Infantry, men on the ground, are the most important and versatile part of an army. Everything else ensures that they are safe, fed and in the right place!!!
Towards the end of the war the allies got aerial tank killing to a fine art. Hence aircraft like the Typhoon which was specifically created with ground support in mind and a few cannon armed varients of the Spitfire and Hurricane.
It seems everyone missed a small detail for Englands preparedness. Churchill had roosevelt in his hip pocket. Without the U.S.A. no England. 
Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war
Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war[/quote]
But England received military help from US before the US entering the war… Although this might not be the real reason for Britain to win that battle :roll:
Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war[/quote]
But England received military help from US before the US entering the war… Although this might not be the real reason for Britain to win that battle :roll:[/quote]
It wasn’t, the battle was won in the late 1930s with the building of the radar stations in southern England and in early 1940 when Air Marshall Dowding refused to send any more fighters to France.
Don’t believe everything that Hollywood tells you!
Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war[/quote]
But England received military help from US before the US entering the war… Although this might not be the real reason for Britain to win that battle :roll:[/quote]
It wasn’t, the battle was won in the late 1930s with the building of the radar stations in southern England and in early 1940 when Air Marshall Dowding refused to send any more fighters to France.
Don’t believe everything that Hollywood tells you![/quote]
True, US aid began in the beggings of 1941 :oops:
Get real! With out U.S.A. help$$$$$ etc. England & Russia, would be down the drain! As a result, well, the “cold war” is a ‘small’ example of what uncle joe(roosevelt,churchill) brought upon Europe. Tragic, to say the least. The first sign was when Churchill said to Truman at Potsdam,“We stuck the wrong pig”. Pathetic!
Mate, the British (and the Commonwealth/Free French/Polish/Belgian etc) won the Battle of Britain, all on their own. Once the Battle of Britain was won, the UK was safe from invasion, therefore to say “without the US, no England” is incorrect. Also, the US did very well out of loans given to the UK during the war, while they almost bankrupted us after the war.
Whats pathetic, the Cold War, the fact that the Cold War was allowed to happen, or the fact that you think some of the other posters here are?
Please expand.
Blitz, Churchill had not been in office long enough by the time the BoB started for him to make any progress in getting any sort of aid from the US. In any case almost everything the US “gave” was actually paid for ( still being paid for, in fact).
yes,you are right,usa gave help to other countries in many wars,and the help has mostly been decisive,without american forces,giving important losses to the axis, and giving a great help for the freedom,maybe now we were under the nazi empire, eating struddel and with grey uniforms and with funny short moustaches :shock: .
Im happy that the americans helped in the war,i also think that without their help,the allies and soviets would easily be defeated (the nazi war machine was by far,the most effective).
the battle of britain wasn’t the entire war,it was?
Fiefly, I’m not sure of what your post meant. About pathetic ,cold war? I am not trying to sound like I don’t like anyone on this forum. Opinion and debate. I am 100% sure If the U.S. had not entered the war, England would be in worse shape than she is now. And England never paid back the U.S. nor did any other country, but one. I can’t think of it .No offence meant. I almost get the impresion there are a few ‘English’ on this forum.
and you cannot be more right,they are the majority of the forum !,you will find that also they are some of those who have the biggest post number (appart from me 
),and most of the british are english,except for firefly that is a haggis and i don’t know if there are another non english british members.
I wasnt taking offence, I I just wanted to know what you thought was pathetic as it effects my understanding of your statement.
I think the Brits may just have paid our war loans back, not sure though. But we didnt qualify for the Marshal Plan either
I believe the loans should be paid back in late 2006.
Of course the US has made much more money out of the companies and capital that Britain surrendered to the US to fund the war than they ever did out of the loans. Most of the post-war economic boom in the States was as a direct result of the things they got at rock bottom prices during the war.
Yes it did - all the war material the UK got prior to the passing of the lend-lease act was under the previous “cash and carry” rules. We turned up, paid cash for the weapons, and shipped them out in our own ships. We basically handed over the entire national reserves, and took out as many loans as we could get. Lend-Lease was only instigated by Roosevelt because he realised the UK would run out of cash without it and would have to cease buying US kit - with seriously adverse security consequences for the US.
The Lend-Lease act was passed on March 11th 1941 - and the war had been going on since September 1939!
What I meant by pathetic, was that Churchill admitted to roosevelt Stalin should have been the one who got ko’d. Which he well knew before han
And,NO, they didn’t pay it back. First I’ve heard about 2006. The heck with the cash. I would rather have back the American lives lost for naught.
The bankers and munitions makers etc. are the ones who proft. Going to war was the end for England.
Whether the US entered the war or not, the Germans were likely to lose.
There have been many references on this site and others to the unworkability of Op SEALION, meaning ther Germans would have had to keep troops in occupied Western Europe to stop the UK causing too much trouble.
In the early '40s, about 1/3 rd of the World was part of the British Empire. No lack of manpower there then (and thanks again for your help chaps).
Opening a second front against the USSR was the war-loser.
Although the Germans got as far as the outskirts of Moscow, by then the major arms factories had been moved out of reach. After that it was only a matter of time.
Assistance from the US shortened the war by years, and helped preserve the Commonwealth in the Far East, but the USSR would have won sooner or later.
If you don’t believe me, look how many divisions were committed to the Ostfront vs Westfront. The number of troops in Western Europe was almost insignificant, and still the Soviet troops pushed forwards. 80% of all German military casualties in WW2 were on the Eastern front. 4 million troops. . . . . . . .
Rememberance Sunday is almost upon us. As I stand there at a cenotaph, I shall give thanks to the troops of all nations, including the US, who fought the Nazis. They were an evil bunch and had to be stopped.
It’s a shame that some of the folk that contribute to this site (although I have my suspicions that it’s only one person with a new ID) lack the generosity of spirit of their compatriots who came to the aid of the free World in WW2.
I have split a lot of the off-topic comments from this thread. They have been sent to Off-Topic: General.
Getting back to British preparations for ww2 it’s interesting to note that in the mid 1930s there was a large excercise on Salisbury plain where armoured forces took on a ww1 era force (cavalry etc) needless to say the armoured force won. What’s inceredible was that the war office took no notice of the result and declared it a fluke!