Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on February 14, 2002, 10:43:15 AM
-
Which person on the allied side made the biggest contribution to victory on the allied side in the WWII?
I am not talking about obvious choices like Churchill, Stalin, Zhukov, nuclear scientists, etc. - any one of those occupied a slot which would have been filled by a person of comparable talents anyway. I am asking about unique, individual contribution that made a major difference that would not have ever happened if that particular person would not have been around.
I have my opinion which I will post later.
==============================================
That was fast,
Bingo!
And the prize goes to Regurge.
Alan Turing was a genius personally responcible for breaking the german Enigma codes.
That is what won the war of Athlantic which contributed greatly to Britain's and Russia's ability to conduct the war by allowing the convoys to get throug german's volfpacks - among other things.
That is what allowed allies to conduct D-Day offencive knowing where germans did not expect it.
That is what allowed success of many major allied operations and disruption of german operations of which we may never know. Allies were carefull to credit the success to other causes (radars, etc.) where they just knew what was coming in advance - just to prevent germans from guessing they had the codes.
Even if victory could happen without his contributions, the lives he saved are counted in tens of millions.
He is also the father of modern computing and contributor to several other sciences.
BTW, he was convicted of "gross indecency" because at that time homosexuality was considered a crime in Great Britain. He was sentenced to massive hormone treatment in lieu of jail term.
In fact as a convicted criminal and known homosexual he had become ineligible for security clearance. He was eventually driven to suicide in 1954 at age of 41.
miko
-
Patton in ETO - Germans definately respected him and moving him around after getting in trouble and the Germans guessing.
Halsey in PTO - One balls to the walls sailor
Doolittle in PTO - Tying down many Japanese fighters in the homeland.
Zhukov in ETO - Sorry but had to mention him
Sorry for sp. mistakes if any rushing to complete post and get back to work ;)
-
Reginald Mitchell certainly made quite a contribution... but single greatest? That's impossible to call...
-
Hitler
Those brainy "not a single step back, defend to the last bullet" -orders, combined with the *brilliant* counterattacks at Kursk, Falaise, The Ardennes, Hungary etc etc sure gave Germany the upper hand in the strategic sceme...not
Combine the above with lots of small flashes of genius...such as "I want bomb racks on that jet fighter", "Halt before you get to the beach at Dunquirk", "Lets declare war on the us just because Japan did" or "We have certainly won the war now, switch production back to preacetime priorities"-in 1940 <-- my favourite...one month in 1940, cant remember which one, there were more pianos produced than the combined number of fighters and bombers...
Id say he is the given winner...
-
Churchill.
-
I concur with it being impossible to call. All mentioned so far had a good deal to do with the outcome.
Hitler would have been my pick though. The war was fought on too many fronts. He should have pressed England OR USSR, not both simultaneously, and definitely not USSR in the winter. ;)
-
It wasn't one person....it was the whole of the British Isles....civilians and military.
Without them holding on the Second World War would have been a very different kettle of fish!!
-
Alan Turing
He designed the computers that rapidly decoded Enigma messages. Pretty huge individual contribution and pretty irreplaceable.
-
The guy who invented the British radar.
-
OK, guys, I did not think you would be citing Hitler, so I specifically did not mention that only allies are subject to the post. I made a correction to that effect.
Narsus - the fact that you named so many is a clear indication that none of them can confidently be named the one. Each one of the people you've mentioned was great, but it would be indication of their and their countries failure if they could not be replaced with a capable subordinate.
There are many more smart people then top positions. Capabilities are not always the guaranteed way to advance, even if they could be clearly defined. Many generals had more capable persons as their subordinate officers which they freely admit.
Churchill was responcible for his country getting in and staying in war despite Hitlers peace offerings (like letting brits at Dunkirk to evacuate), not for personally bringing victory throuh some mighty feat. I read memoirs of a celebrated brit general who had very low opinion of Churchills involvement in military metters.
Curval - that is not a trick question and it deserves real answer.
