WWII Equipment - Vics, Aircraft and Kit

[Speaker to Animals]

He minimized casualties all around.

[C-Mag]

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.

[heydaralon]

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.

Yeah in terms of mobility, and the ability to fight effectively in multiple theaters thousands of miles apart, the US is WW2 has to win first place with no close second whatsoever. Additionally, we were supplying various allies with weapons, food rations, and equipment and clothing. That is also unprecedented.

[C-Mag]

Yeah in terms of mobility, and the ability to fight effectively in multiple theaters thousands of miles apart, the US is WW2 has to win first place with no close second whatsoever. Additionally, we were supplying various allies with weapons, food rations, and equipment and clothing. That is also unprecedented.

The US material potential that was turned into production was incredible. But we weren't ready for war by any means. Compare us to the other major allies attacked in WWII in that first 18 months. The Soviets had just managed to hold Germany at the Volga, the UK was preparing for a German invasion of England, China was still losing ground. Only the US was able to shift from peacetime to full scale war, go on the attack and have major victories in their first 18 months of being in the war. That says a lot about our people and leadership to pull that off.

[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.

[C-Mag]

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 Second Battle of El Alemein was a good victory for the British Army, even in light of the failures of the 1st Battle.

You prove my point quite well. The Crown and Commonwealth nations had been fighting in Africa since June of 1940 and it took them until late 1942 to get a decisive victory. It only took the US about 6 months to start racking up decisive victories in both the Pacific and the Western Theatre, and we had to mobilize much farther and do so without the aid of the expansive colonies the British Empire held.

You really shouldn't feel bad though. The Soviets, and Chinese faired no better than the UK, while the French and many others capitulated.

[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 Second Battle of El Alemein was a good victory for the British Army, even in light of the failures of the 1st Battle.

You prove my point quite well. The Crown and Commonwealth nations had been fighting in Africa since June of 1940 and it took them until late 1942 to get a decisive victory. It only took the US about 6 months to start racking up decisive victories in both the Pacific and the Western Theatre, and we had to mobilize much farther and do so without the aid of the expansive colonies the British Empire held.

You really shouldn't feel bad though. The Soviets, and Chinese faired no better than the UK, while the French and many others capitulated.

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.

[Hastur]

I remember Flipowitz getting really nasty at me when I brought up disparity between men, aircraft, tanks, and equipment the soviets lost vs the Germans lost in Kursk (not just that battle btw) and questioning every historical source I showed him proving this, saying that the Soviets were the best. I also remember a few brutal fights on DCF where Dan also defended Zhukov and Soviet tactics. In fact, I think he mentioned some of this in his podcast, so commie worship has spread to WW2 buffs... I'm glad they aren't in charge of the US military.

I have to admit I was pretty much AWOL during those debates. It took me a while to formulate my own opinion on the matter. I trusted the narrator of the story very much at that point. But after studying the issue, WWII more and listening to the series again nothing struck me as very good in terms of leadership on either side of the Eastern Front.

First of all there was no reason for Germany not to knock out Moscow the first year. Then the second year the Krauts try to outsmart everyone and go for Stalingrad, stupid. There was nothing particularly inventive or impressive about the Russian defense or Counteroffensive all the way to Berlin. Pretty much, we are just going to keep throwing troops at the problem until it goes away.

Now, the US had some major fuck ups. The entire Battle of the Huertegen was shameful, but it wasn't even on par with wasting lives like Soviet small battles in futility.

In Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle, he praises general Sherman over Grant and McClellan because of the way that Sherman's tactics fucked up the South and struck it at its heart while simultaneously minimizing the casualties of his own men. When you contrast this with the meatgrinder battles of Cold Harbor or Antietam, it causes you to respect Sherman quite a bit. In my mind, that is the hallmark of a great general. One who both achieves significant objectives, but also views his men as more than expendable resources. I could never be a general, but I would hope to be under a general like that if the shit hits the fan. No commie Russian or Chinese or even Vietnamese general gave a shit about their men that way, and the battlefield stats attest to this fact.

Sherman is one of my all-time favourite Generals. It feels like he truly understood what war was and how you had to think in order to win. He invented Total War.

[TheReal_ND]

Sherman was a piece of shit waging war crimes against his own people.

[Fife]

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

It's too bad we didn't get to find out IRL.