There's no anglo/American rivalry. I was trying to keep Britain out of it.
RG, if all that was about what you said at the end. Then fine, that's true - Germany did have less base technology than America. Which gave America the edge in a lot of technologies.
The German scientists were still advanced in rocket design, night vision (directing artillery, and conducting close-combat are different things), tank design and aerodynamics. You're still not going to admit it. If the US was ahead of Germany in aerodynamics, why did they steal scientists and put them straight to work on the US aircraft industry? If the Germans were behind why is it that the F-86 and MiG-15 look remarkably similar - by luck? No, it's because a team of German scientists had designed them.
The only thing that let Germany was down was Nazism. I know that, I understand that more than most people - much beyond 'Nazis are evil' - Hitler disallowed 400,000 Russians to fight for him in 1941 after the initial stages of Barbarossa due to his hate.
The Germans were not technologically superior in 1940-1941. The opposite is true. The Germans were TACTICALLY superior throughout the war. I fail to see how you can make the claim that the US were better fighting troops when they won, in their areas, by weight in numbers. The only two US divisions I can see as being on par or better than an early war German division is 101st and 82nd Airborne.
You have to remember that many late war German divisions were under-equipped security divisions - not made for open war. Still, the 11th and 21st Panzer were the most experienced on the battlefield and when equipped could rarely be beaten.
The Allies gained air superiority, not by Germany tactical failures on the ground. So, I don't know how you bring that into the equation.
The British cannot be commented on as a whole. In Burma they were remarkable in command after the initial shock of 1941. In France 1940, they fought well but a dying war. In N. Africa again, the troops brave but the command flawed until Monty. Europe 1944, 2nd Army did a lot but a perfect show of how brilliant the Germans were was Caen. And how long it took the Allies to take the place.
I hope you know about the US 5th Army in Italy getting its butt-kicked while out-numbering the Germans, and almost evacuating until the British 8th Army struck at the Germans from the south. If the Germans were as poor as you say they were, they wouldn't have held off the world for 6 years.
America contributed a lot but did not secure victory. Britain would not have fallen by German military action. The only way it would have fallen would have to been starved out, which would have taken a long time. Get off your typically American high-horse and get down to the basics of the war, Germany were the better fighting unit for what they achieved...weight in numbers and Nazism defeated them, not Gung-ho America.
And Sikorsky was Russian, end of story.
I do apologise to other Americans but when someone seems to claim only one nation won the war it is extremely annoying.
RG, if all that was about what you said at the end. Then fine, that's true - Germany did have less base technology than America. Which gave America the edge in a lot of technologies.
The German scientists were still advanced in rocket design, night vision (directing artillery, and conducting close-combat are different things), tank design and aerodynamics. You're still not going to admit it. If the US was ahead of Germany in aerodynamics, why did they steal scientists and put them straight to work on the US aircraft industry? If the Germans were behind why is it that the F-86 and MiG-15 look remarkably similar - by luck? No, it's because a team of German scientists had designed them.
The only thing that let Germany was down was Nazism. I know that, I understand that more than most people - much beyond 'Nazis are evil' - Hitler disallowed 400,000 Russians to fight for him in 1941 after the initial stages of Barbarossa due to his hate.
The Germans were not technologically superior in 1940-1941. The opposite is true. The Germans were TACTICALLY superior throughout the war. I fail to see how you can make the claim that the US were better fighting troops when they won, in their areas, by weight in numbers. The only two US divisions I can see as being on par or better than an early war German division is 101st and 82nd Airborne.
You have to remember that many late war German divisions were under-equipped security divisions - not made for open war. Still, the 11th and 21st Panzer were the most experienced on the battlefield and when equipped could rarely be beaten.
The Allies gained air superiority, not by Germany tactical failures on the ground. So, I don't know how you bring that into the equation.
The British cannot be commented on as a whole. In Burma they were remarkable in command after the initial shock of 1941. In France 1940, they fought well but a dying war. In N. Africa again, the troops brave but the command flawed until Monty. Europe 1944, 2nd Army did a lot but a perfect show of how brilliant the Germans were was Caen. And how long it took the Allies to take the place.
I hope you know about the US 5th Army in Italy getting its butt-kicked while out-numbering the Germans, and almost evacuating until the British 8th Army struck at the Germans from the south. If the Germans were as poor as you say they were, they wouldn't have held off the world for 6 years.
America contributed a lot but did not secure victory. Britain would not have fallen by German military action. The only way it would have fallen would have to been starved out, which would have taken a long time. Get off your typically American high-horse and get down to the basics of the war, Germany were the better fighting unit for what they achieved...weight in numbers and Nazism defeated them, not Gung-ho America.
And Sikorsky was Russian, end of story.
I do apologise to other Americans but when someone seems to claim only one nation won the war it is extremely annoying.
8)
