Special Units

[stormbind]

Ofcourse! I said before that I had ramped up a pro-Britain bias just for this discussion - Someone has to do it

Level of reliability and early US deliveries:

The American P-51 Mustang. You know it? American's like it... Anyway, it was developed to an RAF requirement. A few hundred were delivered and the RAF said "Please, no more.... send this junk back!"

The problem was not the airframe. American piston engines were absolute rubbish... under powered and unreliable. After that, the Rolls Royce Merlin was manufactured in the USA under licence and all future Mustangs "American Spitfire" had the improved British engine

This helped the USA more than the UK because the USA kept all these Merlin engines for themselves and the war in the Pacific.

In Europe, Spitfire and Hurricanes (which obviously had good engines) had another significant advantage over all other planes because they were built of wood and other easy to repair materials. They would be shot down, repaired by (often by the pilot) and rejoin the fight within hours. -- This is very high reliability!

22,000+ Spitfire and 15,000+ Hurricanes were manufactured - and Great Britain exported these to Russia and the USA!

That's incredibly high production considering the small size of the UK. I have no idea how many engines Rolls Royce built but it must be a huge number because many planes had more than one engine

Great Britain is always greater, no matter how you look at it

*Me has time to do a little dance before getting flamed.

Actually, I must say... this is a good community without a lot of abuse. I am not trying to change that

 

[Stapel]

Ok, now tell us something about the Sherman tank.

Or about the succes% of destroying German production capacity (UK vs US).

 

[stormbind]

Overall, the Russian and German tanks were better than American ones. The Sherman's strengths have been grossly exagerated by Hollywood.

The Sherman tank was the best tank in the allied forces circa 1943 and it was American. Compared to German tanks, the Sherman was more like armoured infantry - I believe it had a much smaller cannon and less armour - it was so poor that even the US Army complained.

However, Great Britain had secured air supremacy so the contribution of tanks may have boosted moral more than fighting capability.

In the D-Day landings, the Germans put all their best regiments (including tanks) where they thought the allies would land... but the allies were playing them... once the regiments were in place, the RAF bombed the roads and rail network - trapping the Germans in.

See how much more useful air supremacy is!

Had the war continued, Great Britain would have deployed Centurian tanks which make Shermans look like a big girls blouse. The British had already been building much better tanks but they had a severe lack of materials which restricted them to building relatively poor reinforcements. This is an issue of materials, not the engineer's ability to design good tanks.

However, yeah... Shermans were the biggest contribution the USA made to the allied efforts in Europe. I cannot dispute that, but whether or not they were a decisive weapon is entirely a matter of opinion.

In Cockney slang, Sherman means to masterbate and comes from Sherman Tank; sounds like wank.

Obviously the destruction of German production capability increased as the war came to an end, and would have been the same regardless of who marches into their towns. The USA had more infantry so may have (I don't know) captured more German manufacturing plants -- but if you want to use statistics and %, the US had a much higher mortality rate than the UK who generally played things safe.

The US Army exported the German flying wing/stealth fighters and later claimed it was the result of their own work. They also exported German rocket planes, and then claimed they were American jets!

Great Britain acquired some rockets and Russia took some jets from the Germans, but the agreement was that the USA could keep anything they found - so they were very keen to find things!

 

[taper]

As an American, and with my big American ego, let me point out that in every war in which America and England were on opposite sides, America won.

And let me also point out that without American involvement, it is extremely likely that England would have fallen to the Germans in WWII.

And that while there might be certain pieces of equipment that are slightly better than ours, overall we still have the most powerful and capable military in the world.

PS. Most of the English equipment that has been talked about that is 'better' than American, was developed with the help of American corporations or government.

 

[stormbind]

I don't know of a Russian-American cooperation, except that Yak-3 were used to escort American bombers. Why American fighters could not do this was not disclosed.

----

This is where it gets dangerous, American versus British ego

Seriously though, I would not like to argue over the specifics of the American versus British wars because the history taught in America is... not the same as the history taught in Europe... and nobody likes to be re-educated.

I presume you are referring to the Revolutionary War and war of 1812. I have done a little (still incomplete) research into both.

Problem with the Revolutionary War was that Britain had a much bigger problem, much closer to home, and his name was Napoleon. I am still looking into the details of the conflict, the American records are a little biased, but I will post no details at this time.

