I believe you ([s]although please cite references[/s]): but when was it signed? March '41. So the token number of aircraft arrived, say, in April. Yet the BOB was over by early May. So hardly an influence on the BOB.
To your second post: what is that proving/contesting?
Good Times
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
1) 3 Squadrons of trained aviators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ntribution
Some Lend-lease contributions:
"5,400 airplanes, 400,000 Thompson sub-machine guns, 3,400 Universal carriers, 5,500 heavy guns, as well as ammunition for them, sixty patrol bombers, and 180 Navy fighters"
http://www.gwaihir.org/writings/aa.html
P-38 Fighers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38#Lightnings_go_to_war
Brewster Buffalo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_B ... _squadrons
More complete list of what Americna Aircraft were being used in the Battle of Britain on this page further down...
https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/E ... nsep98.htm
Theres a LOT to be had here, including late-war bombers as a supplement to the british effort. You need to give me a time frame.
---
2) On paper, maybe, it exceeded 40%, but the man who was behind everything, your Mr Beaverbrook, had a tendency to inflate statistics by 15% to inspire British industry or somesuch, so the most that the British industry could have outpaced the Germans was 25%, and even then, what is expected and what is produced are completely different.
As a side note, I never once disputed the fact that British aircraft production outpaced German. Airplanes were the nations only line of defense, and most of its industry was geared towards their production... one can easily see that British aircraft production exceeded German by looking at the losses charts. Britain started with nearly 1/3 of the German strength, and by the end of the battle they had lost more total aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_o ... Production
---
3) Fuse is Volkov's baby... I have no idea whats going on.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm
---
4) Define "withdraw"
Do you mean as a unit moving wholely to the north of england, or as small groups repositioning out of the way of harm.
On a small scale, the RAF DID withdraw from the sotuh of england, but only as a protective measure to be out of the direct ingress of Nazi bombers and fighters... they were still there, but the germans just didnt have any tactical advantage in attacking once they (the RAF) were out of the direct line of fire as the JU-88 had a rather pathetic range, and its fighter escort would have been pwned below 10,000 feet, which is the Spitfires house.
---
5) Whats the relevance?
Yes, the british had radar, so did the germans whoop-ti-do... if the Brits had crossed the channel they would have been pwned just as bad as any german fighter or bomber over britain. The key was when the made Radar mobile and started knocking off German bombers at night... thats when the Luftwaffe started tripping out. (Please note that the Germans had portable radar too, but it was patheticaly heavy and its use in battle would have required two planes, one high
doing sweeps, and one attacker... same goes with the japs)
---
6) Well, sir, its quite simple. With the Brits essentially neutered and scared as hell to actually make a move for fear of losing their tiny defense force, the Wermacht was free to do whatever the hell it wanted ont he mainland, and without Hitlers meddling, they would have been succesful.
Had Paulaus been given permission to withdraw the fifth army from Stalingrad, the southern gront wouldnt have collapsed.
Had Rommel been given his supplies without question, Cairo/Alexandria would have fallen.
Had Rommel and Mannstein been listened to about Normandy, the 26th at Calais would have crushed the invaders.
and BTW the brits/commonwealth did do raids on the Atlantic wall with very nasty losses... operation Jubilee is the most famous of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
---
7) Hitler outlines his fixation with Russia in his book.
Something about liebenstraum and the superiority of the German Race and its requirement of a place to spread.
Some Lend-lease contributions:
"5,400 airplanes, 400,000 Thompson sub-machine guns, 3,400 Universal carriers, 5,500 heavy guns, as well as ammunition for them, sixty patrol bombers, and 180 Navy fighters"
http://www.gwaihir.org/writings/aa.html
P-38 Fighers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38#Lightnings_go_to_war
Brewster Buffalo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_B ... _squadrons
More complete list of what Americna Aircraft were being used in the Battle of Britain on this page further down...
https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/E ... nsep98.htm
Theres a LOT to be had here, including late-war bombers as a supplement to the british effort. You need to give me a time frame.
---
2) On paper, maybe, it exceeded 40%, but the man who was behind everything, your Mr Beaverbrook, had a tendency to inflate statistics by 15% to inspire British industry or somesuch, so the most that the British industry could have outpaced the Germans was 25%, and even then, what is expected and what is produced are completely different.
As a side note, I never once disputed the fact that British aircraft production outpaced German. Airplanes were the nations only line of defense, and most of its industry was geared towards their production... one can easily see that British aircraft production exceeded German by looking at the losses charts. Britain started with nearly 1/3 of the German strength, and by the end of the battle they had lost more total aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_o ... Production
---
3) Fuse is Volkov's baby... I have no idea whats going on.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm
---
4) Define "withdraw"
Do you mean as a unit moving wholely to the north of england, or as small groups repositioning out of the way of harm.
On a small scale, the RAF DID withdraw from the sotuh of england, but only as a protective measure to be out of the direct ingress of Nazi bombers and fighters... they were still there, but the germans just didnt have any tactical advantage in attacking once they (the RAF) were out of the direct line of fire as the JU-88 had a rather pathetic range, and its fighter escort would have been pwned below 10,000 feet, which is the Spitfires house.
---
5) Whats the relevance?
Yes, the british had radar, so did the germans whoop-ti-do... if the Brits had crossed the channel they would have been pwned just as bad as any german fighter or bomber over britain. The key was when the made Radar mobile and started knocking off German bombers at night... thats when the Luftwaffe started tripping out. (Please note that the Germans had portable radar too, but it was patheticaly heavy and its use in battle would have required two planes, one high
doing sweeps, and one attacker... same goes with the japs)
---
6) Well, sir, its quite simple. With the Brits essentially neutered and scared as hell to actually make a move for fear of losing their tiny defense force, the Wermacht was free to do whatever the hell it wanted ont he mainland, and without Hitlers meddling, they would have been succesful.
Had Paulaus been given permission to withdraw the fifth army from Stalingrad, the southern gront wouldnt have collapsed.
Had Rommel been given his supplies without question, Cairo/Alexandria would have fallen.
Had Rommel and Mannstein been listened to about Normandy, the 26th at Calais would have crushed the invaders.
and BTW the brits/commonwealth did do raids on the Atlantic wall with very nasty losses... operation Jubilee is the most famous of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
---
7) Hitler outlines his fixation with Russia in his book.
Something about liebenstraum and the superiority of the German Race and its requirement of a place to spread.
---Neobaron
First among the lords of the south and Captain of the Flying Skiff.
First among the lords of the south and Captain of the Flying Skiff.
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
Whoo, long post. Now.
1. Neo: the 15% figure aircraft production under Beaverbrook (Lord, not Mr) is the projected estimate, not the completed. He estimated that 15% more than what British industry could produce would be produced, in order to spur British industry to its limits. But 40% outproduction of the Germans was a truth.
2. I see the RAF foreign contribution, but what of it? Still only about 20% of the total pilots.
* citation: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html
3. As to all the RAF claims you make: see my previous post:
4. Fuze: I think we're tied with that on Volkov. They were developed independently by UK, US, DE.
5. As to your point 4: you know this better than I do, so I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is, and which I'd like your opinion on is: had the Luftwaffe still kept hammering the RAF, they would have been able to reposition as small groups out of the way of harm, and still keep defending British industry and civilian populations.
6. Exactly, I said that a few posts up: the Beaufighter pwned night bombers. BTW as to technology, the British jammed all of the German "beams". And you quite sure the Germans had radar as early in the war as the British? From what I gather, they didn't understand its significance until the BOB had been underway for a while. But I could be wrong on that.
7. Brits: neutered and scared? They were sending troops to Greece and Egypt and the Middle East! Call that neutered and scared? And "tiny defense force"? They had the Dominions too.
8. Your point 6: you are utterly right on Paulus and Rommel. But consider Montgomery who did later defeat Rommel even under numerical parity. And Normandy is irrelevant to our discussion: it's after Pearl Harbor, Barbarossa, with Germany weakened, and it wasn't even the way in which Churchill planned the invasion. Churchill planned small hit-and-run raids on France, not a bloody silly mass assault, which even so was very slow in advancing. [edit]I see your comment on Jubilee and Dieppe. Yeah, maybe even those tactics would have been unsuccessful. But honestly, by that point, Germany had all but lost. America was in the war.
9. Hitler does outline his fixation with Russia and Lebensraum. But what I'm saying is, he also expected the UK to fold quickly. It didn't, Seelowe was impractical, so he went for his next target, Russia.
<more coming, just throwing stuff out as it's done.>
<looking for:
* Beaverbrook citation
>
1. Neo: the 15% figure aircraft production under Beaverbrook (Lord, not Mr) is the projected estimate, not the completed. He estimated that 15% more than what British industry could produce would be produced, in order to spur British industry to its limits. But 40% outproduction of the Germans was a truth.
2. I see the RAF foreign contribution, but what of it? Still only about 20% of the total pilots.
* citation: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html
3. As to all the RAF claims you make: see my previous post:
Oh cool Neo, I see we agree on this point....when was it signed? March '41. So the token number of aircraft arrived, say, in April. Yet the BOB was over by early May. So [American aircraft were] hardly an influence on the BOB.
4. Fuze: I think we're tied with that on Volkov. They were developed independently by UK, US, DE.
5. As to your point 4: you know this better than I do, so I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is, and which I'd like your opinion on is: had the Luftwaffe still kept hammering the RAF, they would have been able to reposition as small groups out of the way of harm, and still keep defending British industry and civilian populations.
6. Exactly, I said that a few posts up: the Beaufighter pwned night bombers. BTW as to technology, the British jammed all of the German "beams". And you quite sure the Germans had radar as early in the war as the British? From what I gather, they didn't understand its significance until the BOB had been underway for a while. But I could be wrong on that.
7. Brits: neutered and scared? They were sending troops to Greece and Egypt and the Middle East! Call that neutered and scared? And "tiny defense force"? They had the Dominions too.
8. Your point 6: you are utterly right on Paulus and Rommel. But consider Montgomery who did later defeat Rommel even under numerical parity. And Normandy is irrelevant to our discussion: it's after Pearl Harbor, Barbarossa, with Germany weakened, and it wasn't even the way in which Churchill planned the invasion. Churchill planned small hit-and-run raids on France, not a bloody silly mass assault, which even so was very slow in advancing. [edit]I see your comment on Jubilee and Dieppe. Yeah, maybe even those tactics would have been unsuccessful. But honestly, by that point, Germany had all but lost. America was in the war.
9. Hitler does outline his fixation with Russia and Lebensraum. But what I'm saying is, he also expected the UK to fold quickly. It didn't, Seelowe was impractical, so he went for his next target, Russia.
<more coming, just throwing stuff out as it's done.>
<looking for:
* Beaverbrook citation
>
:wq
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
1) Re-read and understand.
You win point 2 Beatles.
---
2) 20% + their material isnt a lot?
Besides, you told me to find out where the US helped, not where the US helped on any sort of scale.
---
3) I did show you what planes were being used in the BoB, and considering the total of 700 Fighters at the beginning of the BoB for Britain, and that we delivered something like 571 of all types, with the final british losses being less than 1800, I think we did a damn good job... not some "token" number at all.
https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/E ... nsep98.htm
You win point 2 Beatles.
---
2) 20% + their material isnt a lot?
Besides, you told me to find out where the US helped, not where the US helped on any sort of scale.
---
3) I did show you what planes were being used in the BoB, and considering the total of 700 Fighters at the beginning of the BoB for Britain, and that we delivered something like 571 of all types, with the final british losses being less than 1800, I think we did a damn good job... not some "token" number at all.
https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/E ... nsep98.htm
---Neobaron
First among the lords of the south and Captain of the Flying Skiff.
First among the lords of the south and Captain of the Flying Skiff.
