What is the Deal with all this US stuff?

[Nashwan]

But if the U.S. had allowed Britain to fall, the full might of Germany might have overcome the Russians.

I think Britain not falling had a lot more to do with the RAF and it's Commonwealth and Free XXXX allies. Us support for Britain before mid 41 was only token, and in no way made a difference to Britain falling or not. After that, Hitler was a bit busy in Russia, and never had the strength again to even try giving Britain a push.
US supplies and participation made a contribution to winning the war in Europe, they came to late to contribute much to Britain and Russia avoiding defeat.

[Mathman]

Ok, with all the updates that we have had, how many were ENTIRELY US planes?  1?  1.05, the naval addition?  Why does it matter if we add a US plane or vehicle if we are also gettting planes from other countries?  Yes, I agree that we need more planes, particularly Japanese ones.  However, the ranting and whining that seems to come out with every new announcement of a new US plane pisses me off.  Why does it piss me off?  Because it seems that in order to please you guys, it has to be non-US planes only.

Why can't it be planes and equipment from other countries PLUS US planes?

Also, if you feel like you are going to explode into a rage and kill your neighbor because we are getting an F4U-1, think about it this way:  The two fronts that the US fought on were very, very different.  They thus required different planes.  You can almost think of the "blue" planes as being from another country.  And if that doesn't work because there are stars and bars on the wings, then quit, because you will never be satisfied.

Just my 2/5 of a nickel, take it however you like.

-math

[Dowding]

Watjen - let's see now, the UK and Commonwealth countries were fighting on 2 fronts for TWO years before the US got involved in any significant way. Furthermore, every single cent of aid was paid for in full by the British government.

Your comments about the pacific pretty much piss all over the graves of those British and Commonwealth men (and women) who died in Burma, India, Singapore etc.

Take for example Burma. A jungle country, badly supplied, 'forgotten' by the high command due to pressures elsewhere. For nearly 4 years Commonwealth forces fought a viscious fight largely on the enemy's terms with virtually no recognition either at the time or for many years afterward.

I'm sure the survivors would be greatly pleased to have their efforts labelled as 'shreckless'.

As for Hitler taking Britain in 1940 - even with the RAF destroyed it wouldn't have happened. He simply didn't have the resources.

[SageFIN]

Dowding has it nailed. Even though the RAF somehow would have gotten decimated, Sealion would never have succeeded. There just wasn't enough resources for a full scale invasion *across a body of water*.

[streakeagle]

Reread your history... FDR provided a hell of a lot of covert support for Britain before getting official congressional support. Cut off the flow of supplies from the US, and see how long Britain would last alone.

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

If Britain was so great by itself, why did it retreat from Europe, China, and almost Africa? Britain was fighting a delaying action while the American public was being swayed toward being willing to fight another European war it didn't want. If Russia and Germany had waited a little longer before going at it, I am not sure what would have happened. But both FDR and Churchill knew what was needed to win the war: our materials and factories that were beyond the reach of either Germany or Japan. Only Japanese carriers and German subs really presented any threat to our sea power. Count the Japanese carriers built after Pearl Harbor, then count the US carriers built afterwards. Of course it was the British capture of Enigma, the German policy of reporting submarine positions prior to attack, and huge convoys complete with escort carriers that pretty much ended the submarine war in the Atlantic.

If you take away all the convoy support to Russia and Britain (ships, planes, ammunition, etc.), I believe Britain would have collapsed. If Russia had to face Germany alone and Japan at the same time without our supplies, I am sure even their massive resources would have been tapped out.

Even with our full support, it took a long time to overcome the Germans. If the Germans and Japanese had made better decisions, We might not have won at all. It took all of us to win. I will not even listen to any claim that the war was already won or could have been won without the US. Without us, I am certain the outcome would have been vastly different.

I don't ever mention the Italians, because I have never studied their contributions and failures much. I don't want to insult them based on heresay. Though I do know they had trouble defeating Ethiopia when they had armor divisions and Ethiopia barely had rifles and horses. But that is little different than the US in Vietnam or the USSR in Afghanistan, numbers and technology do not win a guerilla war.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

I think most of us are used to movies and stories made by Americans. We play AH because it makes us "revive" those movies/stories and satisfy our passion.
When doing so, we use the material of our heros, mostly American stuff. Off course, some of us still like to play the "bad guy" and fly the opposition, but I guess it's not the majority.
I'm sure that if you go in the street and ask :"what plane would you like to fly", guess what would be the answer if you are not falling on an experten?

