Battle of britain

Today or yesterday (depending on where you live) was the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Phillipine Sea.

When the US landed in Saipan, the Japanese responded with a massive carrier attack (supported by aircraft from land bases), the first major Japanese carrier operation in a year and a half. Numerically, at least, this was the largest Japanese carrier force ever committed to battle and was faced by the largest and most powerful fleet ever put together in the history of warfare up to that point, America’s Fast Carrier Task Force.

Due to the sharp decline of Japanese pilot quality and a massive technological and numerical advantage from the American side, the Japanese 1st Mobile Fleet was dealt a giant defeat, losing 3 carriers and irreverisble numbers of aircraft for essentially no results.

The battle saw the combat debut of Admiral Jisaburo Ozawa, arguablly one of the best Japanese carrier commanders, in command of a major Japanese carrier force. Previously Ozawa commanded various fleets and formations containing carriers, but never the Kido Butai (or its successor, the 1st Mobile Fleet) in combat.

@all-encompassing-goose

Thank you for responding!

The Monster was not a tank-it was a planned self propelled gun, with the main gun being the Schver Gustav, the largest artillery piece ever, requiring 2000 people to use. It was only ever used as a railway gun. The Monster would have allowed it to move anywhere. This is why I did not put “tank” in the title.

Your post was awesome! Keep up the good work!

It is early yet Garg.
The Civil War was lost in the West, starting with Nashville and Vicksburg was a greater loss than Nashville.  I agree that a Southern victory at Gettysburg would not have equated to the fall of Washington or an armistice, despite Lee’s hopes for one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087023/World-War-II-photographs-American-soldiers-fight-survival-brutal-Battle-Saipan.html

CWOMarc,

I grew up watching war movies with my Dad and now have a decent colection on DVD, maybe 250+.

Although he(my Dad) is a BIG “Patton” fan, and that’s his all-time favorite war movie, he always said “Battleground” was the best for showing how it really was.

He still phones me whenever either Patton, or Battleground come on TV. I’ve made sure he has those and several others to watch whenever he wants to.

Thanks for your suggestions.

“Tall Paul”

@Dylan:

@Octospire:

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

If the Battle of Britain went well for Germany, do you think the US and USSR could still win against Germany and Italy.

If Britain made peace with Germany in 1940 (on whatever terms take her out of the fight), US wouldn’t have been at war with Germany in 1941.

#607

Germany might still declare war on them.

On the U.S or on the British?
The Americans would of never gone to war with the Nazi’s had the British been defeated they would of had no place to refuel the American ships on the European side of the Atlantic, no place to land their aircraft for strategic bombing. Had Germany got a peace treaty from the British that would of been it, game over for the Americans even before the war started. Britain was the launching point for all the allied invasions of North Africa, Italy and France so without it reclaiming those areas from Nazi control would of been impossible. Also American isolationist policies would of not of been changed if Pearl Harbour wasnt attacked and I dont think the Japanese would be stupid enough to go to war with the U.S and the British empire all on their own.

Had Britian made peace with the Germans it would not of been a “surrender” as such it would of been considered the meeting of two equals to forge a peace and no doubt at Hitlers insistance an Anglo-Germanic alliance just like he had envisioned and pressed for in the 1930’s. Germany was now the equal of Britain and the Nazi’s would make sure they were treated in that way. The only reason there wasnt an alliance between Germany and Britain because Britain had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo while the Germans wanting to expand their empire had other ideas entirely. Its not that hard to imagine a joint German and British army formation with RAF and Luffwaffe planes roaring overhead attacking Moscow and mopping the floor with the Soviets.

Many people in Britain did not considered Hitler and the Nazi’s to be their enemy, yes they were the enemy of the continental european powers but not their enemy. At the time before the bombing of British citys in the “phoney war” Stalin and the USSR was seen as the much greater threat to British interests in the future. Hitler was very reasonable to the British he offered them peace as equals that allowed Britian to keep her empire and his only clause was that the Nazi’s have free reign in Europe.

But Germany might force the issue on the US.

I doubt it, going to war with the United States would require a foothold in the America’s and allies like Mexico and other Latin American countries. It would of taken probably at least a decade to pacify Europe under Nazi rule and then who knows, especially if Hitler got his Alliance with the British. With the industrial might of the France, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at their disposal, the British and Latin Americans as allies and the massive technological advantage they would of had over the U.S its possible that if they wanted to they could win a war against the United States.

Although I think its doubtful that the British if Allied with Germany against the Soviets would of turned on the Americans, If a Anglo-Germanic alliance had of happend following a ceasefire in 1940 and then crushed the Soviet Union I think that Hitler/British would of been happy to rule Eurasia and Africa. Like another poster said in another thread its much more likely that following a Nazi alliance victory in Europe that a facist party would come to power in the United States in order to drag their country out of the depression.

What has to be remembered is that the U.S was still in the economic doldrums right up until their involvement in WW2 without the war its possible that the economic stagnation may of continued for another decade possibly more its hard to tell, it depends on the party in power and the president at the times idea on how to deal with the crisis.

@Battlingmaxo:

Try Stalingrad, by Anthony Beevor….one of the best works on the subject (Penguin Books)

excellent book, i read it in a few stops at barns and noble.  i loved doing that, just read books over time there.

While RADAR was an invaluable tool, it was still relatively slow and unreliable.

What it was however, was an excellent complement to the land and sea based Royal Corp of Observers.

People always forget about the spotters with radios and telescopes, but they did a great job and get a bit overlooked due to the successes of RADAR.

RADAR alone couldn’t have done it.