The Real Victors of WW2 in Europe

[BillyB]

Fine, but would the USA have entered the war at all if it were not for Pearl Harbor?

Japan thought so, that's why they struck first to get an edge. Most Americans do not want to get involved in other nations problems although most nations do want us to be the world cop. If I were around during WW2, I would have voted to help European and Asian countries earlier than we did.

[lordtiberius]

Probably not, at least without some serious provocation. American sentiment during that period was strongly isolationist. President Roosevelt might have wanted to get the US into the war on Britain's side but he could not have convinced Congress to declare war.

Even after Pearl Harbor, Congress might not have declared war on Germany if Germany had not first declared war on the US. That struck me as a truly idiotic move on Hitler's part.  You're in an all-out war with two of the four most powerful nations in the war and you expand the war to include the other of the world's four most powerful nations.

The US had a weak military and never enjoyed tank superiority.  kasserine pass

[SANDRO43]

The US had a weak military and never enjoyed tank superiority. 

In terms of quality - say M4s (Shermans) &  M3s (Grants/Lees)  vs. Tigers & Leopards - or quantity?

kasserine pass

Untested US troops & commanders understandably received a bloody nose when facing for the first time experienced Axis troops led by Rommel.

[lordtiberius]

In terms of quality - say M4s (Shermans) &  M3s (Grants/Lees)  vs. Tigers & Leopards - or quantity?
Untested US troops & commanders understandably received a bloody nose when facing for the first time experienced Axis troops led by Rommel.

Thank you for proving my point again dude.

[SANDRO43]

Thank you for proving my point again dude.

But you did not answer my question on your "never enjoyed tank superiority" .

[AC]

But you did not answer my question on your "never enjoyed tank superiority" .

During the war German tanks were never mass produced because the Germans thought the quality would be better if they were made one by one by dedicated craftsman.

Meantime both the Soviet Union and the USA cranked them out on mass assembly lines.  Eventually Soviet quality caught up to the German quality.

Yet another foolish things the Germans did which allowed the rest of the World to beat them.

No matter if German tanks were supposedly "superior"; on the eastern front a "superior" tank can only blow up so many (allegedly) inferior tanks and then they were overwhelmed.

Thank God for the Germans wanting to make "superior" tanks one by one.   

[SANDRO43]

So his answer should have been "quantity" rather than "quality":

[Larry1]

Even after Pearl Harbor, Congress might not have declared war on Germany if Germany had not first declared war on the US. That struck me as a truly idiotic move on Hitler's part.  You're in an all-out war with two of the four most powerful nations in the war and you expand the war to include the other of the world's four most powerful nations.

The US had a weak military and never enjoyed tank superiority.  kasserine pass

I'm correct that the US was one of the four most powerful nations. In 1941 the US Army was tiny and woefully unprepared for war. But US industrial capacity was immense, so that when the country became involved in the war it could equip its rapidly growing armed forces (along with its allies as well).

You are correct that the main tank the US Army used, the Sherman, was inferior to German tanks. It had an underpowered main gun and armor that wasn't thick enough to provide sufficient protection. It's engine was adequate.

But to circle back to the topic of my first paragraph, the US produced during the war:

a large number of aircraft carriers
trucks in huge quantities
the P51 Mustang, the preeminent fighter plane of the war
the B-29, the most effective bomber of the war
artillery in huge numbers
cargo ships in huge numbers
two atomic bombs whose use on the Japanese convinced their government to surrender

This is to list only a few categories of US war production during the war.

The US was able to fight in both the European theater of operations and the Pacific theater of operations. It, along with its allies Britain and Canada, conducted the largest amphibious invasion in history, against well--prepared German defenses in Normandy.

[AC]

So his answer should have been "quantity" rather than "quality":

I think so, although the Soviet tanks towards the end of the war from what I've read were apparently very good quality (if we define quality as the ability to take a hit and keep on functioning without harm to the occupants) as well.

