA.
-
sorry bout that, I opened my mouth before I understood what you were saying/asking
Is that German bloke on your squad pic riding a push bike?
-
I'm not Canadian but I did grow up in Detroit with access to two Canadian TV channels, so maybe I'm sympathetic to them.
I find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_II)
Particularly:and
Given how many "powers" are considered to be in WW2, its interesting to consider which of them ended up smaller in size than Canada's Navy and Air Force. Also interesting Canada's casualties compared to the size of its population when compared to the US's.
I think Canadas contributions to the war effort are WAY overlooked. Haven't read a lot about it but intend to.
-
US Suffered 416,000 military deaths during WW2.
-
Ah, Stalin, I'm pretty sure he's been given way more than his due already.
Dig deeper into the facts and beyond the propaganda. You make it seem like 14% of the Red Air Force's aircraft is a trivial and insignifigant number, similarly to the Red Air Force's emphasis and mentality through most of that time period on pilot training and survivability beyond one sortie. And the Siege of Leningrad, puh-lease, history has yet to give us better evidence and proof of what will happen in a modern battlefield when two idiots in command colide. Had either side been taking orders and been under the command of a dictator with anything but an egotisistical military strategy and agenda for Leningrad then they would of conducted that seige a lot better, in a lot less time, and with a lot less loss of life. Even the name of the battle itself has always erked and troubled me, it's considered a siege yet in my mind a siege is a strategical and planned operation involving esentialy to out-smart and out-wait your fortified and isolated opponent, rather than physicaly wrestle and force them into submition by brute force.
-
When they run out of bullets before you can run out of guys, you can win any war.
-
Ah, Stalin, I'm pretty sure he's been given way more than his due already.
Dig deeper into the facts and beyond the propaganda. You make it seem like 14% of the Red Air Force's aircraft is a trivial and insignifigant number, similarly to the Red Air Force's emphasis and mentality through most of that time period on pilot training and survivability beyond one sortie. And the Siege of Leningrad, puh-lease, history has yet to give us better evidence and proof of what will happen in a modern battlefield when two idiots in command colide. Had either side been taking orders and been under the command of a dictator with anything but an egotisistical military strategy and agenda for Leningrad then they would of conducted that seige a lot better, in a lot less time, and with a lot less loss of life. Even the name of the battle itself has always erked and troubled me, it's considered a siege yet in my mind a siege is a strategical and planned operation involving esentialy to out-smart and out-wait your fortified and isolated opponent, rather than physicaly wrestle and force them into submition by brute force.
Not exactly, the big issue in Russia was that Hitler had foolishly decided not to equip his forces with winter gear in a propaganda move. This gave General Winter an advantage too great to overcome, and Russia pounded down on it every chance they could.
Also, consider where the Russians had been before the war- a poor, backwards, largely illiterate country based on farming. Considering what they got to work with, they did a pretty darn good job.
Analogy: Imagine trying to fend off a pack of rabid Rottweilers (Germans), then try doing that after getting hit by a car (Revolution).
-Penguin
-
Not exactly, the big issue in Russia was that Hitler had foolishly decided not to equip his forces with winter gear in a propaganda move. This gave General Winter an advantage too great to overcome, and Russia pounded down on it every chance they could.
Also, consider where the Russians had been before the war- a poor, backwards, largely illiterate country based on farming. Considering what they got to work with, they did a pretty darn good job.
Analogy: Imagine trying to fend off a pack of rabid Rottweilers (Germans), then try doing that after getting hit by a car (Revolution).
-Penguin
not the similie. it would be imagine everyone on a train trying to defend a pack of rottweilers after a trainwreck. russia outnumbered germany immensly.
-
True, but Germany had better equipment, and it had its Industrial Revolution, while Russia had not.
-Penguin
-
True, but Germany had better equipment, and it had its Industrial Revolution, while Russia had not.
-Penguin
true, but russia was also being supplyed by one of the biggest industrial giants in the world (america).
germany had an advantage yes, but not one big enough to hold out against the russian horde.
dont mistake me for a russian lover tho, i think russias attack policy for world war two was plain stupity. just my opinion.
-
Yes, but do you hear about Russia using Shermans and P-40's? No, you hear about the T-Series and LA-7's. Russia still had a lot on its plate after lend lease- although that still gave it a fighting chance.
-Penguin
-
Not exactly, the big issue in Russia was that Hitler had foolishly decided not to equip his forces with winter gear in a propaganda move. This gave General Winter an advantage too great to overcome, and Russia pounded down on it every chance they could.
Also, consider where the Russians had been before the war- a poor, backwards, largely illiterate country based on farming. Considering what they got to work with, they did a pretty darn good job.
Analogy: Imagine trying to fend off a pack of rabid Rottweilers (Germans), then try doing that after getting hit by a car (Revolution).
-Penguin
We can play the what-if game until we're all blue in the face. True, the fierce winter they had played a major role, but specificaly with Leningrad, Hitler wanted it taken at all costs and Stalin wanted it held at all costs. If stalin had pulled back and out of it, he may of been able to of formed a defence that would of stopped the German advance before it reached artillery range and the footsteps of Moscow, and also perhaps a more potent counter-offencive afterwards. Had Hitler of put the resources he spent on capturing the city into surrounding it and isolating it (starve it into submission), he could of entrapped a devastating amount of manpower and material the soviets couldn't spare at the time and probabley of made it to Moscow in time to surround and start isolating it before the onset of that winter.
-
Yes, but do you hear about Russia using Shermans and P-40's? No, you hear about the T-Series and LA-7's. Russia still had a lot on its plate after lend lease- although that still gave it a fighting chance.
-Penguin
the t-34 was actually designed by an american. i believe the story goes the u.s turned his idea down but the russians took it up.
