Aces

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Maybe the war would have taken longer ...but it would have been won

The Germans ran up higher scores because they flew until they either won or died while many Allied pilots rotated assignments when they had flown a certain amount of time or missions; mostly mission count.
Click to expand...

That is a big factor that is pointed out time and time again in books /films/documentaries etc. and is very valid as a point.

Many of the allied pilots went to pass on their skills in Training and also toured the states and other commowealth countries for months to pass on their Knowledge.

Bronze...i think it is a combination of both as you need the good plane ..but you need the good pilot too ...i have read in several situations like you would have too where crappy obsolete planes or planes not built for the job have outdone the frontline fighter of the enemy by skillful pilot manoevering and have had very little to do with the plane.

The 262 is not a fighter as such either...it had a total crap turning circle owing to its high speed..took a while to get up to speed and had to rely on its speed to stay immune...it was a high speed interceptor more than anything . One on one dogfighting was not its high point is what im saying
 
no not really actually if the japes hadnt jumped the gun on their conquests it would have taken if you guys (yes all the commonwealth antions included) to beat hitler if you ever did
 
Thats why I'm so hot on the He 280. In dogfights with an FW 190 it proved to be more manouverable
Click to expand...
... yes i cant believe they canned it even after it was shown to beat a Focke Wulf in dogfights ..weird huh.


German..so do you think that Germany would have beaten Russia as well?

What was Hitlers master plan after he was defeated in the sky over England ..which was done by a smaller airforce with better tactics? The Battle of Britian showed the prize he was after but there was no way he was getting it lol. Hitler had no idea on Navy tactics and indeed was scared of the English Navy(and also the use of his own) which would have pounded a non existant invading force anyway.

cheers
 
I did state myself that it was PARTLY due to the pilots - there were very good pilots out there but it was undeniably down to the aircraft at the end of the day...thats only my opinion mind you, it is a point we could argue til doomsday i'm sure - we may as well agree to disagree

As for the Americans winning the war for us - thats a load of bull - it might've taken longer and more people would have died but we would have won in the end....the Americans are always the same - they wait til the last minute to get involved and then and hog all the credit for the victory - we held the axis off for years before your country decided to get off its fat arses and help - and that was only cos the Japs got the slip on you...thats very impressive
 
I don't know much about lend-lease or other industrial goods made in the USA, but from my understanding is that they were quite important to the Brits and Soviets. While it may not be the US military, the US industry helped the Allies, lend-lease started in early March 1941 and I'm sure other goods produced by the industry and bought by the Allies was being shipped overseas earlier.

While the Allies probably would have eventually overrun the Germans (IMO it would be most likely end up being due to the Soviet numerical superiority), the US aiding the war with its industrial strength and later military strength saved enough lives and time (and the destruction of industry, infrastructure, etc that would come with it) that the war was heavily influenced by the US participating on the Allied side, and the US was a major player in the war (note: in the war, not the start, but in the end).

The US was also the major Allied power in the Pacific theater, and without the US taking an active role it is quite possible before the Brits decided to start doing more in the Pacific,Australia would be Japanese held, they would have secured natural resources, established a training system to continue turning out top notch pilots, advanced their aircraft designs, built up their fleet, and so on to the point where the Brits and Commonwealth taking on the Japanese would take just as long, if not longer, and cost as many lives as the fighting in Europe.

the Americans are always the same - they wait til the last minute to get involved and then and hog all the credit for the victory
Click to expand...
First, the US now is generally at the tip of the spear, with the Brits following along, and a bunch of other nations generally led by idiots (well, all nations are led by idiots, but by bigger idiots) complaining that the US shouldn't be going into a country to change the regime when the dictator is known to have used gas on his own population which alone should have quickly made the international community send a stupidly large military force in as soon as it was known to have happened to absolutely crush any opposition.
Back to the point, the US was isolationist, as they, or any other country, can be. It was the general sentiment of the nation. The US didn't really see the need (or will of its populace) to send people overseas to die.

So my point is, the US was isolationist (and if the President had declared war there could have been massive strikes, protests, violence, etc since the majority didn't want to get involved in another mess in Europe), they aren't now (generally being one of a handful of countries competent enough to be leaders - which includes the Brits of course), and therefore you are wrong.

we held the axis off for years before your country decided to get off its fat arses and help
Click to expand...
Just my opinion, holding the Axis off means nothing. All it means is the Axis hasn't won yet, but niether had the Allies, but that in no way means the Brits would've been able to take Europe back without help (especially industrial).

Not being American, going to US schools or anything I can't be certain, but from a few books I've read they point out that Americans in general cared more about beating the Japs because of Pearl Harbour than the Nazis in Europe (ie Europe was of secondary importance). Thus, assuming that sentiment has lived on since the war, it makes (some) sense that the US claims they won the war, because they did the majority of the fighting in the Pacific. If they view the Pacific as the primary theater of the war, they were more or less the reason that the primary part of the war was won.

Lastly, from reading your posts Whaler, it seems to me that you can't accept the fact that the Brits needed the US's help and that the US's industry and military they were extremely important to winning WWII.
 

Yes and No

During the Battle of Britain Spitfire's and Hurricane's use American Petrol, Propeller's and Guns 8)

Hot Space
 
Though many points you make about American involvement are true - many are just opinion "maybe's" and "possibly's"

The Americans as a nation were not interested in the affiars of the world - in fact even these days the Americans won't get involved in any kind of war unless they see benefit for themselves. I take it from reading your post that you beleive the war with Iraq was a justified one? thats crap - if you try to tell me that America got involved in that war for any other reason than to get all they could from Iraq and then leave (like they did in the last Gulf War) and so George Bush could finish the job his bloody dimwitted father didn't then you are severly disillusioned my friend - there is nothing noble about that war.

Although i will agree that the States did supply alot of equiptment, fuel etc to our cause during WW2 even before they became directly involved- that was only becuase the leaders could themselves see the eventual threat of war engulfing the USA and therefore it was within their best interests to help us - thought it was British pilots during the Battle of Britain that did all the hard work - no Americans in sight - i think we deserve the sole credit for that one.

America ONLY entered the war becuase of a direct assault on them - they would've quite happily sat back and watched the whole of Europe get occupied and not lift a finger! Your statement about the entire American nation being against the war is not at all convincing - most Americans decended from Europe and have alot of family there - i can't see them being keen on accepting their familys fate and doing nothing and i don't see why they would be any more keen to risk their lives for us because one military harbour was destroyed.

It is in fact true that the Germans, Italians etc declared war on America! not the other way around - in fact right when America entered the war it was only with Japan! so technically they still weren't interested in what was happening in Europe until the Nazis declared war!

My point: Americans were and still are a selfish, ignorant bunch of yahoos or as i once heard it said: "John Waynes with wet pants" they only get involved when its conveniant for them so forgive me if i don't bow down with respect and awe

They probably killed countless allied troops with 'friendly fire' its just that it wouldn't have been so well publisised in those days.

I can accept that without American backing things would have been a hell of alot worse and many many more people would have died - but forgive me if i have enough faith in Britain (and other countries) to say that we beat the Germans once without American military aid - and we could damn well do it again - with or without American backing!
 
I'd like to correct myself on a point before someone else does - i stated at the beginning "Its true that Americans as a nation were against the war" then later stated that i couldn't beleive they all thought like that - i don't think all Americans were aginst the war - at the end of the day its the governent that make all the desicions - not the people (especially in the US) and anyway - another weak point of yours about the War: however unpopular you claim it would have been with the people...correct me if i'm wrong but i don't remember vietnam (yes i mentioned vietnam! ) being very popular with the people? but Nixon still went ahead and did it anyway (another completely crooked president??! surely not??!
 
Nixon was dumb, Roosevelt wanted to go to war before most Americans, but there was the problem of getting Congress to approve it, who could possibly have mostly been isolationist/anti-war or been representing their electorate, where the majority may be isolationist/anti-war (and all politicians would want to get reelected).

There are two things to consider IMO:
1. The US is a sovereign nation. It can choose to go to war (or not go to war), other nations can try to influence it, but its the right of all sovereign nations. If they don't want to go to war, they dont. If they do, they do. International pressure can affect the decision, but it cannot make the decision.

There may be opinions against the nation (ie annoyed at the US for not joining WW I or II earlier, France/Germany for not participating in gulf war II, but that opinions, they're inevitable.

Personally I'll make fun of the US for not joining WWII earlier and France/Germany for not being anti-Saddam, but really, the nations have their rights since they are sovereign, and while I may think they made a bad decision, its their decision to participate or not, and personally I can accept it.

The US was isolationist at the time and the majority were more worried about themselves than Europe, which makes some sense since WWII led into the depression, and the Americans were just out of the depression so they were probably more concerned about that. The US had no reason to join the war (just like France/Germany didn't have a "reason" to participate in Gulf War II), so they didn't. Japan changed that, and the sentiment of the US public.

2. Points of View are important. As a Brit, you'd most likely say Europe and the Germans/Italians was the most important theater/axis nations of the war. From what I've read about the American feelings about the war/leading up to war and shortly after, Americans would feel the Pacific was the most important part of the war.

The US was the major player in the Pacific, and probably as important as Britain in Western Europe, and no Americans were in Eastern Europe so it isn't nearly as important, the Americans may think that they did 75% of the work necessary to win the war, which is much more than half of the work. Thus, from their point of view, they did more or less win the war. From a Brit point of view, North Africa/Med/West Europe would've been a lot more important than the Pacific, so lets assume you Brits feel the US did 40% of the effort, Britain/Commonwealth did 40% of the work, and the Soviets did 20% of the work roughly. There's a big difference, and location and why the nation entered the war has a big effect on how you see the nations' contributions.

**I made up all the numbers above, for all I know the US may think they did less/more and Brits may feel the percentages are wrong, but its purely an example of how points of view could affect how various people see the outcome of the war**

First part, I definately agree Same for Americans only being involved when they have something to gain. But afterall, humans are not too intelligent, many want to get power, and many who do get power abuse it. Also, a large percentage, if not a majority, of people want to get returns on their efforts. If you work hard on a school project, you want a good mark, if you work hard to start a business, you want to make money, etc.