Ok, I know I sound obviously biased when I post pro-British wastimowidgets, but I am more serious and do keep an open mind investigating history

1812 was very different. I'm not sure what the contents of the treaty is, but the actual battle reports (wins and losses) actually make America look very dishonourable and can be a cause of bitter hatred - so perhaps a bad idea to look into this in detail.

The early US navy consisted of a lot of Scottish pirates (England and Scotland have always been rivals). Overall, the Americans fled from combat with ships of equal class, and hunted smaller ships. Historians have defended this by stating it is "Inteligence" and that "Honour" has no place in war.

The Royal Navy still had a strong sense of Honour and Protocol in 1812 - This is very easy to have when you are the worlds super power. America did not share their views on fair combat - Which is easy for anyone to justify when they feel victimised.

Just remember that in Japanese history, Japan won WW2. Clearly, history is not always written by the victors and at least one side has to be wrong - perhaps multiple sides are guilty of exageration... and perhaps this includes Britain and America.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by taper

And let me also point out that without American involvement, it is extremely likely that England would have fallen to the Germans in WWII.

Without British involvement, you would be speaking Japanese. - An eye for an eye

See, British technology seriously strengthened America's arm in the Pacific. There's no way any American historian can deny the value of British war planes and British engines for US war planes.

Footage showing british carriers operating in the Pacific actually shows Kamakazi bouncing off the deck without causing damage. The British ships were very tough.

As I said before. Germany had lost air superiority to the RAF, without any external intervention. Germany had no means of invading England. It's hard to see how either side was going to win. The UK came close to surrender on more than occation at the start of the war, but those specific threats were neutralised by the British or Germans (they shot themselves in the foot a few times).

Britain did suffer a lot of naval losses but managed to turn that around aswell. They had forced the bulk of the German navy into harbour and were hunting U-boats. The battle at sea was bloody but eventually won by the Royal Navy.

Escorts across the Atlantic were handled by the Royal Navy, and escorts across the Pacific were handled by the US Navy. The British would often watch the ships they escorted be sunk by U-boats shortly after passing control to the Americans!

By this time, the British were pretty good at sinking U-Boats and the Americans were clueless.

America had money and tons of metal. British had good tactics and some seriously good designs. Together they could win the war. Seperately, it may have gone the other way. Perhaps.

 

[Tweedledum]

On the subject of Sherman tanks (during WW2):

Several allied commanders (notably Montgomery) regarded them as "utterly useless".

The Germans nicknamed them "Tommycookers" (for fairly obvious reasons...), and the allied troops referred to them as "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter ("lights first time"...!)

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by stormbind
Any complaints with this?

The Whittle engine was invented in 1930 (UK)

The Von Ohain engine was invented in 1936 (DE)

First working model of a Whittle W.1 was in 1937 (UK)

The Heinkel He-178 flew in 1939 (DE)

The Gloster E.28 flew in 1941 (UK)

Can you read????

Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941.

man, getting a patent granted takes diferent time in different years, also some patent offices requitre to machine to work, others patent the idea!


Quite obviously, the German engine flew first



next thing: I remember you writing up above that

'stealth doesn't work against modern radar'

Where did you get that piece of idiotic misinformation?

Stealth works very well agaist modern radar, so much so in fact that the Soviet Union didn'r even try to amke its borders stealth-safe.

maybbe you don't understand what stealth is about. Stealth means making a plane so hard to see on radar that it can slip through enemy air defences unnoticed.

FACT 1: If you have an air defene network that will pick up an approachin plane at a distance of say 120 miles with 1 radar station, it will be hard pressed to detect an F-117 at all.

FACT 2: Chances of detection of stealth aircraft grow significantly if the broadcasting station is in a different place than the receiving one.

FACT 3: radar energy reflected towards the radar is minimal even if the target presents a large aspect as for example a B-52. Stealth aircraft reflect hardly any energy even towards stations that are at a favorable angle

FACT 4: Nno country in the world can afford to plaster its borders with enough radar stations to prevent stealth aircraft from slipping through in areas where signal between stations get weak, even if the station have a nice tight overlap.


THAT is stealth. And it works very well, thank you.

