PDA

View Full Version : Churchill's major blunders.



samjok
03-09-2011, 11:25 AM
Churchill once said "I expect history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it", which has become a self-fullfilling profecy. Churchill received the Nobel prize for his WW II books and has become an iconic figure in history. However, we seldom see critical dscriptions of his performance during the war.

1) Churchill conceived and directed the Norwegian campaign. He had informed Chamberlain's cabinet that the German's could not realistically occupy Norway with their very limited naval resources facing the formidable British and French fleets. After Germany had occupied Norway and most of the German navy had been sunk or severely damaged, the British and French navies withdrew, rendering moot the lost ships, planes and men and allowing Germany use of a very long coast to sink the allied ships with submarines and planes, to attack the USSR from northern Finland and to bomb Scotland.
Ironically, it would be Chamberlain's head that would role because of the Norwegian blunder, and Churchill would rise to prime minister.

2) After 30,000 Britons had defeated 100,000 Italians in Libya, but just before they had expelled the axis from the continent, Churchill decided to send them to Greece and to the Sudan. The British would lose thousands of lives and many planes and ships in Greece without achieving absolutely anything, other than to lose face and moral. Meantime, Italy and Germany would consolidate their positions in Africa, so that Britain would lose thousands of lives and a great many ships, tanks, airplanes, etc, fighting the axis in Malta and Africa.

3) Although Stalin had enabled Hitler's invasion of Poland and become his accomplice, sharing Poland and then attacked Finland and enabled Hitler's conquest of France and fighting the battle of Britain by selling oil, chromium, manganese and other minerals to Germany and although Chamberlain in 1939 and then Churchill in 1941 had turned down Stalin's offer to form an alliance, and although Churchill had spoken vehemently against Stalin for many years, As soon as Hitler invaded the USSR, Churchill not only said words of praise for Stalin, but rushed to become his ally and sent him hundreds of Hurricanes and 350 tanks stationed in Malaya-Singapore in 1941. Ironically when the Japanese attacked with 30,000 men, 200 tanks and hundreds of modern planes from the aircrafts and from Indochina, the 90,000 British troops had not a single tank and only a few obsolete Brewster Buffaloes to defend themselves. During the battle, 35,000 more men would be sent in and a few dozen Hurricanes would be launched from carriers at a time on a couple of missions but would be destroyed peacemeal. The Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk off the Malayan coast by japanese bombers from Indochina, for lack of air cover (the few Buffaloes were defending Singapore) and could have otherwise privided deadly naval artillery support. Churchill was furious when Singapore fell, forgetting completely that he had been the one who deprived them of hundreds of tanks and Hurricanes. The same fate would befall Burma, Indonesia, etc, Ceylon, the British Pearl Harbor, would be bombed and the British fleet would flee to Kenya, leaving the Pacific and the Indian Ocean at the mercy of the Japanese. On the other hand, Stalin would grow so powerful that had the atomic bomb not worked, all of Europe would have fallen under his yoke.

4) Churchill wasted an enormous amount of resources and lives bombing German cities without fighter escort to no avail. These bombings included many strategically irrelevant cities like Nuremberg (170 planes lost in one raid), Dresden, Cologne, Munich, etc, affected German production very little and cost a fortune. 600,000 German civialians were murdered this way. Hitler benefitted in that he had to feed fewer children, unproductive women and old people and the soldiers preferred to stay at the front than to go on leave to their depressing, destroyed cities. The German industry moved underground and increased production considerably during 1943 and 44. Churchill received three times more lend-lease money than Stalin and used it quite inefficiently. Had the Americans not provided the UK and the USSR with incredible amounts of fuel, planes, ships, tanks, trucks, food, etc, and destroyed thousands of German planes, Germany, with rather limited resources would have defeated them.

5) Roosevelt provided a lot of help to Churchill and the only thing he asked Churchill to do was to recover Burma ASAP, the only land route to supply China. However, Churchill preferred to play in Africa and gave Monty lots of tanks, airplanes and men and used the navy and RAF in Malta to prevent Rommel from receiving any supplies (Monty could only defeat Rommel if he had many more men, tanks, etc,). Accordingly, Churchill did extremely little in Burma,allowing the Japanese to use its oil and rice and forcing the Americans to spend a fortune supplying the Chinese by air over the Himalayas. Ironically, Monty had tens of thousands of Indian soldiers in El Alamein, while millions of Indians would starve to death for lack of the rice from Burma (the largest rice exporter in the world before the Japanese occupied it). The powerful British navy lost an incredible amount of ships and men defending and supplying Malta, but no ships recovering Rangoon, so close to its base in Ceylon.

leccy
03-09-2011, 12:49 PM
A few quick points, Churchill had his faults and at the time of the events (even later) he could justify his decisions whether they were right afterwards or not (hindsight is a wonderful thing)

Note 1
Technically Britain and France invaded Norway before the Germans, the operation was to prevent iron ore from Sweden reaching Germany (German ships could travel safely through Norweigan territorial waters with the ore almost the whole way). The Naval force could only do so much to counter land and air forces, as as it turned out Germany attacked almost the same time as Britain and France were landing Troops (In some literature it has been claimed that the well known allied intentions were the casus belli for Germany).

Note 2
Churchill thought the Italian Forces were destroyed North Africa and that he could help save Greece so having another country in the Allied camp. With hindsight it was the wrong decision and at the time many were opposed to it, I know the German forces did make initial plans in early 1940 to help the Italians if needed but have no idea whether Churchill knew or considered the possibility that they would get involved.

Note 3

sent him (Stalin) hundreds of Hurricanes and 350 tanks stationed in Malaya-Singapore in 1941
The tanks and aircraft were sent from the UK not Singapore where the British considered the terrain un-suitable, there were a lot of bigger failures in the supply and command chain for the disasters there.

Note 4
The bombing of the German cities may or may not have contributed to the demoralisation of the German people but it did have an effect on the war effort.
Germany diverted more and more resources to defence against the Allied bombers. All the AA guns, their munitions, crews took manpower and resources from the front line. The diversion of aircraft production to fighters for defence of Germany meant they were not available to the troops on the ground. Construction of shelters and Flak Towers drew further resources as did the increase in AA protection on Dams after the Dambuster raids.
The relocation of factorys slowed production up as did dispersal to smaller workshops, it was a testament to Albert Speer who in 1942 geared up German war production properly that German production increased despite lessening resources.
With the German love of technical inventions the diversion of scientists and engineers along with the attendant resources to develop more types of weapons to use against the bombers (many of the inventions were dead ends as well) had an effect.

Note 5
The US sold (or at least Lend Lease) aid to the UK not quite gave to Churchill,
The UK Armed Forces was in 1941 (when Japan entered the war) quite stretched due to many years of neglect prior to WW2 (they had to pick and choose where to equip and where not to). FDR and Churchill did come to one agreement that I know of regarding Japan and that was Germany First.
I will admit I have never heard of a promise to clear the Burma trail asap but Slims army has always been considered the Forgotten Army. It took along time to train the Army to how to fight and live effectively in the Jungles, the Japanese forces were a lot better suited to the type of fighting.

Rising Sun*
03-09-2011, 04:34 PM
The UK Armed Forces was in 1941 (when Japan entered the war) quite stretched due to many years of neglect prior to WW2

A process initiated by a Chancellor of the Exchequer 1924-29 who took the view that it was more important to reduce taxes than to maintain the armed forces, and who accordingly ran down the armed forces, notably the RN. The Chancellor was Churchill.

Ironically, in the 1930s he became an advocate of rearmament to meet Hitler's threat.

samjok
03-09-2011, 05:03 PM
Hi Leccy,
1) Chamberlain authorized the Norwegian campaign, based on Churchill's assertion that the German's could not possibly occupy Norway (kicking out the allies, as they actually did). Like I said, ironically, Chamberlain lost his job, not Churchill, the instigator.
The Kriegsmarine had lost 10 destroyers sunk and 6 damaged (out of 20), as well as cruisers, submarines, tankers, most of its planes etc, and was in a lousy position to supply its troops, which were still fighting the Norwegians when the French and British fleets withdrew. Allowing Hitler to send to France most of the 1,000 planes he had in Norway.

2) Churchill knew the Italians were not finished and was told so by his generals, who opposed the completely hopeless Greek campaign.

3) The 350 tanks to which I refer were transported from Malaya-Singapore, leaving the troops defenseless against the 200 Japanese tanks, which were inferior to the old British tanks removed from Malaya-Singapore. The hundred of Hurricanes were sent from Britain and if they had been sent to Singapore, Burma, etc, instead of to the USSR would have dissuaded the Japanese from attacking or inflicted enormous losses on them.
The British pilots were so good, that even with the obsolete Buffaloes they shot down a few Zeroes. Had they had 150 hurriicanes, besides the few Buffaloes, they would have trounced the japs and saved the repulse and Prince of Wales, Saving Malaya.

4) The bombing cost 100,000 aviators and billions of dollar in fuel, bombs, planes, etc, boosted German hatred for the Brits and helped Stalin considerably by distracting many fighters from the eastern front, but certainly did not produce any return on investement for Britain. Like I said, had the atomic bomb not worked, Stalin would have taken Britain more easily in 1945 than Germany in 1940 adn been an even worse dictator. Why not let the two tyrants that started the war bleed each other to death before attacking them.

5) The prices for lend-lease were below cost. Moreover, Britain was at war and would have certainly lost, had the Japs not attacked Pearl Harbor and forced the US into the war. Had Britain lost or reneged on its debt, the US would not have recovered even the small fraction that they recovered at low interest in 50 years.
After Churchill lost 18 destroyers (sunk or damaged) in Dunkirk, Roosevelt gave him 50 WW I destroyers that would have been invaluable in the Philippines. The worse he performed, the more he received.

Regarding Burma, the Japanese entered through the jungle and through Rangoon (where the British left them 800,000 tons of supplies in the docks). The British were much better equipped to invade Rangoon (on the coast, very close to India), thus isolating the japanese troops in the rest of Burma. However, Churchill did not care at all about the east, prefering to concentrate exclusively on bombing Germany and fighting in Africa and Italy.
5 million Indians served in WW II and 3 million civilians starved to death

leccy
03-09-2011, 07:27 PM
Raf Bomber crew losses were around 45% which equalled somewhere in the region of 55,000 crew. (To all operations not just city bombing). At the time it was the only way that Britain could strike back, this was vital for home morale and also to keep Stalin convinced that Britain was doing something with his continual request for a second front. (The bomber force was not even equipped to operate effectively until late 1942 to mid 1943). The Luftwaffe Flak units by 1944 had a manpower of 1,300,000 personnel to protect the cities and essential industries, the Heer and Kreigsmarine also had their own Flak units. No matter what you say the resources and manpower that were used were very significant and prevented them from being used elsewhere. You said yourself less fighters on the Eastern Front which helped the Soviet Forces in turn they ground down the Heer.

The losses the Kreigsmarine suffered in 1940 in Norway was a blow that would make them less capable for the planned Op Sealion when it came about. Britain and France wished to forestall a German attempt to invade but like each attempt in the early part of the war they were out fought. Britain kept most of its airpower at home for home defence (In 1940 Britian was not equipped to fight a war in Europe and was still rapidly trying to re-equip) so troops abroad were disadvantaged by a lack of air cover (It did not help that HMS Glorious was lost there).

Churchill may have known they were not finished but he did know they were incapable of offensive operations (when Rommel landed with his forces even the OKW did not consider them capable of launching a major offensive). He did however think that Greece could be saved (The Italians had already been beaten by the Greeks and he was hoping to intervene before the Germans could) rightly or wrongly. Hindsight is a great thing.

Britain paid the going cost in Gold for equipment provided by the US prior to lend lease which actually started in 1941 and there was also a part not much known called reverse Lend Lease where equipment and resources were provided to the US (Britain paid the debt off for 70 years not 50 the last payment was in Dec 2006 of approx £42 million pounds).
The old Flush Deck Destroyers were started to be delivered in Sept 1940 and were in a separate deal (destroyers for bases), the ships had been in the US reserve fleet and were in a poor condition most requiring extensive work to get them fit for combat after being transferred to the RN, it was 1941 before they were ready generally around March time (have only looked at the service records of about half though). This left 120 for the US Fleet (many of which required extensive work or were modified to make ready for combat as maintenance was minimal while they were laid up due to costs, some were deemed to be too far gone)

Interested to find out about these 350 tanks that Britain had in Malaya/Singapore in 1941 as I only knew of a couple of squadrons of tanks and armoured cars including the KNIL units (Britain sent Matildas and Valentines to the USSR in 1941 I did not think any of them served outside of Europe and the Med till much later). The RAF provided Hurricanes to the Soviets but only a couple of Squadrons in 1941.
Some of the troops sent there were woefully equipped and trained to fight in the terrain, many units were understrength while the enemy were under estimated. Although there were tensions with Japan in 1941 Britian was not expecting to be at war with it whereas it was at war with Germany and so helped a nation that was believed by many would collapse under the German Blitzkreig like the rest of the occupied countries had.

The two tyrants who started the war. Interesting concept, most seem to accept that the real cause of WW2 was the harsh settlement at the end of WW1 which fostered resentment and fueled Hitlers retoric and rise. Stalins rise was likewise reliant on actions in the Revolution. So both Dictators could be said to have risen to power due to events in WW1.

I cant comment on events in India as I have no knowledge of events there.

Rising Sun*
03-09-2011, 11:16 PM
However, Churchill did not care at all about the east, prefering to concentrate exclusively on bombing Germany and fighting in Africa and Italy.

Not at all.

As I posted at #11 in the Empire Star thread:


Churchill told his Chiefs of Staff on 21 January 1942, several weeks before the surrender of Singapore, that he regarded keeping the Burma Road open as more important than holding Singapore and asked them to consider evacuating Singapore rather than surrendering it. (Churchill, Hinge of Fate, pp 49-50, (The Second World War, Vol IV) Cassell, London, 1951) http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?11659-The-Singapore-Surrender-and-the-Empire-Star&p=175783&highlight=#post175783

After the fall of Singapore, the Australian 7th Division was returning to Australia from North Africa for home defence when Churchill diverted it to Burma without consulting the Australian government. The Australian Prime Minister stood up to him and ensured that the 7th Division returned to Australia, where it was crucial in defeating the Japanese in Papua New Guinea.

Churchill clearly recognised the strategic importance of Burma and was prepared to reinforce Burma with a division which he thought was at his disposal.

Rising Sun*
03-10-2011, 01:50 AM
The 350 tanks to which I refer were transported from Malaya-Singapore, leaving the troops defenseless against the 200 Japanese tanks, which were inferior to the old British tanks removed from Malaya-Singapore.

I don't recall there being any British true tanks, as distinct from a few light tanks which were pretty much armoured cars, in Malaya in the second half of 1941, let alone 350.

I also don't recall there being in Malaya in 1941 an armoured unit of the size which would be attached to 350 tanks which, as I'm not familiar with British armoured units' TO&E in 1941, I'm guessing would be about a division or more. What happened to the armoured unit(s) attached to the tanks?

Do you have any sources for this information?

Nickdfresh
03-10-2011, 03:19 AM
...
After Churchill lost 18 destroyers (sunk or damaged) in Dunkirk, Roosevelt gave him 50 WW I destroyers that would have been invaluable in the Philippines. The worse he performed, the more he received.
....h

I'm not sure how 50 antiquated destroyers needing extensive refurbishing would have made any difference to the isolated garrisons in the Philippines. One can argue that those destroyers in RN hands were certainly directly beneficial to the U.S. as some were used in antisubmarine operations IIRC...

Rising Sun*
03-10-2011, 04:53 AM
I'm not sure how 50 antiquated destroyers needing extensive refurbishing would have made any difference to the isolated garrisons in the Philippines. One can argue that those destroyers in RN hands were certainly directly beneficial to the U.S. as some were used in antisubmarine operations IIRC...

Would there have been enough fuel for them in the Philippines?

samjok
03-10-2011, 11:07 AM
I tried to post the link For the 350 tanks, but was not allowed. please look up Arthur Pecival at historylearningsite.co.uk


Churchill's comments about evacuating Singapore in late January 42 show his almost unlimited military incompetence. Besides beating the Italians in Africa, the British had only excellent at evacuating troops in Norway, operations Dynamo, Ariel, Greece, etc, Always at a great cost in planes, ships, men, moral, etc. However, with Japanese planes, carriers, cruisers and submarines around Singapore-Malaya, only Churchill would be naÔve enough to think about evacuating with a very limited navy and without air cover. If the Repulse and Prince of Wales could not defend themselves, how could the ships docked and evacuating 100,000 troops all the way to Kenya survive? On the other hand, after having lost Poland, Norway, France, Singapore, etc, in record time for lack of airplanes, you would think that Churchill would have realized that he could not hold Burma without the hundreds of Hurricanes he had sent in 1941 and continued sending in 1942 to Stalin.

The 50 destroyers were not junk at all, they had an excellent speed and used coal. The Texas and many excellent British ships dated back to WW I and served very well. The destroyer's artillery would have been extremely useful in the Philippines, even if a few of them had been beached and partly covered with sand bags to protect from air attack.

leccy
03-10-2011, 12:25 PM
I take it you mean this passage


But it was Churchill who had ordered all the 350 tanks in Malaya to be moved to the Russian front as a show of faith between the USSR and Britain. Japan had 200 light tanks in the Battle for Malaya while the British had none. Likewise, the request for 566 aircraft to give aerial cover to ground troops was ignored by the War Cabinet who considered that 336 would be sufficient.
from
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/general_arthur_percival.htm

Any other links to maybe units etc because I have not seen anything except a few light tanks and armoured cars in any OOB or TOE for the theatre.



Churchill's comments about evacuating Singapore in late January 42 show his almost unlimited military incompetence. Besides beating the Italians in Africa, the British had only excellent at evacuating troops in Norway, operations Dynamo, Ariel, Greece, etc, Always at a great cost in planes, ships, men, moral, etc. However, with Japanese planes, carriers, cruisers and submarines around Singapore-Malaya, only Churchill would be naÔve enough to think about evacuating with a very limited navy and without air cover. If the Repulse and Prince of Wales could not defend themselves, how could the ships docked and evacuating 100,000 troops all the way to Kenya survive? On the other hand, after having lost Poland, Norway, France, Singapore, etc, in record time for lack of airplanes, you would think that Churchill would have realized that he could not hold Burma without the hundreds of Hurricanes he had sent in 1941 and continued sending in 1942 to Stalin.

Churchill was not claiming to be a great military leader he was a great orator though, able to galvinise people and lead them. He made blunders the same as any other leader of the period when he made some of his decisions. He had to balance many difficult decisions and choose the least bad option (1940 with the invasion threat he sends 50 Matilda 2 to N Africa along with reinforcements despite them being desperately needed in the UK) as he saw it, with advice from others (which he did not always take).
Force Z had no air cover due to HMS Indomitable being damaged so unable to join the other two ships. Whether the aircraft from the carrier would have made any difference is not something we will be able to say. By the way ships stationary and evacuating hundreds of thousands of troops while under air attack was done (Dunkirk being the most famous)
Britain did not lose Poland, it never had any troops near there, France was lost for many reasons not least the French. Norway was ill planned and equipped especially with air cover but Britain kept most of its fighters in the UK for home defence rather than throw them and their crews away overseas. Right or wrong that decision was wise when the BoB came about.
Lend lease aircraft to the Soviet Union in 1941 was not very great the mass of supplies and equipment did not start getting sent until 1943.
The Hurricane by late 1941 and early 1942 was pretty much superceeded as a fighter being relegated to fighter bomber/ground attack with the Spitfire taking the main fighter role.


The 50 destroyers were not junk at all, they had an excellent speed and used coal. The Texas and many excellent British ships dated back to WW I and served very well. The destroyer's artillery would have been extremely useful in the Philippines, even if a few of them had been beached and partly covered with sand bags to protect from air attack.

