PDA

View Full Version : Discuss the British tribute to the war.



skabbe
07-11-2005, 03:26 PM
Hello.

Well if you want, I am gathering info about England in world war 2. Though much i finde on the internet is mostly Standard info, no storys really. But many things i have learnd are from this board.

So feel free to Discuss new info, cool storys from battles that are almost forgotten and cool links maybe.

Were the UK just as successful as USA after the D-day? Were UK, just as the Hurricane, in the shadow of the Spitfire(USA)? You tell me.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-11-2005, 03:31 PM
hmm not sure I get where you are coming from with the

DID UK SUCK

And I hope your not just trolling but you may want to take a look here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/

p1ngu666
07-11-2005, 03:39 PM
british and the comenwealth where just as important as the americans after D-Day, just the americans where favoured for the big pushes.

market garden was delayed for a few days i think by ike being in the middle of nowhere, in those few days germans arrived in force in that area http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

also the americans called on the rocket typhoons several times to save their bacon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

offhand, i think there was 2 american, 2 british and 1 canadian invasion beaches, just u only hear about american one...

skabbe
07-11-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
hmm not sure I get where you are coming from with the

DID UK SUCK

And I hope your not just trolling but you may want to take a look here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/

NONONONO! I really dont think so. you se the Tempest Pick? its there with love. I love Britain and what they did. I just wanted to fire up the thread a bit, because there is poeple who think England didnt tribute much at all. im gonna check your link soon...

fordfan25
07-11-2005, 05:04 PM
well lets see. the brits thay ummmmm.....well thay kinda did........ well other than make nasty hot tea "its suposed to be ice cold" i have no idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif of course im kidding.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-11-2005, 05:31 PM
No worries mate I figured I was prolly misreading your post, sorry for the misunderstanding

here is a link I was gona post elsewhere but here is as good a place as any

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/

Lots of pics and posters and a few stories to boot

Dunkelgrun
07-11-2005, 06:08 PM
Britain's greatest contribution to World War Two was actually staying in it. Without Churchill's refusal to negotiate anything at all with Hitler, there would have been nowhere to launch the Second Front (D-Day etc) from.

So who would have won between Germany and Russia then? The USA would surely have concentrated solely on Japan and the Pacific until the job was done, then maybe turned their thoughts to Europe. Which would probably have gone a long way toward becoming a much larger Soviet bloc, right up to the Atlantic Coast, than it eventually did, unless the Nazis were able to develop and employ the atomic bomb on Russia.
And if Russia did control the whole of western Europe as well as most of Asia, would the Cold War have become hot?

Just hypotheses of course, but that's my view on what Britain did. And in doing so lost all that we had and took for granted - the Empire, industry, wealth, world power, etc.

We still like to think that we are top dog and the best at everything though; which of course we are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif!

Cheers!

fordfan25
07-11-2005, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Dunkelgrun:
Britain's greatest contribution to World War Two was actually staying in it. Without Churchill's refusal to negotiate anything at all with Hitler, there would have been nowhere to launch the Second Front (D-Day etc) from.

So who would have won between Germany and Russia then? The USA would surely have concentrated solely on Japan and the Pacific until the job was done, then maybe turned their thoughts to Europe. Which would probably have gone a long way toward becoming a much larger Soviet bloc, right up to the Atlantic Coast, than it eventually did, unless the Nazis were able to develop and employ the atomic bomb on Russia.
And if Russia did control the whole of western Europe as well as most of Asia, would the Cold War have become hot?

Just hypotheses of course, but that's my view on what Britain did. And in doing so lost all that we had and took for granted - the Empire, industry, wealth, world power, etc.

We still like to think that we are top dog and the best at everything though; which of course we are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif!

Cheers!

nice post. for a hot tea drinker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Nick_Toznost
07-11-2005, 07:03 PM
Having an empire that included North Africa and the Far East/Australasia helped I'm sure. Having bases in the far flung corners of the world in which to fight or at least slow the progress of axis forces was a serious advantage in my opinion during 1941/2 before the USA really got involved.

I can't imagine drinking tea cold. It would be like eating hot ice cream as far as I'm concerned. HOT TEA RULES!

fordfan25
07-11-2005, 07:24 PM
drinking hot tea is like drinking cold coffie ewwwww lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif i bet you eat your eggs with ketchup to hu http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

VW-IceFire
07-11-2005, 07:25 PM
Pingu is right...on D-Day there were 5 beaches with large quantities of British and Canadian troops landing on the Normandy beaches and yet you almost never hear about them.

British and Canadian troops were bogged down around Caen for a while drawing in quite a few resources of the German defense to hold down the city. Meanwhile, you had RAF and RCAF squadrons (and som RNZAF and RAAF pilots), flying Typhoons and Spitfires blasting trucks, tanks, vehicles, supply depots, and the like. Mentioned but sometimes forgotten.

No doubting the huge amount of effort coming from the Americans before and after D-Day but the other Allied armies and forces were just as crucial and critical to the success.

Nick_Toznost
07-11-2005, 07:32 PM
Have you been drinking FordFan25?



I have and I can kwote evryboddy purrfiktlee wel anned stil speec inglisch. Kold Kophee iz dizguzting two evrywun, woteva ther nashunalitty. Thatz knot wot eye sed. Hott tee rulez fakt!. Egz wiv cechupp iz verry nyse four yor inphormayshon, ewe schud trie itt sumtyme.

fordfan25
07-11-2005, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Have you been drinking FordFan25?



I have and I can kwote evryboddy purrfiktlee wel anned stil speec inglisch. Kold Kophee iz dizguzting two evrywun, woteva ther nashunalitty. Thatz knot wot eye sed. Hott tee rulez fakt!.


YES I HAVE. ICE COLD TEA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PBNA-Boosher
07-11-2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

offhand, i think there was 2 american, 2 british and 1 canadian invasion beaches, just u only hear about american one...

That's more a question of bad luck than anything Else, P1. All the beaches were pounded hard by the Germans, but Omaha was the biggest death trap. That's why it gets the biggest rap of them all.

ImpStarDuece
07-11-2005, 09:39 PM
The British use of speciality armour; "Hobarts Funnies", a.k.a. the 79th Armoured Division, as well as commandos and better naval gunfire, helped to keep their casualties far lower than the US or Canadian beaches. Their Churchill DD tanks were also more effective than the Sherman DD tanks; around 85% of the 64 launched off British beaches made it ashore as opposed to about 20% of the Sherman DDs.

The British lost 630 men at Sword and 400 at Gold. The Canadians lost 1,200 men at Juno. The Americans lost 2,400 at Omaha and less than 300 at Utah.

Remember that the British fought in France, over London and the Channel, in the Western Desert, in the Meditteranean, in the Atlantic (both Northern and Western Atlantic), in Italy, in Malaya, China, Burma, Singapore, Australia, India, Greece, Scicily and Malta. They flew Hurricanes over Murmansk, bombed German bases in the Far East in Vickers biplanes, sent carriers and subs to the Pacific, flew a 6 year Bomber Offensive against Germany and were responsibe for the best Allied developments in code breaking (Bletchly Park), airborne and ground based RADAR (Radio Auto-Detection And Ranging), Sonar, electronic warfare, deception and jamming, cannon (17lbr anyone?), proximity fuses, jet engines, inline engines, bombsights (the SABS and T1 sights) and they also had the worlds best field gun: the 25 pounder!

The famous P-51 Mustang started as a fighter designed for British requirements and was transformed into the vaunted B/C/D versions with the fitting of a licence built Roll-Royce Merlin engine, the British 17lbr was fitter to the Sherman to turn it into an 'animal tamer', the British 6lbr ATG was adopted in the US Army as the 57mm anti tank gun, the USAAF reverse lend-leased British Spitfires and Mosquitos, 'borrowed' the British gyro sight to make its own K-14 "Ace Maker", benefited greatly from the British operation to accquire an Enigma machine and were genrally a great help in holding out against the Germans so that the Western Allies could launch their invasion of the Continent. Plus they did all this while having to put up with English weather! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Oh, and they make **** good tea. Which should be served piping hot, in a tea-pot, on a tray, with a China cup beside it. Darjeeling for preference, but Prince of Wales or Keemum if you have it, straight up, no milk or sugar, please.