Go ask the Iraqi air defence people if they ever picked up the F-117. They DID pick up Tornados


flying UNDER radar coverage is strenuous, dangerous (groundfire!!!) and doesn't work well. That is why the Tornados took heavy hits in Desert Storm and the F-117 didn't.

I admit that the Tornado is the very best aircraft for its job - but go and try dropping a nuke on moscow with it unexpectedly......

The F-117 can do that


next:

That article does not say Germany invented the first jet. It says the opposite! It says Germany invented the second jet in 1936! England had it in 1930.

have you read it?

Only twenty-two years old when he first conceived the idea of a continuous cycle combustion engine in 1933, Hans Von Ohain patented a jet propulsion engine design similar in concept to that of Sir Frank Whittle but different in internal arrangement in 1934.

well, it seems Whittle thought of it first, as a concept, but no more....

as for the Me262: it was the bane of British aircraft if it managed to stay in one piece until it reached them. The engines only sustained around 30 hours before blowing up. THAT was the problem....

Germany had lost air superiority to the RAF, without any external intervention.

what BS! ever heard of Germany being in a war with Russia? that front swallowed too much material..... If not for Russia and the US - well, you'd have grown up saluting with your rith arm streched towards the sun. Better be carefull lauding GB too much; there were many others who fought hard fights!

Britain did suffer a lot of naval losses but managed to turn that around aswell. They had forced the bulk of the German navy into harbour and were hunting U-boats. The battle at sea was bloody but eventually won by the Royal Navy.

oh really? ask the US Navy about that, and, while you are at it, remember the RAF was uselessly bombing homes in germany while the USArmy Airforce bombed U-Boot factories and harbours.....

America had money and tons of metal. British had good tactics and some seriously good designs. Together they could win the war. Seperately, it may have gone the other way. Perhaps.

If the US had made strategic decisions as ineptly as the Brits, well see above about how you would have grown up.....


btw, how old are you if i may ask?

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by taper
Most of the English equipment that has been talked about that is 'better' than American, was developed with the help of American corporations or government.

Which equipment was this? It was not the Spitfire, Hurricane, Merlin Engine or Whittle Engines.

Perhaps you know something more about the Centurion tank? I admit to knowing very little about it, but the British are acredited with it's design and manufacture.

The P-51 Mustang was developed with the help of British corporations or government, so you cannot have meant that one.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
man, getting a patent granted takes diferent time in different years, also some patent offices requitre to machine to work, others patent the idea!

Quite obviously, the German engine flew first

Wake up. The patent expired before Germany invented it! Yes, it did fly first in Germany (1939) ... how many times do I have to repeat this? It was first built in England (1937)

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Stealth works very well agaist modern radar, so much so in fact that the Soviet Union didn'r even try to amke its borders stealth-safe.

I am glad you agree that Stealth is not a sure thing and can be detected.

The power of radar systems is always improving. Stealth works better against old radars than new ones. It does not work against cutting edge western radars.

An article showing F-117 can be and have been shot down... http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/BD20Ag02.html

At least one F-117 was shot down over Iraq. Footage was shown shortly on CNN until it was censored.

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
well, it seems Whittle thought of it first, as a concept, but no more....

He was first to build one too in 1937. This was a fully working engine used to demonstrate his idea to the RAF and Gloster company.

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
... as for the Me262 ... The engines only sustained around 30 hours before blowing up. THAT was the problem....

Perhaps this is why the final Meteor flew so much slower than the first prototype? Perhaps GB was playing it safe... again.

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
... ever heard of Germany being in a war with Russia?

Actually, I do believe I made several mentions of the Russians and how well they did with limited resources.

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
... the RAF was uselessly bombing homes in germany.

After the the RAF had bombed Berlin there was nothing left. It was reprisal for the attacks on London. This is very well documented and I am surprised you bother to bring it up

The RAF also hit many strategic locations.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

After the the RAF had bombed Berlin there was nothing left. It was reprisal for the attacks on London. This is very well documented and I am surprised you bother to bring it up

read up on history! this is simply false, bomber Harris wanted 'terror-bombing' (that is a quote) right from the start....

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Asia Times - what a source....


and the F-117 shot down was spotten optically.....

 

[stormbind]

I knew you would say that! I also knew you would disregard other parts so I have quoted it for you.

