America didn't do much in World War II (in Europe)

a reply to: Badgered1

And don't forget the Pacific, which was 80% American plus 20% Aussies.

a reply to: mbkennel

And don't forget the Pacific, which was 80% American plus 20% Aussies

Who told you that nonsense ?

British Empire Forces had 1 million troops in Burma alone ( non of them Australian ) Add to that hundreds of thousands of British Empire Troops in Singapore and Malaya.

The British Pacific Fleet consisted of over 200 warships ( 12 of which where aircraft carries ) and 34 squadrons of aircraft.

Your figures don't add up.

Yeah, you missed a lot; like the North Africa campaign against Rommel followed by the invasions of Sicily and then Italy. Ever hear of Anzio beach? Perhaps Monte Casino? Americans died just the same as Russians did but you are correct that Russia did bear the brunt of the fighting against the German war machine.

That doesn't lessen ours or any other countries contributions to the war effort.
It took a combination of Russian manpower, American manufacturing and British resolve to win WW2.

Na UK should of surrendered to Japan at the beginning and formed the Imperial Royal Empire of Japan and Great Britain.

We could of Married Prince Charles off to a Japanese Princess ( No horse faced Queen Camilia) and he would be waiting today to be King of England and Emperor Of Japan

With our mighty Imperial Royal Navy China and USA would be kept in check, especially with along our SAS mechs and Robot army's

And best of all our trains in the UK would run on time and not stink of piss.

All hail our Japanese overlords!



J/K

a reply to: mbkennel

You need to recheck those numbers a bit.

Yes, in the Pacific Theatres (Pacific Ocean Areas--Central Pacific/Northern Pacific), it was mostly a US operation, until very late in the war. Adm. Chester Nimitz commanded this theater.

The SW Pacific was another matter entirely... That was US/Australia/New Zealand, and other Commonwealth nations under Douglas MacArthur.

India/Burma/China was predominantly the British and Commonwealth nations. Field Marshal Louis Mountbatten was in over all command.

As far as naval power goes...

While the US was overwhelmingly superior in numbers, the Royal Navy, and the RAAN added not insignificant help. The Royal Navy especially towards the end of the war in the Pacific with ten aircraft carriers (with armoured decks) that could, and did, stand up to hits that could, and did, cripple the wooden decked American Essex class carriers. A kamikaze hitting a Royal Navy carrier pretty much just crumpled up like an egg dropped on the floor. Quick patch, and the carrier resumed flight operations...not the case, sometimes, with the American carriers. Numerous times carriers were knocked out of operations and sent back to Ulithi Atoll for repairs, or even all the way back to the States.

The various Commonwealth fleets were very welcome additions to the powerful fleets that were sitting off of Japan when the bombs were dropped.

In no theatre, whether Europe, or the Pacific did one ally do the vast majority of the work. They worked together, not always seamlessly, but well enough to defeat Germany, and Japan. ...and not just incidentally, give the Soviets pause.

a reply to: seagull

Yeah laughed when I first heard about the RN carriers and how they used to shrug off the kamikazes.

a reply to: crazyewok

Those carriers were the main reason the follow on carriers after the Essex class, were designed with armoured decks. The Midway, Coral Sea, and Roosevelt all boasted armoured decks.

The German Stuka attacks on HMS Illustrious in the Med. pretty much sealed the deal on the designs for those three ships. A wooden decked Essex, or one of the Yorktowns (Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp), would have been destroyed.

While heavily damaged it survived. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It's an amazing story.

a reply to: seagull

Yeah well it was hard experience on our part.

Plus the Navy has always been our first and most vital line of defence so its always something even today we take seriously.

The US navy just didnt have the experience in naval warfare the RN had. Still the RN made more than its fair share of mistakes like the HMS hood.

a reply to: crazyewok

One of the reasons the US Navy used wood on the decks of carriers was the ease of repair of normal (?) battle damage. ...and the philosophy worked until the Japanese stopped using bombs, and started using whole airplanes. The open hanger design was another difference, the US carriers could carry a lot more planes, fuel, and munitions. Couple that with the newly developed underway replenishment, and the US had a lot more range of operation. But it was another point of weakness when dealing with Kamikazes.

Off Okinawa, and Japan, they'd have traded a bit of that for an armoured deck...many armoured decks.

My dad was on a troopship off of Okinawa during some rather scary waves of Kamikazes came calling. He told me the troopies on the ships were glad to get on the beach where all they had worry about was a bullet, and not a plane.

a reply to: seagull

It always surprises me that whenever the Battle Of Okinawa is mentioned, the role played by The Royal Navy and RAF along with other Commonwealth Forces seems to be total forgotten.

It's mainly always written up as a U.S. Operation only.

a reply to: alldaylong

It was a majority of US, it's true. But the Commonwealth was there, and did the job. I doubt you'll ever hear any veterans of Okinawa deny the RN, and the RAAF/RAAN their just dues.

One has to wonder if Italy wasn't more of a liability than asset and question the course of the war if Italy had been neutral. Adding Rommel's armor divisions to the Russian front may have made a crucial difference in taking one of the 3 main objectives in Russia; Leningrad, Moscow or Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields. I think the extra effort would have been South to acquire the badly needed oil. Moscow too may have fallen.

I LOVE pondering alternative military history for some reason, so many interesting variables and the consequences of each would have the made the world a different place than we know today. Most folks have no clue how close they came to speaking a different language and belonging to a different country than they presently do depending on the outcome of a few battles most don't even know the names of.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Rommel in the desert certainly thought so.

...and they didn't fair too well on the Eastern Front, or over Britain.

Overall, yeah, I'd have to say they were more detriment then help.

...and had the OKW been able to convince Hitler to leave off his attempts at strategy, and go south to the Caucasus, and the ME oil fields? The war might have been very different. Certainly longer.

A WW1&2 forum would be welcome as part of a history forum area.