Oh, and coffee should be served straight and black, in minuscule, thick porcelain cups and should be strong enough to stand a spoon in. Turkish by preferance, but Spanish or French if you have it, please. Italian will do at a pinch, or some of that heady stuff from the granite belt in Queensland. Further more, it should be served at a temperature that is IMMEDIATELY drinkable. It should NOT be served in places that wish you a 'nice day' or require you to que behind a rope, which have snazzy decor, staff with plastic nametags and even more plastic smiles and play anything by Celine Dione. Preferably, it should be made by a wizened person of Italian/Spanish/Greek/Lebanese persuasion and indeterminate gender, but with plenty of facial hair, in an equally aged, lovingly buffed, brass cappacino machine. The process of coffee making should be slightly magical, accompanied by lots of steam and cursing of both the customer and the archaic and arcane apparatus and effort required to make a decent thimble-full. The resulting liquid should make black ink look merely greyish by comparison, increase your powers of insight fourfold and require at least a fortnight recovery between cups.

And no, I'm not choosy, but thank you ever so much for inquiring. Please, don't get me started on Scotch whisky, we'll be here all night!

lowfighter
07-12-2005, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

offhand, i think there was 2 american, 2 british and 1 canadian invasion beaches, just u only hear about american one...

That's more a question of bad luck than anything Else, P1. All the beaches were pounded hard by the Germans, but Omaha was the biggest death trap. That's why it gets the biggest rap of them all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will twist your sentence a bit: all the beaches were pounded PRETTY hard, except OMAHA, if things would go as on omaha on all beaches , I guess the allies would have failed altogether to keep the bridgehead in a matter of days...even with the terrible tactical mistakes of the germans during the critical time (like failure to displace the two panzer divisions to the combat zone), well better the real story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Friendly_flyer
07-12-2005, 03:05 AM
I have read, though I can‚‚ā¨ôt remember where, that the British were running low on manpower. The British fighting was top class, but at the later stage of the war they had a costly mishap (Market Garden) and the war was getting into a stage where poring in troops was an effective way of fighting for the Allies. Britain, haveing limited manpower resources, simply could not fight that way.

In the earlier stages (pre 1944), the British effort was pivotal.

Tazzers1968
07-12-2005, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Having an empire that included North Africa and the Far East/Australasia helped I'm sure. Having bases in the far flung corners of the world in which to fight or at least slow the progress of axis forces was a serious advantage in my opinion during 1941/2 before the USA really got involved.

I can't imagine drinking tea cold. It would be like eating hot ice cream as far as I'm concerned. HOT TEA RULES!

Maybe but having all those bases means you also have many supply lines stretching for thousands of miles and you have to keep them supplied with personel and materiel. That is an achievement in and of itself. Germans had to fight on 2 maybe 3 fronts which is bad enough. The allies had to fight on many fronts that covered the entire globe.

Market Garden was a cockup by Eisenhower as much as it was Montgomery. Eisenhower, after a lot of debate agreed to Market Garden and also agreed with Montgomery that it needed to be an allout push with US armies to the south supporting them and acting as reserve. It was also agreed that the entire logistics chain would be bound over to Market Garden for the duration. Montgomery made it perfectly clear that without all this in place then Market Garden was a 'no-goer' and Eisen hower agreed.

On the day that the operation was to begin Eisenhower could not be found and it had to be postponed. So the window is closing now before the op' has started. Once the op' was into its stride Eisenhower then informed Montgomery that Patons army to the south would not be supporting, it would be conducting a push of its own and that logistics would afterall be split. If Montgomery had known this before he would have called off the entire operation.

Market Garden has gone down in history as an all out British failure, the Americans will never accept any responsibility for what went wrong even though they share the blame equally at the least.

Don't worry, I know whats coming now, I have my flame proof skiddies on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Not that it will ever change the fundamental truth, not even revisionists can do that, they can only change peoples perceptions.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sturm_Williger
07-12-2005, 03:29 AM
Without getting into a flame war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I assure you that tea should be hot, coffee should be hot AND black AND sweet and eggs are best with Worcestershire sauce ( ketchup is overmodelled ). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

skabbe
07-12-2005, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The British use of speciality armour; "Hobarts Funnies", a.k.a. the 79th Armoured Division, as well as commandos and better naval gunfire, helped to keep their casualties far lower than the US or Canadian beaches. Their Churchill DD tanks were also more effective than the Sherman DD tanks; around 85% of the 64 launched off British beaches made it ashore as opposed to about 20% of the Sherman DDs.

The British lost 630 men at Sword and 400 at Gold. The Canadians lost 1,200 men at Juno. The Americans lost 2,400 at Omaha and less than 300 at Utah.

Remember that the British fought in France, over London and the Channel, in the Western Desert, in the Meditteranean, in the Atlantic (both Northern and Western Atlantic), in Italy, in Malaya, China, Burma, Singapore, Australia, India, Greece, Scicily and Malta. They flew Hurricanes over Murmansk, bombed German bases in the Far East in Vickers biplanes, sent carriers and subs to the Pacific, flew a 6 year Bomber Offensive against Germany and were responsibe for the best Allied developments in code breaking (Bletchly Park), airborne and ground based RADAR (Radio Auto-Detection And Ranging), Sonar, electronic warfare, deception and jamming, cannon (17lbr anyone?), proximity fuses, jet engines, inline engines, bombsights (the SABS and T1 sights) and they also had the worlds best field gun: the 25 pounder!

The famous P-51 Mustang started as a fighter designed for British requirements and was transformed into the vaunted B/C/D versions with the fitting of a licence built Roll-Royce Merlin engine, the British 17lbr was fitter to the Sherman to turn it into an 'animal tamer', the British 6lbr ATG was adopted in the US Army as the 57mm anti tank gun, the USAAF reverse lend-leased British Spitfires and Mosquitos, 'borrowed' the British gyro sight to make its own K-14 "Ace Maker", benefited greatly from the British operation to accquire an Enigma machine and were genrally a great help in holding out against the Germans so that the Western Allies could launch their invasion of the Continent. Plus they did all this while having to put up with English weather! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Oh, and they make **** good tea. Which should be served piping hot, in a tea-pot, on a tray, with a China cup beside it. Darjeeling for preference, but Prince of Wales or Keemum if you have it, straight up, no milk or sugar, please.

Oh, and coffee should be served straight and black, in minuscule, thick porcelain cups and should be strong enough to stand a spoon in. Turkish by preferance, but Spanish or French if you have it, please. Italian will do at a pinch, or some of that heady stuff from the granite belt in Queensland. Further more, it should be served at a temperature that is IMMEDIATELY drinkable. It should NOT be served in places that wish you a 'nice day' or require you to que behind a rope, which have snazzy decor, staff with plastic nametags and even more plastic smiles and play anything by Celine Dione. Preferably, it should be made by a wizened person of Italian/Spanish/Greek/Lebanese persuasion and indeterminate gender, but with plenty of facial hair, in an equally aged, lovingly buffed, brass cappacino machine. The process of coffee making should be slightly magical, accompanied by lots of steam and cursing of both the customer and the archaic and arcane apparatus and effort required to make a decent thimble-full. The resulting liquid should make black ink look merely greyish by comparison, increase your powers of insight fourfold and require at least a fortnight recovery between cups.

And no, I'm not choosy, but thank you ever so much for inquiring. Please, don't get me started on Scotch whisky, we'll be here all night!


AH! Thats the kind of info i was talking about, tank you.

LEXX_Luthor
07-12-2005, 04:18 AM
For England's most important work, find the 1999 book A Radar History of World War 2, by Louis Brown.

Kernow
07-12-2005, 04:27 AM
The majority of troops put ashore on D-Day were British and Commonwealth (Canadian). If they're forgotten, along with the Americans on UTAH, it's because people prefer to read about disasters and ****-ups.

Part of the reason OMAHA wasn't hit hard enough was a faulty air plan. Eigth Air Force blasted the beach with 1200 heavy bombers, but the bombs weren't big enough and many bombadiers (understandably perhaps) delayed their drops by from 5 to 30 seconds, so ensuring most ordinance fell far inland of the aiming point.

By 44 British and Commonwealth manpower reserves were running out, whereas the US was only just reaching peak wartime production and training levels. From D-Day onwards the British and Commonwealth armies shrank as casualties were incurred, while the US armies grew inexorably to become the majority.

WOLFMondo
07-12-2005, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by skabbe:
Hello.

Well if you want, I am gathering info about England in world war 2.

First off, England is one state within the the UK. Were British and fought as Britain.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The British contribution is often overlooked by the US IMHO. Like the contribution of the RAF. Allot of guys on this forum seem to think the daylight raids of 44 and 45 were the only fighting in the air and it was all done up high and by the US. They seem to either not know or forget the massive contribution made by the RAF between 1939 and 1943 when the RAF stood alone and the massive contribution after that in the D-day landings of which the RAF 2nd TAF was the corner stone of the show and the subsequent taking of Europe.

