Jump to content

cdnsigop

Members
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cdnsigop

  • Birthday 09/17/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada

cdnsigop's Achievements

Crunchie

Crunchie (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Blue, it was a gerenal comment, I added the mustang as a example of what I've read in the past in gerenal histories. This would not apply to books written on just on thing. and It was more about the views of authors from the two countries.
  2. As a canadian I can you forgot that other nation that is very pro their stuff over and above all else.. and that is the US. being in canada we get to look at both sides and I find that US books are by the worst for this. Its not in very book or program but you and really see their leanings. And exmaple would the P-51, british engine, US airframe.. which made it better? British books will give engine.. the US... will hardly talk about the engine. another eg, would the way Canadians given credit, well lack of credit in both Histories.. one ot two pages is not enough.. . Both seem to use the term commonwealth a lot, which totally down plays any role but the british, but then that is just opinion. I'm not going to get debate about as no one wins.... but as a Canadian its easy to see both.
  3. "I think that someone who was a pre-teen living on a US Army post, who watched his father go off to fight those aforementioned "Nips" can be forgiven a few non-PC slips which might offend your delicate sensibilities. * Agreed. I've met the man and I can say that he's far fro"m racist." Its not the person, it's the comment, "nips" is very much a racist word. If you won't use the word to someone's face its racist. not going to get a debate, but Nips is no diferent than the "n" word or calling someone a darkie..... all are carry overs froma very racist time period.
  4. Well lets add a few restictions to the mix then. The fighter has be in service by 44 at the latest, and by service I mean in combat and in full production. That removed the tigercat and hornet, of the two I would say the Hornet is the better plane. One the problems I see is that when you best of list here, everyone goes with planes or tanks or what ever built in the last days of conflict. of course these better than the earlier production. Just look at the T-55-T62 thread against the M-1, with over 35 years between them of course the suck against a M-1. back to topic at hand, p-38 is a good choice, is there a Soviet plane that could make the list?
  5. "Nips" Your post was great, but that is a totally racist term. Waas racist even back in WW2 when they used it. You post loses most of its meaning when you fill it with racism. I think term you looking for here is Japanese... I know it might seem PC but that is really the correct word to use when talking about the Japan and its people.
  6. Mosquito all the way. For the Germans maybe the Owl, not sure if proper name right now but I will add it later on.
  7. JWB, so the Allies go Ablania, they take the port. where do they go from there????
  8. It's Myth that the Maginot Line robbed the French resources and money as the line completed by 1936. An it did stop the Germans that why they went though the ardenne region. German also spent tons money and resourses on their lines of defence and this was after 1936 both eastern Germany and along the French border. I haven't done enough research on sudject but the fall of France is not due to the Maginot Line, or lack of 3 men turrents in their tanks. So many factors played in the fall of France. In the only real tank battle of 1940, it was French who came out on top, as they had tanks than Germans. most german tanks were MK1 or Mk2's so it wasn't tanks that won the battle of France. The Germans took to offenive and stayed with it, where the British and French just seemed to have fell apart.
  9. Albania, how do you think that Allies that could supply both Albania and France and then also supply troop around Italy. It just won't work and is a waste of resources. What works is going to France and pushing though France to get to germany. the quicker you in Germany the fast you stop stalin. ( which was not the goal of allies to begin with). As it was the Allies were cut of combat troops in the fall of 44. Canada had to pull all of their troops from Italy to con't their advance in Northern France and Holland. Having troops in Albania does nothing to shorten the war or to give the allies a better out come.
  10. The SMLE ireally didn't need to be changed. It was the fastest bolt action rifle in service and the British really didn't be replace it. And with the number 4 they had the best mark already in development. It would of nice to replace the rimmed round wold a rem less one as it would made things easier. But the British had a great small arms set up the Enfield and Bern worked well. The only thing I would change if adding a belt feed MG for those times when one needed more firepower. The Vickers was just too be big and heavy. For the British I would have to say they needed better tank designs. Maybe a trip to Russia would of helped and getting their hand on a few Bt-7's would of improved their designs some. Forgot something, the British need to replace their outdate helmet, with something offers more protection and is less viewable in the field. Some more along the lines of the para- helmet would be a good choice. For the Germans it would be more work on their airforce it was tactical air force only and they lacked transport planes and heavy bombers. they should been working on four engine bombers and transports in 39. maybe buying the DC-3's would of helped them. With long range heavy bombing they could hit sites in the Britian or gotten to the Russian tank factories.
  11. I have to say the biggest plus would of been to have a to build up a strong attack force after 1939 and then in 1940 take that force into Germany. Instead of waiting for them to attack. Both the British and French have strong fighter forces and large tank units that if used in offenenive into germany may have the changed the course of war and forced Germany to sue for peace. The French had more of had batter tanks than the Germans, linked to together with BEF and Free Polish units who had combat experience would of been more than enough if used correctly. It was meant that going though Beligum of course, but with war being taken to German getting Beligum to agree would not of been that differecult and most like they would added their forces to the assualt as well. Failing that, just having the British hold their ground in battle of France would most likely slowed and stalled the German advance. Instead they withdraw before actually getting into combat which forced beligum to surrender and left France alone and with out any support.
  12. "Canuckistanis" Are some kind of a Pat Buchanan /fox news what'a be....... Its Canadians. And even if you think Canada is too socialist now it was not the case in 43. Use the correct term.
  13. Hey I was think, what do think the out come would of been if the Allies had slipped Italy all together and just waited for a build up of forces in 19143 and went straight for France? Would the war end closer? I think the Allies would taken a lot more Casualties and war would not of ended any sooner, as the Geramn had a had a firepower open then in 43 that was not there in 44. And they had limited tacitical airforce at the point as well. Oh the plus side it would pushed the US and British toget better tanks in production faster.
  14. "Perhaps I am reading things wrong, but your posts on this topic thus far give the distinct impression that the Canadians won the last stages of WW1 virtually unaided, and that everyone else was merely playing a support role to their activities. This was simply not the case. Overstatement in response to perceived understatement is simply two wrongs not making a right." I can see why you might think that way. But that was not intention. My point was that and is that Canadian Corp played a very major part in the victory. And that is this major part that is over looked in most other histories of Great War. I see no where in my posts that I'm over stating the role of Canada, only making sure that what Canadians did is over looked or dismissed as it in most major histories on the subject and for that by most people in the UK and US. If you can't find those books I listed in teh Uk I'ld be happy to help send to you.
×
×
  • Create New...