russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: 50% of NAZI oil..]

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was,
as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive
reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF
would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.


There was nothing much in it

In 1914 the BEF had 6 British Infantry Divisions, 2 Indian Infantry
Divisions
1 British Cavalry division and 1 Indian Calavry Brigade

In 1939 their were 2 regular infantry divisions in the Aldershot zone , 1
in
the
Eastern Zone at Colchester, 2 TA Divisions in the London Zone, 1 regular
division in the Northern Zone , 1 TA Division in Scotland, 1 Armored
Division
and 1 regular infantry Division in Southern command and 2 TA Divisions in
Wales

In total 5 Regular Infantry divisions, 4 of TA Infantry and 1 Armored
Division
not all of the TA divisions were suitable for short term use


2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of
idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we
at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher
levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany
of
the other major participants.


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a
truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.


And had screwed up royally at Gallipoli

And served his time in the political wilderness for it.

the British Army was no more
ready for amphibious warfare in Norway in 1940 than it had been
in the Dardanelles

Was much more ready for it at Normandy though, at least partly for the bad
experience at the Dardanelles.

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF
had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like
the
Battle and Stirling accepted.

The Stirling didnt arrive in numbers until 1942 I think you'll find.

My mistake. I remembered it as a crap early war big bomber.

Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we
had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as
was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in
the
1939-40 time frame.


Damm few ships had radar in 1939/40

True. But airfields benefitted from radar detection of raids, and the ships
that did have it benefitted big-style, whether against surface ships or
U-Boots.

soc.culture groups trimmed from reply

John

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and
then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK
troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

Yours,
Christophe

"Christophe Chazot" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and
then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK
troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to
the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

For WW2? Seems awfully high and the figures I have certainly don't agree. On
Googling, I keep getting

France military 250,000 civilian 350,000 total 600,000

which sounds more reasonable, although still obviously a lot. After summer
1940 very few French were 'at the front', although I know about the Free
French movement and the heroism of the Resistance etc.

France only learned from WW1 that war was to be avoided (perfectly sensible)
and that a defensive strategy would deter Germany (turned out not to be true
as we know). Many in Britain made the same mistakes, but you were unlucky
enough to be before us in the firing line.

John

According to the first line, we were talking about WW1 :
The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Christophe Chazot" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


(snip)

France only learned from WW1 that war was to be avoided (perfectly
sensible)
and that a defensive strategy would deter Germany (turned out not to be
true
as we know). Many in Britain made the same mistakes, but you were unlucky
enough to be before us in the firing line.

John


Yep. "Too few, too late" was also true for the french armies...

Christophe

"Christophe" wrote in message ...
According to the first line, we were talking about WW1 :
The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

Je suis vraiment desolee que tu m'as malcompris!

'For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second'

Tout que j'ai dit est de la guerre deuxieme, pas la premiere.

J'espere bien que tu m'excuse pour tous mes faux en francais.

John


"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Christophe Chazot" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


(snip)

France only learned from WW1 that war was to be avoided (perfectly
sensible)
and that a defensive strategy would deter Germany (turned out not to be
true
as we know). Many in Britain made the same mistakes, but you were unlucky
enough to be before us in the firing line.

John


Yep. "Too few, too late" was also true for the french armies...

Christophe

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

There must have been close to a million slave laborers (guest workers,
if you prefer) sent to Germany. I've seen newsreels of them returning,
still in their 1940 uniforms.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:58:19 +0200, "Christophe Chazot"
wrote:


"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and
then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK
troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

That number is WWI French deaths, not casualties. Germany lost
1,900,000 appoximately, probably somewhat more than Russian
(haven't seen figures I trusted for Russia) Austria-Hungarian
losses were about equal to the French.

Peter Skelton