If you think that a nation wins a war because it is "worthy" of winning a war, that is fine. Many geniuses in history believed that to be true - Chengis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler foremost among them. But that is not an answer to the question I posed.
It is a specific question about an individual that has specific and instructive answer.
I bet that if the previous US administration knew the answer they would likely have conducted a different policy in some matters which could have affected us all greatly.
miko
-
I would still have to say Churchill for providing the initial backbone of the British people after some shocking setbacks. There might have been others who could have filled his spot administratively, but he almost single-handedly changed the attitude of the British people at a very low point (post battle of France) and prevented a settled peace -- which was a definite possibility.
Some writers/historians would say a settled peace was a probability without Churchill saying (in so many stirring ways): This is unacceptable, never will be acceptable, and we will not allow it to come to pass. A settled peace in 1939 or 1940 would have been a disaster of unimaginable proportions for the free world.
Beyonf Churchill, I would have a hard time finding any individual contribution as being overwhelmingly significant -- from the combat engineer with the bazooka that slowed down the Greman thrust at the Buldge, to Enistein pushing for the bomb, to Patton.
[edit: on seeing your above reply, posted while I was posting mine, I assume you're looking for a more "hands on" action on the battlefield or lab, etc.?]
Charon
-
Bingo!
And the prize goes to Regurge.
Alan Turing was a genius personally responcible for breaking the german Enigma codes.
That is what won the war of Athlantic which contributed greatly to Britain's and Russia's ability to conduct the war by allowing the convoys to get throug german's volfpacks - among other things.
That is what allowed allies to conduct D-Day offencive knowing where germans did not expect it.
That is what allowed success of many major allied operations and disruption of german operations of which we may never know. Allies were carefull to credit the success to other causes (radars, etc.) where they just knew what was coming in advance - just to prevent germans from guessing they had the codes.
Even if victory could happen without his contributions, the lives he saved are counted in tens of millions.
He is also the father of modern computing and contributor to several other sciences.
BTW, he was convicted of "gross indecency" because at that time homosexuality was considered a crime in Great Britain. He was sentenced to massive hormone treatment in lieu of jail term.
In fact as a convicted criminal and known homosexual he had become ineligible for security clearance. He was eventually driven to suicide in 1954 at age of 41.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Curval - that is not a trick question and it deserves more then a BS answer.
If you think that a nation wins a war because it is "worthy" of winning a war, that is fine. Many geniuses in history believed that to be true - Chengis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler foremost among them. But that is not an answer to the question I posed.
miko
I do not view my response as a BS answer!
I did not view the British Isles as merely "WORTHY" of victory...
The whole nature of the second world war would have been different had the British Isles been defeated early in the war! The whole county mobilised themselves to fight off Hitler and his cronies while the US sat and watched...although they did supply life saving resourses.
D-day would have been different had Britain fallen, don't you think? It was complicated enough just crossing the channel, let alone an Atlantic crossing!
Supplies would have never reached Russia without having Britain as a base of operations.
etc, etc
I appeciate the fact that you asked for an individual and I didn't give you one...but, that is the ONLY fault you should find in what I said.
I'm interested to see who you found to be that individual..
-
Sorry, Curval.
It's just that I was so sensitized by "the soviet people are the best peope" that any reference to any people being more worthy then other one is likely to trigger a reaction.
I guess I overreacted. I will remove the BS reference.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
OK, guys, I did not think you would be citing Hitler, so I specifically did not mention that only allies are subject to the post. I made a correction to that effect.
Thanks..now my post doesnt look stupid at all. :D
"Who is that guy who thinks Hitler was on the allied side"
ah well :)
-
miko2d,
No sweat man.....
Good thread...good answer on your behalf...
I like a good argument....(just thought for a moment I was in the wrong room and received abuse instead!) hehe
;)
-
Stalin. His willingness to throw away the lives of millions of his countrymen, stopped hitler.
-
I doubt you can find any one person who made the biggest contribution to the war.
however one I would choose:
Major General RN O'Connor, commander of the Western Desert Force.
