Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "The British Pacific Fleet - Foundations to First Strikes" video.

@TankBuilders Excellent work. 🙂
3
The Barracuda was operated by FAA squadrons up until the mid-1950s.
2
@jameshannagan4256 In terms of modern industrial output for instance, 56% of Germans were still involved in agriculture, whereas only 8% of the British workers were. Edgerton: ”the richest state in Europe... certainly richer than Germany"; no wonder that "the British were the great meat-eaters of Europe" (even during the war "rationing did not imply drastically cut supplies, except in the case of sugar") and that "Britain was the most motorized nation in Europe" as well as "the world's largest importer of oil"; to be more precise "Britain started and ended the war as the world's largest importer". "So powerful was Britain in the world economy that it could in effect force many people around the world to supply it with goods for credit". Moreover "it had resources to spare, was wealthy enough to make mistakes, and could fight as it chose to rather than had to".
2
The Japanese only won because Yamash1ta bluffed at the table thumping it with his fists. He was near out of ammunition. He convince idiot Percival. If Percival continued the fight, the Japanese would have capitulated. Yes, you are right about Europe being a priority. When the Japanese were entering Malaya the British were sending convoys of tanks to the USSR. Just one of those convoys diverted to Singapore would have defeated the Japanese. Japanese shells would have bounced off the Matila 2 tanks, as they did later in the war when used by the Australians. If Yamash1ta was defeated at Singapore the war against the Japanese would have taken a different complexion for sure.
1
@LordInter If Percival carried on the British would have won in Singapore. The war against the Japanese in South Wast Asia would not have been mainly on the India Burma border for sure. The Japanese would have diverted more naval ships to South East Asia taking them away fro the US Navy. At the Arcadia conference Churchill persuaded Roosevelt that it was Germany First. The Japanese could be dealt with in time. If Germany defeated the USSR, they would have been in Iran then having the vital oil wells and refineries. WW2 was also a battle of oil.
1
The British took nearly all their maintenance and ship repair men with them to Australia. Australia never had enough skilled men.
1
@tigerland4328 USN Wasp in mid April 1942 delivered 47 Spitfires to Malta. The carrier turned back once they were within flying range of Malta being out of harms way. Most of the Spitfires were destroyed on the ground by massed Axis air attacks leaving only 17 operational. Not a decisive delivery by Wasp.
1
@tigerland4328 The US contribution to the North Atlantic was welcome of course, but very small to the British/Canadian contribution. The North Atlantic was Britain's responsibility. It had to be when looking at how the US conducted themselves in the North Atlantic in the first six months of 1942, losing 600 vessel off the eastern seaboard. If the British had not taken control, the USA would not have been capable of waging a war away from their own land borders.
1
@Genessyss Name some? One thing is clear, Germany needed the resources of eastern Europe to compete. If the population was too big they would eliminate the population - the precedence for Hitler was the American move to their west expanding the USA, taking lands from the natives population and Mexicans and eliminating the native population. Prof Adam Tooze highlights this in Wages of Destruction.
1
US Admiral King despised the British over an incident in WW1 when he disobeyed orders. He was carpeted by the British commander of a group of which his ship was a part. Even then he never liked taking orders. King was a buffoon, who should have been removed in 1942 at an early stage when it was first clear his refusal to operate convoys was disastrous. The British reduced U-Boat losses in 1941 to manageable levels - new ships were outnumbering losses with only 1 in 181 ships being lost to U-Boats in the North Atlantic convoys. With the USA entry into the war shipping losses were now catastrophic. In the first six months of 1942 over 600 vessels were sunk off the US eastern seaboard. 95% of them American. The USA fighting Germany was in question because of a lack of shipping. This carnage was because King would not take British advice. He would not lower US ships to escort civilian convoys, viewing they only fought military ships. The Americans would not even implement blackouts of coastal cities, giving a perfect backdrop for German U-Boats silhouetting ships against the illuminated cities behind. The British were highly concerned at the dramatic allied shipping losses. The staggering losses prompted the British to insist that the Americans take 24 anti-submarine trawlers and 10 corvettes, complete with experienced crews. An RAF coastal command anti-U-Boat squadron was posted to Rhode Island to protect the New York approaches. Eisenhower said the best way to win the war was to “kill Admiral King”. The British naturally viewed the Americans as our Italians. If such a British commander was so inept he would have been removed permanently quite quickly. Bafflingly, the US never removed their top men no matter how poor they were . If Eisenhower was British he would have been removed as ground forces commander over the Bulge debacle. King and other Americans were of the view they would not support the British in WW2 theatres if it meant liberating territory of the British Empire, putting the British back in charge. This was none of their concern as the focus was to defeat the Germans and Japanese. High ranking British generals did not insist the USA return territory stolen from Native Americans and Mexicans.
1
@jameshannagan4256 There was not extensive rationing in the UK during or after the war. Myth. In WW2 you could go into any tea shop and have sandwiches and cakes. You could go into any restaurant and eat. All basic foods were not rationed. Read David Edgerton's Britain's War Machine.
1
@jameshannagan4256 America had three times the population of Britain but only outproduced Britain by two times. Britain had moved to a full war economy, wasn’t exporting so didn’t have the necessary dollars to purchase American equipment or raw materials. The USA would only accept dollars, while the likes of Argentina accepted Stirling. Britain was wealthy but the USA was stacking matters up to suit themselves economically. That’s where lend-lease came in, mainly raw materials and machine tools for factories. It amounted to about 11% of British requirements according to British War Production by Postan. The vast majority of what the British used in WW2 came from Britain. That 11% includes normal pre war peacetime trade. Deduct that and the supplies supporting Britain’s war are far less. Normal pre-war trade was termed as aid after 1939. 10 months before the war ended, on D day - 65% of the troops were British and Commonwealth, 75% of the Naval forces, 80% of the Landing craft and and 60% of the aircraft were British. 70% of US supplies in England were supplied by the British in 1942, 30% overall for the war in the ETO. British war production was on a staggering scale given the size of the country. In 1942 the UK had sufficient production capacity to equip the USAAF in Europe with fighter aircraft, the airfields & infrastructure and munitions besides supplying the RAF and the USSR.
1