-
the t-34 was actually designed by an american. i believe the story goes the u.s turned his idea down but the russians took it up.
Just the design for the suspension and wheel system, not the whole tank.
-
Starting a new thread to continue this discussion.
Here's the statistics regarding the U.S. vs Soviet Union efforts in World War II.
Casualties
Soviet Union: Anywhere from 8 to 10 million deaths.
I call B.S. on that one.
10 million solders only, add another 20 million civilians. You guys can respect Nazi solders all you want, i would execute every single one of them.
-
Now that really personaly ticks me off, someone looking for praise or honor for one of those evils over the other. If you're looking for more respect or honor here in this thread for the Red Army than for Nazi Germany - find none will you from my Polish blood. Take a guess what off-the-handle forum-guidline-violating responce I have in mind for your question that would also cast the Red Army in no better a light? Shal we take a stroll down that memory lane and look at how awesome the Red Army's humanitarian contributions have been to the world before, during and after its pact with the evil Nazi Germany?
They were both armies of normal everyday men, from normal families and fighting for what they were all told was their country and home, being led and ordered around by two of the most evil and vile characters of history.
-
Now that really personaly ticks me off, someone looking for praise or honor for one of those evils over the other. If you're looking for more respect or honor here in this thread for the Red Army than for Nazi Germany - find none will you from my Polish blood. Take a guess what off-the-handle forum-guidline-violating responce I have in mind for your question that would also cast the Red Army in no better a light? Shal we take a stroll down that memory lane and look at how awesome the Red Army's humanitarian contributions have been to the world before, during and after its pact with the evil Nazi Germany?
They were both armies of normal everyday men, from normal families and fighting for what they were all told was their country and home, being led and ordered around by two of the most evil and vile characters of history.
My mom is Polish, I know all about what happened to Poland, and it wasn't pretty. Half my family grew up under communism, and hate all that it stands for. Communism looks good on paper, but never works out- thus, I favor capitalism. I'm not here to glorify either system, but to get an answer to a hypothesis of mine; who did the most to bring down Hitler? US, UK, or USSR? It seems to me that since the Russians fought longest, thus wearing down the Germans to such an extent that the allies could knock it down with considerably less effort.
Learn to separate ideological disscussions from military ones. I agree with your second point, however; soldiers on both sides were misled and betrayed. They came home to a broken country, and were frequently left starving in the streets.
Yet, I ask again- who did the most to bring down Germany in WWII?
I'll guess the USSR.
-Penguin
-
My mom is Polish, I know all about what happened to Poland, and it wasn't pretty. Half my family grew up under communism, and hate all that it stands for. Communism looks good on paper, but never works out- thus, I favor capitalism. I'm not here to glorify either system, but to get an answer to a hypothesis of mine; who did the most to bring down Hitler? US, UK, or USSR? It seems to me that since the Russians fought longest, thus wearing down the Germans to such an extent that the allies could knock it down with considerably less effort.
Learn to separate ideological disscussions from military ones. I agree with your second point, however; soldiers on both sides were misled and betrayed. They came home to a broken country, and were frequently left starving in the streets.
Yet, I ask again- who did the most to bring down Germany in WWII?
I'll guess the USSR.
-Penguin
like ive said, the U.S and britain were bombing germany and losing lives over germany way before russia even came close to its borders.
if it wasent for the U.S/british bombing raids destroying germany's industry, the german forces on the eastern front would of been better supplyed,better equiped and would of been able to stem the tide of russian dogs.
-
destroying
Decentralizing would be a much better word for it... Allied bombing campaigns didn't really have a significant effect on German production capacity until late '44... in fact, it continued to expand until then.
-
Now that really personaly ticks me off, someone looking for praise or honor for one of those evils over the other. If you're looking for more respect or honor here in this thread for the Red Army than for Nazi Germany - find none will you from my Polish blood. Take a guess what off-the-handle forum-guidline-violating responce I have in mind for your question that would also cast the Red Army in no better a light? Shal we take a stroll down that memory lane and look at how awesome the Red Army's humanitarian contributions have been to the world before, during and after its pact with the evil Nazi Germany?
They were both armies of normal everyday men, from normal families and fighting for what they were all told was their country and home, being led and ordered around by two of the most evil and vile characters of history.
Phenomenally moronic. Considering I've never praised anyone. Its pure hate on my part. BTW Try not to go back in Russo-Polish history too much though, obviously you haven't looked past 1939. Other than that great speech.
-
Children children children... tsk tsk tsk. Hindsight is always 20/20 and there is more than one way to butcher a cow. There are thousands of "what if" scenarios.
The only fact that is indisputable is that Kilroy was truly there, all else is opinions and statistics. :D
-
This thread will not end well...
-
This fact is becoming apparent to me as well.
-Penguin
-
I always thought Russia had a massive industrial base prior to war, Stalin 3 year plans.
Poland after the 1st war were rattling sabre's on both the German and Russian borders (General pilsudski)
German did not have a total war economy until 1944 they did not need to, very organised them Germans, after the occupation of numerous countries they supplemented their economy. (skoda factories made tanks)
The RAF were out numbered by the Germans they won because the Germans were not good enough.
Bombing German oil supplies was very important so bombing worked.
I am the best looking in the game.
-
it is a myth that the RAF were truly outnumbered buy the Luftwaffe, they had a supperior infastructure for repairing aircraft and were training alot more new pilots, if you look at the numbers, during the last stages of the BoB the RAF were able to field alot more planes then the germans, so thats why they won, the RAF wernt equiped with "super pilots"
-
Now that really personaly ticks me off, someone looking for praise or honor for one of those evils over the other. If you're looking for more respect or honor here in this thread for the Red Army than for Nazi Germany - find none will you from my Polish blood. Take a guess what off-the-handle forum-guidline-violating responce I have in mind for your question that would also cast the Red Army in no better a light? Shal we take a stroll down that memory lane and look at how awesome the Red Army's humanitarian contributions have been to the world before, during and after its pact with the evil Nazi Germany?
