tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post7504236397242569685..comments2024-03-29T10:44:29.343+00:00Comments on Capitalists@Work: the bombing war.CityUnslickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929544047783163175noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-66394717649661651362012-07-03T13:28:49.734+01:002012-07-03T13:28:49.734+01:00@EK re Freddie Spencer Chapman, I *think* he was t...@EK re Freddie Spencer Chapman, I *think* he was the guy my father's Liberator dropped in the jungle in Burma - twice. He was a navigator in Coastal Command operating from Sri Lanka (Celyon back then). <br /><br />And re another's comment about "going to war in the evening", I remember my mother reminiscing about living on the base in Devon and waving my father off to war in a Wellington (anti-submarine sweeps witha huge light slung underneath), and comforting one wife whose husband's plane did not return - hit the sea probably my Dad reckoned.phil5https://www.blogger.com/profile/15393353266959207870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-56573119847921537912012-07-03T11:04:29.735+01:002012-07-03T11:04:29.735+01:00"If my old history teacher was reliable at no..."If my old history teacher was reliable at no point from 1942 was less than 75% of the German army fighting on the Eastern front."<br /><br />Irrelevant. On the Western front the Germans needed their army because they were advancing into enemy territory. On the Eastern front they were already dug in. The 8th Army had to fight a German army that had dug in to positions all along the Apennine ridge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-45306883223813112342012-07-03T04:06:56.745+01:002012-07-03T04:06:56.745+01:00My father was grateful that he fought German armou...My father was grateful that he fought German armour in a Churchill tank rather than a Sherman. He viewed Shermans as death traps.<br /><br />He also told me that the short-barrelled 6-pounder gun with sabot ammunition gave him an advantage over the German armour in the bocage country: he could turn a turret when the Germans couldn't. He was at a disadvantage once they'd got to clear ground - but there he could call up Typhoons.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-84076662863982630462012-07-02T23:39:38.808+01:002012-07-02T23:39:38.808+01:00a train track is a chariots
width
there are place...<i>a train track is a chariots<br />width</i><br /><br />there are places in Italy you can see chariot-tracks of this width worn into paved Roman streetsNick Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670594203660051701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-90196531615140211862012-07-02T22:55:29.791+01:002012-07-02T22:55:29.791+01:00Anon - 10.45.
I don't think we disagree that m...Anon - 10.45.<br />I don't think we disagree that much. This isn't a nazi fanboy piece. The truth is after 2 years of war the allies had failed everywhere except Italian East Africa,against the Italians.<br />Not until El Alamein , that's winter 1943, did allied forces deliver a really powerful defeat to German troops.<br /><br />And the scale of battle, as Jer adds below, was tiny compared to the forces on the eastern front.<br /><br />Could Britain and America alone have defeated Germany and Japan?<br />Very doubtful, until atomic bomb.<br /><br />Could British empire alone? - Not a hope. This isn't new. Churchill said it himself, at the time. Once the Americans were in Britain and co could no longer lose.<br /><br />So, As said earlier, I do think the bombing war was a viable strategy. Because once Germany had extended its coastline from the Franco/Spanish border to the arctic circle blockade was going to take huge resources, mostly wasted as Germany was being supplied by Russia anyway.<br />So bombing it was. What else was there?<br /><br />Anon- Re far east -yes a very fair summary. However, what is unforgivable is we already learned all those lesson in Norway and France and Libya. <br />I believe the trouble was there was no overall information, tactics, training guides. We had been badly beaten and were struggling just to make good losses. There really wasn't new evolved strategy guide learn the lessons. just learn by experience.<br /><br />Ek - so, a train track is a chariots<br />width? Well well.<br /><br />JH: Quite. I don't hold with the idea that because the bombing could have been done better it was a failure, or it shouldn't have been done at all. Harris did not know that the transportation plan would work. All the previous other air ministry schemes hadn't been correct, why would that one be any different. <br />Even his own memoirs show his ruthless, focused, no argument stance. <br /><br />The fault was Churchill's.<br />If he had wanted an air Marshall who would be more strategically flexible he had only to appoint one. Churchill was not shy about interfering with his top brass.<br /><br />SW - the Germans never built a bomber force. They couldn't afford to. At the beginning of 1940 they decided that the JU88, twin engine, multi-role plane was the answer to everything and Goring ordered 4,000 of them {at the time double the amount of planes in the entire Luftwaffe}<br />The Luftwaffe never even got these. There were no resources for 4 engine bombers. The UK could barely sustain its own program, and never without US lend Lease and aid.Bill Quango MPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14861116614665461655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-10979563023319458432012-07-02T15:23:42.036+01:002012-07-02T15:23:42.036+01:00If my old history teacher was reliable at no point...If my old history teacher was reliable at no point from 1942 was less than 75% of the German army fighting on the Eastern front.<br /><br />Not to denigrate anything done by the Brits or Americans, but the German army was destroyed, and it was destroyed by the Soviets.<br /><br />At great cost.Jernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-61279820830960430292012-07-02T14:34:41.048+01:002012-07-02T14:34:41.048+01:00Anonymous @ 1045 is not correct. The Germans were...Anonymous @ 1045 is not correct. The Germans were able to attack north of Coventry very effectively. Clydebank in particular was obliterated (I know because a number of my relatives were killed in the Clydebank blitz in March 1941) but it was hushed up at the time due to censorship. Everybody in the Glasgow area knew exactly what had happened and yet the papers weren't allowed to describe it! Clydeside in general continued to be heavily attacked until the Germans turned their attentions to Russia and the bombers flew east. They also heavily attacked Liverpool, Hull, Sheffield and so on and on. All Britain's major ports and industrial centres were bombed. The idea that Luftwaffe attacks were confined to the south is simply wrong.<br /><br />Two things put paid to the German blitz. Firstly they turned their attentions on Russia so they simply didn't fly over as much as before, but we also developed effective Airborne Intercept radar allowing our night fighters to shoot down Germans in the dark. In 1940 we couldn't even find them. Hence the daft propaganda story in 1941 of "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham eating carrots so he could see in the dark.Sebastian Weetabixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-61663852709156371022012-07-02T11:23:28.223+01:002012-07-02T11:23:28.223+01:00The Jungle is Neutral by Lt Col Freddie Spencer Ch...The Jungle is Neutral by Lt Col Freddie Spencer ChapmanElectro-Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073103431166273080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-33208310715132299252012-07-02T10:45:20.954+01:002012-07-02T10:45:20.954+01:00If the US had not entered the war in Europe then B...If the US had not entered the war in Europe then Bomber Command would have been the only way Britain could possibly have defeated the Nazis. The US, of course, bombed Germany with reckless abandon - and Switzerland too. They were always dropping bombs on Switzerland. <br /><br />BQ writes this tosh as if somehow Britain was grossly inferior to the Nazis - forgetting that throughout the war the Nazis were unable to effectively attack any part of Britain north of Coventry, a fact that ultimately allowed Britain and the US to slowly aggragate forces on this island.<br /><br />Meanwhile he ignores the advance of the 8th Army from North Africa through Italy and into Austria.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-90400824317942450062012-07-02T08:33:05.769+01:002012-07-02T08:33:05.769+01:00If Harris had been less of a fanatic he might have...If Harris had been less of a fanatic he might have been able to achieve a more rapid collapse of the Axis without the continuation of Area bombing into 1945<br /><br />Yes but as you pointed out, it was not ineffective as an overall strategy, the bombing.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-49462823780882284932012-07-01T21:48:48.460+01:002012-07-01T21:48:48.460+01:00UK railway guages were determined by the width of ...UK railway guages were determined by the width of a horse's arse. <br /><br />Seriously. <br /><br />4'6" - the width of the axle on a Roman chariotElectro-Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073103431166273080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-34461728799493002482012-07-01T21:47:34.216+01:002012-07-01T21:47:34.216+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Electro-Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073103431166273080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-66455521869047616132012-07-01T21:40:17.854+01:002012-07-01T21:40:17.854+01:00Anonymous
re Malaya
As I understand it there were ...Anonymous<br />re Malaya<br />As I understand it there were a number of basic problems:<br />1. GB was incredibly stretched defending home territory, Atlantic convoys and fighting in the middle east. Far east came 3rd/4th.<br />2. The kit in the far east was largely second rate e.g Brewster Buffalo fighters and Vickers Videbeest biplane torpedo bombers.(pilots/aircrew were heroic).<br />3. Poor command (perhaps biggest problem)<br />4.Outdated ideas on war and complete (initial) fear of the jungle.<br />5. inexperienced/raw troops.<br />5. Poor opinion of and failiure to recognise Jap abilities (now called racism).<br />6. Poor co-ordination between land and ground forces.<br />7. What radar was there was used poorly<br />8.no tanks!<br />9. Yanks had agreed to send navy to Singapore if it was attacked. Pearl Harbor put a stop to that. Repulse and Prince of Wales sunk very quickly without air cover.(poor co-ordination).<br />It all went tits up very quickly but in view of above(not comprehensive!) no surprise.<br /><br />I posted above re the gentleman I knew on HMS Repulse. He said we went there to show them but they showed us who was boss! It came as a shock.<br /><br />Yanks/Dutch did no better. Philipines/Wake Island disaster for Yanks.<br /><br />Plenty of books on the subject but there is one called 'Bloody Shambles' about the RAF in Malaya at this time which probably sums it up.<br /><br />At the risk of steryotyping however please note that it was the Vichy French who gave the Japs staging off posts in Thailand in order to attack Malaya.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-23287607284048116772012-07-01T21:30:47.507+01:002012-07-01T21:30:47.507+01:00Thanks for all the book tips. I have only read one...Thanks for all the book tips. I have only read one of them, so plenty to seek out.<br /><br />Gordon Bennett is a tricky one. A junior officer leaving troops would almost certainly face desertion charges. However there are numerous accounts of it. Usually once a unit was cut off or surrounded. Normal practice seemed to be telling all soldiers to either make a break or surrender.<br /><br />Bennett went on his own and has actions were not looked on favourably.<br /><br />That maybe because of what followed. In the Japanese pow camps. But Bennett wasn't to know.<br /><br />I have read a couple of accounts of <br />Perceval , who surrendered at Singapore with all allied forces., that try to say he did as well as he could.<br />Neither was particularly convincing.<br /><br />The far east itself? We did ok, in the end. Better than ok, really, considering the Europe first approach.<br /><br />The Royal Navy had begged the politicians, for years, to make sure that the allied fleets were never over stretched. Britain and France could handle Germany and Italy or Japan and Germany, just, but not all three.<br /><br />Imagine the cries of "what did I say to you!" when it was Germany,Italy and suddenly Japan. A two ocean war for a one ocean navy.Bill Quango MPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14861116614665461655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-77078616077524652702012-07-01T18:13:36.028+01:002012-07-01T18:13:36.028+01:00BQ,
"What nerds we are!"
Guilty. I tho...BQ,<br /><br />"What nerds we are!"<br /><br />Guilty. I thought I might be safe here.<br /><br />" ...why was no proper tank destroyer invented?<br /><br />A tank destroyer along the German Marder lines was cheap and simple and mounted a 7.62mm gun at a time when the standard German panzer could only manage a 50mm."<br /><br />Interesting point. Trying that in Britain, what gun would you use? Prior to mid '42 there were no 6 lb guns and you'd have to wait another year for 17lb. Even longer to get them in quantity. Plus, of course, the 6 lb was 57mm calibre so in no way comparable to the Marder. The Valentine that you rightly describe as "old" was chosen because it was a rare example of a mechanically reliable British design.<br /><br />An interesting alternative would have been a much earlier variant of the Mosquito "TseTse". That was a 6lb gun hung under a Mosquito but the same thing could have been done much earlier with a 2 lb gun under a Blenheim (and others). In North Africa they would have been devastating. They might even have been useful against U-boats.Y Ddraig Gochnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-57394914272033877142012-07-01T15:55:44.380+01:002012-07-01T15:55:44.380+01:00Re the tank question the uniquely British problem ...Re the tank question the uniquely British problem was indeed the narrow gauge railways that plague us to this day. Curse our Victorian forefathers for inventing the railways instead of ripping off later, more improved patents.<br />The 1,435 mm standard gauge adopted in 1845 in England IS now the world standard.<br /><br />But Germany had a larger broad gauge. The gauge sets the height of tunnels and width of cuttings etc. Russia had a broader gauge still, so their ww2 tanks are bigger and heavier. <br /><br />The other reasons; factory space, production techniques, incorrect assessment of requirement applied to other nations too. American tank doctrine was all over the place and they consistently drew the wrong lessons from the European war. <br />Hence the US Sherman M4 - workhorse of the army, MEDIUM tank being almost as tall as German Heavy and Russian Super Heavy tank.<br /><br />And you are quite right that the design limitations of width, dictate the turret ring size, hence size of gun that can be carried.<br /><br />And as soon as the UK decided it could send tanks by road the centurion was developed. A tank as good as anyone eles's postwar AFV's.<br /><br />So...you all knew that, anyway. What nerds we are!<br /><br />So..a mystery that I have no answer for. Given the UK's chassis limitations {the long, thin tank design] why was no proper tank destroyer invented?<br /><br />A tank destroyer along the German Marder lines was cheap and simple and mounted a 7.62mm gun at a time when the standard German panzer could only manage a 50mm.<br />The more specialised German TDs were still much cheaper and more compact than a medium tank. The weight far less, {no turret} and the silhouette low.<br />Even the much more specialised still US TDs with open turrets were cheaper and could accommodate a larger anti tank gun than a tank.<br /><br />Yet the British Army waited until the end of 1944 to deploy its 'ARCHER' tank. <br />A 17pdr facing rearwards on the {very} old Valentine chassis.<br />The ACHILLES TD was an existing US M10 tank destroyer with the much better {but massive and heavy} 17pdr gun.<br /><br />But before mid 1944 when the Germans had 50mm and 75 mm tank guns? Why didn't we mount the 6pdr? <br />The US did. They copied it and made their 57mm which fitted their M10 tank destroyers.<br /><br />Good for defence..but we were going forwards so..erm..?<br />Still, it was well liked and quite effective.<br /><br /><br /><br />The German,USSR and USA developed cheap, and effectiveBill Quango MPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14861116614665461655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-20768984103567743852012-07-01T14:34:45.928+01:002012-07-01T14:34:45.928+01:00Am I too late for the tank competition?
At first ...Am I too late for the tank competition?<br /><br />At first I thought this was a trick question - and that there is in fact no single cause. As SW says above, problems with British tank deployment included<br /><br />- Poor and confused military doctrine demanding infantry and cruiser tanks, neither of which were much good. (Cruiser tanks too vulnerable, infantry tanks too slow and heavy, both under-gunned)<br /><br />- Design to fit on UK railways with a smaller than European loading gauge, hence limited width for the tank and all the design limitations that flowed from that.<br /><br />- Generally poor build quality leading to unreliability. This was not unique to tanks, or even that era (see British Leyland 30 years later) but was (and remains) a pervasive British problem.<br /><br />- Failure to recognise the need for (never mind provide) better guns. The British 6lb anti-tank gun entered service in May of 1942, compared to April 1941 for the comparable German 50mmm gun.<br /><br />But then I realised, there's a common theme.<br /><br />Defective military doctrine and gun selection comes from poor generals making bad decisions ... Poor build quality comes from poor managers making bad decisions ...<br /><br />So, if there's a single cause, it's consistently poor decision making by low quality senior leaders.Y Ddraig Gochnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-86207883264760281912012-07-01T12:12:25.909+01:002012-07-01T12:12:25.909+01:00Re: tanks - I'll bite!
One problem was that ...Re: tanks - I'll bite! <br /><br />One problem was that the gun design people were in a completely different location to the chassis design people, so they never picked a gun and then built the tank around it; rather they were given a chassis and had to make a gun fit in it - totally the opposite of the German approach. Then there was the doctrinal idiocy of having infantry tanks - heavy armour, v. slow, totally unsuited to fast mobile warfare (eg the Matilda) and cavalry (cruiser) tanks - fast, hardly any armour, undergunned (eg the Crusader)... but most of all they had to fit our railway wagons. So necessarily the turret ring size was restricted, so the gun size was limited - they could never fit a gun as good as or as big as the German 88mm. Of course there was the Sherman Firefly which had an excellent 17pdr gun which could take out Tigers and Panthers - but to fit it in the turret they had to take out everything else, including the radio, which was mounted externally in a bin added to the back of the turret! So Firefly Shermans were always paired with 2 conventional Shermans that had machine guns and standard HE shells rather than AP. <br /><br />Perhaps the final word goes to Percy Hobart (pioneer of armoured warfare, who loathed the army establishment) who said the cavalry would never willingly give up their horses until a tank was developed that could eat hay and shit all over the parade ground.Sebastian Weetabixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-29916578035553929102012-07-01T11:12:17.182+01:002012-07-01T11:12:17.182+01:00BQ - It's a privilege to have you visit my rat...BQ - It's a privilege to have you visit my rather flawed little blog.<br /><br />Many thanks.Electro-Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073103431166273080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-27717356542782951032012-07-01T00:02:51.100+01:002012-07-01T00:02:51.100+01:00A great post BQ and great comments by everyone too...A great post BQ and great comments by everyone too, but to my mind, we are examining with hindsight and with horror the barbarity of war via the technicalities and strategies of war. <br /><br />The individual's war consisted of loyalty, nationalism, heroism and self sacrifice and a lot more, like the ingenuity of the of people at the time. <br /><br />Here and now, 70 years later with a financial crisis and tsunami created by very few of our kind still in progress, with nationalism on the rise once again, with fascism and totalitarianism almost rampant at the EU centre, we are lucky. We are lucky that people today still remember the horror of it. We still know people who were part of it, the stories are still fresh in our memories. Will this situation persist? How long before the memories are like ours of 1812 or the like?<br /><br />Will our future leaders forget? Will our current leaders & eurocrats not take history into account?<br /><br />I see the financial furore, but I have to say, as much as I hate it, that any amount of conjoured money, any amount of make believe EU bonds, quadrillions of them if you wish, is preferable to another war such as the last two. Even Chancellor Merkel, especially Chancellor Merkel and her associates, who are not currently allowed to forget, has to, and is, climbing down from the hard stance, because the memories are still fresh. <br /><br />WW1 was "A war to end all wars" how quickly we forgot.Timbo614https://www.blogger.com/profile/14671168026195402267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-36814707960336582312012-07-01T00:01:20.541+01:002012-07-01T00:01:20.541+01:00Excellent lead articles and educated comments.
I h...Excellent lead articles and educated comments.<br />I have read a lot on the subject but had never seen the 17 division stat re Normandy before.At that point, the Germans were fighting desperatley and the Wafffen SS were particularly fanatical and experienced troops(i.e. brutal war in Russia). The Hitler Jugend div. (fanatical indoctrinated kids with experienced officers)were I think virtually annihalated around Caen but caused huge delay and casualties.<br />From what I have read it is also true that the former Desert Rats were cautious rather than dashing but can you blame them? 4 years of serious war already?<br />To obtain an understanding of how things were for those on the ground I recommend:<br /><br />From Alemein to Zem Zem -Douglas<br /><br />Patrol-Fred Majdalany<br /><br />With the Jocks-Peter White<br /><br />As for the air war, I went up in a Dakota a year or so ago. I know it wasn't a Halifax/Lanc but the thought of a bomber flight to Germany and back with all that goes with it in a similar airgraft - no thanks!<br />You are completely right about the fighter sweeps which cost the RAF unecessary casulaties and wasted resources.<br />Navy - I knew a bloke who had been a boy sailor from the 1938 class from HMS Ganges (I think producing 1000 trainees pa). He was on Repulse at Scapa Flow when Royal Oak was sunk.On the Bismarck chase after Hood was sunk they were sent straight to the USA for repairs. Then to Malaya with Prince of Wales, sunk by the Japs (they showed us who was boss!)5 hours in the water, rescued by an Aussie destroyer but they didn't have any rum! Leaving Sing. on a boat towing an officer's yacht sunk again and rescued by a Jap destroyer and handed over to the Jap army. 4 years in a pow camp and saved from death by the atom bomb and some Aussie medics parachuted into his camp, I think on Java.He stayed in the navy and ended up serving on a destroyer off Korea during that war. Came out of the Navy then went down the pit! Navy man until he died.<br />Stoisism, boredom,extreme trials,bravery and heroism and the will to simply carry on. <br />The Bomber Command Memorial looks to me to be inspiring albeit years too late thanks to the cowardice of our politicians.<br />Another reason to be proud to be British (as we knew it)and to retain the memory.<br />(sorry about spelling-it's late)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-3605971750598732152012-06-30T23:21:49.459+01:002012-06-30T23:21:49.459+01:00SW - well I was a soldier; and my father too (WW2)...SW - well I was a soldier; and my father too (WW2), so I'll second your motion: <i>not such a bad Army after all</i><br /><br />I also take pride in the fact that, after the Falklands, the Russians upped their assessment of the effectiveness of British army units to 90% of that of a their standard measure, a US unit (from its previous ranking of 70%) - and. by the way, the only reason the US unit scored higher was its superior equipment, which we can't deny<br /><br />the upgrade was, essentially, due to fighting spirit: whatever Monty thought there are plenty of Brits (OK, predominantly paras and marines) who are up for a scrap<br /><br />all this said, I think we must accept a degree of pretty thoroughgoing unprofessionalism in the British Army officer corps, and I know whereof I speakNick Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670594203660051701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-9481026674356291522012-06-30T22:57:51.037+01:002012-06-30T22:57:51.037+01:00BQ - I think you'd enjoy The Devil's Guard...BQ - I think you'd enjoy The Devil's Guard about Waffen SS officers serving in the French Foreign Legion in Vietnam after WW2. It was that or face the wrath of the Ivans or the Yankees. <br /><br />How lethal these troops were and how much more vicious (and effective) they were than our own or the Americans is evident throughout.Electro-Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073103431166273080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-27835714707905510172012-06-30T21:33:00.308+01:002012-06-30T21:33:00.308+01:00ND - See Seb W for his comment.
Anon - Why didn&...ND - See Seb W for his comment. <br /><br />Anon - Why didn't the Germans evacuate the cities? The numbers who fled after Hamburg and lived in the forests panicked the high command. Real - war ending panic. <br /><br />SW- <br />Arnhem was a bad plan. But XXX corp was slow. The stories of armour and troops stopping for the night are real. Night actions would have been very costly and most unusual. But the paras were trapped and only the infantry/armour could rescue them. Urgency was not properly conveyed.<br /><br />But the whole thing was wrong so it probably mattered little. the plan only worked if the Germans were still in full retreat. As we know, they weren't.<br /><br />Not in any way trying to diminish our armies. Not only did the empire win, but it won having fought from day 1. And supplied assorted allies and the USSR with arms and equipment too. <br /><br />The point I was making for us buffs was that the germans were better fighters than the British/commonwealth throughout most of the war. not by a large margin, but large enough. And in pure infantry terms our forces were comparable. Unit size. Small arms. Heavy weapons. Artillery. In armour we were outclassed for most of the war. <br /><br />And your point about victory neatly sums up the post.<br />The Guardian fully expects to be read by post war generations and it always seems shocked that the MAJORITY, even of its own liberal/socialist readers are not anti-monarchist, peacenik, all war is wrong, student thinking types.<br /><br />If you read some of the CIF comments {which i recommend,} they are thoughtful and educated. The commentators are not fooled by the trendy bombers were war criminals line. And you'd expect more to be . That debate was begun even during the war itself.[which underlines what the bombers were bombing for. to preserve democracy and a freedom of choice and speech and life. You'd think lefty columnists would know it was homosexuals, gypsies and communists going into the death camps.Their readers do}<br /><br />On this occasion the guardian writers have been surprised at the unexpected pride of the post war + even post war film generation in the part the united kingdom and our allies played in the battle for the world that took place 70 years ago.<br /><br />And in many ways it is odd. But just because the nation has a romanticised image of its history, doesn't mean that's wrong. Doesn't mean we don't know what really happened. We do.<br /><br />But its up to the people to choose what and who they want to celebrate.<br />Look at the BBC's unexpectedly crass handling of the Queens's jubilee.<br />they clearly thought the nation didn't want a stuffy old Queen and some old tubs floating along a river- but a pop concert and celebs and sofa chat. <br /><br />We know the Russians lost millions more and the yanks paid for the whole thing. So what?<br /><br />As you so rightly pointed out, our nation won. Won despite the odds. Won despite the cost. And won a war against a truly evil empire. <br />So stuff your trendy wrong end of the telescope revisionism. our side bloody well won!<br /><br />BTW - bonus question. Who knows why our armour was so poor during WW2? From day one to wars end it was passable at best,{funnies and firefly excepted}. We did invent the tank, so what happened to make us incapable of designing a war winning vehicle.<br /><br />Our subs were as good as anyone elses. Our navy made better designed ships as the war went on. Our planes were generally as good , if not better, than most other forces. And that's in all categories. fighter, medium,Light,heavy bomber, recon, army co-op, seaplane, scout.<br />{possible exception of carrier bourne planes- but the swordfish did do the job.}<br />Our artillery was fine.<br /><br />There is a very specific reason directly to do with the UK why tank design was not good.Bill Quango MPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14861116614665461655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-24812510987721059432012-06-30T21:24:01.317+01:002012-06-30T21:24:01.317+01:00I've always thought it was a shame the Manhatt...I've always thought it was a shame the Manhattan project didn't produce a weapon 12 months sooner which could have been dropped on Berlin to conclude the European war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com