The War of 1812: What really happened?

[Mathew952]

Funny, Canadians think they won because Canada wasn't conquered, and America thinks it won because they drove back the British.

And we killed 3500 brits in one day( battle of New Orleans), Which is really good stress releif.

 

[Evil Lawyer]

Don't forget the fact that we (as in the English) had to suffer through nightly bombing raids and hold off the Nazis BY OURSELVES for several months before Hitler got greedy/stupid and invaded Russia. Yes, the Americans sent us weapons and ammo as aid (much of it from WW1 mind you), but troops would have been nice too.

Actually America did--there were a lot of Americans that got themselves into the RAF and RCAF: they were called the Eagle Squadrons. And that was a big deal--the Battle of Britain was an attempt to attrition the British air forces down to nothing.

Yes, Japan attacked them (although it was not the mainland and Hawaii wasn't even a state then) and it was a terrible loss of life. But the U.S. mainland was never threatened directly and the war was never brought home to the States like it was to us on a regular basis.

The war really wasn't brought home to *any* of us considering it ended over 60 years ago.

In any case, I don't really see where this whole issue is coming from. See how much nationalistic fervor...sucks?

All because of those fucking Canadians, starting shit like always...

Indeed you are correct on the RAF and RCAF and I will admit that this did slip my mind as I was posting earlier. But I would also like to point out that most of those troops came over by choice, not because they were told to.

And yes, I am fully aware that no one on the forum was there to experience this war firsthand. And I'm not really trying to toot England's horn about who had the greater sacrifice in the war. It's more or less just a reminder that we had to directly defend against Germany, while both the U.S. and Canada did not have their mainland attacked (minus a Japanese sub shelling the coast of California, but that was one time and I don't believe anyone was seriously hurt).

I just have to get a smile about WW2, because the U.S., Canada and France seem to think that WW2 was their shining moment of the 20th century. This indeed is mostly true about two of those nations, but I think we all know which one needs to stop acting like they they didn't get their arse's kicked for the majority of the war...


What this has to do with War of 1812 I don't know. If I post again on this thread I'll try to keep it more on topic.

 

[Aidanadv]

As to the US mainland being attacked during WWII, the Japanese took one or two Aleutian Islands (The series of islands off Alaska) for a couple days before they withdrew because they were frozen hunks of rock.

 

[werepossum]

Ah, Americans and the second world war.... firstly, you have us believe that you did all the work..... then we point out that that honour goes to mother russia.

The you try and make us believe that the war was fought with all your kit- then we point out-

The fact the 'enormous sacrifice' on Omaha beach, horrific as it was, was mainly the fault of your navy.

The churchill (a tank which saved a lot of infantrymen in Normandy)

The Cromwell (a better tank by far than the Sherman)

The fact you never built an effective- anti Panther/Tiger tank destroyer until the M26 in 1945.

The fact the A34 Comet was a better tank than the Pershing.

The fact the P51 Mustang was an aircraft built to RAF specification in America- translation- not an American aircraft.

The fact you never bothered to armour the flight decks of your carriers, thus causing massive casualties amongst your men.

The fact you never created a light machine gun.

The fact that your army went gallivanting around the picturesque, lightly defended southern part of France and Germany (read- where there was and is nothing of significant value) and seemed to believe that the fighting was that easy everywhere and complained because the Commonwealth and some of your own divisions under Montgmery (who had his flaws, yes, but at least he didn't want to fight a war with the Red mother-fucking Army!) were basically trying to make headway through several tons of lead per ten yards.

And to all those who are offended, I apologise. To all those who think I am incorrect- post in a rational, measured response and I will respond in kind. Flame me and I will return the favour, with interest.

I agree that Russia had the most effect of defeating Germany, hands down. I will argue that had Britain folded when the French did, all German forces would have been free to invade Russia. Since Russia came very close to folding the first summer, you could argue that Britain being stubborn and refusing to make peace made the Russian contribution possible. Beyond that I fully understand that the Commonwealth fought alone for almost four years, but remember as well that the USA fought Japan largely alone (with some help from Australia, New Zealand, India, and Thailand) during that same period of time.

Omaha did get an ineffective prep fire, but I'd say the Navy made up for it later with close-in direct fire as someone mentioned. The main reasons for the high casualties were that elements of two crack SS armored divisions had moved into the area without being detected, and the Americans were assigned the hardest nut to crack. This was in part because we had the largest available forces, but also because Great Britain and Canada had been fighting virtually alone since France fell. The failure of the DD tanks, the ineffective prep fires, the failure of nerve among many LCT captains (resulting in tanks and jeeps being launched in water too deep for the siphons and immediately lost), and other things had their effects, but all along everyone knew Omaha was the hardest task.

The Churchill did indeed perform admirably in Normandy. Remember though that the funnies came about because the Churchill was a failure as a battle tank - the turret ring was too small to take an effective cannon.

The Cromwell was a decent cruiser tank by British standards, but those are low standards indeed. Even the Brits preferred the Sherman; considering that the Sherman was pretty much crap by Russian or German standards, that's saying alot. Only when later armed with the 17 pounder and armored with welded armor (earlier versions used riveted armor, very dangerous to the crew) did the Cromwell have some success, but even then it had poor belly armor and that awful vertical nose plate.

The M26 was the Pershing heavy tank; America fielded effective tank destroyers in '43 (M18 with 76mm M1 gun, fastest armored vehicle of the war) and '44 (M36 with 90mm M3 gun).

The Comet was another cruiser; it could hardly be compared to the M26 Pershing, and in any case played even less role that the M26. It also perpetuated the faults of the Cromwell. Face it, Britain didn't field any good tanks between the Matilda and the Centurian, just as the USA didn't field any good tanks until the Pershing. (Although both the Cromwell and th Comet would have been good tanks for North Africa, which was cruiser country.) Oddly enough, that same 17 pounder, when fitted into the Sherman (Firefly), was the only effective Western Allied tank before '45. I should point out that I'm not promoting American tank design, which was truly horrible before the Pershing (which the Armor Board didn't want and tried to kill - evidently they felt a loss ratio of five to one was acceptable). I'm just pointing out that British tank design was at least as bad and that British tank production led many British and Canadian units to use those horrible Shermans.

The Mustang was designed by North American Aviation. It was to a British specification, but it is an American design. Although later models did use the British Merlin engine, a better engine than the original Allison.

I can't argue the carrier armoring because I just don't know anything about it, and I agree that German machine guns were much better than any US or British issue. I suppose you could argue that Bren guns were better than BARs if you want, but both were turds compared to their German counterparts.

As to your claim that our "army went gallivanting around the picturesque, lightly defended southern part of France and Germany (read- where there was and is nothing of significant value) and seemed to believe that the fighting was that easy everywhere and complained because the Commonwealth and some of your own divisions under Montgmery (who had his flaws, yes, but at least he didn't want to fight a war with the Red mother-fucking Army!) were basically trying to make headway through several tons of lead per ten yards." Sorry, I am not fluent in 'crackhead' and am therefore unable to make any sense of that part.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

In a measured and civilised respones to 'Werepossum' (I'm sorry, what exactly is a possum? My Biology is focused around African ecosystems at the moment.)I will attempt to epostulate on my own points

The Cromwell, while having a degree of mechanical faults, was nonetheless an excellent tank and more to the point faster than anything the American army fielded outside of the M10/18 series.

The churchill was, by Normandy,armed with the same 75mm gun as the sherman and cromwell tanks. CoH is innaccurate by fixing it with a 6-pounder gun.

The M10/18 series tank destoryers were awful in Normandy. Open topped tanks are a poor design, and the 76mm gun was nothing to brag about. The only effective varient was the 90mm armed M36, and even then it was outmatched by the Firefly and Achilles.

The navy failed, as you point out, by dropping the DD tanks too far from the shoreline and causing the tanks to sink, thus creating the hideous casualties on the beaches. That is why Omaha had such high casualties.

And my last point about Patton is that the media seem to have created this image around him that he was some-sort of latter day Alexander whose progress shamed Montgomery, which is partially true given that Patton did move faster than Montgomery, but what a great deal of the historians fail to note is that the german defences were much heavier in the North of Germany as that was the area of greatest industrial concentration, wheras Patton was campaigning in an area of limited strategic importance to the Germans.

But my point about the BAR- pure crackhead. Don't know whats up there, but the only difference would be that the Bren would have greater accuracy in long range engagements- I suspect certain people are altering my posts when I'm out of the room.....


Anyhow, I do still agree with cheese pavilion- people tend to fotget America's contribution to the rest of the, and it is a shame that so much mockery is and can be directed towards such a nation....

 

[MrHappy255]

Hey on a lighter note I am really impressed by the Canadian fervor I see. 10 Years ago Canadians really didn't feel such overwhelming pride in their country.

I think the change comes from the US, so thanks. It is hard to be constanly inundated with how good a country is without getting a little torked out of shape especially when that country is right next door. (I'm lookin at you good ol US of A).

Now in regards to how people seem to not appreciate or forget about the US's sacrifices in the past that is not the case. Most of us UN countries are aware and appreciate what you did. I being Canadian myself thank you. That is not the issue, What is the issue is that often times Americans make others feel like they are the only ones to have done anything of merit in the past 100 years.

Yes Canada is a peaceful country, but we are changing as I type this. It may not be evident for years to come but Canada and its citizens are changing, mostly as a result of fear of being overwhelmed by the US. That is why we pride ourselves on our victories.

I live close to Hamilton Ontario where Laura Secord ran to warn us colonists about the americans running up here and where my forefathers kicked some american colonial ass. Now could the US F canada up now? Of course, 10 times the population and economy built on an industrial war complex. Cmon, we really wouldn't have a chance but that also doesn't mean we would give up easily.

Remember most Canadian's are in a little way crazy mothers.

Oh yeah and I had relatives that fought for the Highlanders in WW2. They were nuts, seriously crazy.

But anyway thanks for bringing a smile to my face fellow crazy canucks.

Oh and yeah I still love the US for many things since I lived there for a while but man Bush as a president thumbs down man.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I love my country as much as any other person (USA all the way!) but I am not a xenophobic jerk who alienates other nations or generalizes all other nations. I fully understand not everyone thinks that the U.S. is just a bunch of morons with guns running around, but every one of those people who do think that make everyone else related to them look bad. But again, I try not to alienate based on origin, but everyone else seems to do it to Americans, and then wonder why they don't seem to care about other countries. Also, Bush sucks.

 

[Easykill]

Yeah, I've been undecided for a while now, but this is the thread that convinced me to give up patriotism, it seems to just numb your thinking. I'm a bit of an Anarchist anyways.

BTW though, if we're ever invaded by someone I don't think is worthy of ruling the world... We can fight guerrilla warfare too.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I dunno, The land of the Strong and Free is pretty small population-wise.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

But the U.S. mainland was never threatened directly and the war was never brought home to the States like it was to us on a regular basis.

Yes, it was. There are several reports of German U-boats camping in along the coast, within sight of major cities such as New York, and torpedoing ships. Also, There were many fears of an Invasion force hitting California or other states on the Pacific coast. San Pedro, California, actually ended up having a "Phantom Raid" in which the lookouts saw something in the sky, assumed it was a Japanese bomber Squadron, and spent over twenty minutes firing blindly into the air. I know this because they celebrate it every year as a memorial to the veterans of World War II. And we also have a cove which is unofficially referred to as "Jap Cove" because a Japanese Submarine grounded on the rocks, within a mile of the shore.

You forgot to mention Operation Pastorius. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius]

 

[Bromeliad]

Speaking as an American I was taught in middle school that no one won the war of 1812 and it just ended. Seriously.
That was the extent of my education on the war of 1812, and frankly I wonder occasionally if I was taught the "saving face" American version.

I was also taught that the pilgrims and the Native Americans were best friends, that Custer was "a sort of dessert" and that the founding fathers were a bunch of demigodlike saints in silly wigs.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go post angry letters about governemnt conspiracies on supremacist forums and polish my gun/moonshine collection.

 

[werepossum]

In a measured and civilised respones to 'Werepossum' (I'm sorry, what exactly is a possum? My Biology is focused around African ecosystems at the moment.)I will attempt to epostulate on my own points

The Cromwell, while having a degree of mechanical faults, was nonetheless an excellent tank and more to the point faster than anything the American army fielded outside of the M10/18 series.

The churchill was, by Normandy,armed with the same 75mm gun as the sherman and cromwell tanks. CoH is innaccurate by fixing it with a 6-pounder gun.

The M10/18 series tank destoryers were awful in Normandy. Open topped tanks are a poor design, and the 76mm gun was nothing to brag about. The only effective varient was the 90mm armed M36, and even then it was outmatched by the Firefly and Achilles.

The navy failed, as you point out, by dropping the DD tanks too far from the shoreline and causing the tanks to sink, thus creating the hideous casualties on the beaches. That is why Omaha had such high casualties.

And my last point about Patton is that the media seem to have created this image around him that he was some-sort of latter day Alexander whose progress shamed Montgomery, which is partially true given that Patton did move faster than Montgomery, but what a great deal of the historians fail to note is that the german defences were much heavier in the North of Germany as that was the area of greatest industrial concentration, wheras Patton was campaigning in an area of limited strategic importance to the Germans.

But my point about the BAR- pure crackhead. Don't know whats up there, but the only difference would be that the Bren would have greater accuracy in long range engagements- I suspect certain people are altering my posts when I'm out of the room.....


Anyhow, I do still agree with cheese pavilion- people tend to fotget America's contribution to the rest of the, and it is a shame that so much mockery is and can be directed towards such a nation....

A possum (an opossum, properly) is a marsupial scavenger, roughly cat sized. I didn't realize any continent was without its possums!

The Cromwell was certainly faster than any American tank of the era. It would have been a great tank for North Africa, but perpetuated the faults of all the British cruiser tanks. The most important fault was the vertical nose plate the Brits insisted on using all the way to the excellent Centurian, which virtually guaranteed that a shot striking the nose plate would penetrate. It could be argued that it's as good as or better than the Sherman, certainly better in the right situation, but my point was the comparison to the Pershing which was a much better tank all around.

If memory serves most of the Churchills at Normandy were equipped with six pounders, the Shermans were equipped with the much better 76mm (much higher velocity than the 75mm, which was designed under the persistent and ludicrous US and UK belief that tanks supported infantry while tank destroyers and anti-tank guns fought tanks), the Cromwells were mostly equipped with the meh 75mm (bored out 57mm if I remember correctly), and the occassional Sherman Firefly conversion had the excellent 17-pounder (which was arguably a better anti-tank weapon than the 90mm M3, with flatter trajectory and higher ammo storage at the expense of slightly lower kinetic energy and penetration and a smaller HE charge.) And I don't recognize "CoH" - is that a person or book or game or?

I certainly agree that the M10/18 series tank destroyers were awful in Normandy, where combat was linear and at point-blank range, and that open-topped and lightly armored tank destroyers were a dead end design overall, yet they performed admirably after the Normandy breakout. Many M18 and M36 battalions had kill numbers equal to the better Sherman (and Cromwell) tank battalions, since they could run faster and the Tigers and Panthers easily penetrated Western tank armor anyway. Even in Italy the M10 served well with its 76mm gun, much better than the Sherman's short-barreled 75mm which had problems even with the Mark 4 Panzer. You are right that the 76mm gun was nothing to brag about, but it was the most powerful the M18 was capable of mounting (several were trialed.) The Sherman probably couldn't have mounted the 90mm M3 gun since it was trialed and rejected, although that might have been due to the antiquated ideas of the staff at the Armor Board as mentioned above. (Why on Earth your own side would think losing five tanks to take out one German tank was an acceptable ratio has always escaped me.) The Sherman Firely (mounting the British 76.2mm 17-pounder) was a decent tank, less speed and worse armor than the Panther but more mobile and reliable and at least capable of engaging the Panther at equal range. I've never understood why the USA didn't build that exclusively. I don't remember much about the Achilles - wasn't that the US M10 tank destroyer with the second generation (77mm, shorter breach block) 17 pounder? If that's the case then I would expect similar performance to the M36, which was basically an M10 with the 90mm M3 gun.

I still disagree about Patton and Montgomery; Patton was brilliant and Montgomery was totally overrated. Market Garden was probably the worst planned and executed Allied operation of the war, with the possible exception of the Dieppe Raid, and many historians think it was aimed more at stopping Patton's advance (by stopping his supplies) than at the Germans. Certainly most of the plans advanced by Montgomery required stopping Patton's advance and diverting his supplies to Montgomery as a primary requirement. In addition, read the German accounts and correspondence from during Market Garden; the German high command could not believe the Allies would stop Patton and put the main effort behind Montgomery, whom they regarded as a plodder. (Except Rommel; I think he made a believer of Rommel.)

Most people forget that although Montgomery certainly planned and executed an excellent battle at El Alamein, it was Auchinleck who took a retreating, demoralized, and outnumbered army at El Alamein and stopped Rommel cold. Montgomery beat him, true, but only with a massive advantage in manpower and firepower. For that matter, what the hell happened to O'Conner? He was probably the best Western Allied general of the war, and after winning 95% of the war in North Africa against a more numerous and somewhat better equipped foe, his forces were totally stripped away and he practically disappeared. Had O'Conner not been stopped, there would have been no battles at El Alamein for Auchinleck or Montgomery; the war in North Africa was won.

Anyway, we've hijacked the thread, so I'll shut up and give you the last word.

 

[A Username Not In Use]

The reason Montgomery lasted was that he was popular and liked by Churchill, all the others weren't. Now here come the part where I get lynced, but Churchill was not the great war leader. He certinally kept moral of both the public and the armed forces up but when it came to dicition making he was lucky if he had 1 good idea in 10, and sadly he could never tell which was the good idea.

Also unlike other commanders, Montgomery at least could give you an idea on how bad the upcoming fight was by counting the number of cricket references he made in his speeches. The more times we would knock Gerry for a six, the more likly you would not survive.

AS for tanks the whole conversation is pointless as the best allied tank was the Russia T34 which went on to be the insperation for the German King Tiger tank, which I have seen and they are teriffying looking machines, and every modern tank since.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Okay-

@werepossum- now I remember what a possum is. Thanks for reminding me.

O'Connor was captured by the germans, and only escaped around 1943 I think, thus kyboshing his progress up the chain of command. He onyl ever made it to brigade colonel I think.

The Sherman and Cromwell were both armed with the 75mm general-purpose gun- the shermans got the 76mm upgrade at around early 1945, by which it was too late for a lot of them, and didn't help against the Panther-Tiger series vehicles anyway.

CoH-refers to the popular world war two simulator comapny of heroes, which shows the churchill to have a 57mm 6-pounder gun when in fact at the timeof the normandy landings it was using the same general-purpose 75mm gun as all the allied tanks.

The Comet and the Pershing were both the only 'heavy' tanks the american or brits used. And the Comet was a cruiser tank primarily, so it's armament was lighter.

Plus the Pershing was extremely expensive to produce, wheras the cromwell-sherman series tanks were much cheaper and easier to transport.

Also, the main reason the Firefly was not produced in numbers was due to the low availability of the 17-pounder AT gun, which was both expensive and in high demand by both the infantry and Armoured divisons everywhere.

The achilles was a M18 with a 17 pounder gun mounted in the turret.

And now on to the main event- the Patton/Monty showdown.

Now, I shall explicitly state this. Patton always appears to be the better general. But it must be remembered that Patton's field of opeations was the Southern part of France and germany, area's that were much less built up and much less well-defended than the Northern areas Monty was operating in- to say, he had far less resistance to contend with, and for good reason. Even if he had been given all the resources, all he would have taken would have been the south of France and the South of germany- areas that are strategically unimportant comparedto the Ruhr valley, Silesia and Northwestern Germany in general- the industrial heartland of Germany.

Market Garden was a cockup due to a combination of atrocious luck, bad tactical decisions, and intelligence failure, like the armoured relief force being a bunch of morons, and the fact that the SIS knew that there was a Panzer division right on top of Arnhem but neglected to inform Army Group Headquarters.
The fact is that Market garden itself PROVES that Montgomery was not a plodder- it was a very decisive plan, and if it had payed off would have saved a lot of blood for the allies.

@AUNIU- The T34 was an excelletn tank, but was employed so poorly it achieved a loss ratio of some 13-to one against the Tiger, where the Sherman was a mere 8-to-one.
One the tige- it was an excellent defensive weapon, but was not the forerunner of modern tanks. I beleive that honour must go to the panther, a much better tank all around and nearly as feared as the Tiger.

And yes, the Tiger is bloody scary.

 

[A Username Not In Use]

NO the Tiger is scary, the King Tiger goes beyond that. So much so that when I have been listening to personal statements from soldiers, those who didn't go up against them talk about their fears of them, while those who did fight against a King Tiger just go quiet.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Australian WW2 Trivia

In one battle, after the retreat of the australian forces, the japanese records showed they believed they had driven off 1200 defenders of an airstrip... The japanese force had in fact been held off by 77 raw recruits.

the 'Rats of Tobruk' held their namesake city (Typical australian behavior, they get insulted and it becomes their favorite nickname) from the german general 'The desert fox' Rommel and his bigger, better trained, equipped and mechanized force... and they had reliabele and numerable supplies unlike the Rats (no build up here folks, we were fucked) for [insert time here, i cant be bothered looking this up]

Australians at gallipoli ran head-long into machine gun fire in a suicide charge because a digger knows no fear, and really, how tough is a machine gun anyway? they got a holiday in their honor because they had such huge balls. (before anyone feels the need to ask why we celebrate this, we don't, we remember it, and there's a big difference)

Also, Australian special forces kick the pants off all the others, so HA!