They were both armies of normal everyday men, from normal families and fighting for what they were all told was their country and home, being led and ordered around by two of the most evil and vile characters of history.
Well said. I only posted this because there is a tendency by some to imply that the United States pretty much won the Second World War single-handedly, which I think is a disservice to the soldiers from other allied nations. True, the Soviet government and its Army did horrible things during the war, but they took on and destroyed the bulk of the German Army, which they were able to accomplish with the logistical help from the United States and Great Britain.
-
it is a myth that the RAF were truly outnumbered buy the Luftwaffe, they had a supperior infastructure for repairing aircraft and were training alot more new pilots, if you look at the numbers, during the last stages of the BoB the RAF were able to field alot more planes then the germans, so thats why they won, the RAF wernt equiped with "super pilots"
Germans are very fond of Myth's strange that :old:
They were able to field more planes that nonsense and you know it, they were able to use their existing forces more effectivly.
Admit it just once..., just once The German airforce was not good enough :old:
Super pilots? whats that about? Pilots defending their country and families from a bloke who's father was his Uncle!
The German airforce met for the first time a fully modern airforce and got a bloody nose for it!
-
iif you look at the numbers, during the last stages of the BoB the RAF were able to field alot more planes then the germans, so thats why they won, the RAF wernt equiped with "super pilots"
It wouldn't be because in the end the RAF had shot down the advantage?
Truly outnumbered? In July 1940 the RAF 640 fighters & the Luftwaffe had 2600 bombers and fighters
Tronsky
-
Being Canadian I truly appreciate the mother country's stand against the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, but be honest. If they hadn't shifted bombing away from the airfields the RAF would have been finished.
-
It wouldn't be because in the end the RAF had shot down the advantage?
Truly outnumbered? In July 1940 the RAF 640 fighters & the Luftwaffe had 2600 bombers and fighters
Tronsky
The guy is going to come back with another myth that the German bombers did not have any effective defensive armaments and were not bombing civilians in the East End of London with real bombs but pineapples and spinich.
So was Adolfs uncle his dad then? thats a question and a half?
-
hmm, funny thing, a Magazine called aeroplane monthly (you may have heard of it, I belive its published in england) released some interesting data about German and english fighter strength, Pilot strength and also serviceability rates of the RAF and Luftwaffe and from July to december 1940, it appears that the only time the Luftwaffe surpassed the RAF in fighter strength was in july, as for servicability (same time period) the luftwaffe could barley hold 80% servicability, while the RAF was consistantly up or above 90%, the RAF almost had twice the amount of pilots during that time frame, and flew alot more weekly fighter Sorties then the luftwaffe, I am not downplaying the skill of the RAF or the luftwaffe, but maybe your few, werent that "few" at all
and btw, the issue is July 2010, its an interesting read, you should really look into it
and btw btw, tronski, the RAF in August could muster around 1089 fighters, while the luftwaffe could muster 934 single engined fighters, the only thing that outnumbered the RAF throughout the BoB was the german bomber force
-
I've read Aeroplane Monthly, but what your quoting is not a true indication of the Battle of Britain by only comparing fighter forces. You cant just ignore the bombers old boy
Tronsky
-
bombers are not directly attacking fighters in the air and thats why I did not include them, yes, germany had many more bombers then fighters, but how many bombers were shot down for every RAF fighter loss?
-
bombers are not directly attacking fighters in the air and thats why I did not include them, yes, germany had many more bombers then fighters, but how many bombers were shot down for every RAF fighter loss?
The RAF's main target WAS the Bombers not the fighters, they had to fight both.
Admit it the RAF were better, just once.
There is one fact which cannot be disprove Whittle invented the jet engine in the 1930's, and the Germans copied his ideas :banana: Come back with another big fat Myth to suit your views.
Straying from the point Woody Allen or Benny Hill?
-
bombers are not directly attacking fighters in the air and thats why I did not include them, yes, germany had many more bombers then fighters, but how many bombers were shot down for every RAF fighter loss?
The RAF had 660 fighters operationally across 54 Squadrons in August 1940 (You also forgot the 300 odd twin engine german heavy fighters.)
German losses were about 1800 with 650 Bf109's, and 200 Bf110, Fighter Command totaled just over 1,000
Tronsky
-
There some German pilots. buried in our local church.
-
may I ask your source tronski?
and zach, I am not downplaying the RAF's skill, but It has been agreed by most that if the luftwaffe wouldnt have stopped bombing airfields germany would have come out on top. so you can thank Hitler for that
-
Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain - by Len Deighton
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/August%202008/0808battle.aspx (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/August%202008/0808battle.aspx)
http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/battleofbritain.html (http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/battleofbritain.html)
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/contents-index.html (http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/contents-index.html)
Tronsky
-
Its Zack not Zach i am named after wife's very big German Shepard :banana:
Goering idea to bomb London?
-
ty for your info tronski,
and Zack, once more, I am not degrading the skill of the RAF, nor am I saying they wernt out numbered, I am just saying that they were not the miracle pilots that some englishmen make them out to be
-
Its Zack not Zach i am named after wife's very big German Shepard :banana:
Goering idea to bomb London?
No, some German pilots dropped on London by mistake, so Churchill had the RAF hit Berlin in retaliation, which put Adolph into a tailspin, so Mr. Strategy ordered the Luftwaffe to start bombing London. At the time the RAF's losses were so great they feared they would be out of the skies in a couple of weeks or less. Hitting London gave the fields a breather and concentrated fighter defenses, giving the RAF time to get more pilots and planes into the fight.