The RAF were also first and last leg escorts, the RAF also where making incursions and raids into France and the low countries from 1939 onwards. The RAF's contribution seems somewhat limited to the battle of britain in some peoples eyes which couldn't be further from the truth.

Without the RAF 2nd TAF for instance Patton would have been defeated after he ventured into France to far, it was Typhoons that rescued him and his army.

ImpStarDuece says the rest.

The UK needed the US industrial might but there efforts are equal but show in different ways. The British tended to inovate while the US put those inovations into production.

Should also be mentioned the effort of the commonwealth forces shouldn't be looked over ever.

Inadaze
07-12-2005, 05:26 AM
Should also be mentioned the effort of the commonwealth forces shouldn't be looked over ever.

Yup, the commonwealth Troops are often overlooked. I've just been reading Quartered Safe out Here, By George MacDonald Fraser, about his war in Burmha. It's an excellent read about a forgotten campaign.

Without the Commonwealth forces Britiain couldn't have fought as it did. India alone contributed 2.5 million service men and women, the largest volunteer army in History.

Inadaze

geetarman
07-12-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


The British contribution is often overlooked by the US IMHO.


Funny, I see this sentiment many times but I don't quite get it. Take a poll of the US posters here and see whether that's accurate.

It's painfully obvious what the British/Commonwealth contribution to WWII was by reading a 10th grade US testbook. Pick-up a garden-variety general history of WWII, published in America, and huge portions are given to detailing your accomplishments.

Funny.

skabbe
07-12-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
Hello.

Well if you want, I am gathering info about England in world war 2.

First off, England is one state within the the UK. Were British and fought as Britain.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my mistake... Thanks for the info.

hmm, does it start to smell burgers in here?

ploughman
07-12-2005, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


The British contribution is often overlooked by the US IMHO.

Funny, I see this sentiment many times but I don't quite get it. Take a poll of the US posters here and see whether that's accurate.

It's painfully obvious what the British/Commonwealth contribution to WWII was by reading a 10th grade US testbook. Pick-up a garden-variety general history of WWII, published in America, and huge portions are given to detailing your accomplishments.

Funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't think WolfMondo fought in the war. Are you that old WolfMondo?

Fliegeroffizier
07-12-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
....market garden was delayed for a few days i think by ike being in the middle of nowhere, in those few days germans arrived in force in that area http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">Market Garden was a huge fiasco...poorly planned and poorly executed. Heads should have rolled among senior Allied leaders, to include Montgomery(it was "his" Strategic plan which he enthusiastically and aggressively pushed for approval by Eisenhower). This is Not to say that the combat troops on the ground, Brits and Americans did not fight admirably, and in fact were quite heroic and successful in many of the individual "Tactical" engagements. As for German forces "arriving" a few days into the operation, that is not the case...the Brits dropped/glider-landed their relatively lightly armed(No armor, of course)paratroops in the immediate vicinity of Arnhem(actually a bit too far to the West, as I recall, requiring an unexpected hike over into Arnhem. Most importantly, though, due to a huge intelligence failure, the Brits did not know that their were 'elite' SS Panzer Divisions in/adjacent-to Arnhem.

I'm not picking on the Brits, here...The simple fact is that neither the Brits nor the Americans(nor the Germans, for that matter), had ANY Strategic success in Airborne(paratroop) operations in WWII.</span>


...offhand, i think there was 2 american, 2 british and 1 canadian invasion beaches, just u only hear about american one...
<span class="ev_code_RED">The reason one hears about the American landings(Utah and Omaha) is that these are the beaches where heavy resistance was encountered; specifically Omaha beach where 2,000+ were KIA on D-Day. The Brits and Canadian landings met little or no resistance.</span>

Huckebein_UK
07-12-2005, 11:43 AM
Lol, they met plenty of resistance mate. 'Little or no resistance' might need slight adjustment. I didn't know a lot of what I'm reading here today about the ground war and the 2.5million (!) volunteers from India. Keep it up; it's a nice read. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS. I don't think you could possibly have chosen a more annoying, harder-to-read colour than that Fliegeroffizier... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WarWolfe_1
07-12-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
british and the comenwealth where just as important as the americans after D-Day, just the americans where favoured for the big pushes.

market garden was delayed for a few days i think by ike being in the middle of nowhere, in those few days germans arrived in force in that area http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

also the americans called on the rocket typhoons several times to save their bacon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

offhand, i think there was 2 american, 2 british and 1 canadian invasion beaches, just u only hear about american one...


Thats because omaha beach was the only landing that came anywhere near failing.
The British were just as much a part of the war as the americans. ETO, PTO, And MTO...for quite some time the British had the MTO all by their self, some would say that it was hadled poorly till Monty came along though.

As far as air war goes the British did an outstanding job, hats off to those lonely men that won BoB.


I would agree though that after the invasion the ground war became a mostly american venture. It should be noted, that Americans casutlies from the time frame of post d-day to VE-day were stagering to that of their british couterparts.
British inteligence was without a doubt a war winning factor.
Not to start anything (I am not responseable for any retailion), but the night bombing the british consumed theirseleves with, had little to no effect what so ever. None of it was tactical nor straigic in any sense. IMO it had little effect to do with the outcome of the war.
The Americans bombing effort on oil feilds and production, is what made air supprmecey for the alied forces possible.

LStarosta
07-12-2005, 12:25 PM
Posted Tue July 12 2005 10:19

quote:
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
....market garden was delayed for a few days i think by ike being in the middle of nowhere, in those few days germans arrived in force in that area Sad



Market Garden was a huge fiasco...poorly planned and poorly executed. Heads should have rolled among senior Allied leaders, to include Montgomery(it was "his" Strategic plan which he enthusiastically and aggressively pushed for approval by Eisenhower). This is Not to say that the combat troops on the ground, Brits and Americans did not fight admirably, and in fact were quite heroic and successful in many of the individual "Tactical" engagements. As for German forces "arriving" a few days into the operation, that is not the case...the Brits dropped/glider-landed their relatively lightly armed(No armor, of course)paratroops in the immediate vicinity of Arnhem(actually a bit too far to the West, as I recall, requiring an unexpected hike over into Arnhem. Most importantly, though, due to a huge intelligence failure, the Brits did not know that their were 'elite' SS Panzer Divisions in/adjacent-to Arnhem.

I'm not picking on the Brits, here...The simple fact is that neither the Brits nor the Americans(nor the Germans, for that matter), had ANY Strategic success in Airborne(paratroop) operations in WWII.


As you aptly put it, the Poles' contribution to the war, particularly Market Garden is often forgotten.

Monty_Thrud
07-12-2005, 01:09 PM
some would say that it was hadled poorly till Monty came along though.


Thank you...at last i've been recognised...MUAHAHAHA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif....ADVANCE!...no..no, that ways Gibraltar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WOLFMondo
07-12-2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


The British contribution is often overlooked by the US IMHO.

Funny, I see this sentiment many times but I don't quite get it. Take a poll of the US posters here and see whether that's accurate.

It's painfully obvious what the British/Commonwealth contribution to WWII was by reading a 10th grade US testbook. Pick-up a garden-variety general history of WWII, published in America, and huge portions are given to detailing your accomplishments.

Funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't think WolfMondo fought in the war. Are you that old WolfMondo? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, im 87. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

you don't need to have fought in the war to get the impression the british contribution is overlooked, just check out various internet forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Huckebein_UK
07-12-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
Not to start anything (I am not responseable for any retailion), but the night bombing the british consumed theirseleves with, had little to no effect what so ever. None of it was tactical nor straigic in any sense. IMO it had little effect to do with the outcome of the war.
The Americans bombing effort on oil feilds and production, is what made air supprmecey for the alied forces possible.

That's mostly true. The British night bombing offensive achieved very few of the objectives that it was meant to achieve. However, you can not escape the fact that tens of thousands of German soldiers had to be kept in cities for firefighting duties, tens of thousands of heavy flak units had to be dispersed around large targets instead of concentrated next to strategic objectives, many thousands of heavy artillery pieces (such as the infamous '88s) were pressed into service as AA units when they could have proven decisive on the battlefields of Normandy or Eastern Europe, huge resources were devoted to research into ECM to combat the British Electronic Warfare superiority, and large chunks of industrial production facilities were devoted to turning out expensive, complex nightfighters to combat the raids, not to mention the pilots and fuel they used once operational.