In 1998 (5 years ago), the CIA uncovered a plot by Iraqi agents to secretly purchase Tamara - a special electronic warfare system made in the Czech Republic that can track radar-evading stealth planes like the F-117 and B-2 and may have been involved in the F-117 stealth shoot-down over Serbia.

It should also be noted that the details of current military equipment are ussually classified, so this debate won't be fully understood until stealth becomes obsolete.

 

[taper]

Originally posted by stormbind


Without British involvement, you would be speaking Japanese. - An eye for an eye

I doubt many people could believe that the Japanese could have conquered America. The US is many times larger in landmass than Japan, and is also larger than Europe. It took Germany several years to control mainland Europe, and that was with several countries staying neutral, some as allies, and some giving up almost immediately. Also, no ocean crossing.

Pearl Harbor was attacked because Japan thought they could take an unimportant island and the US would be afraid enough of their military that we would let it go rather than go to war.

US military analysists estimated that the American invasion of Japan would have cost 1 million of our soldiers. And in the Pacific, we were killing Japanese soldiers at the rate of about 8-1. Meaning around 8 million Japanese would have died in the invasion. That's why we used the bomb, which ended the war. Even if England had fallen, we still would have developed the bomb, as the Manhatten project had many German defectors (who would have given Germany atomic weapons, if they had stayed) and American physicists.

So, in conclusion, an invasion by either side to either side would have been very costly, but they simply didn't have the resources to take and control America.

 

[stormbind]

The senior Japanese admiral was against attacking pearl harbour. It was his estimation that if they failed to capture the island, the USA would be able to capture the southern areas of their empire and move north. He also estimated that if they succeeded, they would be able to support an invasion but details are clasified/lost. He would have preferred to secure Australia first - but the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy and New Zealand were already putting up too much resistance - which required all of Japan's resources so they did clearly overstretch themselves.

I do not believe Japan could have controlled the USA at that time.

But, they did a pretty good job of taking China which is larger so clearly they were under-estimated and could have done better had they not rushed into war with the USA.

The USA is not comparible to Europe. Most of the USA is not populated and would give zero resistance, it may also be significantly smaller than Europe. (Not sure)

Contrary to Hollywood's portrayal of events, Zero were the weakest of Japanese fighters. Nakajima Hayate would have been the weapon to worry about had Japan secured Mid-Way and Hawaii (I think that's right...)

 

[The Little Man]

Originally posted by stormbind

Actually, I do believe I made several mentions of the Russians and how well they did with limited resources.

The Russians has far more resources available then the Germans, this espescially goes for Oil. Also they recieved immense amounts of supplies from the US, why do you think it was so importent for the Germans to conquer Norway, and why do you think they send some of their largest surface ships (Bismarck) along with a large proportion of the U-Boat fleet to the seas north of Norway?


Also, Britian did also have far more resources available then the Germans, consider how much they could import through their Empire.
And it was mainly the Americans who saved you from the U-boats, this happend when they began snending escorts along with the convoys. The Germans might have had a slight advantage in meterials such as metals, but lacked oil which was far more importent.

Russia did not have any lack of resources really.

Originally posted by stormbind

After the the RAF had bombed Berlin there was nothing left. It was reprisal for the attacks on London. This is very well documented and I am surprised you bother to bring it up

The RAF also hit many strategic locations.

It's really not that hard to level bomb a city. Actually the british bombed german citys first, that's why Hitler screwed up everything and began bombing London and other british citys instead of RAF installations.
The RAF was almost broken in 1941, and the British had a major advantage, everytime a british fighter was shot down, the pilot would land safely in England, whereas the German pilots would be camptured, hence the British had far more experienced pilots as many had been shoot down quite a few times and were able to get up fighting again whereas the germans coulden't.
Basicly all the fighting of the Battle Of Britain took place over british soil, hence the name.

However had Hitler not ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb cities isntead of RAF installations and factories, the Battle of Britain would have been won by the Germans. However even when the attack of English cities began taking place the German kill ratio against the british fighters were higher (This is only counting the fighters, not the counting the lose of bombers as well), in the beginning only though, as Germany slowly lost most of its experienced pilots, and many were also send to the East front.

