Air Travel

Question:

> Without US >help the U-boats would have strangled Britain and freed up all of >Germany’s air and army assets in the West for use against Russia.

The only help that was received from the USA to counter the U-Boat threat was 50 Lend-Lease obsolete US destroyers, for which Britain paid dearly. The U-Boat’s threat was at it’s height between 1939 and 1940 (the U-Boat crews called this ‘The Happy Time’), but the threat started to diminish once Britain adopted escorted convoy tactics. Thereafter, the British development of both ASDIC (or SONAR, as it’s called today) and centimetric radar, neither of which Germany had, together with the ship-building programme that started to produce faster, more modern Corvettes and Destroyers from the British and Canadian shipyards ensured that it was a losing battle as far as the U-Boats were concerned. By 1941-42 U-Boat loses were exceeding U-Boat production, a situation which remained for most of the rest of the war, apart from one or two short periods. The Germans never regained the technical edge that they had at the start of the war, until a few months before the war’s end, when they produced the type XXI, which, if it had been produced in sufficient numbers, would have tested the Allies anti-submarine efforts. So, the USA only ‘assisted’ Britain by selling her some out-of-date destroyers (possibly at inflated prices, if you include all the military bases Britain gave to the US). America did not play a *major* part in Atlantic anti-submarine operations until well into 1944, and even then only reluctantly (her attention was in the Pacific), by which time the u-Boat threat was nowhere near as serious. — Pete Finlay

Response:

> And then there was that whole mess in 1812.

Ah yes, the war in which Canada beat the USA. And also the reason the White House is painted white – to cover over the burn marks from Canadians burning it down. — #### _||   |/|_  Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice. #### >         <  Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.

Response:

caused to appear as if it was written: >Take the Falklands conflict.  Theoretically, we can describe this conflict as >one between two states, Britain and Argentina.  However, by your standards, >Britain did not prevail in the Falkland Islands conflict "on its own," because >Argentine morale suffered a huge blow when the US sided with Great Britain.

Huh?  The US didn’t *publicly* "side with" the UK, except during in the security council debate on the subject.  And one could rightly assume that the US would side *against* any nation using armed force to obtain what it wants, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim.  I think you’ll find that the US was publicly holding a neutral stance (while privately leaving interesting envelopes containing satellite photographs…) After the event, it became clear how much covert aid the UK received from the US.  But to suggest that "Argentine morale" suffered is a bit much: as I recall, the UK population was distinctly underwhelmed at the (public) lack of support from the US, despite the UK’s previous support for US projects… Malc.

Response:

In rec.travel.air, of all places, Nova Scotia’s First Law Corporation

: Midway.  As for Europe, Germany was bogged down in Russia and aside from some : assistance through lend-lease, I don’t think it could fairly be said that the US : had a substantial impact on the turnaround on the steppe.  Barbarossa was : designed as a quick victory, and when that didn’t happen, overextension of : supply and climate made that more or less inevitable.  Yep, the allies kicked : ass in Western Europe, starting in the air in around 1943 and on the ground : starting 54 years ago today (France) and earlier in Africa/Italy, but all that : did was draw the iron curtain from Stettin to Trieste rather than at the English : Channel. Just cruising through this group and came across this.  I have to disagree.  Anyone familiar with the massive deployment of Axis forces to Western Europe is well aware that the U.S. had a tremendous impact on the Eastern Front.  Over one million German soldiers were manning anti-aircraft defense alone due to Allied strategic bombing, primarily U.S. daytime bombing. The Luftwaffe had to deploy large numbers of fighters to cover Germany from bombing, and the Germans lost air parity on the Eastern Front as a result. Imagine if these men and these planes were in the East.  American invasion of Algeria cracked open the North African front; at this critical time, fall-winter 1942, Hitler responded by sending an entire army under Arnim to reinforce Rommel, at a time when these men were desperately needed at Stalingrad.  The cost a few months later when Tunisia fell was over 200,000 Axis prisoners, men who were veterans of years of fighting.  Imagine 200,000 Axis reinforcements at Stalingrad. At Kursk, the crucial battle of 1943, the battle was called off and the 1st SS Panzer Korps was transferred – to Italy, because of Western Allied pressure in the Med. Germany was forced to keep a large number of divisions in all of occupied Europe, and not because they were quivering in fear of a British invasion.  Had these divisions been freed for duty in the East, the Soviets could well have been pasted. Without US help the U-boats would have strangled Britain and freed up all of Germany’s air and army assets in the West for use against Russia. Saying the U.S. didn’t help Russia survive, just because they weren’t US soldiers in Russia, is a real distotion of the facts. Britain could not by itself tie down German forces – North Africa showed that the Axis could hold off the British with one corps of Germans, two panzer divisions – when 50 corps were in Russia. American entry changed all that and tied down serious amounts of force in Tunisia, Italy, France, Norway, etc. plus the aforementioned aircrew and AA crew and the defeat of the U-boats. Anyway, back to air travel…. Gary | http://www.concentric.net/~wiggler/       Gary’s Wargame Page       | |     Featuring play-by-plays of Advanced Third Reich and Rising Sun  |                  | He took personality tests,         |                  | And stapled them to his lower lip. |                  |     – Stan Ridgway, "Jack Talked"  |