-
ty for your info tronski,
and Zack, once more, I am not degrading the skill of the RAF, nor am I saying they wernt out numbered, I am just saying that they were not the miracle pilots that some englishmen make them out to be
I have never heard any English person say they were miracle pilots, they were the first modern organised airforce that the German airforce encountered and they came out it lacking.
Admit it the RAF were better :x You can't bring yourself to say it can you :banana:
We won we won we won :rofl
-
lol starting trouble here Mirage
-
I have never heard any English person say they were miracle pilots, they were the first modern organised airforce that the German airforce encountered and they came out it lacking.
Admit it the RAF were better :x You can't bring yourself to say it can you :banana:
We won we won we won :rofl
till the yanks came along :noid
-
lol starting trouble here Mirage
I will tell you all about it the next time you call
-
till the yanks came along :noid
THAT'S BS, Britain was starting to fight back with force and just so happens we joined around that time, RAF did NOT have more pilots maybe not as good as Luftwaffe pilots, THE RAF had somethin to fight for (there home) they defended with all odds against them and won
-
Its all in good faith and nothing personal :banana:
-
Jockym have you done your chores :banana:
-
THAT'S BS, Britain was starting to fight back with force and just so happens we joined around that time, RAF did NOT have more pilots maybe not as good as Luftwaffe pilots, THE RAF had somethin to fight for (there home) they defended with all odds against them and won
got me one :aok
-
There is something else that helped Britain that the Germans did not think was a meaningful target. The radar installations. If there was never any early warning for the Brits then what?
-
Jockym have you done your chores :banana:
im home im sick with the flu so my brother did them :banana:
-
THAT'S BS, Britain was starting to fight back with force and just so happens we joined around that time, RAF did NOT have more pilots maybe not as good as Luftwaffe pilots, THE RAF had somethin to fight for (there home) they defended with all odds against them and won
It wasn't so much pilot skill and quality, it was pilot availibility and quantity. When Hitler ordered the end of bombing airfields, the RAF gained a huge advantage, among other advantages, such as:
Only having to fight 30 minutes at a time, and then being able to refuel
Playing on their own turf, giving them an instant advantage while low and slow
Having ack-ack to fall back upon if wounded
Imagine trying to horde a base, while another horde defends it, if you don't keep the FH down, you will lose every time.
-Penguin
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlwR5Uu_6h4
-
if it wasent for the U.S/british bombing raids destroying germany's industry, the german forces on the eastern front would of been better supplyed,better equiped and would of been able to stem the tide of russian dogs.
Wrong. German Factories were not even placed on proper "war footing" until late 1943. The ineptitude of the country's leadership doomed the war effort. Even at its height, the bombing did little to slow German war production, which steadily rose throughout the entire war, until the country began to collapse at the very end. It is an absolute fallacy to give credit to the bombers for "destroying" german industry.
The powers that were in Germany never placed its' civilians and its' industrial complex into a position to win WW2, thankfully. Through 1942 they were telling the populace and the factories to go about normal business...factories producing war material were still on single shift production in 1943....
-
So the allies were on double shift production? :headscratch:
-Penguin
-
All i have heard in these threads is how the German armed forces were vastly superior in every field of battle, and the excuses for allied victory is not skill or fighting effectiveness but numbers and economic superiority.
The Axis power lost the war because they were not good enough in all aspects of fighting a extended war.
The Axis powers prepared for war the Allies did not, both US and UK land forces were relativly small before the outbreak of war, after they steadly increased until they were superior.
Blitzkreig was German prowess? No it was Economic weakness, they could not fight a long term war.
(They even marked on maps where the gas stations were to fill up their tanks while in France, they also left receipts for payment)
Why did the English and French capitulate under Bliztkreig?, because they were not good enough!
Once the Allies were on a proper war footing it was a different story and the roles were reversed, and then the Axis were i say again lacking.
These Myths are not only shameful but disrespectful to all those who fought in the war.
-
Hence the term "Awakening the Giant", similar to getting on Skuzzy's nerves. It works for a while, but then suddenly your life is a living nightmare.
-Penguin
-
All i have heard in these threads is how the German armed forces were vastly superior in every field of battle, and the excuses for allied victory is not skill or fighting effectiveness but numbers and economic superiority.
The Axis power lost the war because they were not good enough in all aspects of fighting a extended war.
The Axis powers prepared for war the Allies did not, both US and UK land forces were relativly small before the outbreak of war, after they steadly increased until they were superior.
Blitzkreig was German prowess? No it was Economic weakness, they could not fight a long term war.
(They even marked on maps where the gas stations were to fill up their tanks while in France, they also left receipts for payment)
Why did the English and French capitulate under Bliztkreig?, because they were not good enough!
Once the Allies were on a proper war footing it was a different story and the roles were reversed, and then the Axis were i say again lacking.
These Myths are not only shameful but disrespectful to all those who fought in the war.
no offence to you or anything. but i disagree with you saying the french werent good enough.
the french MILITARY wasent. but the french resistance was. i'll gladly :salute them. they fought on D-day and general Eisenhower stated the resistance was worth atleast 3 allied divisions. other than that i agree with you.
-
Oh absolutely, those psychotic Parisian drivers must have accounted for at least 99% of all German High Command Casualities during the war. There was even a special unit formulated to combat them called der Roteleichtepolizei, or Traffic Nazis. Not to be confused with our resident spelling and grammar nazis.
:D
-Penguin
(But really, the French did quite a bit to be a thorn in the side of the German D-Day war effort)
-
The British and French were not upto the job of defending against the Blitzkreig method of warfare in 1940, France and Britain lost The Battle of France because the Germans were superior at this particular time in warfare.
