# Possible End of the ww2



## hellmaker (Mar 20, 2005)

Ok...this is what it's all about:

State your oppinions on how would the war have ended if the circumstances would have been diffrent...and state your scenario...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Italy would have resisted the British, Germany would have lent them lots of DB-605's and the Series 5 fighter would have seen mass service. The P.108 would have re-enterd mass production and Britain and America would have been defeated. Italy and Japan would then sign a pact to get rid of the Germans, and Germany would be defeated. Italy would then turn on Japan and take thm out. And we would all be speaking Italian! 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Italy would have resisted the British, Germany would have lent them lots of DB-605's and the Series 5 fighter would have seen mass service. The P.108 would have re-enterd mass production and Britain and America would have been defeated. Italy and Japan would then sign a pact to get rid of the Germans, and Germany would be defeated. Italy would then turn on Japan and take thm out. And we would all be speaking Italian! 8)



Silly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

> The P.108 would have re-enterd mass production



you mean it actually enetered mass production in the first place


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Yeah. When Bruno Mussolini was killed flying one though, it kinda slowed it up.

Im not being silly, its allowing me to express my proper views on what should have happened...good thread! 8)


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 20, 2005)

But why Italian and not German or Japanese. I would put my money on the Japanese being the victors... Mousolini was an indiot who relied on his wife/mistress(i'm not shure what she was) to handle his state affairs. The Japanese were geniusess and still are...their atack on Pearl Hrbour even though it faild to acheive it's main pourposeof taking USA out before entering the war was a masterpiece. My guess is thet if the japanese would not have defeated all the superpowers of that time they shure are now heading to a top position in controlling the world...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Because the Italians were simply brilliant! 8)


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 20, 2005)

No offence...I'm shure they were...but I doubt their leader was...just like in the case of Hitler... The lider was simply not capable enough to lead the country to victory...Only maybe if Mousolini would have been taken the power... Then we would have other variables...


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

1938: The British Empire would make a remarkable action against Hitler, who tries to sack Tchechosslovakia. Nazi regime destabelize... 
1940: Blitzkrieg stops in northern France since heavy resistance by french and british forces, the war would last another years or two...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Okay here is a scenerio:

The assination attempt on Hitler was successfull. Himmler takes control of the Reich and gives complete control of the military forces including the SS panzer brigages to Field Marschal Erwin Rommell. Himmler fires Goering and replaces him with Adolf Galland as the Commander of the Luftwaffe. Himmler and Stalin sign a cease fire with Germany giving some of the land it had already conquered in the East to the Russian. This allows Rommel to pull his forces from the East and place them in the west.
Galland stops the production of bombers and the research into heavy bombers all together and puts emphasis on Jet powered fighters at full production capacity. With Adolf Galland's new Jet fighters and Rommell able to command his forces as needed, the Invasion of Normany is stoped on the beaches. England and the United States sign cease fire agreements with Germany. The US continues its war with Japan, eventually winning the war in the Pacific. Himmler then feeling pretty safe lets his gaurd down and Stalin takes his chance and invades the Reich with a well built and rested army.

Okay this one is pretty far fetched but interesting.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

Hows about this one:

On the Eastern front, the Germans put up much more resistance so no Kursk and Stalingrad is taken. This of course leave France much less occupied so the Allies invade, taking Berlin. No cold War, no Cuba.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

It would have been nice if it had ended without a cold war.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

Ideals, Ideals, Ideal...  ... Would have been great with no cold war... but my guess is that it was inevitable... URSS(Stalin) would have never accepted USA as the only super power, you all know his politics within the URSS, eliminating anyone who would opose him, by killing him or by sending him to Siberia work camps. The german teritory being split in to although tragic, may have had a benefit...It might have prevented a new, nuclear war against USA and URSS... My guess...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

In my opinion they never should have reunified. Open the borders and remove the wall yes but not reunite. Now my family pays out of there ass to rebuild the former east and Germany is going into debt because of it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

hellmaker do you realise the Japs the idea for pearl harbour from the british attack on the italian fleet in port.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Illustrious launched about 20 Swordfish which sank 1/2 (I can't quite remember) and damaged on or two others aswell as bombing the port area of Taranto


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

it also forced the italian navy to annother port that was to far from the Med. to be of any use...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

They stayed in port most of the time anyway


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

true


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

He, Adler, it is not only your family , who pays the bills. My too (and we are from eastern germany). And you would wonder, how much comes to the people. I believe, most goes into infrastructure projects and into the pockets of a very few persons. But I completely agree with your post. One to add: With Galland OKL and Rommel ordering the ground forces, I would likely see some more type XXI submarines, also. 
The attack of Tarento was extremely succesful, 21 swordfishs of the HMS Illustrious (12 armed with torps) in two waves, 12 and 9 planes each. Hits have been reported on the italian battleships Conti di Cavour, Caio Duilio and the brand new Littorio. Caio Duilio and Littorio would have been sunk if the water would have been deeper. They have been put out of action for months. Caio Duilio did sank.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

Lanc... Probably the Japs did steal the Idea...but they also improoved it... The British attack was consisted of 2 waves, while the Jap attack had originally been consisted of 3 waves... The fact that the Jap Admiral (Nagumo if my memory serves) only approved to 2 attack is due to the missing most important carriers from the American fleet...They were out of the harbour doing drills(i think), so the Admirall considered that he had done the best he could and decided to withdraw his forces before the americans would be able to engage them... It was a masterplan...even though the americans did know about a Jap attack they weren't able to predict where and when it was due to happen...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

delcyros said:


> He, Adler, it is not only your family , who pays the bills. My too (and we are from eastern germany). And you would wonder, how much comes to the people. I believe, most goes into infrastructure projects and into the pockets of a very few persons. But I completely agree with your post.



I probably should have written my post differently, I may have come off the wrong way. I dont want you to think I have a problem with East Germany or the people who live in it. I really dont. I just think the reunification was done wrong. Like making the East German Mark 1 to 1 with the Deutsch Mark. I think that at first the borders should have just been opened and the wall torn down. Over a period of years it should have gradually been reunified. This way there is less strain on the people in both Eastern and Western Germany.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

Can I say something??? Adler... Take this from someone who was condemmned to be born in an Eastern Block(Ex Communist) country... The way Germany has evolved since the end of the seccond world war is a model to eastern countries... For example... Germany was at the edge of bankrupcy at the end of the war and now it has become one of the leading ecnomic powers of the world... I consider the german people some the most inteligent humans to walk the planet... I'm not interested in buttkissing, I'm only being honest... My country has been strugleing for the past 16(since the fall of Ceausescu) to become a Western Country, and even though it isn't an Eastern one most Western cultures consider it one of the most poor and undeveloped country in Eastern Europe, which is not quite true... So you should be lucky your country managed to come out clean after beeing torn appart by 2 sepparate wars...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

Sure, you dont have to ask for permission.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

Mark = DMark. Silly, You are right. I was just thinking of some kind of condederation between both german nations in 1990 and a later voting by the peoples could open the way for reunification. That would be much better. (the 1 to 1 change only worked for the first 1000 Mark) My girlfriend did succesfully flee the GDR by swimming 45 miles out in the Baltic sea. And I was in Berlin on the very day the Wall was taken down. Historic. The way it was done politicly opened a source for much misunderstanding between people, which is still present. Anyway I use to have very close friends from east and west, and that is what finally counts.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Aren't you alltogether the same people... You have the same hystorical background... Us romanians are in a way the same... The Moldova Republic was once part of Romania till Russia stepped in and decided it would take it away... Why? What drives this decisions???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Mark = DMark. Silly, You are right. I was just thinking of some kind of condederation between both german nations in 1990 and a later voting by the peoples could open the way for reunification. That would be much better. (the 1 to 1 change only worked for the first 1000 Mark) My girlfriend did succesfully flee the GDR by swimming 45 miles out in the Baltic sea. And I was in Berlin on the very day the Wall was taken down. Historic. The way it was done politicly opened a source for much misunderstanding between people, which is still present. Anyway I use to have very close friends from east and west, and that is what finally counts.



I was in berlin also the same day! I remember the people pushing down the walls and the hugging and the drinking, it really was a great site. I still have several very large pieces of the wall that I took home that day.





hellmaker said:


> Aren't you alltogether the same people... You have the same hystorical background... Us romanians are in a way the same... The Moldova Republic was once part of Romania till Russia stepped in and decided it would take it away... Why? What drives this decisions???



Yes we are the same people, East and West, Germans, however you have to understand that for almost 50 years they were devided. A western philosophy to the west and a Communist East run by a Soviet puppet government. There were different ideologies formed by the people in the East over the people in the west. But the whole time, the desire and the dream to runify was very strong and it was only a matter of time till this happened.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Yes....that is true... In our case we have been sepparated from the beginning of WW2... It's all the same story... wether we like it or not... but in our case reunification is not understood by all people... Being both countries under communist puppet guvernment in some way we think the same but in other, completely diffrent...this is on of those others...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

My stepmother actually is a Siebenbuerger Saxon from Romania. They are more German then Romanian though. They come from Brashov (I dont hink I spelled it right). Very neat though, I used to go with her and visit Romania once a year.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

You were very close tough...  ... It's spelled Brasov (Brashow auf deutsch)... Nice...  And how did you found Romania...? Is it as unevolved as westeners say???


