the American view of world history vs everyone else's

[octane2079]

By night bombing raids he means B-24 liberators scaning the atlantic for U boats. They used a magnetic disruptor to find the subs or one big- search light.

While a few aircraft carried MAD gear the range on it was soo limitted that it was only useful in the final stages of the termination of the contact. ASW had not advanced to the point that aircraft could actively hunt submerged submarines. The only way for the YPB-1 and 2', sunderlands, beaufighters, and catalinas to hunt submarines was to use radar to detect them on the surface and attack before the subs crash dived. And by night bombing raids I do think he ment raids by lancasters attacking the unhardened uboat bases.

[SlartyBartFast]

The British had relatively modern weapons, as did the Japanese, the Italians and the french. Canadian troops were still equipped exactly the same as for WW1.

The British were still flying Sopwith Camels at the outbreak of WWII.

[SlartyBartFast]

Fine what do you suggest we do? Give third world countries money in which they will buy arms for warlords in Africa, fuel drug cartels in South and Central America, or give terrorists more bombs so they can create havok in a American city. We act in the best way we can, we fight instead of tip toe around in politics where nothing gets done, or better yet gets corrupted like Food for Oil in the almighty, perfect, peaceful UN.

Rubbish. The US is as guilty as any other nation or organisation when it comes to playing policitcs.

I think much of the world would be happy if the US stopped directly funding the warlords, dicatators, and drug cartels. And stop feigning ignorance and shock once the monsters they created and supported turn against them.

[brianlojeck]

That was WWI.

holy freakin' cow droppings I feel like a jackass...

[MarkM]

The British were still flying Sopwith Camels at the outbreak of WWII.

Don't forget the Swordfish torpedo bombers that were used throughout the war from aircraft carriers and in the Defence of Malta along with some other woefully outdated machines.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

The British were still flying Sopwith Camels at the outbreak of WWII.

I know the RAF still had some biplane fighters in service at out-of-the-way posts, but my understanding was that they were Gloster Gladiators (c.1932). If you've got some info that points to WW1-era craft, I'd like to see it. The Gladiators were obsolete, but had been mostly supplanted by Hurricanes before the outbreak of war.

The RCAF, by contrast, had a grand total of 19 modern fighters (Hurricanes) in September 1939, and 10 semi-modern bombers of a type the RAF would soon be retiring.

Don't forget the Swordfish torpedo bombers that were used throughout the war from aircraft carriers and in the Defence of Malta along with some other woefully outdated machines.

The Fairey Swordfish is a good example of an obsolescent aircraft in fronmt-line service. Though by age the design only predates the Hurricane and Spitfire by two years.

[Wavesport001]

Wow there's some ignorance going on here! First of all, if Hitler hadn't gone to war with the Russians England would have been invaded and overrun. The plans were in the works for operation sea lion during the battle of britain. It was also Hitler/Goering's decision to bomb London rather than military targets that kept the RAF from being totally wiped out and kept england from being invaded.

Second, the british got their asses kicked out of the pacific by the japanese. They lost hong kong, singapore, their ships were sunk and pacific bases captured. It wasn't until later in the war that the british helped the US retake the pacific. No doubt they helped, but the US could have done it without them (and basically did). The british had a handful of aircraft carriers, the US had almost thirty full size carriers in the pacific.

As far as movies are concerned, some are good, some are bad. The greatest WWII movie ever, The Longest Day, accurately portrays the British and Canadian landings, the french involvement, the British gliders landings, the 82nd and 101st airborne as well as the german point of view. If the British could have won the war on thier own, why was Eisenhower in charge?

Oh yeah, some time after the invasion I remember a little British-led operation called Market Garden, how did that work out guys?

[MarkM]

Wow there's some ignorance going on here! First of all, if Hitler hadn't gone to war with the Russians England would have been invaded and overrun. The plans were in the works for operation sea lion during the battle of britain. It was also Hitler/Goering's decision to bomb London rather than military targets that kept the RAF from being totally wiped out and kept england from being invaded.

Second, the british got their asses kicked out of the pacific by the japanese. They lost hong kong, singapore, their ships were sunk and pacific bases captured. It wasn't until later in the war that the british helped the US retake the pacific. No doubt they helped, but the US could have done it without them (and basically did). The british had a handful of aircraft carriers, the US had almost thirty full size carriers in the pacific.

As far as movies are concerned, some are good, some are bad. The greatest WWII movie ever, The Longest Day, accurately portrays the British and Canadian landings, the french involvement, the British gliders landings, the 82nd and 101st airborne as well as the german point of view. If the British could have won the war on thier own, why was Eisenhower in charge?

Oh yeah, some time after the invasion I remember a little British-led operation called Market Garden, how did that work out guys?

Russian Front etc was and has been covered ...read the entire thread...no arguements that England was on it's knees in 1940...btw Germany didn't invade Russia until 1941 so your thesis doesn't work...Germany simply should have invaded but were not ready or willing to implement Operation Sealion.

Pacific...well unless my geography is very lacking... Singapore, Hong Kong, Manilla, Burma etc are not in the Pacific the last time I looked. Singapore incidently fell because the Thailand goverment were sympathetic to the Japanese and allowed them free access across their land The Burma railway that was constructed by the prisoners of the Japanese was built through Burma and supplied from Japanese bases in Thailand.

Englands involvement in the Pacific was extremely limited due to geography nothing else.

Eisenhower was in charge and your point is?...some one had to be...Patten was used as a decoy for the Germans due to internal politics mainly between him and the upper command and Montgomery. The comment about England winning on their own has not been made at all in this thread. Comments about the lack of military forces has and the simply fact that until the US joined Britain had been on it's own militarily for 3 years in which time the Germans had not overrun them.

Market Garden was a limited success but limited is all it can be called....supply lines were not in place correctly and this applied to both american and english troops.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Wow there's some ignorance going on here! First of all, if Hitler hadn't gone to war with the Russians England would have been invaded and overrun. The plans were in the works for operation sea lion during the battle of britain. It was also Hitler/Goering's decision to bomb London rather than military targets that kept the RAF from being totally wiped out and kept england from being invaded.

What an interesting collection of fact and speculation.

Second, the british got their asses kicked out of the pacific by the japanese. They lost hong kong, singapore, their ships were sunk and pacific bases captured. It wasn't until later in the war that the british helped the US retake the pacific. No doubt they helped, but the US could have done it without them (and basically did). The british had a handful of aircraft carriers, the US had almost thirty full size carriers in the pacific.

Totally true, but did anyone in this thread ever suggest otherwise?

As far as movies are concerned, some are good, some are bad. The greatest WWII movie ever, The Longest Day, accurately portrays the British and Canadian landings, the french involvement, the British gliders landings, the 82nd and 101st airborne as well as the german point of view. If the British could have won the war on thier own, why was Eisenhower in charge?

Yes, "The Longest Day" was a great movie.

Re: Eisenhhower, I had always believed the reasoning was that it was politically unacceptable in the USA for American troops to serve under a foreign commander. However a quick perusal of a biographical site devoted to "Ike" reveals excellent logical reasons for his appointment. (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/ike/ike.htm)

Oh yeah, some time after the invasion I remember a little British-led operation called Market Garden, how did that work out guys?

There was no call for that.