Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

[spaldy]

An interesting fact I recall seeing many moons ago. The ME 262 ( the fastest plane in the war by 100mph was fully developed and capable of mass production by 1942. Hitler was obsessed with dive bombers and insisted it be modified to one. It took several more years before he gave up on that. That was also the same reasoning he would not develop a 4 engine bomber. They had one years ahead of us but would not approve it. In the end he ended up using converted passenger planes for recon and patrols.

A plane as advanced as the 262 in 1942 would have changed the war overnight

Madness is capable of some unbelievable things.

[spaldy]

Regarding Trump

I think you will find he is nothing like the media and DC portray him. We do have a 4 year history already and he showed no signs of what they said. It was all fear mongering and lawfare. He?s an unpleasant personality in public life but then most NY real estate barons are.

I worry for his safety. The current DC crowd is not much different than Putin when it comes to holding their power

One last thought. If you look at the presidential election since 1960 the democrat candidate has been between 62-69 million. Even Obama ( a great campaigner) never got more the 70. Biden, an invisible Candidate in his basement got 81 million. Harris got 69
Think about it. Trump got 74 million in 2020

In a 50/50 nation you don?t get 11 million votes more than any other party candidate ever has. He was a poor campaigner

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

There was no debate about the superiority of the german ground force superiority, it was clear and the most significant factor in the success of the blitzkreig operations.

We were discussing air force and naval comparisons.

First, "their boats were devastating".....Err which ones? Those I referred to in my earlier post that collectively sank around 12 allied ships (albeit that one was HMS Hood)? Hardly devastating. U-boats on the other hand were almost successful in cutting the transAtlantic bridge, something I referred to earlier.

Second, the reference to "air superiority" and "until we developed the Spitfire".............

Spitfire first flight

The Supermarine Spitfire took to the skies for the first time on March 5, 1936, some 3 and half years before the outbreak of WWII. (The aircraft first took to the skies at Eastleigh Aerodrome)

First Spitfire operational service

The first Spitfire I to enter operational service with the RAF arrived at 19 Squadron, Duxford, on 4 August 1938, (a year before the outbreak of WWII) and over the next few weeks aircraft were delivered at the rate of one a week to 19 and 66 Squadrons (also based at Duxford). The next to be equipped with Spitfires was 41 Squadron at Catterick, followed by a succession of squadrons stationed at Hornchurch in Es***.

Operational numbers

By the outbreak of the Second World War, there were 306 Spitfires in service with the RAF, 71 in reserve. In addition, when war was declared, on the 3 September 1939, about five-hundred Hurricanes were in service and several squadrons were sent to France. During the 1940 German Blitzkrieg through the Low Countries and France they fought a punishing rearguard action in which over 25% of all Fighter Command?s aircraft were destroyed, including 67 Spitfires lost over France in the attempt to prevent the Luftwaffe from bombing the evacuation beaches at Dunkirk.

So, had the RAF simply abandoned their forces on the ground in and around Dunkirk, their losses in the air are likely to have been fewer. Sacrifices were necessary. Not the same as the Luftwaffe having air superiority, something they NEVER achieved, before, during or after the Battle of Britain.

Luftwaffe fighter aircraft strength at the outbreak of WWII was 788 fighters (primarily Bf109), 431 heavy fighters (Me110).

First operation of WWII

The first Spitfire operation over Western Europe took place on 13 May 1940, during the Battle of the Netherlands. German airborne forces had been pinned down in the Battle of the Hague by the Dutch Army. RAF Fighter Command sent 66 Squadron Spitfires to escort Defiants from 264 Squadron to support the Dutch. They encountered Junkers Ju 87s from IV(St)./Lehrgeschwader 1 (LG 1), and shot down four of them. They were soon intercepted by Bf 109s from 5 Staffel Jagdgeschwader 26 (JG 26) that shot down five Defiants and one Spitfire for the loss of one Bf 109.[13]

On 23 May 1940, Spitfires of 54 Squadron were the first to shoot down Bf 109s, over Calais Marck airfield, on the coast of northern France; the first of these is usually credited to either Flying Officer Alan Deere who shot down two (according to other sources, one destroyed plus one probable), or Flg. Off. "Johnny" Allen who shot down one.[14][15]

