robert arndt wrote in message . ..
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...


(snip)

We never were stupid enough to deploy a missile that killed
more of our own workers building it than the numbers of our
enemy that it managed kill when fired.

At no time did we warp our entire defnce industries producing a
weapon with no real military value that sucked up scarce
resources desperately needed for defense of the homeland.

It never occurred to us that a weapon which cost more per round
than the value of the damage it caused.

No we just developed the weapons that won the
war, not very imaginative perhaps but hey as a
strategy its effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact
that this conversation is in English.

Keith

No A-bomb was dropped on Germany

Ah the need to throw in something different.

and the Reds did all the real
fighting on the ground...

Except for the clearing of western Europe and North Africa.

so you didn't win with any specific weapons
just NUMBERS OF MEN AND MATERIAL- a deluge NO army in history could
win against.

Amazing then the very bright German high command voluntarily decided
to take on the combination.

By the way the above text is "you didn't win", below is "we won". Robert
keeps becoming a WWII German then changing to something else.

Of course the Germans DID fight non-stop for 6 years

October 1939 to April 1940? The gap in land operations June 1940
to April 1941? The fact September 1939 to April 1945 is 5 years 8
months?

The British fought for nearly 6 years less the early pauses, the RN was
in the war for 6 years, the Chinese were at war for around 8 to 9 years,
as were the Japanese.

and introduced incredible weapons that influenced the way we fight war for
6 decades now.

You mean like the advanced radars, major radio networking, the
atomic weapons and propulsion systems, the use of airpower
against an economy, aircraft carriers, fully motorising the armies,
proximity fuses, awacs, controlled air interception?

And they did it under TOTAL BOMBARDMENT. The US was
NEVER BOMBED and Britain only marginally compared to Germany.

To the end of 1941 the British estimates are the Luftwaffe had dropped
around 57,000 tons of bombs on Britain, by the end of 1942 that was up
to around 60,000 tons. This tonnage excludes incendiary bombs.

Bomber Command records have the RAF tonnage on Germany as of
the end of February 1942 as 31,714 tons, by the end of 1942 67,221
tons. Until around the end of the third quarter of 1942 there were more
German bombs on Britain than the other way around. So go and
compare the British economy in 1940, 1941 and into 1942 versus the
German one.

Bomber Command's halfway point for bombs on Germany was in
September 1944, the 8th Air Force's mid November 1944. The 8th
passed the 60,000 tons of bombs on Germany mark in March 1944,
and this counts incendiaries.

The US was bombed, by Japanese float planes and balloons, as well
as having a couple of bombardments by submarines. Minor it is true
but non zero, and I am not counting a place called Alaska, which is
normally considered a part of the US.

How many
weapons would the US have produced under total bombardment?

Given the larger size of the economy and greater distance to the
targets from outside the US probably more weapons as the attacks
could allow the government to squeeze the population more while
the raids did little lasting damage. Especially with Goering as the
head of the attacking air force. Bf109 range was? As a percentage
of the width and depth of the US?

How come
we had every advantage and only claim the A-bomb, radar, and the P-51D
Mustang?

Given the cost of the a-bomb that alone is a substantial advantage.
Add a large navy, ground controlled interception, the new way of naval
warfare, the more advanced electronics, medical advances like mass
production of penicillin and so on. The US had to solve different
problems than the Germans, so it is not surprising different areas made
better progress, but that has to be ignored.

The US should have produced everyhting the Germans did... but
did not.

So tell us all where are the Kriegsmarine Essex class carriers?
How about say a few escort carriers? The major shipbuilding
program to enable armies and navies to fight at the other end
of the Atlantic and Pacific? The advanced radars, penicillin,
whole blood service and so on.

How about using high speed cameras to record wind tunnel tests?
How about the banning of personal radios by the Nazis, thereby
removing the chance for a large number of people to learn to use
radios for themselves, given how much of WWII was a radio war.

Why wasn't the Luftwaffe air defence system as good as the
RAF's in 1940?

Since Germany had around a 50% bigger population than Britain,
just as the USA had around the same margin over Germany why
didn't the Germans produce everything the British did? Mosquitoes
come to mind as aircraft, reliable jet engines another, airborne
radars in 1940, machines ("computers") to break codes and so on
and the Germans should have easily matched the British in the
1942/43 time period, since they had the less bombed economy,
correct? How about the LST, a large ocean going ship that could
beach itself and handle vehicles.

The Japanese had long range single engined fighters in 1940, why
didn't the Germans?

Shall we go on, say why didn't the Germans have a written language
when the Greeks and Romans did?

And if you think the Allies are so great why then did they send all
their experts into Germany hunting for secret weapons and every scrap
of technology they could find? Wright Field held thousands of TONs of
captured documents- the largest brain-drain and theft of entire nation
in history.

Given the amount of theft that goes on in war I doubt what the
western allies did in 1945 was the greatest theft ever, and it
makes sense to merge the German and allied research, just
look at the benefits when the US and UK merged theirs, and
justify it as reparations for the damage the Germans did.

The greatest brain drain was done by the Nazis, look at all the
people who left before the war.

Different countries had different priorities, the allies decided to
benefit from that, saves work.

And you dare to say no one benefitted from it? Bull****.

No Keith makes the point that your claims about what benefits there
were are greatly exaggerated.

You're a joke Keith. My next door neighbor was in the OSS. He died in
1981 but before he did I asked him what exactly they found in Germany.
He told me something I'll never forget, "among the jets and rockets we
found things that we could not comprehend at the time". He actually
was there and saw the stuff. You didn't, so **** off.

This is quite funny, the idea OSS operators were chosen for expertise
in advanced aerodynamics, the unsupported verbal claim used as
"proof".

It is quite simple when Keith states something it is normally correct,
when Robert states something it is normally fiction. Just check with
other sources.


Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.