It is true that the British did not achieve what they hoped to with the night bombing offensive, but it's impossible to argue that it had 'little or no' detrimental effect to the German war effort, as I've seen attempted all too often on this and other forums. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

geetarman
07-12-2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


The British contribution is often overlooked by the US IMHO.

Funny, I see this sentiment many times but I don't quite get it. Take a poll of the US posters here and see whether that's accurate.

It's painfully obvious what the British/Commonwealth contribution to WWII was by reading a 10th grade US testbook. Pick-up a garden-variety general history of WWII, published in America, and huge portions are given to detailing your accomplishments.

Funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't think WolfMondo fought in the war. Are you that old WolfMondo? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoL - you got me on that one!

Aaron_GT
07-12-2005, 03:13 PM
As you aptly put it, the Poles' contribution to the war, particularly Market Garden is often forgotten.

Very true. More Polish troops died under arms (including the resistance) in WW2 than British, and the Polish contribution to the Battle of Britain (303 squadron particularly) was amazing. Too often it is assumed that the Polish just surrendered and gave up, but they fought on bravely, it is just that their country had insufficiently defensible borders, unlike Britain. I say this as a Brti, but we were very lucky that we had a 30 mile moat. The same goes for the French, Dutch, Belgians, Norweigans - many fought on bravely from abroad.

Aaron_GT
07-12-2005, 03:16 PM
The British night bombing offensive achieved very few of the objectives that it was meant to achieve.

Until the advent of atomic weapons strategic bombing didn't really live up to the hype, unfortunately. However strategic bombing was a very good weapon for skewing the defender's strategies, as you note, and meant that field guns and ground attack aircraft and fighter cover for ground forces were much rarer.

Secudus2004
07-12-2005, 03:24 PM
This is how I see it.

1. Strategic Bombing; If the British had not adopted the policy of night area bombing, which in itself produced disappointing results, it is difficult to see how the power of heavy destruction of 1944-45 could have been generated. If the Americans had not persisted with the policy of daylight self-defending formation-bombing tactics, which produced poor results and terrible casualties, it is hard to see how the command of the air over Germany could have been one.
It was, in the last resort, the combination of command of the air and very heavy bombing, which made a critical contribution to Germany defeat.

2. Someone mentioned ‚‚ā¨ŇďHobarts Funnies‚‚ā¨¬Ě These devices were immediately recognised for their worth by both Montgomery and Eisenhower‚‚ā¨¬¶Eisenhower appreciated the value of the DD tanks, and requested a brigades worth, he left the choice of other vehicles to General Omar Bradley, commander of the American assault forces‚‚ā¨¬¶General Bradley rejected the devices, had he provided such tanks on Omaha, assaulting American forces would not have suffered so grievously‚‚ā¨¬¶

3. In the summer of 1940, the British Government approved the despatch of a scientific mission to the states led by Sir Henry Tizzard‚‚ā¨¬¶ Due to this mission, 16 months before they entered the war, the Americans were in possession of the most important findings of British research to date: the Kerrison anti-aircraft gun predictor, solid-propellant rockets, the proximity fuse, asdic, DDX explosive, ship-borne radar and last but not lease the cavity magnetron.

WOLFMondo
07-12-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

I would agree though that after the invasion the ground war became a mostly american venture. It should be noted, that Americans casutlies from the time frame of post d-day to VE-day were stagering to that of their british couterparts.


i don't agree at all. read your history, the british and commonwealth effort again goes by the wayside. just because the us had higher casualties does not mean they were the only guys there.


Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Not to start anything (I am not responseable for any retailion), but the night bombing the british consumed theirseleves with, had little to no effect what so ever. None of it was tactical nor straigic in any sense.

again, i don't agree and thats totally un true. the us wanted to bomb factories but the british wanted to bomb oil production. lucky they did because history shows little came from bombing factories, especially where aircraft manufacture is considered.

your looking at the mass 1000 bomber raids on major cities and ignoring the majority of the raids which targetted oil and ball bearing plants amoungst other things. us daylight bombing was just as inaccurate and had as much disregard for civilians as british night bombing. even those massive 1000 bomber raids which destroyed numerous cities diverted massive amounts of resources to try to prevent them and try to deal with the destruction and aftermath.

the us would have switched to night bombing in 1943 after suffering stagering losses but the retraining and reequiping of us aircraft for night operations was estimated at 2 years. it had already taken almost 2 years for the us to build up enough it could help the raf in 1943 with offensive operations.

CzechTexan
07-12-2005, 05:41 PM
I just wanted to say CHEERS to the British Commonwealth for putting their foot down at the invasion of Poland and for sticking it out when they seemed to be all alone and facing invasion themselves.

At first I wasn't for sure if this thread was about Britain or TEA! By the way, it's hard to drink hot tea when the temperature is 102F. I like mine with lots of sugar and lemons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
07-12-2005, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Fliegeroffizier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
....market garden was delayed for a few days i think by ike being in the middle of nowhere, in those few days germans arrived in force in that area http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">Market Garden was a huge fiasco...poorly planned and poorly executed. Heads should have rolled among senior Allied leaders, to include Montgomery(it was "his" Strategic plan which he enthusiastically and aggressively pushed for approval by Eisenhower). This is Not to say that the combat troops on the ground, Brits and Americans did not fight admirably, and in fact were quite heroic and successful in many of the individual "Tactical" engagements. As for German forces "arriving" a few days into the operation, that is not the case...the Brits dropped/glider-landed their relatively lightly armed(No armor, of course)paratroops in the immediate vicinity of Arnhem(actually a bit too far to the West, as I recall, requiring an unexpected hike over into Arnhem. Most importantly, though, due to a huge intelligence failure, the Brits did not know that their were 'elite' SS Panzer Divisions in/adjacent-to Arnhem.

I'm not picking on the Brits, here...The simple fact is that neither the Brits nor the Americans(nor the Germans, for that matter), had ANY Strategic success in Airborne(paratroop) operations in WWII.</span>


...offhand, i think there was 2 american, 2 british and 1 canadian invasion beaches, just u only hear about american one...
<span class="ev_code_RED">The reason one hears about the American landings(Utah and Omaha) is that these are the beaches where heavy resistance was encountered; specifically Omaha beach where 2,000+ were KIA on D-Day. The Brits and Canadian landings met little or no resistance.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the germans arrived a few days before the mission went ahead, in the "delayed" window as it where, they would have aborted if they had know.

also u cant have tons of photo recon over a certain area as the germans would notice, u could certainly track the PR aircraft on radar and work out what they likely photo'ed.

we also tend to get alot of made for america or badly researched (often both) tv programs and books...

Tazzers1968
07-13-2005, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fliegeroffizier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
....market garden was delayed for a few days i think by ike being in the middle of nowhere, in those few days germans arrived in force in that area http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">Market Garden was a huge fiasco...poorly planned and poorly executed. Heads should have rolled among senior Allied leaders, to include Montgomery(it was "his" Strategic plan which he enthusiastically and aggressively pushed for approval by Eisenhower). This is Not to say that the combat troops on the ground, Brits and Americans did not fight admirably, and in fact were quite heroic and successful in many of the individual "Tactical" engagements. As for German forces "arriving" a few days into the operation, that is not the case...the Brits dropped/glider-landed their relatively lightly armed(No armor, of course)paratroops in the immediate vicinity of Arnhem(actually a bit too far to the West, as I recall, requiring an unexpected hike over into Arnhem. Most importantly, though, due to a huge intelligence failure, the Brits did not know that their were 'elite' SS Panzer Divisions in/adjacent-to Arnhem.

I'm not picking on the Brits, here...The simple fact is that neither the Brits nor the Americans(nor the Germans, for that matter), had ANY Strategic success in Airborne(paratroop) operations in WWII.</span>


...offhand, i think there was 2 american, 2 british and 1 canadian invasion beaches, just u only hear about american one...
<span class="ev_code_RED">The reason one hears about the American landings(Utah and Omaha) is that these are the beaches where heavy resistance was encountered; specifically Omaha beach where 2,000+ were KIA on D-Day. The Brits and Canadian landings met little or no resistance.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the germans arrived a few days before the mission went ahead, in the "delayed" window as it where, they would have aborted if they had know.

also u cant have tons of photo recon over a certain area as the germans would notice, u could certainly track the PR aircraft on radar and work out what they likely photo'ed.

we also tend to get alot of made for america or badly researched (often both) tv programs and books... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Eisenhower had kept his promises of logistics and an American reserve force the SS Panzer division would not have made any real difference and Patton would have been the first across the Rhine. This is the tragic irony of it all.

