So no Italy without GB... Because no Africa without GB.
And trans-continental flights have majo down-sides
And america splitted them more or less between Asia and Europe right?
Not really. The Russians' got our huge stock of obsolete aircraft, like P-39 Aerocobras and P-40 Warhawks.
I mean yeah sure america had air-superioty and build up a lot of the airforce in that time.
But if you ever watched german documentation (wich often have old german soldiers involved) you will see that the pilots are speaking about the british Spitfire and the different american bombers, but only a few times about some american fighter, so i guess that means something...
Considering that the P-51 Mustang had the highest kill ratio of any aircraft in the European theater... no, it doesn't really say anything.
The Spitfire was a great plane and all, but it was an interceptor with very limited range, much like the BF-109. After the Battle of Britain, it's use was incredibly limited.
British ground-attack planes like the Typhoon, however, were another matter...
Right... GB wasn't equipped to fight of a big Submarine fleet.
But Subs didn't only got destroyed by Destroyers (Destroyers aren't that of a problem) but because of technological advancements like sonar and such.
Indeed. Sonar was first developed by the British (they called it "ASDIC") and so was the highly successful "hedgehog" anti-sub mortar launcher. Both inventions were significantly improved by the Americans.
Or, for that matter, the P-51, a United States aircraft, went from great to incredible when it was mated with the legendary British Merlin engine.
Technological co-operation between the US and the UK led to some of the greatest Allied victories of the war.
Somewhat right, but not completly.
The Sherman wasn't much better than the Panzer IV at least not after that modifications the Panzer IV undergone through 1941, given that the Panzer III was weak, but later it became mainly used as an support tanks for infantry.
Yeah, the Sherman was about on-par with the Panzer IV. And honestly, that's fine- it was equally matched with it's most common foe.
Also most of the weaker tanks got send to russia, while there were more bigger tanks in europe. So again you had quite a 'lot' of harder tanks.
Are you sure? I would have expected them to send their best tanks to Russia, where the Russians were equipped with the scary, scary T-34.
Not to mention that again the 55.000 Shermans got 'split' between europe and asia.
About 18 percent of Shermans built went to Russia, which still left the US with a crushing numerical advantage- and that's just in tanks.
Comparing the Stug to a Sherman? A 'MBT' against some 'Assault gun' ? - Not a good comparison if you ask me.
But one that needs to be made; because more then half of what the Sherman was expected to fight were threats like that. My point throughout was that just because the Sherman was at a huge disadvantage against the rare Panther or Tiger, doesn't mean that it was simply useless against most German armor it faced.
And not to forget that the cannon of the StuG could destroy a Sherman on a much bigger distance and it had a armor that was as thick as the Shermans ones.
Yes, on the front, but not from the sides- and it didn't have a turret. But that's okay, because after all it was a tank destroyer- that's what it was made to do. It wasn't a bad vehicle, but nor was it invincible to Shermans.
My point in those comparisons was that
just the main American tank was a match for about 75% of the German's
entire armored forces- tanks, tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, the whole godamn shebang. That's not even factoring in all of the rest of American armor- their tank destroyers and gun carriages, etc.
Also you know why british soldiers called the sherman ronson or german called it tommy cooker? Because a hit from nearly any german tank let the tank go up in flames.
So the Sherman somewhat deserved the bad rep it got, even if some american/english generals had another opinion of it.
Those Limeys were telling
hideous lies. 
The early Shermans were indeed flaming bonfires waiting to happen- they weren't all that popular because of that at the outset of the war- but the Sherman was soon upgraded with enhancements like better venting in the engine compartment and most importantly "wet storage-" keeping the ammunition in water-filled containers- and that pretty much ended the problem of flaming Shermans.
The US saved the ass of europe, but not single-handedly. And that's really all i'm saying.
AMEN. 
And that's all I'm saying, too. Credit is where credit is due, and all that.
On to Paladin Solo:
Paladin Solo said:
Do you realise how many Germans were KIA, MIA, and WIA on the Eastern front? You say because of all the material aid that was sent, and later the forcing the Germans to fight a multi-front war, and yet, the allies on the Western front didn't inflict as much carnage as the Soviets.
No, they just made it possible.
Paladin Solo said:
Sure, the Soviets were more reckless with their people, but they still managed to reach Berlin first, instill more fear, and inflict more German casualties than all the other Allies with their superior production capacity on their various theaters combined.
Well, we
let them march into Berlin. An agreement was reached to let the Russians take Berlin- the defenders were actually fighting so that they could surrender to the Americans, instead! A deal was cut.
The fact that the Russians wanted Berlin
bad probably had a lot to do with it.
Paladin Solo said:
I wonder how much longer the war would've lasted if the USSR had not been involved, or if victory would even have been possible.
As do I. It's scary to think about. People often don't appreciate how very close we came to defeat, despite everything.
Paladin Solo said:
However, I won't disregard the great deal of worth the UK and USSR were to that war, either.
Agreed. America set the stage, but in the end the Russians did the dirty work- and they were the ones that paid the cost of the attrition war. They did the actual killing, on the ground.
It just seemed that some people were saying that America's European involvement was marginal and/or not a big deal. Truthfully, no nation was indispensable in that war- not even Poland. The heroism and fanatical devotion of the Polish Resistance should never, ever be forgotten- especially the uprising in Warsaw at the end of the war. They were tasked with holding some sectors of Warsaw for a few days, until the Russians relieved them. The Russians halted their advance on the opposite banks of the river deliberately, so the Poles would be wiped out, thus guaranteeing Russian dominance of that state post-war.
Those men and women, betrayed by their "allies," who had been asked to hold for three days, held for three
months, and literally fought to the last man.
As you say-
none of those sacrifices can be forgotten.