Second part, everyone probably killed lots of allies with friendly fire. Personally I would be quite surprised if the Americans killed substantially more friendlies per infantry/tank/plane than Britain or any other Western Ally (gotta leave the Soviets out so we don't have to argue if purposefully killing friendlies is friendly fire).

thought it was British pilots during the Battle of Britain that did all the hard work - no Americans in sight - i think we deserve the sole credit for that one
Click to expand...
No, you Brits shouldn't get all the credit, don't forget the Commonwealth, Poles, Czechs, the few Americans, etc that were there too - they surely deserve some credit

And offtopic (and last I'll bother with) regarding Iraq, IMO the US went about it the wrong way. But IMO the international community failed to do something about Saddam in the first war in Iraq. When you have a dictator who gases part of his populace because they don't like him, the international community should've gone in either in massive force and crushed his regime or assassinated him and then gone in to keep any warloads or the like from taking power and then go about internationally rebuilding Iraq to what it was (seeing as it used to be one of the modern, if not the most modern Middle Eastern nation, with well kept roads, education, medical facilities, etc). Since the international community failed to take action, I have no problems with a small number of nations doing it, whether or not they have the same reasons I couldn't care less, as long as they don't go in and exploit it. And no, getting large contracts, more oil supplies isn't exploiting it as long as they pay the normal price for oil and don't overcharge (actually, they should be doing more for less since the companies getting contracts probably would be doing fine without them). The last part of not exploiting from my POV is that they need to remain as long as necessary, despite any economical or international pressures, to ensure that as soon as they leave the country won't be back into turmoil. Ideally the UN/US/whoever is rebuilding Iraq will take the time, money, and manpower to rebuild Iraq into a respectable nation as has been done with Germany (originally just the West) and Japan.

And I "support" Bush, only because I don't like Gore - but that doesn't mean I don't think he looks like a monkey
 
LOL, I thought about that, anyways, I think bronzeWhaler and I are getting close to agree to disagree for the time being (or at least I am, I don't really feel like writing so much for the next while )
 
You make some excellent, interesting points, you clearly know what you're talking about but i still beg to differ on a few points...to be honest as you said yourself its mostly based on opinion...


I agree with you that it would be foolish to claim Europe was the only important theatre during WW2 and i agree with you that America more than pulled its weight in the Pacific and it would have undoubtably fallen to the Japanese if the Americans weren't there BUT if the Americans claim that they did 75% of the work during the war - i won't accept that without accurate figures! Although i'm not anti-american (though that might be hard to beleive!) i think its a huge miscredit to everyone else who fought bloody hard in that damn war to claim that the Yanks did most of the hard work!

One of the things that always gets me about the American campaigns during WW2 was Omaha Beach - it was a disaster and there have been so many films/documentaries etc about it but it was the Americans fault the whole thing went "FUBAR" as they made navigational errors and all their tanks sank before they reached the beach- leaving all those poor bastards to die - but its not often they publisise THAT event

Interesting though (as a canadian i'm sure you'll agree with me) the canadians though smack bang next door to the states (you poor poor people ) did more work in Europe than in the Pacific - and fought damn hard i must say - in fact it was a canadian division that took one of the D-day landing beaches in France (i forget which one) Gold or Juno or something - unless i'm wrong on that point?

I accept your point on the Battle of Britain - it was wrong of me to state that it was purely a British effort - but foreign pilots were in a minority - I understood there was only a few American 'volunteer' pilots present at the battle but they were all killed fairly early on (though i daresay if you read American records they will state that it was in fact the Americans who won the Battle of Britain and the Brits just sat there drinking tea and playing cricket all day! )

I am going to make this my last point as i think Germansrgenious is right to a certain degree - though sometimes you need to write 3 pages to get your point across!

I don't think its quite right to compare the Gulf war / war on terror to the second world war

They are completely different wars and i can understand why most of the world would want it at arms length - although i do agree that Saddam Hussein is a vicious, dangerous madman who should get what he deserves...i don't think that crackpot is on the same scale as Hitler
There is no world domination coming our way - Iraq wasn't going to embark on a war that will engulf the world - althought that doesn't mean its ok to torture and kill whoever he did - but as you yourself said - they could've sent in the SAS or something and "popped a cap in his ass" there was no need for full scale invasion! it was a job that could have been done by the yanks single-handidly over here in England the overwhealming opinion of the masses was that we should'nt have got involved - i mean the Americans killed more British troops than the bloody iraqis did! there is alot of bitter feelings over here towards Americans (as i'm sure you can understand)

Thanks very much for this discussion - its nice to 'debate' with someone who so obviously knows what hes talking about 8) cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Y
Some higher decorated or scoring signed aces
Replies
1
Views
2K
vikingBerserker
B
List of Navy and Marine Aces
Replies
0
Views
2K
broke91hatch
B
C
Why British Spitfire aces had such low record?
Replies
7
Views
7K
Gemhorse
G
Menu
Log in
Register