Jump to content


Did America really save the Allies in WWI?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
79 replies to this topic

KanonFyodor #21 Posted 29 May 2016 - 09:31 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5065 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-07-2016

A little off topic but the discussion about the Great War series reminds me that May 31st is the 100 year anniversary of the Battle of Jutland. I HIGHLY anticipate the episode.

Notable quotes:

 

"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"

"The thing just happened, as the virgin said when she got a baby."

"Gefechtskehrtwendung nach steuerbord!"

 


Edited by KanonFyodor, 29 May 2016 - 09:32 PM.


Sqn Ldr B #22 Posted 29 May 2016 - 09:47 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostNimoysHeadinJar, on 29 May 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

In fairness, Madcat said AFTER WWII.

 

Ah yes. My mistake. Ignore me...

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


ChekmateKingTwo #23 Posted 29 May 2016 - 09:50 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Ambassador
  • 30610 battles
  • 740
  • [ONE]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Posta flappin cod, on 29 May 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

If WW1 was a match a WoT one could say the the British and French carried the match while America was AFK for 90% of the match.

 

Wasn't the US's fight to begin with.  Looking back on it we, the US, should have stayed out of it completely.



WOT - a game, not a life style!


 


ChekmateKingTwo #24 Posted 29 May 2016 - 09:52 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Ambassador
  • 30610 battles
  • 740
  • [ONE]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 29 May 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

 

Well considering that the US got their arses handed to them in the Philippines and got caught on their back foot at Pearl Harbour and spent the first part of the Pacific/Asia campaign in a fighting retreat, I don't quite think that there was much initiative or pre-emptive strategy at play there before it all kicked off.

 

Kind of like the British did in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong.  Shouldn't rush by those now should we?



WOT - a game, not a life style!


 


Sqn Ldr B #25 Posted 29 May 2016 - 09:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostChekmateKingTwo, on 29 May 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

 

Wasn't the US's fight to begin with.  Looking back on it we should have stayed out of it completely.

 

Basically, yeah.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Sqn Ldr B #26 Posted 29 May 2016 - 09:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostChekmateKingTwo, on 29 May 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:

 

Kind of like the British did in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong.  Shouldn't rush by those now should we?

 

No, no we shouldn't. Not that there was any need to bring those up or assume that what I said was some attempt to defend the British, but whatever.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


NSW Mntd Rifles #27 Posted 29 May 2016 - 11:33 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39337 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

By the time the USA entered the Great War Britain and France were in serious need of reinforcement. Italy was tottering and the male populations of all allied countries were depleted by three years of catastrophic warfare. With the fall of Russia, there was a potential that they could sue for peace. My own country (Australia), admittedly with an all volunteer army, was fielding divisions with small numbers of men.

 

The great contribution the USA made to the Great War was the confidence it provided in the promise of fresh troops. This was critical to sustaining the fighting spirit of the other allied nations. It had an impact on the final outcome.

 

By the way the 1964 BBC series "The Great War" is, in my mind, still the most wonderful documentary on that conflict. I watched it as a boy and the memory of it has stayed with me for fifty years: https://www.youtube....wGM_3l-_QfxFj9B



MadCat1993 #28 Posted 30 May 2016 - 05:53 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14250 battles
  • 1,216
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 29 May 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

 

Ah yes. My mistake. Ignore me...

 

​Happens to the best of us.

GeneralZap1 #29 Posted 30 May 2016 - 06:21 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 18675 battles
  • 1,169
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
Excellent summary.

Crazedtiger77 #30 Posted 30 May 2016 - 08:51 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 29 May 2016 - 11:33 PM, said:

By the time the USA entered the Great War Britain and France were in serious need of reinforcement. Italy was tottering and the male populations of all allied countries were depleted by three years of catastrophic warfare. With the fall of Russia, there was a potential that they could sue for peace. My own country (Australia), admittedly with an all volunteer army, was fielding divisions with small numbers of men.

 

The great contribution the USA made to the Great War was the confidence it provided in the promise of fresh troops. This was critical to sustaining the fighting spirit of the other allied nations. It had an impact on the final outcome.

 

By the way the 1964 BBC series "The Great War" is, in my mind, still the most wonderful documentary on that conflict. I watched it as a boy and the memory of it has stayed with me for fifty years: https://www.youtube....wGM_3l-_QfxFj9B

 

It had an impact, yes but it had an impact in the way the Free French did after the fall of France in WWII - they definitely helped but didn't change the course of the war. As you said, the morale boost provided and the supplies were probably the most significant contribution rather than anything practical.

 

View PostMADCAT93, on 29 May 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

I think its safe to say this topic has s*** starter written all over it.  But to add to the mess, I think its safe to say the United States has been the financial backer for Europe in multiple occasions. After WWII, The United States started using preemptive strategies and taking the initiative.