On December 8th 1940, his plan for a 5 day raid turned into a 62 day offensive. By Feb 1941 his 500 mile advance has shattered 10 Italian divisions with 133,295 made prisoner, 400 tanks and 1200 guns captured for the loss of 500 killed, 1373 missing.
His offensive could've ended the desert war but for a decision Churchill made that could rival any of Hitlers, when he was ordered to send his Armoured Brigade, and 3 Infantry divisions including his best troops: the Australian and New Zealanders to Greece.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
I doubt you can find any one person who made the biggest contribution to the war.
however one I would choose:
Major General RN O'Connor, commander of the Western Desert Force.
On December 8th 1940, his plan for a 5 day raid turned into a 62 day offensive. By Feb 1941 his 500 mile advance has shattered 10 Italian divisions with 133,295 made prisoner, 400 tanks and 1200 guns captured for the loss of 500 killed, 1373 missing.
His offensive could've ended the desert war but for a decision Churchill made that could rival any of Hitlers, when he was ordered to send his Armoured Brigade, and 3 Infantry divisions including his best troops: the Australian and New Zealanders to Greece.
Tronsky
Yea...but he was fighting Italians....who even Hiltler reffered to as "our liabilty to the south".
Question: Why does the Italian navy have a bunch of glass bottom boats in it?
Answer: To show new recruits the old Italian navy!
-
Originally posted by easymo
Stalin. His willingness to throw away the lives of millions of his countrymen, stopped hitler.
If USSR have lost the War - the whole people could be eliminated. It was simple: win or die. Death for every Eastern Slav and other people of the USSR.
BTW, Soviet combat losses are bigger then German, but they are comparable. Most of the 20 million Soviet people who died in a war were civilians...
-
THAT WOMAN (I FORGOT HER NAME) IN ITALY THAT PERSONALLY SERVICED 15,000+ ALLIED SAILORS, AIRMEN AND SOLDIERS.
HER CONTRIBUTION TO VICTORY WAS IMMEASURABLE.
Y
SRRY CAPS, BS BROWSER IS PORKED
-
Georges Clemenceau - without him, no harsh reparations in the treaty of Versailles -> no economic chaos in Weimar -> no rise to power of the Nazi party -> No invasion of Czechoslovakia & Poland (States created by the treaty of Versailles)-> No WWII -> No allied victory.
Bit of a sneaky answer though, I fear. :D
-
I think the group of people that invented RADAR take priority over the one that cracked enigma.
Remember, the Allies captured enigma machines and codes (like the one in the U-boat) just a few months after enigma was cracked. True, it was a huge accomplishment to crack the code, but it wouldnt have been a biggest contribution in the END because the enigma codes were captured too.
Another prize goes to MI 6 & british intelligence. Their misinformation campaign throughfuly confused the germans and tied down entire divisions.
But overall the biggest contribution would be, imo, to those that fought in Leningrad/Stalingrad . THAT was the point that turned the entire war around. If the germans hadnt been retreating/losing badly in the russian front, D-Day probably wouldve never happened.
In the PTO: The CoastWatchers. Those men and women were absolutely vital to the war effort in the intel gathering area.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If USSR have lost the War - the whole people could be eliminated. It was simple: win or die. Death for every Eastern Slav and other people of the USSR.
BTW, Soviet combat losses are bigger then German, but they are comparable. Most of the 20 million Soviet people who died in a war were civilians...
Actually the Soviets made excellent slave labour for the Germans..so I don't think they would have killed everyone.
Also, the Germans were very willing to have Russian deserters actually fight for them too. Known as Hiwis they fought alongside the Germans right up to the end. The exact number will never be known though....mainly because old Joe didn't want his citizens to know about it and when captured they were given their last ration by the NKVD. 9mm of lead!
-
"His offensive could've ended the desert war but for a decision Churchill made that could rival any of Hitlers, when he was ordered to send his Armoured Brigade, and 3 Infantry divisions including his best troops: the Australian and New Zealanders to Greece"
I believe that was a decision taken out of honor. Britain had pledged military support to greece.. if they had not given it, the Greeks may have resented it so badly they MAY have even joined the axis.
