Americans in WW2?

[pancakeman]

Re: Americans in WW2?

Rashi is right, the defeat was due to Hitler's impatience and Russia's luck.

As for Japan, I don't know what history books you've been reading, but they were not ready to give in. There is a reason they did not surrender after the first bomb. Plus, the Allied leaders must not have known that it was all over, since they were planning a full-scale invasion of the islands. Oh, and they were estimating 500,000 casualties. But other than that you are totally right.

 

[Nazdakka]

Re: Americans in WW2?

I'm assuming that the Eastern front battles aren't counted here. From these, bear in mind that only Midway was an American victory. The rest were either British or combined efforts.

1) El Alamein.

Churchill: "This is not the end, nor is it even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

2) Midway.

Admittedly, even if the US had lost that one, you had the beating of the Japanese simply through greater resources and industrial output... but it would have taken a fair bit longer.

(Slightly longer term ones)

3) Battle of Britian.

The RAF managed to keep their airfields intact for long enough to persuade the Nazis to give up and start bombing cities instead.

4) Battle of the Atlantic.

Allied victory in keeping the supply lines to Britian moving despite the Nazi submarine threat.

 

[Ash Housewares]

Re: Americans in WW2?

there is no need to work in hypotheticals when it comes to Japanese surrender

they got hit with a nuclear bomb and they still didn't surrender, it took a second bomb to end the war, thats all the evidence I need to see their reluctance to capitulate

 

[Rashiminos]

Re: Americans in WW2?

One of the better known American generals in Europe was Patton who commanded the Third Army.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Americans in WW2?

America has always been a major force in defeating the germans in both world wars.

Sure, they didn't do all that much of the fighting, but their economic power was really something the other allies needed when facing germany. Germany HAD to use a submarine war to stop the Americans from supplying the french and british with too many rations and ammunition. That submarine war then justified the American military entrance into WW1. I'm also sure that germany was already doomed from the beginning of WW2 on, from a materialistic standpoint simply because america's economy supported the other side!

 

[Johnny]

Re: Americans in WW2?

One of the better known American generals in Europe was Patton who commanded the Third Army.

Patton was a loose cannon and a joke. His entire career was riddled with jealously, insubordination and dishonesty.

Take his third armys reported kill count. The rest of the western allied military reported 100 losses for every 70 germans killed. Pattons third army reported 871 kills per 100 losses.

This was especialy brought to light later on when you could compare allied reported kills to documents of german losses. You have for example when the third army assaulted an abandonden german concrete fortification. The third army reported 200 kills but german documents later on showed that the outpost was only manned by 12 sentrys.

If I were in the position to drop the bomb or order an invasion, I would pull the trigger without hesitation. If I had been a world leader and gotten the bomb before berlin surrendered, berlin would have gotten it. It was just another weapon, and tbh far less destructive than the firebombings that had gone on earlier.

Had america droped an atomic bomb on central Europe then they could never have claimed any hero status for the war.

 

[Glurin]

Re: Americans in WW2?

@Galabab:

Please don't use Wikipedia as a source on matters of political opinion. Its very nature makes it highly unreliable in that respect.

 

[Ash Housewares]

Re: Americans in WW2?

I'm also sure that germany was already doomed from the beginning of WW2 on, from a materialistic standpoint simply because america's economy supported the other side!

if they could have knocked Britain out of the war in 1940 that aid would have ceased, it was the failure to do so which ultimately doomed them

edit - Patton was of high propaganda value, so I do not begrudge his inaccuracy, but I give more value to perception of his deeds than to his actual deeds

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Americans in WW2?

@Galabab:

Please don't use Wikipedia as a source on matters of political opinion. Its very nature makes it highly unreliable in that respect.

seconded, some people are too fast with jumping to wiki as a source. in more serious matters one should only do that, when there is no other alternative..

@Ash Housewares: that's one of the things that have never changed for a whole millenium. Britain has never been taken out and germany has always stopped short of britain and russia...

 

[Rashiminos]

Re: Americans in WW2?

Take his third armys reported kill count. The rest of the western allied military reported 100 losses for every 70 germans killed. Pattons third army reported 871 kills per 100 losses.

This was especialy brought to light later on when you could compare allied reported kills to documents of german losses. You have for example when the third army assaulted an abandonden german concrete fortification. The third army reported 200 kills but german documents later on showed that the outpost was only manned by 12 sentrys.