 

I'm not trying to start any arguments, I just wanted to look at the WWI myth of America saving everyone in a more factual way and in my mind at least, challenging preconceptions is a good thing rather than simply being a 's*** starter'. Certainly on a military level, this clearly wasn't the case although the financial backing provided did stop Britain and France suffering quite as badly as the German economy did. 

 

 



RPGStylee #31 Posted 30 May 2016 - 09:00 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 30 May 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

 

It had an impact, yes but it had an impact in the way the Free French did after the fall of France in WWII - they definitely helped but didn't change the course of the war. As you said, the morale boost provided was probably the most significant contribution rather than anything practical.

 

Well except the millions of tons of supplies of course.


CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


Crazedtiger77 #32 Posted 30 May 2016 - 09:03 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostRPGStylee, on 30 May 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

 

Well except the millions of tons of supplies of course.

 

And that. :P

Edited the post.



NSW Mntd Rifles #33 Posted 30 May 2016 - 09:16 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39337 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostRPGStylee, on 30 May 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

 

Well except the millions of tons of supplies of course.

 

My understanding is that US forces arriving in France in 1917 only had little more than rifles and a small amount of ordnance. Britain and France had to equip the US forces with weapons suitable for fighting on the Western Front. France supplied US forces with 3,834 field pieces and mortars as well as 10 million rounds of ammunition. France also supplied machine guns for the US infantry.

Edited by NSW Mntd Rifles, 30 May 2016 - 09:17 AM.


RPGStylee #34 Posted 30 May 2016 - 09:25 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 30 May 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

 

My understanding is that US forces arriving in France in 1917 only had little more than rifles and a small amount of ordnance. Britain and France had to equip the US forces with weapons suitable for fighting on the Western Front. France supplied US forces with 3,834 field pieces and mortars as well as 10 million rounds of ammunition. France also supplied machine guns for the US infantry.

 

Thats why I said supplies, and not just ammunition and weapons. They sent quite a lot of ammo and explosives I think though.

Edited by RPGStylee, 30 May 2016 - 09:28 AM.

CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


scwirpeo #35 Posted 31 May 2016 - 05:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 41449 battles
  • 11,501
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
More important than say japan or some others but far less than France and England. Germany was already alone in all honesty by the time American forces got into Europe and one army rarely beats two. Add an extra army to that and at the negotiation table Germany is left with little choice but complete surrender. If i was to give my assessment the only reason we were even petitioned to join was so france could use the US like Japan to negotiate more strict terms and attempt to kill Germany in the cradle as it were and use the war to promptly remove all major competition from the western part of the continent(excluding England ofc). The identifiable advantage the doughboys bring is obviously relief of forces from certain trenches to allow more tactical freedom among the other allies and a decent boost to moral in some manner. The main advantage was the freeing of troops while a small 280k might seem meaningless compared to the millions on the lines already a number of that size can make a moderate difference in an individual battle, and wars are won in the battles you chose to fight. I cant see dice trying for the propoganda gag though, its fairly well known how un prepared the us was for ww1. Even in the miss information and garbage they teach in history classes in public education its hard to cover up not even having an automatic wepon in service or enough uniforms as late as 1917.

MOEs so I can pretend like they matter

Spoiler

 


HighbornShihtzu #36 Posted 28 June 2016 - 11:38 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24610 battles
  • 653
  • Member since:
    04-16-2014

Save, no.  Sped up conclusion - perhaps.

 

If you want to a nice story about why ^ is so go look up the sinking of the Lusitania.  (Spoiler)  The USA/Britain was using the civilian liners to transport weapons to Britain,  the Germans went WAY out of way to say when it leaves US waters it will be torpedoed, so  do not get on it Americans - they did it anyways.  Germans torpedo ship, USA geo-politics still pushed for neutrality and kept neutrality until effort by intrest to put US in war win out.

 

Fun facts:  if you go to the sight today you are likely to be killed by not the ammo in the ships hull but by modern ordnance (insue conspiracy theories) on ship. Several documentaries on this fact.



Gannonator 777 #37 Posted 28 June 2016 - 11:49 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28644 battles
  • 476
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
thought it said wwii at first, and you said no. i was like HOLD THE PHONE, than noticed it said WWI

JAG THE GEMINI #38 Posted 28 June 2016 - 11:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65282 battles
  • 2,428
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
lol why would France and England would speak German if the Kaiserreich had won? Such nonsense... :facepalm:

 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


Sqn Ldr B #39 Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:00 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 29 June 2016 - 12:55 AM, said:

lol why would France and England would speak German if the Kaiserreich had won? Such nonsense... :facepalm:

 

It's a figure of speech.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


JAG THE GEMINI #40 Posted 29 June 2016 - 08:04 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65282 battles
  • 2,428
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 29 June 2016 - 01:00 AM, said:

 

It's a figure of speech.

k but still nonsense


 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users