At the time, the Luftwaffe's main single-engine, single-seat fighter was the Messerschmitt Bf 109. Some advantages I mentioned in my previous post helped the Spitfires win dogfights, most notably manoeuvrability: the Spitfire had a higher rate of turn and a smaller turning circle than the Messerschmitt. There are several accounts of Bf 109 pilots being able to outturn Spitfires, mainly because inexperienced pilots did not turn as tightly as was possible through fear of getting into a high-speed stall. Overall, the aircraft were closely matched in performance and the outcome of combat was largely decided by tactics, position and the skill of the opposing pilots (the latter being greatly influenced by the experience gained by the German pilots in the Spanish Civil war)

Tactics

One major advantage enjoyed by the German Jagdgeschwadern was the use of better tactics. In the late 1930s Fighter Command were not expecting to be facing single-engine fighters over Britain, only bombers. With this in mind a series of "Fighting Area Tactics" were formulated, involving manoeuvres designed to concentrate a squadron's firepower to bring down bombers: with no apparent prospect of escorting fighters to worry about

Luftwaffe fighter pilots, flying combat formations perfected in the Spanish Civil War, and utilizing proved principles of the First World War, entered the Second using the basic unit of a pair (Rotte) of widely spaced fighters. They were separated by about two hundred yards.[39] The leader was followed to starboard and to the rear by his wingman, who was trained to stay with his leader at all times. While the leader was free to search for enemy aircraft, and could cover his wingman's blind spots, his wingman was able to concentrate on searching the airspace in the leader's blind spots, behind and below. The RAF were relatively slow to adapt and switch to this more effective style of air-to-air combat.

As pointed out above, the front-line aircraft were closely matched. Tactics, perfected by the Luftwaffe during their operations in the Spanish Civil war, not technological superiority, giving the Luftwaffe a brief period of success (which came to a shuddering halt in September 1940)

The german war machine certainly had a head start, and support from the Nazi heirarchy, something those warning against Nazi aggression in the UK and elsewhere found much harder to obtain.

In addition to agreeing with you on the superiority of the german ground forces, I'd also agree with the comments regarding USA entry into the war, and the baffling decision on Hitlers part to decide to invade Russia.

U boats. But for lucitania who knows.

The industrial production of ammonia was a benefit from that war. Quite a few technologies came out of or were advanced in WW2 not least nuclear.

[WTF11]

WS,

you are correct. However, I should have been clearer. The reality was that Nazi Germany was the best prepared, best generals and troops and the most motivated populace in the world at the start of WWII. Only the briliance of Churchhill, will of the UK people and the fact the Yanks broke the blockade (preventing the collapse of the UK) prevented all of Europe from falling. Russia, or for that matter, china have none of those factors.

Agreed, but sadly two full generations who have grown (largely), without the threats that Churchill and others warned of has resulted in the soft, "woke" generation who feel entitled without bearing and sense of responsibility. It may well be that the NATO armed forces are technically and tactically superior, but not numerically and as Ukraine has shown Putin is happy to use ground troops of ANY "quality" as cannon fodder. NATO commanders couldn't and wouldn't.

[WTF11]

Regarding Trump

I think you will find he is nothing like the media and DC portray him. We do have a 4 year history already and he showed no signs of what they said. It was all fear mongering and lawfare. He?s an unpleasant personality in public life but then most NY real estate barons are.

I worry for his safety. The current DC crowd is not much different than Putin when it comes to holding their power

One last thought. If you look at the presidential election since 1960 the democrat candidate has been between 62-69 million. Even Obama ( a great campaigner) never got more the 70. Biden, an invisible Candidate in his basement got 81 million. Harris got 69
Think about it. Trump got 74 million in 2020

In a 50/50 nation you don?t get 11 million votes more than any other party candidate ever has. He was a poor campaigner

And another nail in the coffin of anything remwitely akin to recognition of what humankind is doing to the one place we know can (or could!) survive.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/16/p...ump/index.html

What happens when the shale oil, or coal, or any of the other fossil fuels this man seeks to exploit are exhausted? Of course by then all those who have made the key decisions will be dead.

[WTF11]

Humankind has r4ped and pillaged the planet since we climbed diwn from the trees, walked upright and developed a brain the was superior to all other animals that shared earth with us. We have done so for no other reason than that it was what we, humans, wanted and which we, having developed what we saw as "civilisation", saw as ours by right, bestowed upon us by the creator and to be exploited as we saw fit.

What monumental hubris. What breathtaking arrogance. To put humans, capable of "sins" that those we regard as "inferior" are incapable of, above and beyond all the other forms of life to be found on this one, small, fragile blue world. How dare we?

We are NOT the rulers of this or any other world, only it's custodians. When we are gone, what will we leave behind? A hollowed out husk, bereft of all that once grew and thrived, all the resources that we greedily consumed to satisfy our miniscule sense of time and space and the need to have everything, now?

Or,

Fill in the blanks space, if you can.

[Monaco_Totty]

Agreed, but sadly two full generations who have grown (largely), without the threats that Churchill and others warned of has resulted in the soft, "woke" generation who feel entitled without bearing and sense of responsibility.

My degree programme combined the study of Political history, International relations & Sociology with my main modules focusing on Eastern Europe (part of my genealogical line was of the area). A great course but heavy workload at the time but skimming through some books I own I noticed notes of reference I'd written inside one.

On 18 December 1940 Hitler issued F?hrer Directive 21 an order for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler?s June 1941 advance into the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) was the decisive moment of the war - because there after at unspeakable human cost the Red Army did the heavy lifting first to contain the Germans & finally to defeat them.

It may be argued that American supplies of everything from metals, spam, boots, trucks & telephone cable made an important contribution to Soviet victory but in the crucial first 18 months of the Eastern war, western materials reached the USSR in modest quantities, making only a marginal contribution to the Soviet war effort until 1943, by which time the battle of Stalingrad had been fought & won.

Counterfactuals are foolish because once one variable changes then infinite possibilities are opened up. If Hitler instead of launching "Barbarossa" had reinforced Rommel & completed the conquest of the Med & Middle East then Churchill?s government would not have survived, with any future administration thereafter seeking only a compromise peace with Germany.

That was the "common theory" projected onto my course when on it of which I noted below.

After the experience of the First World War, I don?t think the British people (any more than the French) had the stomach for the ghastly struggle of attrition that proved necessary on the Eastern front before the Germans were driven back.
It is unlikely there was ever any easy route to winning WW2 in whatever extensive reading one might undertake - was also the logic I was tutored to concur, rightly or wrongly.

So I had an opinion, more so discovering what actually happened to my ancestors in WW2 which is for me alone to try & comprehend the sheer brutality such a war offered.

But I will offer that I suppose a scenario can be "pondered" wherein the western Allies dallied until an atomic bomb was built & then to use it against Germany but that'll presuppose US entry into the war.

So i'll rest my case that sadly, an enormous amount of killing & dying had to happen before the Nazis were crushed (though it did not seem so to the western Allies & their peoples at the time) as posterity can see that the Soviets did most of it.

[WTF11]

My degree programme combined the study of Political history, International relations & Sociology with my main modules focusing on Eastern Europe (part of my genealogical line was of the area). A great course but heavy workload at the time but skimming through some books I own I noticed notes of reference I'd written inside one.

On 18 December 1940 Hitler issued F?hrer Directive 21 an order for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler?s June 1941 advance into the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) was the decisive moment of the war - because there after at unspeakable human cost the Red Army did the heavy lifting first to contain the Germans & finally to defeat them.

It may be argued that American supplies of everything from metals, spam, boots, trucks & telephone cable made an important contribution to Soviet victory but in the crucial first 18 months of the Eastern war, western materials reached the USSR in modest quantities, making only a marginal contribution to the Soviet war effort until 1943, by which time the battle of Stalingrad had been fought & won.

Counterfactuals are foolish because once one variable changes then infinite possibilities are opened up. If Hitler instead of launching "Barbarossa" had reinforced Rommel & completed the conquest of the Med & Middle East then Churchill?s government would not have survived, with any future administration thereafter seeking only a compromise peace with Germany.

That was the "common theory" projected onto my course when on it of which I noted below.

After the experience of the First World War, I don?t think the British people (any more than the French) had the stomach for the ghastly struggle of attrition that proved necessary on the Eastern front before the Germans were driven back.
It is unlikely there was ever any easy route to winning WW2 in whatever extensive reading one might undertake - was also the logic I was tutored to concur, rightly or wrongly.

So I had an opinion, more so discovering what actually happened to my ancestors in WW2 which is for me alone to try & comprehend the sheer brutality such a war offered.

But I will offer that I suppose a scenario can be "pondered" wherein the western Allies dallied until an atomic bomb was built & then to use it against Germany but that'll presuppose US entry into the war.

So i'll rest my case that sadly, an enormous amount of killing & dying had to happen before the Nazis were crushed (though it did not seem so to the western Allies & their peoples at the time) as posterity can see that the Soviets did most of it.

In terms of the human cost (both armed services and civilian lives lost), no argument. I disagree wholeheartedly with the assertion that supplies from the Allies (NOT exclusively from America, but supplied exclusively by British Royal Navy and merchant marine ships at enormous cost to both) made only “a marginal contribution to the Soviet war effort until 1943, by which time the battle of Stalingrad had been fought & won”. Tell that to the men who fought their way to Murmansk and beyond in the Arctic convoys with no support from any other allied nation, because no others had the wherewithal that the Royal Navy and merchant marine possessed.

“After the experience of the First World War, I don’t think the British people (any more than the French) had the stomach for the ghastly struggle of attrition that proved necessary on the Eastern front before the Germans were driven back”

No “theory” to challenge. Historical fact. Had there been a less erudite and skilled orator than Churchill at the time, persuading both parliamentarians and the British public that resistance was not only possible, it was essential if democracy in any form, anywhere, was to survive, it’s highly likely that the British House of Commons would have voted in favour of Lord Halifax as their choice of Prime Minister after Chamberlains resignation. Appeasement would have been official British policy and we would all (and I mean ALL, this side and the other of the Atlantic) now be speaking some version of german.

Winning wars has never been “easy”. If such a route existed it’s highly likely (but demonstrably not inevitable) the weaker, more exposed and vulnerable side would sue for peace (as Hitler expected us to do in 1939). Perhaps I should become a tutor, if it’s that easy to espouse a theory?

My father in law was what then was called a “conscientious objector” a “conchy”, unwilling to raise arms against an enemy, but not willing to forego service alongside his more combative fellow recruits. I don’t share his views, but before he passed we had numerous conversations about his time in the Royal Army Medical Corps, never carrying a weapon, only his medical kit, landing in the first wave on Gold beach and working as a medic throughout the remainder of the war with his final attachment with an armoured brigade liberating concentration camps
I have never served, although I dearly wanted to, as pilot in the RAF of the mid 70’s.Eyesight failed me, even though at 68 the only time I have to wear glasses is a s now, when reading or typing), but I know from Freds accounts that was is brutal, unforgiving, merciless, without pity of favour, and now as then, is only won by bravery, sacrifice and a healthy dose of sheer bl00dymindeness,

Fortunately (in my view given the potential effect on mainland Europe which is much closer to where I live), the decision to prioritise the European campaign was largely influenced by the Allies knowledge of Germans nuclear development programme. Efforts to disrupt development resulted in sabotage attacks such as that portrayed in the film, The Heroes of Telemark, and hazardous low level bombing raids by the Mosquitos of RAF 633 squadron. One can only imagine, and shudder, at what Hitler would have done with such a weapon atop a ballistic missile developed by the man behind the V2, Werner von Braun, who subsequently became head of the USA missile development programme

And your “the Soviets did most of it” comment?

Stuff and nonsense. They suffered the greatest number of casualties for sure, largely because they were totally unprepared for what the Germans did, had little or no tactical intelligence, and whose military suffered enormous “friendly fire” damage from the numerous pogroms that Stalin implemented due to his conspiracy theories and totally misguided belief that murdering all his senior officers would in some way improve military performance. Stoic resistance, as in the city of Stalingrad, was what defeated the Germans at enormous cost to the Russian people and military, but to assert that the Soviets “did the most” of anything apart from dying, is a gross insult to ALL the other servicemen and women of the vast cohort of allied nations who contributed not only to Germans defeat but that of Japan too

[spaldy]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

[WTF11]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

Agreed on all counts, particularly the last paragraph.