Source? . .

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Americans in WW2?

Others have told the real truth why they waited sooo long - Kursk battle (july and august 1943) was the breakpoint where they saw The Red Army broke the spin of the Nazis - their pants was full.

VD, that's immaterial. Anyone who believes that armies should have a "fair fight" has probably never served in the military, and almost certainly isn't familiar with Sun Tzu. And yes, the Western Allies weren't exactly as close with "Uncle Joe" as propaganda would indicate; it was pretty evident that he was a psychopathic dictator.

I think flagging that site as "hate" simply draws more attention to the fringe point of view.

I can't look up guns either...

Source? . .

Well, I don't know about his numbers, but horrifyingly enough I suspect that Johnny's correct. Patton was a malicious gasbag with an inflated reputation; there were other generals who were as good or better but Patton still receives a lot of hype.

Great movie, though. :thumbup:

 

[Galabab]

Re: Americans in WW2?

So still guys what was the biggest destruction of concentrated german forces by american or allied armies in ww2?
In Normandy there were like 2 armored divisions
Its ridiculous.

Btw. why do I ask about this? Its not to provce americans value in in WW2. I know it was great. But just do you guys realize what a hell on earth a great battle is? There are like millions people involved and half of them will die in a couple of hours. Megatons of tnt raining upon your heads. Thousends of tanks evening whole forests...
Did americans go through that kind of hell?

@Rashiminos / pancakeman:
I really dont see the point in denying that germans got raped under Moscow. Its officially valued as one of the major defeats of germans during the war. SO wtf? Are you telling me a major defeat aint being raped?
Common man stop hating and acknowledge that soviets did great back then.
And apparently, speaking of luck in a war is total bs, you know. A good strategist has to count bad luck in. There is no bad luck, only poor planning. You think soviets had no bad luck? lol man
So stop hating and admit that your great germans GOT RAPED by soviets.

 

[llad12]

Re: Americans in WW2?

In the Pacific theatre, I would say that the Americans won a decisive naval victory in the Battle of Midway.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Americans in WW2?

@Garbad:
Thats a common argument brought up already by Rooswelt to justify the bomb, but nowadays its considered totally wrong, cuz japanese were willing to capitulate already as they found out Soviets were about to join in.

So then why did they keep fighting for three days after the first bomb, including rejecting peace proposals? You are engaging in revisionist history, sir.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Americans in WW2?

Btw. why do I ask about this? Its not to provce americans value in in WW2. I know it was great. But just do you guys realize what a hell on earth a great battle is? There are like millions people involved and half of them will die in a couple of hours. Megatons of tnt raining upon your heads. Thousends of tanks evening whole forests...
Did americans go through that kind of hell?

i hope they didn't, they've already experienced their share of hell, as it is (vietnam)... if they did, though, i wouldn't call it a great battle, more of a large scale traumatizing nightmare and forgotten in the deepest vestiges of memory never to be mentioned again...

@Rashiminos / pancakeman:
I really dont see the point in denying that germans got raped under Moscow. Its officially valued as one of the major defeats of germans during the war. SO wtf? Are you telling me a major defeat aint being raped?
Common man stop hating and acknowledge that soviets did great back then.
And apparently, speaking of luck in a war is total bs, you know. A good strategist has to count bad luck in. There is no bad luck, only poor planning. You think soviets had no bad luck? lol man
So stop hating and admit that your great germans GOT RAPED by soviets.

"being raped" is such a vague term, that everyone can use it as they please and debating about definitions is just senseless here...
there is poor planning and bad luck, just as there is great planning and good luck. you can link them together, but you can't extinguish the role of each one individually... luck is luck. planning is planning. you can increase the chance for luck and decrease the chance for bad luck through planning, but you can't totally control that. also, i consider hitler bad luck for the germans, whaddaya know! (he was a clueless military strategist and moral thinker, yet, he kept giving orders and overriding his general's and military personnel's advice as well as pounding into each german's head, what to think about the rest of the world, what a self-important wretch...)

 

[krischan]

Re: Americans in WW2?

VD, that's immaterial. Anyone who believes that armies should have a "fair fight" has probably never served in the military, and almost certainly isn't familiar with Sun Tzu.

I couldn't agree more (surprise !). Carl von Clausewitz said "The best strategy is to be very strong". War is something else than a tournament, it's not about a fair fight, but about winning. All is fair in love and war if it helps at that. There is nothing wrong with attacking a weaker enemy in a war. In fact, wars are usually started if the attacker feels significantly stronger than the defender.

The USSR was a dictatorship with lots of people, so they could allow themselves to pay in massive amounts of blood. The people of the US wouldn't allow their government to get away like that with war expenses, in particular in a war which isn't fought on their homelend or to their defense, Apart from that, if you have the potential to produce a massive amount of material, then for god's sake, do that ! And if you have it, use it ! The voter will rip your heads off if you are trying to tell them that 1,000,000 mothers, wives and as many children have lost their sons/husbands/fathers instead of 10,000 tanks, ships or planes, and with right ! And if it's not the voters, then it's a lynch mob, but in a more literal sense. Americans are cowards ? That's nonsense and even if it wouldn't, it's irrelevant. War isn't about honor or bravery, that's just propaganda to keep up a high morale... although if it helps, then it has a value again, just as with homeopathic medicine, placebos or flowers in the room :whistling:.

As said, war is about winning, not about playing nice. The quicker it ends, the better. Fighting no war at all is the best option because we become more and more effective at killing as many people as possible..

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Americans in WW2?

yet the swedish army (prussian too?) in the 1600's to 1700's

has shown time and again what a force moral is! (i mean, for each swedish soldier in a military unit, you'd have 12 russian soldiers and the russians would still end fights on their behalf because of demoralization...)

as long as you know you're fighting for the right thing, moral is on your side, even if you're the overwhelming force. (course moral will give up on helping you if you start plundering and raping...)

so the part about what you fight for is important, other than that, you don't have to adhere to many rules of behaviour in war...

example: swiss pikemen embarrassing elite knight troops which were much too focused on fighting in order and heavy armor (battle protocol, anyone?)
and french revolutionary ragtag militia messing up the strict battle pattern that european marching armies had adopted...
also, chinese communist victory over nationalists stemmed from the fact that they had secured themselves support from the people due to moral behaviour and troop loyalty/reliability was secured through ideological training, whereas the other side were loosely associated armies trained by different men with different loyalties, being just parasites on the land and cooperating only through loose bonds made by warlord politics.. though, if you looked at only their stats, they should've overwhelmed the communists easy

they were actually fighting for sound reasons even though they didn't fight according to accepted battle patterns.. one can never leave the human factor out, even if war is mostly materialistic masses pitted against each other in different ways

 

[Amra]

Re: Americans in WW2?

Its widely accepted that thse nukes werent necessary.

Widely accepted by who? :scratchchin: I have never heard that.

Thats a common argument brought up already by Rooswelt to justify the bomb, but nowadays its considered totally wrong...

Where are you getting your information from?

 

[Johnny]

Re: Americans in WW2?

Source? . .

Here you go

Overall 1944/45 Campaign German KIA/DOW: 263,000; Allied KIA/DOW: 186,900; German KIA/DOW per 100 Allied KIA/DOW: 141
Patton’s Third Army German KIA/DOW: 144,500; Allied KIA/DOW: 16,596; German KIA/DOW per 100 Allied KIA/DOW: 871
Other Allied units German KIA/DOW: 118,500; Allied KIA/DOW: 170,304; German KIA/DOW per 100 Allied KIA/DOW: 70

 

[krischan]

Re: Americans in WW2?

Widely accepted by who? :scratchchin: I have never heard that.


Where are you getting your information from?

It's not such a popular thought in the US, I guess, but ask a few people elsewhere in the world. I think it was more or less OK.

as long as you believe you're fighting for the right thing, moral is on your side, even if you're the overwhelming force. (course moral will give up on helping you if you start plundering and raping...)

Now it looks correct, see the bold, underlined part. The truth is irrelevant, it depends on what the people believe and it's easiest to make them believe what they want to believe anyway, e.g. that their cause is just, after they already paid so much blood for it. To win a war, you have to avoid letting people know ugly things, better tell them more convenient lies instead. You can still tell the truth after you won if it cannot be avoided, most people will accept that it was OK like that or they forgot the issue anyway. The really dirty laundry will not be revealed as long as the involved persons are in important positions, of course.

A lot of Germans in WW2 seriously believed that they fought for the right thing as well.