Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Incredible Shipbuilding Capacity of the US in WW2

Discussion in 'Atlantic Naval Conflict' started by gusord, Sep 4, 2011.

  1. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,451
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    Have you actually read the material you're suggesting we haven't read?
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  2. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    655
    No, what is disingenuous is the persistence you show in avoiding questions or presenting proofs for the statements you make.

    "We can provide transport for 20,000 men" was a simple statement of fact, whether it was two three or twenty ships moving them is irrelevant. It fulfilled a British request for additional lift, so how much they had was, by their own reckoning, inadequate. Your digression on the undisputed capabilities of the Queen's, Aquitania, Mauretania, and ... Who are the other two? Who is Breuerer BTW?

    As to Aquitania, no, she did not make "6 trips from the US West Coast to reinforce the Pacific in March 1942". She sailed from San Francisco to Honolulu on 1o March, and then after returning, again on 31 March. By my count that is two. She then returned to the East Coast.

    Queen Mary sailed from Boston to Rio 18 February to 6 March, Rio to Capetown, 8-14 March, Capetown to Freemantle 15 to 23 March, and Freemantle to Sydney 24 to 28 March. That is a single trip. Don't you read the sources? Perhaps if you didn't rely so heavily on Wiki pages as your primary reference you wouldn't make such errors?

    Overall, it was estimated "Some 21% of all US troops sent overseas were moved by British Ministry of War Transport Ships."

    Indeed, 666 - not "600" - was the rough number for the entire war, which I just pointed out to you. Are you now backpedaling in an attempt to hide the fact you claimed that "600" was the number provided in 1942 alone? That isn't very cricket of you. As I pointed out to you, "Roger Freeman notes 350 Spitfire V were allocated to the US in Britain in 1942 of which 150 were for 8th Air Force units,"

    So what is your point of noting that the Spitfires were replaced later by better US aircraft as they came available? Or is it just another strawman?
     
    Takao likes this.
  3. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    655
    Well, at least he's read the Wikipage.
     
  4. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,451
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    But did he read all of it?
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,904
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    The ability to read does not mean that one comprehends what is being read.
     
  6. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,451
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    I read that somewhere.
     
  7. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Something about this fellow reminds me of the recently-departed mjolnir.... His Imperial cousin perhaps?
     
  8. roker

    roker New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    How true.The German U boats Had a great time on The East Coast .No Blackout.along the coast,Ducks In A barrel
     

Share This Page