Bad military decision..but a right decision imo.
-
Originally posted by Tac
I believe that was a decision taken out of honor. Britain had pledged military support to greece.. if they had not given it, the Greeks may have resented it so badly they MAY have even joined the axis.
Bad military decision..but a right decision imo.
Britains obligation to Greece was made in 1939 by Chamberlain to discourage German agression. By 1941 had Britain a far different situation that it was when such a deal was struck.
Churchill firmly believed that a British force in Greece would bring Turkey, and Yugoslavia into the war. The fact that Turkey had neither the will or resources to fight was completely overlooked by Churchill. As was the overwhelmingly superior German forces massing on the eastern Greek border.
That the Italians had already attacked the Greeks leaves no doubt that the Greeks would not have joined the Axis whether the British commited troops or not.
Wavell stripped the Desert Forces for the Greek campaign, and wasted valuable troops in the process in the retreats from Greece to Crete. O'Connor could have captured Tripoli ,pushed the remaining Italian troops out of Libya and virtually ended the North African campaign.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by easymo
Stalin. His willingness to throw away the lives of millions of his countrymen, stopped hitler.
He was instrumental in causing WWII but in winning it? Any one of his underlings or even his vanquished opponents - Trotsky, Bukharin, etc. would have thrown away as many lives as he did, likely more.
Tac: I think the group of people that invented RADAR take priority over the one that cracked enigma.
How about the internal combustion engine? Or an airplane? The radar was invented in many countries at approximately the same time and there is no unique individual responcible for that.
A lot of success attributed to the radar was in fact the result of brits knowing the contents of all luftwaffe communnications starting 1939.
In fact you would be hard pressed to find another nation so inept in using the radar. They could not develop their own radar-fuse and had to use american design for anti-aircraft shells.
But they equipped their bombers with rear-facing "Monica" radar. It was guaranteed to always show the danger because british planes were sent in a stream a few miles one after another and the radar did not differentiate between enemy and friendly targets.
Hundreds of german Me-110 nightfighters (Shrage Musik variant) were equipped with radar that specifically homed on Monica emissions from 50+ miles away which allowed them to find and destroy hundreds of british bombers with impunity. No damaged planes survived to tell the tale until a german landed his fighter in England by accident.
Anyway, radar or no radar, Germany did not have startegic bombers to seriously attack England - they had to use fighter-bombers and tactical bombers. Even if it did have stategical bomber force and long-range escort fighters, it would not have been instrumental in the war.
Allies had strategic bombers and used them a lot with complete air superiority and still failed to break germany's will to resist or destroy germany's industry. Luftwaffe run our of pilots before it run out of planes - despite aircraft factories being the prime targets. Same with oil - germans lost Rumanian oil when russians captured it, not when it was bombed.
I do not have any reason to believe that brits were less determined then germans. Politicians could present teh air war as death and life struggle but it was far from it. Getting food/materiel into the islands (and to the russians) was much more important to winning the war.
mainly because old Joe didn't want his citizens to know about it and when captured they were given their last ration by the NKVD. 9mm of lead!
Not really. For various political reasons (apparently becasue of allies who actually accepted their surrender), most were sentenced to 5 years in the camps. The ordinary soviet POWs liberated from german concentration camps got 10-15 years for treason. When many of the real traitors served their terms, they did not have anywhere to go, especially to their home towns, so they stayed in Siberia. Some hired to serve as guards in the same camps - guarding the soldiers that did not turn traitors who had more time to serve!
His offensive could've ended the desert war
Hitler eventually lost the desert war anyway. If he lost it earlier it could have been very beneficial for him - as a weaker side with limited resources it was not in germany's interests to spread their efforts in multiple theaters of operations. The forces and resources lost in prolonged struggle in Africa could have been much better used on European continent.
miko
-
Targutt...you said the guy who invented the british radar? Well, that was Hitler. When Germany aided Spain, and showed it was very powerful, that scared the Birtish soooo much, that they invented radar.
A quick history lesson :)
-
Radar, like jets, were developed at roughly the same time yes, but which side put each to best use?
When I think brit radar in WW2 I think all those nifty towers that told RAF fighters the formations, numbers and altitude.. something vital in organizing interceptions. That some blockhead engineer put a screwy radar in a bomber.. pfe, so what? Screwing up is a universal constant hehe.
-
Henry Ford
-
well who had the most impact on WW2..hmmm very good question. Many answers could be considered true.
From an airpower perspective, I would like to nominate a few people.
1. Billy Mitchell. Besides his court martial, he is best remembered for sinking the "unsinkable" German battleship Ostfriesland in 1921. This tuned in alot of support for a seperate Air Force, and a budget that included much moire money for military aviaition.
2. Colonel Giulio Douhet (Italy). Italy's strongest supporter for a strong aviation arm in Italy prior to WW2.
3. Maj Gen Hugh Trenchard (GB). One of pre-WW2 mil aviations stroingest supporters in Great Britian.
-
Boroda, was there any particular person for the Soviets who was the strongest advocate of close support aviation? The use of "flying artillery" by the Soviets (as well as Luftwaffe, USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF, etc) was a really big factor.
-
Churchill. Definatly.
Even if you tone down history to account for how much of it he himself wrote..
Of all the things that the allies needed to defeat the Germans in WW2 the only thing they lacked was the willingness to attempt it.
Churchill supplied that.
A long horrrible war of attrition on every front and in every mode of war. Land Sea and Air. If not for enigma and the Allied supperiority in Radar maybe the allies would have had to learn to fight better to win. But win they would have if they were willing to fight. They had on both fronts the luxury of being out fought by the Germans and still winning through straight attrition.
Discounting the courage to stand up to his own country and dare them to fight and his actions to prepare Britain even befor he took power is hard to do.
Could someone else have invented enigma..I dont know. But no other leader could have saved Britian.
-
In fact you would be hard pressed to find another nation so inept in using the radar. They could not develop their own radar-fuse and had to use american design for anti-aircraft shells.
No, the radar proximity fuse was a British design, manufactured in the US.
Name a country that used radar as well as Britain.
Germany had radar at roughly the same time. They didn't integrate it into a network like the British did. The Chain Home and Chain Home Low networks were far ahead of their time, and proved their worth in the BoB.
Britain also developed airborne radar, for detecting enemy aircraft, surface search radar, even airborne early warning.
Britain flew the first working airborne radars in 1938, and had squadrons in service in 39. Germany flew their first airborne radar in 41.
Britain also developed the first ground mapping radar, H2S.
But they equipped their bombers with rear-facing "Monica" radar. It was guaranteed to always show the danger because british planes were sent in a stream a few miles one after another and the radar did not differentiate between enemy and friendly targets.
Hundreds of german Me-110 nightfighters (Shrage Musik variant) were equipped with radar that specifically homed on Monica emissions from 50+ miles away which allowed them to find and destroy hundreds of british bombers with impunity. No damaged planes survived to tell the tale until a german landed his fighter in England by accident.
Yes, but Britain also developed Serrate, which homed on German nightfighter radar, and Perfectos, a system which tripped German IFF.
But they equipped their bombers with rear-facing "Monica" radar. It was guaranteed to always show the danger because british planes were sent in a stream a few miles one after another and the radar did not differentiate between enemy and friendly targets.
Hundreds of german Me-110 nightfighters (Shrage Musik variant) were equipped with radar that specifically homed on Monica emissions from 50+ miles away which allowed them to find and destroy hundreds of british bombers with impunity. No damaged planes survived to tell the tale until a german landed his fighter in England by accident.
Tac
Enigma was not a code you could "break" and then read at will.
The codes changed constantly, and each individual message had to be broken.
The capture of code books gave an insight into what settings were being used, no more. It still required a huge effort to crack individual messages.
His offensive could've ended the desert war but for a decision Churchill made that could rival any of Hitlers, when he was ordered to send his Armoured Brigade, and 3 Infantry divisions including his best troops: the Australian and New Zealanders to Greece.
Tronsky
Britain has traditionally fought against European powers on the periphery, for example Napoleon in Egypt, then Spain, before finally engaging on the European mainland.
That was the case in WW2 as well, first in North Africa, then Italy, before finally France.
Seen in that light, drawing out the war in NA, and enabling Britain to continue fighting a small part of the German army, was a good decision. It allowed Britain to use it's traditional strength, the RN, to inderdict Geman supplies.
The North African campaign was ultimately costly to Germany. Several panzer division, a large proportion of the Italian army, a large percentage of the Luftwaffe, and the same level of supplies as a much larger army on the Eastern Front were tied down for a couple of years. Eventually Germany lost several hundred thousand troops in NA.
-
The first mass producable radar proximity fuse (the VT fuse) was developed at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory. Other countries were working on them at the same time but the APL's design for the Navy was the first one to reach production and combat use in 1942. They were quite effective, and APL designed versions that were used by UK armed forces as well. I don't think the UK produced their own VT fuses until after WWII.
-
Proximity Fuse Development (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm#anchor1191195)
"Although inventors had suggested almost every possible type of proximity fuze, in both prewar and war years, they failed to indicate how the formidable development and engineering difficulties could be satisfactorily overcome. Such fuzes to be useful for artillery purposes would have to be capable of withstanding the shock of acceleration when shot from a gun, in addition to undergoing a high rate of rotation in flight. Many patents on proximity devices were issued in various countries, but these also failed to indicate how the invention would be manufactured.
British scientists were working on proximity fuze devices for rockets and bombs at least as early as 1939. Captured documents indicate that German work on proximity fuze development had begun in the early 1930's, and was still in process when hostilities ended in the European Theatre.
In brief, there is nothing unique about the "idea" of a proximity fuze. The possibility that proximity fuzes of various types might be feasible has been recognized for a long time. The American achievement, accomplished by no other country, was the actual development of a proximity fuze that would function and that could be manufactured by mass-production techniques."
Let the arguments begin. ;)
-
There's no arguing to be done. The Brits went to APL for their fuse designs. They couldn't make their own designs producable or field-usable for AA and artillery shells. This is common knowledge.
-
You beat me Funked. I was documenting/typing that one while you just went and posted.
;)
-
U.S. President F.D.R.
His bending and twisting of US Neutrality Laws and bypassing the Congress on many items to get supplies and fighting equipment to beseiged England helped them hold on. He did everything short of declaring outright war against the Axis before Dec. 7. No getting around it. While England may have dug in for the long fight it is VERY POSSIBLE they may have lost the Battle of Britian or at least had to accept a German dictated peace arrangement without US help.
Other than sending war and economic supplies (ON CREDIT). F.D.R rangled the following:
Tradeing 50 US Destroyers for leases on English Bases. (Both the Navy and Congress were against this).
Taking over the guarding of Greenland & Iceland and establishing the air & sea patrols in this area.
Ordering the USN to protect convoys out to the halfway mark on the route to England. (Even though we were not at war).
Declaring N & S America Offlimits to the Axis under the Monroe Doctrine.
Before Pearl Harbor the US was very Isolationist and did not believe we should get involved with a "European" war. F.D.R. pushed alot of the above on his own. The men, A/C, ships and supplies this saved Britian untold resources it could better use in defense at home.
Churchill would have to be a tie for first or a very close second. He was the driving force behind WW2 England and a symbol of their determination to fight to the end or till Victory.
-
Hogg's "British and American Artillery of WW2" tells the rest of the story. The British research led to the conclusion that the idea was workable provided that the necessary components could be made (tiny valves, minute condensers and resistors, and above all a powerful but small battery which could sit in an ammunition store for years and yet develop full power a second or two after firing). In 1940 it was impossible for British industry to produce such items because of the demand for radar and radio sets, so when the Tizard Mission went to America in August 1940 to enlist scientific aid, one of the projects they took with them was the proximity fuze, "the theoretical work on which was virtually complete".