[AC]

I'm correct that the US was one of the four most powerful nations. In 1941 the US Army was tiny and woefully unprepared for war. But US industrial capacity was immense, so that when the country became involved in the war it could equip its rapidly growing armed forces (along with its allies as well).

You are correct that the main tank the US Army used, the Sherman, was inferior to German tanks. It had an underpowered main gun and armor that wasn't thick enough to provide sufficient protection. It's engine was adequate.

But to circle back to the topic of my first paragraph, the US produced during the war:

a large number of aircraft carriers
trucks in huge quantities
the P51 Mustang, the preeminent fighter plane of the war
the B-29, the most effective bomber of the war
artillery in huge numbers
cargo ships in huge numbers
two atomic bombs whose use on the Japanese convinced their government to surrender

This is to list only a few categories of US war production during the war.

The US was able to fight in both the European theater of operations and the Pacific theater of operations. It, along with its allies Britain and Canada, conducted the largest amphibious invasion in history, against well--prepared German defenses in Normandy.

Very good post Larry.  The superior aircraft that the USA and our allies produced, both in quality and quantity, allowed the American and British pilots to decimated German military industrial production.  So while the Soviet Union had cranked up tank production and sent those tanks to Kursk to destroy German tanks in the largest tank battle in the history of modern warfare, the American and British pilots had destroyed the Germans ability to produce enough replacement tanks.

The Germans were losing the war in three key areas:  in the air over their own country, on the Western front, and on the Eastern front.

Even though we entered the war late, we had produced enormous war material in one year prior which we gave to England and the Soviets under "lend lease" which probably allowed them to hold on prior to us entering the war in Europe.  You did not mention it in your post however the USA also gave the Soviet Union locomotives to get war material from Siberia over to the front.

[Anotherkiwi]

But to circle back to the topic of my first paragraph, the US produced during the war:

...

the P51 Mustang, the preeminent fighter plane of the war

The original Mustang, with an American Allison engine, had rather limited effectiveness at altitude.  It wasn't until it was re-engined with the wonderful Rolls-Royce Merlin (already used in the Hurricane and Spitfire, and later made under license by Packard to power the P51D) that it was transformed into the renowned fighter that everyone remembers reading about.  However, I would take issue with "pre-eminent."  More Hurricanes, and far more Spitfires, were built, and it was they that saved the UK during the Battle of Britain.  All three are apparently great to fly (have any of our pilot members done so?), but to rank one above the others seems pointless.

In addition, of course, the Germans would probably vote for the Messerschmitt 109, and the Japanese for the Zero, as being just as "eminent."

the B-29, the most effective bomber of the war

How can you define "effective" in this sense, Larry?  The B29 had horrendous engine problems during development and testing, and did not fly in combat until March 1944, long after the German bombing raids in the Battle of Britain and the retaliatory bombing of Germany by the Royal Air Force.  While it was certainly innovative enough, being the first fully pressurised bomber, you can hardly compare it with the "pre-eminent" Allied bomber from 1942 - the Avro Lancaster, also powered by the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, which eventually flew 156,000 sorties, and which was another plane renowned as being a dream to fly.

(Thanks to Wikipedia for refreshing my memory and filling in the blanks).

[Larry1]

The original Mustang, with an American Allison engine, had rather limited effectiveness at altitude.  It wasn't until it was re-engined with the wonderful Rolls-Royce Merlin (already used in the Hurricane and Spitfire, and later made under license by Packard to power the P51D) that it was transformed into the renowned fighter that everyone remembers reading about.  However, I would take issue with "pre-eminent."  More Hurricanes, and far more Spitfires, were built, and it was they that saved the UK during the Battle of Britain.  All three are apparently great to fly (have any of our pilot members done so?), but to rank one above the others seems pointless.

In addition, of course, the Germans would probably vote for the Messerschmitt 109, and the Japanese for the Zero, as being just as "eminent."

