2020, UK battle fleet Vs 1 US carrier fleet.

That's is my point, and why the US was needed.

 

No, because they could not have taken back all of the territory lost. The Japanese Army was just to big.

And England had pretty much already stripped all of their forces to fight off an Invasion that never happened. And if they had to fight Germany on Europe without help from the US, they probably would not have had the manpower to pull that off. Let alone also go after Japan by itself.

And the US was willing to make a lot of supplies for the Allies, but it would not have built for them the kind of firepower that would have been needed for that to happen. And by that time, Germany would have started to attack US ships.

I think that if the US had never gotten involved, Germany and the European territories on Asia would have eventually fallen. But to the only military that had enough manpower to accomplish the task. The Soviet Union.

So the UK reclaiming their former territory would have been a pipe dream in that case, because most of it would then be under the Red Banner.

And come on now, 18 carriers? Did you see the naval componant alone for the invasion? Here, let me give it to you again:

Even the most basic invasion of Japan would have required over 4.5 million soldiers (1.5 million being combat soldiers). And the Allies also estimated that they would need over 1,500 transports, 34 carriers, 23 Battleships, and a support fleet of everything from destroyers to fuelers ammounting to over 800 ships.

In short, every single ship, airplane, and soldier not needed for occupation duty, including all 6 Marine Divisions would have been involved in that assault. And even then, the losses were expected to be staggering.

And here are the really chilling figures that caused the bombs to be dropped. 500,000+ Allied casualties, 200,000 Allied dead. 2-4 million Japanese dead.

In order to try and meet even the lowest expectations of the scale of carnage, the War Department ordered a special run of the Purple Heart Medal, which is given to every US servicemember wounded or killed in action. This run was 500,000 medals. In all the wars since WWII, including duplicate medals issued and pilferage, there are still over 100,000 of these in warehouses waiting to be issued.

In other words, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren who are wounded and killed in action now are getting medals that were made for their ancestors, for an invasion that never happened.

The UK, even with US help, could never have fielded that kind of military. And without the lessons gained by the US during the Island Hopping Campaign, the losses would have been much higher. And without the Airbases and supply points gained by the US, the UK would have had to gain them for themselves. Especially Okinawa.

Okinawa is considered to be the bloodiest battle in the Pacific. With 40,000 Allied casualties, and over 95,000 Japanese killed. That would definately have to be fought before the home islands could be invaded. After slogging through Europe by themselves, then fighting Okinawa, I seriously doubt the British would have the stomach to fight another battle for Japan itself. Not for an island half a world away that never attacked England itself.

In the end, without the US most of Europe and Asia would have been under Soviet control, and Japan would be an isolated nation again, but still with a strong military. And probably would have continued to fight the Soviets, until their Ni-Go/F-Go project was successful.

And from all I know of Ni-Go/F-Go, the UK probably would have been met by a huge disaster if they tried an invasion. Without the US bomber attacks on Japan and the delays that caused, UK probably would have waded ashore, only to find themselves met with Atomic Bombs.

You still aproach war as if it is only about numbers and amount of equipment. You ignore what other nations would be doing (like the Soviet Union, and the Japanese Atomic Bomb project). The Soviets could likely have defeated Germany by itself, but most timetables I have seen for this place it at closer to 1948-1949. And by that time, pretty much everything East of France would be under Soviet Occupation (including Italy and Morocco). That would probably have been worse then the Germans winning the war in Europe.

 

You must know the British had their own atom bomb project.

 

Yes, I do. And it's bomb was not tested until 1952. And it was dropped by a Vickers Valiant.

The UK neither had a bomb project far enough along, nor an aircraft that could have carried the Fat Man bomb until long after the war was over.

You may not like it, but the Japanese were in a close race with the US for who would develop their bomb first. If not for the bombings on Tokyo forcing them to move their project to Korea, they may have beat the US.

 

Well that makes me feel a little better about the fire bombings of Tokyo.
And I mean that in the nicest way. I agree that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan ended the war- and therefore are justified. The firebombing of Japanese cities killed many more people, and frankly this is the first decent justification I have heard for it.

 

In a war, there is little to nothing humane.

But any time I start to feel bad for the Japanese killed, I think of Nanking, the Battan Death March, the Koreans forced into slavery, and the Philippino women sent to work as "pleasure girls".

As General Sherman said, "War is hell". And with the development of Total War, one of the key parts if you can't remove the government quickly, is to make the civilians and government so horrified and sick of the war, they eventually stop fighting.

I do not like it myself, and wish it was never needed. But better the fire bombings and 2 atomic bombs, then 2-4 million dead in a conventional invasion.

One destroys a few hundred thousand people and a few cities. The other destroys gigantic segments of the entire nation, and renders them a 4th world nation for decades.

 

I don't take any issue with you saying that Japan could have got the bomb first, I take issue with you saying it was just a US project, it was allied, and couldn't have been done without the British and Canadians. That's all I am saying.

Did the Japanese have the aircraft to drop a atom bomb?

 

Lets just be fair and say the Japanese deserved it.

 

No, by the time they achieved a working bomb (there is actually still debate that they might have detonated a bomb in Mid-August), it would only have been used in defense of the home islands.

Their general plan was that it would be a last ditch effort. Early on, it was hoped that they could be placed in command bunkers, and detonated as a way of Seppuku by the leaders right before their islands fell, like at Saipan, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa.

Then towards the end, it was assumed that they would be loaded into "Baka Boats", larger versions of the Maru-Re suicide boats. The idea was that during the night, slow moving and quiet boats would move a bomb into the middle of an invasion fleet and detonate. This would have taken out dozens of troop transports and supply vessels, as well as the fuelers and other support vessels.

It would not stop the invasion, but would drastically lower the chance of it being successfull.

But no, the US was the only nation that ever really built a true "Heavy Bomber" during WWII. And that was the B-29.

Of course, 2 years later the Soviets made the Tu-4, an exact copy of the B-29 Stratofortress. But up until then, the US had the only Heavy Bomber capable of carrying an atomic bomb.

 

No....I don't buy that.

Look- Mushroom nailed it- war is hell.

We thought Germany was barbaric when it bombed the City of London.
We thought the rape of Nanking was barbaric.

The reason was these were deliberate attacks on civilians- not military.

There are lots of horrible, horrible things done in war. But for most of World War 2, the United States tried to avoid deliberately attacking civilians.

Even today- I look at an attack such as 9/11 or a car bomb set off in a crowded market in Bagdad differently than an attack by the same people on say the U.S.S. Cole. Attacks against civilians vs attacks on military.

In Europe, Britain deliberately started a campaign of bombing German cities- targeting the civilian populations. The U.S. refused to participate- always looking for industrial targets- not merely the population- until close to the end of the war. There was a fierce debate within the United States command about targetting civilian populations in Germany.

When we started strategic bombing of Japan, I have not heard of any such debate. The fire bombings of Japan were primarily targetted at killing the civilians populations. Frankly, and this is a product of the times, Americans had less qualms about bombing Japanese civilians than they did German civilians.

The fire bombings were as deliberate killings of civilians as if American soldiers had lined up civilians- men, women and children- up against walls and shot them. But done from 30,000 feet instead.

So to me the question is- were the fire bombings, and deliberate targetting of civilians justified?

I would say that the end can justify the means. The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified- they ended the war. The fire bombings of everything else.....like I said- if they resulted in stopping the Japanese nuclear program- then probably yes.

But I will never say that the Japanese people 'deserved' it.

 

I am saying they deserved it because they started it.

Who do you think had the best tank in WW2? I say the UK did by miles. Hahaha.

 

Once again, you throw something out, not being clear what you are talking about, and giving no guidelines in which to make comparisons.

Probably the most formidable tank was the Tiger II. The gun in the turret was able to destroy any Allied tank in use during the war, was highly mobile and had good speed for it's size. And their front sloped armour was proof against all Allied weapons in use.

Many also consider it to be the Soviet T-34. While nothing really special, it had well sloped armour, and the later models had a formidable 122 mm gun. And these tanks were turned out very quickly, so they could swamp the better made German tanks (over 84,000 were made).

And of course, there was the US M4 Sherman. Not a spectacular tank in itself, it was turned out in such high numbers and with so many variants, that they could fulfill many roles. Everything from flame throwers and 105 mm howitzers to rocket launchers and amphibious versions.

Italy and Japan never had tanks worth bragging about.

 

What about the centurion? The question was abit of a joke, as the centurion was by far the best tank made in WW2, but didn't see action.

I hate it infact, that we couldn't have what we had at the end of the war at that start or even half way through, and as always the British make the best weapons just to late to be used.

 

I did not count the Centurion, because it did not even reach Europe until after the war was over. Therefore it does not qualify as a "WWII Tank".

Of course, if we were considering tanks that did not see service in WWII, then I would still give the nod to another tank, the Panzer VIII. The largest tank ever built, this thing was a monster. 200 metric tons, it had better armour then many battleships. And the 128 mm gun would have easily put PAID to anything it met. Even it's secondary 75 mm gun was nothing to sneeze at.

Then there was the E-100, a140 ton monster, with a 128 mm canon. One prototype was under construction when the factory was captured.

The US actually designed a tank to counter this, the T28. 2 of these were built, with 105 mm cannons, and 12 inch armor. This was designed to penetrate the Sigfreid Line if conventional attacks did not work.

And if we are talking about tanks that never saw combat, why not tanks that were designed but never built/completed.

Like the German P-1000 Ratte. This was to weigh in at 1,000 tons, and would have had a dual gun turret, with 2 280 mm canons. And a secondary armament of a 128 mm canon.

Of course, the ultimate winner would have to be the P-1500 Monster. Weighing in at 1,500 tons, this tank was intended to fire an 800 mm round (31 inches).



To give an idea, this is an 800 mm round, next to a Soviet T-34 tank. This is the same size round fired from the Dora railroad gun

 

Those big tanks sound like an incredible waste of resources and men. They would be monsters up until a P-51 dropped 500 pound lbs on its roof.

 

The Centurion would have won in a battle, it was easier to build and would have replaced the M4 sherman. It is in some peoples view the best tank ever made, with over 60 year of active service, the Germans tanks could move in 1 counter attack and then brake down. The Tiger was a very good tanks, but the Centurion with would have crushed it in battle.

 

Give credit where credit was due I say, the British armour is the best in the world and I hope we never give it to anybody.

 

Best in the world when?

 

Now, and for the last 50 years. Everybody knows the Challenger 2 is the best armoured tank ever made, so it can take more hits than the Abrams, this is because of they type of armour it has.

Until the Abrams the Centurion was the best tank.

 

Nobody knows that. The Leopard, Merkava, Leclerc, Challenger, and Abrams are largely considered to be the best tanks in the world. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but come out about the same.

 

Oh goodness, how little you seem to know about your own equipment.

The Centurion was one of the widest exported tanks in Western History. In Israel, they were known as the Sho't (Hebrew for Whip). These were finally retired in 1992 and replaced with the Israeli made Merkava series. They were even used by Singapore, South Africa, India, Jordan, Iraq, Denmark, Somalia, Kuwait, and Sweden among other nations.

In fact, a unique version of the Centurion was featured in a 1974 post-apocalyptic book called 1999: The Texas-Israeli War. In this book, the protagonists were a band of Israeli mercenaries who operated in Nuclear powered Centurion tanks which were armed with gattling lasers.

 

These are only opinions, and that of an amateur. Sorry, but I doubt many of us accept that, simply on your say-so.

Can you give us a bit more information as to why that should be accepted?

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYzaxW6zh3U"]Top Ten Tanks- #7: The Challenger - YouTube[/ame]

So the challenger has the best armour in the world, note I am not saying it is better than the Abrams. Just that is has better armour. And because no Challenger 2 has even been lost, it's armour must be better.

And the simple fact is because the Centurion was exported all over the place, it was the best tank in the world until the Abrams.

 

I can see what 'antileftwinger' is saying about British tank armour..........as it was during the mid 70's i believe that a UK military establishment at Longcross, Surrey, England developed what has become known as 'Chobham Armour'
Why it was called Chobham armour was because that was the name of the common nearby where tank testing was done.
I used to live near there!
The armour was special as it was made of various layers of composite materials which gave the tanks formidible protection.
We know it is used on British tanks, but i dont know if the Americans have something similar on the Abrahms, ie whether the British sold the Americans the design of the armour.

I believe in its history thus far, only one Challenger has ever been destroyed, and that was by another Challenger in a friendly fire incident.

Challengers have also been known to survive anti-tank missiles such as the 'Milan'.

The Centurian tank was certainly a fine British tank, and vastly superior to the dire British tanks that served in WW2.

 

Very few Challenger IIs have been used in combat compared to the Abrams. Only 120 were used in the invasion. They were also deployed in the Basrah area which, compared to the Green zone, Mosul, and Al Anbar Province, was rather tame. The Challenger is certainly a good tank, but it doesn't have some otherwordly armor. The majority of Abrams lost in combat were knocked out by massive IEDs implaced in the road. Tanks aren't designed to take massive trauma to the belly, and with enough explosives, can be knocked out. I remember when MRAPs were first deployed in Iraq. WHen we got ours we were told that NO ONE had been killed in one in country yet because of its design and massive armor. By the end of our deployment that had changed....insurgents simpy doubled the amount of explosives in their IEDs.

Surviving anti-tank missile hits is a very broad statement. Most modern MBT can survive direct hits from Eastern-bloc anti-tank weapons. On the otherhand, every MBT ever built can be destroyed by a TOW or Javelin. When you factor in range, conditions, and a variety of other factors, strange things can happen.