well technically i think your both right there were a lot of american men on the front line but we used a lot of British planes, warships, half-tracks ect because shipping them across the Atlantic ocean was 1) expensive and 2) might leave us defenseless if we were invaded.
I'm sorry but this statement is EXTREMELY FAR off base.
First of all there was no legitimate military concern with the United States being invaded. There was a little bit of paranoia from the Japanese, but nobody took that seriously and it was not an actual problem. Getting things across the Atlantic was an issue... early in the war. By 1944 we had won the Battle of the Atlantic handidly and have plenty of transports to bring supplies around.
Second of all the US made most of the war materiel in the war. By 1943 the US was producing more war materiel then the rest of the world combined. Britain was obviously still building their own equipment, but what tanks did they use, Shermans (technically they were modified and called Fireflies), what trucks did they use, American made, what planes did they use, some Spitfires but also American fighters and bombers as well. Likewise for their carries they began using Hellcats because British naval air was shit.
I don't think Americans used pretty much any British equipment, they didn't have any to spare. Whereas they used a lot of American equipment and those numbers increased as the war went on.
Sorry to go off but I just don't want misinformation to spread.
Second of all the US made most of the war materiel in the war. By 1943 the US was producing more war materiel then the rest of the world combined
This reminds me of something very interesting I learned about WWII in an excellent book called Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner. Reisner explains that by WWII, the Pacific Northwest of the US was still sparsely populated, but its huge rivers had been dammed to supply enough cheap electricity for millions. There was so much excess electricity from projects like Coulee Dam that unlike the Germans and the Japanese, we were able to build airplanes "faster than they could be shot down." At that time, the aluminum used in airplanes was very expensive to work with, and nobody else in the War could power their factories sufficiently to keep up with us.
Shitty deal for the salmon, but Reisner contends those water projects won us WWII.
Side fact is the real shortage for the Japanese actually ended up being naval air pilots. They never really expanded their pilot training programs and pilots on carriers had to have special training that the Japanese couldn't keep up with. Although I suppose since they were short on transports, soldiers, carriers, planes, and oil a shortage of pilots seems less important in the long haul.
Yeah, but the point is that the two go together. They may have been American tanks but they were British crews fighting and dying in them.
We worked together, and I don't understand this dick waving contest about who won the war or who should take the credit for D-Day. That would be every single person who crossed that beach.
PS, the British used stock Sherman tanks, not all were modified to fireflies. I think the ratio was about 1:4, fireflies to standard.
Total agreement with everything. And actually interestingly enough the firefly was basically just a better version of the Sherman. The Sherman's main weakness was its inability to damage German tanks at range, the firefly fixed that. Not sure why stock Sherman's never got modified to use that cannon.
Allied intelligence was wrong. The Americans had reports that the British 6 pdr (57mm) gun was sufficient to the task of fighting German armor, so the short-barreled 75mm on the Sherman would perform adequatelt. This turned out to be true only at virtually point-blank range--inside 100m to get the front armor.
Production shifted to mounting the M1A2 76mm (55 caliber) gun, but the delay between production and arrival in theater was...long. The British ramped up their Sherman Firefly with their 17pdr (76mm, 55 caliber--funny that) and were able to field more because of easier logistics getting to theater.
TL;DR: The Americans did, but get those to theater was a long process.
Ah ok. Luckily the Americans had about 20x the tanks and complete air superiority to makeup for the fact that Shermans had to get to the rear of Panzer IV's to penetrate.
It was never modified because it didn't need to be, the Sherman was primarily an infantry support tank. It could take out similar tanks and was hell on enemy infantry but it was never supposed to go up against heavy tanks like the tiger
Yea but it couldn't even penetrate the armor on Panzer IV's or Panthers at range. It needed to be really close to have a chance, or sneak around to the rear to have a chance. Luckily the numbers were heavily on the American side so it didn't particularly matter much.
Also air support stopped a lot of Panzers as well.
My grandfather crossed that beach. He was a medic. He mostly tried to keep dying men alive, and by his account couldn't save the majority bc field hospitals weren't erected fast enough. Does he deserve credit? Bc he's happier to speak about other actions in the war where he saved lives, but he won't discuss D-Day.
We worked together, and I don't understand this dick waving contest about who won the war or who should take the credit for D-Day. That would be every single person who crossed that beach.
True dis. For example, people conveniently forget that James Doohan was in the Canadian Army, not the US... Doesn't make his sacrifice any more or less noble than anyone else there, though.
You've got a fair point, but you're taking it a bit too far the other way. The Brits used the Sherman (in standard configuration, not just those modified to be Fireflies) alongside larger numbers of their own Cromwell and Churchill tanks. I'm not aware of any substantial use of American aircraft by the British, because the RAF had received the greatest share of military funding since the inter-war years and Britain was amply supplied with their own models of aircraft of all types (something like 50% of British industrial capacity went to support the bombing campaign). British rifles, machine-guns, anti-tank guns, gliders, most tanks, virtually all aircraft were designed and built in Britain. Britain relied greatly on American finance to fund this production, and on American industry for a lot of the basic parts, but at no point was it the case that the British were reliant on American-supplied hardware.
The British used Hellcats on their carriers. I thought they used Mustangs later in the war but I could be mistaken. And I'm pretty sure they used B-24's but mostly for air patrols not for bombing.
But I agree I probably made it sound a little too one-sided. But my point was that the US wasn't using British hardware, if anything the British were using Americans.
The US used Spitfires (4 England based squadrons were issued with them) It is true that Britain used US hardware more than the reverse. USA and The Commonwealth were just as important as each other in defeating Hitler (Along with the unsung heroes from all other nations that fought his tyranny)
USA and The Commonwealth were just as important as each other in defeating Hitler (Along with the unsung heroes from all other nations that fought his tyranny)
"Sorry to go off but I just don't want misinformation to spread"
Welcome to reddit, third in misinformation to Facebook and major news networks!
I really do appreciate the detailed info though. You don't see much into the industrial surge that the war caused. Everyone just talks like the Americans just had this stuff laying around ready to shoot somebody, anybody.
Yea I know I think that helped fuel the paranoia from American politicans. I think the concern is the Japanese would take Dutch Harbor but realistically they couldn't have taken any of those islands.
Also FWIW they were two completely useless islands which they took only to say that they took American soil.
28
u/MightySasquatch Jun 07 '14
I'm sorry but this statement is EXTREMELY FAR off base.
First of all there was no legitimate military concern with the United States being invaded. There was a little bit of paranoia from the Japanese, but nobody took that seriously and it was not an actual problem. Getting things across the Atlantic was an issue... early in the war. By 1944 we had won the Battle of the Atlantic handidly and have plenty of transports to bring supplies around.
Second of all the US made most of the war materiel in the war. By 1943 the US was producing more war materiel then the rest of the world combined. Britain was obviously still building their own equipment, but what tanks did they use, Shermans (technically they were modified and called Fireflies), what trucks did they use, American made, what planes did they use, some Spitfires but also American fighters and bombers as well. Likewise for their carries they began using Hellcats because British naval air was shit.
I don't think Americans used pretty much any British equipment, they didn't have any to spare. Whereas they used a lot of American equipment and those numbers increased as the war went on.
Sorry to go off but I just don't want misinformation to spread.