----------



## delcyros (Mar 23, 2005)

I like the Bucovina(?)... And YES, it was very undeveloped (at least on my excavation site), we had no cars, just a few horses. But indeed very funny! I like it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

We drove from Germany and it was quite undeveloped, the roads were unpaved but it was very beautiful and the people were amazijngly friendly. I once went to Constantinople when I flew my aircraft to an airshow there, it was quite fun and we broke and had to stay there for a few extra days.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> We drove from Germany and it was quite undeveloped, the roads were unpaved but it was very beautiful and the people were amazijngly friendly. I once went to Constantinople when I flew my aircraft to an airshow there, it was quite fun and we broke and had to stay there for a few extra days.



Hmmm... Ich denke nein... Ich weiss nicht wo hast du gefliegen...  ... aber Constantinople gibt nicht mehr, und auch war es nicht in Romania (Es heist heute Istambul...  )... Villeicht hast du zum Constanta gefliegen, neben die See... Dort gibt die Kogalniceanu Flugfeld...

Und auch Romania ist nicht so unter entwickelt...  ... Ihr haben kein recht...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

wow i don't get any of that...........


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 24, 2005)

I was just standing up for my country...  ... It is not ill developed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

I think it is a beautiful country my friend dont worry. I just remember driving on a lot of dirt roads and taking a very long time to get there. Whenever we go there we take our Jeep and not our Mercedes so that we dont get stuck anywhere, but I love Romania dont worry.

And you are probably right we called it Constanza in English, I just went back and looked at the flight rought papers.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 24, 2005)

I'd like to visit germany at one time... Hopefully in the near future...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

It is very beautiful here to my friend, you would enjoy it.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 25, 2005)

I'm shure I would... I have a friend near Munchen that I havn't see in a long time... And I'd like to see you national museum of aviation...


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 25, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Hows about this one:
> 
> On the Eastern front, the Germans put up much more resistance so no Kursk and Stalingrad is taken. This of course leave France much less occupied so the Allies invade, taking Berlin. No cold War, no Cuba.





How about this, 

What if the German army didnt pull up short of dunkirk and wait as they did, and they kept on going instead - this would have been a major disaster for us - We would have had the majority of the BEF captured. even though most of them returned, and they didnt have their arms, at least we had the troops.

Then if the luftwaffe hadnt switched from attacking our airfields to cities instead. due to the damage to our landing fields, we would have had to pull ALL our aircraft north of the thames giving the germans that air superiority for operation sealion that they needed. If the Royal navy had tried to interfere with the landing operations, they would have been mauled by the luftwaffe in the same manner that the Prince of Wales and the Renown were in the far east with the Japanese aircraft. With the German Blitzkrieg tactics and our troops short of arms I dont think that we could have held on for long. then the WHOLE of Europe would have been under their control. and the USA would have been hit by the U-boats constantly along their eastern coastline. and the Japanese would have taken over the East and also put pressure on the states on thier west coast.


----------



## trackend (Mar 26, 2005)

I can see where you're coming from Concorde but operation sealion was a very make shift plan and I don't think it ever really had a chance of success I agree the air force would have had to pull back but if the threat of invasion had actually happened the landing barges (as that was all they really had to use) would have been decimated by the Air force and Navy even if it had meant throwing nearly ever thing at them and suffering heavy losses.

In my scenario the soviets fail to stop the German advance they link up with the Japanese the industrial power of the soviets is used by the Axies forces to enlarge there capabilitys this then means a planned fullscale assault on the Uk, it succeeds the US has no chance of a second front so interest is concentrated in the far east with a planned invasion by the axies powers via the Bering sea whilst the Japanse keep pressure on in the pacific theatre end result stale mate and a truce is signed in 1947. the A bomb is never deployed because of M.A.D
(bet that causes a few comment  )


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 26, 2005)

If the Germans weren't stopped outside Moscow, that might've happened


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 27, 2005)

I'm not shure about that. The USSR was quite a big nation, and it's Red Army was numerous, though ill prepared... Hitler came as prepared as Napoleon. He wasn't ready to deal with the long "Siberian winter". Many of his soldiers were lost due to this disadvantage... My guess is that the soviets would have fought to the las man. Stalin would have never accepted defeat... Germany would have had a chance having all of Europe fighting along side it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I dont really see Operation Sealion haveing succeded even if Dunkirk had failed to bring the BEF back to England. The Germans were not prepared eneogh for it. I do however seeing this as a possibility for the Germans to prepare better and take Russia.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

I remember that hitler once said that it was bad to have a secind front, but then he went did it with russia.

IF he had attacked Russia before coming westwards then i think that things could have have been different, as the russian winter wasnt as severe in 1939/1940


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I think he did this because of how the war was going at the time. With the success of the Blitzkrieg he thought he was invincible.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2005)

This szenario is unlikely. But Hitler was very probable to get Moscow in 1941. The soviet defense and counterattacks were possible because 50 additional experienced far eastern divisions could be relocated to Moscow from (thanks to the spy Dr. Richard Sorge). I doubt that Stalin could hope to hold Murmansk, Moscow and even St. Petersburg without them in 1941.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2005)

I dont think he could have either, I think if Hitler had fully pressed ahead into Moscow it would have fallen. Also if the supplies and winter equipment for the eastern front had not ended up in Italy and the tropical stuff for Italy not ended up in Russia, the Wehrmacht micht have been able to hold on to there ground due to the fact they would have been better equiped for the winter.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 29, 2005)

I agree to the fact that if Germany would have first attacked Russia, and concentrate on deffeating it, the end of the war might have been verry diffrent from what we know today...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I too agree accept for the fact that France had to be out of the way before he could attack Russia. If he had just gone into Russia the French and British would have attacked from west.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 30, 2005)

The way Britain and especially France were behaving, we wouldn't have invaded. We were cowards for some reason


----------



## trackend (Mar 30, 2005)

I dont think thats very fair calling them cowards mossie I think a lot of the reluctance on the part of the French and British to go to war in the first place was memories of WW1 and Chamberlin although in hind sight was very foolish in believing he could apease Hitler didnt want to be the one to plunge europe into another world war so foolish maybe even perhaps reluctant, but not cowards.
Having said that if that is your opinion mossie, then I strongly support your right to express it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

we weren't cowards, were tried to prevent war however when the time came we were willing to declair war............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I would agree with Lanc on this. They tried to prevent as much as possible, but when the time came they stood up and fought. Well the British at least did, cant say much for the French.  However I do believe that you can only use diplomacy to a point and then it is time to act, and England and France waited too long to act.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 30, 2005)

The Allies were certainly NOT cowards!! there was also a matter of the strategy that the allies used. we were still living by the rules of trench warfare of the 1914-18 war, you only have to remember the Maginot line to understand that! 

The Germans knew what it was like to be on the receiving end of a tank, and adapted the tanks principles for a more modern mobile war. 

As trackend rightly said, none of the allies wanted the war, and didnt think another one would be possible so soon after the first. People had hoped that the right lessons had been learned the first time around! 

Chamberlains "piece of Paper" bought this country time to re-arm its airforce though still using outdated tactics.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 30, 2005)

I'm shure that the allies weren't cowards... But they knew their own interests... they woldn't have interveened in the war aginst Germany when it attacked Russia... Especially with Prime Minister Chamberlain... He might have been a coward but only to prevent war on english soil... But with Russia eliminated, they might have thought the germans were doing them a favor... It's not like the russians wren't interested in expanding their borders... AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE IN THINKING THIS WAY!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

oh don't worry we knew what the russians were up to...........


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 31, 2005)

Exactlly... that is way I think that Britain and France wouldn't have entered the war alongside the Russians in the event that the latter would have been invaded by the germans... Don't you agree???


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2005)

At least the British didn't sign a pact with Adolf so they could try to invade Finland like the Russians. You could be right Hellmaker but in reality it didn't happen. And Britain was pretty much on its own after the fall of France it had support from its friends in some of the commonwealth nations and across the pond with lend lease ect but this remember was at a time when Mr Lindburgh and his mates had a big anti-involvement following, hence the Sept 5th US neutrality proclaimation to placate them. Russia had a pact with the Nazi's so I still say that there was nothing cowardly about attempting to buy some time before hostilites against a massive and up to that point unstoppable dictatorship like Nazi Germany. However The Battle of Britain made them cough a bit, some months later.
One other thing if it was cowardly why did the UK sign a mutual assistance treaty Aug 25, with Poland surley it would have been better to not sign it at all and keep their heads down ?
At the time Chamberlain was accused of weakness in not standing up to Hitler. It became apparent later that Britain's run down defence capability left few alternatives. The trouble was Chamberlain had misread Hitler's intentions badly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

but it did buy us very valuable time...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

I just think that back in 1938 the allies should have made a tougher stance towards Hitlers polocies. In way do I think they were cowards.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 31, 2005)

NO - I dont think so, we just werent prepared for war because we didnt want one! plus there was also some self-interest going on also. 

