Re: WWII timeline ETO - US perspective
- From: eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:34:16 -0400
On Jul 10, 7:38 am, "sam...@xxxxxxx" <s.m.vitie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just thinking about how things progressed from Pearl Harbor onwards.
Is it fair to say that the US armed forces, especially the army, were
really just a skeleton force in December of 1941? So really, it took
a good solid year for mass production to really kick in and for the
Armed Forces to get fully equipped, trained, battle tested, etc.? If
that's so, then it's really more like Jan of 1943 before you have a
well equipped force, in its entirety. By January of 1945, the Battle
of the Bulge is over and most of the heavy fighting on the Western
front is over. So that's really just two solid years for the ETO.
I'm just ballparking things here, but I would be interested to hear if
this sounds about right.
One only needs to look at the massive technical work that had been
undertaken in the USA.
The advanced fire control computers of the US navy, the Norden
bombsight were all in place. Engines like the PW 2800 and the turbo
supercharged allison were in place.
The P-38, P-39 and P-40, Wildcat all held their own against Axis
aircraft being superior in some realm and inferior in others.
Aircraft like the B-17, B25, B26 and B24 were mature designs that
could be placed into mass production.
Sensibly the US invested primarily in her Navy and Airforce. Direct
invasion was an impossibillity and there was time to build up the
Army.
Its lucky in a way that the USA hadn't over produced a series of what
could only be outmoded designs. Would 1000 more Brewster Buffaloes
really have helped?
.
- References:
- WWII timeline ETO - US perspective
- From: samvit@xxxxxxx
- WWII timeline ETO - US perspective
- Prev by Date: Re: Range of Me 109
- Next by Date: Re: State of military vehicle collections?
- Previous by thread: Re: WWII timeline ETO - US perspective
- Next by thread: Author John Mozier
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
