We entered WWII after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. A Day that will live in Infamy.
" A day that will live in infamy" A GREAT Roosveltian quotationWe entered WWII after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. A Day that will live in Infamy.
Beaced, my father was in the Army Air Corp stationed in El Paso, Tx as a gunnery sargeant. Where you ever in El Paso?Had gone to a movie,downtown Newark with my buddy Donnie Emerson. Heard the news on the bus going home.Next day heard Roosevelt's speech at school.When i was graduated went to the Army Air Force as an Aviation Cadet.Donnie went into the Marine Corps.Saw him post war but our frienship had gone in a different direction.Another casualty of WW II.
Thanks Beaced. Sorry about your friendship. Always like to hear living history. Good and bad.Had gone to a movie,downtown Newark with my buddy Donnie Emerson. Heard the news on the bus going home.Next day heard Roosevelt's speech at school.When i was graduated went to the Army Air Force as an Aviation Cadet.Donnie went into the Marine Corps.Saw him post war but our frienship had gone in a different direction.Another casualty of WW II.
The enemy of my enemy...I always found it weird that we helped Russia and China defeat our common enemies in WWII....the Germans and the Japanese and now we're pals with Germany and Japan, warily eying our enemies Russia and China.
The enemy of my enemy...
With Russia, that was certainly true because we were already wary of them prior to WWII. We only partnered with them because Nazi Germany was a far bigger threat. Would that we have listened to Patton, who wanted to rearm the German troops, turn them around and use them to drive the Soviets back to Russia.
I know, that's why I only commented on Russia.We helped Chiang Kai-shek, not Mao.
Yup. He saw what a threat they'd become.Patton was right. We should have continued straight to Moscow.
Patton was right. We should have continued straight to Moscow.
We had the bomb. Game, set,match.Whoa. They had the T-34 in numbers that would have made mincemeat out of the Shermans. We had the P-51 which would have created havoc. That would have been a formula for 6 figure KIA for the US and Brits (who were running out of men) and 7 figure KIA for the USSR. Definitely not a straight line.
We had the bomb. Game, set,match.
oh come on.. why are you ignoring air power? Allies had enough tanks and the vastly superior airpower would have made the job a lot easier. And artillery...Whoa. They had the T-34 in numbers that would have made mincemeat out of the Shermans. We had the P-51 which would have created havoc. That would have been a formula for 6 figure KIA for the US and Brits (who were running out of men) and 7 figure KIA for the USSR. Definitely not a straight line.
Gotta agree with this. By the end of WWII we ruled the skies. Russia wasn't anywhere close to us, hell, many of their planes came from us. Additionally, I forget which of our planes were designed for this, but we had significant tank killing fire power in the skies which would have wiped the floor with their T-34's. In fact one of those was what gave the Pentagon years later the desire for the Warthog.oh come on.. why are you ignoring air power? Allies had enough tanks and the vastly superior airpower would have made the job a lot easier.
This is a key point - without the Allie’s support the Russians may have collapsed.Also.. if we really were interested in attacking Russia.. Lend/Lease would have ended a lot earlier.. here's what we sent them..
All of the bombers, all of the men, ships aircraft carriers were no longer needed after Japan surrendered. The Russian had next to nobody to defend from the East. They couldn't protect 2 fronts. It would have been an easy run in from the Pacific to Moscow. Their best unit were in the East on the Berlin boarder1. The size of the US and USSR militaries was about the same, but roughly 35% of the US forces were in the Pacific as opposed to 15% of the USSR.
2. The P-47 was the primary tank killer along with the UK Hawker Typhoon, but the Russian Sturmovik (sp?) was an even better tank killer, and I believe the inspiration for the Warthog. And the bomber logistics, particularly if you're talking going to Moscow as opposed the Germany, worked against the Allies. Also questionable whether the P-51, despite it's great range, was capable of escort all the way to Moscow. And remember, in May 1945 100% of the B-29's were in the Pacific. So a march to Moscow a la Patton would have been done without bomber support.
3. They may have collapsed in 1941-2, but not 1945.
All of the bombers, all of the men, ships aircraft carriers were no longer needed after Japan surrendered. The Russian had next to nobody to defend from the East. They couldn't protect 2 fronts. It would have been an easy run in from the Pacific to Moscow. Their best unit were in the East on the Berlin boarder
Oil fields in the Caucuses would be bombed from middle east bases.1. The size of the US and USSR militaries was about the same, but roughly 35% of the US forces were in the Pacific as opposed to 15% of the USSR.
Who was going to stop them?? Who said Patton had to come in from the West?1. Not exactly Patton continuing straight to Moscow.
2. When all the infrastructure is destroyed, if need be, by the Russians, that's what, 2000-2500 miles to Moscow from Valivostok? Easy run? I don't think so.
Did he say that before or after he was smacking around some of his wounded soldiers in their hospital beds ?Patton was right. We should have continued straight to Moscow.
Who was going to stop them?? Who said Patton had to come in from the West?
We had better weapons, a far superior air force, the biggest Navy in the world. The Russian were still using horses to pull canons into Berlin.
What good is a Navy?? If you don't know the answer to that then there is no use talking to you.What difference would a navy make? Better weapons? In some areas, but definitely not tanks. Wasn't the AK in use back then? Take that over the M-1 any day of the week. And YOU said Patton was just going just going to continue on from the Elbe.
Those books were written in the 50s and early 60s, right?? Not that the US had the stomach to extend the war to go against one our our allies but the day that Japan surrendered the US started reducing our forces and ended the build up of weapons. Russia did the reverse. They kept building their war machine. By 1949 they had the bomb and the Cold War was on.There are several books written about the tactics of a conventional land war between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. Air power wouldn’t be enough to tip the scales against an enemy willing to throw bodies into the meat grinder without regard for their lives (see China).