WWII Equipment - Vics, Aircraft and Kit

[Speaker to Animals]

He really didn't commit war crimes by any stretch of the imagination. He did the exact same thing we do today: destroy the infrastructure of your enemies, impose operational friction, and minimize losses to civilians.

He went out of his way to hang looters under his command. He really did not target peoples' houses, but he did take their stored food to sustain his army.

I think the worst thing you can say about him is that he hated black people quite a lot and had no trouble leaving them to die.

[Speaker to Animals]

Stop and look what the US did in the first 18 months of their involvement. Took Africa in 6 months, Sicily in 6 weeks, and were established in Italy. Daily air campaign on Germany, prepping to liberate France. Fixed the UKs supply problems and Soviet supply problems.

Then in the Pacific we had reduced the Japanese strategic reach by at half, destroyed half their naval combat effectiveness, and were taking over islands. We were supplying China, we had forces in Borneo, Burma and the Phillipines fighting a resistence war.

The US didn't really fight WWII Pfftt.

Get stuffed with your "took Africa in 6 months"

The British and Empire troops already had Rommel on the run after El Alemein.
This is why the US gets accused of coming in late and then taking all the credit.

The British Empire would have been overrun and subjugated had the US not intervened. You needed American supplies. American weapons and ammunition. And American troops made it possible for you to even wage an African campaign. Your empire was stretched to the breaking point. There is no fucking way you would have been able to keep up a global war without us joining. I think Churchill must have jizzed himself in relief when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

The real shame of it is that Britons never seemed to even acknowledge their responsibility in making that second go and the rise of Hitler possible in the first place. That whole thing was the product of yours and the French government.

[C-Mag]

Rommel had not been fighting in North Africa for two years. The Germans didn't land in Africa until after the British had completely routed the Italians.
The first battle of El Alamein successfully halted the German advance on the Suez canal and the second battle virtually eliminated all of Rommel's tank force and he was chased all the way to Tunisia.
Operation torch didn't land until after El Alamein. The US forces had their arses handed to them by Rommel in the mountains and then joined the British in pushing the Afrika corps out of North Africa.
The Royal navy's dominance in the med ensured Rommel's supply lines weren't making it through with reinforcements.

The end result would have been the same with or without the green troops of the US.

Have you ever looked at a map?
El Alemein is just outside of Egypt. You guys went nowhere in the first two years of fighting in Africa. Don't give me, but Rommel wasn't there. You didn't make great gains in Africa when you were mostly fighting the shitty Italian Army.

[Montegriffo]

Stop and look what the US did in the first 18 months of their involvement. Took Africa in 6 months, Sicily in 6 weeks, and were established in Italy. Daily air campaign on Germany, prepping to liberate France. Fixed the UKs supply problems and Soviet supply problems.

Then in the Pacific we had reduced the Japanese strategic reach by at half, destroyed half their naval combat effectiveness, and were taking over islands. We were supplying China, we had forces in Borneo, Burma and the Phillipines fighting a resistence war.

The US didn't really fight WWII Pfftt.

Get stuffed with your "took Africa in 6 months"

The British and Empire troops already had Rommel on the run after El Alemein.
This is why the US gets accused of coming in late and then taking all the credit.

The British Empire would have been overrun and subjugated had the US not intervened. You needed American supplies. American weapons and ammunition. And American troops made it possible for you to even wage an African campaign. Your empire was stretched to the breaking point. There is no fucking way you would have been able to keep up a global war without us joining. I think Churchill must have jizzed himself in relief when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

The real shame of it is that Britons never seemed to even acknowledge their responsibility in making that second go and the rise of Hitler possible in the first place. That whole thing was the product of yours and the French government.

To be clear, I was talking about the North African campaign and not the war as a whole.
Carlus' claim that America took Africa in 6 months is disrespectful to the British and Commonwealth troops who did the vast majority of the fighting

[C-Mag]

To be clear, I was talking about the North African campaign and not the war as a whole.
Carlus' claim that America took Africa in 6 months is disrespectful to the British and Commonwealth troops who did the vast majority of the fighting

No.
When the US landed in Operation Torch, the Commonwealth was still largely stuck right where they had been in mid 1940. In that 2 years the UK opened up no new fronts, conducted no beach landings in Morrocco or elsewhere, in fact they were losing ground. Greece was now firmly in Nazi hands. It's a very different situation when the US enters the war. The US immediately begin to assemble armies and a task force and hit the beaches of Morrocco in less than a year, and within month have reached the Med, and are planning to take Sicily.

No comparison, it's not a slap in the face of the Commonwealth Soldiers. My argument is against the modern revisionists telling us that the US didn't really fight WWII, didn't really win WWII, just came in late and claimed victory. The US didn't do it alone, but nothing much was happening except falling back and trying to hold the line until the US entered the war.

The big difference is how the US immediately went on the offense, and won decisively.

[Montegriffo]

I don't disagree with the rest of what you have said but I think you are wrong about the North African campaign.
The Germans weren't in Morroco in any strength. They were in the East trying to take the Suez canal so they could get access to vital ME oil supplies.
Americans saw Churchill's plan to attack the Reich's soft underbelly in the Mediterranean as just an attempt to protect the route to India, the jewel in the crown of the Empire.
Churchill knew the importance of restricting Germany's access to the ME.
The invasion of Sicily and Italy was planned and initially led by Montgomery.
The Battle hardened regiments of the North African campaign were invaluable to the joint American forces in the Italy campaign.
Roosevelt was against the plan as he didn't want to take the landing craft for the amphibious invasion away from the D-day fleet.
Then when you landed at Anzio to relieve the Commonwealth forces bogged down at Monte Casino you sat on the beaches for so long without breaking out from the beach-head that the Germans had time to rush defensive forces to the area and you took months to break out. It was the same mistakes made by the British at Gallipoli in the first world war.

[C-Mag]

I don't disagree with the rest of what you have said but I think you are wrong about the North African campaign.
The Germans weren't in Morroco in any strength. They were in the East trying to take the Suez canal so they could get access to vital ME oil supplies.
Americans saw Churchill's plan to attack the Reich's soft underbelly in the Mediterranean as just an attempt to protect the route to India, the jewel in the crown of the Empire.
Churchill knew the importance of restricting Germany's access to the ME.
The invasion of Sicily and Italy was planned and initially led by Montgomery.
The Battle hardened regiments of the North African campaign were invaluable to the joint American forces in the Italy campaign.
Roosevelt was against the plan as he didn't want to take the landing craft for the amphibious invasion away from the D-day fleet.
Then when you landed at Anzio to relieve the Commonwealth forces bogged down at Monte Casino you sat on the beaches for so long without breaking out from the beach-head that the Germans had time to rush defensive forces to the area and you took months to break out. It was the same mistakes made by the British at Gallipoli in the first world war.

I could argue small points here or there, but that's fairly accurate. IMO, this is what's happening with modern revisionists. They are taking small points here and there in campaigns as evidence to downplay how historically big the US performance in WWII actually was. Now that's not to denigrate the UK or anyone else. I am just pushing back against the trend. To appreciate what the US did, you have to look at the big picture. There's a lot of poor performance I can cite from the US too.

The early performance of US Army in Africa was poor at best, MacArthur forfeited the Phillipines to protect his command, Eisenhowewer got himself into the Heurtegen and kept sending troops into the meat grinder without finding away out.

Looking at all the major nations in the war and ranking them on performance I have it...….
1. USA
2. Germany
3. British Empire
3. Japan
4. Soviet Union
5. China

[Montegriffo]

I don't disagree with the rest of what you have said but I think you are wrong about the North African campaign.
The Germans weren't in Morroco in any strength. They were in the East trying to take the Suez canal so they could get access to vital ME oil supplies.
Americans saw Churchill's plan to attack the Reich's soft underbelly in the Mediterranean as just an attempt to protect the route to India, the jewel in the crown of the Empire.
Churchill knew the importance of restricting Germany's access to the ME.
The invasion of Sicily and Italy was planned and initially led by Montgomery.
The Battle hardened regiments of the North African campaign were invaluable to the joint American forces in the Italy campaign.
Roosevelt was against the plan as he didn't want to take the landing craft for the amphibious invasion away from the D-day fleet.
Then when you landed at Anzio to relieve the Commonwealth forces bogged down at Monte Casino you sat on the beaches for so long without breaking out from the beach-head that the Germans had time to rush defensive forces to the area and you took months to break out. It was the same mistakes made by the British at Gallipoli in the first world war.

I could argue small points here or there, but that's fairly accurate. IMO, this is what's happening with modern revisionists. They are taking small points here and there in campaigns as evidence to downplay how historically big the US performance in WWII actually was. Now that's not to denigrate the UK or anyone else. I am just pushing back against the trend. To appreciate what the US did, you have to look at the big picture. There's a lot of poor performance I can cite from the US too.

The early performance of US Army in Africa was poor at best, MacArthur forfeited the Phillipines to protect his command, Eisenhowewer got himself into the Heurtegen and kept sending troops into the meat grinder without finding away out.

Looking at all the major nations in the war and ranking them on performance I have it...….
1. USA
2. Germany
3. British Empire
3. Japan
4. Soviet Union
5. China

I wouldn't rank them like that but I wouldn't be judging them by the same criteria as you.

I'm being offended on behalf of both of my Grandfathers who were involved in both the North African and Italian campaigns.
My paternal Grandfather in the Durham light infantry and Granddad Montegriffo who was first an engineer in the RAF and then made an intelligence officer before the Italy campaign because he spoke fluent Italian and Spanish.

Just retract "took Africa in 6 months" and we're cool Carlus.

[heydaralon]

My ranking would be:
1. USA
2. USA
3. Germany
4. Russia
5. Japan
6. China
7. France
8. Norway
9. Italy
10. Great Britain

The British made the top ten, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

[Montegriffo]

My ranking would be:
1. USA
2. USA
3. Germany
4. Russia
5. Japan
6. China
7. France
8. Norway
9. Italy
10. Great Britain

The British made the top ten, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

May your armpits be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.