The Americans wouldnt have got involved at all if it wasnt for Pearl harbour - After that Remember, America only declared war on Japan, it was Hitler who declared war on the states to back up his ally!! 

Before the lend-lease agreement, the states insisted that we pay for every Plane, tank round upfront, til the british money well had run dry. so we werent the only ones with a self-interest!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

I agree with you someone what but just telling Hitler no and warning him with war may have detered him atleast for a little bit back in 1938. Before 1939 Germany was not prepared for war either.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 31, 2005)

true, but no-one was prepared to take that gamble!


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 31, 2005)

Concorde247 said:


> NO - I dont think so, we just werent prepared for war because we didnt want one! plus there was also some self-interest going on also.
> 
> The Americans wouldnt have got involved at all if it wasnt for Pearl harbour - After that Remember, America only declared war on Japan, it was Hitler who declared war on the states to back up his ally!!
> 
> Before the lend-lease agreement, the states insisted that we pay for every Plane, tank round upfront, til the british money well had run dry. so we werent the only ones with a self-interest!!!



Before Lend Lease you were dealing with individual companies that were hard pressed to stay in buisness even with cash - with Lend Lease the Federal Goverment (US Taxpayeres) picked up the tab and was written off *Not paidoff or held against* the United Kingdom or any other country that shared the common goal of defeating the Axis in WWII. Interestingly Two countries payed their war debt off entirely Germany, and Japan.

wmaxt


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 31, 2005)

I agree to what Concorde said about the americans... They were probably the most selfinterested of the allies... Beeing isolated from the Old Continent they would have rather staid put, letting the brits, the francs and the germans fight it all among themselfes... Thus ashuring their climb to the top of the superpowers top...


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2005)

That's not totally correct Max lend-lease and the line of credit was not written off. The UK is due to finish its payments to the USA on 31st December 2006 if it does not defer as it has done on two occasion, the repayments where started in 1950 and the debt was set at $4,336 million (around ÿ1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) _(source Hansard)_. These figures in relation to current rateable value would be the equivalent of $14.742 billion


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

wow even i didn't know we were paying tham back..........


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 1, 2005)

We couldnt start paying them back til 1950, as we needed what money we had left to try rebuild the countries damaged infrastructure. The americans were more fortunate, as they didnt have cities devastated by aerial bombardment, so the money they had in their coffers could be invested in more profitable ways.


----------



## hellmaker (Apr 1, 2005)

yes...but remember the fact that not even the USA were spared by the economic downfall after the war, even if it was at a smaller scale than on the old continent...


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2005)

It may seem odd but with German everything was destroyed so all the manufacturing was started from scratch with new production lines and equipment most of the UK equipment and infrastructure was clapped out but still usable and therefore it carried on being used long after the war there was no investment capital available and the economy stagnated for many years longer than Germans. 
Germany's growth figures always went up year on year as it had to because they started with nothing so this encouraged more foreign investment.which made for more growth ect ect.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Yes but in order for Germany's growth to happen and the economy and infrastrure to rise it required a large amount of aid and debt relief from the allies. I am not sure I am going to have to look this up, I might be wrong but I thought Germany was still paying for the war debt.


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

I dare say you are right Adler but as most of the money came from the USA you could find yourself in an odd situation if you have duel nationality you would be paying yourself


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 2, 2005)

Hi all, as for the US post-war, the ecconomie grew slowly, but it did well, and then really tok off in the 1950s. 

The USA was not interested in the war. Yes FDR did as much as he could t help the Brittish, but the people did not want war. We most likly would have got into it with Germany sooner or latter because we were infact shooting and sinking subs while supporting the convoys.

Lend-Lease was great, if you were the RAF, they just chopped up B-24s and what ever elts they had so not to pay. But if they are paying back the bill that is great! Maybe the cash can go to better our children's education


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Well right now the US needs all the money they can get with the ever growing debt.


----------



## trackend (Apr 3, 2005)

I dont think the USA is due for its reign as the worlds most dominate country to end for a while yet Adler. It will of coures one day as all empires do. I suspect it could be the Chinese to to be the next one how ever nothing is certain


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

trackend said:


> I dont think the USA is due for its reign as the worlds most dominate country to end for a while yet Adler. It will of coures one day as all empires do. I suspect it could be the Chinese to to be the next one how ever nothing is certain



Oh no, dont take me wrong. I dont expect it happen anytime soon. It is just with everythign that is going on, the US is spending more money than it can afford and the national debt is rising more and more to record highs. But then again when has it not been at a record high? I dont expect China to at all, atleast in the near future. I expect it at some point for the communist regieme there to fall just like it did in the Soviet Union and then it will take some time for a new government to get things going.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 5, 2005)

Interesting thouht!

Question, what are your thoughts if the war had turned and Operation Barbarosa had worked? 

I think that it would have been very different. All thoughs divisions would have been driven to the west. I think then that Operation Sealion would have also worked.


----------



## trackend (Apr 5, 2005)

I still doubt the success of Sealion MP. D-day required mastery of the air and the sea and if Rommel had been given a free hand and using his armour fought to hold the invading forces on the beaches as he had planned the success of the landings would have been in the balance but for Sealion the Germans would have had command of neither the air or the sea so my guess would be a disaster the same as Dieppe but on a much bigger scale.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

and just about every single person in the country that could fire a gun would be waiting for them on the beaches..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

I too dont think it would work. The Germans would have required more Landing craft and good ones. Here are the Landing craft they did have and when they were made. The first type MFP would have been good eneogh for the job however it did not enter service fast eneogh.

*Marinefährprahm*



> The Naval Landing Crafts - called "Marinefährprahm" in German were the largest landing craft used by the Kriegsmarine. Although required for Operation Sealion (Invasion of England) in 1940, the first of this transport ships were delivered in 1941. The development of this ship went through several Types (A-D), whose size and armament grew from class to class.
> 
> They were mainly used for transport and supply duties and not for their initial invasion role and could transport 200 Soldiers or 140ts of equipment, including Tiger tanks.
> 
> ...



Type A

Dimensions

Size (Max): 200 t 
Length (Total): 47,04 m 
Beam: 6,53 m 
Draft: 1,45 m 
Payload: 105 t 
Crew: 17 
Weapons 
7,5 cm: 1 
2 cm MG: 1 (3 in the Med. and Black Sea) 
Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: truck diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 390 shp 
Speed: 10,5 kn 
Range: 1075 miles at 7,5 kn 


Type B

Dimensions

Size (Max): 220t 
Length (Total): 47,04 m 
Beam: 6,53 m 
Draft: 1,45 m 
Payload: 105 t 
Crew: 17 
Weapons 
7,5 cm: 1 
2 cm MG: 1 (3 in the Med. and Black Sea) 
Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: truck diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 390 shp 
Speed: 10,5 kn 
Range: 1075 miles at 7,5 kn 


Type C

Dimensions

Size (Max): 220t 
Length (Total): 47,04 m 
Beam: 6,53 m 
Draft: 1,45 m 
Payload: 105 t 
Crew: 17 
Weapons 
7,5 cm: 1 
2 cm MG: 1 (3 in the Med. and Black Sea) 
Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: truck diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 390 shp 
Speed: 10,5 kn 
Range: 1075 miles at 7,5 kn 



Type D

Dimensions

Size (Max): 239 t 
Length (Total): 49,82 m 
Beam: 6,59 m 
Draft: 1,35 m 
Payload: 140 t 
Crew: 21 
Weapons 
8,8 cm: 1 
2 cm MG: 2 
8,6 cm RAG: 2 
Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: truck diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 371 shp 
Speed: 10,3 kn 
Range: 1066 miles at 7,3 kn

*Marine Nachschub Leichter* 



> While the bigger Marinefährprahm was originally designed to transport heavy equipment like tanks over the British Channel, the smaller Naval Supply Lighter (Marine Nachschub Leichter - MNL) were constructed to the use in rivers, limiting their size.
> 
> Designed in 1943/44, their dimensions were to fit the rivers and channels in the southern part of France, since it was also planned to transfer them to the Mediterranean via those waterways and use those crafts there. But when they got operational, the Allied landings in Normandy and Italy prevented to do so and they operated at the German coastline and rivers
> http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/landingcrafts/mnl/index.html



Dimensions

Size (Max): 216 t 
Length (Total): 38 m 
Beam: 5 m 
Draft: 1,3 m 
Payload: 90 t 
Crew: 9-14 
Weapons 
3,7 cm: 1 
2 cm MG: 4 
Engines 
Shafts: 2 
Engines: 2 
Type: truck diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 250 shp 
Speed: 10 kn 
Range: 560 miles at 10 kn 