Olivier "Frenchy" Raunier
 

[bowser]

Amazing how many guys continually get sucked into some idiot's claim "...the US won the war...".  Happens every time.  If you know what really happened, what do you care what his interpretation of history is?

bowser

[Nashwan]

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

The worst month for the RAF was August, when they lost 594 Spitfires and Hurricanes. New production and repair provided 527 replacement Spits and Hurris in August, so there was a net loss of 67 fighters. RAF reserves at the start of the battle were over 500 Spits and Hurris, so it would take the Luftwaffe around a year to begin cutting front line fighter strength, if they had been able to keep up August's level of fighting. In return, the Luftwaffe lost 300+ Bf109s, and production and repair acounted for only 200 or so replacements, meaning a net loss of 100 fighters for the month. The Luftwaffe began the battle with reserves of less than 100 Bf109s, so August alone more than wiped out their reserves.
Actual numbers of Spits and Hurris, counting reserves, never fell below around 1000 aircraft.
Pilot losses were a concern for the RAF, but even so they trained more pilots than the Luftwaffe during the crucial period, and by the end of August had more fighters and more fighter pilots than the Luftwaffe.
Even before the switch to London, the Luftwaffe was already being defeated.

 

Reread your history... FDR provided a hell of a lot of covert support for Britain before getting official congressional support. Cut off the flow of supplies from the US, and see how long Britain would last alone.

If you define support as selling goods and weapons, at full price, cash only, no credit, all purchases to be paid for in gold or dollars, Britain to provide all shipping, then yes FDR provided a lot of support. Most people would consider selling things to be something other than support. I have never considered myself to be supported by Tesco, for example. (US readers, Tesco is supermarket chain like Wallmart)
If you consider support to be credit, loans of goods or weapons, free delivery etc, then the US provided very little support to Britain before mid 41.

[Staga]

Nashwan is right; Britain had to pay full price of armament it got from States (at least in early years of war) and part of payment was some british owned companies in USA.
And the price was what government of USA was willing to pay; Not the real price of property.

[Staga]

btw resources of russia were/are huge, sooner or later it would have beaten Germany; With or without USA.

Only difference is western europe stayed democratic 'cause of USA.
Better that way IMHO  

[BenDover]

living on a big island has it's advantages
eg.a big arse moat around us

And y do u ppl think that Britain was losing then,we were just starting to get our resorces together.

And america was only going loan weapons to us,the only reason y america joined was cos of the japs attacking pearl harbor,which was a disaster,and 1 that could have been easerly avoided.

and i'm sure u would have had suffered more loses if the RAF hadn't more or less,cleared the skys of LW planes.

[Dead Man Flying]

Interesting.  In the matter of 40 messages, we've gone from America making the largest contribution to defeating the Axis to America having absolutely no real impact.

Methinks the truth is somewhere inbetween.

-- Todd/DMF

[Serapis]

I believe the "US profiteer" label is a bit of an overstatement. In hindsight, we should have realized the dynamics of Nazism earlier, and responded more aggressively, but there were a lot of complexities at work at the time.

The US was a very isolationist country coming out of a depression, and there was no real support for the cause. The U.S. people (like all the other populations throughout the world past and present) were ignorant about the full dynamics of events going on outside their boarders. The govt. saw the need and better understood the dynamics of what was about to take place in Europe and the Pacific. Unfortunately, because of the depression we really didn't have the resources to "give" our own military the type of support it needed. U.S. industry didn't get rolling until 1943 and then it was an avalanche.

The full sickness of the Nazi regime wasn't well understood, and it actually seemed like a good "get tough, no B.S." approach to many conservative elements in both the U.S. and Europe. People have to understand why they have to sacrifice blood and resources for a cause and that takes time -- unless you bomb their fleet. The US people didn't want us involved in another one of those European monarchy-style wars. We had already fought one such pointless war that century -- WWI. Sentiment was shifting though, and after Pearl Harbor there was nothing less than a 100% commitment to the cause.

Russia on its own would likely have eventually worn the Germans down, but with perhaps double the casualties. One thing I've always wondered: Given the Russian involvement in the Invasion of Poland, how did they get off the hook as an aggressor? Does anybody know?

As for the Brits, there's no denying they held the Germans off alone during some of the darkest days of the war. Yet their attitudes before the war and immediately after it started were fairly pacifist. You could argue that a tougher line over the Sudatenland might have prevented WWII in the first place. The role Winston Churchill played in stopping the Nazis, by absolutely denying the possibility of a negotiated settlement, cannot be underestimated.

And, the contribution of the Brits and Commonwealth forces in the Pacific, and their sacrifices in the darkest days of that conflict cannot be underestimated. Still, after 1943 it was an American show and we were perhaps a bit rude about it.

My misc. ramblings,

Charon

P.S. To get back on topic, the US fielded numerous front-line aircraft used by all the allies (even if it didn't use it themselves -- Bring the Baltimore IIIA to AH!) and fielded fron-line equipment for both naval and Air Corps use. There is simply a lot more front line, heavy use equipment to choose from.

[Baddawg]

You guys are funny, everyone knows that a hoser named Oagie Oglethorpe flying a Mosquito FB.Mk VI Series 2 Won the war eh!

[Jack55]

No NATO in 1941, 1939, or 1937, or whenever that damn war started.  I have no idea why the USA could be expected to fight some cursed European or Asian war.  No one really expected a sneak attack, hence the sneak part.  The USA was brought into the war at the point of a gun, and was poorly prepared to fight.
Was Germany invaded in 1939, or Japan in 1937 by the great European fighting armies? No! They fought a defensive war reluctantly and got whooped at first just like the USA.