Market Garden was held up because half of its allotted supplies were going to another push by Patton (which ultimately failed also.) A push that Eisenhower had not told Montgomery about. By the time that 30 Corp (XXX Corp) got to the last bridge before Arnhem it was out of supplies and the US troops that Montgomery had earmarked for the last link up were currently fighting a doomed operation to the south, the very one sanctioned by Eisenhower.....the one he had not informed Montgomery about.

I'll say it again, if Eisenhower had honoured his agreements to Montgomery, the Germans would likely have lost Arnhem and Ironically it would have been US forces turning up in the nick of time and most likely the first troops across the Rhine.

This was a missed oportunity by Eisenhower and underlined the gulf between the British and the Americans. However, the original plan was British, most of the troops involved were British and the commander was British. Ergo, a British cockup, except that it wasn't entirely their fault now was it?

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
07-13-2005, 06:55 AM
ImpStarDuece Posted Mon July 11 2005 20:39

"British(...)were responsibe for the best Allied developments in code breaking (Bletchly Park)"

Undoubtly enormous amount of work was done in Bletchley Park on deciphering hundrets of Enigma messages a day. Great work was also done in finding ways to make deciphering faster(Colossus, verbal anaysis).

"British operation to accquire an Enigma machine"

There was no such operation. Wasnt needed.
Enigma code was broken by team led by Polish mathematician Marian Rejewski, working in Beauro of Ciphers (Biuro Szyfr√¬≥w) of 2nd Detachment of General Staff (OddziaŇ"ö 2 Sztabu GŇ"ö√¬≥wnego - military Intelligence) in mid 1930s. Not only idea was broken (with large help of French Intelligence - their agent sold Frenches some day codes, French werent interested, gave it to Poles) but copies of Enigma mashines were built. In effort to make deciphering faster they built kind of electro-mechanical computer for fast mathematical analisys of German messages, called "bomba kryptograficzna" - "cryptographical bombe".
In summer of 1939 representatives of French and British Intelligence were invited to Warsow. All material gathered by then by Poles was given to them, including know-how, copies of Enigmas and plannes of "cryptographical bombes". In the beginning of war those mashines named "the bombe" were doing most of deciphering work in Bletchley Park, being direct copies of Polish mashines.

In terms of forces Polish Army was fourth allied power in WW2, not decisive by any means of course. But the most important Polish contribution in Allies case was intelligence. War would last much longer if Allies werent able to read German radio transmissions. Eventually it would be broken, but after years of work. Those years would include BoB and crucial moments of Battle of Atlantic.
Great work was done in Bletchley Park but do not forget how it was started.

P.S. Few days ago British comission working on WW2 British Intelligence documents announced that 44% of their information came from Polish Intelligence.

LStarosta
07-13-2005, 07:11 AM
Thank you for clearing that up Kocur!

I had a chuckle when I read about the Brits sending the Americans intelligence. The Americans wrote the Brits a memorandum saying they already had this intel a month ago from the Polish.


Polish intelligence has been top notch, even after the war. If you are up for a read, check out this guy named Kuklinski. He was a kid during WWII, got involved in the underground and all. After the war, he joined the army and quickly climbed through the ranks. He was deeply distressed by the Soviet's domination of Poland. He believed the Polish Army was there to serve the Polish people and to protect Poland form invasion, not to act as a pawn of the Soviet Union. Therefore, he met up with some CIA officers and established an intelligence link between himself and the USA. What Kuklinski was able to provide in terms of intelligence was outstanding. He had the ability to know where ever single Soviet outfit was, when the Soviets were planning on invading, where every single nuclear weapon was located on Polish soil etc etc. Kuklinski believed that if the Americans did not have such intelligence, then all hell would break loose if the Soviets invaded the West. Due to the Soviet's numerical superiority, the U.S. would have likely resorted to the deployment of nuclear weapons on the advancing Soviets to even the odds. However, they would not strike directly on Soviet soil, so they would have to drop their nukes on the next closest transit point: Poland.

Anyway, to this day Kuklinski is a very controversial figure. Some people view him as a national hero, others as a traitor.

ImpStarDuece
07-13-2005, 07:18 AM
Thanks for the information Kocur. It's always nice to have a preconception overturned. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The Polish did stunning work in intelligence, most of which I had no idea about. Ahhhhhhh, another slice of WW2 that I will have to inform myself about.

For the record, the British did have an operation to crack the Kreigsmarine Enigma, which was a more complicated machine (it had another rotor). They abducted code sheets from Uboat-570 (not U-571 as portrayed in that travesty of a Hollywood film) in an operation cinducted by the SBS.

The British at Bletchly Park, probably with significant Polish help http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, also cracked the Lorenz machine code. This was another cypher system used by the German High Command and was different from the Enigma code.

Tazzers1968
07-13-2005, 07:29 AM
P.S. Few days ago British comission working on WW2 British Intelligence documents announced that 44% of their information came from Polish Intelligence.

Sounds like just another excuse to marginalise what the British did. No worries, we're used to it. Don't forget that the original poster was asking about British achievements. All I can see so far is more people, again and again ignoring the question, just as they ignore, marginalise and berate everything the British ever did, even when the question is specifically about the British they don't want to talk about it. I can only assume it is to mask some inate confidence problem by choosing a target and getting stuck in with the meat cleavers.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
07-13-2005, 07:31 AM
I just found a excellent web site dedicated to Polish and Allied code breaking in WW2. It makes really fascinating reading if you have an hour or so.

Allied intelligence and codebreaking history (http://www.avoca.ndirect.co.uk/enigma/index.html)

p1ngu666
07-13-2005, 07:55 AM
didnt know the poles did that
good on them tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ploughman
07-13-2005, 08:50 AM
I had a chuckle when I read about the Brits sending the Americans intelligence. The Americans wrote the Brits a memorandum saying they already had this intel a month ago from the Polish.

Better to get it twice than not at all.


In the beginning of war those mashines named "the bombe" were doing most of deciphering work in Bletchley Park, being direct copies of Polish mashines.


Not quite true, or at least not for long. Whilst Bletchley Park was founded on the back of the Polish effort it wasn't a straigh duplication of the methods and means used by the orignial cryptographers who'd made the breakthough. "At the beginning of 1940, Turing spent some time in France with the exiled Polish cryptographers, whilst back at Bletchley Park, he has already made a ground breaking invention. It was an electro-mechanical device, which became known as the "bombe" (Not to be confused with the "bombi" used by the Poles, the "bombe" was a more sophisticated version) which could work out the wheel settings and plug board connections used by the Germans on any given day. Similar to the Polish "bombi", the more sophisticated British version consisted of a series of Enigma machines wired together which could be rotated through each wheel setting to test whether or not a setting worked or could be ruled out. It was here that any similarity to the original Polish version ended. The "bombi" could only work out settings as long as the Germans continued their practice of a double transmission of settings for example a wheel setting would be ABC for that date, when passed though the Enigma it emerged at STD, the message would then begin STD STD. Turing's "bombe" would still work if the Germans dropped the settings to only one eg STD. Turing once remarked to a colleague that "if I had 10,000 chinamen at my disposal, the bombe would not be required. The "bombe" did in fact, work on finding that were NOT correct, thereby arriving at the correct solution by default. The first "bombe" was installed at Bletchley Park on 18 March 1940 but failed in its task. Gordon Welchman suggested to Alan Turing some modifications, Turing readily agreed, and the "bombe" went through some modifications. Turing then made even further modifications and the machine began to produce results. This was then known to the codebreakers as the "spider"."


"British operation to accquire an Enigma machine"

There was no such operation. Wasn't needed.

Hardly necessary as a patent application for the enigma type machine had been sitting in the London Patent office since 1929.

While it is common knowledge (or at least I thought it was) that the Poles made the intial and most significant breakthroughs in breaking the Enigma code operations that resulted in the acquisition of, code books and other documents related to the Enigma system were needed and did occur as although the Enigma cipher had cryptographic weaknesses, it was, in practice, only their combination with other significant factors which allowed codebreakers to read messages: mistakes by operators, procedural flaws, and knowledge of operating procedures from captured documents as well as occasional captured machines and codebooks.