*Marine Artillerie Leichter*



> With a length of nearly 35 meters, the Marine Artillerie Leichter (MAL) were the smallest landing craft in Kriegsmarine services. Designed after the requirements of the German Army, those small vehicles should be used during Operation Barbarossa, the attack on the Soviet Union. Their projected operational area was the Caspian Sea where the MAL should be used to attack Soviet oil transports from Baku to Astrakhan. Therefore the MAL must have been able to be transported by land which was impossible with the bigger MNL or AFPs.
> 
> With the progress of the war, the Marine Nachschub Leichter operated in other areas like the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.
> http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/landingcrafts/nal/index.html



Dimensions 
Size (Max): 
Length (Total): 34,60 m 
Length (Waterline): 
Beam: 8,60 m 
Draft: 
Crew: 
Weapons 
8,8 cm: 2 
2 cm MG: 8 
Engines 
Shafts: 
: 
Type: 
Performance 
Total Performance: 
Speed: 
Range: 

*Artilleriefährprahm* 



> Based on the Marinefährprahm Type D, those Artillery Ferries were used for several different kind of operations. Although being first though as a provisional design, they took over the role of gunboats in various operational areas, including the British Channel, Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
> Besides their use as escort vessels, they were also occasionally used for shore bombardments and mine laying, they proved to be very usable crafts.
> 
> The ferries had a light armor protection, 20 mm armor steel and up to 100 mm concrete armor at the superstructures and ammunition stores.
> http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/landingcrafts/afp/index.html



Type A

Dimensions

Size (Max): 300 t 
Length (Total): 47,04 m 
Length (Waterline): 
Beam: 6,55 m 
Draft: 1,7 m 
Crew: 48 
Weapons 
8,8 cm: 2 
3,7 cm MG: 1 
2 cm MG: 8 
Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: Truck diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 387 shp 
Speed: 10,2 kn 
Range: 412 miles at 8,7 kn 
Type D

Dimensions

Size (Max): 255-381 t 
Length (Total): 49,80m 
Length (Waterline): 
Beam: 6,61 m 
Draft: 1,3-1,4 m 
Crew: 57-65 
Weapons 
10,5 cm: 2 (or 8,8 cm) 
2 cm MG: 8 
15mm MG: 1 
Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: Truck diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 368 shp 
Speed: 8 kn 
Range: 1075 miles at 8 kn 

*Siebel Fähre*



> During the preparation for Operation Seelöwe - the invasion of England - it soon got clear, that the Kriegsmarine needed a high number of landing crafts. Therefore all branches of the German Army made proposals for such a craft - the Luftwaffe proposal was is known as the Siebel-Fähre (Siebel Ferry) named after its inventor, Oberst Siebel.
> 
> The Siebel-Ferries were constructed from existing material, pioneer pontoon originally used ot build auxiliary pontoon bridges. Two of those pontoons were connected side-by-side, a propulsion unit with BMW aircraft engines was added in the back and a large platform mounted on top of the pontoons was used to carry the payload. Vehicles could enter or leave the craft over a ramp on the bow of the ferry.
> 
> ...


 
*Transport Hydrofoil VS 8*



> Germany experimented with various hydrofoil designs since the late 1938, most of them being design studies for fast attack craft. One remarkable exception was the Fast Hydrofoil Transport VS8 and its sister ship, the VS9 .
> 
> Being able to transport one small or medium tank, (Type 38T or IV) which was stored on a special designed pontoon in the back of the ship, the VS8 was build as a prototype for experimenting with this kind of transport method. To load or unload the tank, the bay in the back of the ship was flooded and the pontoon, equipped with two 40 hp engines, could be removed or loaded on the ship. Experiments showed that loading the pontoon took less then two minutes, unloading less than one.
> Besides its task as a fast transport, it was also discussed to use the ship as a fast mine layer, capable of laying 15-20 mines.
> ...



Dimensions 
Size (Max): 
Length (Total): 31,90 m 
Length (Waterline): 
Beam: 10,26 m 
Draft: 2-4,25 m 
Crew: 22 
Weapons 
15 mm MG: 4 
Engines 
Shafts: 2 
Engines: 2 
Type: Daimler Benz 20cyl MB 501 diesel 
Performance 
Total Performance: 3660 shp 
Speed: 45 kn 
Range: 200 miles at 45 kn 


So as you can see only 2 landing craft existed for Operation Sealion and only one was avialable. They needed more and better designs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

wow they even had hydrofoils............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

But never reached full production or service.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

oh 

well the rest just look booring........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

3rd from the bottom looks pretty good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

second from top looks better...........


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 8, 2005)

Thanks all 

After reading I would have to agree that Sealion would have been very difficult, but I still wonder if he would have stayed out of Russia and focused every thing on England?

As for Romel, he was a great planner and as said if he would have been turned loose as he planned, it would have been very bad for the lands. That and the poor weather that held up air cover, I think the landings might have gone bad. But Hitler never seemed to think for more then one battle at a time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well you all know of the reception the allies were expecting before the invasion of Japan?? well the british people had the same spirit as the japaneese, after nearly 1000 years of not being successfully invaded we don't like lightly to being invaded and like i said, everyone able to fire a gun would be on the cliffs waiting for the germans.........


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 9, 2005)

Yas Lanc, the Japanese would have been waiting with spears. I do not think the British would have been any less is fighting. but now think if the envsion would have happened how would it have efected the rest of the war?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well there were plans in place for britian to carry on the war from Canada, so baisically we'd need lots of huge long range bombers, or operate out of russia or even north africa.........


----------



## trackend (Apr 9, 2005)

I'm not so sure about the British carrying on the war from Canada Lanc so much as the Royal family and the British Government buggering off and leaving all the rest off the population to stew. If as you suppose MP the invasion had succeeded I think the war would have gone on for at least several years longer as the only front would have been the far east having said that the Royal navy would still be a sizable force that could have been concentrated alongside the US and Commonwealth forces and they would not be tied up with convoy duties in the Atlantic an additional 10 or so carriers in the pacific fleet would have helped things a bit I'm sure


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2005)

From what I can recall, and I can't find the sources at the moment to back this, Halifax (Nova Scotia) was to be the fall-back point for the Royal Navy in the event that Britain fell. Half of the convoys were already marshalling here anyway, so we could certainly handle the ships. 
Also, Canada was already the training ground for Commonwealth aircrews and we were turning out our share of the war materials too.

I do believe we _were_ to be the new HQ, if things had turned for the worst for Britain. It's just a good thing that it never came to that, eh?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

you know i reckon we could pull it off, you know, carrying on the war..........


----------



## trackend (Apr 10, 2005)

The Canadian material input I think is too often over looked Skim
Tanks, Planes,Ships, Arms ect excluding the man power.
My old man was issued with Canadian Ross rifle when he spent a few months in the home guard before joining the RN, he even had five rounds of ammo. He told me that he asked his Sargent what he was supposed to do with five rounds and the Sargent said "Kill one German, as there's 60,000 home guard if everyone does as I say the invasion will be over in bleeding double quick time".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

true british-ish spirit..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 10, 2005)

Can't argue with that logic!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 10, 2005)

Love it! If you only need to get one, then 5 should be sufficient!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

but you see if that was a british seargent, he'd expect atleast 4 dead germans outta your five bullets, the extra bullet would be your one and only practice round.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

The British would never have given up the fight even if they had to base out of Nova Scotia. But the point still remains that withouth better Logistics even a master tatician like Feld Marschal Erwin Rommel "The Desert Fox" could have pulled off the invasion of England. The proper logistics were not in place nor could they have been and remember the Battle of Britain was won by the British and withouth air supiriority Rommels army could not have won on the land or the beaches. I am not even sure that Rommel would have commanded the invasion.

Excuse me I just reread what was posted and I see that you did not mean Rommel commanding the Invasion but rather commandind the defending forces. I too agree with you that if Rommel had full command of everything at his disposal he may have been able to stop the invasion. As for bad weather and the Luftwaffe, it would not have mattered. Most of the Luftwaffe pilots were on leave back in Germany hence only 2 sorties were flown on D-Day by Oberst Josef "Pips" Priller (not sure if he actually was one of the pilots but I think so).


----------



## trackend (Apr 10, 2005)

Speaking personally fellas, I don't know if Rommel would have stopped the invasion or not had he been allowed full use of the Panzer forces but the slaughter would have been horrific like all landing beaches most are not that big (Omaha beach was 7000 yards but a lot of that was not easy to negotiate) so it tends to funnel the fighting into smaller pockets to avoid strongly defended areas of contact, or areas with better cover for the invading forces rather than maintain extended lines. I dread to think what it would have been like with Panzer units holding the high ground looking down on the landing fields.

Sorry to back track a bit lads the Seargent I referred to was a time serving WW1 vet and he had a son in the paras when my old man went home on leave one time he met him in a pub and the old boy was in a terrible state it turned out his boy had been killed at Arnhem. He took the news really badl. He never did get over it and died a couple of years later.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

that's quite sad actually, but atleast he could say he was proud of his son..........


----------



## trackend (Apr 10, 2005)

I think he would have prefered his boy to come back but then that went for millions of parents.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 10, 2005)

It undoubtedly seemed like a hollow victory to the old man after losing his boy, but to echo lanc's sentiment, at least he went out fighting for an urgent cause. A hero, pure and simple.

