PDA

View Full Version : A Brief History of American Wars



George.
01-31-2015, 07:21 AM
Focusing on the ones they actually declared... mostly. ;)

Revolutionary War - won for them by France.

War of 1812 - capital city burned down, ass kicked, saved by Napoleon's defeat after his 1812, which made further fighting senseless for Britain.

Mexican War - easily defeated a much weaker and misgoverned foe. First of a string of similar "victories". The public at the time found it all very brave and heroic.

Civil War - zero sum, unless you were a slave.

Indian Wars - see Mexican War.

Spanish-American War - see Mexican War

First World War - did not significantly participate until after Germany was done. Nevertheless, they are taught that they won it. Their bankers certainly "won" it.

Second World War - won by the USSR. Most Americans think they won it.

Korean War - still on.

Vietnam War - Lost, after having wrecked the country.

Gulf War - see Mexican War, but with allies.

Iraq War - see Vietnam War.

Afghanistan War - still on. See Vietnam War.

Peerie Maa
01-31-2015, 07:25 AM
Ohhhh! That's mean. :D

Paul Pless
01-31-2015, 07:28 AM
Second World War - won by the USSR. Most Americans think they won it.to be funny the best humor needs some basis in fact; everybody here knows that australia saved our asses wwii, not the fooking rooskies. . .

Keith Wilson
01-31-2015, 08:14 AM
I realize this is intended to be a semi-humorous corrective to American chest-thumping, but at the risk of being pedantic, there are some extremely partial truths here.


Civil War - zero sum, unless you were a slave.That covers four million people, 13% of the population of the US.


First World War - did not significantly participate until after Germany was done.Yeah, right. http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif And France and the UK were just about done as well. The contention that US entry was irrelevant is nonsense.


Second World War - won by the USSR. Most Americans think they won it.Yes, the Russians did the majority of the ground fighting in Europe. But you may recall that WWII had two parts, one in Europe, one against Japan in the Pacific. The USSR had almost nothing to do with the latter.

There are a bunch of little ones you could add - the occupation of Nicaragua, the Veracruz business in Mexico, the various banana wars, Haiti, the D.R, the invasion of Grenada . . .

George.
01-31-2015, 08:25 AM
Yeah, right. http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif And France and the UK were just about done as well. The contention that US entry was irrelevant is nonsense.

I submit that Germany was done when Ludendorff's spring 1918 offensives failed to break through. Very few Americans were fighting at the time. Even near the end of the war they were far from where the real action was.


Yes, the Russians did the majority of the ground fighting in Europe. But you may recall that WWII had two parts, one in Europe, one against Japan in the Pacific. The USSR had almost nothing to do with the latter.

Japan in WWII: See Mexican War. Their only hope of victory was if Germany won.


There are a bunch of little ones you could add - the occupation of Nicaragua, the Veracruz business in Mexico, the various banana wars, Haiti, the D.R, the invasion of Grenada . . .

See Mexican War :D

Keith Wilson
01-31-2015, 08:52 AM
Yes, Germany was very nearly done. So was France, Austria-Hungary, and to a slightly lesser extent the UK. Without the Americans arriving, it would have been a throw of the dice which one collapsed first out of exhaustion and disgust.

Imperial Japan was not even slightly analogous to 1840s Mexico, and without the US they would have had little serious opposition, whatever happened in Europe. They might have even conquered Australia. All the other ones didn't even rise to the level of the Mexican war; el coloso del norte swatting flies. It didsn't seem like that to those involved, of course.

Nicholas Scheuer
01-31-2015, 09:09 AM
Patton didn't use any dumb-assed Ruskies when he rescued the American Troops in the Ardennes. The dumb-assed Ruskies couldn't have done what they did without American hardware. The Germans beat themselves in Russia by invading "A BRIDGE TOO FAR" so to speak.
we should'a done as Patton recommended in regard to the dumb-assed Ruskies.

George.
01-31-2015, 09:09 AM
I think after about April 1918 Germany would have lost with or without the Americans.

Imperial Japan was stronger than Mexico (doesn't take much), but would not have lasted long one-on-one against the US, and had absolutely no hope of actually defeating the US. The only reason it took so long to crush them was that the US agreed to "Germany first", and projecting power all the way across the Pacific was very difficult in the 1940s, regardless of the actual strength of the opposition.

George.
01-31-2015, 09:10 AM
patton didn't use any dumb-assed ruskies when he rescued the american troops in the ardennes. The dumb-assed ruskies couldn't have done what they did without american hardware. The germans beat themselves in russia by invading "a bridge too far" so to speak.
We should'a done as patton recommended in regard to the dumb-assed ruskies.


q.e.d. ;) :d

Keith Wilson
01-31-2015, 09:24 AM
q.e.d. ;) :dI hope he's being sarcastic.

Nicholas Scheuer
01-31-2015, 09:26 AM
Besides, never heard about no dumb-assed Ruskies bombing the Ruhr in concert with the Landcasters and Flying Forts. So while the Americans were shipping Studebaker trucks to the dumb-assed Ruskies, they were also subtracting arms the Germans might have employed against the dumb-assed Ruskies.

Nicholas Scheuer
01-31-2015, 09:28 AM
The dumb-assed Ruskies still use 2-1/2-ton trucks today which look a lot like 1942 Studebakers. Why? Because it is too difficult for the dumb-assed Ruskies to build a better truck.

George.
01-31-2015, 09:44 AM
Besides, never heard about no dumb-assed Ruskies bombing the Ruhr in concert with the Landcasters and Flying Forts.

Thread drift: we are talking about wars, not war crimes.

Keith Wilson
01-31-2015, 09:46 AM
I think after about April 1918 Germany would have lost with or without the Americans.It could be, but maybe not. It wouldn't have taken many more mutinies on the western front to tip the balance decisively, and a major reason these stopped was the anticipation that if they just held out long enough, the Americans would arrive. By 1918, both sides were pretty much equally exhausted.

Anyway, the OP's contention that the Russians won WWII on their own is silly. Americans sometimes forget their huge contribution, and that's every bit as silly.

George.
01-31-2015, 09:59 AM
OK, let's do a thought experiment: could the US and Britain have won WW2 if the Soviet Union had surrendered? I doubt it very much.

Osborne Russell
01-31-2015, 10:09 AM
Patton didn't use any dumb-assed Ruskies when he rescued the American Troops in the Ardennes.

That was comparatively minor. But Normandy was major.

Seems to me like the main effect of the addition of the US was to cause the Axis to bet the farm on a couple of major gambles which they lost -- Pearl Harbor, Normandy, the Bulge.

Without the US or Russia, Germany could have kept eastern Europe. Who would then have invaded Germany, without the US?

Dumah
01-31-2015, 10:11 AM
Has anyone figured out the REAL heros of especially WW2 were the merchant sailors who, by their extreme efforts, there would NOT have been possible to mount ANY advance of the Allies? While it is true that we needed "boots on the ground", the "boots", their equipment, supplies, and other support HAD to arrive in Europe by sea. The battles by ALL the Allies depended on timely arrival of supplies arriving from North America, just one example, avgas, came from mostly American refineries because Great Briton did not have the capacity to refine the amount of fuel needed for procicuting the air war. I don't think I would particularly like sitting on 10, 000 tons of avgas for up to 10 days in submarine infested waters. The general attitude seems to be that, because they did not wear a "uniform", or were not directly envolved in the major battles in Europe, that their contribution was "minimul" and not worth any measure of recognition. Of course the more valuable cargoes were placed inside the convy, while mostly bulk carriers with loads of iron ore and like were usually the first struck, often with all hands. Remember too, than unlike military sailors, when your ship was lost your pay stopped, and that 6or7 day lifeboat ride was just the start of a struggle to get back to the maning pool and continue employment, sometimes for months without work.

Yes the Allied militaries did clear the globe of fashism, but don't ever forget the sacrifices made by Civy sailors.

Dumah

Osborne Russell
01-31-2015, 10:14 AM
All the other ones didn't even rise to the level of the Mexican war; el coloso del norte swatting flies. It didsn't seem like that to those involved, of course.

Reminds me of a line from Barry Lyndon:


The engagement that took place that day is not recorded in the annals of military glory; though it was memorable enough to those who took part.

Peerie Maa
01-31-2015, 10:20 AM
Has anyone figured out the REAL heros of especially WW2 were the merchant sailors who, by their extreme efforts, there would NOT have been possible to mount ANY advance of the Allies? While it is true that we needed "boots on the ground", the "boots", their equipment, supplies, and other support HAD to arrive in Europe by sea. The battles by ALL the Allies depended on timely arrival of supplies arriving from North America, just one example, avgas, came from mostly American refineries because Great Briton did not have the capacity to refine the amount of fuel needed for procicuting the air war. I don't think I would particularly like sitting on 10, 000 tons of avgas for up to 10 days in submarine infested waters. The general attitude seems to be that, because they did not wear a "uniform", or were not directly envolved in the major battles in Europe, that their contribution was "minimul" and not worth any measure of recognition. Of course the more valuable cargoes were placed inside the convy, while mostly bulk carriers with loads of iron ore and like were usually the first struck, often with all hands. Remember too, than unlike military sailors, when your ship was lost your pay stopped, and that 6or7 day lifeboat ride was just the start of a struggle to get back to the maning pool and continue employment, sometimes for months without work.

Yes the Allied militaries did clear the globe of fashism, but don't ever forget the sacrifices made by Civy sailors.

Dumah

^ This.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2013/february/26/130226-arctic-convoy-heroes-can-begin-applying-for-their-ww2-campaign-medal-now

70 years late.

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2015, 10:20 AM
I think the last declared war was WWii. Anything more recent were conflicts.

BrianY
01-31-2015, 11:00 AM
OK, let's do a thought experiment: could the US and Britain have won WW2 if the Soviet Union had surrendered? I doubt it very much.

If we ramped up production of nuclear bombs and deployed them in sufficient numbers against Germany, then yes, we could have won without the Soviet Union. Given that we were willing to use them twice against Japan, this is not out of the realm of possibility.

Keith Wilson
01-31-2015, 11:05 AM
OK, let's do a thought experiment: could the Russians and Britain have won WW2 if the US had remained neutral and helped neither side? No way in hell.

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2015, 11:10 AM
OK, let's do a thought experiment: could the Russians and Britain have won WW2 if the US had remained neutral and helped neither side? No way in hell.We entered in'41. Russia entered later After Germany attacked. I think Russia and yes, England would have won but, the war would have lasted for 12 yrs. Provided the US kept up supplies, lend lease etc.

Gerarddm
01-31-2015, 12:02 PM
. OK, let's do a thought experiment: could the US and Britain have won WW2 if the Soviet Union had surrendered? I doubt it very much.


Well duh of course they could. Would have taken longer, and some cities in Germany would have been radioactive for a few decades, but what the hey.

Tom Hunter
01-31-2015, 12:21 PM
Back on topic, we were better at picking opponents from 1816 to 1918, except for 1861, when we picked ourselves, but that was an accident. On the bright side, fighting the war allowed us to avoid the financial cost incurred by Brazil when they abolished slavery by law a couple of decades later.

I'll accept that we lost Vietnam and wrecked the country. We may have lost Afganistan, but people have been wrecking that country since Alexander the Great. If we don't count as winners for coming late to World War I then we can't be given ...credit? for wrecking Afganistan just because we are the last ones out the door, the furniture is knocked over and things are on fire.

Phillip Allen
01-31-2015, 12:28 PM
to be funny the best humor needs some basis in fact; everybody here knows that australia saved our asses wwii, not the fooking rooskies. . .

yep... and I know who to ask for absolute conformation

Phillip Allen
01-31-2015, 12:33 PM
OK, let's do a thought experiment: could the US and Britain have won WW2 if the Soviet Union had surrendered? I doubt it very much.

I think that you've fallen into the trap of 'either-or'

Shang
01-31-2015, 12:48 PM
What about the Crazy Snake Rebellion, huh?
You think it was all about smoked meat and the three mothers?
I think not...

Shang
01-31-2015, 12:52 PM
Getting back to Russia, remember Stalin's secret weapon...that he was willing to trade forty dead Russian soldiers for each German dead.

George.
01-31-2015, 12:58 PM
Well duh of course they could. Would have taken longer, and some cities in Germany would have been radioactive for a few decades, but what the hey.

Unless, of course, a Germany unburdened by war with the USSR and well ahead of the Allies in both nuclear physics and rocketry developed a nuclear deterrent first.

George.
01-31-2015, 01:01 PM
If we don't count as winners for coming late to World War I then we can't be given ...credit? for wrecking Afganistan just because we are the last ones out the door, the furniture is knocked over and things are on fire.

Granted. Afghanistan wrecked itself, most recently by sheltering bin Laden's merry band.

Peerie Maa
01-31-2015, 01:32 PM
Granted. Afghanistan wrecked itself, most recently by sheltering bin Laden's merry band.

Afghanistan was like Poland. A state sandwiched between Russia and Europe or a colony that was important to Europe ( the Indian sub continent). Poland was called Europe's battlefield. Afghanistan was also always fought over.

Dumah
01-31-2015, 03:42 PM
Why are you so dismissive of Canadas contribution, especiaslly WW2? In five years, just our navy grew from 6 destroyers and 8,000 all ranks, to a force of over 400 military vessels, making us the world third largest military navy, but also the third largest merchant navy. And we joined the war within days, not YEARS. Your industrial capacity was extremely helpful, but the war was won on the North Atlantic by 1942-43 with advances in antisubmarine warfare and the late arrival of the type XXI German submarine. No troops, no equipment, no fuel, no food for EVERYBODY in the Allied camp without those unsung heros, the merchant navy.

Dumah

Sky Blue
01-31-2015, 03:49 PM
Global War on Terror? Shouldn't that be added to the list?

Gerarddm
01-31-2015, 04:08 PM
Germany would have been exhausted by taking Russia and garrisoning it. Meanwhile, mainland USA, untouched, would keep cranking out weaponry of various types. Considering Dresden's fate, after we beat Japan, Curtis Lemay would have loved to drop some nukes on Berlin and wherever they saw a panzer army massing. Deutschland uber alles? I don't think so.

johnw
01-31-2015, 04:15 PM
Unless, of course, a Germany unburdened by war with the USSR and well ahead of the Allies in both nuclear physics and rocketry developed a nuclear deterrent first.

Their best nuclear scientists fled Germany before the war.

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2015, 04:42 PM
Were a lot of them Jewish? I suspect so!

johnw
01-31-2015, 04:46 PM
They fled Italy, too:

http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/exodus.htm

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-31-2015, 05:15 PM
Focusing on the ones they actually declared... mostly. ;)




Second World War - won by the USSR. Most Americans think they won it.



.

AT the beginning of the war with Russia the Germans wiped out or captured 90% of Soviet armour, a majority of their aricraft and took in 3.5 million Soviet POWs. On the battlefield were about 350 Soviet supply dumps of which the Germans got more than half. The Germans rounded up everything the Soviets left on the battlefield and turned it to their own use. Some of what they got was irreplaceable. Like 40% of Soviet GDP which includes food production. And about 40% of the Soviet population. Come 1942 how did the Soviets sustain themselves? They did what they could but it was insufficient. The difference was made up by Lend-Lease from the allies. They drove allied tanks, flew allied aircraft and ate allied food. Every soldier in their front lines knew what SPAM was. Eventually Soviet soldiers where traveling to far off battle fields in deuce-and-a-half trucks made by Studebaker, three-quarter tonners made by Dodge, halftracks made by White Motors and Jeeps made by a number of American auto builders. . They flew P-39s and Hawker Hurricanes as they tried to get their own aircraft industry up and rolling The Soviets were prodigious users of small arm ammo and much of it poured out of American factories. The numbers that are availble say Lend-Lease promised 500,000 trucks and 50,000 Jeeps. The final tally was slightly in access of that. The Soviets where prodigious producers of artillary. They were not up to producing a lot of specialty steels. They got it from Uncle Sugar. The Soviets produced tons of propaganda films all of which showed hardly a sign of any of the foreign products even tho' it's estimated 30% of what they used in '43-'44 came from Britain and America. One film that got past the censors showed Russia's miracle weapon, the Katusha rocket, being fired from racks mounted on the backs of some of those 6 x 6 Studebaker trucks. Yes the Soviets did a lot of dying. Some of it was because so many battles were fought to the death. Some of it was due to the poor quality of army leadership because party hacks had taken over for the thousands who had been eliminated in the Purges. And, lastly, they seemed to be wedded to mass attacks and nose to nose shootouts.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
01-31-2015, 05:21 PM
Let's take a look at France:

Defeats England in the Hundred Years War.

First nation with a professional Army

First nation to have an artillery corps and to make regular use of artillery

Overall winner, The Thirty Years War, defeating Spain.

Winner, The American Revolutionary War

Outright winner, The French Revolutionary War

Defeats everybody except Britain and Russia in the Napoleonic Wars.

Loses the Franco-Prussian War

Overall winner, 1914-18

Jim Bow
01-31-2015, 06:00 PM
How about a list of Brazil's military prowess. Of course that would include a couple of coupes d'etat including their 20 year reign. Perhaps we should include the para-military federal police whish was killing 5 people a day in 2012.

PeterSibley
01-31-2015, 08:44 PM
How about a list of Brazil's military prowess. Of course that would include a couple of coupes d'etat including their 20 year reign. Perhaps we should include the para-military federal police whish was killing 5 people a day in 2012.

True, the US prefers to kill foreigners, it's a way of teaching geography to young men.

PeterSibley
01-31-2015, 08:51 PM
AT the beginning of the war with Russia the Germans wiped out or captured 90% of Soviet armour, a majority of their aricraft and took in 3.5 million Soviet POWs. On the battlefield were about 350 Soviet supply dumps of which the Germans got more than half. The Germans rounded up everything the Soviets left on the battlefield and turned it to their own use. Some of what they got was irreplaceable. Like 40% of Soviet GDP which includes food production. And about 40% of the Soviet population. Come 1942 how did the Soviets sustain themselves? They did what they could but it was insufficient. The difference was made up by Lend-Lease from the allies. They drove allied tanks, flew allied aircraft and ate allied food. Every soldier in their front lines knew what SPAM was. Eventually Soviet soldiers where traveling to far off battle fields in deuce-and-a-half trucks made by Studebaker, three-quarter tonners made by Dodge, halftracks made by White Motors and Jeeps made by a number of American auto builders. . They flew P-39s and Hawker Hurricanes as they tried to get their own aircraft industry up and rolling The Soviets were prodigious users of small arm ammo and much of it poured out of American factories. The numbers that are availble say Lend-Lease promised 500,000 trucks and 50,000 Jeeps. The final tally was slightly in access of that. The Soviets where prodigious producers of artillary. They were not up to producing a lot of specialty steels. They got it from Uncle Sugar. The Soviets produced tons of propaganda films all of which showed hardly a sign of any of the foreign products even tho' it's estimated 30% of what they used in '43-'44 came from Britain and America. One film that got past the censors showed Russia's miracle weapon, the Katusha rocket, being fired from racks mounted on the backs of some of those 6 x 6 Studebaker trucks. Yes the Soviets did a lot of dying. Some of it was because so many battles were fought to the death. Some of it was due to the poor quality of army leadership because party hacks had taken over for the thousands who had been eliminated in the Purges. And, lastly, they seemed to be wedded to mass attacks and nose to nose shootouts.

A very American view, perhaps a little more reading ?

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production _summaries_1938.E2.80.931945

George.
02-01-2015, 07:04 AM
They drove allied tanks, flew allied aircraft and ate allied food.

They certainly did: the "Allied-built" T-34. Lucky for them they didn't have to face the panzers in the tanks the Western allies were building at the time... :D

George.
02-01-2015, 07:10 AM
How about a list of Brazil's military prowess.

Sure. Let's start with the Agincourt. :D

ShagRock
02-01-2015, 07:25 AM
True, the US prefers to kill foreigners, it's a way of teaching geography to young men.

What a demeaning comment. Get over the sad-sack attitudes about the USA. You sound like a broken record from the past.

Ted Hoppe
02-01-2015, 08:29 AM
Focusing on the ones they actually declared... mostly. ;)

Revolutionary War - won for them by France.

War of 1812 - capital city burned down, ass kicked, saved by Napoleon's defeat after his 1812, which made further fighting senseless for Britain.

Mexican War - easily defeated a much weaker and misgoverned foe. First of a string of similar "victories". The public at the time found it all very brave and heroic.

Civil War - zero sum, unless you were a slave.

Indian Wars - see Mexican War.

Spanish-American War - see Mexican War

First World War - did not significantly participate until after Germany was done. Nevertheless, they are taught that they won it. Their bankers certainly "won" it.

Second World War - won by the USSR. Most Americans think they won it.

Korean War - still on.

Vietnam War - Lost, after having wrecked the country.

Gulf War - see Mexican War, but with allies.

Iraq War - see Vietnam War.

Afghanistan War - still on. See Vietnam War.


Don't you wish you had read more about this topic instead of the simple minded spoon fed crap one would have read in a 5th grade history book? The idea of semantics - of congress declaring war or not is not the point - never has been. Wars of significant importance that had long term states of conflicts are funded by congress. If the government wants to make a statement of intent - they usually issue funding, raise taxes to pay for it and create a draft.

what about the numerous low intensity wars of the last 120 years?
What about Hawaii? what about China occupation and the Philippines? what about Dominican Republic? what about Granada? what about Panama? what about Somalia? What about the dozens of drone strikes across the planet that have killed hundreds during the last 20 years? All done with executive action with little or slight congressional notification.

Peerie Maa
02-01-2015, 08:36 AM
Don't you wish you had read more about this topic instead of the simple minded spoon fed crap one would have read in a 5th grade history book?

what about the numerous low intensity wars of the last 120 years?
What about Hawaii? what about China occupation and the Philippines? what about Dominican Republic? what about Granada? what about Panama? what about Somalia? What about the dozens of drone strikes across the planet that have killed hundreds during the last 20 years?

Ted.
Mickey take. Humour. Tongue in cheek. ;)

Ted Hoppe
02-01-2015, 08:50 AM
Ted.
Mickey take. Humour. Tongue in cheek. ;)

i do recognize the humor. We have become dark satirists as we have been at war for nearly 25 years in the Middle East.

What at bothers me is the casualness that war is presented to citizens. war is a political act that many in power turn as black and white. What we say when we declare war and kill those who oppose us politically is pretty profound. To kill someone because one doesn't get along economically is robbery and murder. To believe and assert the right to silence internal foreign political strife or for price of commodities not under direct control of wall street for geo-economical gain goes against our own founding fathers claim of rights.

As a citizen - opposition to most wars is seen as unpatriotic, un-American, subversive and criminal. This other side of our own political history is rarely expressed in our educational system or reflected in our valued historians writings.

Keith Wilson
02-01-2015, 09:50 AM
How about a list of Brazil's military prowess.Well, there was that glorious victory over a terribly strong and dangerous foe in the War of the Triple Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War); quite an impressive body count there. Francisco Solano López certainly belongs in any list of the top twenty recent bad rulers of countries. Not that any of this is even slightly relevant to the OP.

On a brighter note, the Brazilians and Uruguayans removed Rosas from power in Argentina in the La Plata war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platine_War) in 1852, a Very Good Thing by almost any measure. He's another one for the list, a particularly nasty character.

Just for your amusement, here's a photo from the time of Emperor Pedro II wearing a cowboy suit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/PedroII1865.JPG

Peerie Maa
02-01-2015, 09:54 AM
As a citizen - opposition to most wars is seen as unpatriotic, un-American, subversive and criminal.

That is more or less an American thing. I think that we gave up on Jingoism after the First War.

Sky Blue
02-01-2015, 12:47 PM
That is more or less an American thing. I think that we gave up on Jingoism after the First War.

Well, given the excesses associated with the entitlements of Empire, I suppose congratulations are in order.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
02-01-2015, 12:50 PM
I am not so sure that we did: I remember, as if it were yesterday, the 2nd April, 1982.

PeterSibley
02-01-2015, 04:44 PM
What a demeaning comment. Get over the sad-sack attitudes about the USA. You sound like a broken record from the past.

History and geography lesson.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/827217d0811c61d8083cd6cf3cd8ba03.png

S.V. Airlie
02-01-2015, 05:20 PM
I don't think I can include the Russian Civil War. Might have had troops there but, shady as to our total purpose. Actually, not much action. How many Am. were killed?

Peerie Maa
02-01-2015, 05:23 PM
I am not so sure that we did: I remember, as if it were yesterday, the 2nd April, 1982.

I think that on that occasion the only one wanting to hand out white feathers was Maggie.

PeterSibley
02-01-2015, 06:19 PM
What a demeaning comment. Get over the sad-sack attitudes about the USA. You sound like a broken record from the past.


I don't think I can include the Russian Civil War. Might have had troops there but, shady as to our total purpose. Actually, not much action. How many Am. were killed?



[*=left]50,000 Czechoslovaks[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War#endno te_Willett2) (along the Trans-Siberian railway)
[*=left]28,000 Japanese (later increased to 70,000[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War#endno te_nara), all in the Vladivostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok) region)
[*=left]24,000 Greeks (in Crimea and the Ukraine)
[*=left]13,000 Americans (in Arkhangelsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk) and Vladivostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok) regions)
[*=left]12,000 Poles (mostly in Crimea and the Ukraine)
[*=left]4,000 Canadians (in Arkhangelsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk) and Vladivostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok) regions)
[*=left]4,000 Serbs (in Arkhangelsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk) and Vladivostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok) regions)
[*=left]4,000 Romanians (in Arkhangelsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk) region)
[*=left]2,000 Italians (in Arkhangelsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk) and Vladivostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok) regions)
[*=left]1,600 British (in Arkhangelsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk) and Vladivostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok) regions)
[*=left]760 French (mostly in Arkhangelsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk) and Vladivostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok) regions


http://www.criticalenquiry.org/history/polarbear.shtml

Keith Wilson
02-01-2015, 06:39 PM
That's the total number of troops of various nationalities involved, not killed. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition).