Blitzkreig was tried again the The Ardennes campaign later in the war, but failed because the Allies land armies and Air forces were now superior than the Axis powers.
Allies US,GB Canada, Australia etc
Axis Germany,Italy,Hungary,Rumania and Vichy France etc
We won we won we won :banana: :banana:
Ha ha ha! what happened there?
We lost the British Empire and i have just bought brand new Ford with cash :x
-
The British and French were not upto the job of defending against the Blitzkreig method of warfare in 1940, France and Britain lost The Battle of France because the Germans were superior at this particular time in warfare.
Blitzkreig was tried again the The Ardennes campaign later in the war, but failed because the Allies land armies and Air forces were now superior than the Axis powers.
Allies US,GB Canada, Australia etc
Axis Germany,Italy,Hungary,Rumania and Vichy France etc
We won we won we won :banana: :banana:
Ha ha ha! what happened there?
We lost the British Empire and i have just bought brand new Ford with cash :x
:rofl
Zach, do you suffer from delusions often?
Here are some facts:
RAF<Luftwaffe since 1939
When Winnie mentioned "the few", he was referring to the small group of American pilots in the RAF.
-
:rofl
Zach, do you suffer from delusions often?
Here are some facts:
RAF<Luftwaffe since 1939
When Winnie mentioned "the few", he was referring to the small group of American pilots in the RAF.
im not 100% sure but i think winston churchill called the RAF pilots "the few" due to the fact that they had such a small amount of pilots to defend against the luftwaffe.
but in a way you can think of the u.s pilots as "the few" aswell. :salute to the eagle squadron.
-
:rofl
Zach, do you suffer from delusions often?
Here are some facts:
RAF<Luftwaffe since 1939
When Winnie mentioned "the few", he was referring to the small group of American pilots in the RAF.
No he wasn't he stated the RAF out numbered the German air force in pilots and machines! next!
-
No he wasn't he stated the RAF out numbered the German air force in pilots and machines! next!
wrong. the RAF was smaller than the luftwaffe. thats the whole reason they called the famous name "The FEW". because there was so "few" of them to stand up against the mighty luftwaffe.(this is all during the battle of britain of coursE)
-
do you even read the entire thread tyrannis?
I am facepalming myself over your post and I started this stupid argument
-
Lets put the cat amoung the American pigeons shall we :old:
The Japanese Imperial Forces were vastly superior to the American forces in all aspects of warfare in the pacific and due to US's massive industrial base that they defeated the Japanese forces.
We ALL know why the Japanese forces failed because they were lacking! :old:
Lets see how many myths about this theatre of war appear, i doubt there will be any.
ECONOMICs dictates winners in wars not myths
-
Correct but the japanese themselfs stated that they would not be able to win a war with the US before the even started it, so its their fault :bolt:
-
Who was Kommando Knowotty?
And i started this discussion not you!
Germans planes smell of sausage by the way :banana:
-
No he wasn't he stated the RAF out numbered the German air force in pilots and machines! next!
Come in Spinner
-
RAF fighter command started with less machines and pilots . BUT because the RAF were fighting over their own land a lost plane would not always mean a lost pilot . where as the Germans would lose a plane and machine every time as either POW or KIA.
At the start of the BoB bomber command took up roughly 70% of new aircrews as BoB went on pilot training was more focused on fighters . hence why at the end of BoB fighter levels were about the same . Also note that RAF fighter command also includes squadrons out side of mainland GB at the time . most important figures to look at are squadron strength in 11 and 12 group for the RAF . Aircraft production was done in double shift . In Coventry the BSA works never stopped production from 1939 to 1944 . BSA made browning 303 and ammo , bren guns, 76mm shells , vickers guns and ammo. The only time production stopped was for 12 hours after the main factory was bombed and the lower levels were made safe for work .
RAF tactics improved over the course of BoB too . after the first 4 weeks Squadron leaders threw out the old book and changed to a finger four like the Germans . They also designated targets for each squadron dependant on aircraft. Pilot rotation became more common thus cancelling out combat fatigue which plagued the lufft . While individual pilot skills were higher at the start this advantage was soon lost quickly . As i pointed out before the RAF could hold on to this skill set easier than the Germans .
As to if anyone was prepared to defend against germany then i think even the USA wouldn't have been able to stop the Germans if they had been attached to main land Europe. That is what saved Britain. The English channel with out it The UK would have been lost . RAF bomber command was ill prepared to attack armour , the army would have been ineffective against German armour. German war tactics need short fast battles to win . That is what made the Bf109 a terrible escort too short rang for the job .
If Germany had been in Britain's position then the result would have been very similar with 109's defending against Hurricanes , spitfires escorting Wellington and Hampton bombers. In fact if they had kept the air forces the same size then Germany may even have been able to break out into Europe and push back the aggressors
-
If a Spit or Huri pilot was shot down and survived, he could fly a new plane the same day. Not the same for the Germans.
Rash
-
Thats a myth the germans had invented a secret teleport machine that rescued downed german pilots :old:
-
As to if anyone was prepared to defend against germany then i think even the USA wouldn't have been able to stop the Germans if they had been attached to main land Europe.
I expect such a fight would have been much like Germany Vs. Russia. While not nearly as massive as the Soviet Union, the geography of the US has some good topographical features that would give any invading army a lot of headaches. If the US held the line of the Mississippi....
Oh, forget it. I'm gonna go watch "Red Dawn" again.
-
true but the usa is also quite different to the ussr in that it had a good road structure this meant fuel and supplies would get to the front line quickly which is what the germans needed. the USA at the outbreak of 1939-1940 were worse equipped than the USSR in some ways with alot less troops and less forced labour to fill dead mens boots. plus the italian army would have come more into play . hell half of New york couls be classed as Italian territories.