I for one shall forever be grateful to him, and to all the other lads who never got to see the end of it.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 11, 2005)

Thanks for the help. also for the bit about the father and son. I agree that alot of families and children would have liked to have tfathers and sons home. Then in a generation we did it all again. What the world lost in life, in maybe a cure for cancer, or the next great prime minister. I think of the death in the Trenches, and a lot was from infection and sickness, and wounder ifthe Russians were not the better to just pull out?

If I would have had to fight in the war I would have wanted to fly, even if that life was expected to last only a few days.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

I would have liked to fly too I think. Sometimes, on the odd day, I feel like joining the US airforce when im older


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

can you do that??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

I dont know. I doubt I ever would join any kind of armed forces anyway though, but sometimes I think about it 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

why don't you think you will??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Well because im not fit enough mainly. Also having epilepsy on my medical history probably doesnt do me any favours...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

well you'll be ok for ground crew............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

But I wouldnt want to be on the ground crew...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

air gunner??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

trackend said:


> Speaking personally fellas, I don't know if Rommel would have stopped the invasion or not had he been allowed full use of the Panzer forces but the slaughter would have been horrific like all landing beaches most are not that big (Omaha beach was 7000 yards but a lot of that was not easy to negotiate) so it tends to funnel the fighting into smaller pockets to avoid strongly defended areas of contact, or areas with better cover for the invading forces rather than maintain extended lines. I dread to think what it would have been like with Panzer units holding the high ground looking down on the landing fields.
> 
> Sorry to back track a bit lads the Seargent I referred to was a time serving WW1 vet and he had a son in the paras when my old man went home on leave one time he met him in a pub and the old boy was in a terrible state it turned out his boy had been killed at Arnhem. He took the news really badl. He never did get over it and died a couple of years later.



You are more then likely correct on your assessement with Rommel. I dont think he would have stopped it but he would have done the best he could with what he had (which he did anyhow) and th blood bath would have been even more horrific.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> air gunner??



Nah id wanna fly. But like I say, I dont think ill ever take that career path.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

join the french air force, you'll be a god to them.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

I happen to like modern French jets quite a lot...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

the term "modern" being used very loosely.......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 11, 2005)

Why do you say that, lanc?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Yeah, just look at it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

that's a bomber aint it??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Not just a bomber, but a supersonic strategic bomber...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

The Mirages are not bad but I think they are getting old and outdated.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

they were, interestingly, before we sent our harriers out to the falklands, the french let us perform some mock combat with their mirages and they really were no mach for the harrier........


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 14, 2005)

The Harriers infact met the Mirage in combat over the Falklands and did a great job. But we need to get back on topic Please!!

As for Rommal he was hamstrung anyway be the command structure and that his officers were not as free to react on thier own. The war would have been a lot different I think, or been atlest longer. If the beaches were to be held by the Germans say for a bit longer and the German Airforce able to have some luck or help from the "Divine Wind" then he landing might have been a lot different.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

> The Harriers infact met the Mirage in combat over the Falklands and did a great job



right back off topic for a very small moment, when did i imply that they didn't??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

HAS ANYONE EVER SAW THE MOVIE FATHERLAND? (See plot below)

_Fictional account of what might have happend if Hitler had won the war. It is now the 1960s and Germany's war crimes have so far been kept a secret. Hitler wants to talk peace with the US president. An American journalist and a German homicide cop stumble into a plot to destroy all evidence of the genocide.

Summary written by Rob Hartill

"Fatherland" shows a world where Nazi Germany won the Second World War after repulsing the Allied invasion at Normandy. Now, in the 1960's, Germany continues to fight a bitter guerilla war with the Soviet Union and desperately needs an alliance with the United States in order to finally beat Stalin's war machine. However, when local SS-homicide detective Xavier March begins investigating the mysterious death of a Nazi Party Official, a coverup is revealed involving the Jewish Holocaust of World War II. With the assistance of an American journalist, March probes deeper and discovers the full truth about what happened to the Jews; a truth that could destroy the peace process with America and a truth that Nazi and SS leaders will stop at nothing to keep hidden._


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

That sounds like quite an interesting film. Ill have to look out for that one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> That sounds like quite an interesting film. Ill have to look out for that one.



Was made in 1994 -


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > That sounds like quite an interesting film. Ill have to look out for that one.
> ...



Great movie. I watch it over and over.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

There is a part that shows a poster of the Beatles playing in Hamburg Germany in 1962!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2005)

I think it was a great alternate history story that tells how it could have ended. I thought it was neat how all the reporters were in Berlin because President Kennedy was coming there to meet Hitler. Great story though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

AND REMEMBER - THAT WAS PRESIDENT *JOE KENNEDY*, JFKs father! He wanted to sell out the Brits at the beginning of the war. *WHAT A SCUMBUCKET!*


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 16, 2005)

I have not seen it. Lanc, I was not trying to say they they did not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> AND REMEMBER - THAT WAS PRESIDENT *JOE KENNEDY*, JFKs father! He wanted to sell out the Brits at the beginning of the war. *WHAT A SCUMBUCKET!*



I agree. Imagine though seeing the Beetles at Nurnberg's Soldiers Field with the eagle and swatzika having not been blown off of it. That would have been crazy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

You know what's funny, It seems like many historians side step this situation because of the "Kennedy Legacy." Thank god Roosevelt removed him as ambassador, he was a real scum bucket and showed his boys alot of neat dirty tricks, but that's another story!


----------



## trackend (Apr 17, 2005)

I love that sig MP that geodetic design of Wallis's really did make them a tough aircraft


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You know what's funny, It seems like many historians side step this situation because of the "Kennedy Legacy." Thank god Roosevelt removed him as ambassador, he was a real scum bucket and showed his boys alot of neat dirty tricks, but that's another story!



True again.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 18, 2005)

Trackend, thanks  I was woundering if any one would say anything. 

Question for you all, would the end of the war have been any different if FDR did not die in office?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

I do not think so. He died after VE Day anyhow and I think he would have dropped the bomb on Japan also.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2005)

Ok Just wanted to ask.
Yes I think he would have dropped the bomb, but I think he worked better with Churchill and Stalin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

Truman did not work well with Stalin because the war was over. No president would have worked well with Stalin after the war. You have to remember that England and the US were not really friends with the Soviets they just had a mutual enemy to take care of first.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

even during the war Stalin didn't really like us, he was extremely reluctant to let us launch raids against the tirpitz from bases in russia...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

Oh it was obvious the whole time they did not like each other. The US, England and the Soviet Union were very open about how they felt and the Soviets were very open about there ideas of Expanisionism also.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 20, 2005)

Well, Churchill had Stalin pretty much pegged from the start. I think Roosevelt was a bit more hopeful about him, at least initially. Some "ally" he turned out to be.


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

As churcill said he would make allies with the devil if it mean't beating Germany. As you say Skim Churchill had no illusions about Stalin after all he did coin the phrase about the Iron curtain falling across post war europe


----------



## Chiron (Apr 20, 2005)

By the way, was Japan advanced in R D in comparison with Germany? I herd that Japanese actually did try to develop atomic bomb......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

Chiron said:


> By the way, was Japan advanced in R D in comparison with Germany? I herd that Japanese actually did try to develop atomic bomb......



I dont really think so. The Japanese took most of there ideas from the Germans. They used projects such as the Me-262, Me-163, V-1 rockets, and so forth. There Submarine (they did not use them as extensively as the Germans) were based off of German designs. The Germans were trying for an Atomic Bomb also and came way closer then the Japanese and may even have detonated a small dirty bomb in 1945. The uranium that that the Japanese were going to use was being sent to Japan on a German U-Boot and was captured by the allies.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 22, 2005)

Japan did have some good R D, but they had problums with quality control and testing. Engines being the main issue. I do not understand why they did not use the subs more. They could have really done some damage, well more then they did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

You know it is funny neither Japan nor any of the Allies had that extensive of a sub program. The German's obviously believed in them and then after that I think it was the US that used the second most.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 25, 2005)

I would agree. I just cannot understand why with the resurch and commitment to a Navey they did not use subs more. 

Question, dose anone know why the RN did not have more subs?


----------



## Glider (Apr 25, 2005)

I think you wil find that the Japs did have quite an extensive force of Submarines. The problem was in how they used them. They believed in going after the warships not the cargo ships or oil tankers. They would take one if they found it but the plan was to go for the warship.

Some German U boats passed to the Japs when Germany surrendered but they weren't used much and they never followed the advice og the German captains.

Small point about the R&D. The Japenese had a working operational MAD system that sank a number of US submarines. The problem of course was that the aircraft were very vulnerable to attack and despite the losses they sufferred anti submarine warefare was nearly always a low priority.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

I know the Japanese did some extensive R&D on them and had quite a respectable submarine force but compared to its large surface fleet it is relatively unknown. The Japanese even built the largest submarines of WW2 and were not even surpassed in size until the 1950's.