The British went by the policy of Terror bombing and killed hundred of thousands of German civilians in the process, huge parts of Hamburg burned down. This however resulted in the exact opposite results of what was hoped for, the hatred towards britian increased instead of decreasing the morale it might in some way have boosted it, even though it was a big blow to the german population. The Americans went purely for strategic targets, such as factories, bridges, railroads etc. which in the end was the main factor in ending the war.

Me262, it had a very high kill raio against allied fighters, and very few were shot down in actual combat, they were shot down as they took off or tried to land, where they were the most voulnarable. And the maneuverability of the Me262 was actually fairly good, far superior to most allied planes.
The Me262 was the best Jet fighter of World War 2. Look it up at google or something if you want even some more evidence supportig this.

(also keep in mind that it was a very little percentage of the Me262 actually build which ever entered service, there were simply no pilots...)

 

[stormbind]

That's why we used the bomb, which ended the war. Even if England had fallen, we still would have developed the bomb, as the Manhatten project had many German defectors (who would have given Germany atomic weapons, if they had stayed) and American physicists.

Japan had the bomb too, but were missing the key nuclear material. It was in the process of being delivered by U-Boat from Germany, but boat was ordered to surrender when Germany fell.

Had England have fallen instead of Germany, the USA would have been nuked by Japan.

The USA intentionally did not bomb two Japanese cities - these were reserved for a special weapon. Must have been the American plan from the start!

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by The Little Man

The Russians has far more resources available then the Germans, this espescially goes for Oil. Also they recieved immense amounts of supplies from the US,

Russia had almost no light metals. This severely hindered their ability to build competitive aircraft. You can look up the Yak-1 on Google if you like, it was made of steel tube and wood because they didn't have the right metals.

Russia did get more resources in 1943, which is when they took the fight back to Germany.

Originally posted by The Little Man

Also, Britian did also have far more resources available then the Germans, consider how much they could import through their Empire.

In the interest of world peace, much of the empire was dispanded after WW1. Very little remained at the start of WW2 and the U-Boats stopped imports at the start of the war. It took a while for the Royal Navy to find ways of hunting these weapons.

England also built planes from wood because they had a lack of better materials. Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito - probably the best known wooden fighters in the RAF.

Originally posted by The Little Man
And it was mainly the Americans who saved you from the U-boats, this happend when they began snending escorts along with the convoys.

The American escorts were not good enough. England almost surrendered because no supplies were getting through. They actually came hours away from surrended but then German tactics changed and supplies arrived. Phew!

Originally posted by The Little Man

The RAF was almost broken in 1941, and the British had a major advantage, everytime a british fighter was shot down, the pilot would land safely in England, whereas the German pilots would be camptured.

England was also fielding pilots without training. Being shot down over England was an advantage but most did not survive the fall. One German tactic was to shoot the parachutes which is probably a war crime.

Battle of Britain lasted a long time, but the 15th September was the key day when the Luftwaffe sent 1000 sorties which statistically should have finished the RAF. That is the day the RAF won and the war changed.

I do not know who was first to bomb cities, but England contained a lot of industrial cities and these were a prime targets.

British also hit strategic targets; it is simply false to suggest they didn't.

Some individuals may have wanted to attack cities early in the war, but the bombing of Berlin towards the end was mostly out of anger for what happened to London.

Originally posted by The Little Man

The Me262 was the best Jet fighter of World War 2...

I never argued against that, I only said it was not a decisive weapon. Strange how people twist things

 

[jack merchant]

[ love a good debate and hope I don't offend anyone]

Japn was close to getting the bomb ? and you have proof of this ? and how exactly were the Japanese going to 'deliver' their nukes over American cities, their fleet and their carriers having been destroyed first at Midway, later at the Marshall Islands and at Leyte ?

On another note, it's all well and good to argue over whether the Americans or the British had the superior technology, but guess on which front the Germans suffered the most casualties ? Which country lost more people in fighting the Germans than any other? In fact, more than all the other allies put together ? I'm thinking that would be Russia. Without the German invasion of Russia, Operation Overlord would not even have begun to be an option.
[but for a good 'what if', I'd recommend Robert Harris's excellent novel, Fatherland].

I don't have a national axe to grind, I'm Dutch and I'm sure we fought bravely - for as long as it lasted

 

[The Little Man]

Originally posted by stormbind

I never argued against that, I only said it was not a decisive weapon. Strange how people twist things

Nothing has been twisted around, it's purely stating a fact...