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
20% of their pilots, not material. And that wasn't US help, it was volunteers.
And I'm still not hearing an answer to:
And I'm still not hearing an answer to:
Yes, the US aided Britain with aircraft. But that was after the BOB had been decided in Britain's favor.when was it signed? March '41. So the token number of aircraft arrived, say, in April. Yet the BOB was over by early May. So hardly an influence on the BOB.
To your second post: what is that proving/contesting?
:wq
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
Lend/Lease signed March 9. TWO WEEKS LATER, so MARCH 23, they had recieved over 5 THOUSAND aircraft. Doesn't that sound like a small contribution to you? I also point you to Neo's post for during the BOB.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
Yes, but the BOB had been won by then by the RAF, for a long time. The critical period was over by October '41, and the Beaufighter appeared in Feb '41. So, the US contributed, but not to the BOB.
[edit] I see Neo's link, but take note, those were purchased aircraft. Lend-lease was March '41.
So what I'm saying basically is: the UK won the BOB by herself. Are you disputing that?
[edit2] To the post below: see the edit above this line.
[edit] I see Neo's link, but take note, those were purchased aircraft. Lend-lease was March '41.
So what I'm saying basically is: the UK won the BOB by herself. Are you disputing that?
[edit2] To the post below: see the edit above this line.
:wq
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
Reread this.neobaron wrote: 3) I did show you what planes were being used in the BoB, and considering the total of 700 Fighters at the beginning of the BoB for Britain, and that we delivered something like 571 of all types, with the final british losses being less than 1800, I think we did a damn good job... not some "token" number at all.
https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/E ... nsep98.htm
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
"Oh cool Neo, I see we agree on this point."
What point. Youre not following the 7 line setup and i'm confused. ;-(
---
"What I'm trying to say is, and which I'd like your opinion on is: had the Luftwaffe still kept hammering the RAF, they would have been able to reposition as small groups out of the way of harm, and still keep defending British industry and civilian populations."
Well, they would have been able to move north out of the way of the German fighters, yes, but they would have lost the battle in the air trying to defend those Industrial and Civilian areas they were smaller, weaker, and less well equipped and trained... this is assuming, however, that the focus of the Luftwaffe had been mainatined on actual military targets as opposed to revenge for the Raid on Berlin.
---
"BTW as to technology, the British jammed all of the German "beams". And you quite sure the Germans had radar as early in the war as the British? From what I gather, they didn't understand its significance until the BOB had been underway for a while. But I could be wrong on that."
They had it, yes, but they didnt understand it.
Same goes with Rocket/Jet planes, and the V1/V2 programs, AND the Nuclear program... Nazis with Nukes and ICBMs had Hitler given WvB etc. a chance.
---
"7. Brits: neutered and scared? They were sending troops to Greece and Egypt and the Middle East! Call that neutered and scared? And "tiny defense force"? They had the Dominions too."
The troops in Africa and Greece were already in the British holdings in the regions... the British have always had more men in their holdings than in their actual nation... You cant honestly think that the British could have been shipping anything into the mediterranean.
---
"But consider Montgomery who did later defeat Rommel even under numerical parity."
When? Normandy? Rommel didnt have numerical superiority when Montgomery rocked up at Normandy... his Panzers were inland, and like i said, the 26th was at Calais...
"And Normandy is irrelevant to our discussion: it's after Pearl Harbor, Barbarossa, with Germany weakened, and it wasn't even the way in which Churchill planned the invasion. Churchill planned small hit-and-run raids on France, not a bloody silly mass assault, which even so was very slow in advancing. [edit]I see your comment on Jubilee and Dieppe. Yeah, maybe even those tactics would have been unsuccessful. But honestly, by that point, Germany had all but lost. America was in the war."
You asked me to show how the German situation wasnt hopeless. Again, you didnt give me a timeframe.
Just because america was in the war doesnt necessarily mean Hitler was doomed. We were, after all, something like 3000 miles away, and with the Wolfpacks having crazy success in teh Atlantic, what could be gained?
What point. Youre not following the 7 line setup and i'm confused. ;-(
---
"What I'm trying to say is, and which I'd like your opinion on is: had the Luftwaffe still kept hammering the RAF, they would have been able to reposition as small groups out of the way of harm, and still keep defending British industry and civilian populations."
Well, they would have been able to move north out of the way of the German fighters, yes, but they would have lost the battle in the air trying to defend those Industrial and Civilian areas they were smaller, weaker, and less well equipped and trained... this is assuming, however, that the focus of the Luftwaffe had been mainatined on actual military targets as opposed to revenge for the Raid on Berlin.
---
"BTW as to technology, the British jammed all of the German "beams". And you quite sure the Germans had radar as early in the war as the British? From what I gather, they didn't understand its significance until the BOB had been underway for a while. But I could be wrong on that."
They had it, yes, but they didnt understand it.
Same goes with Rocket/Jet planes, and the V1/V2 programs, AND the Nuclear program... Nazis with Nukes and ICBMs had Hitler given WvB etc. a chance.
---
"7. Brits: neutered and scared? They were sending troops to Greece and Egypt and the Middle East! Call that neutered and scared? And "tiny defense force"? They had the Dominions too."
The troops in Africa and Greece were already in the British holdings in the regions... the British have always had more men in their holdings than in their actual nation... You cant honestly think that the British could have been shipping anything into the mediterranean.
---
"But consider Montgomery who did later defeat Rommel even under numerical parity."
When? Normandy? Rommel didnt have numerical superiority when Montgomery rocked up at Normandy... his Panzers were inland, and like i said, the 26th was at Calais...
"And Normandy is irrelevant to our discussion: it's after Pearl Harbor, Barbarossa, with Germany weakened, and it wasn't even the way in which Churchill planned the invasion. Churchill planned small hit-and-run raids on France, not a bloody silly mass assault, which even so was very slow in advancing. [edit]I see your comment on Jubilee and Dieppe. Yeah, maybe even those tactics would have been unsuccessful. But honestly, by that point, Germany had all but lost. America was in the war."
You asked me to show how the German situation wasnt hopeless. Again, you didnt give me a timeframe.
Just because america was in the war doesnt necessarily mean Hitler was doomed. We were, after all, something like 3000 miles away, and with the Wolfpacks having crazy success in teh Atlantic, what could be gained?
---Neobaron
First among the lords of the south and Captain of the Flying Skiff.
First among the lords of the south and Captain of the Flying Skiff.
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
a. The point I agreed with was -- sorry for not following the setup, 'tis life -- was that the US did not play a part in the UK winning the BOB. (I think you agreed with that, in substance.)
b. That clears up about the radar. So basically the Allies won the war of science.
c. The British /were/ shipping aircraft to the mediterranean. My reference is:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 46-4631013
(Sorry it's not an on-line ref.)
d. Montgomery fought in Africa, after Auchinleck, who followed Wavell. I'm talking about Africa.
e. A timeframe: the German situation was dire in '41. Hopeless after Barbarossa, of course, on which we're agreed.
f. The RAF "withdrawal": so are you saying that had the Luftwaffe kept on bombing industry, they would have lost the BOB? In that case, I am not qualified to argue, but I wish to understand what you're saying. So I'm (maybe) conceding that point.
b. That clears up about the radar. So basically the Allies won the war of science.
c. The British /were/ shipping aircraft to the mediterranean. My reference is:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 46-4631013
(Sorry it's not an on-line ref.)
d. Montgomery fought in Africa, after Auchinleck, who followed Wavell. I'm talking about Africa.
e. A timeframe: the German situation was dire in '41. Hopeless after Barbarossa, of course, on which we're agreed.
f. The RAF "withdrawal": so are you saying that had the Luftwaffe kept on bombing industry, they would have lost the BOB? In that case, I am not qualified to argue, but I wish to understand what you're saying. So I'm (maybe) conceding that point.
:wq
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
I'm not sure what I'm disputing anymore. *laughs*. Not entirely by herself I guess is my point. But once having won, Britain couldn't have done anything without the tremendous amounts of men and material provided by the US. You do agree on that point don't you?
Allies won parts of the war of science. I don't think we ever matched their Aeronautical prowess. The Spitfire and the Bf/Me 109 were just about equal. The )P-51 was prolly the best prop driven plane of the war, but the Me-262 totally outclassed it. We never had anything comparable to the V-2. Maybe if we had let Goddard loose, but we didn't. And the Tiger II(KingTiger) is prolly the best tank of
the war, despite it's speed problems.
'41 was not the end for Germany. If he hadn't invaded Russia, he prolly could have fended off the Allies, because Russia wouldn't have been one of them. North Africa was prolly a mistake too, but I'd say '43 was the point of no return for Hitler. That was when he simply no longer had any realistic hope of winning. He may have been able to defend the German heartland if he had listened to his generals more, but he couldn't have kept much more than that. ( I count holding a large chunk of conquered territory as a win in this case, time to rebuild, launch another war sometime later)
Sorry for all the Double posts.
Allies won parts of the war of science. I don't think we ever matched their Aeronautical prowess. The Spitfire and the Bf/Me 109 were just about equal. The )P-51 was prolly the best prop driven plane of the war, but the Me-262 totally outclassed it. We never had anything comparable to the V-2. Maybe if we had let Goddard loose, but we didn't. And the Tiger II(KingTiger) is prolly the best tank of
the war, despite it's speed problems.
'41 was not the end for Germany. If he hadn't invaded Russia, he prolly could have fended off the Allies, because Russia wouldn't have been one of them. North Africa was prolly a mistake too, but I'd say '43 was the point of no return for Hitler. That was when he simply no longer had any realistic hope of winning. He may have been able to defend the German heartland if he had listened to his generals more, but he couldn't have kept much more than that. ( I count holding a large chunk of conquered territory as a win in this case, time to rebuild, launch another war sometime later)
Sorry for all the Double posts.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
I agree with that, yes. Not "anything", for what she could have done without the US, following Barbarossa:
1. Routing Germany in Africa and the Middle East (No danger to Syria and the Baku oil once the USSR was anti-Germany)
2. Retake Greece and the Balkans
3. Raid France, the Low Countries, Sweden.
All this without American troops. But not without American supplies, as the two World Wars had exhausted her and she could not have paid for all the food and armaments.
Although I'm still holding out on my point: Britain did win the BOB without US aid.
[edit] To Science: maybe the Spitfire and the ME 109 were equal, but the Spitfire dominated because the ME 109 had to accompany the bombers. Meanwhile the RAF had no trouble when bombing Germany. And no fighter or bomber was match to the Beaufighter, equipped with radar.
V-2 was deployed pretty late. Great invention, but too late and too little deployed to have any effect.
Didn't Neo say that the Soviet tanks were the best in the war, superior to the German tanks? Or was the Tiger a later invention? Anyways, tanks can't do anything without air support.
1. Routing Germany in Africa and the Middle East (No danger to Syria and the Baku oil once the USSR was anti-Germany)
2. Retake Greece and the Balkans
3. Raid France, the Low Countries, Sweden.
All this without American troops. But not without American supplies, as the two World Wars had exhausted her and she could not have paid for all the food and armaments.
Although I'm still holding out on my point: Britain did win the BOB without US aid.
[edit] To Science: maybe the Spitfire and the ME 109 were equal, but the Spitfire dominated because the ME 109 had to accompany the bombers. Meanwhile the RAF had no trouble when bombing Germany. And no fighter or bomber was match to the Beaufighter, equipped with radar.
V-2 was deployed pretty late. Great invention, but too late and too little deployed to have any effect.
Didn't Neo say that the Soviet tanks were the best in the war, superior to the German tanks? Or was the Tiger a later invention? Anyways, tanks can't do anything without air support.
:wq
-
Members connected in real time
