[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Again, Hitler never intended to invade/defeat England. Russia has always been his main target.

Then since he'd pushed them out of Europe, it wouldn't be a mistake to go against Russia.
But all the experts say it was a mistake to do that before defeating England.
So your information is bogus.

Yanks always like to wave their willy, the correct number is 762,462 sorties over Europe combined by B17,24, 26, 25, A20, A26.

Oh, I see, when you quote numbers for the Brits it's ok, but when I quote numbers it's willy waving.
Like I said, 23,363 aircraft flew 1,893,565 sorties against the Germans in Europe.

Ever heard of the Spitfire?

Superior? Read Chuck Yeager comment in my message above…
Actually the high altitude was the P51 strong point. The British invented something called the “Universal Wing”. This permitted the same version of the Spitfire to change wings impressively quickly complete with differing armament to optimize performance at low, medium and high altitudes for operations against ground, naval, bomber or fighter opponents. The P51’s best performance was at high altitudes, at medium and especially low altitudes it was inferior to the Spitfires even without the “Universal Wings”.
The P51s were ideally suited to high level long range strategic bomber escorts. The Luftwaffe’s Fw190s had the firepower to deal with the heaviest Allied bombers, but their performance waned at higher altitudes. The Me109s excelled at high altitudes and could dogfight better with the P51s, but lacked the Fw190s firepower to bring down the heavy bombers. As long as the P51s were operating at high altitudes, they were at their best.

If the Spitfire was so great, why didn't they just build more? Oh, that's right, they couldn't.
Hmmm, so why didn't they hire North American to build Spitfires? Because they needed something better.
If their wings were so good, why didn't they specify them for the Mustang? Because North American had a better design.
If they wanted the Mustang for high altitude, why didn't they specify that in the contract? Because it was an afterthought when their bombers got creamed.

The American Arms Contractors who originally designed the flawed Allison engine.

You keep saying "American Arms Contractors" when it was Allison Engines Company that built those engines. They really ought to sue your lying ass for slander because there was nothing flawed about those engines.
I can see it now....Rolls Royce vs Fred...in slander lawsuit.You do know Rolls owns Allison, right?
They did what they were supposed to do given the parameters of the contract. They weren't supposed to be high altitude escort fighters, it was only when the Brits realized they needed one, they stuck in the Merlin that had been designed to do high altitudes. Notice the Spitfire with their fancy wings wouldn't cut it.
Every fighter pilot has his/her favorite plane according to his/her style of flying. Yeager is no exception.[quote]
In license of Rolls Royce Motors.[/QUOTEYes under licence to Rolls, because they couldn't do it over there. They needed us.

Better late then never and it produced UK’s poodle attitude with the US.

My,my, you are confused...poodles are french, silly.

It was NOT a military alliance in any sense of the word. All it did was promise member states to share information on Soviet-backed communist parties to try to contain the spread of communism. The only mention of military matters was that if one member state was attacked by the USSR, then the others promised to remain neutral. Which is like saying if someone hits you, I promise to watch and not help him.
Yeah Google can do a lot for you, Brucey, but understanding the real world behind all these pacts and treaties is an entirely different matter. Again, it is not a military alliance but a mutual defense pact instead. Germany hopes that this is the first step in finally getting Japan to sign a true military alliance with it, but Japan would never trust Hitler again after the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Japan did hope that this new pact would prevent Stalin from asian expansion. It also hoped that it would intimidate the Americans. The terms included promise of mutual aid if any one of the signatories were attacked by a power not already involved in the ‘European War’ or ‘China Incident’. This satisfied Japan’s desire not to risk war with Britain and was obviously directed at the USSR and the USA instead. Japan was permitted to occupy French Indo-china with a ‘policing force’ by the Vichy and thus cut some of the American aid to Chiang.
No, you did not, you merely copied what Google found for you. Again, if you’ve actually would have read my message instead of only looking at it, you would have noticed that Japan offered to pull out of the Tripartite Act if the Americans stopped interfering with Asia and they never declared war on Russia. Nice ally…

I'm so impressed you know more than Hitler, Saburo Kurusu or the historians about the real intent of the "Axis" alliences.

Contrary to you, FDR knew that Japan was not an official ally to Germany and therefore declared war to Germany/Italy seperately on Dec.11th, 1941, 3 days after declaring war on Japan. Know your history, Brucey.

I know my history, Fredick, and unlike you I don't have to make it up as I go along.

They could stand the fire bombings before Hiroshima got nuked and which infact killed much more people than these 2 nukes. For the Japanese life didn’t have any meaning, but the fact being invaded by the Russian (and eventually the Yanks) was enough to surrender, after the Emperor decided, because the Generals wanted to fight until the last man.

No shit, Dick Tracy. That's what I said, they had no fronts except home. The Russians were the least of their worries....it didn't matter to them who invaded. Truman didn't want the Russians to invade japan, that's one reason he nuked 'em.

The US stayed out of the war long enough to bring the UK on the brink of exhaustion therefore being totally dependent of the US. The Leage of the Nations was merely a police to limit the power of the British Empire. A stroke, yeah… that shows you that even a US President is a mortal, Brucey.

Oh I see, England lost their Empire because we didn't bail their ass out soon enough, but we weren't important in WW I. Glad you 'splained that Lucy.
Oh, and the US did not belong to the League of Nations, Congress refused to ratify it.

Yes, US Presidents are mortal...your point is? You know, Fredick, you're a perfect example of why drugs shouldn't be legalized over here.

The bottom line is, the Russians were brave and clever fighters. The British were also brave and extremely innovative. But in the end they needed the United States because they didn't have the ways and means. No amount of condescending posturing by you or anyone else is going to rewrite that part of history.
I've proved it, the numbers prove it, history proves it. I'm done.