During their time in North Russia, the American forces suffered more than 210 casualties, including at least 110 deaths from battle, about 30 missing in action, and 70 deaths from disease, 90% of which were caused by the Spanish Flu

purri
02-01-2015, 06:44 PM
Oz had a contingent.

S.V. Airlie
02-01-2015, 07:06 PM
I thought this conflict, our, was against ,Japan. Took place in Russia but, had nothing to do with the civil war.

PeterSibley
02-01-2015, 07:18 PM
I thought this conflict, our, was against ,Japan. Took place in Russia but, had nothing to do with the civil war.

That was immediately after WW1 , Japan was an ally in the first war but did the US have some conflict with them at so shortly thereafter ?

My understanding is that a large number of Western and central European nations sent troops to fight on the "white'' side .

PeterSibley
02-01-2015, 07:24 PM
http://www.criticalenquiry.org/images/800px-American_troops_in_Vladivostok_1918_HD-SN-99-02013.JPEG

American Troops Arriving at Vladivostok

S.V. Airlie
02-01-2015, 07:40 PM
wIKI

The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_expedition) launched during the Russian Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War) in 1918. The initial goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legions), secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and re-establish the Eastern Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_I)). After winning World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), the Allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I) militarily backed the anti-Bolshevik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) White forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Movement) in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia). Allied efforts were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War-weariness) and a lack of public support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front). These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion compelled the Allies to withdraw from North Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_Campaign) and Siberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Intervention_in_Siberia) in 1920, though Japanese forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan) occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin) until 1925.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War#cite_ note-beyer-1)
The Allied intervention and its foreign troops were used effectively by the Bolsheviks to demonstrate that their enemies were backed by Western capital. Despite the Allies being able to withdraw in good order after significant defenses against the Red Army, the Bolsheviks were eventually victorious, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union).
Contents [hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War#)]

Captain Intrepid
02-01-2015, 07:42 PM
Has anyone figured out the REAL heros of especially WW2 were the merchant sailors who, by their extreme efforts, there would NOT have been possible to mount ANY advance of the Allies? While it is true that we needed "boots on the ground", the "boots", their equipment, supplies, and other support HAD to arrive in Europe by sea. The battles by ALL the Allies depended on timely arrival of supplies arriving from North America, just one example, avgas, came from mostly American refineries because Great Briton did not have the capacity to refine the amount of fuel needed for procicuting the air war. I don't think I would particularly like sitting on 10, 000 tons of avgas for up to 10 days in submarine infested waters. The general attitude seems to be that, because they did not wear a "uniform", or were not directly envolved in the major battles in Europe, that their contribution was "minimul" and not worth any measure of recognition. Of course the more valuable cargoes were placed inside the convy, while mostly bulk carriers with loads of iron ore and like were usually the first struck, often with all hands. Remember too, than unlike military sailors, when your ship was lost your pay stopped, and that 6or7 day lifeboat ride was just the start of a struggle to get back to the maning pool and continue employment, sometimes for months without work.

Yes the Allied militaries did clear the globe of fashism, but don't ever forget the sacrifices made by Civy sailors.

Dumah

Damn straight. The most dangerous branch of service during the war. I always take special care during battle of the Atlantic ceremonies to remember the merchant marine.

Edit: Gotta love this song.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO_drlO5vSU&spfreload=10

PeterSibley
02-01-2015, 07:44 PM
+100 !

Dannybb55
02-01-2015, 07:53 PM
With the UK an island and all of her allies overseas, an air war and naval war were the only way to close with the enemy. Calling available options a war crime is childish.

Dannybb55
02-01-2015, 08:04 PM
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/rudel.html I have always liked the high achievers like Rudel.

George.
02-02-2015, 09:21 AM
With the UK an island and all of her allies overseas, an air war and naval war were the only way to close with the enemy. Calling available options a war crime is childish.

Childish is firebombing children just because you really, really hate the enemy, but can't think of anything militarily useful to do. Monstruously childish.

Keith Wilson
02-02-2015, 11:04 AM
Yokohama was in considerably worse shape than Hiroshima after the war, and a lot more civilians died there.

Let's not do anything like that again, OK?

johnw
02-02-2015, 02:17 PM
A very American view, perhaps a little more reading ?

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production _summaries_1938.E2.80.931945

Thanks, that's very impressive.




The following table, not an inclusive one by any means, shows the extent of lend-lease aid the Western Allies provided to the Soviet Union from 01 October 1941 to 31 March 1946 (not a typo, aid went on well after WWII ended). CW - Commonwealth contribution; US - American contribution:

Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206
Automotive:
--- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)
--- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)
--- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)
Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)
Boots - 15 million pairs (US)
Communications equipment:
--- Field phones - 380.135 (US)
--- Radios - 40.000 (US)
--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)
Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)
Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)
Leather - 49.000 tons (US)
Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)
Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)
Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)
Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755
Tractors - 8.701 (US)
Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

In the early 1930’s the U.S. helped lay the foundations for a formidable Soviet truck production capability. During the war, Soviet production efforts were augmented through lend-lease aid. In terms of truck usage, U.S. lend-lease trucks generally went directly to front line combat units. Soviet built trucks were generally used in rear areas. Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Studebaker, etc., all could be found on the eastern front. The Soviet Union ended the Second World War by having over 650.000 trucks available for use. Of those, 58% were Soviet in origin, 33% British or U.S. and the remaining percentage captured from the Germans.

U.S. lend-lease food supplies were sufficient to supply 6 million Soviet soldiers with one pound of (quality) consumables for each day of the war. Also, U.S. food supplies, such as canned Spam, had a seemingly indefinite shelf-life and could be stored anywhere without spoilage when compared to one of the standard Soviet military staple diets, dried fish (consuming dried fish causes one to drink more - this in turn increases the number of "breaks" one has to take - and that is not a desirable condition if one is close proximity to enemy lines).

johnw
02-02-2015, 02:33 PM
They certainly did: the "Allied-built" T-34. Lucky for them they didn't have to face the panzers in the tanks the Western allies were building at the time... :D

Oh, but they did.


http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208

Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza has carefully crafted his World War II experiences with American-provided Sherman tanks into a highly readable memoir. Between the fall of 1943 and August 1945, Loza fought in the Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. He commanded a tank battalion during much of this period and had three Shermans shot out from under him. Commanding The Red Army's Sherman Tanks is the first available detailed examination of the Red Army's exploitation of American war material during World War II and provides firsthand testimony on tactical command decisions, group objectives and how they were accomplished. It took the fall of the Soviet Empire before first-hand information like this could become part of military studies materials here in the west.

Plus, when the Sherman tanks met the T-34 in Korea, the Shermans usually won. The gyro stabilized gun meant they could actually hit the enemy when firing on the move. The T-34 and Panther had to stop and fire.

PeterSibley
02-02-2015, 04:22 PM
Thanks, that's very impressive.

No one denies the US was the world's factory and centre of mass production at the time.

Now look up the Soviet Yak aircraft. Also very impressive.

The Bigfella
02-03-2015, 01:20 PM
Thanks, that's very impressive.

What it fails to tell... and this means it is extremely misleading as a result.... is that the vast majority of that materiel arrived during the closing stages of the war. Many, if not most, of those vaunted trucks and the like actually went straight into storage... and was used in later decades.

I did an analysis of materiel deliveries year by year some time back.... but the thread got poofed because it didn't match the Hollywood ideal

johnw
02-03-2015, 04:14 PM
No one denies the US was the world's factory and centre of mass production at the time.

Now look up the Soviet Yak aircraft. Also very impressive.

The British contribution arrived sooner.

johnw
02-03-2015, 04:15 PM
What it fails to tell... and this means it is extremely misleading as a result.... is that the vast majority of that materiel arrived during the closing stages of the war. Many, if not most, of those vaunted trucks and the like actually went straight into storage... and was used in later decades.

I did an analysis of materiel deliveries year by year some time back.... but the thread got poofed because it didn't match the Hollywood ideal

I'm sure it had nothing to do with your usual abrasive style of argument.

PeterSibley
02-03-2015, 04:48 PM
The British contribution arrived sooner.

True, look up Yak aircraft and then tank production.

The Bigfella
02-04-2015, 11:33 AM
I'm sure it had nothing to do with your usual abrasive style of argument.

You trying to pick a fight? Try someone else.

The fact remains, most of the Lend Lease materiel arrived after the Germans had been turned.

The Bigfella
02-04-2015, 11:58 AM
So... these Studebaker trucks won the war eh? 3,800 in '42, 34,800 in '43, 56,400 in '44, 19,200 in '45.

You do recall that the Russians turned the Germans back from Moscow, and had them on the run a couple of days before the US even entered the war, don't you?

Your 114,500 Studebakers did sterling service..... carting around those 35,000,000 Soviet soldiers. Very sterling. On the face of it, one Studebaker for every 300+ soldiers.... but look at when they arrived, eh?

johnw
02-04-2015, 02:28 PM
True, look up Yak aircraft and then tank production.

I have done.

Have you seen this?


http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented "only 4 percent" of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified "secret" in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer. In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead.

Even aid that might seem like a drop in the bucket in the larger context of Soviet production for the war played a crucial role in filling gaps at important moments during this period. At a time when Soviet industry was in disarray—many of their industrial plants were destroyed or captured by the advancing Nazi troops or in the process of evacuation east—battlefield losses of specific equipment approached or even exceeded the rate at which Soviet domestic production could replace them during this crucial period. Under these circumstances even small quantities of aid took on far greater significance.

According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).


Given the disruption to Soviet production and Red Army losses, the Soviet Union was understandably eager to put British armor into action as soon as possible. According to Biriukov's service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.

The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.

The British Military Mission to Moscow noted that by December 9, about ninety British tanks had already been in action with Soviet forces. The first of these units to have seen action seems to have been the 138th Independent Tank Battalion (with twenty-one British tanks), which was involved in stemming the advance of German units in the region of the Volga Reservoir to the north of Moscow in late November. In fact the British intercepted German communications indicating that German forces had first come in contact with British tanks on the Eastern front on November 26, 1941.

The exploits of the British-equipped 136th Independent Tank Battalion are perhaps the most widely noted in the archives. It was part of a scratch operational group of the Western Front consisting of the 18th Rifle Brigade, two ski battalions, the 5th and 20th Tank Brigades, and the 140th Independent Tank Battalion. The 136th Independent Tank Battalion was combined with the latter to produce a tank group of only twenty-one tanks, which was to operate with the two ski battalions against German forces advancing to the west of Moscow in early December. Other largely British-equipped tank units in action with the Western Front from early December were the 131st Independent Tank Brigade, which fought to the east of Tula, south of Moscow, and 146th Tank Brigade, in the region of Kriukovo to the immediate west of the Soviet capital.

johnw
02-04-2015, 02:32 PM
From the same source:


While the Matilda Mk II and Valentine tanks supplied by the British were certainly inferior to the Soviets' homegrown T-34 and KV-1, it is important to note that Soviet production of the T-34 (and to a lesser extent the KV series), was only just getting seriously underway in 1942, and Soviet production was well below plan targets. And though rapid increases in tank firepower would soon render the 40mm two-pounder main gun of the Matilda and Valentine suitable for use on light tanks only, the armor protection of these British models put them firmly in the heavy and medium categories, respectively. Both were superior to all but the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 in armor, and indeed even their much maligned winter cross-country performance was comparable to most Soviet tanks excluding the KV-1 and T-34.

A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.

Lend-Lease aircraft deliveries were also of significance during the Battle of Moscow. While Soviet pilots praised the maneuverability of the homegrown I-153 Chaika and I-16 Ishak fighters—still in use in significant numbers in late 1941—both types were certainly obsolete and inferior in almost all regards to the British-supplied Hurricane. The Hurricane was rugged and tried and tested, and as useful at that point as many potentially superior Soviet designs such as the LaGG-3 and MiG-3. There were apparently only 263 LaGG-3s in the Soviet inventory by the time of the Moscow counteroffensive, and it was an aircraft with numerous defects. At the end of 1941 there were greater numbers of the MiG-3, but the plane was considered difficult to fly. The Yak-1, arguably the best of the batch, and superior in most regards to the Hurricane, suffered from airframe and engine defects in early war production aircraft.

A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941. Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

The Soviet Northern Fleet was also a major and early recipient of British Hurricanes, receiving those flown by No. 151 Wing of the RAF, which operated briefly from Soviet airfields near Murmansk. As early as October 12, 1941, the Soviet 126th Fighter Air Regiment was operating with Tomahawks bought from the United States by Britain. Tomahawks also served in defense of the Doroga Zhizni or "Road of Life" across the ice of Lake Ladoga, which provided the only supply line to the besieged city of Leningrad during the winter of 1941–42. By spring and summer of 1942 the Hurricane had clearly become the principal fighter aircraft of the Northern Fleet's air regiments; in all, 83 out of its 109 fighters were of foreign origin.

British and Commonwealth deliveries to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 would not only assist in the Soviet defense of Moscow and subsequent counteroffensive, but also in increasing Soviet production for the next period of the war. Substantial quantities of machine tools and raw materials, such as aluminum and rubber, were supplied to help Soviet industry back on its feet: 312 metal-cutting machine tools were delivered by convoy PQ-12 alone, arriving in March 1942, along with a range of other items for Soviet factories such as machine presses and compressors.

Once again, raw figures do not tell the whole story. Although British shipments amounted to only a few percent of Soviet domestic production of machine tools, the Soviet Union could request specific items which it may not have been able to produce for itself. Additionally, many of the British tools arrived in early 1942, when Soviet tool production was still very low, resulting in a disproportionate impact. The handing over of forty imported machine tools to Aviation Factory No. 150 in July 1942, for example, was the critical factor in enabling the factory to reach projected capacity within two months.

PeterSibley
02-04-2015, 04:37 PM
Very interesting and there was a brief period very early on when imports were irreplaceable but as things progressed they became less so. It's also interesting how quickly the Soviets produced comparable or better equipment than they were importing.

T34s and Yaks specifically.

johnw
02-04-2015, 05:06 PM
Very interesting and there was a brief period very early on when imports were irreplaceable but as things progressed they became less so. It's also interesting how quickly the Soviets produced comparable or better equipment than they were importing.

T34s and Yaks specifically.

Yes, within a year of the invasion they had production back up to its previous levels, and soon exceeded them. This was fortunate, because they were losing seven tanks to every German tank destroyed.


The combat statistics for 1941 show that the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost.[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-Fowler-2002-170-78)[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-Zaloga-1998-181-79) The Soviets lost a total of 20,500 tanks in 1941 (approximately 2,300 of them T-34s, as well as over 900 heavy tanks, mostly KVs).[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-Krivosheev-1997-252-80) The annihilation of the Soviet tank force was accomplished not only by the glaring disparity in the tactical and strategic skills of the opponents, but also by the mechanical malignancies which infected Soviet tanks of time. [79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-Zaloga_.26_Grandsen_1984:127-81) Beside the poor state of older tanks, the new T-34s and KVs suffered from teething problems particularly with regard to clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50 per cent of the tank losses in the summer fighting, and recovery or repair equipment was not to be found. [79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-Zaloga_.26_Grandsen_1984:127-81) The shortage of repair equipment and recovery vehicles, lead the early T-34s to enter combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine deck.[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-82)



However, we shouldn't hijack George's thread. Did you know Smedley Butler's War is a Racket is available free on line?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Butler was involved in some of the "small wars" that supported corporate needs.