The USN was interested in the idea and took over the responsibility for development. Section "V" of the Bureau of Ordnance was in charge of the programme and they allocated it the code-letter "T", which led to it being called the VT fuze.
Tony Williams
-
While England may have dug in for the long fight it is VERY POSSIBLE they may have lost the Battle of Britian or at least had to accept a German dictated peace arrangement without US help.
What US help did Britain have before. during or immediately after the BoB that was so crucial?
Lend-Lease supplies wouldn't start arriving for another year, and I hardly think the handfull of US volunteers for the RAF was crucial, do you?
-
Originally posted by JoeCrip
Targutt...you said the guy who invented the british radar? Well, that was Hitler. When Germany aided Spain, and showed it was very powerful, that scared the Birtish soooo much, that they invented radar.
A quick history lesson :)
Uh huh.
Actually IIRC it was Robert Watson-Watt. And the British high command originally wanted some kind of radio beam ray gun weapon. It was this request that lead him to the idea for what we call radar in 1934 or 1935.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Boroda, was there any particular person for the Soviets who was the strongest advocate of close support aviation? The use of "flying artillery" by the Soviets (as well as Luftwaffe, USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF, etc) was a really big factor.
Hmmm... I never thought who made a "technical task" for TsKB-55. The only thing I can say now is that i was Stalin who insisted on mass producion of shturmoviks.
"Shurmovik" is not a nickname for IL-2, but a name for a whole class of aircraft. In modern days shurmoviks are A-10 and Su-25.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Uh huh.
Actually IIRC it was Robert Watson-Watt. And the British high command originally wanted some kind of radio beam ray gun weapon. It was this request that lead him to the idea for what we call radar in 1934 or 1935.
Why am I thinking that Marconi is in there somewhere?
-
might as well chime in here, I think whoever was responsible for cracking the Japanese codes, without which victory at Midway in 1942 would probably have been impossible.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Boroda, was there any particular person for the Soviets who was the strongest advocate of close support aviation? The use of "flying artillery" by the Soviets (as well as Luftwaffe, USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF, etc) was a really big factor.
There definitely was. Soviet strategic plans involved invasion and occupation of Europe under pretext of rescue from Hitler. Destruction of economy/infrastructure and population centers was not usefull in any way.
This is why soviets never created a strategic bombing forces despite having heavy bomber designs superir to anything used in WWII.
miko
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
might as well chime in here, I think whoever was responsible for cracking the Japanese codes, without which victory at Midway in 1942 would probably have been impossible.
With americans building over a dozen aircraft carriers for every one japanese, they could have lost Midway and still would have victory assured.
Name a country that used radar as well as Britain.
Germany had radar at roughly the same time. They didn't integrate it into a network like the British did.
I say again, what use is the radar for detection of LW raids if british intelligence knew everything that LW knew before the raids were launched - targets, times, etc?
What would you expect to see in the newspapers of the 1939? That brits had german codes cracked?
What did you expect to see in the history books? That the radar was just a cover-up for exploits of a convicted homosexyual genius?
Radar was usefull. It helped germans defend against allied bombers. Somewhat.
miko
-
"I say again, what use is the radar for detection of LW raids if british intelligence knew everything that LW knew before the raids were launched - targets, times, etc"
not exactly true. Whats the use of knowing the PLANNED target, takeoff times and planes involved if the great majority of the time they were off-schedule, changed in the last minute or affected by weather and human navigation errors? The 8th AF bomber missions rarely happened "as planned" (read: takeoff time, rendezvous points, rendezvous time,etc). LW missions were sure to be the same way.
-
I say again, what use is the radar for detection of LW raids if british intelligence knew everything that LW knew before the raids were launched - targets, times, etc?
Ultra (codename for Enigma intercepts) was very rarely that good.
Coventry is often cited as an example, with the allegation Ultra revealed exact details of the plan, and Coventry was sacrificed to preserve the Ultra secret.