> Japan had what was easily the most diverse submarine fleet of any nation in the Second World War. These included manned torpedoes, midget submarines, medium-range submarines, purpose-built supply submarines (many for use by the Army), long-range fleet submarines (many of which carried an aircraft), submarines with high submerged speed, and submarines that could carry multiple bombers.
> 
> Because of the vastness of the Pacific, Japan built many boats of extreme range and size, many of which were capable of cruises exceeding 20,000 miles and lasting more than 100 days. In fact, Japan built what were by far the largest submarines in the world, indeed, the only submarines over 5,000 tons submerged displacement, or submarines over 400 feet in length until the advent of nuclear power. These same boats were credited with a range of 37,500 miles at 14 knots, a figure never matched by any other diesel-electric submarine. These large boats could each carry three floatplane bombers, the only submarines in history so capable. Japan built 41 submarines that could carry one or more aircraft, while the vast submarine fleets of the United States, Britain, and Germany included not one submarine so capable.
> 
> ...



*Sen Toku Type*



> While Japan built many submarines that were larger than those of other Navies, the three Sen Toku boats were far larger than anything ever seen before. Some 60% larger than the largest contemporary American submarine, USS Argonaut, they had more than twice her range. The most unusual feature was that they each carried three floatplane bombers (and parts for a fourth), a feat never achieved by any other class of submarine. These aircraft folded to fit into the 115-foot cylindrical hangar, which was slightly offset to starboard and opened forward to access the catapult. The huge double hull was formed of parallel cylindrical hulls so that it had a peculiar lazy-eight cross section, and may have inspired the Soviet Typhoon-class built some 40 years later. Although aircraft must be considered their primary armament, they also carried a formidable torpedo battery and the usual 14cm deck gun. Anti-aircraft armament included ten 25mm cannons in three triple mounts and one single. Each of these boats had radar and a snorkel.
> 
> The aircraft were the Aichi M6A1 Seiran, also carried by the Type AM submarines. Each of these monoplanes could carry one aerial torpedo or a bomb weighing up to 800kg. Powered by the 1,400hp Atsuta 32 engine (similar to Germany's DB601) they had a top speed of 295mph and were credited with a range of 642 nautical miles. The Sen Toku submarines carried four aerial torpedoes, three 800kg bombs, and twelve 250kg bombs to arm these aircraft. These aircraft had their assembly points coated with fluorescent paint to ease assembly in the dark, so four trained men could prepare an aircraft for launch in seven minutes. All three aircraft could be prepared, armed, and launched in 45 minutes.
> 
> ...


 
Units 3 (all survived) 
Ships I-400, I-401, and I-402 
Year(s) Completed 1944-1945 
Displacement 5,223 tons / 6,560 tons 
Dimensions 400.3 ft x 39.3 ft x 23 ft 
Machinery 4 diesels: 7,700 hp 
electric motors: 2,400 hp

Speed 18.75 knots / 6.5 knots 
Range 37,500 nm @ 14 knots 
Armament 8x533mm TT fwd + 1x14cm/50 cal. (20 torpedoes). 
Max. Depth 100 m (330 feet) 
Crew 144 officers and men


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 26, 2005)

Thanks for the help. I have read some about the I-401. I did not realize that the doctorine was so different. but I do want to look for the MAD design. I know Germany used it on a BV-138.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

MAD design? Are you talking about he mine sweeping aircraft. Germany actually used it on the Ju-52 before they used it on the Bv-138's.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 26, 2005)

The only Aliied plane to use MAD was the Cat, RAF planes used ASV.
MAD was used with retrobombs, designed to fire backwards as the plane passed over the target


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

I think I am confusing myself with something else.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> The only Aliied plane to use MAD was the Cat, RAF planes used ASV.
> MAD was used with retrobombs, designed to fire backwards as the plane passed over the target



The B-18 used MAD equipment stateside.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 28, 2005)

What exactly is MAD? I thought I knew what it was but I am not sure of it now.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 28, 2005)

Magnetic Anomaly Detector


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2005)

Used for mine sweeping warfare correct? Aha I was correct. I was confusing myself for nothing. I knew I was not going crazy! Yeah it was used on the Ju-52's before it was used on the Bv-138s


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

I think the Wellington used those also.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

yes they did............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

See, I do know about British planes


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 29, 2005)

MAD was also used on USAAF Catalinas along with the retrobomb


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2005)

Yes the Catalina used it also.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> See, I do know about British planes



yes, well done CC


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Go me, I learned it of the video about the Wellington and Blenheim


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

so if i asked you about other british aircraft you'd be stumped and come looking to me for answers??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

No id go find it for myself 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

now that'd be interesting........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Its not that hard, CC there Google, theres Yahoo, and theres books, which I prefer! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Exactly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Lanc has not figured out books yet. First he has to learn to read!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Read? Hes still in nappies


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Just what I was thinking.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 1, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Read? Hes still in nappies


After what you evil bastards did to him, I'm not surprised!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

He needs a plug now!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Plug? More like sewing up


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

put a cork in it guys...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Cork? What if it seeps through?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

cover it in wax.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Ugh, that post doesnt sound right without the previous posts


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

doesn't sound too good with them


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

None of them sound good.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

This is true


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

This covo went real sour real quick.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

Most of them did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

I have seen that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

The lanc should really learn to control his homo-erotic passions. I think he's been listening to too much Franz Ferdinand


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

I wont even go there.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

Anyway....
What would have happened if The USN carriers had been at Pearl harbour and were sunk?
No Doolittle Raid and no Midway


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 2, 2005)

The Wasp was on her way over from the Atlantic when the raid took place, so there'd be at least one carrier in the Pacific for the Japanese to deal with. A pretty tenuous hold for the US until more carriers could be built. And if she'd been risked and lost in the Coral Sea, there wouldn't have even been that.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

Midway would have been taken, no air cover over Guadalcanal, no Leyte Gulf.
Troops could have been landed on Australia or on the East Coast of the US


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I dont think it would have altered the outcome of the war. The Doolittle raid accomplished nothing but as a moral booster and a punch right back at the Japanese. It was never intended to cause lots of destruction only as to let the Japanese know that they were coming for them. So if the Doolittle raid had not happened, oh well. 

Yes Midway would have been lost and Australia threatened however the biggest thing it would have caused for the Japanese was buy them more time and prolong the war. The Japanese could not have invaded the mainland United States. It was too far of a distance to be able to logistically sustain an invasion force. It would have taken too long for the Japanese to get reinforcements to the United States and then at some point there forces would have become to spread out and would have been easy to defeat them. The main thing it would have been to hard to resupply and reinforce an invasion force over 6000 miles.

As for the Carrier situation. The United States had the recources to build new Carriers very quickly througout the west coast and the east coast. Between 1941 and 1945 alone the United States built 102 Aircraft carriers of Different types.

*Large Fleet Carriers*

Midway Class - 3 Ships (137 aircraft each)
Essex Class - 24 ships (103 aircraft each)

*Light Fleet Carriers*

Siapan Class - 2 Ships (48 aircraft each)
Independence Class - 7 Ships (45 aircraft each)
Commencement Bay Class - 19 Ships (34 aircraft each)
Casablanca Class - 37 Ships (30 aircraft each)
Bouge Class - 10 Ships (21 aircraft each)

The United States was able to build these carriers very fast to replace sunk ones, something the Japanese did not have the luxury to do. For instance CVB-41 Midway was laid down in October 1943 and completed March 20, 1945, CV-9 Essex was laid down 28 April 1941 and completed July 31, 1942. That is just barely over a year for the Essex. All of these carriers were built throughout the United States from the Philadelphia Naval Yard to Norfolk to San Diego. There were so many places to build them that the Japanese could not have stopped it. 

Basically what I am trying to say is that had the Carriers been at Pearl Harbour all it may have done was delay the outcome of the war. Nothing more.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Adler is exactly right. 

What Japan was capturing was not economy increasing land but just extra land bases and holiday destinations (  ). The Japanese economy just wouldn't be able to stand up to the US economy. 
An invasion against the US was out of the question. On any beach head the US would be able to throw everything and overwhelm it purely with numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I think the Japs could have successfully landed an invasion force but they would not have been able to withstand it and within days it would have been destroyed. There was just no way to sustain it and resupply it plus the US could have more quickly put forces on the beaches.

The only reason I think the Japs could have started a beachhead is because of sheer suprise. The US would not have suspected this to happen, however it deffinatly would have failed.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

I don't think the Japanese would have been stupid enough to do that. At most Hawaii would have been taken beyond Midway. I doubt it would have knocked America out of the war though. The Pacific would have been in the IJNs hold but not for long with events in Europe. 
The US could have diverted what would have been in the Pacific to Europe. End it there, then finish off the Japanese. I actually do think that India and Burma could have been held by the British because that was the largest Army Britain had, the 14th Army, and they became experts in jungle warfare from their experiences.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 3, 2005)

Hi all and It is VE Week!! So This weekend we can celebrate!
As for the Pacific, Midway would have fallen if the carriers were hit at Pearl, but I am not sure because the boats were rebuilt so fast. If Pearl was hit with the third strike as planned it would be a different story. 

but with out Midway Port Morsby would fall. I do not think they could invade Austraila, but air strikes would be everyday. With all this said the Japanese subs would have been able to cut the lines west.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

If Pearl was hit a 3rd time, what? The boats would not have been built fast eneogh. The carriers were built on the mainland west coast and east coast, and there was no way for the Japs to hit the naval yards there undetected after Pearl Harbor.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

i don't think australia has to worry about their supply lines being cut though, they're pretty damn self sufficient.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I agree with you on that. Anything other then small islands and mainland asia (only because of its proximity) had nothing to worry about.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

and they've got allot of british blood in them too, which means they'll be resorcefull and they'll never give up........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

If you say so.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Australia is hardly worth taking anyway. North Australia, yes but not all of it. There's too much resource required for the job. Much more than Japan had on offer while fighting with the British forces in India and Burma.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

They deffinatly had there hands full there.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

They had my Grandad there.  

Although that was a joke, my Grandad was in the Chindits and a 'Blitzer' at that. The Japanese hated them, they were the targets to aim for when in combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Dont know much about them.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The Chindits were dropped or march behind enemy lines. They set up fire-bases to disrupt enemy supply lines and reserve movement. It was guerilla warfare and the Japanese had no effective way of stopping it. 
Not only was it an effective military operation but a great moral booster because the Chindits were just drawn from the normal Army ranks. The normal Army would think "If they could do it, we can" 

The Japanese to this day say that it was the Chindits that won the war for the Allies in the CBI. 

A "Blitzer" was a Bren-Gunner. They would fire from the hip and would be sent in first, or against snipers with their gun blazing to strike fear into the enemy. Then they would lay down accurate fire support while the attack was going on. The Japanese hated Bren-Gunners because of how accurate and deadly they were.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Aha thanks.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The Chindits could only be supplied from the air and the injured were either left behind or evacuated by air. Lysanders came in handy for that, with their short take off and landing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I dont agree with the left behind thing though. No one should be left behind.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

That is a big difference between the US and British military systems. The US has always been more humanitarian to it's troops. Not one man gets left behind. 
In the British view injuring a man is better than killing them because by injuring a man you take up more of the resources of the enemy. When fighting an enemy like America, Britain would be aiming to injuring more than killing. By injuring a man it would take several other guns from the battlefield, those guns who are trying to help the injured man. 

In the Chindit operations the men could not take them, just like they could not take prisoners. They were behind enemy lines, any injured man would hinder the progress and all the men knew that an injury far from any kind of make-shift landing strip would mean they would be left behind. 
Men from the theatre all knew that they would be propped up against a tree, a canteen, 3-5 days rations and a pistol given to them and left. Even their rifle was often taken away with it's ammo.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

Man, talk about the loneliest feeling a man could have. What is the origin of the name "Chindit"?


----------



## mosquitoman (May 4, 2005)

I think it comes from the river Chindwin in that area


----------



## evangilder (May 4, 2005)

Ah, okay. I had never heard the term before, wasn't sure if it was one of those regional colloquialisms or something.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

It actually comes from the guardians of a temple near the Chindwin river.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That is a big difference between the US and British military systems. The US has always been more humanitarian to it's troops. Not one man gets left behind.
> In the British view injuring a man is better than killing them because by injuring a man you take up more of the resources of the enemy. When fighting an enemy like America, Britain would be aiming to injuring more than killing. By injuring a man it would take several other guns from the battlefield, those guns who are trying to help the injured man.



That doctrine is actually widly used. You wound a soldier and then you can pic off the other soldiers trying to help him.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

Yes but what I'm saying is, the British don't try and help him. Even less so for the Chindits.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

I understand the doctrine but I prefer the other way, dont leave anyone behind, everyone goes home.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

America cares more for it's troops than Britain. In some circumstances it costs more lives than if they had left that one behind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

possibly


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

Especially when you're behind enemy lines. You've got a job to do, you're not going to let an injured man hinder your progress. 

The best way to make the point is from the Battle of the Black Sea (Black Hawk Down). When Blackburn fell from the Blackhawk and it took six other soldiers to pull him back to the convoy. British troops would have had him treated and the other five soldiers would have stayed part of the battle. He probably wouldn't have been left behind but they wouldn't have bothered with him while the battle was still raging, only a medic would tend to him. 

Or when the first Blackhawk went down and they spent hours cutting out the cockpit to bring out, what they found to be, dead bodies. The British would have left them. They would have probably gone to the crash site, picked up any survivors, blown up the helicopter and gone. 

In the Falklands those that died there, were buried there. Most of the time, we don't even bother bringing the bodies home. I think they're starting to do it more and more now though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

I just think it is the right thing to do, I would not want to be left behind. I would also not want to risk the lives of my comrads though either, so I can understand it.


----------



## evangilder (May 4, 2005)

It's a tough call. You want to help your buddy. You typically train, eat sleep, shit and fight with these guys for quite a while. Bonds that are deeper than civilians understand are formed. They become your brothers. I would have a tough time leaving someone behind.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

I imagine it would be hard but sometimes the choice has to be made, the mission or the man.


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

Agreed, but it's still tough.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2005)

Agreed but as even said very tough and I think I would be psycologically pretty bad off afterwards.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

We're all in definate agreement there then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

Nice avatar by the way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

It scares me


----------



## MP-Willow (May 6, 2005)

Adler, I wanted to say the Third wave at Pearl would have farced a slower reconstruction time and would have slowed down the sub. war because of the loss of the drydocks and oil tanks.

I am also not Surpised that we have not read much about Plan_D's grandfather. If he was in the CBI people seem to forget about it alot. Plan_D, have you read about the air drops for the Raiders? They were prity scary things. Take a -47 or Halifax and fly low try to find this little pach of jungle. It is almost like open water flying, but not as bad.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Adler, I wanted to say the Third wave at Pearl would have farced a slower reconstruction time and would have slowed down the sub. war because of the loss of the drydocks and oil tanks.



I disagree non of the docks in the continental United States were damaged, so production would not have been slowed for newer ships. The oil tanks on Pearl were not the only oil tanks the US had either.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Thanks, Adler. I like the THRUSTING motion. 

Are you talking about the supply drops or the pick ups, MP? Both were hazardous and had to be precise. The Chindits would perished without the supply drops, day in and day out. My Grandad flew in a C-47 a few times, he was actually evacuated from the jungle by one. I don't know if he was behind enemy lines at the time but he caught an awful disease and was evacuated to Imphal. After recovering he was sent straight back into the jungle to find out that the replacement Bren-Gunner for his unit had the Bren gun jam on him...and he got shot.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 6, 2005)

That's too bad, though perhaps a fateful event for your grandad. Do you happen to know if it was the very same Bren he would have been using?


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Yes it was. He told me and was very upset while doing. I think he still believed it should have been him there, the kid who got it was only 18. Being a 'Blitzer' he was one of the first in, the gun jammed and he had nothing to keep the Japs heads down...he got shot. 

I could never bring myself to ask much about the war but every now and then he'd feel the need to tell us a story. There are a lot of strange stories from his time in the jungle. 

While reading up on Burma I've come across a problem with being a Bren gunner in Burma (aside from the fact that you were the target for the enemy to hit). The ammo used in the Bren, in Burma, was India built and of poor quality. The force of the Bren automatic fire would actually bend or snap the ammo in the chamber causing an unblockable jam.


----------



## evangilder (May 7, 2005)

That's not a good position to be in when you are the blitzer! YIKES!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

Yeah it would not be a very good moment for you.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 9, 2005)

Plan_D thanks. I wounder how meny Bren gunners were hurt when the amo failed and jammed up the gun? As for the pick up or drop, yes both are hard. I think a pick up might be a bit trickier because you have to get in on the ground. A C-47 is not a plane that you can drop into the jungle, it needs a little room


----------



## mosquitoman (May 9, 2005)

I think small airstrips were built behind enemy lines for Lizzies to come in with supplies, extra men and to remove casualties


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

That still would not be that small of a task.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2005)

no it cirtainly wasn't, often it wasn't even a strip just a feild, and the agents that had to prepare the strip weren't trained enough and so chose rather useless landing spots that the lizzies had to use anyway..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

I can see it now, rolling down the strip at about 70 mph and the gears hitting a rutt in the ground and ripping off. AAAAHHHHHH


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 9, 2005)

Landing in a ploughed field....hmmmmm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

Yeah it would not be fun. The crasiest place I have ever landed was at 8000ft up Big Duke mountain in Kosovo. There is no room for error and you can see for miles.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

C-47s were hardly used to pick up casualties. They did try their best to make little landing strips in openings in the jungle. I'll be able to get some pictures off WaW of a L-5, I think it is, taking off from one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2005)

They have special airforce units today that jump behind enemy lines and set up airfields for the invasion forces to come in now.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

wow, didn't know that........

but yes, lizzies had to land on mountains, in feilds, sometimes even forests but they still managed it.........