For example, On June 25th 1941 four warships set out from Scapa Flow to capture the codebooks and other documents from the German weather ship Lauenburg. It had been realised that the very hard to capture U Boats were not the only German naval units using enigma machines, soft easy to capture targets such as weather ships or armed trawlers had them as well. Nevertheless, U Boats were targeted as sources of intelligence. U-559 was deliberately pursued by 5 destroyers with a view to boarding her and although the British were unable to recover the enigma machine from the sinking submarine, it yielded a good supply of documents and codes, one of which, the weather reporting code, was used as a crib for breaking other codes.

Sloppy German operators themselves were a great help.

"The Germans made many mistakes, and though the breakthrough was the result of immense effort in several fields it was one particular error that led directly to the conquest of Enigma. When the operator had set up his machine according to the instructions for the day, and was about to encipher a signal, he would begin by tapping at random a small group of letters. The machine gave him an encipherment of this group, which he now incorporated at the start of the signal. A recipient of the message would then know, from these few letters, how to set the rotors of his own machine for deciphering that particular text. It was, one might say, a key built into the message itself. In their meticulous way, however, the Germans repeated the group at the beginning of each message. To Hut 6, (in BP) once the significance of the letters was realised, this duplication offered great possibilities."

Additionally, when the Germans switched from three to four wheel machines the Allies thought they were scuppered. Then it was discovered that slack operating procedures meant the Germans were only using three of the four wheels and the code breakers where back in the game.

The flaws in the enigma code and how it was used presented opportunities that Allied intelligence were able to recognise and exploit them allowed the Allies to keep reading the German's Enigma transmissions but it required an industrial effort to maintain the flow of intelligence. What's truly incredible is that, from the fall of Poland in 1939 when German interrogators could have been alerted to the extent of the Polish penetration of their Enigma system, to the dying days of the war, the Germans never cottoned on that the Allies had broken their high level cyphers. The implications are tremendous; if the Ultra intercepts shortened the war by 1-2 years then without Ultra Luft '46 wouldn't be a what if.

"Bletchley Park - a brief history.

In the summer of 1939, a small team of codebreakers arrived at the Government Code and Cipher School's (GC&CS) new home at Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire. Their mission was to crack the backbone of German military and intelligence communications, the Enigma cipher.
Enigma

The Germans thought Enigma was unbreakable. The combination of rotating wheels, electrical contacts and wires meant that the odds against anyone who did not know the machine's settings being able to break Enigma were 150 million million million to one!

But Bletchley Park achieved a breakthrough when the Poles passed on their knowledge of how the machine worked. This helped the codebreakers exploit a design weakness in Enigma - that no letter could ever be encrypted as itself.

At the same time, Bletchley Park mathematician Alan Turing realised that 'cribs' offered a way of cracking Enigma. A 'crib' is a piece of encrypted text whose true meaning is known or can be guessed. German messages were formulaic in places and the first line often contained standard information, for example weather conditions. Once a crib was known, it was still necessary to check thousands of potential Enigma settings to read a message, and to do this quickly Turing designed a electro-mechanical codebreaking machine called a Bombe. Each Bombe simulated the actions of 10 Enigma machines and was able to check all potential settings at high speed.

Cracking the 'impenetrable' Enigma code enabled Britain to foil Luftwaffe bombing raids, minimise U-Boat attacks and secure sea-based supply routes.

Colossus

Further codebreaking success enabled Bletchley Park to exploit Lorenz, a highly sophisticated cipher used personally by Hitler and his High Command. But many of the messages still took several weeks to decipher - a computing machine was needed. The result was Colossus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, designed by Max Newman.

Colossus was the size of a living room and weighed about one tonne. Its 2,400 valves replicated the pattern of an encrypted Lorenz message as electrical signals. This breakthrough in computing remained a secret for many years, to the extent that two Americans took the credit for inventing the computer in 1945. But the creation of Colossus proved to be a key contributor to the success on D-Day.

It is estimated that over 10,000 people worked at Bletchley Park at the height of its wartime activity. Their work affected the fate of nations and helped shorten the war by at least two years. But by March 1946, the people were gone and every scrap of evidence of their codebreaking exploits had been removed from Bletchley Park.

Nevertheless, the codebreaking effort continued when the GC&CS was re-named GCHQ and moved to London. It re-located to Cheltenham in 1952."

From the GCHQ website. GCHQ would approximate to the American NSA in that it has a really big budget, deals with NSA things like Echelon, electronic intelligence, cryptography etc. and no one's ever heard of it.

sgilewicz
07-13-2005, 09:00 AM
Tazzers, I have to agree with others on this thread that we Americans (at least those of us over 40) were taught quite clearly that the British contribution was absolutely vital to the successful outcome of the war for the allies. Churchill is put on a pedestal here as one of, if not THE, greatest statesmen of the 20th century. An opinion I heartily agree with. That said, i have read Basil Liddel Hart's (did I spell that right?) History of the Second World War from cover to cover and his opinion of Montgomery was, to put it kindly, not good. He felt, as did Patton, that he was too slow to sieze opportunity and as a result (maybe unfairly) appeared to be more concerned with not losing instead of winning. His treatment of BOB illustrated just how much the British people owed Hugh Dowding for his courageous position to withold RAF fighters from the continent in order to stave off the coming storm. It ultimately got him screwed by the politicians (Churchill chief among them!). As an American, I thank the British people for their heroism, leadership and ingenuity all through the war. You certainly made our tasks easier and don't believe everything you read. We Yanks are appreciative!

Tazzers1968
07-13-2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Tazzers, I have to agree with others on this thread that we Americans (at least those of us over 40) were taught quite clearly that the British contribution was absolutely vital to the successful outcome of the war for the allies. Churchill is put on a pedestal here as one of, if not THE, greatest statesmen of the 20th century. An opinion I heartily agree with. That said, i have read Basil Liddel Hart's (did I spell that right?) History of the Second World War from cover to cover and his opinion of Montgomery was, to put it kindly, not good. He felt, as did Patton, that he was too slow to sieze opportunity and as a result (maybe unfairly) appeared to be more concerned with not losing instead of winning. His treatment of BOB illustrated just how much the British people owed Hugh Dowding for his courageous position to withold RAF fighters from the continent in order to stave off the coming storm. It ultimately got him screwed by the politicians (Churchill chief among them!). As an American, I thank the British people for their heroism, leadership and ingenuity all through the war. You certainly made our tasks easier and don't believe everything you read. We Yanks are appreciative!

Appreciated but please be advised that I am not bringing to account the opinions that some people held about Montgomery right or wrong. For the record I prefer to form my own opinions and seeing as that is not possible I don't think it very fair to start casting aspersions about somebody who is in no position to defend themselves. In short, AFAIK third hand opinions of somebody's character do not count, even if it is Liddell-Hart's opinion.

I get the significance, don't worry. Don't forget Liddell-Hart practically wrote 'Blitzkreig' only to see the powers that be ignore it and then get bulldozed by it, at least the Germans were paying attention. I am only trying to set the record straight about Market Garden.

It is too easy to lay blame when you are dodging the flak of the accusations that come thick and fast after the event. What makes me want to spit however is how everybody is sooooo quick to accept a 'British' failure and lay the boot in then cry in indignation if neary a whisper of critcism comes their way in turn.

From when I was just a little boy I knew all about the Poles and the Czechs and the Free French, the Canadians, the Kiwis, the Ausies the South Africans, the Americans and even the Brazilian contributions to WW2 because they did not want us to forget. Fair play I say.

The problem is that I had to find out for myself in later years just what my own country had done in the war because we were too busy learning about what everybody else had done. So when I see a thread specifically asking about what the British did in this period and then see some self agrandising geezer trying to divert attention to their own country's contributions I can't help but spit a few bricks.

My wife has a saying "its not all about you you know" I'm sure all husbands have heard something like it. Well this thread is about what the British did for a change. And even then the bashers can't help but hijack it.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kernow
07-13-2005, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by sgilewicz:
That said, i have read Basil Liddel Hart's (did I spell that right?) History of the Second World War from cover to cover and his opinion of Montgomery was, to put it kindly, not good. He felt, as did Patton, that he was too slow to sieze opportunity and as a result (maybe unfairly) appeared to be more concerned with not losing instead of winning.

But LH didn't like Montgomery much anyway. From 42 onwards Montgomery commanded pretty much the only army which Britain could put in the field. Of course there were also armies in Burma and he left an army in Italy when he returned to the UK for Overlord, but essentially he had command of Britain's main army (at first in Africa and then Europe) and he couldn't really afford to lose it. When you also consider he had witnessed what incompetent leaders could do during WW1 his caution becomes a little more understandable. His men seem to have appreciated someone who was cautious with their lives.