In fact, Coventry was identified along with two other cities in the Midlands, and 4 locations in the South East. All were given code names, and all identified as targets several days in advance.
The consensus of opinion on the day of the raid, however, is that London was to be the target. Coventry wasn't identified as the target until radar identified the bombers course.
If you take the BoB as an example, Ultra provided only one really valuable bit of information. In late September a message was intercepted ordering the dismantling of certain loading gear at German airfields, which meant the Germans were no longer intending to use paratroops in a major operation soon, which obviously meant the invasion was off.
However, no accurate targeting information was provided by Ultra, not even the German change in tactics to attack London.
-
Miko you did read Cryptonomicon right?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
There definitely was. Soviet strategic plans involved invasion and occupation of Europe under pretext of rescue from Hitler. Destruction of economy/infrastructure and population centers was not usefull in any way.
This is why soviets never created a strategic bombing forces despite having heavy bomber designs superir to anything used in WWII.
miko
Miko, stop reading Suvorov's roadkill.
People at http://www.vif2.ru found out that the only page in his books where he doesn't lie is contents.
Finaly we have some books here proving that he is a liar, but I doubt that they'll be ever translated.
-
Name a country that used radar as well as Britain.
USSR.
Soviet Navy was equuiped with modern radars since 1939. Radars prevented nazis from completely destroying Soviet ships in Sevastopol on June, 22nd. Navy was ready for an attack before any other Soviet troops, and People's Commissar Kuznetsov was the first official warned about the attack.
-
What US help did Britain have before. during or immediately after the BoB that was so crucial?
Lend-Lease supplies wouldn't start arriving for another year, and I hardly think the handfull of US volunteers for the RAF was crucial, do you?
One big thing the US gave the RAF was stocks of 100 Octane fuel, instead of the RAF's adopted 87 Octane (March - July 1940).
"All benefited from the replacement of 87 octane petrol with 100 octane, which increased the Spitfire's speed by 25 mph (40 km/h) at sea level and by 34 mph (55 km/h) at 10,000 feet."
http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/spitfire/survival.htm (http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/spitfire/survival.htm)
-
"What US help did Britain have before. during or immediately after the BoB that was so crucial?"
When was the Hamilton prop fitted to the BoB Spits, Nash? They started out with a two bladed wooden job, didn't they?
I remember seeing some jovial old ex-RAF type being interviewed on Discovery, and the reply to the inevitable "what did the USA ever do for us?" question from the pimply young interviewer was something along the lines of "proprs, gas, ammo supplies and production facilities.....
-
When was the Hamilton prop fitted to the BoB Spits, Nash? They started out with a two bladed wooden job, didn't they?
It wasn't.
The first Spits were equipped with 2 blade fixed props, then iirc, 3 blade two speed props, then for the BoB they fitted de Havilland CS props.
I don't think Hamilton props were used on any production Spits, just de Havilland and Rotol, another UK company.
-
One big thing the US gave the RAF was stocks of 100 Octane fuel, instead of the RAF's adopted 87 Octane (March - July 1940).
Not given, sold. The US certainly sold a lot of fuel to the UK.
Britain signed contracts for the purchase of 100 octane fuel in 1937.
The contracts were:
17,000 tons per year from Trinidad (BP?)
32,000 tons per year from Curacao (Shell)
25,000 tons per year from New Jersey (Standard Oil)
There were also two plants in the UK designed to produce 100 octane, although one of them had production difficulties.
A plant was also set up at Abadan in the Persian Gulf, and facilities in Curacao expanded (Curacao alone was producing 100,000 tons of the stuff per yer by 1942)
-
Ooops ... yup - bit badly written (didn't mean to imply the US gave the UK the fuel free of charge, just meant they released ["gave"] the UK the technology).
However, with a little research on the web I note the US also sold the technology of making 100 Octane to Germany (through Standard Oil - I believed Shell sold them some too) & Japan (through Universal Oil), so that kinda narrows down the margin of that contribution.
:D