Sure, after 2-3 years of fighting the Brits had a lot of hardened veterans and desert experience. Read about the bungling of the Brits when they first met the Afrika Corps.
As we have seen, without naval superiority and without lots of great dedicated landing craft, large scale amphibious assaults are just not possible. The Germans had neither.
Note that all the army was “free” to invade England during The Battle of Britain.
And, as long as Churchill was alive the Brits were never going to surrender. The USA would make sure England was fed and had control of the air and seas.
I disagree. The US Navy was putting out deadly twin-turret Monitors while the Brits were still building broadside ironclads with sails. They had 7-9" guns and 5" armor, while the better monitors had 15" guns and 15" armor. The 7-9" guns would have bounced off the monitors armor with no effect while the 15" Dahlgrens would have gone thru that pitiful 5" of armor like tissue paper.
True, those ironclads could have sailed across the Atlantic without foundering, while even the sea-going monitors had issues with high seas. But once here the mighty British navy would have been sunk without any serious losses on the American side.
It wasnt until 1871 when the British navy caught up.
I think it’s safe to say there was no greater group of soldiers in the history of the world than the German 6th Army. Ol’ Adolf wasted a bounty.
The ability of one group of soldiers to counter another is very likely dependent on multiple factors, including availability and quality of armaments, population, etc.
Yes, yes, but how would the American servicemen stack up against Nazi zombies?
Also, while I know it’s from over a decade ago and the poster is probably long gone, but I can’t believe jaybee didn’t get so much as a :dubious: for the “Jap bastards” remark.
2001 was a different time. Posters understood what context was.
Trying to somehow say that Russian soldiers were better based on the number kia as shown above is ludicrous. The Russian soldier didn’t stand a chance. They were thrown into battle and would win, not by tactics, but by just throwing men at the Germans until they ran out of bullets (snark). If they turned back, they were massacred by their own army for being cowards. We lost less men because we weren’t stupid.
[QUOTE=seodoa;17640901
Also, while I know it’s from over a decade ago and the poster is probably long gone, but I can’t believe jaybee didn’t get so much as a :dubious: for the “Jap bastards” remark.[/QUOTE]
My 100-year-old Great Uncle who was depth-charged in the South China Sea and spent the entire war in a prisoner-of-war camp in Japan still calls our current friends “Japs”, even though he understands the war ended quite a while ago. I still visit him once in a while - should I scold him for you?
And my grandmother, who was born in 1900, used the term coloreds all her life. But you don’t inherit a pass on using outdated racial terms that are now offensive.
I’m not seeing the 15" figures you’re quoting here in a quick look around, and of course the heaviest monitors were strictly riverine craft. I think you’re slightly handwaving the seaworthiness question when you say “had issues with high seas”, and a quote I found might stress better the actual facts: “The low freeboard meant that these ships were unsuitable for ocean-going duties and were always at risk of swamping, flooding and possible loss”.
Monitors were for coastal defence and harbour protection; stay a few miles offshore and you need never even see one, and they had too low a speed and too short a range to get near anything ocean-going. If American shipping needed to travel only short distances in coastal waters in fine weather then monitors could protect them effectively; the flatirons were useless for anything else, emphatically including high seas superiority.
But you just did, and in exactly the same manner as jaybee - while paraphrasing another person.
You’re being overly generous if anything. The USS Monitor was lost when she foundered and sank in rough weather all of 16 miles southeast off Cape Hatteras. In the words of Dana Green, executive officer, upon receiving her final sailing orders “I do not consider this steamer a sea going vessel.”
The US had developed seagoing Monitors:
So we’re gonna change the Headlines to “Persons of Japanese birth Bomb Pearl Harbor”?:rolleyes:
In historical context, it’s fine. And you’re debating what someone posted 13 years ago.
That’s the very first monitor, later Monitors could cross the Atlantic, even tho they were never known as good sailors.
But in any case, if the Royal Navy came here, their pitiful ironclads would be sunk without a loss on the US Navy’s side.
No, I’m debating what somebody posted twenty-five minutes before I did.
Do you even read your own cites?
I’ll just note that the USS Monitor was herself being towed when lost 16 miles off the coast.
The american indian warrior was also clearly better than the average Army cavalry trooper. They could ride better, shoot better, made better use of stealth, and were better at hand to hand combat. The problem is they were heavily outnumbered heavily and had no real supply lines capable of feeding and arming them.
At the time and place, I thought it best to be tactful given someone’s fantasising about American superweapons of the 1860s.