It's true that the Mustang wasn't a great plane until Rolls-Royce's excellent Merlin engine was put in it. But when that happened it became the best fighter plane of the war, superior to the ME-109, Hurricane, Spitfire, or Japan's Mitsubishi Zero. And with disposable fuel tanks it could escort Allied bombers all the way to Berlin. I don't have the source at hand, but at one point Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering watched Mustangs escorting bombers on a bombing run in Berlin and told his aide that now the war is lost.

How can you define "effective" in this sense, Larry?  The B29 had horrendous engine problems during development and testing, and did not fly in combat until March 1944, long after the German bombing raids in the Battle of Britain and the retaliatory bombing of Germany by the Royal Air Force.  While it was certainly innovative enough, being the first fully pressurised bomber, you can hardly compare it with the "pre-eminent" Allied bomber from 1942 - the Avro Lancaster, also powered by the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, which eventually flew 156,000 sorties, and which was another plane renowned as being a dream to fly.

Effective in delivering greater payload of bombs. It was the best bomber of the war, so much so that when Stalin decided to build a bomber after the war he copied the B-29. And it was the only plane capable of carrying each of the two atomic bombs dropped over Japan.

[lordtiberius]

But you did not answer my question on your "never enjoyed tank superiority" .

That was not a question but a sentence fragment.  Please re-phrase.

[lordtiberius]

I'm correct that the US was one of the four most powerful nations. In 1941 the US Army was tiny and woefully unprepared for war. But US industrial capacity was immense, so that when the country became involved in the war it could equip its rapidly growing armed forces (along with its allies as well).

You are correct that the main tank the US Army used, the Sherman, was inferior to German tanks. It had an underpowered main gun and armor that wasn't thick enough to provide sufficient protection. It's engine was adequate.

But to circle back to the topic of my first paragraph, the US produced during the war:

a large number of aircraft carriers
trucks in huge quantities
the P51 Mustang, the preeminent fighter plane of the war
the B-29, the most effective bomber of the war
artillery in huge numbers
cargo ships in huge numbers
two atomic bombs whose use on the Japanese convinced their government to surrender

This is to list only a few categories of US war production during the war.

The US was able to fight in both the European theater of operations and the Pacific theater of operations. It, along with its allies Britain and Canada, conducted the largest amphibious invasion in history, against well--prepared German defenses in Normandy.

You are correct.  America's industrial production even in 1941 after more than 10 years of self inflicted economic chaos by the Presidential Oligarch and his comintern co-conspirators still exceeded Industrial output from any other modern nation.  Yamamoto knew this but few others grasped this geopolitical truth. 

[BillyB]

It's true that the Mustang wasn't a great plane until Rolls-Royce's excellent Merlin engine was put in it. But when that happened it became the best fighter plane of the war, superior to the ME-109, Hurricane, Spitfire, or Japan's Mitsubishi Zero.

German ME-262 was the best battle tested plane in the war. Superior to Mustangs but too little, too late applied here.

How can you define "effective" in this sense, Larry?  The B29 had horrendous engine problems during development and testing, and did not fly in combat until March 1944, long after the German bombing raids in the Battle of Britain and the retaliatory bombing of Germany by the Royal Air Force.  While it was certainly innovative enough, being the first fully pressurised bomber, you can hardly compare it with the "pre-eminent" Allied bomber from 1942 - the Avro Lancaster, also powered by the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, which eventually flew 156,000 sorties, and which was another plane renowned as being a dream to fly.

British bombed Germany at night. Americans bombed Germany during the day. If British bombed Germany during daytime, they wouldn't have any bombers left. They had little defense and can't take much of a hit.

[JayH]

German ME-262 was the best battle tested plane in the war. Superior to Mustangs but too little, too late applied here.



British bombed Germany at night. Americans bombed Germany during the day. If British bombed Germany during daytime, they wouldn't have any bombers left. They had little defense and can't take much of a hit.

