Which was the best army?

comrade dave wrote:

well, for your first point about Britain's dreadful foreign policy I conclude that was because of the Second World War's father the Great War was scary as shit back then. Nobody in Britain wanted another war on such magnitude and the government at time thought that it was good for Germany to be strong so they could stop the Soviets and their "evil communism" I accidentally deleted what you said and can't remember the rest BUT, you talk of bad diplomacy but at the time your leader thought killing millions was the perfect way to look good in front of the world.

If Britain really did not want the war - why should it start it? "You do not want a war? Not declares war!". Maybe someone in Britain wanted this war?

comrade dave wrote:

2. The phoney war was a product of British reluctance to fight a war they new they were ill prepared for so they put a show of force, which didn't work in the end to try and scare hitler off.

comrade dave wrote:

3.The huge British fleet performed spectacularly against the Italians and their actually greatly sophisticated battleships in the Mediterranean, one battleship- HMS warspite scored the longest moving hit in history against a much more modern Italian ship, they raided the port of Taranto and effectively crushed the Italian naval power while only losing two biplanes. in the Atlantic the British destroyed the Bismarck using it's well established fleet air arm and conventional ships, the U-boats I might add where the cream of German naval units which had experience dating back before ww1, the submarines commanded by the Kreigsmarine at their height were hardly small in force. During the war, until 1944 or so, they had the biggest and best equipped navy, but the Americans in the Pacific surpassed British naval might.

Of course Britain has won the Battle of the Atlantic, but I will say that the German fleet was smaller, but worked better

comrade dave wrote:

The RAF saved Europe from the nazis

comrade dave wrote:

4. "No important victories" it just spews ignorance. The RAF saved Europe from the nazis so that the Americans could come along and liberate Europe with them, the British liberated Caen which opened the road to Paris and thus a way out of the bocage, the British helped break the siege of Bastogne and kick Jerry out of the Ardennes, something the U.S must be given most credit for. RAF typhoons and later tempests where the most feared fighter bombers in the western allies' Arsenal, a weapon that made even crack SS units break and run. In Normandy the British army held down the most SS units giving the Americans an easier job taking Saint Lo.

comrade dave wrote:

Great Britain played a pivotal role in the Second World War and even fought with its empire alone for at least a year

I'm not exaggerating, if the RAF faltered during the Battle of Britain, goering would have achieved air superiority and could have begun sealion which would have meant Britain's defeat and the Americans wouldn't have joined in in Europe and perhaps have appeased Japan itself.

I've said this myself, the Soviets did most of the work but before the Soviets were involved it was the British empire and the exiled European states vs mad and bad Adolf Hitler.

I agreed with you, German U-boats almost brought Britain to her knees.

And during 1940 nothing was going on at all? Absolutely nothing? The Battle of Britain dragged on over the skies, the British and commonwealth fought in Africa and the Mediterranean. Lots was going on.

comrade dave wrote:

I'm not exaggerating, if the RAF faltered during the Battle of Britain, goering would have achieved air superiority and could have begun sealion which would have meant Britain's defeat and the Americans wouldn't have joined in in Europe and perhaps have appeased Japan itself

comrade dave wrote:

And during 1940 nothing was going on at all? Absolutely nothing? The Battle of Britain dragged on over the skies, the British and commonwealth fought in Africa and the Mediterranean. Lots was going on.

The battle of el alemain has no significance at all, after all Hitler didn't need that big pot of oil in Egypt did he? The Battle of Britain is considered to be several aerial battles that the RAF mostly won preventing the nazis from invading. And I fail to see the Soviets beating the Luftwaffe, as far as I know it took the ruskies a long time to come back from the 2000+ planes they lost in the first week.

You say the British performed indirect actions to win, which makes not much sense. The campaigns the Brtiish and the commonwealth fought and those of which Changed the tide of war had to have battles that can be considered up there otherwise the commonwealth would have lost.

Poland Was ready for Germany but they could never stand up to the Panzer, the first armor to scare the Panzer was T34 Soviet, then they made the Panzer VI Tiger, and Russia stalled them with T34-85 and Kv series.

USSR is the best army they were attacked by Romania, Hungary, Finland and Germany, they repealed all armies and made it to Berlin first, one large State wins will it takes time for Canada, UK, USA, Free France, Commonwealth (e.g AUS, NZ Ect)

1- the brits really resisted ? I think people did a great job : beeing under bombes during several weeks and foud half of your familly burned, it was a terrible experience but did the british army did a very big job ? i don't think they were really tested : they could see were german bombers were going, with out escort, and could intersept them easily, but if the man ( you know hwo i'm talking about) decided to land, next day the UK would fall (it's the truth you know that)

2- did they realy wanted peace : yes because they fought during 4 centuries or even more to control the world, they won't declear war for nothing

3- who about france : well france was near to fall during the great war, it's economy was destroyed, they couldn't have a powerfull army during 20 years ( if the german could it's because they always had there industry ). yes frensh tanks were better than some german ones but a good army means good generals, france didn't had smart generals so they easily lost

4- Italy had a nice navy but a ship won't protect you against a tank 200km from the shore, also italians were not all ok with the second man in the axis powers so italy didn't had any one to fight in the end

5- yes it's the US economy that won the war, in fact german were producing fancy ships and nice but expensive tanks so they had not enough Tigers for exemple to finish the USSR, brits knew that they had to focus one a few types of planes to survive, japs lost when they didn't destroy fuel tanks in pearl harbor : jap general (dont remember his name sorry) told the emperor he won't win for sure after several mounth of fight because of oil

6- the USSR won but millions died not because of german bullets, but because of officers ones and in iron mines or tanks factories, but after all the won !

mio123 wrote:

did the british army did a very big job ? I don't think they were really tested : they could see where German bombers were going, without escort, and could intercept them easily, but if the man (you know who i'm talking about) decided to land, next day the UK would fall (it's the truth you know that)

But about the RAF and the Battle of Britain. No way. The RAF had 600 lower tech planes. The Luftwaffe had 2400.

"people evoyd making decisions if they have no experience in a field" thats who they explained his decision in the documentary I saw

Pablo22510 wrote:

mio123 wrote:

did the british army did a very big job ? I don't think they were really tested : they could see where German bombers were going, without escort, and could intercept them easily, but if the man (you know who i'm talking about) decided to land, next day the UK would fall (it's the truth you know that)

And Hitler couldn't disembark in Britain, because he didn't have air superiority, which is what the Battle of Britain was about.But about the RAF and the Battle of Britain. No way. The RAF had 600 lower tech planes. The Luftwaffe had 2400.

Hitler's plan to invade Britain was to obtain air superiority, and then disembark. With air superiority he could destroy any British ships in the way of his invading fleet, and protect his troops on ground. Without it his troops would have got massacred.

If you were to assume the British were never really tested I would say

1. Bullshit

2. Maybe they were just that good?

Pablo22510 wrote:

Hitler's plan to invade Britain was to obtain air superiority, and then disembark. With air superiority he could destroy any British ships in the way of his invading fleet, and protect his troops on ground. Without it his troops would have got massacred.

No support from inside except from the damn Irish. And he couldn't have done that without air superiority.

1- hitler (luckily) made a serie of mistakes and allowed to the brits to recover and obtain air sup. the most imporatnt one was to make the luftwaffe goal from destroying RAF to strat. bombing

2- his first plan was to make brits starve and ask for mercy

3- I still think he could have a chance if he disembarcked, his fighters could reach UK's planes far inside britain land

4- invading britain wasn't his primary objectif : he first wanted to invade the USSR

If it had won the German...

mio123 wrote:

1- hitler (luckily) made a serie of mistakes and allowed to the brits to recover and obtain air sup. the most imporatnt one was to make the luftwaffe goal from destroying RAF to strat. bombing

2- his first plan was to make brits starve and ask for mercy

3- I still think he could have a chance if he disembarcked, his fighters could reach UK's planes far inside britain land

4- invading britain wasn't his primary objectif : he first wanted to invade the USSR

1. This is true, but the Brits still did a great job. They were outnumbered 4 to 1.
2. Half true. But didn't do it through bombings, he tried this with the U-Boats
3. No way he had a chance. Germans fighters could only be half an hour over the skies of south England before having to refuel. Not enough time.
4. True, but since the Brits were a threat, he had to take care of them.

3- brits didn't produced bombers till the US came so who a fighter would damage a tank?

The hurribomber is modified hurricane fighter adapted to take on the fighter bomber role, the fairey swordfish is a toprpedo biplane developed around the 20s, I think. The Brits did have bombers aircraft just nothing good that was purpose built until the typhoon and tempest came along.

You could still strafe the infantry, kill them, have no infantry go with the tanks, which makes them extremely vulnerable.

comrade dave wrote:

fairey swordfish