$$$
- Crimsoninja

hence, the word investment. in men, materials and most importantly, ships in a large enough number to force the British Navy to decide it wasn't worth the losses they would incur doing battle with the French.

Again, though, to just look at this particular theatre in a vacuum fails to take into account many other factors in other parts of the world and on the home front that was affecting every decision.

For example, Britain was being stretched pretty thin financially at that time because of their imperial ambitions.

Glucks' take on WWI is a bit off too. No Gluck, I am not one who believes the Americans won WWI all by themselves. However, it was the entrance of the Americans into WWI that tipped the numerical scales in favor of the Allies. Its why Germany launched a few offensives trying to force the Allies to the bargaining table before the Americans entered the war.

And while I am at it, the tactics probably would have changed, meaning the involvement of tanks, Pershing refusal to put his men in trenches might have helped expedite the change in tactics.
- Gramps28

He was discussing WWII bud

He was discussing WWII bud
- Crimsoninja

he also mentioned WWI in his initial comment.

caper. a recco for a book about pearly harbor that examines both japan and america leading up to the attack on pearl harbor, read At Dawn We Slept. It was the best book I read on the subject. And i have read so many book concerning WWII. so many books.

Glucks' take on WWI is a bit off too. No Gluck, I am not one who believes the Americans won WWI all by themselves. However, it was the entrance of the Americans into WWI that tipped the numerical scales in favor of the Allies. Its why Germany launched a few offensives trying to force the Allies to the bargaining table before the Americans entered the war.

And while I am at it, the tactics probably would have changed, meaning the involvement of tanks, Pershing refusal to put his men in trenches might have helped expedite the change in tactics.
- Gramps28

I'll admit I know a lot less about 1 than 2... But from what I know, the Americans joined the war very late, and unprepared for the tactics being employed at the time. As such, while they brought numbers, they were pretty ineffectual in actual combat, and tended to get themselves killed pretty quick.

I think the biggest benefit they had was in terms of morale. The allies were boosted by seeing all these fresh troops come in, and the central powers were demoralized, seeing how they were unable to replenish their own troops.


Something I found interesting about WW1 was that Germany used Lenin as a weapon to destabilize Russia... with no way of knowing how badly that would come back to bite them.


Also, in the end, these were incredibly complicated conflicts, as the names suggest. You can't give just one party sole credit or blame for anything that happened. Hence my mocking Dopps for "TEXANS ARE WHY FRENCH SPEAK FRENCH!!!!!".

caper. a recco for a book about pearly harbor that examines both japan and america leading up to the attack on pearl harbor, read At Dawn We Slept. It was the best book I read on the subject. And i have read so many book concerning WWII. so many books.
- Gramps28

I will ask Mrs. Caper for this as my anni gift. ty.

I'll admit I know a lot less about 1 than 2... But from what I know, the Americans joined the war very late, and unprepared for the tactics being employed at the time. As such, while they brought numbers, they were pretty ineffectual in actual combat, and tended to get themselves killed pretty quick.

I think the biggest benefit they had was in terms of morale. The allies were boosted by seeing all these fresh troops come in, and the central powers were demoralized, seeing how they were unable to replenish their own troops.


Something I found interesting about WW1 was that Germany used Lenin as a weapon to destabilize Russia... with no way of knowing how badly that would come back to bite them.


Also, in the end, these were incredibly complicated conflicts, as the names suggest. You can't give just one party sole credit or blame for anything that happened. Hence my mocking Dopps for "TEXANS ARE WHY FRENCH SPEAK FRENCH!!!!!".
- Feeling Glucky?

Knew an old British dude who fought in WW2. Said for him the scariest part was having the Americans at his back. Said when U.S. planes went over you never knew where the bombs were going to fall so everybody took cover on all sides.

Glucks' take on WWI is a bit off too. No Gluck, I am not one who believes the Americans won WWI all by themselves. However, it was the entrance of the Americans into WWI that tipped the numerical scales in favor of the Allies. Its why Germany launched a few offensives trying to force the Allies to the bargaining table before the Americans entered the war.

And while I am at it, the tactics probably would have changed, meaning the involvement of tanks, Pershing refusal to put his men in trenches might have helped expedite the change in tactics.
- Gramps28

Prefacing this by saying I'm going off a very faint recollection, and have no research to back me up...

But didn't those offensives fail, and carry a pretty substantial toll on their fighting power?

I'll admit I know a lot less about 1 than 2... But from what I know, the Americans joined the war very late, and unprepared for the tactics being employed at the time. As such, while they brought numbers, they were pretty ineffectual in actual combat, and tended to get themselves killed pretty quick.

I think the biggest benefit they had was in terms of morale. The allies were boosted by seeing all these fresh troops come in, and the central powers were demoralized, seeing how they were unable to replenish their own troops.


Something I found interesting about WW1 was that Germany used Lenin as a weapon to destabilize Russia... with no way of knowing how badly that would come back to bite them
- Feeling Glucky?

They did enter the war very late. The big conflict was Pershing wouldn't allow his men to enter until they were ready. Which they weren't when the initially went over. There were a couple instances were they were used by the French and took a beating. Pershing was livid and almost took his Army and went back home. He also knew trench warfare was a waste of resources. It was the addition of the primitive tanks that changed the battlefield and tipped the balance to the Allies. Patton was one of the leading proponents for putting the tanks in front of the troops along with others from both the French and Brits.

Yes. Lenin was brought back to Russia aboard a German train to spark the October Revolution in order to take Russia out of the war.

They did enter the war very late. The big conflict was Pershing wouldn't allow his men to enter until they were ready. Which they weren't when the initially went over. There were a couple instances were they were used by the French and took a beating. Pershing was livid and almost took his Army and went back home. He also knew trench warfare was a waste of resources. It was the addition of the primitive tanks that changed the battlefield and tipped the balance to the Allies. Patton was one of the leading proponents for putting the tanks in front of the troops along with others from both the French and Brits.

Yes. Lenin was brought back to Russia aboard a German train to spark the October Revolution in order to take Russia out of the war.
- Gramps28

Shows you what having a fresh set of eyes can do... but it feels like the early tanks wouldn't have fared much better against a defensive barrage than infantry.


Trench warfare w/ chemical weapons just sounds like the worst kind of hell we've ever managed to create. That and concentration camps.

Prefacing this by saying I'm going off a very faint recollection, and have no research to back me up...

But didn't those offensives fail, and carry a pretty substantial toll on their fighting power?
- Feeling Glucky?

They were for the most part ineffective. Marginal gains at best. Nowhere near enough to justify the resources they took. The point was more they were hastily thrown together because the German High Command knew once the Americans entered their advantage in numbers was gone. The real reason was the Germans' hope it would force peace talks before the war turned against them.

They were for the most part ineffective. Marginal gains at best. Nowhere near enough to justify the resources they took. The point was more they were hastily thrown together because the German High Command knew once the Americans entered their advantage in numbers was gone. The real reason was the Germans' hope it would force it would force peace talks before the war turned against them.
- Gramps28

Fair

In other news...

http://thehill.com/blogs/...irms-hes-a-paid-breitbart

Shows you what having a fresh set of eyes can do... but it feels like the early tanks wouldn't have fared much better against a defensive barrage than infantry.


Trench warfare w/ chemical weapons just sounds like the worst kind of hell we've ever managed to create.
- Feeling Glucky?

Sure. But then what you aren't considering is the pure intimidation factor of having something you have never seen before on the battlefield. Which was probably the most effective aspect of the tanks at that time.

I will ask Mrs. Caper for this as my anni gift. ty.
- Cape Breton Bruins

the Author's name is Gordon Prange.

Knew an old British dude who fought in WW2. Said for him the scariest part was having the Americans at his back. Said when U.S. planes went over you never knew where the bombs were going to fall so everybody took cover on all sides.
- BINGO!

Took a bit for the Brits to allow the Americans to use their bombsights. The reality is the Brits weren't much better. They bombed the piss out of Germany's industry. Or tried to.

Sure. But then what you aren't considering is the pure intimidation factor of having something you have never seen before on the battlefield. Which was probably the most effective aspect of the tanks at that time.
- Gramps28

Especially after all the other stuff that you'd never seen before, causing all kinds of misery.

So (frank)ed.

I'll admit I know a lot less about 1 than 2... But from what I know, the Americans joined the war very late, and unprepared for the tactics being employed at the time. As such, while they brought numbers, they were pretty ineffectual in actual combat, and tended to get themselves killed pretty quick.

I think the biggest benefit they had was in terms of morale. The allies were boosted by seeing all these fresh troops come in, and the central powers were demoralized, seeing how they were unable to replenish their own troops.


Something I found interesting about WW1 was that Germany used Lenin as a weapon to destabilize Russia... with no way of knowing how badly that would come back to bite them.


Also, in the end, these were incredibly complicated conflicts, as the names suggest. You can't give just one party sole credit or blame for anything that happened. Hence my mocking Dopps for "TEXANS ARE WHY FRENCH SPEAK FRENCH!!!!!".
- Feeling Glucky?

Yeah, well, Dopes is an idiot.

Took a bit for the Brits to allow the Americans to use their bombsights. The reality is the Brits weren't much better. They bombed the piss out of Germany's industry. Or tried to.
- Gramps28

The British had more advanced tech for their bombers?

They did enter the war very late. The big conflict was Pershing wouldn't allow his men to enter until they were ready. Which they weren't when the initially went over. There were a couple instances were they were used by the French and took a beating. Pershing was livid and almost took his Army and went back home. He also knew trench warfare was a waste of resources. It was the addition of the primitive tanks that changed the battlefield and tipped the balance to the Allies. Patton was one of the leading proponents for putting the tanks in front of the troops along with others from both the French and Brits.

Yes. Lenin was brought back to Russia aboard a German train to spark the October Revolution in order to take Russia out of the war.
- Gramps28

i watched a doc on Lenin the other night because i never really knew much about him

guy really was sort of a whackjob loser, who sort of backed into his run - which was way shorter than i had thought

i watched a doc on Lenin the other night because i never really knew much about him

guy really was sort of a whackjob loser, who sort of backed into his run - which was way shorter than i had thought
- Crimsoninja

you're way shorter than i had thought.


you are.

Talking about WW2, and a P-51 was just flying around the city with an F-22.

Such cool planes.

kill yourself

"we're gonna have da best dweemers"