There have been some crap comments from a few above-- and here BB makes another one of his back handed slaps .

Try this one BB-- Americans could not fly at night because the would get lost!! Fact--not fiction-- the American capacity to navigate-- or should I say-be incapable of navigation is legendary .
Fact is that they developed techniques to overcome  this-- eg follow the one guy in the group who could navigate!
The B17  which was THE principle bomber the US used had a pathetically small bombload compared to the Lancaster-- partly because of  the weight of the crew required to man the defensive weapons and the weight of them--of course they were required to fly in daylight where they could be seen  and exposed.
That is a few facts--with no intention to denigrate the bravery of the people involved.

FWIW-- my view is that it was the combination that defeated the Germans and Japanese in WW2-- so to me it is pointless arguing about it.

[BillyB]

Americans could not fly at night because the would get lost!! Fact--not fiction-- the American capacity to navigate-- or should I say-be incapable of navigation is legendary .

False unless you consider all American aviators dumb as a box of rocks. If British airmen can navigate, so can Americans.

[JayH]

False unless you consider all American aviators dumb as a box of rocks. If British airmen can navigate, so can Americans.

Like a lot of your posts-- you have no idea-- but that does not stop you commenting.

[lordtiberius]

Lol.

At least he has no guile

[southernX]

toally combined effort imo 
losts of australian airmen flew over europe during the war , as did many other nations gutsy  citizens,
hard for anyone to lay claim to being the ''one decisive factor ''imo

SX

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/raaf/


Australians served mainly as aircrew - pilots, engineers, navigators, wireless operators, observers and air gunners. Some also went as ground crew and carried out the maintenance and administrative tasks on the ground necessary to keep aircraft flying. By the war's end, Australian airmen had flown Gladiator biplane fighters in Libya; Hampden torpedo-bombers from north Russia; Baltimore bombers over the islands of the Aegean, Dakota transports over Poland, Sunderland flying boats far out over the Atlantic, Spitfires over France, Tomahawk fighters over Syria, Lancaster bombers over Germany, Stirling bombers over Italy, Beaufighters in the fjords of Norway, Mustang fighter-bombers over Italy – the list goes on and on.

Between 1940 and 1943, Australian airmen participated in the air war against the Germans and Italians in North Africa and the Middle East, in the defence of Malta in 1942, in the Allied drive through Sicily and Italy between 1943 and 1945, and in the skies over the UK, Europe and Britain's sea lanes from 1939 until 1945.

Helmet and goggles used by RAAF and RAF aircrew in temperate and cold climates between 1941-1945.[AWMREL/17908.003]The most costly missions were with RAF Bomber Command and Australian aircrews flew in virtually every major operation. Although their numbers amounted to less than 2 per cent of Australia's World War II enlistments, the 3486 men who were killed in Bomber Command accounted for almost 20 per cent of all Australian combat deaths. The squadron with the greatest losses - 1019 men - was 460 Squadron RAAF, which operated Vickers Wellington and then Avro Lancaster bombers from England.

'the angry sky'
In late 1943 and early 1944, during the peak of the bomber offensive against Germany, the bomber crews suffered a loss rate of nearly five per cent on each operation (bombing raid or 'op' for short): there was little chance of surviving an operational tour of 30 'ops'. Approximately 1,500 RAAF aircrew parachuted from their aircraft over enemy territory and spent the remainder of the war in prison camps.

 

[JayH]

SX-- I presume that last part is quote from link?   
There were more aircraft-- the Armstrong Whitley in the early part of the war. An aircraft that flew so slowly fully laden that anti-aircraft fire  exploded well ahead of them!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_Whitley

 Another aircraft not listed  is the  Handley Page Halifax  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax
The Halifax crews were responsible for the "heavy water" raids in Norway that slowed or stopped the German atomic research  .
Australians served in RAF squadrons with many others from Commonwealth countries eg New Zealand,Canada,South Africa. The RAF could not have existed without the support of these countries and the trained manpower they provided.
FWIW-- the Halifax was in fact the first aircraft over France on D-Day( hours before daylight)-- towing gliders that carried troops sent to secure access and prevent access!! many kms inland.

[Anotherkiwi]

It's true that the Mustang wasn't a great plane until Rolls-Royce's excellent Merlin engine was put in it. But when that happened it became the best fighter plane of the war, superior to the ME-109, Hurricane, Spitfire, or Japan's Mitsubishi Zero. And with disposable fuel tanks it could escort Allied bombers all the way to Berlin. I don't have the source at hand, but at one point Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering watched Mustangs escorting bombers on a bombing run in Berlin and told his aide that now the war is lost.

Again, though, this happened long after the Battle of Britain, when such planes were needed the most.  I have no quibble with the Mustang being described as a great plane - but, for me, it is no greater than the Hurricane or Spitfire.  Another interesting fact is that the Mustang was actually designed and built to a British specification, not a United States one, and went into service with the Royal Air Force before it ever flew for the Americans.

Effective in delivering greater payload of bombs. It was the best biggest bomber of the war, so much so that when Stalin decided to build a bomber after the war he copied the B-29. And it was the only plane big enough to be capable of carrying each of the two atomic bombs dropped over Japan.

Now, does that make a bit more sense? 

[Anotherkiwi]

German ME-262 was the best battle tested plane in the war. Superior to Mustangs but too little, too late applied here.

An awesome aircraft, but with the problems it had during development it was never going to be ready in time to do much to change the world.

British bombed Germany at night. Americans bombed Germany during the day. If British bombed Germany during daytime, they wouldn't have any bombers left. They had little defense and can't take much of a hit.

That's a big exaggeration.  Britain STARTED by bombing Germany at night, but switched to daylight raids before the US entered the war.  Although the attrition rate was appalling, averaging three or four planes lost out of every 20 which went on raids, having no bombers left would never have happened.  Certainly some of the earlier model bombers in the war could not have been risked over Germany, but as for the Lancaster - please, Billy, try checking a few facts before you say such things.

I watched a documentary on the Lancaster a few weeks ago - you may be able to find it online.  It was made by Scottish film star Ewan McGregor and his brother Colin, a former Royal Air Force pilot who now flies commercially, and was a follow-up to the one they made the year before about the Spitfire.  Amongst the veterans they interviewed was one who recalled a Lancaster from his own squadron managing to return all the way from Germany on just one engine, the other three having been knocked out by fighters.  Other interviewees told stories of getting home on three, or even two, engines.  Those planes took huge hits, and still survived.

[BillyB]

That's a big exaggeration.  Britain STARTED by bombing Germany at night, but switched to daylight raids before the US entered the war.  Although the attrition rate was appalling, averaging three or four planes lost out of every 20 which went on raids, having no bombers left would never have happened.  Certainly some of the earlier model bombers in the war could not have been risked over Germany, but as for the Lancaster - please, Billy, try checking a few facts before you say such things.

The British lost 6 out of every 10 airmen which was the worst ratio of any nation. Besides being safer bombing at night, it's also less accurate. The ugly truth is the British didn't care about accuracy and were focused on bombing civilians just as Germany did. There was a dispute between who started it first. Americans bombed during the day for accuracy. Bomb a ball bearing factory and planes and tank engines don't get built. Best way to stop a war is to stop the war machine, not waste time bombing civilians. I'm big on WW2 history. I don't make stuff up.


http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/the-bombing-offensive


http://ww2history.com/videos/Western/Daylight_American_bombing

[SANDRO43]

A few as yet unmentioned 'bests':

The Focke Wulf 109, equipping elite Luftwaffe units like the 'Abbeville boys' (Jagdgeschwader 26, led by "Dolfo" Galland, ace with 104 kills):


The Hawker Tempest, a late entry into the fray (January 1944):


The USN gull-wing Vought F4U Corsair: