Drewski

I (at least partially) answered posters on page 3 and 4 of this thread why we waited, which tells me this isn't about answering the question.

The Allies couldn't even think about landing troops in Normandy as long as the Luftwaffe was still a viable fighting force; one could argue they were viable even post 6/6/44. But their power to inflict mass damage had been largely crippled by the USAAF.

I think this is further brought out by looking at the tactics of the USAAF during their time in theater and specifically how they changed.

The tactics started out as strategic bombing - send long range bombers, unescorted to bomb military and industrial targets. The bombers weren't escorted to the targets because the best US fighters available, P-38s/P-47s, had half the service range of the 17s/24s. Plus it was thought that a bomber with 10 50 caliber machine guns on it could defend itself; thus the name "Flying Fortress" for B-17s.

Then the tactics became Strategic escorted bombing when the P-51D showed up (with the big Merlin engine).

To this point, it was still about "bombing".

When Doolittle showed up and started running the show, that is when it all changed. The missions weren't about bombing anymore. They were about using the bombers as bait to get the Luftwaffe engaged in the air, where the P-51s would destroy them en masse. When the Mustangs showed up (coupled with Doolittle's "release of the fighters to fight"), Luftwaffe losses skyrocketed, in fact I want to say in March of 44, the Luftwaffe lost more fighters in one month than they had the entire war to that point (could be off on the month).

The air war in Europe became of war of attrition to destroy the Luftwaffe thus allowing the Allied Invasion to have a better chance to succeed.

I am not arguing that this is the only reason why D-Day happened in June of 44. There were probably many (and maybe some which were flimsy), but gaining air superiority BEFORE the invasion was a big part of the time line.

__________________
Disclaimer:There has been no claim of expertness with this post.

IllegalContact

not at all......that's exactly how you replied to PR

every country has its demons........only the US was forced to save most of them from their own

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

IllegalContact

the notion that d-day was delayed is your premise....you're the one that argued it should have been done sooner....and have completely failed in providing any details as to why they should have done it sooner.

they invaded italy because at that time they felt they were strategically capable of being victorious.

I'm still waiting for the basis of your claim that all supplies had to be brought directly across the north atlantic to support the italian invasion.....that is your claim.

so what's the alterior motive to attacking italy first? what's the conspiracy theory?

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

shmessy

Wow, you were able to write all that without actually GOOGLING the three words/names that were asked of you to Google????

Once again: Molotov, Ribbentrop and Pact.

If you actually know what those three words mean in context with each other, you wouldn't be trying to continue to smokescreen the board right now.

The argument has nothing to do with Communism (nice try at a straw man argument). The Soviets dug their own hole. Sorry you can't see the obvious analogy.

I can't wait to see your next thread complaining that Winston Churchill was let off the hook while Neville Chamberlain "bore the brunt" of criticism for WWII.

Should be another insightful winner.

__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com

DarrylS

Where else would they bring supplies from, go around Africa and through the Suez Canal??? The troops in North Africa were supplemented by additional troops prior to invading Italy along with supplies..

Never mind, reread what you posted.. self reflection is good.

You initially contended that D Day was delayed due to logistical issues, and contended early on there were 190K troops deployed in Italy. When I pointed out the rate of casualty was too high for your contention, you conveniently backtracked on the conversation and was never able to provide any details...

No conspiracy theory, just trying to understand why things happened the way it did, usually there is an ulterior motive. Nothing is ever what it appears to be...

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

IllegalContact

*impressed*

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

IllegalContact

if I used the actual word 'delayed' then I misspoke.......you can't delay something that was never planned in the first place. I guess you could delay a notion, but it doesn't mean anything.

once again Darryl, you are skirting the issue of your claim that the d-day should have happened sooner and the failure to provide a basis for that opinion

I correctly stated that 190K troops were deployed for the invasion of Italy.....you're the one who changed the numbers based on the entire operation of securing Italy. you must not realize that there's a huge difference between the 2. I've done no backtracking....... you've produced nothing to refute what I have said

You're the one conjuring up fantasies about alterior motives while producing absolutely nothing of substance........

applying simple logic erases all of your silliness

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

DarrylS

You've provided no corroboration for any of your arguments..

I get the impression that you pretty much bully your way through life and are seldom wrong, even though the folly of your argument has been shown throughout this thread..

You make assertions based on google images, that have no text to back it up.. without regard I made my point and will move on.

When I am in the World War II museum this Friday will pay special attention to this aspect of that war.. perhaps it may be better information than what you provided.. which is little or maybe what you think.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

IllegalContact

great Darryl.......believe whatever you want.....you're

but beware.......as you say, things are seldom as they appear....who knows what the agenda of the proprietors is.........after all, maybe the germans did bomb pearl harbor

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

Drewski

Hahahahah.....Top 10 movie speeches of all time.

__________________
Disclaimer:There has been no claim of expertness with this post.