The 'Town Class' destroyers were unfit for service when delivered, many were corroded, some so badly they were scrapped (US ones) instead of being re-activated. They were top heavy, rolled in swells, had poor turning circles, no radar or AS gear. The RN removed some of the 4" guns and Torpedo tubes to make them more stable by removing top weight. They were generally equipped with a single 3" AA gun for air defence. Most had one or two boilers removed to give them extra range (necessary for the Atlantic and Pacific). Around half were converted to other uses as they were not good destroyers, they were just a handy hull in times of need.

I like the idea of beaching a ship and covering it with sandbags to provide some sort of artillery (with limited range, no maneuverability, limited arcs of fire and being a sitting duck for ships with longer range guns). Would it not be better to send towed artillery?
Many British ships from WW 1 did serve very well in WW 2 as a better comparison you could have chosen the old V and W Destroyers rather than a battleship. The British destroyers were in continual service with many finally being re-fitted in 1938 to 1940, unlike the Clemenson, Wickes and Caldwell class ships which were put in reserve with minimal maintenance due to costs from the 1920's.

samjok
03-10-2011, 01:42 PM
For a person who was not claiming to be a military genius, only a good orator and politician, Churchill did routinely ignore his military advisors and champion many useless campaigns and some completely outlandish ideas (including attacking the Baltic with skirted battleships without guns, the invasion of Austria through Yugoslavia, Lord Mountbatten's ice aircraft carriers, etc,).

Churchill and Stalin were good at getting the Americans to provide for them, but lousy at delivering. The suposedly experienced Churchill had assured Roosevelt that Singapore would never fall, just based on the shear number of troops and a suposedly impregnable fortress, exactly the same things that had failed in France (where at least there were excellent French and British tanks). He had agreed to recover Burma in the short term and did not.

The Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk 50 miles off the Malayan coast, where they would have been much safer under cover by Malayan Hurricanes than under cover by the biplanes of the Indomitable (which would have certainly also been sunk, just as many British carriers with biplanes were sunk in the Atlantic or Mediterranean by German and Italian pilots).

The help to Britain and the USSR in 1940 and 41 was crucial for them and for the American relations with Germany, Italy and Japan. Had all that materiel (including P-40s, Buffaloes, etc,) been in Hawaii and the Philippines the Japanese may have thought twice about attacking. Siding with Britain caused Roosevelt to embargo oil and steel scrap to Japan when the latter occupied Indochina. The embargo forced the Japanese to cancel the army's plan to attack the USSR and to adopt the navy's plan to attack the US. Had the US continued selling oil and scrap to Japan, Stalin would have had a very difficult time surviving in two distant fronts.

leccy
03-10-2011, 02:42 PM
@ samjok


The Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk 50 miles off the Malayan coast, where they would have been much safer under cover by Malayan Hurricanes than under cover by the biplanes of the Indomitable (which would have certainly also been sunk, just as many British carriers with biplanes were sunk in the Atlantic or Mediterranean by German and Italian pilots).

Squadrons on HMS Indomitable
November 1941: 45 aircraft - 9 Sea Hurricanes, 12 Fulmars, 24 Albacores
August 1942: 55 aircraft - 31 Sea Hurricanes, 24 Albacores
Only Bi-Planes are the Albacore Torpedo Bombers

Aircraft carrying ship losses RN

Fleet Carriers

HMS Eagle, 11th May 1942, Torpedo U73, Mediteranean
HMS Hermes, 9th April 1942, Japanese Dive Bombers, Indian Ocean
HMS Corageous, 17th Feb 1939, Torpedo U29, North Atlantic
HMS Glorious, 8th June 1940, Gunfire Sharnhorst and Gneisenau, Norway
HMS Ark Royal, 14th Nov 1941, Foundered in Tow after Torpedo hit U81, Mediteranean

Escort Carriers (Converted Merchant Hulls)

HMS Audacity, 21st Dec 1941, Torpedo U751, North Atlantic
HMS Avenger, 15th Nov 1942, Torpedo U155, North Atlantic
HMS Dasher, 27th Mar 1943, Accident, SW Scotland
HMS Nabob (RCN Manned), 22nd Aug 1944, Torpedo U354 laid up not sunk
HMS Thane, 15th Jan 1945, Torpedo U1172 laid up not sunk

CAM (First vessals sailed under white ensign later Merchant Fleet)

HMS Patia, 27th April 1941, German Bombers, Western Europe
HMS Springbank, 27th Sept 1941, Torpedo U201, North Atlantic

Where did you get your claims from

samjok
03-10-2011, 03:13 PM
Illustrious received 6 Italian bombs while escorting ships to Malta on Jan 10 1941 and a few more docked in Malta, it didn't sink thanks to God and the quality of the Italian bombs, but in Malaya this would have been fatal. (obviously not a very useful escort. It was repaired in the US)

Formidable received two 1,000 lb bombs on 28 March, 1941 that put it out of comission for 6 months, but isolated in Malaya this would have been fatal. (it was repaired in the US), etc,

Do you really think that a carrier with 9 Sea Hurricanes (hopefully all operational) would have survived in Malaya and saved Repulse and Prince of Wales? It was lucky to run aground in Jamaica. The British carriers could not defend themselves, much less escort anybody, that's why they ran away from Ceylon (their Pearl Harbor) to Kenya, leaving the hole Indian Ocean to the Japs. However if the hundreds of Hurricanes given to Stalin in 1941 were sent to Malaya, Burma, Ceylon and Indonesia and had the tanks that were in the region remained there, the Japs would have taken a hell of a beating.

Over 20 million people would die at the hands of the Japs in Indonesia, Malaya, Burma, China, because Churchill preferred to help Stalin and fight in Africa and Italy and couldn't care less about the east.

leccy
03-10-2011, 03:17 PM
samjok

A couple of questions

1. Do you really know why the USA sanctioned Japan
2. Do you know when Lend Lease started and to whom
3. Who were Britain and France going to assist in 1940 and against whom
4. Have you heard of the Battle of Khalkhin Gol

leccy
03-10-2011, 03:23 PM
The Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk 50 miles off the Malayan coast, where they would have been much safer under cover by Malayan Hurricanes than under cover by the biplanes of the Indomitable (which would have certainly also been sunk, just as many British carriers with biplanes were sunk in the Atlantic or Mediterranean by German and Italian pilots).

You claimed many were sunk by aircraft

Illustrious received 6 Italian bombs while escorting ships to Malta on Jan 10 1941 a few more docked n Malta, it didn't sink thanks to God and the quality of the Italian bommbs, but in Malaya this would have been fatal. (repaired in the US)

Formidable received two 1,000 lb bombs on 28 March, 1941 that put it ut of comission for 6 months, but isolated in Mlaya would have been fatal. (repaied in the US), etc,
You now change it because you were shown some facts to dispute your claims, British Fleet Carriers had armoured flight decks so could take more punishment than the American counterparts.

You claimed the carriers had only Bi-planes

Do you really think that a carrier with 9 Sea Hurricanes (hopefully all operational) would have survived in Malaya and saved Repulse and Prince of Wales? It was lucky to run aground in Jamaica. The British carriers could not defend themselves, much less escort anybody, that's why thay ran away from Ceylon (their Pearl Harbor) to Kenya, leaving the shole Indian Ocean to the Japs.
The Fulmers were also fighters by the way so that gives them 21 mono wing fighters.

samjok
03-10-2011, 03:46 PM
Like I said, The US embargoed Japan because they occupied French Indochina (with Vichy's reluctant consent).

Yes I know when lend-lease started (before the US entered the war, Roosevelt abused his power and started giving away materiel to the USSR, Britain and China, angering Japan, Germany and Italy and risking losing all this money if these countries lost the war, which they would have definitely lost, had the US not been dragged into it by the Japs).

In 1940 France and Britain were initially not really assisting Norway, but invading it, hopefully before the Germans did. When the Germans attacked, both ran away, deserting yet another country (after abandoning Czechoslovakia, Austria, Denmark, 2/3 of Poland, etc, to Hitler and 1/3 of Poland, 20% of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldavia, etc, to Stalin. Then Britain would abandon France to Hitler.

Kahlkhin Gol was lost by the Japanese because it was not planned, logistics were lousy, etc, and Stalin was not busy losing 20,000 tanks and 21,000 planes to Hitler in 6 months.
Are you familiar with the Imperial army's plan to invade the USSR? which had to be scrapped without American or Indonesian oil. The Embargo forced the Japanese to look for the Indonesian and Burmese oil for survival. The Japanese knew that together with Germany, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland they could defeat the neighboring and agonizing USSR, but did not stand a chance of defeating the fresh and super industrialized US, thousands of miles away.

samjok
03-10-2011, 03:58 PM
Yeah, the Fairey Fulmar was a real fighter (if you are fighting Stukas), at 272 mph, it had the same speed of the Fiat CR.42 biplane fighter, which was far more maneuverable

leccy
03-10-2011, 04:20 PM
Answer to question 1
US Relations with Japan 1938-40 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/japan.htm)

Question 2
11th March 1941, Roosevelt never gave anything away, he did have the ammunition classed as surplus to requirements though and sold to Britain and France though prior to that date, he also did the Destroyers for bases deal. Money had nothing to do with it as FDR had already said in Dec 1940 America will be the arsenal of democracy. Lend lease though did not fully kick in until 1942 as the US had to re-arm itself (In 1940 the US had no armour to speak of) first while producing the goods and equipment to ship. The first goods and equipment sent to the Soviets were from Britain and Canada.

Question 3
Britain and France were going to attempt to forestall an occupation of Norway by the Germans and also aid Finland in its war with Russia with troops sent though Norway. The original plan was canceled and troops dispersed due to changes in circumstances. Later on they attempted to resurrect the plan but it was too late.
In 1938 when Czechoslovakia was annexed and Austria accepted Anschluss (the majority of Austria was for it) Britain was trading for time in reality to re-arm (Chamberlain may have thought he could avert war but not many others did)
France and Britain Declared war with Germany over Poland but were not equipped or trained to deal with the blitzkrieg that Germany had perfected.
The Baltic States (and Poland) had up until the revolution been part of Russia, how was Britain supposed to help them. Churchill had no love of Stalin and it was very evident all the time even when helping the USSR. As I said Churchill had some very hard decisions to make and Chamberlain still hoped for peace somehow.

Question 4
Yep the Japanese got themselves hammered by the Soviets. They were still locked in a major war in China, the US had sanctioned Japan and those were cutting deep into its economy. It could not afford to attempt to take on the USSR again (which did not move its divisions from the Frontier with the Japanese Forces).

leccy
03-10-2011, 04:27 PM
Yeah, the Fairey Fulmar was a real fighter (if you are fighting Stukas), at 272 mph, it had the same speed of the Fiat CR.42 biplane fighter, which was far more maneuverable

Read up a bit about it not just look on a wiki sheet. It accounted for 1/3 of all kills by FAA aircraft in WW2. It was by no means Ideal but it was a very stable gun platform and as Allied pilots countering the Zero found out you don't need to be the most agile plane to win.

leccy
03-10-2011, 04:34 PM
By the way I informed you that the Fulmer was a monoplane fighter after you made the inacurate claim that RN carriers only had Bi-plane aircraft, then you changed to HMS Indomitable only had 9 fighters when with the Fulmers it actually had 21.

I was just correcting you.

Have you found any units etc to back up the 350 tanks moved from Malaya prior to Japan entering the war yet, or maybe their types. The types USSR received in 1941 were not used in that theatre until 1942/43

samjok
03-10-2011, 04:39 PM
It seems rather Ironic and expensive that the arsenal of Democracy would supply Stalin, ensuring his Tyany over 250 million people in 1945 and Stalin's help to ensure tyrany in China for another 500 million, all in order to liberate 40 million Frenchmen for democracy. The arsenal of democracy would then ruin its economy and the world's economy opposing the USSR and put the world in the current depression (people are affraid to use this word, but it is the only word to decribe a recession lasting this long).

Khahlkhin Gol was not a planned invasion into the USSR (which bordered with Japan in Manchuria, Korea, etc, and whose ports, like Vladivostok had been taken by the Japs in the Russo-Japanese war), it was a border skirmish in the remotest Mongolia.

Funny, Are you saying Japan could not take on a nearly defeated and broke USSR next door in 1941 or 42, so it made more sense to attack the intact US and the UK?

You want a stable platform for ground attack, not for a fighter, which should be unstable and maneuverable. The kills include naval observation aircraft, etc, not many Zeroes, K-43s, etc,. Let me put it this way. You are a British pilot. Would you rather fly a super obsolete Fulmar or a slightly obsolete Hurricane on your next mission? Since you like sources so much, please tell me your source for the Fulmar shooting down 1/3 of all FAA planes. It was so successful that they made only 600 and the British equipped their escort carriers with wildcats.

leccy
03-10-2011, 05:55 PM
I never said the Fulmer was good, it was out of date and replaced as soon as possible in the day fighter role, it was after all based partially on the Fairy Battle. Having spoken to a pilots who flew the Fulmer it had very good characteristics for a carrier aircraft unlike the Seafire and Sea Hurricane which were at best stop gaps.
Modern computer controlled aircraft are made unstable so as to be able to be more maneuverable. WW2 aircraft with manual controls needed to be stable or you would end up killing all your aircrew. A stable gun platform means that it stays pointing at what you are pointing it at instead of you having to fight it to stay on target.

Ok little help for you on the Fulmer (just one resource for you)
Fairey Fulmer (http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Fulmar.htm)

Yes I was saying that Japan could not at the time take on the USSR as japan was reaching economic bankruptcy itself with the sanctions imposed by the US because of Japans war in China. The USSR did not withdraw its divisions facing Japan throughout the War.

Churchill would rather have gone to war with the USSR, he only supported Stalin because the USSR was also fighting Germany.

samjok
03-10-2011, 08:20 PM
It was bad enough to face a Zero flying a Hurricane or even a Buffalo, I really sympathize with the brave men that were ordered to fly these planes and the Swordfish in 1942 and even later.
I think that the use of the Fairy Battle in France was the worse waste of urgently needed pilots in history. Hundreds were shot down in weeks without ever destroying any of their targets.
Both the Fulmar and Battle used the same Merlin engine of the Hurrican and Spitfire, what a waste. Moreover, many Hurricanes in France had inferior two blade propellers that made them more vulnerable. Had they grounded the Battle after losing 50 of them pointlessly, put the Battles' 3 blade props on the Hurricanes with 2 blade props, used their engines for spares or for new Hurricanes and trained those pilots for fighter combat, they would have achieved much more.

Germany was also bankrupt when it attacked Poland (Hitler could not wait to start the war in 1943 because Germany was bankrupt. Hitler had fired Schacht, the brilliant economist who saved the German economy and put the incompetent GŲring in charge of the economy, production and the Luftwaffe). War allows nations to capture resources from other countries to keep their economies going for a while. Poland, Norway, France, Holland, the Ukraine, etc, kept Germany going. Japan expected to capture the resources of Siberia.
Believe me Stalin nextdoor in late 1941-42 was a much easier target than the US and UK thousands of miles away and under much less pressure from Germany.

Churchill and Roosevelt underestimated the USSR and helped it too much, because they feared it might collase in a few months. The USSR was huge and had 170 million people, so that Stalin could have kept withdrawing and fighting for years without help. Why not strengthen and protect your colonies and territories and let the two bastards bleed each other. While the US had to produce enough fuel, trucks, food, etc, for all the allies and the ships to transport them and fight on two fronts, Stalin simply refused to open a second front at his doorstep, even when the Germans were in Frank retreat and he was swimming in tanks, planes, troops, etc, in 1944 and still Roosevelt kept giving him everything he wanted until Germany surrendered.

Nickdfresh
03-11-2011, 07:16 AM
It seems rather Ironic and expensive that the arsenal of Democracy would supply Stalin, ensuring his Tyany over 250 million people in 1945 and Stalin's help to ensure tyrany in China for another 500 million, all in order to liberate 40 million Frenchmen for democracy. The arsenal of democracy would then ruin its economy and the world's economy opposing the USSR and put the world in the current depression (people are affraid to use this word, but it is the only word to decribe a recession lasting this long).

The "Arsenal of Democracy" did support the Soviets but not to save the French as much as to save the Arsenal of Democracy. How much of the Wehrmacht did the Red Army destroy? I think its well over two-thirds! All hindsight...


Khahlkhin Gol was not a planned invasion into the USSR (which bordered with Japan in Manchuria, Korea, etc, and whose ports, like Vladivostok had been taken by the Japs in the Russo-Japanese war), it was a border skirmish in the remotest Mongolia.

Funny, Are you saying Japan could not take on a nearly defeated and broke USSR next door in 1941 or 42, so it made more sense to attack the intact US and the UK?

The Japanese Imperial Army--for all its fanaticism, courage, and ruthlessness--was tactically brilliant at times, but operationally incompetent in a modern battle of armor and nearly useless against a modern mechanized army while fighting in open terrain favoring a war-of-movement. Secondly, aren't you sort of contradicting yourself here? You're blaming the U.S. for supporting the Soviets and I believe in a follow up post state that the Soviets could have held out without American aid, but here state the Soviets are nearly defeated. So, what should the U.S. have done? Allow the USSR to fall to the Axis so she can suffer millions of casualties and risk defeat?


You want a stable platform for ground attack, not for a fighter, which should be unstable and maneuverable. The kills include naval observation aircraft, etc, not many Zeroes, K-43s, etc,. Let me put it this way. You are a British pilot. Would you rather fly a super obsolete Fulmar or a slightly obsolete Hurricane on your next mission? Since you like sources so much, please tell me your source for the Fulmar shooting down 1/3 of all FAA planes. It was so successful that they made only 600 and the British equipped their escort carriers with wildcats.

Largely irrelevant as the British could not project power to Singapore and deal with the Germans controlling continental Europe at the same time. The British RN equipped their escort carriers with Wildcats when American production became available. There weren't enough Wildcats for the USN and USMC aviators in 1940-41 as there were still many squadrons equipped with Buffalos...

Rising Sun*
03-11-2011, 08:11 AM
I tried to post the link For the 350 tanks, but was not allowed. please look up Arthur Pecival at historylearningsite.co.uk

That is an unreferenced assertion which is not supported by anything I recall.

I'm willing to accept that it might be a correct statement, but only if you can provide a reliable reference rather than an assertion on a website of unknown reliability which appears to be the only source of this assertion.

You haven't addressed my question about what happened to the unit attached to the tanks after its tanks were taken to the USSR .

Britain wouldn't have had 350 tanks sitting in Malaya quietly rusting away in anticipation of a possible Japanese attack. There would have been a very large unit, which I guess might have been about an armoured division, tending to those tanks and training for the anticipated assault.

I can't find any reference to any British armoured unit of any size in Malaya before or during WWII.

I don't know of any sizeable British armoured unit which was captured by the Japanese in Malaya. So, the unit had to go somewhere after its tanks were supposedly sent to the USSR. But I can't find any reference to an armoured unit, which wasn't in Malaya to begin with, being sent somewhere else at any time before or during WWII.

The assertion about Churchill sending 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR isn't supported by the evidence, or lack of it.

tankgeezer
03-11-2011, 10:09 AM
RS* is correct.350 tanks would be a about right(tho a bit high) for the average British armored Division compliment. But that leaves nearly 15,000 troops to twiddle their thumbs. Hard to misplace that many, so there indeed should be a record of their disposition.

Rising Sun*
03-11-2011, 10:10 AM
2) After 30,000 Britons had defeated 100,000 Italians in Libya, but just before they had expelled the axis from the continent, Churchill decided to send them to Greece and to the Sudan. The British would lose thousands of lives and many planes and ships in Greece without achieving absolutely anything, other than to lose face and moral. Meantime, Italy and Germany would consolidate their positions in Africa, so that Britain would lose thousands of lives and a great many ships, tanks, airplanes, etc, fighting the axis in Malta and Africa.

You present Churchill's decision to go into Greece as capricious and pointless.

