Band of Brothers Tour 2013

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by OzJavelin

It's my understanding (right or wrong) that the Americans built over 2,700 "Victory Ships" in an effort to overwhelm the Germans by sheer numbers; i.e. the Americans could build these ships faster than they could be destroyed. I would not call this a effort a failure.

Liberty ships?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by OzJavelin

It's my understanding (right or wrong) that the Americans built over 2,700 "Victory Ships" in an effort to overwhelm the Germans by sheer numbers; i.e. the Americans could build these ships faster than they could be destroyed. I would not call this a effort a failure.

You mean Liberty Ships? The first Liberty Ship was commissioned in August 1941, a year after the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic which are the events I am referring to. There’s a reason the Germans referred to this period as “the happy time” because this was when they scored the most kills.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the US role in the war was a token effort? Far from it…my point is that the greatest threat to Britain was in 1940 against a German invasion and they could have defended against it, with or without US help. After the US entered the war it obviously became a non-issue.

Just on the subject on Japan invading Australia, apparently there was bitter infighting amongst the Japanese military rulers about whether it should be done or not. The Navy wanted to mount an invasion attempt of Australia, but the Army said no, because they would have had to have pulled the required troops for the operation (30 divisions) from Manchuria and left their north-western flank open to the Soviets (who they had already had a clash with in 1938).

[b0son]

Originally Posted by neptune blue

This certainly does not take away their bravery, guts & dedication against hopeless odds and they are all heroes as far as I'm concerned

Perhaps, but it bothers me somewhat that we revere the Anzacs so much when in fact it was our WW2 soldiers who were *defending* the country.

IMO, they don't get nearly the level of recognition they deserve, it seems almost entirely a WW1-centred day.

[neptune blue]

Originally Posted by b0son

Perhaps, but it bothers me somewhat that we revere the Anzacs so much when in fact it was our WW2 soldiers who were *defending* the country.

IMO, they don't get nearly the level of recognition they deserve, it seems almost entirely a WW1-centred day.

I agree with you
The Australians that served in North Africa in WW2 were amongst the best fighting men Australia ever had

Even General Romel had a very high regard for their tenacity

I think that the focus tents to be on Galipoly probably because it was the first war we fought as a nation and that it really was a senseless waste of life

All wars are but if you read up on how the British commanders ( who had controll over our troops ) sent them out into no mans land knowing full well they would all be cut down you may understand why Galipoly strikes a bit of a nerve

[hawkgirl]

Originally Posted by ltd

Further, it wasn't just the men and the infantry that the USA provided, it was a whole nation mobilised in the support of the war effort with hardware such as B17's, C47's, Spitfires, tanks, shells, artillery etc.

the yanks had Spitfires, but did not make them.

planes were either spitfires or kitty hawks in limited supply

raaf had mosquitoes, beaufighters, beauforts, the boomerang, mustangs, b24 liberators, lockheed hudsons, b25 mitchell bombers and catalina flying boats. A total of 656 spitfires (mk8) & 841 kittyhawks

It's all speculation now but some historians believe the japs could have got as far south as NSW

if the queensland line is the myth some historians would have you believe, there wouldn't be tank traps on the nsw side of the river at Tenterfield, and mustard gas would not have been pre-deployed in 4 gallon drums for aircraft drops for domestic defence in nsw border areas.

I dont think that the war could have been won without the help of the yanks, esp the manufacturing capacity. Most issue is with the (seemingly) yank attitude that they were in fact the only country involved in the war, esp in the pacific.

[neptune blue]

Originally Posted by hawkgirl

the yanks had Spitfires, but did not make them.



raaf had mosquitoes, beaufighters, beauforts, the boomerang, mustangs, b24 liberators, lockheed hudsons, b25 mitchell bombers and catalina flying boats. A total of 656 spitfires (mk8) & 841 kittyhawks



if the queensland line is the myth some historians would have you believe, there wouldn't be tank traps on the nsw side of the river at Tenterfield, and mustard gas would not have been pre-deployed in 4 gallon drums for aircraft drops for domestic defence in nsw border areas.

I dont think that the war could have been won without the help of the yanks, esp the manufacturing capacity. Most issue is with the (seemingly) yank attitude that they were in fact the only country involved in the war, esp in the pacific.

Yes I know the spitfire was produced by supermarine in England and designed by
Reg Mitchell

It would be interesting to see where the aircraft were deployed and how many we're for home defence
Some of the aircraft you have listed were pretty much obsolete within a few years of the war breaking out
The boomerang and Hudson are 2 and the P51 D was only available in 1944

I agree with you comments about the yanks being loud and brash but its guys like dick winters that really have my respect