-
do you even read the entire thread tyrannis?
I am facepalming myself over your post and I started this stupid argument
wtf are you even talking about? :headscratch: just go away.
-
So the allies were on double shift production? :headscratch:
-Penguin
Pretty much from the start of hostilities, US factories went to round the clock (3 shifts) retooling and wartime production. I don't know about British industry, though. The Germans, even though they were at war a full two years prior to the United States, didn't put their production lines into full war effort until Mid-late 1943, which was already way too late.
-
wtf are you even talking about? :headscratch: just go away.
I am talking about how with every keystroke, you make yourself look more and more moronic
-
I am talking about how with every keystroke, you make yourself look more and more moronic
mirage, for someone who's calling ME moronic, you fail to know that opinion =/= equal fact.
so unless you provide proof of me "being moronic" then your just trying to troll :rolleyes:
now shoo.
-
you have provided your own proof in the A20 thread :lol
-
you have provided your own proof in the A20 thread :lol
wow, what a scapegoat.
"cant prove what i said in this thread so lets mention another thread! :rolleyes:"
please, just go away. before you turn this thread into another stupid argument.
-
so unless you provide proof of me "being moronic" then your just trying to troll :rolleyes:
now shoo.
Each post you make is a pretty good example.
ack-ack
-
Each post you make is a pretty good example.
ack-ack
hello ego-man.
-
:x :banana:
-
Hey Zack,
If it wasn't for the USA, you'd be speaking German. Even before the USA's formal entrance into the WW2, we were sending enormous quantities of supplies to Britain. Had that not happened, England would have had its production starved and would have never been able to push back any power, let alone Germany. Just remember, England has almost no natural resources.
Now that being said, the USSR took the brunt of the German offensive and was the reason for the fall of the German army. Europe WW2 was more about the USA supplying the rest of the Allies with enormous amounts of supplies and the Russians doing the dirty work. Now the Pacific theater was totally different, the USA just out manned and produced Japan. The USA could loose a few ships because it was making new ones at a dizzying pace, where as Japan, once it lost its carriers, it was unable to rebuild its forces. And much like England, Japan did not have any natural resources, it was forced to ship all of them from other places (which is much harder to do in war time).
-
Hey Zack,
If it wasn't for the USA, you'd be speaking German. Even before the USA's formal entrance into the WW2, we were sending enormous quantities of supplies to Britain. Had that not happened, Britten would have had its production starved and would have never been able to push back any power, let alone Germany. Just remember, Brittan has almost no natural resources.
dont quote me on this because im not sure its 100% accurate, but didnt america design the radar capable of detecting german u-boats? imagine if america had never done that. germany could of quarentined britain like america did in the 60's with cuba. with no supplies coming to britain from other countries and its factories being bombed on the homeland, england would of eventually been bled of supplies untill she was forced to ether surrender or be crushed.
-
its Sonar, and no the US did not invent it, Germany Canada and the UK however had played part in its development
-
dont quote me on this because im not sure its 100% accurate, but didnt america design the radar capable of detecting german u-boats? imagine if america had never done that. germany could of quarentined britain like america did in the 60's with cuba. with no supplies coming to britain from other countries and its factories being bombed on the homeland, england would of eventually been bled of supplies untill she was forced to ether surrender or be crushed.
No, the Germans were doing a damn good job stopping our convoys up till mid 1943, they just didn't have enough uboats to seal the deal. Also, it wasn't any 'american' radar (all three powers had it and even the Germans even had some basic radar jammers on the u-boats), it was air power, that crushed the uboats. Uboats had to surface, and if you can have constant patrols of aircraft, you can sink uboats all day.
overview numbers..
Allies Germans
30,248 merchant sailors 28,000 sailors
3,500 merchant vessels 783 submarines
175 warships
details....
Date tonnage tonnage uboats sunk
shipped sunk
Sep. '39 3297070 153879 2
39-10Oct. '39 3576135 134807 5
39-11Nov. '39 4408689 51589 1
39-12Dec. '39 4466664 80881 1
40-01Jan. '40 4847044 111263 1
40-02Feb. '40 4348820 169566 6
40-03Mar. '40 4970525 62781 1
40-04Apr. '40 5336917 32467 5
40-05May '40 5362873 55580 1
40-06Jun. '40 284113 105193 0
40-07Jul. '40 195825 70193 2
40-08Aug. '40 267618 53283 3
40-09Sep. '40 295335 56328 1
40-10Oct. '40 352407 8752 1
40-11Nov. '40 146613 66438 2
40-12Dec. '40 212590 14890 0
41-01Jan. '41 2651399 126782 0
41-02Feb. '41 2621795 196783 0
41-03Mar. '41 2864121 243020 5
41-04Apr. '41 2620531 249375 2
41-05May '41 3466204 325492 1
41-06Jun. '41 3594684 310143 4
41-07Jul. '41 3765724 94209 0
41-08Aug. '41 4002450 80310 4
41-09Sep. '41 4267134 202820 2
41-10Oct. '41 4203224 156554 2
41-11Nov. '41 3336789 62196 5
41-12Dec. '41 3735419 124070 10
42-01Jan. '42 327357 57086 3
42-02Feb. '42 476451 133746 2
42-03Mar. '42 537980 55706 6
42-04Apr. '42 431664 82924 3
42-05May. '42 607247 59041 4
42-06Jun. '42 700235 54769 3
42-07Jul. '42 476065 74313 11
42-08Aug. '42 544410 60532 9
42-09Sep. '42 485413 57526 10
42-10Oct. '42 619417 5686 16
42-11Nov. '42 729160 53868 13
42-12Dec. '42 330816 4853 4
43-01Jan. '43 203128 25503 6
43-02Feb. '43 359328 75 19
43-03Mar. '43 627377 65128 15
43-04Apr. '43 327943 3034 15
43-05May. '43 264853 20942 41
43-06Jun. '43 97753 6083 17
43-07Jul. '43 242145 106005 37
43-08Aug. '43 86579 14133 25
43-09Sep. '43 118841 22905 10
43-10Oct. '43 97407 22680 26
43-11Nov. '43 66585 62452 19
43-12Dec. '43 86967 75471 8
44-01Jan. '44 92278 24237 16
44-02Feb. '44 92923 21616 20
44-03Mar. '44 142944 0 25
44-04Apr. '44 62149 19755 21
44-05May. '44 24424 2873 24
44-06Jun. '44 57875 9008 25
44-07Jul. '44 63351 0 24
44-08Aug. '44 98729 0 35
44-09Sep. '44 43368 0 22
44-10Oct. '44 7176 0 13
44-11Nov. '44 29592 7247 8
44-12Dec. '44 58518 35920 15
45-01Jan. '45 56988 7176 14
45-02Feb. '45 65233 7177 21
45-03Mar. '45 65077 0 33
45-04Apr. '45 72439 22822 53
45-05May. '45 11439 7176 3
-
Something I picked off the inet a few years ago.