Churchill could certainly be capricious, but his reasoning was that it was important to support the Greeks. He certainly failed to support his own forces with adequate air support, as he also did in Malaya, but it is unfair to present him as capriciously committing troops to a knowingly pointless expedition which would cost needless lives. He judged the circumstances at the time and made a decision which it is easy to see in hindsight as a poor one, but he was the head of the only nation fighting the Nazis at the time while fearing an attack by Japan and he disposed his forces according to his assessments of the military and political considerations.

You ignore the fact that, by good luck - which is often a decider in war - rather than good management, Churchillís commitment in Greece forced the Germans to divert forces to Greece and interfered with Barbarossa to the extent that it might have deprived Germany of victory in the first phase of that campaign.

There is plenty to criticise about Churchill in his long career, but there is also much to respect and a good deal to praise about his leadership in WWII. The fact is, he inspired his nation and beyond and, most importantly, he won. And he did it as a democratic leader without any of the instruments of compulsion his enemies had.

Overall, in WWII his determination to bring America into the war was a sound and ultimately successful strategic and political aim which he pursued skilfully to defeat the Nazis and Japan and to preserve Britain. Itís a bloody sight more than Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini managed to do in their countries, despite being militarily more powerful than Britain.


3) Although Stalin had enabled Hitler's invasion of Poland and become his accomplice, sharing Poland and then attacked Finland and enabled Hitler's conquest of France and fighting the battle of Britain by selling oil, chromium, manganese and other minerals to Germany and although Chamberlain in 1939 and then Churchill in 1941 had turned down Stalin's offer to form an alliance, and although Churchill had spoken vehemently against Stalin for many years, As soon as Hitler invaded the USSR, Churchill not only said words of praise for Stalin, but rushed to become his ally.

So?

In realpolitik, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What would you have done when given a choice between arming the Soviets to fight on your behalf to greater effect for your benefit than you could manage with the same arms and retaining the arms to lesser benefit for you?


The Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk off the Malayan coast by japanese bombers from Indochina, for lack of air cover (the few Buffaloes were defending Singapore) and could have otherwise privided deadly naval artillery support.

Deadly naval artillery support for what?

Artillery support was not their mission, nor Admiral Phillipsí intent.

The loss due to lack of air support was primarily Admiral Phillip's fault as he pressed on in the belief that air power could not sink battleships.



Churchill was furious when Singapore fell, forgetting completely that he had been the one who deprived them of hundreds of tanks and Hurricanes.

He didnít deprive Malaya of the tanks and planes. He decided not to allocate them to Malaya, on the basis of his assessment of wider strategic considerations.

There is a world of difference between taking away something you have given and not giving it in the first place.

From the narrow perspective of the defence of Malaya, it was an appalling decision by Churchill not to provide the necessary and available air support. But he wasnít concerned solely with Malaya and had to make his dispositions in light of wider and more important and more pressing concerns.



The same fate would befall Burma, Indonesia, etc, Ceylon, the British Pearl Harbor, would be bombed and the British fleet would flee to Kenya, leaving the Pacific and the Indian Ocean at the mercy of the Japanese.

Apart from Indonesia being the Netherlandsí rather than Churchillís responsibility, you are having a severe flight of fancy in asserting that the Indian and Pacific Oceans were left at the mercy of the Japanese solely because of Churchillís failures in the defence of Singapore and the British fleet fled to Kenya thus, by your implication, leaving the Pacific and Indian oceans free of British naval influence while the RN holed up in Kenya.

I canít be bothered explaining why this is just purple prose from someone who appears to let his pen, full of bitter ink against Churchill, run ahead of his historical knowledge


On the other hand, Stalin would grow so powerful that had the atomic bomb not worked, all of Europe would have fallen under his yoke.

See my last paragraph.


4) Churchill wasted an enormous amount of resources and lives bombing German cities without fighter escort to no avail.

Really?

So, apart from the disruption of war production, the bombing didnít disrupt German lines of communication and divert manpower and materiel resources to static air defence of potential targets rather than being available for operational purposes?


600,000 German civialians were murdered this way.

Well, thatís really terrible.

Churchill was a real **** for ordering that.

I mean, all the Germans ever did with their bombers in Rotterdam and Coventry and London and sundry other places was deliver cute little fluffy stuffed animals to the local children looking adoringly to the sky as the Nazi bombers flew over on friendship missions, selflessly risking their aircraft and lives in the flak sent up by unreasonably hostile Britishers.


Hitler benefitted in that he had to feed fewer children, unproductive women and old people and the soldiers preferred to stay at the front than to go on leave to their depressing, destroyed cities.

Could you provide sources for this?

And balance that against the loss of workers and production capacity caused by British (and American) bombing?


The German industry moved underground and increased production considerably during 1943 and 44.

If the bombing missions were, as you said above, to no avail, why did German industry move underground?

To be closer to the rabbit burrows so they could more accurately model the stuffed toys they were dropping from their bombers on England?

Ummm, possibly not, given that by then the traffic was pretty much one way, which might have had something to with German industry going underground, while British industry didnít.


Churchill received three times more lend-lease money than Stalin and used it quite inefficiently. Had the Americans not provided the UK and the USSR with incredible amounts of fuel, planes, ships, tanks, trucks, food, etc, and destroyed thousands of German planes, Germany, with rather limited resources would have defeated them.

I may be missing your point, if you have one apart from slagging Churchill again, but isnít it a bit of a non sequitur to assert that Churchill used the money (which wasnít what Lend Lease provided) inefficiently and then complain that if the US hadnít provided that support then Germany would have defeated Britain?

Britain defeated Germany.

That seems to be a fairly efficient use of Lend Lease, by both Britain and America, to me.



5) Roosevelt provided a lot of help to Churchill and the only thing he asked Churchill to do was to recover Burma ASAP, the only land route to supply China.

Really?

I thought the ĎGermany Firstí policy was what Roosevelt and Churchill agreed.

But the whole alliance turns out to have been based on Britain recovering Burma.

Silly me!



However, Churchill preferred to play in Africa and gave Monty lots of tanks, airplanes and men and used the navy and RAF in Malta to prevent Rommel from receiving any supplies (Monty could only defeat Rommel if he had many more men, tanks, etc,). Accordingly, Churchill did extremely little in Burma,allowing the Japanese to use its oil and rice and forcing the Americans to spend a fortune supplying the Chinese by air over the Himalayas. Ironically, Monty had tens of thousands of Indian soldiers in El Alamein, while millions of Indians would starve to death for lack of the rice from Burma (the largest rice exporter in the world before the Japanese occupied it). The powerful British navy lost an incredible amount of ships and men defending and supplying Malta, but no ships recovering Rangoon, so close to its base in Ceylon.

Thereís so much there to which to respond, but this site probably doesnít have the bandwidth to hold it.

So Iíll just express my wonderment about why you think that the RN was able to recover Rangoon from its base in Ceylon when you previously had the RN scuttling off from Ceylon to Kenya for the duration after the British Pearl Harbor.

Rising Sun*
03-11-2011, 10:37 AM
But that leaves nearly 15,000 troops to twiddle their thumbs. Hard to misplace that many, so there indeed should be a record of their disposition.

And if they remained in Malaya they would have been utilised in the fighting as they would have been an even larger body of troops than the two brigades of the Australian 8th Division who figure consistently in the record, but I can't recall any references to British armoured units fighting dismounted.

samjok
03-11-2011, 10:47 AM
It's strange how people consider Churchill's, Zhukov's, etc, highly biased books and memoirs as references. On the other hand it is difficult to find references to the major blunders, which were often well covered. For example, Patton's Hammelburg incident is known mostly from a few personal accounts, not much official information (Patton sent 300 brave men 50 miles into the enemy lines to liberate what he thought were 900 Americans and had promised the Officer in charge the medal of honor, but didn't deliver, because they were killed or captured and the medal of honor would have required an investigation). Stalin erased the second most costly battle of the war, Rzhev from Soviet history (Hitler also tried to erase it from Nazi history), etc, and Churchill certainly did everything in his power to write his favorable history and to cover his booboos. It is unfortunate that the British site does not include references about the 350 tanks, but I find it hard to believe that it is an invention and that the British military would spend a fortune building a fort and not provide any tanks to counter the invasion, that Percival had predicted would take place first in the north, where the Japanese needed to establish airbases and then in Singapore, where the only fort was built.

In any event, if you cannot believe that Churchill would be daft enough to leave Singapore without tanks, you must concede that he was daft enough to send the hundreds of Hurricanes to Stalin that would have saved Singapore, Burma, etc, and the millions of people who perished at the hands of the Japanese and which made little difference in the USSR.

Regarding the USSR destroying a big part of the Nazi army. If the US had not given Stalin all the fuel, trucks, explosives, airplanes, trains, etc, Hitlerīs supply lines would have extended more and more in the huge USSR, while Stalin could have continued to withdraw all the way to the Urals and beyond, killing Germans for years and ruining their economy even more. After a few years both Germany and the USSR would have been so weak that the Americans and British could have beaten them easily. Had Roosevelt not given Europe priority, but attacked only Japan with all the resources he gave Stalin and Churchill (who wasted them mostly bombing Germany and fighting pointlessly in Italy), Japan would have collapsed by 1943 and then the Angloes could have invaded from Iran and defeated both worn down dictators, avoiding 50 years of cold war and the risk of destroying humankind.

Here is yet another unreferenced list of what I guestimate Stalin received:
Throughout WW II the Soviets received about 2,050 Hurricanes, 1,020 Spitfires, 4,700 Airacobras, 2,100 P-40s, 2,400 King Cobras, 203 P-47s, 5,000 Douglas A-20s, 866 B-25 Mitchells (18,339 planes in total), 2,000 Railroad engines, 4,100 Sherman tanks, over 300,000 Ford and Studebaker trucks, 51,000 Willys MB jeeps, 11,000 railroad cars, millions of tons of high octane aviation fuel, food, steel, explosives, etc, The Irani railroad alone transported 5 million metric tonnes of supplies to the USSR. In total the USSR received 178 million metric tonnes. In contrast, the Germans had to relocate many Luftwaffe units from the USSR to North Africa in the winter of 1942 (during the Battle of Stalingrad), lost over 25,000 airplanes on the western front and the factories, rail road centers, power plants and cities were consistently bombarded, which greatly contributed to the defeat of Germany in the USSR.

Leccy, regarding the invasion of Norway: Iron ore only traveled through Narvik in the few months when the Baltic froze, but most of the year it traveled directly from Sweden to Germany over the Baltic. The main reasons for the Invasion were that Churchill wanted to avoid giving the German navy access to the north Atlantic and also to avoid a repetition of the prolonged trench warfare in France of WW I, chosing Norway as a battle ground, in which the formidable allied navy would provide a major advantage and where tanks could not be readily deployed by the Germans. Not a bad idea. Unfortunately, he did not take into account the crucial role that 1,000 Luftwaffe and most of the Kriegsmarine airplanes would play. Accordingly, after destroying or incapacitating most of the German fleet and having the Germans with very little fuel, ammunition, etc in Norway, the British ran away, starting the long string of exemplary evacuations.

Rising Sun*
03-11-2011, 04:43 PM
In any event, if you cannot believe that Churchill would be daft enough to leave Singapore without tanks

Who doesn't believe there were no tanks in Malaya?

The issue in this thread is whether 350 tanks were sent from Malaya to the USSR.

There is no guarantee that 350 tanks would have saved Malaya. Percival's critical tactical problem was to protect a number of airfields spread around the Malay peninsula. He might well have decided to deploy a significant part of a tank force to static defence of airfields which, as things turned out, were not attacked by the Japanese.

There is also the logistical problem of supplying the tanks with fuel and ordnance and the crews with food, and maintaining the tanks in the field. I'm not sure that the British had the necessary transport and field maintenance resources.


... you must concede that he was daft enough to send the hundreds of Hurricanes to Stalin that would have saved Singapore, Burma, etc, and the millions of people who perished at the hands of the Japanese ...

How do you know they would have saved Singapore, Burma etc?

How do you know that the Japanese would not have altered their own IJA and IJN aircraft and anti-aircraft dispositions to meet the extra British aircraft?

Did the British have the logistical and maintenance back-up to maintain that number of planes in Malaya and Burma?

Did the British have pilots of sufficient skill to man the planes against the very well trained Japanese pilots?

Rising Sun*
03-11-2011, 04:59 PM
It is unfortunate that the British site does not include references about the 350 tanks, but I find it hard to believe that it is an invention

Why do you find it hard to believe?

I'd prefer the memoirs of anybody present during relevant events to an unreferenced and isolated assertion on a website.


and that the British military would spend a fortune building a fort

The British did not build a fort. They built a naval base. Don't confuse the term 'Fortress Singapore' with what was actually built there.

One of the valid criticisms of Percival's defence of Malaya is that he refused to follow the requests of some of his advisers to fortify Singapore, which in turn made it easier for the Japanese to conquer it.

As for spending a fortune, the naval base took a lot longer than originally intended because the project was starved of funds.


and not provide any tanks to counter the invasion, that Percival had predicted would take place first in the north, where the Japanese needed to establish airbases

Operation Matador had every chance of success without tanks. The problem was not the absence of tanks but Churchill's refusal, for political and strategic reasons associated with drawing America into the war, to allow Percival to take the initiative and move into Thailand.

Much as you are hostile to Churchill, and much as I am critical of some of his decisions, it has to be conceded that he had a lot more on his plate than just Malaya and Burma. His main aims were to save Britain and after that India. His focus was on Europe and after that India. He did not have sufficient resources to have adequate land, sea and air forces everywhere he wanted or needed them. He had to make decisions about the best use of the available forces.

So far as sending materiel to the USSR rather than Malaya is concerned, that is consistent with his strategic view that it was more important to support the Soviets against the Nazis than fritter his resources away against Japan to no purpose in defeating the Nazis. I think that his was the correct view. It is also consistent with the British and American war planners' views before the war which led to the 'Germany first' policy, and with America devoting no more than about 15% of its resources to the war against Japan. It just happens that 15% of American resources was a hell of a lot more than anything Britain could muster against the Japanese.

samjok
03-11-2011, 11:09 PM
The British had excellent pilots in the east, which were able to shoot down a few Zeroes even with Buffaloes and many of those who survived soon became aces. Had they had hundreds of the better Hurricane, the Japs would have paid dearly. The idea that the Japanese had excellent pilots is partly a myth. The problem is that they had faster, more maneuverable andlonger range planes initially (mostly because they had no armor or heavy self-sealing tanks). However, in spite of the faster and more maneuverable planes, it is surprising how many planes they lost to the few Buffaloes, P-40s, Hurricanes and wildcats in 1941 and 42. If their pilots were so good, why did a few flying tigers cause them so much damage for so long, with so few losses? By the time the Hellcats and Lightnings arrived, they were a few Jap aces and mostly pilots with very few hours of training, for lack of fuel, planes and time.
What made the Jap air attacks so effective was the initial surprise factor and the initial lack of large numbers of decent planes, once war was declared and planes started to arrive they were promptly wiped out.

Singapore was quite a fortress, with five 15" cannon. However, the lousy planning resulted in very few high explosive shells (even though Percival had predicted an attack from Malaya, not a naval attack on Singapore), which were soon exhausted and the large number of armor-piercing shells were almost useless against personnel and tanks. Percival refused to build small support fortifications (in spite of having 6,000 engineers at his disposal), incredibly, because they were bad for moral. Moreover, the water supply, warehouses, etc, were easily captured by the Japs. To see what effect high explosive shells have on tanks and personnel, look up the damage caused by the Texas' 14" cannon on Panzer divisions in Normandy that believed to be beyond range (the captain flooded a little one side to gain more elevation and reach further). It appears in Bradley's excellent memoirs (A Soldier's Story). It's incredible that the Texas would have more HE shells and cannon than a fortress.
The excuse that the British were expecting a naval attack or no attack at all rather than a certain land attack makes no sense in the face of 95,000 troops, which would be of little use in a naval attack and required a lot of supplies and money to maintain there.

Many of the light Japanese tanks had only small caliber machine guns and thin armor, so they were no match for the old British tanks but very helpful against troops.
The British must have had plenty of ammo (they had many years to transport the supplies and they probably would not send them to the USSR without ammo (they would have been completely useless).

My point about Stalin is that he went from being the worst tyrant after the Ukrainian famine that killed millions (Stalin stole absolutely all the grain from the Ukraine), the murderous purges of 37 (he killed 30,000 of his best officers, including Tukhachevsky, perhaps the most brilliant strategist in the world at the time and millions of his most competent civilians) and the invasion of Poland and tiny Finland (which galvanized the world, inspiring special church collections in the US and much of the western world) and from being the best accomplice Hitler ever had, to being the ally that deserved as much help as possible, including giving priority to Europe. Hitler was up to his neck in the USSR and posed no threat to the UK. Had Churchill stopped bombing Germany without escort planes, Hitler would have stopped bombing the UK and moved his bombers and fighters to the USSR, where they were urgently needed. Stalin would not have collapsed overnight even without any help. He had 170 millon people, against 80 million Germans and unlimited natural resources. Germany would have to slow down as it advanced, leaving more and more partisans in its territory and stretching the supply lines. Germany had no long range bombers to destroy the Soviet industry in the Urals and was producing much fewer tanks, cannon, submachine-guns and planes than the USSR. It seems to me obvious that eliminating Japan in 2 years and concentrating on defeating Hitler and Stalin is far more effective in the long term than to fight on two fronts and to make Stalin the strongest man on Earth.

Another comment about the US being the Arsenal of Democracy. Britain ruled India in the most absurd way possible. Australia with 7 million people produced more steel in 1939 than India with 378 million people, even though India had plenty of iron ore and dirt-cheap labor. Rice productivity was also very low (the north relied on rice from Burma) and tea, indigo, etc, produced ridiculously little income for the Indians. Although 5 million Indians served in WW II, there were extremely few Indian pilots, generals, colonels, etc, In other words, the British considered the Indians Untermenschen to be exploited and who should consume the products of British industry, rather than truly equal members of the commonwealth, which could have multiplied the industrial might of the empire. For example, the Spitfire's fuselage and wings required an enormous amount of careful manual labour, which millions of Indians could have easily perfomed at a low cost in 1940, leaving the planes to be assembled in Britain and putting the Merlin engines used in the Hurricane to better use. The British should have also built large shipyards, truck factories, etc, in India before the war. providing employment and boosting demand for British goods.
Giving 30 billion in aid to Britain ensured that democracy would not reach 378 million indians for years. On the other hand, the US could have forced the British to relinquish India and then employed and trained millions of Indians for the US army, Air Force, etc, with decent wages and guaranteeing Indian independence after Hitler and Stalin were defeated. Once Burma was liberated and China could be supplied, the US should also have ignored the corrupt Chiang and the communist Mao and recruited millions of starving Chinese (there were 535 million of them without a decent job). In 1944, with millions of Indians, Chinese, British and Americans, the exhausted Germans and Soviets would collapse rapidly, for as the Allies advance in their territories from Iran, China, korea, etc, and treat prisoners fairly, millions of battle weary and inhumanly treated soldiers would surrender en masse, like it occurred when the Americans broke into Germany.

An off-topic about India. Akbar the great had breech loading steel cannon mounted on armored elephants (tanks) centuries before Napoleon and Lee fought with muzzle loading bronze cannon. India also produced the only high carbon steel rifles ever produced, which operated at greater pressure, extending their range.

leccy
03-12-2011, 02:42 AM
samjok

You seem to basing your answers on what you think would be credible and logical as opposed to some factual evidence. The single source you quoted about the 350 tanks was written by a secondary school history teacher who has not added any source of that info, let alone a verifiable one.


Many of the light Japanese tanks had only small caliber machine guns and thin armor, so they were no match for the old British tanks but very helpful against troops.

Most British tanks in 1940 were only equipped with machine guns the same as the Japanese. All references I have found to tanks in theatre in 1941 were about Light MKVI and some Danish tanks also armed with machine guns.

Info about Norway for you to read sorry its a British source
Norweigan Campaign (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html)

If you wish to understand about why Britain was rather ill-equipped and some reasons why units facing the Germans and Japanese lacked many types of equipment including AA and AT munitions have a read of these two books. Rather long and dry reading but rather enlightening all the same. India may have had manpower but it did not have the industry to do what you wished it to do. Likewise the US in 1941 was still re-equipping itself having no armoured forces so to speak of in 1940 so could have done little to arm, train and equip more foreign Divisions.

Sorry more British sources
UK-Civil-WarProduction/UK-Civil-WarProduction (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarProduction/UK-Civil-WarProduction-2.html)
British War Economy (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarEcon/index.html)

Germany had a much larger industrial capacity than the Japanese. Albert Speer finally got it started properly on war production in 1942 when he took over as Armaments Minister as can be seen by the massive increase in production from then on.

pdf27
03-12-2011, 06:55 AM
Churchill could certainly be capricious, but his reasoning was that it was important to support the Greeks. He certainly failed to support his own forces with adequate air support, as he also did in Malaya, but it is unfair to present him as capriciously committing troops to a knowingly pointless expedition which would cost needless lives. He judged the circumstances at the time and made a decision which it is easy to see in hindsight as a poor one, but he was the head of the only nation fighting the Nazis at the time while fearing an attack by Japan and he disposed his forces according to his assessments of the military and political considerations.
Highly relevant issue here - the Greek merchant fleet was enormous, at a time when the Battle of the Atlantic was the only real threat to the UK. Diverting forces to Greece guaranteed that this fleet would end up in Allied hands, while had the UK abandoned Germany there would be a strong possibility that this fleet would be neutral at best, or even attempt to return home under the orders of a puppet Greek government. In comparison, the importance of the forces sent to Greece by the UK was minimal.


The loss due to lack of air support was primarily Admiral Phillip's fault as he pressed on in the belief that air power could not sink battleships.
He was hardly alone in this - Dunkirk had "demonstrated" that it was very difficult to sink ships in port with air power, let alone ships manoeuvring at sea. The Japanese doctrine of using air power to sink ships at sea - instead of big guns - was actually pretty revolutionary at the time, and nobody was really sure if it would work.

samjok
03-12-2011, 09:35 AM
I would hardly call the Greek merchant fleet in 1941 enormous. The Norwegian fleet was indeed enormous and it joined the British war effort, although Norway had been abandoned. The Polish navy, army and pilots joined the British, even though they hadn't done hardly anything to help them, other than declare war while Hitler and then Stalin invaded Poland. The Czeck, Polish, Norwegian, Dutch and a few French pilots saved Britain during the battle of Britain, because most British pilots had been lost in the continent and Britain abandoned all these countries to the Germans. The same can be said about the not quite so enormous merchant and small naval fleets from Holland, Poland, etc, These countries' fleets could either join the Germans who had conquered them or join the British, who were fighting against their oppressors. I doubt that sending 62,000 British to Greece with few ariplanes, tanks, etc, and evacuating them with their tail between their legs was the reason for the Greek ships to join the British.

Norway, Dunkirk, Greece, Africa, Tarento, the Bismark and Malta demonstrated the great vulnerability of ships to airplanes. The only reason the British did not lose even more ships in Dunkirk was the lousy weather that provided a great break for Churchill, who took the decision to evacuate in the belief that at best they would have a few days and save 50,000 men.

Precisely my point is that India had no industry and very primitive agriculture, because of the lousy way it was governed. Iran did not have any industry and when Stalin occupied it, he used the abundant labor to manufacture hundreds of thousand of submachine guns (he didn't think the more than 6 million he was producing in the USSR would be enough). Industry can be made in a hurry during war time. But even before the war it was absurd not to produce 30 times more steel in 1939 in India than in Australia (which didn't have any industry at the beginning either).

leccy
03-12-2011, 05:49 PM
samjok why do you insist on calling every battle that the Allies lose a British abandonment.


The Czeck, Polish, Norwegian, Dutch and a few French pilots saved Britain during the battle of Britain, because most British pilots had been lost in the continent and Britain abandoned all these countries to the Germans

You really need to check your figures out

Battle of Britain Nominal Role (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html)

The Few' were 2353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognised as having taken part in the Battle of Britain. Each flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940. 544 lost their lives during the period of the Battle


I doubt that sending 62,000 British to Greece with few ariplanes, tanks, etc, and evacuating them with their tail between their legs was the reason for the Greek ships to join the British.

Lets see shall we. Britain sends troops to help us when Italy and Germany invade, I know we (The remaining Greek Forces and Merchant Marine) wont join the Allies because they were beaten alongside our Forces but we will join the Axis side who have committed attrocities in our country.


Norway, Dunkirk, Greece, Africa, Tarento, the Bismark and Malta demonstrated the great vulnerability of ships to airplanes. The only reason the British did not lose even more ships in Dunkirk was the lousy weather that provided a great break for Churchill, who took the decision to evacuate in the belief that at best they would have a few days and save 50,000 men.


How many ships were sunk by air attack in Norway and Dunkirk and also compare that to how many ships participated in each operation in 1940.
Africa ?? big place mostly land?
Taranto was a very good demonstration to the world of what air power could achieve (when most still did not believe it was possible)
The Bismark was damaged by an aerial torpedo but sunk by Naval Gunfire. Or do you mean the Battle of the Bismark Sea 1943, after quite a few years of practice and refining anti ship strikes it was a good operation.
Maybe you should have added Pearl Harbour along with maybe Midway as examples of the supremacy of airpower over Battlewagons.

The weather over Dunkirk was pretty good for flying the luftwaffe of the time was not trained or equipped for anti ship missions though. Four Destroyers were lost at Dunkirk itself to air attack out of 41 (most of whom did 6 or 7 trips), the more modern destroyers were pulled out of the op after a while to preserve them from further loss leaving it mainly to the old V and W classes from WW1.


Industry can be made in a hurry during war time

Only if you have the money and resources, if you don't it cant (you still have to buy the equipment and pay contractors and workers to build it all).

I dont know about Iran as it was occupied by Britain and the USSR with an agreement that it only provided Non Military Aid. (Although how providing oil and the railway for supplies to the USSR quite fitted in to that I am not sure).

samjok
03-12-2011, 07:28 PM
After occupying jointly Iran, Britain left it in Stalin's care and it was lucky that he eventually left Iran, but not as soon as the war ended.
Stalin did not care much about agreements and used Iran for all the military purposes he saw fit. He also used the Kingcobras against Germany, although they were given to him exclusively for use against Japan. He also provided the Japanese with important intelligence about American movements (late in the war the British also provided the Germans with some Soviet intelligence).

The British had hundreds of Spitfires and Hurricanes in Dunkirk and lost 100 planes. Not so in Norway, Greece or the Pacific. And visibility did limit dive bombing for many hours.

Those 574 Foreign pilots included several would be aces and shot a disproportionate number of German planes and without them the British pilots would have been overwhelmed during the BoB (the few would have been too few). The most amazing thing is how quickly they adapted to and became very deadly with planes they had never flown.

The reason the RN withdrew from Norway is that it was being trounced by the 1,000 German planes (after the allies conceded defeat, many of the planes were promptly sent to France to defeat again the British). The RN had damaged or sunk most of the German navy and could have easily finished off the Scharnhost, Gneisenau, etc, Instead of chasing them later half way around the world and leaving Norway to the Germans. But did not want to incur more losses and any land forces had also to contend with the planes without much support.
Believe it not WW II was a war mostly of airplanes, specially fighters, without which the bombers were fodder: Poland had almost no airplanes and was licked in weeks, France had few planes and Britain kept the best planes at home (Spitfires), so even though the French and British tanks were much superior to the lousy German tanks of 1940 (mostly Panzer I and all of which were vulnerable even to the French Hutchkiss 25 mm cannon and could not penetrate most of the French and British tanks), France fell promptly thanks to constant dive bombing for hours by primitve Stukas and Hs-123s biplanes which cleared the way for Guderian and defeated several allied counteroffensives. In turn the slow dive bombers survived only because the German fighters had control of the air.

You only care about the ships that are sunk (and plenty were sunk in Norway, Greece, Dunkirk, etc, and without gaining any territory, always evacuating). However, if a ship is taken out of action for months or years, it is almost as important. Many ships that were damaged or sunk in shallow water in Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Dunkirk, Malta, Leningrad (Marad) represented a major loss, even if they were later (sometimes years later) raised back and/or repaired. Many more destroyers were heavily damaged by planes in Dunkirk than were sunk. By the way one was sunk by a torpedo boat, a remarkable deed in a swarm of allied ships.

Had it not been for aerial torpedoes that first slowed it down and then destroyed the Bismarck's Rudder, it would have escaped to France. So the cheap, linen covered biplanes with 850 hp and an open cockpit, flying close to 100 mph with a torpedo were responsible for the destruction of the 50,000 ton high speed, high tech wonder. That the RN chose to use a flotilla to sink it, instead of finishing it off with aerial torpedoes is another matter.

Nickdfresh
03-12-2011, 08:13 PM
I would hardly call the Greek merchant fleet in 1941 enormous. The Norwegian fleet was indeed enormous and it joined the British war effort, although Norway had been abandoned.

Some numbers for comparison's sake would be helpful. But Norway wasn't 'abandoned' as much as the Allies were driven out. I don't think they really had a choice...


The Polish navy, army and pilots joined the British, even though they hadn't done hardly anything to help them, other than declare war while Hitler and then Stalin invaded Poland.

What were the other options of Polish aviators? And what help could Poland expect from Britain? A country with a small colonial, constabulary army in 1939! Claiming War on Germany was actually the ultimate "help" Britain (and France) could give as neither possessed forces ready for immediate action in the near future...


The Czeck, Polish, Norwegian, Dutch and a few French pilots saved Britain during the battle of Britain, because most British pilots had been lost in the continent and Britain abandoned all these countries to the Germans.

You seem to throw out these bizarre, totally unsupported factoids in your rants--and it's getting a bit tiresome. Mostly UK pilots defended Britain, but yes the contribution of the free forces was significant. But "most British pilots had been lost on the continent?" Fighter pilots? I think one of the main recriminations of the French was that Churchill refused to commit valuable RAF fighter squadrons to France. Britain "abandoned" these countries? Really? I thought they retreated in order to preserve what army they had and to prevent a German invasion of Britain....


The same can be said about the not quite so enormous merchant and small naval fleets from Holland, Poland, etc, These countries' fleets could either join the Germans who had conquered them or join the British, who were fighting against their oppressors. I doubt that sending 62,000 British to Greece with few ariplanes, tanks, etc, and evacuating them with their tail between their legs was the reason for the Greek ships to join the British.

Your numbers here are wrong and simply pulled out of the air--again, it's getting tiresome. But before you indict the British as running out of Greece with their tail between their legs, you might want to consider the glorious Pyrrhic victory of the German paratroops over the disorganized, static Commonwealth forces on Crete--forcing Hitler to reconsider the use of airborne forces and tying down large numbers of Heer occupation forces....


Norway, Dunkirk, Greece, Africa, Tarento, the Bismark and Malta demonstrated the great vulnerability of ships to airplanes. The only reason the British did not lose even more ships in Dunkirk was the lousy weather that provided a great break for Churchill, who took the decision to evacuate in the belief that at best they would have a few days and save 50,000 men.

I don't disagree on the argument of air-power vs. shipping. But you're ignoring the fact that the weather wasn't that bad, RAF fighter command sent well rested pilots flying planes full of fuel against exhausted Luftwaffe pilots flying long missions from distant bases, inflicting heavy losses on them. Also, the Luftwaffe lacked proper armor-piercing bombs for use against ships IIRC. If Dunkirk showed the vulnerability of shipping to air-power, it also showed the limitations of the Luftwaffe and the limitations of Stukas against Hurricanes...


Precisely my point is that India had no industry and very primitive agriculture, because of the lousy way it was governed.

But provided Britain with a massive contribution of manpower....


Iran did not have any industry and when Stalin occupied it, he used the abundant labor to manufacture hundreds of thousand of submachine guns (he didn't think the more than 6 million he was producing in the USSR would be enough). Industry can be made in a hurry during war time. But even before the war it was absurd not to produce 30 times more steel in 1939 in India than in Australia (which didn't have any industry at the beginning either).

Seems like a rather trite contribution by the Iranians. And what you specifically mean by industry being "made in a hurry during war time" is rather nebulous. The Germans began WWII nowhere near the US in terms of industrial production, and ended it vastly more so inferior....

samjok
03-12-2011, 11:05 PM
If my rantings tire you, you can always ignore them.

Hitler had an uncanny ability to draw the wrong conclusions. The fall of Crete at the cost of a few thousand paratroopers impressed the British and Americans so much that they developed large airborne forces. The heavy German paratrooper losses were more because of the primitive, unsteerable parachute with only one strap and because the troopers landed hundreds of meters away from their weapons, which were enclosed in containers and the unarmed troopers were extremely vulnerable while fetching their weapons. Losing a few thousand men while capturing a valuable island is immensely more justifiable than loosing tens or hundreds of thousands while loosing territory and evacuating. Had Hitler used paratroopers to capture some of the Soviet airfields 50 km behind the front in Barbarossa, it would have been extremely helpful.

5 million Indian volunteers out of 378 million is a ridiculously tiny fraction of the potential in human and natural resources. Let me put it another way. Had the Japs attacked only the Brits and not the Americans in 41. Without massive American help (the American public would have gotten tired of providing enormous amounts of materiel without much chance of recooping as the British kept losing the world over and pressured Roosevelt to cancel lend-lease), and without diverting forces to the Philippines or Pearl Habor, the Japs could have easily captured Ceylon, Madagascar and Aden and closed the Red sea to Britain. the hundreds of millions of Indians could do almost nothing to defend themselves against Japan (even less than the Chinese).

German production suffered mostly for lack of raw materials and inefficient slave labor, but production in 1942, 1943 and 44 is beyond impressive for the size of the country and population and being at war. They managed to fight the Soviets, British, Americans, free French, etc, with what they produced (including synthetic fuel), while the immense USSR and British empire relied on American fuel, trucks, planes, raw materials, food, etc, and many of the ships to transport them.
I never understood how could Roosevelt justify providing so much to 170 million Soviets swimming in resources and to more than 400 million British subjects also with lots of resources in order to fight 80 million Germans with very little oil from Romania, ores, etc, If these huge powers with more than 570 million and a great many times more resources than Germany could not defend themselves even fighting together, they did not deserve supplies.

Iran is peanuts compared to India, which did not contribute even what you consider a trite hundreds of thousands of submachine guns.

Rising Sun*
03-12-2011, 11:32 PM
Let me put it another way. Had the Japs attacked only the Brits and not the Americans in 41 ... the Japs could have easily captured Ceylon, Madagascar and Aden and closed the Red sea to Britain.

Why would Japan do that? Where is the strategic benefit to Japan? How can Japan maintain an occupation in those places and beat Britain when it has only enough oil for its fleet for perhaps a year?


I never understood how could Roosevelt justify providing so much to 170 million Soviets swimming in resources and to more than 400 million British subjects also with lots of resources in order to fight 80 million Germans with very little oil from Romania, ores, etc, If these huge powers with more than 570 million and a great many times more resources than Germany could not defend themselves even fighting together, they did not deserve supplies.

Roosevelt appears to have been under the misapprehension that it would help America to win the war. Had he had your clearsightedness, he could have just told the American public to absorb Pearl Harbor and wait for Japan to exhaust itself fighting the British. Oh, that's right, Japan would have defeated the British in no time and held territory all the way to Aden. What on earth are you trying to demonstrate with your inconsistent assertions?

As for your arithmetic, you choose to add in numbers to Britain which are irrelevant to lend lease and leave out the additional forces supporting the Nazis in Europe and the Mediterranean, not to mention the Japanese.

tankgeezer
03-12-2011, 11:36 PM
A good yarn, one must admit Samjok, but citations of source authority would go a long way to making this more worth reading. Flights of fancy, and wishing it were so,according to your own personal ist's, or ism's may find eager acceptance on a site for prospective fiction writers, but do fall a bit flat on a factual history site.

pdf27
03-13-2011, 03:30 AM
...without diverting forces to the Philippines or Pearl Habor, the Japs could have easily captured Ceylon, Madagascar and Aden and closed the Red sea to Britain. the hundreds of millions of Indians could do almost nothing to defend themselves against Japan (even less than the Chinese).
The Red Sea was irrelevant to India, since the Mediterranean was already closed to Allied convoys (see the losses taken in getting convoys through to Malta from either direction). Supplies to India went around the Cape of Good Hope and up the Indian Ocean. Supplies to North Africa went via Suez however, and if possible (see below) it might have made a difference there.

Now for taking Ceylon, let alone Madagascar or Aden - have you ever looked at a map? Osaka to Trincomalee is over 4,000 nautical miles, with the route passing through a whole load of allied-controlled territory that had to be taken before the Navy could safely get down there. Aden is over 6,000 NM (a two month round trip for an invasion convoy) and Diego Suarez (Madagascar) is about the same distance. The longest seabourne invasion in history (parts of Operation Torch - most of the troops and naval escort were actually basing out of the UK) was just over 3,000 miles, and were supposedly making unopposed landings. To carry out an opposed landing at twice that distance with hostile territory all the way through (unlike Torch, where the Atlantic was under Allied control) is just ridiculous.

leccy
03-13-2011, 04:07 AM
samjok

I have posted evidence that refutes your wild claims. Each time you then go on another wild claim without posting anything (even a book) that can be checked.

Whenever I ask for you to do some of the work and answer a specific question I get answered with yet more claims or rhetoric. Please will you answer a simple one like how many ships were lost at Dunkirk and since you wish to add the damaged that would be nice as I already have the answers including the names, classes and damaged by what (I already told you that the RN pulled its more modern destroyers out of that action due to loss and I meant that as damaged as well as sunk, most damaged ships were back in action shortly after Dunkirk)
I managed to provide you with a list of all Aircraft carrying ships sunk, where, when and how to refute your claim that loads were sunk by Italian and German aircraft.

There was an agreement to leave Iran six months after hostilities ended, Britain did but Stalin only did so after Pressure from the US.

Nickdfresh
03-13-2011, 04:38 AM
If my rantings tire you, you can always ignore them.

The rantings aren't the problem. The use of unsupported facts and figures are.


Hitler had an uncanny ability to draw the wrong conclusions. The fall of Crete at the cost of a few thousand paratroopers impressed the British and Americans so much that they developed large airborne forces. The heavy German paratrooper losses were more because of the primitive, unsteerable parachute with only one strap and because the troopers landed hundreds of meters away from their weapons, which were enclosed in containers and the unarmed troopers were extremely vulnerable while fetching their weapons. Losing a few thousand men while capturing a valuable island is immensely more justifiable than loosing tens or hundreds of thousands while loosing territory and evacuating. Had Hitler used paratroopers to capture some of the Soviet airfields 50 km behind the front in Barbarossa, it would have been extremely helpful.

The canisters were a problem. But the main problem was the poor planning, intelligence, and operational arrogance. Had the Allies better, centralized command and control, they almost certainly would have defeated the invasion. Fifty kilometers was almost nothing in the opening days of Barbarossa and the Wehrmacht overran airfields and largely destroyed much of the Red Air-forces on the ground anyways. And the U.S. Army had conducted successful--albeit small scale--airborne operations in WWI and would have developed them with or without the Crete operations. The Fallschirmjšger were still put to good use in legendary defensive battles in Normandy, Italy, and the Eastern Front...


5 million Indian volunteers out of 378 million is a ridiculously tiny fraction of the potential in human and natural resources. Let me put it another way. Had the Japs attacked only the Brits and not the Americans in 41. Without massive American help (the American public would have gotten tired of providing enormous amounts of materiel without much chance of recooping as the British kept losing the world over and pressured Roosevelt to cancel lend-lease), and without diverting forces to the Philippines or Pearl Habor, the Japs could have easily captured Ceylon, Madagascar and Aden and closed the Red sea to Britain. the hundreds of millions of Indians could do almost nothing to defend themselves against Japan (even less than the Chinese).

Five million men was a huge contribution to an army that suffered chronic manpower shortages. And the United States never would have just stood by and watched the British possessions being usurped by a potentially dangerous enemy...


German production suffered mostly for lack of raw materials and inefficient slave labor, but production in 1942, 1943 and 44 is beyond impressive for the size of the country and population and being at war. They managed to fight the Soviets, British, Americans, free French, etc, with what they produced (including synthetic fuel), while the immense USSR and British empire relied on American fuel, trucks, planes, raw materials, food, etc, and many of the ships to transport them.

German production suffered from The Great Depression and the limitations imposed on it stemming from Versailles and the fact that Wehrmacht strategic planners had not anticipated war until later in the 1940s when they would be able to approach a strategic parity with their adversaries. German forces managed to hold out, but was still a rail-based army that used horse and oxen for logistical transport until the end of the war. The fact they held out so long is a testament to their generally excellent training, cohesion, and the fact that they were fighting a defensive battle after 1942. And while American production was one of the greatest single factors, one cannot ignore substantial British and Canadian production as well as the huge contributions of British science and technology including the breakthroughs at Bletchley Park, which no doubt shortened the War and reduced Allied casualties...


I never understood how could Roosevelt justify providing so much to 170 million Soviets swimming in resources and to more than 400 million British subjects also with lots of resources in order to fight 80 million Germans with very little oil from Romania, ores, etc, If these huge powers with more than 570 million and a great many times more resources than Germany could not defend themselves even fighting together, they did not deserve supplies.

Um, a huge oversimplification. The British not only had its empire to draw on, but had to extend resources to defend it as well. And as the axiom goes, "he who defends everywhere defends nowhere" (paraphrasing). The Soviets did have a huge bounty, but a good deal of that bounty was seized by the Germans in 1941-42 with largely the intent of competing with the resources and industry of the inevitable "Jewish-controlled" American enemy. Should America have hoarded its resources and production until after the defeat of the British and Soviets so that they could be used by the millions of Americans? Or was it better to support those already engaged?


Iran is peanuts compared to India, which did not contribute even what you consider a trite hundreds of thousands of submachine guns.

Peanuts and oil that is. :)

Rising Sun*
03-13-2011, 10:01 AM
Singapore was quite a fortress, with five 15" cannon.

The size of guns does not make an island upon which they are emplaced a fortress.

Five 15Ē guns do not make their emplacement impregnable. Yamato and Mushashi each had nine 18Ē guns. It didnít do them a lot of good.

The guns on Singapore were there to protect the naval base from naval attack.

The naval base was to be home to a main fleet.

In the event of war with Japan, Britain was to send a main fleet to Singapore.

No British fleet was based or sent there, before or after the declaration of war.

Australian defence policy had been based since 1923 on the ĎFortress Singaporeí policy. That policy was destroyed by Churchillís persistent refusal to send a fleet to Singapore up to, and after, December 1941.

So far as its intended purpose was concerned, Singapore was, before and after Japan attacked, just an empty naval base with a few big guns protecting a fleet which wasnít there. That is a long way short of a fortress designed for or capable of resisting a land attack from the north.

Even if the coastal guns had been supplied with an infinite amount of HE, there is no reason to expect that the result in Singapore would have been any different. Just a bit later, at best.

Too many amateur historians focus too much, and to no purpose, on the coastal guns and too little upon the well-planned and well-executed Japanese landings on Singapore and the subsequent land battles which were carried out with the skill and determination which Japan had showed the whole way down Malaya.





However, the lousy planning resulted in very few high explosive shells (even though Percival had predicted an attack from Malaya, not a naval attack on Singapore), which were soon exhausted

Lousy planning by whom?

Did Percival request HE shells?


and the large number of armor-piercing shells were almost useless against personnel and tanks.

Which is exactly what would happen on a Ďfortressí with five 15Ē guns designed and sited as coastal artillery to repel ships attacking a naval base.


Percival refused to build small support fortifications (in spite of having 6,000 engineers at his disposal), incredibly, because they were bad for moral.

So you donít think that maintenance of civilian morale, which is what Percival was primarily concerned with in that respect, on a small island with a population of mixed ethnicities was important, particularly when a significant number of Chinese were there who were naturally, and correctly, scared of what would happen if the Japanese won?



Moreover, the water supply, warehouses, etc, were easily captured by the Japs.

No, the pumping stations which controlled the water supply were captured by the Japanese.

The British troops who had fought the Japanese the length of Malaya and on Singapore might object to your opinion that the capture was easy.

As for warehouses etc being captured before the surrender, I have no idea what youíre talking about.


To see what effect high explosive shells have on tanks and personnel, look up the damage caused by the Texas' 14" cannon on Panzer divisions in Normandy that believed to be beyond range (the captain flooded a little one side to gain more elevation and reach further). It appears In Bradley's excellent memoirs (A Soldier's Story). It's incredible that the Texas would have more HE shells Ö than a fortress.

Yes, it is absolutely ****ing astounding that, after long planning for D-Day, Texas as a ship assigned to fire its guns on land targets would have been equipped with suitable ammunition for that purpose while the guns on Singapore, after a couple of decades of planning and construction intending those guns to be only coastal artillery firing at ships would have been equipped with suitable ammunition for that purpose.


The excuse that the British were expecting a naval attack

Itís not an excuse.

Thatís the whole ****ing reason the ****ing guns were ****ing there!

Do all of us a favour and research before thinking, and think before posting.


or no attack at all rather than a certain land attack makes no sense in the face of 95,000 troops, which would be of little use in a naval attack and required a lot of supplies and money to maintain there.

Guess when the plans to instal the coastal artillery were made, and how long that was before there were British troops deployed to meet the threat of a Japanese attack?


Another comment about the US being the Arsenal of Democracy. Britain ruled India in the most absurd way possible.

Yes, and, absurdly, managed to do so for a couple of centuries, or longer if one goes back to the East India Company.



Australia with 7 million people produced more steel in 1939 than India with 378 million people, even though India had plenty of iron ore and dirt-cheap labor. Rice productivity was also very low (the north relied on rice from Burma) and tea, indigo, etc, produced ridiculously little income for the Indians.

Support these assertions, please.



Although 5 million Indians served in WW II, there were extremely few Indian pilots, generals, colonels, etc, In other words, the British considered the Indians Untermenschen

Ditto



to be exploited and who should consume the products of British industry

Ditto


rather than truly equal members of the commonwealth, which could have multiplied the industrial might of the empire. For example, the Spitfire's fuselage and wings required an enormous amount of careful manual labour, which millions of Indians could have easily perfomed at a low cost in 1940

In which factories in which parts of India with what masses of industrially experienced labour and accessible to which ports and with what guarantees of arriving safely in England? And where would the materials formed into the necessary components have come from?

Anyway, isnít it rather contradictory to complain that the British were exploiting Indians and not treating them as truly equal members of the Commonwealth and then follow that up with a complaint that Britain failed to exploit cheap Indian labour?


leaving the planes to be assembled in Britain and putting the Merlin engines used in the Hurricane to better use.

I think the Merlins in the Hurricanes were put to the best use possible, with or without Indian labour, but maybe you can see a way they could have been put to better use in that plane. Perhaps by installing them backwards, or upside down, or sideways? Itís difficult to think of other options.


The British should have also built large shipyards, truck factories, etc, in India before the war. providing employment and boosting demand for British goods.

But, surely, wouldnít that be exploiting the Indian untermensch?


Giving 30 billion in aid to Britain ensured that democracy would not reach 378 million indians for years.

Aiding the USSR didnít exactly help spawn democracy there, either.

Lend lease was a program to support a war effort, not to effect political change in Allied countries, dominions, and possessions.


On the other hand, the US could have forced the British to relinquish India

Why?

How?

By when?

With what impact upon the common purpose?



and then employed and trained millions of Indians for the US army, Air Force, etc,

Possible obstacles:

1. Could people who werenít American citizens enlist in the US armed forces?
2. Given that the US did rather well in WWII with its own forces, did it need millions, or any lesser number, of Indians?
3. Did millions of Indians want to join the US armed forces?
4. Did the US have the capacity to train them, whether in India or America?
5. Given the, from the British viewpoint, treachery of some Indian elements in British service, such as the INA, and large elements in India demanding independence, would the Americans have wanted to take the risk when they could meet their needs from their own population?


with decent wages and guaranteeing Indian independence after Hitler and Stalin were defeated.

Bit of a problem there.

The Americans and British were fighting to defeat the Axis powers, with Stalinís lot being allied with the Americans and British.

I donít think Stalin, who wasnít noted for being tolerant of people opposed to him, would have responded too well to America guaranteeing the independence of India after defeating him. But thatís only my humble opinion. Iím sure you can, from your vast knowledge of the mistakes made by all leaders, commanders and everybody else (except you if youíd been in charge) during WWII, explain why Stalin would have welcomed such a guarantee.


Once Burma was liberated and China could be supplied

I hadnít realised that Burma was the only way of supplying China.

Neither, apparently, had the Chinese, who had some resources of their own.

Rising Sun*
03-13-2011, 10:05 AM
the US should also have ignored the corrupt Chiang and the communist Mao and recruited millions of starving Chinese (there were 535 million of them without a decent job).

This just gets better and better as we delve deeper and deeper into the realm of fantasy.

So now we have the US antagonising Britain by making it get out of India and recruiting a few hundred million Indian troops the US doesnít need or want and, in many cases, canít even talk to without translators and now weíre going to throw in a few hundred million Chinese the US doesnít need or want and who also canít talk to the Americans, or Indians, without translators. And this ignores the problems with the variety of languages in India and China where some people in those countries couldnít understand each other.

Bring on the day when an Indian in the field calls a Chinese (or vice versa) at base for a fire mission which has to be approved by an American (or vice versa). If trying to talk in English to Indians in a modern day call centre is any guide, we are looking at an epic cluster ****. Letís just hope itís not a nuclear strike, or Guatemala or the Azores or somewhere off the map being looked at is seriously ****ed.


In 1944, with millions of Indians, Chinese, British and Americans, the exhausted Germans and Soviets would collapse rapidly,

Why would the Germans and Soviets be exhausted by 1944 because there are millions of Indians, Chinese, British and Americans somewhere else?

Apart from, of course, through pissing themselves laughing at the polyglot force assembled by the Americans, who are by then bleeding themselves dry feeding and equipping hundreds of millions of troops from India and China which arenít anywhere near where the action is and who canít be taken there because America has exceeded its shipping and production capacities trying to supply them to no strategic or tactical purpose.


for as the Allies advance in their territories from Iran, China, korea, etc

Umm, how does this get the Allies into Japan and Germany? Or is there a special door they can enter through Ďetcí?

Anyway, if Germany and the USSR have collapsed, why do the Allies (that is, the Allies other than the former Ally, the USSR) need to occupy them?

Exactly how do the non-Soviet Allies manage to occupy the USSR?

Oh, now I get it. With all the Chinese and Indian troops, and the inexhaustible resources of the US.

And what happens then?

And for how long?


and treat prisoners fairly, millions of battle weary and inhumanly treated soldiers would surrender en masse

Possibly, but on those criteria the largest contingent would probably be the Soviets.

Which sort of ****s up your plan.


like it occurred when the Americans broke into Germany.

Well, there was the odd instance of armed animosity in France and its environs before they got to that point.

Also, as I recall, the Soviets, being a bit pissed off from the ministrations of the Einsatzgruppen and sundry other Nazi atrocities, were coming in from the other side and frightening the living shit out of the Germans, many of whom wisely surrendered to the Americans.

samjok
03-13-2011, 01:30 PM
Capturing Aden and Madagascar would have denied the British access to the Indian Ocean and the red sea and isolated east Africa, Singapore, India, Australia and the oil fields of Iraq and Iran. It would have also allowed the imperial army to attack Iraq and/or Iran, gaining access to a lot more oil than there was in Indonesia and Burma.

You seem to think that the Japanese army in Malaya was superhuman. Actually, it was the support of 568 planes (eliminating British planes, sinking the British ships and attacking the ground forces, like in France), the imperial navy (providing artillery support and the ability to land in several places, outflanking the British repeatedly) and 200 tanks that made a big difference. That is why I insist that the hundreds of Hurricanes and tanks sent to Stalin were crucial. Had they been there (together with the Buffaloes and bombers already there) they would have made a huge difference. For example Australian pilots flying Hudson's scored several imressive hits on Japanese ships, but were promptly dispatched for the lack of escort fighters. Repulse and PoW were sunk for the lack of fighter excort, otherwise they would have sunk many transports, destroyers, cruisers, etc, and supported their ground forces with their artillery. The Buffaloes would have survived longer and concentrated on the bombers, while the Hurricanes concentrated on the fighters (like the Hurricanes and Spitfires did during the BoB), achieving many more kills.

Regarding training Chinese troops. Stilwell had to train and equip divisions of Chinese troops to fight in Burma (he had to because the British weren't doing much besides sacrificing Chindits) and used them quite successfully in Burma and China. Some of these Chinese were flown on return trips after supplying China over the Himalayas at a great cost. Many of the Chinese dressed in rags froze to death during the return trip. Regarding Indians having a problem with communicating in english, perhaps you don't know that far more Indians spoke english than the Americans could afford to hire. Regarding the Indians and Chinese wanting to join the American army. If 5 million volonteered for the Birtish army, in spite of hating the British oppressors (they had to eat and there were few jobs and food available), it stands to reason that with the promess of liberating India and being treated more fairly in the US army and Marine corps, there would have been plenty of them joining.

I do think that five cannon firing 15" HE shells, 30 km, twice a minute could have wiped out the hundred some toy tanks of the Japs that made it to Singapore (after losing dozens in Malaya) and killed thousands of troops, making a big difference, together with the Hurricans, the Repulse, PoW and British tanks, but as you now I'm rather stupid.

Regarding the Soviets being upset by whatever the Americans or British did in Asia. I think that Churchill and Roosevelt should have severed relations with Stalin when he invaded Poland and Finland and never dealt with him and beaten him, along with Hitler, thus avoiding the 12 billion dollars wasted on him in WW II and the hundreds of billions wasted during the 50 years of cold war and the risk of destroying humankind.

tankgeezer
03-13-2011, 02:29 PM
Samjok, do you have some personal animosity towards the British in general, or Churchill in particular? your lack of charity towards Churchill, as well as President Franklin Roosevelt is repeatedly expressed in your posts. I personally find them both to be Men of the moment, the right people at the right time, for prosecuting the war efforts of the Allies.Faults, and foibles aside, both men are tip-top in my book.
Is the purpose of this thread to discuss, and improve the factual understanding of those events, or an opportunity to grind an axe of some sort? One must wonder.

samjok
03-13-2011, 04:41 PM
Hi tankgeezer,
I have the greatest respect and admiration for the British soldiers, sailors and pilots. Mi point is that it would have been difficult to lead such a powerful nation more incompetently (Churchill and his generals). Yet, by writing history, Churchill portrayed himself as a saviour and people still buy it 70 years later.

tankgeezer
03-13-2011, 06:47 PM
That fits for an opinion, but opinions are too nebulous to defend beyond one's own beliefs. When you cite specific instances of troop strength, deployments, resources of this, or that nation, you are departing from opinions and going to facts. For facts, you must be able to show legitimate recorded information that supports your assertions, otherwise, its all woulda, shoulda, coulda. How do you know of a certainty that Churchill did indeed cast himself in that light? how do you know of a certainty that he did, or even could actually write the official history of Great Britain in WWII? Show us this proof, and not whispers from conspiracy theorists, or other unproven sources. Opinions are fine, but cannot be justified when put forward as facts.

Nickdfresh
03-13-2011, 07:12 PM
Hi tankgeezer,
I have the greatest respect and admiration for the British soldiers, sailors and pilots. Mi point is that it would have been difficult to lead such a powerful nation more incompetently (Churchill and his generals).

A rather interesting, categorical statement. Few would argue that there wasn't room for improvement with some of Churchill's policies and that he was a bit of a meddler; but it would be hard to reconcile the theory of Churchill and his commanders and policy makers like Brooke as "incompetents" when they were:

i.) on the winning side

ii.) held on despite the bleak German conquest of the continent

iii.) inherited the results of budget cuts and an army that began the War as a small volunteer constabulary force building it into a modern, mechanized and efficient force

iv.) managed to overcome the objections of cocky U.S. generals and admirals to pursue battles in the African and Mediterranean theaters increasing the combat effectiveness of the American military culminating in the rapid liberation of France

v.) ultimately, skillfully forging an alliance despite large misgivings on both sides of it



Yet, by writing history, Churchill portrayed himself as a saviour and people still buy it 70 years later.

I've never read Churchill's history and have many misgivings about some of his ideas and policies, but he was far from "incompetent" but was rather a complex man with both great faults and the rare qualities of a great wartime leader.

samjok
03-13-2011, 09:03 PM
Its hard not to be on the winning side when the Americans are on your side. Mexico was also on the winning side, havind declared war on Germany, Italy and Japan.

Most of the soldiers who fought in France were neither in Africa nor the Mediterranean, but were rather fresh and fought quite well, including most of those under Patton.
And the advance through France and Germany would certainly have been faster without Monty.

The alliance with the Soviets was great for the Soviets and prolonged the expenditures 50 years.

tankgeezer
03-13-2011, 09:37 PM
The men of the 1st infantry division would argue that thought, Algeria, Sicily, then redeployed for the Omaha Beach landing on D-Day. I'm sure they were flower fresh. You grasp at straws, and continue the pointless point of view lacking any substantiation. This is getting old Sam, and very quickly.

Rising Sun*
03-13-2011, 11:04 PM
Capturing Aden and Madagascar would have denied the British access to the Indian Ocean and the red sea and isolated east Africa, Singapore, India, Australia and the oil fields of Iraq and Iran.

Not so far as Australia was concerned.

Britain wasn't providing much in the way of military support while Australia was providing Britain with food and other materials. I don't have the figures but I suspect that it would have been more a case of isolating Britain from Australia.

Assuming, of course, that Japan really could control the Indian Ocean.


It would have also allowed the imperial army to attack Iraq and/or Iran, gaining access to a lot more oil than there was in Indonesia and Burma.

As the Japanese couldn't find the shipping and troops to invade Australia, what makes you think they could find the shipping and troops for an invasion of Iraq and or Iran?

Where would the shipping come from to transport the oil back to Japan?


You seem to think that the Japanese army in Malaya was superhuman.

I don't know who that is addressed to, not least because nobody in this thread has said anything to support such an inference.


Actually, it was the support of 568 planes (eliminating British planes, sinking the British ships and attacking the ground forces, like in France), the imperial navy (providing artillery support and the ability to land in several places, outflanking the British repeatedly) and 200 tanks that made a big difference.

Agreed.

But without the troops taking ground it still amounted to nothing.


That is why I insist that the hundreds of Hurricanes and tanks sent to Stalin were crucial. Had they been there (together with the Buffaloes and bombers already there) they would have made a huge difference.

You assume that the Japanese would not have had intelligence on the air force dispositions in Malaya and would not have responded to an increase in British air power by marshalling greater forces themselves.


I do think that five cannon firing 15" HE shells, 30 km, twice a minute could have wiped out the hundred some toy tanks of the Japs that made it to Singapore (after losing dozens in Malaya) and killed thousands of troops, making a big difference

Have you checked out their arcs of fire?

samjok
03-14-2011, 12:35 AM
tankgeezer,
I said MOST of them. If you find me boring, why waste your time?

Rising sun,
The cannon did fire at the Japs, but with little effect with the armor piercing shells. It is a myth that the cannon could only fire seaward.
The Japs did not have unlimited amounts of planes to fight in China, the Philippines, Burma, etc, and could not afford heavy losses. I don't wee why it is too difficult to believe that 800 Hurricanes (besides the Wildcats, etc,) would have been far more useful to the British empire in the Pacific and Indian oceans than in the USSR, in the short and the long term.
The Japs put 200,000 men as far as Wewak (they spent the war there, starving the last 2 years), they certainly had ships to put troops and supply them in Iraq and to carry the oil back to Japan. They lost most of their merchant and fishing shipt to American submarines, mines and planes. The British could not have fought the Japs alone. The Japs attacked the US guided by the wrong assumption that if they attacked the British, the US would attack Japan, so they chose a preemptive attack.

tankgeezer
03-14-2011, 12:57 AM
"tankgeezer,
I said MOST of them. If you find me boring, why waste your time?"

You may have, but its just a cheap way of crawling out from under shoddy posting. Oh, you're not boring, circular maybe, obtuse, certainly. But not boring. Its my job to pay attention to posts that may dilute the quality of information found on this site, and you do have my attention.

Rising Sun*
03-14-2011, 01:57 AM
It is a myth that the cannon could only fire seaward.

I know that.

But do you know what the arcs of fire were towards the peninsula and to the west?

You need to know that, and to know the actual and possible points of embarkation and landing for the Japanese, to demonstrate what effect the guns could have had on the Japanese.


The Japs did not have unlimited amounts of planes to fight in China, the Philippines, Burma, etc, and could not afford heavy losses. I don't wee why it is too difficult to believe that 800 Hurricanes (besides the Wildcats, etc,) would have been far more useful to the British empire in the Pacific and Indian oceans than in the USSR, in the short and the long term.

Work out the logisitics of supplying and maintaining the planes, pilots and ground crew in the Pacific versus giving them to the Soviets. Add in convoy protection and the fleet train for the convoy protection ships.


They certainly had ships to put troops and supply them in Iraq and to carry the oil back to Japan.

Prove it.


They lost most of their merchant and fishing shipt to American submarines, mines and planes.

Not in February - March 1942 when the Japanese decided they didn't have the troops or shipping to invade Australia. So how were they going to invade Iran and or Iraq?

samjok
03-14-2011, 11:13 AM
Like I said, they did send about 100 Hurricanes during the fighting in Malaya, but peacemeal (launching them from the indomitable, etc,), so that they were promptly dispatched or disabled (with few spares and mechanics and with damaged airfields), wasting invaluable planes and pilots with little adantage.
It would have been far more effective, had those and more planes started to arrive when Stalin started receiving them. Stalin also received some pilots and mechanics that served in Murmansk.
It would have also been safer to send the planes to Australia without Japan yet being at war than to the USSR around German Norway.
Another incredible blunder is the lack of an adequate radar system in Singapore-Malaya to render the British planes far more effective. Unlike the BoB, the few were left almost without eyes.

Like I said, they did fire on the Japanese with little effect with the AP shells.

The further away you are, the more ships you need to transport anything (Australia is further from Japan than Iraq is from Ceylon, which the Japanese could have made their center of operations, instead of remote Truck). Besides, there was little of interest for the Japanese in Australia (they had iron ore in Manchuria), compared to denying access to the British ships to the Indian & Pacific oceans and having access to the oil of Iraq. Moreover, given the imperial army's intentions of attacking the USSR, entering through Iran would deal a fatal blow to the USSR by capturing the oil fields in Baku, depriving Stalin of oil, far more effective than attacking Siberia.

Nickdfresh
03-14-2011, 10:14 PM
Its hard not to be on the winning side when the Americans are on your side. Mexico was also on the winning side, havind declared war on Germany, Italy and Japan.

America wasn't on their side until well after the war was well underway. It wasn't the U.S. that declared War on Germany. And furthermore, the U.S. didn't declare War on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland. It was only easy through the policies of Churchill in conjunction with FDR that drove the United States towards War that was initially politically unpopular--even if it was in the strategic best interests of America...


Most of the soldiers who fought in France were neither in Africa nor the Mediterranean, but were rather fresh and fought quite well, including most of those under Patton.

But Gen. Patton WAS!! So were most of his senior commanders and NCO's. Patton learned from his mistakes, and so did the numerous, less heralded American commanders that matched--or even exceeded--his abilities. The North African Campaign fundamentally changed US Army doctrine and vastly improved its operational effectiveness. I suggest you read Rick Atkinson's excellent 'Liberation Trilogy' series beginning with the first two written and released selections: An Army at Dawn and Day of Battle.


And the advance through France and Germany would certainly have been faster without Monty.

How so? I'm no big fan of Monty. But things could not have progressed much faster than they did. And Operation Cobra was in no small part due to Montgomery's planning. The Americans were slogging though bloody hedgerow fighting while the Commonwealth forces faced the bulk of German armor. Yet once they broke through, the catastrophic collapse of German forces was almost complete as it was rapid...


The alliance with the Soviets was great for the Soviets and prolonged the expenditures 50 years.

How so? The Soviets suffered far more than almost any peoples in WWII. And how would expenditures been prolonged if the Germans effectively defeated and marginalized Soviet resistance and took most of the usable country?

samjok
03-14-2011, 11:13 PM
Roosevelt knew that war was inevitable, but Americans simply did not want to go to war and would not have entered the war, had the Japs not attacked the US. The Japanese had occupied a large part of China and massacred, raped, tortured and enslaved millions since 1932 and expanded their armed forced enormously and that didn't cause them to go to war. The US armed forces were extremely ill equipped and undermanned on Dec 7, 1941. Had the Japanese invaded Ceylon, Burma, Madagascar, Aden, etc, on Dec 7, but not attacked the US and rapidly defeated the British and excluded them from the Indian Ocean, American Public opinion would have been shocked and very likely dissuaded from pouring more billions on a hopeless cause. On Dec 8, many Americans did not know where Pearl Harbor or the Philippines were, much less Burma, Ceylon, etc, and couldnīt care less if the latter were invaded.

You seem to miss obvious points with great ability. I mentioned that Iran had no industry and much fewer people than India and yet Stalin used that labor, available to him for a few years much better than the British used the Indian labor in centuries and especially during the war. Oil is irrelevant in this case.
Some people seem to regard Indians like neanderthals, who couldn't have produced anything, which couldn't be further from the truth. Much of the slave Soviet workers in Germany or the housewives in the US were not trained tradesmen and yet they produced huge quantities of equipment. It seems ironic that Britain would depend on American housewives to produce much of the materiel it needed, having so much and much cheaper labor available.

Rising Sun*
03-15-2011, 12:00 AM
Some people seem to regard Indians like neanderthals, who couldn't have produced anything, which couldn't be further from the truth. Much of the slave Soviet workers in Germany or the housewives in the US were not trained tradesmen and yet they produced huge quantities of equipment. It seems ironic that Britain would depend on American housewives to produce much of the materiel it needed, having so much and much cheaper labor available.

Labour is only part of the issue.

America had a huge industrial capacity which India, and for that matter Japan, lacked.

There is also the issue of transport of raw materials to the place of manufacture and transport of finished products to their destination. America was a better and closer source for Britain than India.

Anyway, if Britain had used cheap Indian labour you'd be complaining about how the Indians were exploited by Churchill.

samjok
03-15-2011, 12:37 AM
Low wages are much better than no wages for hundreds of millions of subemployed people. Harvesting tea, indigo, etc, with extremely low wages was much more exploitation than modern agricultural or industrial employment, like Stalin used in Iran.

It is interesting that Germany helped Chiang considerably to develop military industry, rail road lines, train officers, etc, in China, hoping to eventually develop an invaluable ally against the 170 million Soviets (it's ironic that the racist Hitler would consider the remote Chinese Untermenschen more useful than the British considered their Indian subjects). However, Japan spolied everything by weaking Chiang and interrupting his massive offensive against the communists with the Japanese offensive in 1937, destroying his elite troops and ensuring Mao's survival, who would eventually fight Japan more effectively than Chiang.

Like I said, India has plenty of several raw material, like high grade iron ore, hydraulic energy for power generation, etc,

Rising Sun*
03-15-2011, 02:12 AM
Churchill not only said words of praise for Stalin, but rushed to become his ally and sent him hundreds of Hurricanes and 350 tanks stationed in Malaya-Singapore in 1941.
.....

The 350 tanks to which I refer were transported from Malaya-Singapore, leaving the troops defenseless against the 200 Japanese tanks, which were inferior to the old British tanks removed from Malaya-Singapore.

I've checked half a dozen books on the Malayan campaign, including Percival's, Bennett's, and Smyth's, and can't find any reference to any tanks in Malaya; any tanks being sent from Malaya to the USSR; or any armoured division, brigade or regiment being in Malaya.

All I can find is "But the tanks that might have come to Malaya were all sent to Russia instead." Colin Smith, Singapore Burning, Penguin, London, 2006, p.98, citing Lionel Wigmore, The Japanese Thrust, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 1957, p. 103.

It follows that whatever tanks were sent to the USSR did not come from Malaya; were not even destined for Malaya; did not leave the troops defenceless as a result of the troops being deprived of them; and that Churchill did not send any tanks from or even intended for Malaya to the USSR.

It may be that the absence of tanks was not even a significant issue in the defeat. The commander of the Australian 8th Division wrote in 1944 that the weakness in British tanks was not a cause of the retreat as heavily timbered country where roads were limited was quite unsuitable for armoured vehicles. So far as armour was concerned, the cause was more to do with British Commonwealth anti-tank gunners not standing to their guns against Japanese armour. Gordon Bennett, Why Singapore Fell, Angus & Robertson, Sydney 1944, pp. 226-7

Nickdfresh
03-15-2011, 07:57 AM
Roosevelt knew that war was inevitable, but Americans simply did not want to go to war and would not have entered the war, had the Japs not attacked the US. The Japanese had occupied a large part of China and massacred, raped, tortured and enslaved millions since 1932 and expanded their armed forced enormously and that didn't cause them to go to war.

The Japanese occupation of China is what set in motion a U.S. embargo of Japan ultimately goading Japan into attacking Pearl harbor. Most nations do not want to go to War, but with certainty since the 1920s, the U.S. and Japanese regarded each other as rivals if not mortal enemies in the Pacific rim resulting in numerous changes to "War Plan Orange" which closely predicted the ultimate American advance. War was inevitable because Japan knew they could not continue their "advances" with a strangling embargo. If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, they almost certainly would have been goaded into some form of a battle giving a pretext for a U.S. War declaration. FDR was already on his way to instigating conflict with Germany during the undeclared U-boat war..


The US armed forces were extremely ill equipped and undermanned on Dec 7, 1941.

Really? Why? Define "extremely ill equipped and undermanned."


Had the Japanese invaded Ceylon, Burma, Madagascar, Aden, etc, on Dec 7, but not attacked the US and rapidly defeated the British and excluded them from the Indian Ocean, American Public opinion would have been shocked and very likely dissuaded from pouring more billions on a hopeless cause. On Dec 8, many Americans did not know where Pearl Harbor or the Philippines were, much less Burma, Ceylon, etc, and couldnīt care less if the latter were invaded.

A speculative fantasy at best. And using over-generalizations such as "many Americans" is a tad ignorant. Many "Americans" possibly did not know the naval and air bases in Hawaii were at Pearl Harbor, but most were certainly aware of a place called Hawaii and that their military had resources positioned there. I'm pretty sure most adult Americans were aware that the Philippines was a U.S. protectorate that had been effectively a colony or imperial space as the U.S. military had fought a bloody counterinsurgency there at the turn of the century...


You seem to miss obvious points with great ability. I mentioned that Iran had no industry and much fewer people than India and yet Stalin used that labor, available to him for a few years much better than the British used the Indian labor in centuries and especially during the war. Oil is irrelevant in this case.

What is obvious is your complete lack of reading, citations, and sources. A few smalls arms factories (easy produced by even clandestine guerrilla workshops) does not an industrialized nation make. Iran was scarcely more industrial after the Soviets withdrew than they were before. Also, a good deal of production has to do with getting the goods to the front/stores/consumers, etc. and involves maintaining complex transport hubs of rail and shipping. Something that requires even more than just setting up factories and in the end, it's all a cost vs. benefits exercise. Nothing "obvious" about that.


Some people seem to regard Indians like neanderthals, who couldn't have produced anything, which couldn't be further from the truth. Much of the slave Soviet workers in Germany or the housewives in the US were not trained tradesmen and yet they produced huge quantities of equipment. It seems ironic that Britain would depend on American housewives to produce much of the materiel it needed, having so much and much cheaper labor available.

What's all this fixation on the "Indians." Which "people?" You're completely going off track to another subject regarding the "Whiteman's Burden" history-of-colonial-spaces argument (Postcolonial [literary] Theory) which is a bit of a separate (if related) issue than wartime production and industrialization.

Secondly, the American "Rosie the Riveter" housewives and European slave laborers were located near significant rail, air, and shipping hubs allowing their production to be actually useful. India simply would not have had the infrastructure necessary for industrialized transport much less nor the ability to set up actual factories, etc. That's not racism, it's just fact. Between the U.S., Britain, and Canada, the Allies had all the production they needed. Canada alone outproduced Imperial Japan IIRC. Reliably and safely getting the goods to "market" (i.e. the soldiers and civilians who needed to be fed) was another matter...

Rising Sun*
03-15-2011, 10:08 AM
Low wages are much better than no wages for hundreds of millions of subemployed people. Harvesting tea, indigo, etc, with extremely low wages was much more exploitation than modern agricultural or industrial employment, like Stalin used in Iran.
.....

Like I said, India has plenty of several raw material, like high grade iron ore, hydraulic energy for power generation, etc,

How many hydro power stations did India have and what industrial facilities did they power?

What did India have in the way of industrial capacity even remotely comparable to America's?

Where would the raw materials come from?

Where would they be processed?

Where would they be converted to finished goods, whether as parts or the complete assembly?

What was the advantage to Britain in using Indian industrial capacity and resources and transporting the finished products to Britain over what was available from America?

What was the sea mileage from India compared with finished assemblies delivered from America?

How many extra ships and how much extra fuel would be required to source materiel from India compared with America?

What burden, in ships, fuel and maintenance, would that place on the RN for escorts?

Why would Britain equip India to produce weapons and other war materials when Britain was facing the Quit India movement and the risk of a full scale armed Indian rebellion?

Rising Sun*
03-15-2011, 10:17 AM
You seem to miss obvious points with great ability. I mentioned that Iran had no industry and much fewer people than India and yet Stalin used that labor, available to him for a few years much better than the British used the Indian labor in centuries and especially during the war.

Care to expand on that?

Rising Sun*
03-15-2011, 10:43 AM
It would have also been safer to send the planes to Australia without Japan yet being at war than to the USSR around German Norway.

It also made sense for Churchill to send planes to an ally who was fighting the Nazis at the time rather than send them somewhere else in anticipation of a Japanese attack which might never happen.

As for it being 'safer' to send them to Australia, the ships were still at risk of attack by Germany, notably commerce raiders.


Another incredible blunder is the lack of an adequate radar system in Singapore-Malaya to render the British planes far more effective. Unlike the BoB, the few were left almost without eyes.

What's incredible about it?

Do you think the British had radar systems sitting on the shelf ready to be shipped around the globe?

What would have been required to instal a radar system covering the east and west coasts of the peninsula and to crew it?

Why would radar have changed the result, given that Britain had almost no planes to counter the Japanese?



Like I said, they did fire on the Japanese with little effect with the AP shells.

Like I said, you need to understand the arcs of fire and actual and possible Japanese embarkation and landing points if you're going to make an issue of the supposedly winning effect of the coastal artillery.

You might also like to research how much HE was available; was fired before; and was left at the surrender.


The further away you are, the more ships you need to transport anything

That appears to be an uncontroversial point. It also appears to be a point you consistently overlook in your comments on how the war should have been run.


(Australia is further from Japan than Iraq is from Ceylon, which the Japanese could have made their center of operations, instead of remote Truck).

That might have made sense if Japan wanted to dominate the Indian Ocean in accordance with your opinion on how the Japanese high command, along with every other high command engaged in the war, got it wrong by lacking your brilliant strategic, tactical, logistical and diplomatic sense, but Truk made rather more sense when the economic, political, and philosophical justification for the war was to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere which happened to be in South East Asia rather than the Indian Ocean.


Besides, there was little of interest for the Japanese in Australia (they had iron ore in Manchuria), compared to denying access to the British ships to the Indian & Pacific oceans and having access to the oil of Iraq.

WTF are you smoking?

Denying Britain access to the Pacific Ocean was irrelevant as that was an American rather than British sphere of influence.

Denying Britain access to the Indian Ocean would have been a pointless exercise which conferred no practical benefit upon Japan compared with the relative riches to be gained from occupying Australia.

Among other things, you ought to look up the projected benefit to Japan, as assessed by its own researchers, of the agricultural produce in Australia.


Moreover, given the imperial army's intentions of attacking the USSR, entering through Iran would deal a fatal blow to the USSR by capturing the oil fields in Baku, depriving Stalin of oil, far more effective than attacking Siberia.

So why did Japan focus on Siberia as the preferred objective to the southern thrust, but choose the southern thrust because of its assessment that it could not prevail in Siberia?

Rising Sun*
03-15-2011, 11:08 AM
At the risk of pissing off all Indian members, it is an unfortunate fact that Indians do not always share an American / British / other English speaking peoples' sense of urgency and attention to detail when producing things.

The best example comes from an Australian friend who manages a large contingent in India for an Australian company. There was to be an unveiling ceremony in India, after much fanfare within the corporation and locally in India.

The CEO and assorted dignitaries and audience duly attended the ceremony where the Australian CEO made a speech and all the usual drivel on such occassions occurred. Then the CEO pulled the cord to open the curtains over the plaque.

A piece of paper was taped to the wall where the plaque was expected to be. Written on it was "This is where the plaque will be.".

leccy
03-15-2011, 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by samjok View Post
Another incredible blunder is the lack of an adequate radar system in Singapore-Malaya to render the British planes far more effective. Unlike the BoB, the few were left almost without eyes.

Chain Home contrary to popular belief was more than just the RADAR itself, it was the whole command, control and reporting system. It was barely finished in time for the BoB. The whole Chain Home system of radars was not fully complete until 1944.
It was constantly developed and improved as inadequacies were found during its use.
It was expensive to set up and took several years to get to its initial basic state as used at the start of the BoB. So with the threat to the UK the technology and engineers should have been sent to a potential war zone as opposed to staying in an actual one ?

Britain was not well equipped to fight a war in 1940, it was better than it had been but was still not ready. I gave you links so you could actually see what the UK's finances were like and how they were spent in the time leading up to WW2, you seem to have ignored them though with your constant 'Should have, could have, would have'

samjok
03-15-2011, 11:52 AM
My point is that Stalin was as much the enemy as Germany and in the huge USSR the hundreds of Hurricanes helped much less than in SIngapore, Ceylon and Burma, where they could have been decisive. It would have also made sense for Stalin to provide a few thousand T-34s to the British, Americans and Chinese in 1944, when he was swimming in them, but he certainly did not provide them. Likewise, Stalin could have certainly provided millions of the Psh-41 submachine gun to the Chinese communists, British, etc, and some of the half million cannon he produced, but he did not provide any of these things to his allies, he just took everything he could.

Hurricanes were often transported by aircraft carriers, not very susceptible to commerce raiders.

Besides gaining access to the invaluable oil ot the middle east and to the Baku, displacing the British from the Indian Ocean would have given access to the minerals in India, east and south Africa, the USSR, etc,
What strategic minerals could Japan gain from Australia (like I said they had iron ore in Manchuria), which was far away and which they could eventually capture after isolating it from Britain.

If the Indians had not placed the plaque, it was the fault of the manager. Akbar the great conquered more than Napoleon did, with more modern weapons and more efficient armies, centuries earlier. The Arabs have also had periods in whch they were far more advanced than the Europeans, cientifically, artistically, legally, medically and tecnically. It all depends on the leaders. The Mongols had more mobile and effective armies than those of the early 19th century Europeans and were a bunch of nomads, it's all in the leaders.

Even Hawaii had a Radar station with British technology, which would have been cheaper and more useful than the naval base in Singapore. You don't have to cover the whole pennsula with stations just warn the major airfield before it is wiped out by bombers from Indochina.

tankgeezer
03-15-2011, 12:48 PM
I thought the point of this was that Mr Churchill was an inept, and incompetent leader. Quote:"Mi (Sic) point is that it would have been difficult to lead such a powerful nation more incompetently (than)(Churchill and his generals). "
Now your point is that Stalin was selfish in not sharing his toys to your satisfaction? How does this Grand epiphany support your assertion that Mr. Churchill was incompetent? Just how many points do you intend to ear mark to this thread?

leccy
03-15-2011, 01:34 PM
Having Iron ore in Manchuria was great (so why was the US embargo so hurtful), did they control it, was it still being mined, where was it smelted, how was it transported, where were the rolling mills, where was it needed to be used. Likewise for all the other minerals, they need to be able to be processed and transported to where they are needed.


All the above need considering as well, not just they had ore as on its own it means nothing. The shipping routes need protecting constantly, as do the factories etc if you have them. This ties up resources.
Japan already had a tangle with the Russians and lost, they were tied up in China with a major part of their Army, they were short of resources, all these were facts.
Going to the middle east with their troops and tanks would have sent them to where Britain was doing quite well at the start and had alot of experience. Would the same sort of panic as happened to some British and commonwealth units in the jungle where the Japanese were better fighters happen there. Closer to British supply routes and where the majority of British troops and equipment were and along way from the Japanese own. With a lack of tanks and transport those areas a pretty huge to cover.
Where was this huge manpower going to come from to cover this whole area, some Indians did join the Japanese side but I have no idea whether there would have been a large uprising in support of the Japanese to overthrow the British Raj (maybe you could chuck that into your fanciful plans and claims)

I already said why a Radar on its own is no use and with the primitive systems developed by the British at the time you did need a whole chain of them everywhere as who can say where the attack is coming from.

Yes Britain needed Soviet tanks in 1944 along with the problems of spare parts crew training ammunition supply etc etc etc. It was bad enough with the three basic models in use in Britsh Armoured Divisions as it was.
That was why the RAF provided Pilots and ground crew for the Soviets with the first two Hurricane Squadrons, to train the Soviet crews. Still waiting for some actual checkable figures to back up a single one of your claims, in 1944 Britain had more tanks in reserve than crews for them.

You probably need to start reading up on some losses of vehicles etc by the various nations in the different theatres. Valentines sent to Russia in 41/42 were still in some units in 1944 along with totally Sherman equipped Divisions, likewise some Soviet units were equipped wholly with captured German tanks. Why would they need to do that if they were swimming in excess T34, KV, JS tanks etc.

samjok
03-15-2011, 10:19 PM
The embargo was very detrimental for the Japs, because they needed a lot of oil for their ships, airplanes, etc, and to a lesser extent because melting scrap iron requires a small fraction of the energy required to smelt ore (remove the oxygen). Transporting iron ore from Manchuria to Japan required much less fuel and ship time than transporting it from Australia.
The Japanese fought very well offensively whenever they had air superiority and support (like all the troops in WW II), including in the desertic part of China and Burma and defensively even without it. They suffered in the Jungle tremendously in Guadalcanal, New Guinea, etc, (which provided absoultely nothing to Japan) and in Burma and wasted hundreds of thousands of troops abandoned in Wewak, etc, By the way Madagascar has jungle, if you want the Japs to fight in the jungle.

I have already discussed that Khalkhin Gol was not a well planed and supplied offensive, just a border brawl far away from the Japanese supply lines and the USRR was not being choked by Germany at the time.

The British were more advanced in Radar than the US. There was only one mobile Radar station in Hawaii and it determined the direction and the large number of planes, with rather inexperienced technicians on Dec 7.

In any reasonable partnership, the Americans would have concentrated on producing somethings and would expect at least something from the other partners. As it was, Stalin just received and didn't provide anything (the ships sailed back empty, what a waste of fuel and personnel). Stalin also demanded the invasion of France, etc, but always refused to attack Japan, until Germany fell. The Americans had to produced everything they needed and everything Stalin and Churchill needed and the ships to transport the goods and also fight on two fronts, while Stalin fought exclusively the Germans and Churchill mostly the Italians and Germans and did extremely little against the Japanese before 1945. Do you really think it was a reasonable policy for Roosevelt, who certainly knew that Stalin was as much of an SOB as HItler, if not worse and that he would take over Europe after defeating Hitler? what was the point of trading a small monster for a larger one?

Isn't it incredible that the US would supply thousands of specially made Diesel Shermans to Stalin? meantime the AMerican tankers called their tanks the Ronson lighter, because the gasoline lit up at the first impact. The Soviet military were so daft that although they produced far more tanks than Germany and Germany had to use its tanks on two fronts and although Stalin produced a ridiculously exagerated number of tank busting Sturmoviks, antitank cannon, antitank mines, etc, Soviet tank losses remained very high and Stalin still saved his thousands of precious T-34 as much as he could for the invasion of Europe. Even when they finally broke out of Leningrad late in the war, Stalin was sending his disposable tankers in obsolete tanks against the much improved German tanks, even when he was literally swimming in T-34s. Even after Germany fell, he used some obsolete tanks against Japan. Like I said, had the atomic bombnot worked, he would have certainly taken all of Europe.

boyne_water
03-16-2011, 01:41 AM
Even after Germany fell, he used some obsolete tanks against Japan. The T34/85,IS2,IS3,IS122 and IS152 were obsolete?

tankgeezer
03-16-2011, 02:09 AM
Hi Boyne,some BT-7 tanks were employed by the Soviets in the August 1945 action against the Japanese in Manchuria. Although it was an older model, I(personally) would be reluctant to class it as obsolete to the point of being useless, as it was more than a match for the Japanese armor it would face. But that does not mean that the newer Soviet AFV's were excluded from the action. http://ww2worldwar2.com/soviet-light-tank-bt-7/

boyne_water
03-16-2011, 02:23 AM
Hi tankgeezer,thanks for the info and link.I was aware that not all the tanks used in Manchuria were the latest models,it was the statement from samjok i was questioning.Did the Soviets have something better to use than the types i mentioned.Regards and thanks again.

tankgeezer
03-16-2011, 02:36 AM
Hi tankgeezer,thanks for the info and link.I was aware that not all the tanks used in Manchuria were the latest models,it was the statement from samjok i was questioning.Did the Soviets have something better to use than the types i mentioned.Regards and thanks again.

I think you covered their armor inventory pretty well, obsolete for that time would be the T-60, the T-26, the BT-2,(all made of crisps, and treacle) all of those really early vehicles. But the BT-7 was updated several times to keep it viable, better automotive, better gun, better protection etc.

pdf27
03-16-2011, 03:20 AM
Isn't it incredible that the US would supply thousands of specially made Diesel Shermans to Stalin? meantime the AMerican tankers called their tanks the Ronson lighter, because the gasoline lit up at the first impact.
No, because the US supply lines weren't set up to shift diesel fuel about. The reputation of Shermans for catching light easily comes from Normandy where, due to uncertain supply lines, crews carried loose ammunition lying around the inside of the tank. Later, when the supply situation stabilized, they only carried it in the ammo bins (which had water jackets) and the problem went away.

leccy
03-16-2011, 04:47 AM
In any reasonable partnership, the Americans would have concentrated on producing somethings and would expect at least something from the other partners. As it was, Stalin just received and didn't provide anything (the ships sailed back empty, what a waste of fuel and personnel). Stalin also demanded the invasion of France, etc, but always refused to attack Japan, until Germany fell

So the Soviet Union providing millions of men and tying up the majority of German Forces gave nothing to the rest of the allies !
What was the Soviet Union supposed to send back to the rest of the Allies ?
Why would Stalin wish to attack Japan when it was already in a war for its survival with Germany and its allies. As far as Stalin was concerned the Soviet Union was doing all the fighting and dying against Germany while the Allies sat back.
The US got paid for the goods it sent, there was also something called reverse lend lease where the Commonwealth at least sent supplies and equipment to the US. There were also a lot of plans laid for the post war world with the USA coming out best in terms of agreements made during the war.


Stalin produced a ridiculously exagerated number of tank busting Sturmoviks, antitank cannon, antitank mines, etc, Soviet tank losses remained very high and Stalin still saved his thousands of precious T-34 as much as he could for the invasion of Europe.

Once again I ask provide figures not just your opinionated claims. You have yet to answer a single one of your claims with figures you can back up. You want to go to some of the Soviet/German battlefields and see the reason why Soviet tank losses were high the Seelowe Heights would be good. When an Army attacks fortified positions it will in most cases lose more than the defender.
Ridiculously exagerated number so you mean they did not produce the number claimed ? provide figures for claimed and actually built.

The Sherman had a bad reputation (Tommy Cooker, Ronson, etc) due to its seeming ease of bursting into flames. Contrary to popular belief it was not the fuel causing this but the ammunition stowage. As has already been said once the ammunition was moved below the turret ring and placed under the turret floor with ready use rounds stored in wet lockers it suffered much less but myths tend to take hold.



Do you really think it was a reasonable policy for Roosevelt, who certainly knew that Stalin was as much of an SOB as HItler, if not worse and that he would take over Europe after defeating Hitler? what was the point of trading a small monster for a larger one?

Some Quotes from the main three Allied leaders

Stalin is not that kind of man. . . He doesn't want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.

óFranklin Roosevelt

This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes his own social system on it. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise.

óJoseph Stalin

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

Winston Churchill '5th March 1946'


The Americans had to produced everything they needed and everything Stalin and Churchill needed and the ships to transport the goods and also fight on two fronts, while Stalin fought exclusively the Germans and Churchill mostly the Italians and Germans and did extremely little against the Japanese before 1945

So the USA produced everything the UK needed wow I need to learn more as I was sure British and Commonwealth countries were producing huge amounts of war material as well. Where were the factories in America producing the Soviet tanks and Aircraft, they were a huge secret managing to keep it quiet that the USA was producing the T34, Migs, ah now I see the exagerated claims for Sturmoviks come in here.

The Allies were persuing a policy of Germany first, German occupied Europe was next door to Britain so do you really think it should have sent more against Japan (dont forget Britain had been at war since 1939 and was pretty broke and stretched for manpower). I will be sure to let the Burma Vets know they did very little at my next RBL meeting.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2011, 07:52 AM
So the USA produced everything the UK needed

Obviously the USA was producing everything the UK needed. Otherwise, why would Churchill have said that the only thing that really worried him during the war was the U-boat threat? Clearly he was worried that the U boats would cut off all the stuff coming from America, without which the UK would have been on its knees and begging for peace with Hitler by late 1939 following the closure of all its industries and farms when war broke out. Don't ask me for figures or sources because it's on a high school site or Wikipedia or something. Anyway, everybody knows it's true.

Also, without the American factories with American staff in Britain producing American designed Merlin engines and American designed Spitfires and Hurricanes and so on, all of which were piloted by Americans, Poles, Czechs, French and anyone but Poms before, during and after the Battle of Britain, Britain would have been defeated soon after 7 March 1940 when its first cheque for all the American stuff bounced and America repossessed all its goodies.


wow I need to learn more as I was sure British and Commonwealth countries were producing huge amounts of war material as well.

You certainly do need to learn more.

For example, Australia wasn't producing anything because all the iron ore in the world was in Manchuria and Australia had been cut off from Britain by Japan's capture of Aden.

This would not have happened if Churchill hadn't sent 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR where they were completely wasted as the starving Russians ate them before they (the tanks, not the people, but it was a fine line) could be sent into battle, where they wouldn't have been any use anyway as Stalin would have foolishly wasted them on the Nazis he was actually fighting instead of the Japanese who had not yet entered the war.

Just like Churchill idiotically and incompetently sent the tanks, and lots of planes, to the USSR to help it in the war it and Britain were fighting against the Nazis instead of sending them to Malaya where there wasn't a war but maybe there could have been some time. Or maybe not. Could there be greater proof of Churchill's incompetence?


Where were the factories in America producing the Soviet tanks and Aircraft

Seattle. Or Quebec.


The Allies were persuing a policy of Germany first, German occupied Europe was next door to Britain so do you really think it should have sent more against Japan ...

Germany first, Shermany first!

Who cares?

The war against Japan should have had priority for Britain because ... ... ... well, ... ... ... you know ... ... it was, like, totally awesome and ... ... I mean, after abandoning the Pacific and Indian Oceans Britain should have pulled out of the Med and sent all its forces to Ceylon because ... ... ... well, ... ... ... that's where the tea comes from and the Tommies loved a cuppa ... ... and ... ... ... .. .. .. . . . you know ......................

Nickdfresh
03-16-2011, 07:56 AM
Regarding the Sherman's gasoline engine, as remarked here, "wet-stowage" of ammunition largely alleviated the problem and studies conducted showed that few Shermans "brewed-up" once ammunition was stowed properly. It should also be noted that nearly every German armored fighting vehicle also used gas.

samjok
03-16-2011, 12:06 PM
error

samjok
03-16-2011, 12:24 PM
error

Nickdfresh
03-16-2011, 05:54 PM
...
Guesstimated Airplane Production During WW II:
Axis: Reich 119,000, Japan 76,000, Italy 11,000, Romania & Hungary 2,000 Total 208,000 (practically no 4 engine bombers)
Allies: US 320,000, USSR 157,000 (36,000 Sturmoviks), GB 131,000, Canada 16,000 Total 608,000 (about 50,000 of which were 4 engine bombers made only by the US and GB. Note that GB alone produced
more planes than Germany...
The Germans also produced 6 million Panzerfaust and 289,000 Panzerschreck.

Please cite where you are getting these figures from. What is your source for all this?


As you can see the Germans produced about 60,000 tanks. Over 19,000 of them served in the west, leaving less than 41,000 in the east.
The Soviets produced 99,000 tanks and received over 6,000 tanks from Britain and the US and all remained in the USSR. Stalin produced almost the same number of Sturmoviks (36,000) as the German tanks in the USSR and over a half million cannon, which accounted for many tanks.

Your numbers do not sound outrageous to me. But what are you defining as "tanks?" All Armored Fighting Vehicles? Main Battle Tanks/Light tanks only? or are you including Tank Destroyers and Armored Personnel Carriers/Self-Propelled Guns used in an AT capacity as well?


The Germans always had fewer and mostly inferior tanks and after Kursk the Soviets had air superiority.

A bit of a contradiction from one of your previous posts, isn't it? Previously you wrote:


Soviet tank losses remained very high and Stalin still saved his thousands of precious T-34 as much as he could for the invasion of Europe. Even when they finally broke out of Leningrad late in the war, Stalin was sending his disposable tankers in obsolete tanks against the much improved German tanks, even when he was literally swimming in T-34s.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?11740-Churchill-s-major-blunders./page5

So which is it?

The Germans may have had fewer, and if TD's are taken into account, inferior AFV's. But their 75mm long barrel guns along with the 88mm were excellent tank killers. We're not even talking about infantry using Panzerfausts, anti-tank mines, etc. A competent, well-armed army on the defensive certainly will inflict higher casualties on their enemy mounting offensives...


There were several Soviet Soldiers for every German soldier. The Soviets had over 300,000 American trucks and fuel to supply their tanks and troops, while the Germans were very short on fuel, trucks, etc, Yet the Soviet Generals under Stalin's coaching managed to lose staggering numbers of tanks, men and planes up to the end of the war and could not capture Courland, in spite of repeated, costly attacks, until Germany surrendered.

Of course. It's called attrition. That was essentially Soviet doctrine against an enemy that was inferior in natural resources, industry, and manpower. And while there were many deficiencies in the Red Army operationally, they were also capable of mechanized warfare on a level the Germans could only dream of after 1943. The main point you're missing is that after 1941, Stalin no longer "coached" anyone and gave back his armed forces an unprecedented amount of control and operational freedom they had only known prior to the purges of the architects of Deep Battle...


Without any American or British help, Stalin would have simply continued withdrawing and Germany gradually exhausted its equipment and men, spreading them thinly in the immense USSR. Both would have been extremely weak by the time the Americans attacked them.

Fantasy and hindsight at best! No one can predict with certainty what would have happened and a consolidated conquest of the richest, most abundant parts of the Soviet Union. One of Hitler's main goals! As he believed Germany could only match the United States' potential of industrial production through consolidation of what was to have been the Eastern border of the Reich...

samjok
03-16-2011, 09:19 PM
Sorry but I don't see the contradiction. The Germans had fewer and mostly inferior tanks and the Soviets had heavy losses mostly because oof their leader's incompetence.
In my opinion the German 88 mm was inferior to the soviet 100 mm AT gun (or the Italian 90 mm gun for that matter), but was used much more efficiently. The Stalin tank had an excellent gun but was used less dextrously than the few Tigers. There were many fewer Stukas than Sturmoviks but were put to better use.

Like I said the Germans were mostly on the Offensive during 1941 and 42 and yet their losses were always smaller. For example, during the first 6 months of the War with the USSR and destroyed 20,000 tanks and 21,000 planes and lost a tiny fraction of that, in spite of having fewer planes when they invaded the huge URSS than when they invaded tiny France, so that airc support was much less effective in the USSR. For example, while Guderian received almost continuous support by Hs-123s and Stukas during his thrust to Calais, he was left almost alone, without planes, ammunition, fuel and food in a sea of Soviet tanks and artilery in Yelnya, which cost him a lot of tanks and about 40,000 men.

Sorry, my sources include everything I've been able to gather over 22 years from books, the internet, etc, I know that the numbers are not very accurate as I found enormous discrepancies in the sources, even from the same country, so I call it a guesstimate, because that is what makes sense to me. Under tanks and self propelled cannon are all the vehicles with a cannon and tracks: heavy, light and medium tanks, self propelled antipersonnel and antitank cannon, heavy and light tank destroyers (Hellcats, STUGs, Jagdtigers, etc,). I ommitted cannon or recoilless rifles on wheels (without tracks) and armoured personnel carriers on tracks without a cannon.

Nickdfresh
03-16-2011, 10:06 PM
Sorry but I don't see the contradiction. The Germans had fewer and mostly inferior tanks and the Soviets had heavy losses mostly because oof their leader's incompetence.

Which German tanks were inferior to which Soviet tanks? "Because of their leader's incompetence?" There are a lot of negative conclusions on can draw in regards to Adolph Hitler's decisions. But for the most part, it would be hard to blame him for Germany having "inferior" tanks.


In my opinion the German 88 mm was inferior to the soviet 100 mm AT gun (or the Italian 90 mm gun for that matter), but was used much more efficiently. The Stalin tank had an excellent gun but was used less dextrously than the few Tigers. There were many fewer Stukas than Sturmoviks but were put to better use.

If you're trying to make the point that the 88mm was a vastly overrated weapon system, I couldn't agree more. IIRC, the German 75mm gun variants mounted on the Panther, TD's, and the Panzer Mark IV were actually better armor penetraters. The British 17-pounder was better against tanks, and the American 90mm gun actually surpassed the 88 in both an anti-aircraft and anti-armor role (once it was modified to fire at ground targets in AA gun form or mounted on the M-36 Jackson TD and M26 Pershing). But that's not the point.

The Germans were the first to design their AA carriages as a duel-purpose weapon allowing the gun to depress and fire at ground targets as well as train and encourage their crews to do so, and were the first to mount their medium AA guns on tanks in significant numbers...


Like I said the Germans were mostly on the Offensive during 1941 and 42 and yet their losses were always smaller.

Mainly because they were fighting armies that had wholly outmoded, even unrealistic, doctrines and were unprepared for a modern mechanized "war-of-movement."


For example, during the first 6 months of the War with the USSR and destroyed 20,000 tanks and 21,000 planes and lost a tiny fraction of that, in spite of having fewer planes when they invaded the huge URSS than when they invaded tiny France, so that airc support was much less effective in the USSR. For example, while Guderian received almost continuous support by Hs-123s and Stukas during his thrust to Calais, he was left almost alone, without planes, ammunition, fuel and food in a sea of Soviet tanks and artilery in Yelnya, which cost him a lot of tanks and about 40,000 men.

