Afrika Korps (1 Viewer)

[sceic2]

...Monty Who?...I have just recently got all my Camels and they do look great...

Well, well, well. Ron, we finally agree on two things. Monty who? and the camels. I think the camel sets are some of the best work Andy has produced. They are much over looked in my opinion.

 

[Rob]

Monty of Alamein who whupped Rommel.Pretty basic WW2 info.

Rob

 

[Halo]

The same Monty who went "A bridge too far".

 

[Capitolron]

I am so tired of hearing/reading "I want/make this" from a certain person on hear, I'll call him JohnG (not his real name), but now we are hearing it from Ron. Go to the suggestion thread and post all you want about making every single vehicle and every single soldier from every single country that was involved in WWII.

Since I just posted that, there should be no more of a need to post any wants, because I covered everything. Have a good day.

Whew....Man, I am glad you have all that taken care of for us HALO

All I was remarking is that compared to other Ranges in King and Country - the AK Series is not as large and needs some additions. I dont care what Andy makes I was just pointing out the smallness of the AK Range. I agree I dont like the long list of "I WANTS" too.

Peace and Love - Man...and may your canopy open wide

 

[Capitolron]

Well, well, well. Ron, we finally agree on two things. Monty who? and the camels. I think the camel sets are some of the best work Andy has produced. They are much over looked in my opinion.

Michael

Actualy three things - Brad is a neat little ogor

I do love those Camels - they really do look great - it is something very usual in the WWII series. I even bought the sitting down camel for my Napoleon in Egypt Diorama !

 

[Halo]

It's all good.....

 

[Rob]

The same Monty who went "A bridge too far".

Monty who BEAT ROMMEL,your tunnel vision missed it the first time.

 

[Jim5615]

Monty who BEAT ROMMEL,your tunnel vision missed it the first time.

Had Rommel been given the supplies Monty got, we'd all be speaking German.

 

[panda1gen]

Ja, ist recht

 

[Capitolron]

LOL

The British Empire saved North Africa - with a little help from the Americans

 

[h.hammer]

Dont miss THE IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM book THE DESERT WAR.Also,RCM publications has a fantastic book of colour photo's of the Africa Korps in action taken by several German war correspondents.
My thanks again to Alex P. for the incredible repaint converting both a Grant and a Bren Carrier into 8th Army colours.
Harvey

 

[panda1gen]

LOL

The British Empire saved North Africa - with a little help from the Americans

Absolutely, where would we have been without Patton dining out in Rabat.

Seriously though, you are of course absolutely right - the American involvement meant that American industry armed the world as well as providing huge amounts of material. In a war of alliances and attrition - which the two world wars and the Napoleonic wars all were, the Axis had to win by 1943 when they had not even gone on to a full war footing.

Two small points though:

1. Hitler declared war on the US. Without the Brits sticking it out on their own for so long and providing an unsinkable aircraft carrier and supply base, given the technological progression Hitler made, would the US have been able to invade before nuclear rockets started landing on New York in 1946-1947? Or combated the type 21 sub?

Or -

2. The Russians had already beaten the Germans on the Eastern Front and would have won anyhow without the USA. This would have left the Soviets potentially in control of the whole of Europe. How would that feel? Look at the facts:

In August 1944 38 allied divs on a 120km front defeated 20 divisions and took 90,000 prisoners. At the same time the Soviets fought three offensives. South - 92 divs and 6 mech corps attacked 47 divisions over 700km, encircling 18 divs and taking 100,000 in a week. Southern Poland - 86 divs and 10 mech corps destroyed 40 axis divs. The third had been underway since June and involved 172 divs and 12 mech corps advancing 600km along a 1000km front, 67 axis divs destroyed, 17 to never re-appear in the order of battle.

In late 1944, 91 allied divs faced 65 German on a 400km front, in the East 560 Soviet divs fought 235 German divs.

That Eastern front campaign was of course helped by huge amounts of lend lease. Britain sent 5,218 tanks, 7,411 planes, 4,932 AT guns, 473 million rounds, 4,338 radios, 1,803 radar sets, 10 destroyers, 1 battleship. The radios and radar provided much needed technology to co-ordinate their forces and they used the tanks as much for training as for fighting.

The USA supplied 7,537 tanks, 14,795 planes, 51,503 jeeps, 375,883 trucks, 1,981 locos, 11,155 rail wagons, 2.6m tons petrol, 3.7m tyres and 345,735 tons high explosive. The fuel and trucks helped give the guns and tanks, that the Russians made in superior numbers to the Germans, strategic mobility.

So where would the USA have been in 1945 or 1946 without Britain and the Commonwealth? Can we have a little respect please?

 

[Louis Badolato]

Absolutely, where would we have been without Patton dining out in Rabat.

Seriously though, you are of course absolutely right - the American involvement meant that American industry armed the world as well as providing huge amounts of material. In a war of alliances and attrition - which the two world wars and the Napoleonic wars all were, the Axis had to win by 1943 when they had not even gone on to a full war footing.

Two small points though:

1. Hitler declared war on the US. Without the Brits sticking it out on their own for so long and providing an unsinkable aircraft carrier and supply base, given the technological progression Hitler made, would the US have been able to invade before nuclear rockets started landing on New York in 1946-1947? Or combated the type 21 sub?

Or -

2. The Russians had already beaten the Germans on the Eastern Front and would have won anyhow without the USA. This would have left the Soviets potentially in control of the whole of Europe. How would that feel? Look at the facts:

In August 1944 38 allied divs on a 120km front defeated 20 divisions and took 90,000 prisoners. At the same time the Soviets fought three offensives. South - 92 divs and 6 mech corps attacked 47 divisions over 700km, encircling 18 divs and taking 100,000 in a week. Southern Poland - 86 divs and 10 mech corps destroyed 40 axis divs. The third had been underway since June and involved 172 divs and 12 mech corps advancing 600km along a 1000km front, 67 axis divs destroyed, 17 to never re-appear in the order of battle.

In late 1944, 91 allied divs faced 65 German on a 400km front, in the East 560 Soviet divs fought 235 German divs.

That Eastern front campaign was of course helped by huge amounts of lend lease. Britain sent 5,218 tanks, 7,411 planes, 4,932 AT guns, 473 million rounds, 4,338 radios, 1,803 radar sets, 10 destroyers, 1 battleship. The radios and radar provided much needed technology to co-ordinate their forces and they used the tanks as much for training as for fighting.

The USA supplied 7,537 tanks, 14,795 planes, 51,503 jeeps, 375,883 trucks, 1,981 locos, 11,155 rail wagons, 2.6m tons petrol, 3.7m tyres and 345,735 tons high explosive. The fuel and trucks helped give the guns and tanks, that the Russians made in superior numbers to the Germans, strategic mobility.

So where would the USA have been in 1945 or 1946 without Britain and the Commonwealth? Can we have a little respect please?

You are entitled to a great deal of respect, and love, from your former colonies, but I think your biggest point may be that we all owe our collective butts to the Russians, who faced by far the lions share of the German forces.

 

[Capitolron]

P1G

In an effort to maintain Peace on the forum - I will not go down your two points and offer "Counter Points" which you sort of glossed over.

Without a doubt we respect the efforts made by the entire United Kingdom in WWII. Thats why we can came in the War to Save You ! - ONLY KIDDING !

It required a UNITED effort to defeat the Nazi's - It was a time when the World could have been conquered by an Evil empire. The Russians were a big part of the fight as well in beating the Germans.

But, remember before the United States "officially" declared War - we were already in the War supplying the UK and USSR - without that counter balance - well we will leave that discussion for another day.

Ron

 

[panda1gen]

There is peace on the forum Ron. Content is fine, I hope you can see me as being constructive if I say that style can sometimes be more of a problem.

Lets open your discussion points. Britain and the Commonwealth was never going to 'win' on her own after France fell, survival was the only option.

You are right about the US supporting Britain, but it was at a cost to the Empire that saw it destroyed - much more of an American objective than a German, ironically. Most of the Empire's gold reserves were spent in the US and then it leased bases for worn out destroyers - it was desperate but 1917 was not a distant memory when Britain was a few weeks from starvation. We were practically bankrupt and starving - and the U boat fleet was only a handful of boats. So did the US support Britain - arguably its most important trading partner at the time - out of altruism or self interest?

The Canadian and Royal Navies essentially guarded the Atlantic and the USN was primarily deployed in the Pacific, what price U boat diplomacy if there was no friendly RN and RCN? Who would the US trade with and on what terms?

Remember the U boat campaign of 1942 - what price that with type 21 subs in 1944 if the US was still at war with Japan? Or if the Germans shared the technology with the Japanese. Type 21 attacks off the Phillipines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

What about the Burma front? Would the Japanese have taken India and China from French Indo China or had them as client states?

Germany may still have lost against Russia but arguably not if it was at peace with Britain and not being bombed. It would have also closed lend lease through Murmansk and Iran. And had the Oilfields in the Gulf.

Would it have been in the US interest to have a beaten Empire? What if we needed to sue for peace in a Vichy style client state - giving the axis access to all the Empire bases around the world. What price Pearl Harbour if the Axis already had U boat bases in Gibraltar, Singapore, HK, Cape Town, Ceylon, Caribbean islands and the use of the Suez canal. The RN had achieved a strategic stranglehold over the sealanes over the previous two centuries, how long would have taken the US on its own to overcome that if in axis hands.

What if the RN had to be surrendered or sunk? What about Canada, Australia etc. If the Germans moved in there, would the US have had to go to war then? Cuba 1963? V2s from Bermuda? Would they have to negotiate?

In 1942 the US would not have been able to give Germany much thought if only at war with Japan, public opinion would not have allowed it. Even if the Nazis did still declare war, how could the USA project power all the way across the Atlantic if no RN / RCN and the USN was fighting in the Pacific. Would the US have had to make peace in 1942/43?

When Germany did declare war after Pearl Harbour, why was it US 'Germany first' policy? Altruism? - I don't think so. Whose engineers put the Apollo missions on the moon?

Face facts. The USA tipped the scales, no argument. Without Britain and the Commonwealth still in the war, there would have been no scales. The British have always appreciated the USA, you see that on the forum. Consider whether you feel the same way and appreciate others.

Plus ca change, history repeats..........

 

[Capitolron]

P1G

Once again - I will state that the United Kingdom was an important factor for the Allies to Win World War II. Her troops and commanders had many key victories that changed the course of the War in many places throughout the World.

But, to imply that the UK single handedly was the reason for Victory over Germany - we have to disagree.

Once again I dont want to go point by point again with your revisionist history on Burma and other major efforts by the United States.

I am reading a strong "Anti-American" in your statements - I think we need to stop going down this road.

Lets get back to talking King and Country - AK Toy Soldiers - how about that?


Ron

 

[panda1gen]

I implied no such thing and I have emphasised that there is no anti-American feeling. Perhaps we are two people separated by the same language?

Happy to get back to the miniatures.....

 

[Rob]

Now to me that is one very realistic dio.Well done.

Rob

 

[Halo]

very nice

 

[Capitolron]

Where is Monty's 8th Army ??

Great looking diorama - P1G - great work!

Ron