----------



## MP-Willow (May 11, 2005)

True they did it, but that dose not mean the crews had to like it, or that it was the best for the planes. The first Helos were used in the CBI if you all are interested.

Adler, your landing were with a blackhawk yes? A friend from high school went out for the Airforce special forces units, but I dd not hear from him if he made it or not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Yes Blackhawks.

I am not in the Airforce though. I am in Army Aviation. The Airforce guys have a pretty tough job but the whole HALO thing that they have to do is awesome. Must be a trip.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2005)

Thanks. A HALO jump is a trip, but only if the O2 is working.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Dont HALO jumps have a really high death rate?


----------



## mosquitoman (May 17, 2005)

What's HALO?


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 17, 2005)

High Altitude Low Opening.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 17, 2005)

Meaning?....


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 17, 2005)

Just as it implies, you exit the aircraft from a very high altitude but wait until the last possible moment to open your chute. Highly dangerous.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2005)

The largest plane that I have heard being used to pick up agents in occupied Europe were Hudsons. There was a story of one that landed but got bogged down in the mud when it turned to take off again. The engines were reved up but nothing happened and in the end they got some horses to help pull it out. Everyone was wondering when the Germans would turn up as they must have heard what was going on but they never did. Later the rumour was that the Germans did know what was happening but the idea of blundering around in the dark, knowing that the place was crawling with resistance fighters who 
a) were expecting them
b) knew every inch of the area
didn't appeal and they stayed in their base


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 18, 2005)

C-47s were used to pick up agents in asia but not europe as far as i know.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

I dont anything about C-47's doing such in Europe, and to be honest I dont really know anything about them in Asia either.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 20, 2005)

C-47s were everywhere. In the CBI they were a big part of the "Hump" misions. I have seen a picture of one with camel mission mrks on it. 

As for the HALO jumps yes they are dangorous and they do have more accidents, but that is expected when you jump from 30,000 feet or so, with O2 bottles on your back and open your chutes around 3000 feet. It is a great way to travel.


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

C-46s were more prevalent crossing the hump that the C-47s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

They could carry more!


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

Yep, and the engines were more powerful.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2005)

Why was the C-47 used so much more then?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

It was easier to fly and maintain. The C-46 was a bit of a beast for the pilots and maintainers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2005)

Ah. I must say ive always preferred the C-46 to the C-47.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ah. I must say ive always preferred the C-46 to the C-47.



I think statistically it actually hauled more over the hump than the C-47


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

Yes, it did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2005)

but the C-47 hauled just about everything else for everyone........


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2005)

Next too the old String bag the Dak has always been my best loved aircraft it must have saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives in its time,what a credit to the design and build team.
As for HALO(other than in James Bond) I dont know anything about it but I've done a static line jump at 2000 feet and I thought that was a bit on the low side and I believe normal jump height can be under 500 ft (not much point in a reserve) I have also read that on Crete a number of the German Paratroops jumped over undulating ground and their chutes failed to fully deploy before they hit the ground.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2005)

I was reading the other day about a kind of jump (not sure what its called) where you go up in a Helicopter and hover over a net at a given altitude. You then Free fall, without a chute, into the net


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 21, 2005)

I know what kind of jump that is: Stupid!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2005)

Ugh I cant find what it was called


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2005)

Oop no, I got it...Its called SCAD diving.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> C-47s were everywhere. In the CBI they were a big part of the "Hump" misions. I have seen a picture of one with camel mission mrks on it.



That I know, I was just implying that I did not know about picking up special ops in Europe or Asia.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 23, 2005)

Adler that is fine.

C-46 was made to hold the bigger stuff, just like the C-53 was for troops. But they all were born from the DC-3, what a great bird. The "Hump" claimed a lot of aircrews and planes. I think that was the hardest mission to fly. But that helped to develope the airlift Comand


----------



## evangilder (May 23, 2005)

Actually, the C-46 was evolved from the Curtiss CW-20 airliner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

I knew it was evolved from an airliner but I was not sure which one. What can you tell me about the CW-20?


----------



## evangilder (May 24, 2005)

A bit. The design actually goes back to the 1930s, although it first flew in 1940, if memory serves correctly. The CW-20 was the first pressurized airliner. The Army never flew them pressurized though. Give me a couple of weeks and I will get a full rundown for you. I am working on a presentation on the C-46 for July at the museum. Once I have all the info compile, I can tell you a lot more. I am taking a week off from research as I just gave a presentation over the weekend.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Actually you are right. Now I remember. There is one at the National Air and Space Museum. It is a civilian airliner for Pan Am and it said about how it was the first pressurized airliner.


----------



## evangilder (May 26, 2005)

I picked up alot of facts about the C-46 from being around one at the museum. We have had hump pilots visit and spend some misty-eyed tours in "China Doll". It's very moving to see these guys get choked up at the site of something they flew over 50 years ago.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

They love there aircraft.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 27, 2005)

Evenglider, thanks for the help. I would love to read your presentation when you get it done. I cannot get to see it, but unless it is webcast maybe 

As for wistyeyed, I do when I see these old birds or even the families of pilots or crews. To think how meny young men never sew there children. That is why I am glad we are saving some of these planes to keep flying.


----------



## evangilder (May 27, 2005)

I have an article on the TBM Avenger I need to get written first before I do the C-46. Not to worry, it should be a couple of weeks or so.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2005)

Evenglider thanks. The TBM, it did a little bit of everything yes? Am I right to say it was one of the first COD. planes? Also did some have extra seats put in the bomb bay? 

I really like your sig for Memorial Day!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2005)

i love the TMB/TBF.........


----------



## evangilder (May 31, 2005)

Well, I will have more info as I write the article. I don't know alot about the Avenger, but have alot of good resource material and personally know a vet that flew one. Frm what I can tell, they were rugged birds.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

I have heard the same About the Avenger. Wasn't the former Presedent Bush Senior shot down in one?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have heard the same About the Avenger. Wasn't the former Presedent Bush Senior shot down in one?



Yep - and there's film of him getting fished out of the water by a sub.


----------



## evangilder (May 31, 2005)

They were bombing Chichi Jima, just north of Iwo. It was the main communications relay station for Iwo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

I have seen that film. Thats why I recalled that.

Great siggy there Even. Very fitting for this time of year. Anytime of year actually!


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 3, 2005)

Evenglider, I like the Memorial Sig, and have seen the film on Bush being fished out. I also read a good book about Chich Jima, not a lot of pilots and crew who were shot down over that rock and were taken prisoner made it back. 

Bush Senior spent some time in the water, more then once I think?


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

John Bradley's son wrote a book about those guys, including the elder Bush called "Flyboys". Its a great book and a sad story about the guys that were shot down and captured.

Thanks on the siggy all. I took the images and put them together in photoshop to make the siggy. I still need to fix it though, as NS has pointed out that the Canadian flag I used is a post 1965 flag. I need to use the one from the time.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 6, 2005)

Flyboy, that bok was the one I read. I really did like it, and have told a few other people they should look it up as well 

It was realy dark and sad in parts, but gave a good idea of the war.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 6, 2005)

I Have a question for you all? What are you thoughts on the war if the Russians cut a peace deal with Hitler before the invasion of Normandy? I was watching a program this morning o the Normandy landings that said Stalin was pritty tiered of the US and England dragging their feet for the second frot


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

Do you honestly think that Germany would have said "Oh, alright then Stalin peace it is" No, Germany wanted the war with the West to end so they could continue against the Soviet Union.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2005)

I believe that when the Germans were nearing Moscow the Russians sent out peace feelers to Hitler who turned them down. If this is true, then as serious mistakes go, that was as big as they get.
There was an interview on our TV about 8-9 months ago and one of the people they interviewed was Stalins translator. He didn't talk to the Germans it was one of his trusted aides, who was shot for treason shortly after. Th implication was that dead men don't tell tales.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2005)

Glider so true.
I just wanted to ask the rest o you what you thought


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

I personally agree with Plan_D and dont think Hitler would have accepted it. However had he accepted it and moved his forces to the west to counter the invasion in Normandy. It may have made D-Day look a little different then it did. In the end though I think that Staliln woudl have invaded from the east while Hitler had all his forces in west and chaos would have rained down on Germany from the Russia. For this same reason though I dont think Hitler would have pulled most of his forces from the new borders in the east which in turned would not have changed the outcome of D-Day anyhow.

An interesting book I have is called _*Fox on the Rhine*_. It is an alternate history book. In the book the assination attempt on Hitler is successfull. In the ensuing power struggle SS Fuerher Himmler siezes power and quickly sues for peace with the Russians. The Soviets oblige and Himmler places Rommel in command of all Ground Forces of Germany. He pulls the vast majority of his forces back to the west and beats the allies back at Aachen. Himmler also orders mass production of the Me-262's to counter the allied bombers. It is a very interesting book with Rommel surrendering in the end to the allies.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 13, 2005)

Interesting Adler. I gess the New boarders of Germany would be replaced to pre-war locations?


----------



## kiwimac (Jun 13, 2005)

New thread started. This one locked


----------

