Who Could Have Won WWII?

[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

[aspqrz]

Originally posted by RN7
Not from my sources

Which you fail to cite.

AR-234 range, 1630 klicks (halve it for the ~800 klicks operational radius). From Complete Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW2.

Confirmed at ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234
http://www.airvectors.net/avar234.html
http://www.aviation-history.com/arado/234.html

... and many many more.

By people who know the difference between maximum range and operational radius.

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.

[Legbreaker]

So just cite your sources RN7 and prove him wrong! Surely it can't be that hard?
Isn't that what adults do when they disagree?

However, I do agree aspqrz's tone has become somewhat...abrasive, but perhaps that's because he's felt like he's been bashing his head against the same brick wall trying to get you to cite your sources?

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So just cite your sources RN7 and prove him wrong! Surely it can't be that hard?
Isn't that what adults do when they disagree?

However, I do agree aspqrz's tone has become somewhat...abrasive, but perhaps that's because he's felt like he's been bashing his head against the same brick wall trying to get you to cite your sources?

Exactly.

Indeed, as long as RN7 fails to provide specific sources I will not respond to him any further as it is entirely pointless.

Phil

[RN7]

In the interest of civility and probably my better judgement I will answer your questions to the best of my ability. I was actually enjoying this debate until the tone of your comments changed. I am being polite to you and I expect you to also be polite if you reply. Criticism is fine but moderate it.

Before I answer your questions I will inform you that I am in Ireland at the moment with some of my sources. The rest of my sources are in America on my book shelf, in my attic, burned to CD or on memory key and I cannot access them until I return to America at Christmas.

I already gave you my principle source for naval statistics but you overlooked it. That is World War II a Statistical Survey by John Ellis. It's my favourite reference book and you may have it, and if you do you will know what a good source of statistics it is. Its naval statistics are not infallible but they are good. Its land, air and industrial statistics are much better in my opinion, and its national army division listings are the most complete I have seen. Some of its references are sourced from US War Department and British MOD records.

If you want statistics for US Lend Lease supplies to the Soviet Union and the British Empire and other countries then I suggest you go online and google the following: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...hip/index.html

You will find a complete and thorough listing of very item that the US shipped to other countries around the world. It's listing for the Soviet Union and British Empire is very complete.

If you want statistics on German aircraft and many other points I have argued with you over there are so many now sources online that it is pointless listing books from my memory I don't have on hand. I find it a bit tedious repeatedly going back and forth over small statistics and technical issues but I can access some of my books and a lot more if you are prepared to wait a month. But as you have used internet sites to support your argument and so have I as so much information is now online what is the point.

[Damocles]

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Damocles

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

There is some wisdom to your words Damocles, there really is!

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Damocles

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

And yet you are posting on a forum devoted to a fantasy. 'Shit that never happened' in fact.

And you don't see the contradiction

Phil

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Damocles

I can't be the only guy who thinks you are all retarded and from a farm for arguing shit that has already happened. I mean FFS, if you Google Yalta or Postsdam, you see everything you need to know about this issue. (Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, and Churchill/Attlee-who-the-hellever).

Srrsly, you guys are pissing in the wind on this one. USA FTW.. because, if the UK or USSR could have done it on their own, they would have done it.

Wow.
Really dude? Could you be anymore insulting?
If you don't like the thread then don't read it, nobody is forcing you.

You make a mighty big presumption in that the war could never have been won by the Commonwealth and the Soviet Union. Simply because the USA showed up in the final two years of the European war doesn't mean that the USA "won it".

And then you go and call anyone debating this retarded.

This just makes you look like an ignorant 'Merican peasant who doesn't really have any opinions, only prejudices.
Next you'll be telling us that the USMC has never, ever run from a battle.