BTW I think it was a Polish mathematician working at Rolls Royce who first did some sums on what the performance of a certain fighter might be if a Merlin engine was put in it.

sgilewicz
07-13-2005, 10:41 AM
Tazzers don't tell me that the UK has jumped on the revisionist history bandwagon also! I thoght that was unique to our side of the ocean! Well, I can certainly understand your frustration if that's the case. The British effort is all the more amazing considering the size (geographically and population) of the US & USSR compared with Britain. You folks made inordinately large contributions when considering the resources available. I just wish history could be taught without the PC agenda which seems to be so fashionable these days. Maybe each of our own citizenry would be a bit more appreciative, and proud of, our own unique cultures.

John_Stag
07-13-2005, 11:11 AM
Oh, and they make **** good tea. Which should be served piping hot, in a tea-pot, on a tray, with a China cup beside it. Darjeeling for preference, but Prince of Wales or Keemum if you have it, straight up, no milk or sugar, please.

Oh, and coffee should be served straight and black, in minuscule, thick porcelain cups and should be strong enough to stand a spoon in. Turkish by preferance, but Spanish or French if you have it, please. Italian will do at a pinch, or some of that heady stuff from the granite belt in Queensland. Further more, it should be served at a temperature that is IMMEDIATELY drinkable. It should NOT be served in places that wish you a 'nice day' or require you to que behind a rope, which have snazzy decor, staff with plastic nametags and even more plastic smiles and play anything by Celine Dione. Preferably, it should be made by a wizened person of Italian/Spanish/Greek/Lebanese persuasion and indeterminate gender, but with plenty of facial hair, in an equally aged, lovingly buffed, brass cappacino machine. The process of coffee making should be slightly magical, accompanied by lots of steam and cursing of both the customer and the archaic and arcane apparatus and effort required to make a decent thimble-full. The resulting liquid should make black ink look merely greyish by comparison, increase your powers of insight fourfold and require at least a fortnight recovery between cups.

And no, I'm not choosy, but thank you ever so much for inquiring. Please, don't get me started on Scotch whisky, we'll be here all night!

Well put. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Tazzers1968
07-13-2005, 11:40 AM
Tazzers don't tell me that the UK has jumped on the revisionist history bandwagon also! I thoght that was unique to our side of the ocean!

Its not revisionist history at all I don't think it is just that we spend a lot of time learning about what other people did. Thats only fair, I just think we should spend at least as much time learning about our own contribution, nothing more.

P.S. Hello John how are you chap?

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
07-13-2005, 12:51 PM
Ploughman Posted Wed July 13 2005 07:50

"Similar to the Polish "bombi", the more sophisticated British version consisted of a series of Enigma machines wired together which could be rotated through each wheel setting to test whether or not a setting worked or could be ruled out."

I never heard of a thing named "bombi". Polish cryptological bomb, working already in 1936 was a set of six Enigma-like mashines wired together, each working to find correct setting of one ciphering rotor of Enigma which coded the message. So device described as "more sophisticated British version" was working exaclty the same way the Polish cryptological bomb.
Undeniable is on the other side that Bletchley Park crew with Alan Turing as head of the team created faster and better deciphering mashines, top of which was Collosus.

As i wrote before Bletchley Park did enormous job in decoding lots of messages everyday. Also great things were done in terms of finding new, fater ways to decode those mesages. Verbal analisys was one of them, basing on thousands of previously decoded messages and lazyness of German operators. Such anlisys never was conducted by Poles.

Breaking Enigma in Poland was done by team of mathematicians. It was revolutionary idea that those can do such a job. For centuries linguists were codebreakers.
Please note two things: Enigma, previuosly commercial device, was adopted by Reichswehr in 1926. Messagess intecepted by French and English cryptologists were impossible to decipher for them. After some time all efforts to break Enigma were dropped as they started to belive Enigma was unbreakeable. Great Britain Room nr 40 (codebreakers establishment) had no mathematicians until summer of 1939. Alan Turing himself was hired on 4 sept. 1939, some time after Poles transferred their knowledge. Before that noone in GB was working on breaking of Enigma with anything close to even minor success. In another words all tremendous achievents of Bletchley Park would not happen at all without polish braking of Enigma and sharing the knowledge.

Knowledge of Polish contribution is popular in Poland. Dont think anywhere else. Firstly, for decades after WW2 Ultra remained top secred. Secondly, even after 1974 there were no mentions by British involved or historians of any Polish involvement. Not until recently. But even nowadays there are made movies like recent "Enigma"...

Sorry for OT

Kocur_
07-13-2005, 01:08 PM
Outcome of WW2 would be simply much different without GB contribution. Apart from huge effort in terms of man, industry, transport, intelligence one more factor IMHO must considered most important. That is will to fight!
Between fall of France and 22.06.1941 GB was alone against Hitler. AFAIK all German efforts to achieve peace were dropped down by Churchill. Very much unlike Stalin, who several times in 1941-42 reached nazi Germany seeking peace. Even though GB was worldwide empire, its heart was beating in the Islands. Not only emotionally but also AFAIK almost all British industry was located there. Everything else was overseas, on which U-bootwaffe sadly so succesfully operated. If England fell or was to be politically dominated by nazis, WW2 could end only much, much worse. I dont see US invasion of Festung Europa fired from America possible. Not even bombing offensive against Germany. Without RAF/USAAF bombing offensive launched from England all reserves in German industry would be unleashed by Albert Speer without any disturbance. I dont think WW2 could be won by allies without GB fighting.

stathem
07-13-2005, 01:29 PM
Churchill's biggest regret and dissapointment was that WW2 ended without Britain's original reason for going to war being achieved - a free and self governing Poland.

Kocur_
07-13-2005, 01:49 PM
Aaron_GT!
ImpStarDuece!
stathem!

Thank you gents for kind words towards my country.

Being guilty for Polish OT myself i ask to keep this thread on topic. If there is any underestimating by anyone of UK contribution in WW2 this contribution should be discussed, as there is no reason to think of GB's effort was less important than any allied coutry. Belive me: i know how it feels when ones homeland war effort is being cosidered less than it was. British war effort should not be neglected and it diserves this thread.

Tazzers1968
07-13-2005, 03:10 PM
BTW I think it was a Polish mathematician working at Rolls Royce who first did some sums on what the performance of a certain fighter might be if a Merlin engine was put in it.

It does not suprise me one bit in the least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Stathem, Roosevelt was calling the shots, I doubt Churchill even knew it although if it had been mentioned I suppose he would have been pragmatic about it. AFAIK Churchill thought he had some kind of deal after the Yalta talks though I think he knew there was something wrong. I also think he knew he could do absolutely nothing about it. I think he knew that after the war Britain would be exhausted. As a result Poland had to wait another....what?....45 years for what they had been fighting for.

Sorry to anybody if I sounded a bit bullish.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
07-13-2005, 03:47 PM
In another words all tremendous achievents of Bletchley Park would not happen at all without polish braking of Enigma and sharing the knowledge.

As I said..."While it is common knowledge (or at least I thought it was) that the Poles made the intial and most significant breakthroughs in breaking the Enigma code..." I'm really not sure how more clearly you might want me to confirm your attestation that the activities at Bletchley Park were based on the ground-breaking work of the pre-war Polish intelligence community.

As to whether it wouldn't've happened at all, maybe not, and if it did it would've been a lot harder.

Also, the Turing device ".. consisted of a series of Enigma machines wired together which could be rotated through each wheel setting to test whether or not a setting worked or could be ruled out. It was here that any similarity to the original Polish version ended..." Ie. it did consist of connected Enigma machines just like the Polish device you're refering to, but there the similarity ended.


Knowledge of Polish contribution is popular in Poland. Dont think anywhere else. Firstly, for decades after WW2 Ultra remained top secred. Secondly, even after 1974 there were no mentions by British involved or historians of any Polish involvement. Not until recently. But even nowadays there are made movies like recent "Enigma"...

As to Poland's acheivements being overlooked, perhaps this was something to do with the Cold War, but who knows. I went to uni in St Andrews where many of the Free-Polish forces in the UK were based and my walk to lectures used to take me through General Sikorski's memorial garden. You'll be pleased to hear that lots of the locals up there have Polish surnames. I'm glad that Poland is being accorded the respect it deserves for the contribution and sacrifices it made during WWII.

As for good movies and good history I find they rarely go together...it was pants film anyway.

stathem
07-13-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Tazzers1968:

Stathem, Roosevelt was calling the shots, I doubt Churchill even knew it although if it had been mentioned I suppose he would have been pragmatic about it. AFAIK Churchill thought he had some kind of deal after the Yalta talks though I think he knew there was something wrong. I also think he knew he could do absolutely nothing about it. I think he knew that after the war Britain would be exhausted. As a result Poland had to wait another....what?....45 years for what they had been fighting for.

Sorry to anybody if I sounded a bit bullish.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aye Taz, I know the reasons, just didn't want to get into them.

Kocur_
07-13-2005, 04:08 PM
@Ploughman:
Thank you sirhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hastatus
07-13-2005, 04:50 PM
Please read books.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-14-2005, 05:01 PM
I went to an excellent lecture by Dr Mark Baldwin on the Enigma code and it's defeat over in Wrexham a couple of years ago. The Polish effort was significant but would not have come about except for a disgruntled German selling information to the French. As for most actions in wartime, a team effort was brought together to incredible effect.

Bletchley Park's overall contribution was still immense - apparently, the Allies knew the positions of nearly all of the German forces prior to landing on D-Day. According to Dr Baldwin, only a couple of units weren't where they were thought to be.

Of course, British codebreaking has had a distinguished history. For example, it could be argued that a classic piece of underhandedness by British intelligence brought the US into WW1 (Zimmermann telegram - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram)

Cheers,
Norris

Capt.England
07-14-2005, 05:29 PM
Has anyone mentioned the British help with the first A-Bomb yet?

96th_Nightshifter
07-14-2005, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The British use of speciality armour; "Hobarts Funnies", a.k.a. the 79th Armoured Division, as well as commandos and better naval gunfire, helped to keep their casualties far lower than the US or Canadian beaches. Their Churchill DD tanks were also more effective than the Sherman DD tanks; around 85% of the 64 launched off British beaches made it ashore as opposed to about 20% of the Sherman DDs.

The British lost 630 men at Sword and 400 at Gold. The Canadians lost 1,200 men at Juno. The Americans lost 2,400 at Omaha and less than 300 at Utah.

Remember that the British fought in France, over London and the Channel, in the Western Desert, in the Meditteranean, in the Atlantic (both Northern and Western Atlantic), in Italy, in Malaya, China, Burma, Singapore, Australia, India, Greece, Scicily and Malta. They flew Hurricanes over Murmansk, bombed German bases in the Far East in Vickers biplanes, sent carriers and subs to the Pacific, flew a 6 year Bomber Offensive against Germany and were responsibe for the best Allied developments in code breaking (Bletchly Park), airborne and ground based RADAR (Radio Auto-Detection And Ranging), Sonar, electronic warfare, deception and jamming, cannon (17lbr anyone?), proximity fuses, jet engines, inline engines, bombsights (the SABS and T1 sights) and they also had the worlds best field gun: the 25 pounder!

The famous P-51 Mustang started as a fighter designed for British requirements and was transformed into the vaunted B/C/D versions with the fitting of a licence built Roll-Royce Merlin engine, the British 17lbr was fitter to the Sherman to turn it into an 'animal tamer', the British 6lbr ATG was adopted in the US Army as the 57mm anti tank gun, the USAAF reverse lend-leased British Spitfires and Mosquitos, 'borrowed' the British gyro sight to make its own K-14 "Ace Maker", benefited greatly from the British operation to accquire an Enigma machine and were genrally a great help in holding out against the Germans so that the Western Allies could launch their invasion of the Continent. Plus they did all this while having to put up with English weather! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Oh, and they make **** good tea. Which should be served piping hot, in a tea-pot, on a tray, with a China cup beside it. Darjeeling for preference, but Prince of Wales or Keemum if you have it, straight up, no milk or sugar, please.

Oh, and coffee should be served straight and black, in minuscule, thick porcelain cups and should be strong enough to stand a spoon in. Turkish by preferance, but Spanish or French if you have it, please. Italian will do at a pinch, or some of that heady stuff from the granite belt in Queensland. Further more, it should be served at a temperature that is IMMEDIATELY drinkable. It should NOT be served in places that wish you a 'nice day' or require you to que behind a rope, which have snazzy decor, staff with plastic nametags and even more plastic smiles and play anything by Celine Dione. Preferably, it should be made by a wizened person of Italian/Spanish/Greek/Lebanese persuasion and indeterminate gender, but with plenty of facial hair, in an equally aged, lovingly buffed, brass cappacino machine. The process of coffee making should be slightly magical, accompanied by lots of steam and cursing of both the customer and the archaic and arcane apparatus and effort required to make a decent thimble-full. The resulting liquid should make black ink look merely greyish by comparison, increase your powers of insight fourfold and require at least a fortnight recovery between cups.

And no, I'm not choosy, but thank you ever so much for inquiring. Please, don't get me started on Scotch whisky, we'll be here all night!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

96th_Nightshifter
07-14-2005, 09:46 PM
The Brits and Canadian landings met little or no resistance.[/color]

I'll be sure to tell my Grandfather that, he seems to remember it differently http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

HellToupee
07-14-2005, 09:59 PM
the cads lost around 1200men i belive, brits around 400-500 on each beach

Hastatus
07-15-2005, 04:37 AM
Market Garden was held up because half of its allotted supplies were going to another push by Patton (which ultimately failed also.) A push that Eisenhower had not told Montgomery about. By the time that 30 Corp (XXX Corp) got to the last bridge before Arnhem it was out of supplies and the US troops that Montgomery had earmarked for the last link up were currently fighting a doomed operation to the south, the very one sanctioned by Eisenhower.....the one he had not informed Montgomery about.

For starters, there were 2 SS Panzer Grenadier Divisions holding Arnhem by the time XXX Corps arrived to the south, with reinforcements flowing in from Germany on an hourly basis. XXX Corps had not run out of supplies by the time they reached Arnhem (where did you get that?).

The British Airborne Division was cut off, involved in heavy fighting and unable to breakout south from the "pocket" at Oosterbeek to the river. There was no offensive by Patton, *anywhere*, during Market-Garden. The only US troops anywhere in the vicinity of XXX Corps were the US 82nd Airborne fighting to clear Nijmegen, where the second bridge was, so I have no idea what your talking about there, either. XXX Corps was entirely British, with 1st Allied Airborne Army containing 2 US AB Divisions, and 1 British AB Division, and 1 Polish AB Brgde. There were no US ground forces alloted to the operation.

The single lane highway north was not suitable for a rapid armor thrust against a determined enemy, the Airborne force at Arnhem were landed too far from the bridge, save Col. Frosts single battalion, and the Germans had too powerfull a force at Arnhem. The allies ran out of time, and luck. The Paras put up a hell of a fight but thats cold comfort for the loss that the operation was. It had zip to do with Patton, or what he was doing with 3rd Army.

As for Montgomery he had the unenviable task of commanding the army group landing in Normandy, and despite the mans shortcomings he was what the allies needed in the French 44 campaign. He was methodical, and he beleived in overwhelming force to achieve his objectives. He suffered fools not at all, and had the force of personality and skill to hold together an invasion force comprising many different nations (including De Gaulles Free French). The Normandy campaign was his to lose, and he didnt lose it. However, Market-Garden was a blunder, and it should be called what it was. Eisenhower approved the plan, and Montgomery executed it. There is no shame in that. It had a noble purpose, it just didnt work out. Sometimes that happens in war. Monty would hardly be the 1st commander in WW2 to have a setback.

x6BL_Brando
07-15-2005, 08:54 AM
Of the 600-odd British killed on Sword beach, two of them were my Dad's best pals, both shot & killed instantly when the ramp of the LC went down. My old man was stood between them and didn't get hit at all; not physically at least.

His run of luck lasted until Caen, when he was sent home on compassionate leave - to bury half his family, killed by a V1 that landed in a street in Wandsworth. I think he got a week away before returning to his unit and continuing on to Berlin.

Are those the kind of contributions you had in mind? It may sound trite, but while Britain remained free from occupation the people constantly made such sacrifices and fought on. Not just for their own survival, but also to bring liberation to the Axis-occupied countries.

I'm sorry if it offends anyone - bringing it to such an individual, personal place - but I get tired of hearing about what General somebody did or didn't do, or how many bombs xxx country dropped & that. Britain's contribution revolved around pouring all her resources into this war, and holding her ground when the time came, and ending up poor but free at the end.

Edit: Perhaps I should have paid a tribute to ALL the people of all the countries involved. I didn't intend to minimise the sacrifice of all of them - I just happen to be a Briton.

skabbe
07-15-2005, 10:04 AM
This thread really got brain!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif