In article , "tadaa" wrote:

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining
a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks.
How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those
countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large
ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is
that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but
the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't
need that strong navy.

Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have
used a stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I
really don't see what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium,
Netherlands, Finland, Estonia etc.
So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger
navy would have been in 1939?

The other European countires could have shut down Germany's sea power
quite easily, kept *any* U-boats from going out to harass convoys, and
gotten a lot more support in during the 1940-1942 years. If they had hd
carriers available, they could have had strong fighter support across
all of Europe during the entire war, and D-Day could have happened a
couple of years earlier.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.