***********
1939:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Sep39 48/178,621
Oct39 33/156,156
Nov39 27/72,721
Dec39 39/101,823
Tot39 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month)
British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year.
US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Aug39 19/2
Sep39 3/0
Oct39 13/3
Nov39 10/1/1
Dec39 5/1/1
Tot39 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)
Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)
1940:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan40 53/163,029
Feb40 50/182,369
Mar40 26/69,826
Apr40 6/30,927
May40 14/61,635
Jun40 66/375,069
Jul40 41/301,975
Aug40 56/288,180
Sep40 60/288,180
Oct40 66/363,267
Nov40 36/181,695
Dec40 46/256,310
Tot40 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month)
US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan40 8/2
Feb40 10/3
Mar40 10/2
Apr40 19/3
May40 8/0/2
Jun40 18/3/1
Jul40 4/0
Aug40 16/2/1
Sep40 12/0
Oct40 13/2
Nov40 14/1
Dec40 6/0
Tot40 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)
Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.
1941:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan41 23/129,711
Feb41 47/254,118
Mar41 41/236,549
Apr41 41/239,719
May41 63/362,268
Jun41 66/325,817
Jul41 26/112,624
Aug41 27/85,603
Sep41 57/212,237
Oct41 28/170,786
Nov41 15/76,056
Dec41 23/93,226
Tot41 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month)
US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan41 10/0
Feb41 18/3/2
Mar41 15/3/3
Apr41 14/2/2
May41 21/0/2
Jun41 22/2/3
Jul41 24/1/9
Aug41 42/5/9
Sep41 38/0/2
Oct41 37/0/6
Nov 41 27/5/5
Dec41 49/4/6
Tot 41 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)
Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.
1942:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan42 56/310,224
Feb42 72/429,255
Mar42 93/507,514
Apr42 81/418,161
May42 129/616,835
Jun42 136/636,926
Jul42 96/467,051
Aug42 117/587,245
Sep42 96/461,794
Oct42 89/583,690
Nov42 126/802,160
Dec42 64/337,618
Tot42 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month)
British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT
US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan42 50/2/5
Feb42 29/3/2
Mar42 32/2
Apr42 37/2/2
May42 23/3
Jun42 39/9/5
Jul42 45/7/3
Aug42 58/10/4
Sep42 52/8/8
Oct42 62/6/10
Nov42 54/8/6
Dec42 59/8/7
Tot42 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)
Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.
1943:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan43 44/307,196
Feb43 67/362,081
Mar43 110/633,731
Apr43 50/287,137
May43 46/237,182
Jun43 17/76,090
Jul43 46/237,777
Aug43 20/92,443
Sep43 16/98,852
Oct43 20/91,295
Nov43 9/30,726
Dec43 8/55,794
Tot43 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month)
US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan43 61/13/11
Feb43 72/8/9
Mar43 59/16/10
Apr43 95/35/18
May43 55/23/9
Jun43 46/23/9
Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types)
Aug43 33/12/6
Sep43 32/11/10
Oct43 62/23/9
Nov43 36/9/4
Dec43 31/10/2
Tot43 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)
Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.
So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevent to the outcome of the war.
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Tot44 125/663,308
Tot45 63/284,476
US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT
US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT
U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42
On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 ‘ducks’ were fully ready to put to sea
Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275
Total number lost 94
Total number retired 10
Total number available 171
U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45
Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531
Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568
British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693
Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.
Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)
The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender. <http://www.onwar.com/ubb/smile.gif>
At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk (see my previous reply).
-
Also, it wasn't any 'american' radar (all three powers had it and even the Germans even had some basic radar jammers on the u-boats), it was air power, that crushed the uboats. Uboats had to surface, and if you can have constant patrols of aircraft, you can sink uboats all day.
Partially correct. To sink the u-boats, you have to detect them. Having constant patrols alone don't help. The key to detection was the new radar using centimeter wavelength. It was a British radar, but it was American scientists who developed the cavity magnetron required to fit the centimeter range radar to aircraft. Previous technology for centimeter radar could not be fit into an aircraft, but the new cavity magnetron was small enough. You need short wavelength to accurately detect u-boats at good range.
With accurate airborne radar the anti-submarine aircraft could hunt and kill enemy submarines also during night time, which had traditionally been safe for u-boats. These radars were also installed to escort ships and they were extremely effective.
This new radar technology became available in significant numbers to allied anti-submarine forces in 1943. Coincidelly the german losses increase dramatically that year. Radar was a very significant factor in it.
Excellent site about the whole u-boat campaign:
http://www.uboat.net/index.html (http://www.uboat.net/index.html)
-
Partially correct. To sink the u-boats, you have to detect them. Having constant patrols alone don't help. The key to detection was the new radar using centimeter wavelength. It was a British radar, but it was American scientists who developed the cavity magnetron required to fit the centimeter range radar to aircraft. Previous technology for centimeter radar could not be fit into an aircraft, but the new cavity magnetron was small enough. You need short wavelength to accurately detect u-boats at good range.
With accurate airborne radar the anti-submarine aircraft could hunt and kill enemy submarines also during night time, which had traditionally been safe for u-boats. These radars were also installed to escort ships and they were extremely effective.
This new radar technology became available in significant numbers to allied anti-submarine forces in 1943. Coincidelly the german losses increase dramatically that year. Radar was a very significant factor in it.
Excellent site about the whole u-boat campaign:
http://www.uboat.net/index.html (http://www.uboat.net/index.html)
while we're on the topic of radar ive allways woundered, how did the germans figure out what radarn was and how o make it? from what ive seen so fr (from history channel and limited reading online) radar was the british secret weapon at the begining of the war. so how did the germans get it?
-
German Scientists had started developing there own early warning systems from as early as 1934
-
while we're on the topic of radar ive allways woundered, how did the germans figure out what radarn was and how o make it? from what ive seen so fr (from history channel and limited reading online) radar was the british secret weapon at the begining of the war. so how did the germans get it?
Not only did they have radar, they had detectors and jammers...
Here are some of the names of U-Boat radar detectors,
FuMB 1 Metox 600A
FuG 350 Naxos I
FuG 350a Naxos Ia
http://www.uboat.net/technical/detectors.htm (http://www.uboat.net/technical/detectors.htm)
and u-boat radar
FuMO-29 GEMA
FuMO-30 GEMA
FuMO-61 Hohentwiel
FuMO-391 Lessing
http://www.uboataces.com/radar.shtml (http://www.uboataces.com/radar.shtml)
-
I don't remember saying Yanks never gave us lease lend and their entry turned the tide of the war :old:
My train of thought through out has been that the Axis powers were lacking in the war and thus lost :old:
If they were good enough they would have won, again economic prowess is brought into the argument to explain their defeat.
Its like saying i have the fastest car in the world but i did not win the race because they had wheels on their car and we did not :banana:
The German Air force was not good enough to defeat the RAF try and conjour up any myth to explain it away.
The best one upto now has been the RAF outnumbered the German Airforce :x
-
My train of thought through out has been that the Axis powers were lacking in the war and thus lost :ol
True, they had four strikes against them...
1) They lacked the industrial output and natural resources that the USA had.
2) They lacked the number of people to take on the England, USA & Russia at the same time.
3) Increasingly throughout the war their crazy maniacal leaders directed the battles instead of leaving it up to the generals.
4) Their racist policies pushed some of their best and brightest out of Germany and to the USA (think Albert Einstein).
The German Air force was not good enough to defeat the RAF try and conjour up any myth to explain it away.
I'm not trying to belittle England's contribution in any way, but the Battle of Britain was won not because of shier might of Britain as your comment seems to suggest, it was because of 3 things
1) Goering stupidly directed the LW to go after cities after almost bringing the RAF to its knees.
2) England's 'chain home' radar which allowed them to direct and concentrate their forces in one area.
3) Enormous amounts of supplies to England from the USA, (esp oil, food and building materials). The RAF could not fly its spitfires, if it didn't receive oil from the USA.
-
Umm Us suffered much more the 116,000 deaths i think it is over 400,000 becuase there are 400 stars at the WWII memorial in Washington and each represents a 1000.
-
True, they had four strikes against them...
1) They lacked the industrial output and natural resources that the USA had.
2) They lacked the number of people to take on the England, USA & Russia at the same time.
3) Increasingly throughout the war their crazy maniacal leaders directed the battles instead of leaving it up to the generals.
4) Their racist policies pushed some of their best and brightest out of Germany and to the USA (think Albert Einstein).
I'm not trying to belittle England's contribution in any way, but the Battle of Britain was won not because of shier might of Britain as your comment seems to suggest, it was because of 3 things
1) Goering stupidly directed the LW to go after cities after almost bringing the RAF to its knees.
2) England's 'chain home' radar which allowed them to direct and concentrate their forces in one area.
3) Enormous amounts of supplies to England from the USA, (esp oil, food and building materials). The RAF could not fly its spitfires, if it didn't receive oil from the USA.
didnt hitler order goering to change targets out of rage from berlin being bombed?
-
Enormous amounts of supplies to England from the USA, (esp oil, food and building materials). The RAF could not fly its spitfires, if it didn't receive oil from the USA.
Officially Lend-Lease didn't begin till after the BOB but even up to and including then English had to pay for supplies and munitions in gold and had to prove they had exhausted their coffers before anything "free" came along. Britain received most of its oil/fuel from British territories, and the Dutch East indies during the BOB.
Tronsky
-
Officially Lend-Lease didn't begin till after the BOB but even up to and including then English had to pay for supplies and munitions in gold and had to prove they had exhausted their coffers before anything "free" came along. Britain received most of its oil/fuel from British territories, and the Dutch East indies during the BOB.
Tronsky
When did the British loose the Dutch East Indies to the Japanese?
-
The Dutch lost the Dutch East Indies in 1942
Tronsky
-
The Dutch lost the Dutch East Indies in 1942
Tronsky
Ah duh... (stupid me for calling them British)