Response:

> >If this theory holds water, it is aburd to talk about the US "fighting wars on >its own" since the time of the Spanish-American war.  The US enjoyed French >support during the Revolutionary War/War of Independence and the War of 1812. >The closest the US ever came to "fighting a war on its own" was the >Mexican-American war, and of course the Civil War to some extent. > You conveniently forgot all about the Vietnam War. A tin pot third > world nation bringing the most country in the world to the negiotating > table and discussing terms of surrender.

I don’t recall the US surrendering. The US withdrew to allow the South Vietnamese the opportunity to defend their own country. And remember, the French were there before the US

Response:

> > You conveniently forgot all about the Vietnam War. A tin pot third > world nation bringing the most country in the world to the negiotating > table and discussing terms of surrender. > I don’t recall the US surrendering.

Because the U.S. never declared war. > The US withdrew to allow the South Vietnamese the opportunity to > defend their own country.

Then why were the "advisors" there at RVN request/begging?  And, if you delve back a bit further, the RVN/SRVN should have ceased to be two countries in around 1955; the 17th paralell was a "temporary" buffer b/w Ho in the North and Diem in the South.  It was only when it became crystal clear that Ho would win a (relatively) democratic election in the whole country (despite the concentration of population and wealth in the South) that Diem cancelled the elections and organized a true "tin pot" style referendum on his leadership – in which he "obtained" more support in Saigon than there were voters.  And remember, the French were there before the > US

And they knew when they were licked.

Response:

<snip> >If this theory holds water, it is aburd to talk about the US "fighting wars on >its own" since the time of the Spanish-American war.  The US enjoyed French >support during the Revolutionary War/War of Independence and the War of 1812. >The closest the US ever came to "fighting a war on its own" was the >Mexican-American war, and of course the Civil War to some extent.

Another factor in why the US has fought so few wars ‘on its own’ is that none of them have been fought on US soil in a very long time. So what the US has been involved in is generally other people’s conflicts, so of course there’ll be someone else involved on the side on which the US is fighting. (I am NOT suggesting any altruism in the US position, just pointing out some facts of history.)

Response:

> And then there was that whole mess in 1812. Nasty little Frigates. Damned > hard to sink, won’t stand still long enough to get a good broadside. Shame to > lose to a Navy a tenth the size of your own.

It *would* be a shame if it was historically true.  It *is* a shame to lose to an armed forces a tenth the size of your own, and then only if you include the first nations that fought with the British/Canadian forces.  The Treaty of Ghent expressly said that neither side had won the war, which was political newspeak (Christmas Eve, 1814 style) for "Mr. Clay, you can go home now."  In fact, the Canadian/British forces won most of the major battles of the War of 1812, with the exception – as you note – of the Great Lakes battles.  Every significant incursion into British North America was repulsed – York, Queenston Heights, etc.  And that great symbol of US Power, the White House, wasn’t that colour until you had to cover the charred remains of what was until then called the Presidential Mansion resulting from the British capture of D.C.  At the end of the war, U.K. forces occupied much of Maine (so much for 54-40 or fight), but withdrew at the end of the war.  (BTW, New Englanders knew better than most of what a mess the US was getting into in 1912 – the vote for war in the Senate and House was lopsided the further south one went; the majority of northerners voted against war, the Clay-led belligerants of the South voted for it.  Henry Clay, Jesse Helms…some things never change). Actually, the only real land battle the Americans won was *after* the war was over…and no one in New Orleans has let us forget it since.

Response:

> X-No-Archive: Yes > The point was/is whether the US has won any war it fought on its own, > or whether it turned the tide of the two world wars. > And the significance of this brilliant conclusion is what?

The significance is to burst the bubble of the substantial number of people who think that America has fought, and won, every significant war since the dawn of time single-handed, with a hand tied behind its back, and against any number of opponents on any number of continents.  American participation in every war in which it has taken part has been substantial, even in some instances essential; but it has not been unilateral, it has not been "on its own" and it has not been in anything but its real or perceived self-interest.  I am not knocking that – IMHO self-interest is the *only* justifiable basis upon which to wage war – I am simply saying that anyone who thinks that the USA is the altruistic policeman of the world, single-handedly fighting evil and repression wherever it may be found, would be well advised to take a couple courses in introductory semi-modern history.

Response:

>Don’t misunderstand me.  I am *not* minimizing or diminishing the US >contribution/essentiality to those two war efforts, or any other for that >matter.  The point was/is whether the US has won any war it fought on its own, >or whether it turned the tide of the two world wars.  I suggest that with the >exception of the Spanish-American war (Mexico had a substantial domestic >insurgency, unlike the romantic but hopeless Marti-ites in Cuba), the answer is >no.

I seem to recall the yanks kicking the butt of a certain "tinpot dictator" named George (who liked to call himself king) around 1776. And then there was that whole mess in 1812. Nasty little Frigates. Damned hard to sink, won’t stand still long enough to get a good broadside. Shame to lose to a Navy a tenth the size of your own. But more importantly, what does this have to do with being tall? If you guys want to continue this, fine, but please delete alt.support.tall from the group list when you post- Thanks

Response:

> As to the two big ones, in both cases when the US "turned up"  they > turned the losing side into winners. > Cant ask for much more than that

Er, not really.  In 1917, Germany was more or less on its knees through the naval blockade and lack of supplies, etc. despite the collapse on the Russian front and the ability Germany had/would have had to move massive amounts of troops and materiel to the Western Front.  Witness the collapse of the Ludendorff offensive in the spring of 1918, which was *after* the Russian collapse but *before* significant numbers of American troops had hit France. In No. 2, Japan bit off more than it could chew more because of oil (admittedly, a shortage precipitated by the American embargo) and steel than a pathological need to bomb the US fleet and airforce while it was still on the ground and tied up in Hawaii and the Philippines.  They still kept on winning until, roughly, Midway.  As for Europe, Germany was bogged down in Russia and aside from some assistance through lend-lease, I don’t think it could fairly be said that the US had a substantial impact on the turnaround on the steppe.  Barbarossa was designed as a quick victory, and when that didn’t happen, overextension of supply and climate made that more or less inevitable.  Yep, the allies kicked ass in Western Europe, starting in the air in around 1943 and on the ground starting 54 years ago today (France) and earlier in Africa/Italy, but all that did was draw the iron curtain from Stettin to Trieste rather than at the English Channel. Don’t misunderstand me.  I am *not* minimizing or diminishing the US contribution/essentiality to those two war efforts, or any other for that matter.  The point was/is whether the US has won any war it fought on its own, or whether it turned the tide of the two world wars.  I suggest that with the exception of the Spanish-American war (Mexico had a substantial domestic insurgency, unlike the romantic but hopeless Marti-ites in Cuba), the answer is no.

Response: