Who Could Have Won WWII?

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

You know I actually asked you a question about how the Soviets lied in the Second World War, and I also asked you to explain your earlier remark about how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as unlike Britain they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves. I also asked you for a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. But you have dodged those question. How about you answer them.

No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly fail to grasp that.

Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Originally Posted by RN7

Also you keep quoting "authors" to others and I to validate your argument. Do you believe that everyone else on here is not a well read as you? You would be surprised about how many well educated members we have on this board.

Of course one quotes sources to support an argument. They are, in all ways, better than unsupported personal assertions.

As for whether people are as well read as I or not, I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

This is especially important as you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said, even when incontrovertibly true ... so, obviously, it is necessary for me to provide the documentary evidence in the form of citations.

But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Phil

[Legbreaker]

And I thought I was well read on the subject! So many new references I'm going to have to track down and digest!

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And I thought I was well read on the subject! So many new references I'm going to have to track down and digest!

Have you read Bergerud's 'Touched with Fire' and "Fire in the Sky' on, respectively, land and air warfare in the SW Pacific?

For an American author, he gives a surprisingly nuanced view of the war, and has nice (and demonstrably true) things to say about us Aussies ...

Phil

[Legbreaker]

I'm afraid not. That'll be another one to find.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly fail to grasp that.

No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2, or how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves, or a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. All you have done is quote the name of authors of books you say you have read or possess instead of giving a brief or detailed explanation as to whatever suits you. I don't know why you or for what reason you keep doing it but it would be helpful if you could just could answer what I asked you.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Of course one quotes sources to support an argument. They are, in all ways, better than unsupported personal assertions.

You could just state your position with some supporting argument and then quote an author as well.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

As for whether people are as well read as I or not, I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what?

[QUOTE=aspqrz;68678] This is especially important as you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said, even when incontrovertibly true ... so, obviously, it is necessary for me to provide the documentary evidence in the form of citations

No not believing and not agreeing are two different thing. How about you just answer questions directly and then maybe quote one of your authors if you feel that you need to as its not a competition about who has read the most books.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

I don't know what you are implying and I am trying to be polite despite your insulting tone and its becoming increasingly difficult to be polite. You claim you are giving me a free ride. About what exactly?

I've been collecting books for over 30 years and have compiled data for my own interest in the Second World War and other topics for as long. These days a lot of this information is also available on the internet. I'm comfortable with my numbers and I can give you a break down of losses by the month, tonnage and number for Allied and Axis merchant ship losses from 1939-45 if you want.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Whatever a furphies is you will note that I earlier supported in this threat the importance of British anti-submarine advances in WW2. I have a book collection in two different countries and it would take me weeks to list them. For naval data of the top of my head....

Allied Escort Ships of WWII: P. Elliott
Atlas of Naval Warfare : H. Pemsel
Britain's Sea War: a Diary of Ship Losses 1939-45: J.M Young
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45: J. Rohwer & G. Hummelchen
Submarines of World War Two: E. Bagnasco
The German Navy in WW2: J.C Taylor
The Liberty Ships: L.A Laywer W.H. Mitchell
The Mediterranean and the Middle East: I.S.O Playfair
The War at Sea: S.W. Roskill
U Boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45: MOD
Victory Ships and Tankers: David & Charles
Warships of the World: T. Lenton & J. J. Colledge

I can't at this late hour remember the titles and authors of the other ones I
have, some are more technical and relate to naval orbats, ship types etc and some are small magazine articles long forgotten about but still in my attic or two.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly failed to grasp that.

Originally posted by RN7
No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2.

Um.

What part of 'pretty much everything' was unclear as an answer?

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Originally posted by RN7
Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
As for whether people are as well read as I or not,*I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what?

I have no idea whether you are well read or not.

I post the cites partly so anyone and everyone can check that they say what I have said they say – and in the hope that they actually read them to ascertain just that.

Whether you know or don't know anything is neither here nor there with regards to the cites …

I have provided them since you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said …

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

Originally Posted by RN7
I don't know what you are implying and I am trying to be polite despite your insulting tone and its becoming increasingly difficult to be polite. You claim you are giving me a free ride. About what exactly?

Um.

The bits specifically mentioned?

I've highlighted them in bold text to be helpful.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Whatever a furphies is you will note that I earlier supported in this threat the importance of British anti-submarine advances in WW2. I have a book collection in two different countries and it would take me weeks to list them. For naval data of the top of my head....

Allied Escort Ships of WWII: P. Elliott
Atlas of Naval Warfare : H. Pemsel
Britain's Sea War: a Diary of Ship Losses 1939-45: J.M Young (1989)
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45: J. Rohwer & G. Hummelchen (1972)
Submarines of World War Two: E. Bagnasco
The German Navy in WW2: J.C Taylor*
The Liberty Ships: L.A Laywer W.H. Mitchell
The Mediterranean and the Middle East: I.S.O Playfair*
The War at Sea: S.W. Roskill (1954)
U Boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45: MOD*(1946)
Victory Ships and Tankers: David & Charles
Warships of the World: T. Lenton & J. J. Colledge

I've highlighted the ones that may be relevant.

The specific sources for losses that I used ...

The U-Boat Offensive: 1914-45 by VE Tarrant (Arms & Armour Press, 1989)
U-Boats: History, Development and Equipment, 1914-45 by David Miller (Conway Maritime Press, 2000)

Originally posted by RN7
Allied Shipping losses in Atlantic
1940: 3,654,500 tons
1941: 3,295,900 tons
1942: 6,150,340 tons
1943: 2,170,400 tons
1944: 505,700 tons
1945: 366,800 tons

Response by aspqrz from Tarrant
Allied Shipping Losses in the ETO
1939: ~500,000 tons
1940: ~2,380,000 tons
1941: ~2,300,000 tons
1942: ~6,600,000 tons
1943: ~2,600,000 tons
1944: ~650,000 tons
1945: ~275,000 tons

Further data from Miller (who, unlike Tarrant, gives losses by Calendar year)

Allied Shipping Losses in the ETO
1939: 509,321
1940: 2,435,586
1941: 2,235, 674
1942: 5,760,485
1943: 2,036,674
1944: 371,698
1945: 256,574

The losses you cite for 1940 and 41 are still way over the odds.

So. Which of the many books you mention are your figures from? The ones I have highlighted are all, except one, very outdated and that may be where the discrepancy comes from.

Volume 2 of Roskill is available online, for example, and its figures for 1942 are within a believable range (depending on whether the include losses to the Japanese or not) ... so where did the weird figures for 1940 + 1941 come from? Specific book, please.

Phil

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

No they don't

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

No they don't

So you say ... based on your unsupported personal assertions.

Please specify which books don't say which specific things.

Phil

[aspqrz]

RN7 said
But I thought they built 1,168 He-177's from 1942.

1169 or 1137 according to Wikipedia to the end of August 44, when production ceased. Which means that the numbers are suspect because of Speer's known fiddling with actual production figures.

964 or so of the -A3 and -A5 models which had slightly reduced chances of their engines roman candling. Remember the more than 50% operational failure rate of the 14 that tried to bomb the UK?

I am sure you do.

Phil

[RN7]

Right aspqrz I am going to say this to you publically as I don't believe in going behind people backs as has been done before on this board when there are problems.

I do not like your patronising tone and I don't like your insults. I have had heated discussions with many others on this board, but they have always been amicable and civil and I always have the utmost respect for the opinions of the other members. But I will not sit here and listen to your consistent lack of respect for my intelligence and knowledge or any more of your childish insults.

I have complained to Kato about your conduct and you are the first person that I ever had to complain about on this board and that I think says it all.