I'm not sure what your point is here...


Sorry, my sources include everything I've been able to gather over 22 years from books, the internet, etc, I know that the numbers are not very accurate as I found enormous discrepancies in the sources, even from the same country, so I call it a guesstimate, because that is what makes sense to me. Under tanks and self propelled cannon are all the vehicles with a cannon and tracks: heavy, light and medium tanks, self propelled antipersonnel and antitank cannon, heavy and light tank destroyers (Hellcats, STUGs, Jagdtigers, etc,). I ommitted cannon or recoilless rifles on wheels (without tracks) and armoured personnel carriers on tracks without a cannon.

Well, I would find it hard to believe that you've memorized everything posted and I'm quite sure you can simply list a text where you got those numbers from.

leccy
03-16-2011, 11:29 PM
QUOTE]Allies: US 320,000, USSR 157,000 (36,000 Sturmoviks), GB 131,000, Canada 16,000 Total 608,000 (about 50,000 of which were 4 engine bombers made only by the US and GB. Note that GB alone produced
more planes than Germany, 15,000 of them 4 engine bombers!)[/QUOTE]

Well your numerous sources accumulated over 22 years seem to miss a few things, you keep making general comments and still provide no sources. Name the books and passages, post the websites addresses.

Non British and American 4 engined bombers, without thinking too much and only including those that actually flew operationally.

German
Heinkel 177
FW 200 Condor

French
Farman F.220

Russian
Petlyakov Pe-8
Petlyakov TB-7
Tupolev TB-3

Italian
Piaggio P.108


Like I said the Germans were mostly on the Offensive during 1941 and 42 and yet their losses were always smaller. For example, during the first 6 months of the War with the USSR and destroyed 20,000 tanks and 21,000 planes and lost a tiny fraction of that

You have stated previously about how bad obsolete aircraft are when faced with modern ones when comparing British and Japanese Fighters.
The Soviet Union had a huge tank force and Airforce but they were obsolete and in many cases just plain rubbish (Russians lost a huge amount of tanks through breakdown and aircraft were caught on the ground). New Equipment was entering service but it was not available during Barbarossa in any meaningful way.


Guesstimated Tank & Self Propelled gun Production:
Axis: Reich 60,000, Italy 3,000, Japan 3,000. Total 66,000 (only 6,000 Panthers and 1,347 Tigers and 492 KingTigers)+3,600 captured vehicles that they used in the war
Allies: USSR 99,000, US 80,000, GB 28,300, Canada 2,600: Total 210,000

Canadian Vehicle production WW2
Alongside 815,729 trucks, Canada produced over 3,600 Valentine, Ram, and Grizzly tanks, 2,000 Sexton self-propelled guns, almost 42,000 Universal and Windsor armoured personnel carriers, over 6,500 Lynx, Fox, and Otter armoured car types.
Slightly more than your 2600.


America also produced 80.000 landing craft, 1,500 naval vessels, 5,600 merchant vessels

This is what is meant by providing source
The Big 'L'--American Logistics in World War II, Edited by Alan Gropman
1997. National Defense University Press, Washington, DC
Page 146.
This can then be used by others to assess with more info how accurate it is. Just saying 80,000 landing craft (stupidly high number) with no source makes it look ridiculous.

Over the 1940-1945 period, these shifts and the associated increases in industrial capacity and capacity utilization resulted in the production of almost 300,000 military and special purpose aircraft (including 97,800 bombers), almost 87,000 tanks, some 72,000 naval ships, and 4,900 merchant vessels

I could probably go on all day picking at your claims but its being done so frequently I don't need to.

Just post some sources with your claims.

samjok
03-17-2011, 01:12 AM
German tanks in France and in Barbarossa were much inferior to the ones they faced. In France they were saved by the overwhelming air support but in the USSR they had a hell of a time. The few panzers I through IV, and the few tanks from Poland, France, etc, that took place in Barbarossa were quite inferior to the Ts they encountered. The Germans were shocked to find the simplicity and effectiveness of the T-34. The problem with the superior Soviet tanks is that they were left without air support, fuel and ammunition (their supply lines were efficiently crushed by the Germans). Like I said even the Tiger (extremely expensive, heavy and produced in very small numbers) was less maneuverable than the Stalin tank. The German tanks may have had better craftsmanship, but their maintenance was far more complicated, so they were often out of combat. German tanks also had narroer tracks that performed poorly in russian mud and ice. The Germans used some captured T-34 and found them quite practical and put them to better use than the Soviets.

The Heinkel 177 was not a 4 engine bomber, but a twin engine fiasco with welded engines that lit up spontaneously, rendering it almost useless. They produced a couple of hundred Condors (hitler used a few of them for his personal use), which is why I said practically no 4 engine bombers. The same can be said about al the small amount of Soviet 4 engine bombers, etc,
When I spoke about the few and obsolete Buffaloes the British had to fly against 568 Japanese planes in Malaya I pointed out that the pilots were so good that they even managed to shoot down a few zeroes with those planes.
Regarding Soviet aviation: Stalin had several hundred MiG 3s when Germany attacked, but he sacrificed his experienced pilots in obsolete planes and he saved the MiG 3s for brand new graduates with a few flight hours that were promptly dispatched. Besides most of their planes being obsolete, their tactics were absurd. The brilliant Pokrishkin was almost lost in Soviet bureaucracy when he pointed out the huge flaws in the tactics. He was an excellent pilot who became an ace of aces using mostly inferior Airacobras but had to fight against his superiors for years, as much as against the Germans.
Stalin had thousands of I-16s, which I consider superior to the Buffaloes. Their main drawback was an obsolete 2 blade propeller. It is ironic that a relatively inexpensive 4 blade propeller could have enhanced considerably the performance of thousands of planes.
The fact that 2,000 planes and a similar number tanks were destroyed in the first days of Barnarossa is only the fault of Stalin, who placed them so close to the border and allowed the Luftwaffe to perform hundreds of reconaissance flight (ordering the AA to hold their fire) in the weeks before the attack.
Sorry but I am not going to provide a long list of references. Incidentally my lousy figures (which I mentioned are in no way exact) seem to include more items and to be more complete and balanced than any individual reference you can quote and to provide a much better panorama of the imbalance between the Axis and the Allies.

tankgeezer
03-17-2011, 02:05 AM
And all of this has what to do with Honorable Winston Churchill, and his alleged incompetence and major blunders ? Samjok, you need to return to the topic. ( I asked everyone in Louisiana, and they agree with me.)

pdf27
03-17-2011, 03:09 AM
Just post some sources with your claims.
With my Moderator hat on, this is one of the few things you can get banned for on this site - so start posting your sources!

leccy
03-17-2011, 05:36 AM
samjok you missed the point about the bombers.

You made a claim no one else built any 4 engined bombers not that they were only built in small numbers. This then calls your whole figures into dispute as you made a definate statement which was not true. There was no statement that other countries produced them but not in significant quantitys you instead chose to say only the USA and UK built them (I did not even go to the length of pointing out Canada built 4 engined bombers as well for the Allies).

State 'facts' correctly and you may get an easier time. The HE 177 had two engines joined to a common shaft in an absymal way but it still had 2 engines driving each prop.

How many T34 and KV1 did the Germans encounter in 1941, the vast majority were T26, T28, T35, BT Series. The Pzkpfw VI was in service in 1942 the IS tanks entered service in 1943, alot of lessons can be made in that time (german tank designers did not always take the hints though).

My reference for the Ships built was the US government who I assume since they paid for them all would know how many they built, you still have not provided a single verifiable source for any of your claims and figures. You provided one source which was a school homework site done by a middle school teacher who did not provide sources either and despite being quizzed many times on it your only answer was


It is unfortunate that the British site does not include references about the 350 tanks, but I find it hard to believe that it is an invention and that the British military would spend a fortune building a fort and not provide any tanks to counter the invasion, that Percival had predicted would take place first in the north, where the Japanese needed to establish airbases and then in Singapore, where the only fort was built

You have made numerous claims to support your theorys about Winston Churchill and his blunders (which has led to the thread being derailed as you try to justify with words and no sources except that they are an accumulation of 22 years of Internet and Book knowledge)


Sorry but I am not going to provide a long list of references

I provided sources with my info where justified to counter your claims, you will not or can not provide any.

Nickdfresh
03-17-2011, 07:53 AM
Official Mod Warning

samjok: I've asked once nicely, pdf27 has asked a bit more sternly since my request for you to post some sources or links (as well as reasonable requests by other posters such as leccy) have been ignored. The third time, like in baseball, will be the third strike and "your out!"

Rising Sun*
03-17-2011, 07:54 AM
And all of this has what to do with Honorable Winston Churchill, and his alleged incompetence and major blunders ? Samjok, you need to return to the topic. ( I asked everyone in Louisiana, and they agree with me.)

I think you've missed the sub-texts in the topic title, which are "(a)Why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mussolini, all their military advisers and commanders, and (b) why samjok could have run the war a lot better than all of them without having to provide any evidence that he could except for responding to direct and detailed questions by launching into a new burst of unrelated and unreferenced and often improbable or demonstrably wrong assertions which nonetheless prove to samjok why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt ......."

(I asked everyone down at the pub and they all said they agree with me, as long as I keep buying them beer.)

Rising Sun*
03-17-2011, 07:58 AM
error

Only one?

Nickdfresh
03-17-2011, 08:10 AM
German tanks in France and in Barbarossa were much inferior to the ones they faced. In France they were saved by the overwhelming air support but in the USSR they had a hell of a time. The few panzers I through IV, and the few tanks from Poland, France, etc, that took place in Barbarossa were quite inferior to the Ts they encountered. The Germans were shocked to find the simplicity and effectiveness of the T-34. The problem with the superior Soviet tanks is that they were left without air support....

samjok, I'm far from an expert historian, but the above blanket statements and simpleton over-generalizations show that you are just sort of B.S.'ing here. German panzers were not "much inferior" to French tanks in the overall scheme of things. Yes, the French had two very good tanks, but they of course contained fatal design flaws limiting their effectiveness and versatility whereas the German Panzer Mark IV that operated in France during Fall Gelb/Rot was still in service at the end of the War--albeit with upgrades. French tanks like the SOUMA and Char B tended to have thicker armor and the excellent 47mm gun, but were limited in numbers and spread out typically in the wrong places away from the main German effort or "Schwerpunkt". But they also were not designed for intense tank-versus-tank combat nor to compete with the operational intensity the German Heer threw at the French in May 1940. The turrets were small and had an overtaxed, poor French commander doing the jobs of three men. The Char B had a small fuel tank strictly limiting it's operational radius and endurance. And many French tanks were equipped with radios whose batteries could not be recharged in the field making them useless. I suggest doing some reading on the subject like Alistor Horne's To Lose a Battle.

The Soviet tanks that were "superior" were available in limited numbers at the start of Barbarossa, and Heer troops found some T-34s from the outset. They armor and guns may have impressed them, but since many T-34s broke-down initially due to mechanical teething problems, the Germans might not have considered them much of a long term threat. And when the T-34 achieved reliability, the Germans quickly countered with improved guns and even make a better version culminating in the Panther. I could go on, but I'm growing weary of responding to your poorly researched, factually incorrect and over-simplistic ramblings. Your lack of citations and posted sources is becoming a big problem here...

tankgeezer
03-17-2011, 09:17 AM
I think you've missed the sub-texts in the topic title, which are "(a)Why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mussolini, all their military advisers and commanders, and (b) why samjok could have run the war a lot better than all of them without having to provide any evidence that he could except for responding to direct and detailed questions by launching into a new burst of unrelated and unreferenced and often improbable or demonstrably wrong assertions which nonetheless prove to samjok why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt ......."

(I asked everyone down at the pub and they all said they agree with me, as long as I keep buying them beer.)

You are correct, I did indeed miss that inference, though I did notice the "with one hand tied behind my back" addendum.

Rising Sun*
03-17-2011, 09:18 AM
Sorry but I am not going to provide a long list of references.

You don't have to provide a long list.

You haven't even provided a short list.

Or even a reference at all in most cases.

Try providing just one reference per assertion.


Incidentally my lousy figures (which I mentioned are in no way exact) seem to include more items and to be more complete and balanced than any individual reference you can quote and to provide a much better panorama of the imbalance between the Axis and the Allies.

Your confident assertion about Churchill sending 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR, and your subsequent assertions about what a waste of the tanks this was, is disproved by the references I cited at #64.

My quoted references and the sources examined to check your assertions are better informed than the sole unreferenced school history site you rely upon for your claims.

I think that Percival, Bennett, Smyth, and Tsujii which I checked and the sources I quoted at #64 in your words "seem to include more items and to be more complete and balanced than any individual reference you can quote".

I note that you have chosen to ignore #64, as you do with everything that is inconvenient to your rambling assertions to support your fantasies which shift like the sands of the desert in the face of informed challenges and convert from grains of sand into birds which rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of your assertions and take wing to new fields of fantasy.

So, for once, stand your ground and demonstrate with references beyond the school history site how Churchill is responsible for moving 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR.

Because that is a simple and easily verifiable fact upon which you based your early allegations of incompetence against Churchill.

Rising Sun*
03-17-2011, 09:44 AM
You are correct, I did indeed miss that inference, though I did notice the "with one hand tied behind my back" addendum.

It is most gracious of you to acknowledge your minor oversight.

Oh, were it that another in this thread could acknowledge his hugely more grevious and vastly more numerous errors.

Forgive me for perhaps seeming to correct you again, but I fear that you may have misconceived the 'one hand tied behind my back' addendum. I shall try to put this unsavoury matter in my customary delicate fashion by asking you to consider whether the offender started with one hand tied behind his back, or whether that was the position after he freed himself from the bonds applied to stop him interfering with himself, and shrugged off the boxing gloves applied for the same purpose. With one hand free, a wanker has free rein.

samjok
03-17-2011, 10:59 AM
This is the third strike, I'm out. Sorry to have taken your time.

tankgeezer
03-17-2011, 11:39 AM
It is most gracious of you to acknowledge your minor oversight.

Oh, were it that another in this thread could acknowledge his hugely more grevious and vastly more numerous errors.

Forgive me for perhaps seeming to correct you again, but I fear that you may have misconceived the 'one hand tied behind my back' addendum. I shall try to put this unsavoury matter in my customary delicate fashion by asking you to consider whether the offender started with one hand tied behind his back, or whether that was the position after he freed himself from the bonds applied to stop him interfering with himself, and shrugged off the boxing gloves applied for the same purpose. With one hand free, a wanker has free rein.

My dear, esteemed colleague, I had meant that the above captioned addendum related to the Deponent's implied assertion that he was in all ways known to Western culture, superior in leadership, and organizational ability,to include the reading of Tea leaves, to those August, and Right Honorable Gentlemen cited in your earlier post. The addendum giving reinforcement to that implied assertion by indicating the Deponent would be in all these ways superior even if debilitated by the binding of one limb. It must be noted that this may be accompanied by the presence of the condition "Pedis in Oris" ;)

burp
03-21-2011, 07:24 AM
The Soviet tanks that were "superior" were available in limited numbers at the start of Barbarossa, and Heer troops found some T-34s from the outset. They armor and guns may have impressed them, but since many T-34s broke-down initially due to mechanical teething problems, the Germans might not have considered them much of a long term threat. And when the T-34 achieved reliability, the Germans quickly countered with improved guns and even make a better version culminating in the Panther. I could go on, but I'm growing weary of responding to your poorly researched, factually incorrect and over-simplistic ramblings. Your lack of citations and posted sources is becoming a big problem here...
Sorry for my intervention. The Germans are really impressed by T-34 and KV-1, even if these tanks are plagued by reliability problems. Remember that Guderian define T-34 like "Very worring" and Mellenthein said that "We have nothing comparable". Against KV-1 and T-34, guns of PKW III e IV are useless at distances major than 500 meters, KV-1 is quite impenetrable. The only chances of Nazi tanks is to call air support or drive the Russian tanks in sight of towed 88 mm guns. So even if Soviet tanks broke something, they are still able, with only turret operational, to pose a real threat to advancing Germans armored columns.
I think that, in 1941-1942, the problems of Soviet tanks reliability is one of the explaination for Nazi tank superiority, but is not the main reason, we must consider that:
- Germans have soldier trained better and officiers more aggressive;
- Germans in 1941 has aerial superiority, and this means that Ju-87 Stukas are able to seek and destroy a huge number of tanks;
- every Nazi tank has radio link to platoon command tank and a good intercom, only Soviet platoon tank leader have radio equipment;
- Nazi tanks have a better layout, less cramped than Soviet tanks, driver, command and loader work better with greater spaces organized in a better way;
- Nazi tank commander simply gives orders focusing on his duty, while Soviet tank commander "waste" time to aim and shoot gun;

Imho, Churchill at the end makes some mistake, but overall it was a good commander and makes the right decisions.

Nickdfresh
03-22-2011, 07:48 AM
Sorry for my intervention.

No need to apologize, your intervention is welcome...


The Germans are really impressed by T-34 and KV-1, even if these tanks are plagued by reliability problems. Remember that Guderian define T-34 like "Very worring" and Mellenthein said that "We have nothing comparable". Against KV-1 and T-34, guns of PKW III e IV are useless at distances major than 500 meters, KV-1 is quite impenetrable. The only chances of Nazi tanks is to call air support or drive the Russian tanks in sight of towed 88 mm guns. So even if Soviet tanks broke something, they are still able, with only turret operational, to pose a real threat to advancing Germans armored columns.
I think that, in 1941-1942, the problems of Soviet tanks reliability is one of the explaination for Nazi tank superiority, but is not the main reason, we must consider that:
- Germans have soldier trained better and officiers more aggressive;
- Germans in 1941 has aerial superiority, and this means that Ju-87 Stukas are able to seek and destroy a huge number of tanks;
- every Nazi tank has radio link to platoon command tank and a good intercom, only Soviet platoon tank leader have radio equipment;
- Nazi tanks have a better layout, less cramped than Soviet tanks, driver, command and loader work better with greater spaces organized in a better way;
- Nazi tank commander simply gives orders focusing on his duty, while Soviet tank commander "waste" time to aim and shoot gun;

...

I agree the Germans were most impressed by the T-34 and KV-1. But they encountered them is relative small numbers initially IIRC. And yes, obviously the Heer had a huge advantage both tactically and operationally over its early enemies. But used properly, tanks such as the T-34, KV-1, the SOUMA and Char B could inflict tactical setbacks on even the Heer. While the initial phases of Barbarossa appeared to be a German steamroller pushing Eastward, they still suffered some real losses as they had in both Poland and France despite inflicting total, quick defeats...

leccy
03-22-2011, 05:00 PM
Even a relatively few tanks such as the 50 ish machine gun armed Matilda I's backed by around 15 Matilda II's and the odd Light Mk VI could cause some tactical problems for the German forces, with some possibly far reaching ramifications.

stug111
05-16-2011, 01:58 PM
I suspect that samjoks ranting is due to him being indian and he seems to be simmering with resentment that the uk didnt turn india into an economic industrial and military powerhouse or that india would have been that if it was not for the uk mismanaging their imperial jewel in the crown. Either way i suspect that this is the reason for his indian centric revisionism ..

As for his frankly bizzare tangents and incoherent ramblings .. i would say that this is a symptom of ignorance and im sure these tactics work in a verbal debate as one would forget half of what he said while trying to comprehend the other and im sure he no doubt feels that he "wins" thru sheer confusion !

in saying that i have to say that i do think that a few hundred crap tanks would have made all the difference and would probably have halted the ija tanks driving over a couple of battalions of gurkhas as they marched in line and a few hundred hurricanes would have been very useful but even they were no match for zeros and as i recall even spitfire v`s struggled against them while defending darwin.

hows that for a rambling incoherent ost of my own ! :mrgreen: