Why were radial engined planes more popular in the Pacific Theater?

Why were the Corsair, Wildcat, and Hellcat all used extensively in the Pacific but not in Europe? Same goes for P-51 mostly in Europe but not very much so in the Pacific? Can radials tolerate the weather better (salt water conditions), is it a performance issue (both aerial and carrier)?

Why were radial engined planes more popular in the Pacific Theater?opera music

P38 Lighting, P39 Aircobra, P40 Warhawk, P51 Mustang and the P61 Black Widow were all used in the Pacific as well as being used in Europe.

Radial engines were in fact preferred by the U.S. Navy however it would seem that it may have been a ship bound storage and work space issue more that anything else.

Why were radial engined planes more popular in the Pacific Theater?opera sheet music opera theater

Its an evolution thing. Think, what came after the radial engines. I was shipboard in 1960 when we were transitioning from radials to jets. Do you know how big the radials were, 18 cylinders. The pacific theater didn't have huge radials like we did.
It's more a service thing than an engine thing. The Army Air Corps was primarily in Europe, and they used the P-47 and P-51. The Navy and Marine Corps were primarily in the Pacific, and they used the F4U, F4F and F6F.

Did the Fairey Swordfish see combat in the Pacific theater during WWII?

I know it was used widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, but I have not heard of its use in the Pacific.

Did the Fairey Swordfish see combat in the Pacific theater during WWII?phantom of the opera

The Stringbag was only used in the early days of the Pacific war from British carriers.

My main reason for putting this answer here is for those who know as a matter of fact that World War 2 was ,of course, won solely by our wonderful American Allies and perpetuate the myth that we British sat on our arses and never contributed to the Pacific engagements(see Daniel T above) may I point out the contribution of the British Pacific Fleet and their four battleships, eighteen aircraft carriers, eleven cruisers and many smaller warships and support vessels. Not too much compared to the HUGE American Fleets but worthy of note I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pac...

And before everyone pops off. I`m not a Yank Hater. I like your country and your people. I am appreciative of the help that you extended before and after Pearl Harbour.

Just remember.

Without Britain Hitler would have conquered the Soviet Union. That leaves him in one hell of a position to challenge the only remaining threat to his World Domination

Ray

Did the Fairey Swordfish see combat in the Pacific theater during WWII?listen to opera opera theater

The swordfish was aboard the HMS HERMES when she was sunk by Japanese carriers early in the war. It was also used in it's seaplane configuration for scouting. As to after that I don't know for sure but it probably was used by the Aussies until more modern American planes arrived.
No it was not, the Swordfish was a British torpedo bomber that operated off of aircraft carriers, the British used them extensively in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic against the German and Italian naval presence there, but the British never carried out carrier operations in the pacific theater.

Also there was no need for the swordfish in the pacific theater, it was very slow, and unmaneuverable, when carrying a torpedo, and it was not heavily armored. the US Torpedo bombers, the TBD Devastator's, and TBM Avenger's although much more capable aircraft than the Swordfish, already been proved ineffective and highly vulnerable to enemy fighters at the battle of midway. The United States need for anti-shipping capability was instead fulfilled solely by the highly versatile dauntless dive bomber. which was responsible for nearly 80% of jappanese ships sunk during the war.

So to anwser your querstion, no the sword fish was not used in the pacific theater, the brittish never caried out carrier operations in the pacific, and there was no need in the pacific for the Swordfish.
I belive the British used the Fairey Albacore in the Pacific, but from land bases.

Daniel: Do your homework. In 1943, the HMS Victorious worked with the USS Saratoga in the Pacific, and later in early 1945 the British Pacific Fleet joined with the US Fleet, and attacked the Japanese home islands. Reference Lt. Hamilton Grey, VC.

Also, the TBF Avenger was responsible for most of the U-Boat kills in the Atlantic by aircraft. The SBD was a dismal failure at the task.

Brian: The HMS Hermes was sunk in the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific.
Google provides great information about the Fairy Swordfish, http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=Fairey...

It was used from land, conventional Air Craft Carriers and converted Merchant Aircraft Carriers. It was also operated by the Dutch who operated four Carriers.

Knowing the Dutch Air Force was active in Dutch East Indies (NEI) and later, Australia I tried to find evidence of them operating Fairy Swordfish in the Pacific but to no avail. I also could find no evidence the Dutch MAC's operated in the Pacific.

It's a remarkable aircraft with distinguished service given it's vintage. I appreciated your question.

Pacific Theater of WWII.? can you please help me describe some of the combat environments?

Both my grandfathers are Pacific theatre vets. My Grandpa G described hot jungles and getting shelled by the Japanese. Seeing a Japanese Zero approaching the island sent his blood cold. He said that the sun was very hot and they loved to find shade.

Pacific Theater of WWII.? can you please help me describe some of the combat environments?soap opera

Well, it was in Asia and the South Pacific. So think jungles, palm trees, sandy beaches, lagoons etc.

Pacific Theater of WWII.? can you please help me describe some of the combat environments?city opera opera theater

The Pacific Theater was Island hopping. Search Guam, Iwo Jima, and other Pacific Islands.

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Pacific...
~Most of them were hot, humid, damp, bug-infested jungles or in some cases, barren rocks. Much of the action occured on a great big puddle called the Pacific Ocean and the troop environments were generally cramped, crowded, smelly ships and boats. Hiroshima, on the other hand, before August 5, 1945 was a vibrant and vital city but after August 5th, it was a glass encrusted cinder full of pieces of civilian bone and flesh.
Saipan, Guam,Palau,Truk; these are some of the Islands in Micronesia that were devastated during that battle. In Palau Island, one of the island there called Peleliu Island, though very small was a battle ground of one of the fiercest fight. Japanese soldiers were really slaughtering the young american marines. The beach later named orange beach as it was stained entirely by blood. The USMarines finally took over the island and planted the proud-bloodied flag of the United States of America on top of the bloody rock mountain. It wasn't an easy overtaking because the Japanes soldiers had; like thirty years earlier prepared the island for the war. They had dug into the islands limestone rocks, created a net work of caves and tunnels in which their soldiers could easily attack and run to and fro underground without being detected by the USMarines. The battle costed lifes of both Japanese and the USMarines by the thousands. The USMillitary named one of its battle ship; USS PELELIU, after the name of that island. Ofcourse the environment were very nasty. Rugged and razor sharp limestone rocks were barriers that the USMarines had to manuever as they made their way to the shore and to climb as well to get to the enemy. The pounding of the ocean waves against them intensified the attempts also. And also it is a tropical climate there. The temperature is always around ninety seven to ninety eight majority of the time; very high humidity. Lots of mosquitoes and insects that makes it unbearable for one to stay outhere allnight in the junkle or at the limestone mountain ridge. One must shower daily to have a bit of comfort.
The Japanese were defending the string of Islands near Japan to help prevent the Americans from creating an airbase with which to bomb the Japanese homeland.

-In the air, and at sea, the Japanese naval fleet was giving the Americans a pounding, until the battle of midway.

-On the ground, the Japanese troops were ordered to defend until death, each of the jungle/hardened lava and ash covered islands which they were based on. These battles were intense, and Japanese snipers slowed American advancement. As well as snipers, the Japanese had fortified artillery positions on ridges, and hill tops.
Well, there was water, trees, forests

Name six battles that occured at pacific theater during WW2?

i would also like the date/s

thanks

Name six battles that occured at pacific theater during WW2?opera mini

Dec 7, 1941 ------------ Attack on Pearl Harbor

Dec 10, 1941 ---------- Sinking of the "Prince of Wales" %26amp; "Repulse"

Mary 7 - 8, 1942 ------ Battle of the Coral Sea

June 4, 1942 ----------- Battle of Midway

June 19 - 20, 1944 --- Battle of the Phillipine Sea

Mar 26, 1943 ---------- Battle of the Komandorski Islands

Name six battles that occured at pacific theater during WW2?passions soap opera opera theater

Battle of Java Sea: In a two month period, the Japanese conquered the Netherlands East Indies, (now Indonesia) and destroyed the combined American, British, Dutch and Australian surface naval forces in the area. The chronology that follows takes place south of concurrent advances in the Philippines and SE Asia and northwest of simultaneous activities in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands which are later resolved in the battles of Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea. January and February, 1942.

Battle of Coral Sea: The Japanese purpose of the War in the Pacific was to obtain resources to continue her conquest of China. To this end she attacked the major power centers -- the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, took the Guam, Wake outposts ; invaded S.E. Asia to cut off resupply from India to China ; took the resources of the Dutch East Indies while destroying the ABDA naval forces ; took the Philippines and Malaya ; and knocked the British fleet from India back to Africa. May 7-8, 1942.

Battle of Midway: The Japanese sent their entire fleet to capture Midway Island in the hopes the small US Navy would come to fight and be destroyed. Nimitz got word of the plan and set an ambush. While the Japanese carriers were rearming after bombing Midway, Fletcher's airplanes attacked and destroyed three of four big carriers. Planes from the surviving carrier damaged Yorktown. A second US strike put down the fourth enemy carrier. Damaged Yorktown was sunk by a submarine two days later. June 4-6, 1942.

Battle of Savo Island: In just 32 minutes the enemy had inflicted massive damage. Four heavy cruisers were sunk and a heavy cruiser and destroyer badly damaged. 1,270 men were killed and 708 injured. The enemy had comparative scratches on three cruisers. August 9, 1942.

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal: Both sides were in the process of sending full Army divisions to Guadalcanal. The US arrived on Nov 12 and unloaded troops and most of their supplies before bombers damaged San Francisco and a destroyer and the convoy withdrew. The Japanese had sent a bombardment force of two battleships attended by a light cruiser and 8 destroyers, intending to take out Henderson Field to allow their troop landing on Nov 13 without air attack. The U.S. cruisers and destroyers engaged the Japanese battleships that night. November 12-16, 1942.

Battle of Tassafaronga: The Japanese tried to replenish their troops on Guadalcanal by fast destroyers on moonless nights. The destroyers hid in Bougainville during the day, made a run to deliver their supplies in the dark and returned to hiding by daylight. The technique was to tie barrels together and drop them overboard where they were retrieved by swimmers and hidden before the morning when an attack by Marine planes was assured. November 30, 1942.
These are found very easily via GOOGLE. I assume you mean any sort of 'battlefield' because a Naval Battle also is a 'battlefield".

So you can really start with the Attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.

February 27- March 1 - Japanese naval victory in the Battle of the Java Sea as the largest U.S. warship in the Far East, the HOUSTON, is sunk.

May 7-8, 1942 - Japan suffers its first defeat of the war during the Battle of the Coral Sea off New Guinea - the first time in history that two opposing carrier forces fought *only using aircraft* without the opposing ships *ever sighting each other*.

June 4-5, 1942 - Turning point in the war occurs with a decisive victory for the U.S. against Japan in the Battle of Midway as squadrons of U.S. torpedo planes and dive bombers from ENTERPRISE, HORNET, and YORKTOWN attack and destroy four Japanese carriers, a cruiser, and damage another cruiser and two destroyers. U.S. loses YORKTOWN.

August 7, 1942 - The first U.S. amphibious landing of the Pacific War occurs as 1st Marine Division invades Tulagi and Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands.

October 11/12 - U.S. cruisers and destroyers defeat a Japanese task force in the Battle of Cape Esperance off Guadalcanal.

October 26, 1942 - Battle of Santa Cruz off Guadalcanal between U.S. And Japanese warships results in the loss of the Carrier HORNET.

June 19, 1944 - The "Marianas Turkey Shoot" occurs as U.S. Carrier-based fighters shoot down 220 Japanese planes, while only 20 American planes are lost.

July 19, 1944 - U.S. Marines invade Guam in the Marianas.

July 24, 1944 - U.S. Marines invade Tinian.

July 27, 1944 - American troops complete the liberation of Guam.

October 20, 1944 - U.S. Sixth Army invades Leyte in the Philippines.

October 23-26 - Battle of Leyte Gulf results in a decisive U.S. Naval victory.

October 23-26 - Battle of Leyte Gulf results in a decisive U.S. Naval victory.

October 25, 1944 - The first suicide air (Kamikaze) attacks occur against U.S. warships in Leyte Gulf. By the end of the war, Japan will have sent an estimated 2,257 aircraft. "The only weapon I feared in the war," Adm. Halsey will say later.

February 19, 1945 - U.S. Marines invade Iwo Jima.

April 1, 1945 - The final amphibious landing of the war occurs as the U.S. Tenth Army invades Okinawa.

June 22, 1945 - Japanese resistance ends on Okinawa as the U.S. Tenth Army completes its capture.

Take your pick.

I supposed you could even count Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you want....
The ones the Marines fought in!

1) Guadalcanal (August 7, 1942 鈥?February 9, 1943)

2) Tarawa (November 20 鈥?November 23, 1943)

3) Saipan (June 15, 1944 鈥?July 9, 1944

4) Iwo Jima (February 19, 1945鈥揗arch 26, 1945)

5) Leyte Gulf (October 23, 1944 鈥?October 26, 1944)

6) Okinawa (March 18, 1945鈥揓une 23, 1945)
check links to find info
Battle of Midway

Battle of Iwo Jima

Battle of Guadalcanal

Battle of Philippines

Battle of Truk Island

Battle of Marianas Islands

you can do the rest of your homework.
Coral Sea 1942, Midway 1942, Gudalcanal 1942-43, Tarawa 1943, and of course Pearl Harbor December 7,1941.
I have no idea of the dates, but Midway, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima and Okinawa
Sounds like someone should do their homework. we can't help you when the test comes.

Combat Flight Simulator 2: Pacific Theater?

Can anyone tell me if this is compatible with Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator 3: Battle for Europe? (I'm guessing not but want to confirm this).

Combat Flight Simulator 2: Pacific Theater?extension

Compatible in what way? You mean scenery, etc.?

I have both, use them seperately. The Pacifi is harder tolearn and use, but more realistic, imho.

Combat Flight Simulator 2: Pacific Theater?movie theater opera theater

also IL2 is wicked if you're into your flying

During WW2 at the pacific theater of operation, should have the USA implicated carrier-based warfare

than the bloody island-hopping campaigns? instead of taking islands for airfields, simply placing carriers strategically would have been better. peal harbor was a carrier-based operation

During WW2 at the pacific theater of operation, should have the USA implicated carrier-based warfare rather...secure browser

if airfields were not taken then our carriers at sea would be at great risk from enemy planes

During WW2 at the pacific theater of operation, should have the USA implicated carrier-based warfare rather...home theater opera theater

islands cant sink
1. Aircraft carriers were relatively easy to sink if they were located. Islands, though easily located, are difficult to put out of commision and can be defended properly.

2. The size of the aircraft carrier severely limits the size and mass of aircraft launchable off one. The upper limit was the size of a B25 Mitchel bomber, something unable to LAND on a carrier. The limited size limits both the range and weapons load of carrier aircraft resulting in a higher number of aircraft flying from a closer airbase/carrier risking more crew to drop the same load of ordnance.

3. The type of aircraft that had the greatest effect on Japan were four-engined bombers... something that could not be launched from aircraft carriers.

4. Captured islands can also be used as staging areas and basing for ground troops used to actually eliminate enemy bases. Although elimination of using island for bases in lieu of aircraft carriers limits the need for ground troops, without them you have little ability to decisively influence battles on land.
Do you understand the logistics involved in maintaining a carrier battle group in a prime condition of readiness?

We only took the islands we needed and we took them to establish repair facilities and fuel/supply depots. It's two weeks sailing back to Pearl Harbor from the Western Pacific.
How do you plan tour logistics around such masive supply lines. Secondly suppose you skip some of these islands. Ok now you have to deal with there radars, and more imporantly there fighter and bomber formations which can harass you all the way to Japan. Also think of the amount of time needed to do this. Are you saying the US should have held out on an attack and let Japan continue to build its military up til we had enough Carriers to try in win in one stroke. Sounds risky.
If I understand your ? After the peal harbour attack American re grouped and counter attacked even after many ships and personal were sent to Europe We won didn't we?
Supporting and supplying a large invasion force going into Japan itself by sea only would have meant insane supply lines. Also you can only build carriers so fast.
A. We didn't have the carrier fleet we have now.

B. It was strategically important to "own" the airstrips on the islands... as a defensive tactic. If we owned them, then the Japanese didn't... which decreased the vulnerability of the carriers we DID have..

C. The fuel capacity and range of the fighters we were using then was much less than those we use today. By having airfields on islands AND carriers positioned in the Pacific, we had much better mobility than we would have had using carriers alone.
Did we have enough carriers to do that?
um....we didn't have that may carriers and perhaps you may remember pearl harbor. Islands were a cheaper and faster solution.
I've wondered that myself. Assemble a kick-butt armada and head straight to Tokyo Bay... instead of the island hopping. Their Navy would have been overstretched.

1864th Engineer Aviation Battalion, Pacific Theater, WWII??

This was an African-American unit that was organized toward the end of WWII and served in Guam, my father was a member. Anyone else have a grandfather, father, or uncle who served in this unit?

1864th Engineer Aviation Battalion, Pacific Theater, WWII??opera singer

My great uncle Earle served in WWll, I'm not sure his battalion or where he was stationed though. Well he was in the navy got his master plumbers liscense.

World War 2 and the Pacific Theater 1942-45?

What happened?

Where did these things take place?

When did these things happen?

Why did they happen?

How did these things happen?

How does this topic influence the world and the war after it was over, why does it matter?

If you can answer any of these it would be greatly appreciated.

World War 2 and the Pacific Theater 1942-45?met opera

There is not enough space to tell everything. Here it is a nutshell. The US uses a trade embargo against Japan in protest against Japanese aggression in China. Japan attacks the US naval base at Pearl Harbor. US declares war and uses an island hopping campaign to take the Pacific back from the Japanese. The war ends when the Japanese surrender to the US. The Japanese have millions of causalities both military and civilian.

How this influences the world as a whole, the US becomes a superpower and the Japanese eventually rise out of the ashes and become the number 2 economy in the world. The US and Japan are now allies.

World War 2 and the Pacific Theater 1942-45?movie theatre opera theater

Read "Goodbye Darkness," By William Manchester. It's a historical memoir but it's an excellent start. If you highlight stuff in there and then hit wikepedia it will get you every answer you need...
Why don't you get off your lazy Behind and Google or go to Wikipedia? You can do this just the same as we can. Learn to do soemthing besides ASK others to find out this stuff for you. Learn to take initiative. In other words, Google and DO IT YOURSELF!
Have a browse through the site below, is very informative

Why are area's involved in a war called a theater. Like the pacific theater during world war II

It is a word of Greek origin that implies the geographic "boundaries" or "stage" within which a war was fought. It is a term used for brevity and common understanding.

Why are area's involved in a war called a theater. Like the pacific theater during world war II?lyric opera

The word theater has several meanings. Two of them are:

1) a building with a stage and audience seating for performances

2) a large geographic area where conflict occurs

Why are area's involved in a war called a theater. Like the pacific theater during world war II?imax theater opera theater

Battlefields only exist across the range of actual fighting. Fronts are only a short line that the soldiers of one nation havn't been able to cross yet. A theatre is a series of fronts. Similar to a theater, it has its own specific characters, objectives, and properties that would seem out of place in other theaters (why is hamlet talking with the Count of Monte Cristo?). I suppose they took the best word they could find for this relatively new scale of war; I believe that almost all wars until WWI were single theatre, multiple-front, or even singe-front.

Opera Mini for Treo 750???

I downloaded the opera mini from my phone browser and it put a file in my documents folder on the phone (mini 1.11k), but nothing changed when I view a web page. So then I went to the opera web site and downloaded the file specifically for my phone (opera-mini-4... 249k) and transfered it to the same folder, but still nothing. These are not exe files. Am I missing something? Why is it not working?

Opera Mini for Treo 750???opera house

You have to load the program on your pc .

Then start activesync .

Open the file on your pc.

Then it installs it on your treo.

have you got a program called midlet manager if not that would be it

Does anyone knoe songs about War in Europe, war in the pacific theater, holocaust, and/or about fasc

i need 24 songs for my history project :/

please help!!!!

thank you:)

Does anyone knoe songs about War in Europe, war in the pacific theater, holocaust, and/or about fascists?????opera.com

Try the song "War in Europe, war in the pacific theater, holocaust, and/or fascists" by Barbara Streisand.

Opera mini & buying ringtones????

well i accidentally deleted my browser and cant seem to get it back ive tried everything and called customer support. so i decided to download opera mini. heres my question, Why wont it let me dowload ringtons from opera mini? it give me a weird message and then closes. is there a setting i need to change?

Opera mini %26amp; buying ringtones????opera mobile

dont buy ringtones, you can make them for free from the site

Ventones

you can use any mp3 file and they will format it for you

and send it to your phone.

Opera Mini doesn't work on my Blackberry 8700g...?

I have installed Opera Mini on my Blackberry. I have the full internet plan $20/mo, but it still says it cannot find a network when it searches for one. Does this have something to do with the fact the Opera Mini is a HTTP browser vs a WAP browser like the one that comes standard on my BB? If so, how do I enable HTTP browsing?

T-Mobile service plan by the way...

Opera Mini doesn't work on my Blackberry 8700g...?opera sheet music

How did You install the Opera Mini on Your Device? Did You Download it directly from Opera, or did You Install it Yourself?

Go to this link for Full info....

http://www.operamini.com/download/wap/bl...

The B-29 entered service late in the 2nd WW after we had achieved air superiority in the Pacific The

Does anybody know if we sustained any B-29 losses? If so, do you have any idea of how many, where, etc.

I don't think the B-29 served in the European theatre, it was devloped mainly as a long-distance bomber for the war against Japan. Am I right on this point?

Thanks!

The B-29 entered service late in the 2nd WW after we had achieved air superiority in the Pacific Theater.?listen to opera

Flyboys: A True Story of Courage

by James Bradley - 2004 - 464 pages

B-29 losses for all operations totaled 414. B-29 aircrew casualties numbered 2897, of which 2148 were deaths. Another 334 Superfortress crew members were captured/interned of which 262 survived.

I actually knew a few pilots and flew with one (Mike Novosel, MOH). It has been well said that the runway on Iwo Jima saved over 5,000 flyers. I recall a few actually landed before the island was 100% secure. Most of the AC (aircraft commanders: pilots) were very experienced B-17 and B-24 aviators. Not all ETO veterans but instructor pilots as the need for ETO pilots was gone by early 1945.

Skilled men, note the high wounded to death ratio: not much first aid at 30,000 feet. Most did not die in POW camps but were executed on-the-spot by the Japanese.

Had Russia done anything more in Asia after August the B-29's were poised to bomb them as well, great deterent.

The support system for B-29's was huge: they never could have been dualy deployed as the logistics were awesome.

Naval ships were basically converted in Army Air Corps

boats with all the repair facilities on-board. I also knew many of these guys from those ships. They also had the first operational helicopter units in WWII: to ferry parts from ship to shore.

Personal note: they could out drink anyone. Been know to fly

as the B-17 on a wing and a prayer....all were grateful that I knew to the USMC for Iwo Jima and the other islands.

The B-29 entered service late in the 2nd WW after we had achieved air superiority in the Pacific Theater.?concert venue opera theaterThanks for the "best answer", glad you could read what I was saying, few of those WWII B-29 men left, few of us who later flew with them. My last B-29 friend has passed a few years ago, such men I loved. What they did is what makes us all Americans. Report It


The B-29 sustained a fair number of losses. Combat damage was mainly due to heavy caliber anti-aircraft, little from enemy fighters. The altitude and speed of the B-29 made it difficult for enemy fighters to engage.

But the most common reason they were lost was due to engine fires and running out of gas. The first bases used were at the maximum limit of their range. The USAAF was desperate for a base closer to Japan. Iwo Jima fit the bill.

The B-29 only flew in the Pacific Theater. Quick search did not come up with any number of loses.

It was developed as a continuation of the USAAC 1930s program of making large 4 engined bombers therefore it was more evolutionary than designed against a specific enemy.

The development of the B-29 actually started in 1934 but the Army request for a plane with its specifications came in 1940.

Three landed in the USSR and the Russians reverse engineered them to get their first bomber capable of hitting the USA.
The government awarded the contract for the B-29 to Boeing in 1940, before the US even entered WWII, so no, it wasn't developed specifically for use against Japan.

It was used exclusively against Japan in WWII though. By the time it became operational in mid-1944, other US warplanes were routinely pulverizing Germany from bases in England, so the B-29's services were not really needed there as they were in the Pacific, where bombing raids had to be launced from bases further from their targets.

There were several B-29s lost to combat and non-combat related causes in WWII. As far as I can tell, between 5 and 10 B-29s were lost to all causes during the war.
There were B-29s shot down, the first being downed on 15 June 1944.

There were 147 shot down by the end of 1944.
Because we did not have air superiority over Japan.

We also had problems with Japanese antiaircraft guns.
The total amount of B-29 losses in World War Two was 414 B-29s shot down. I cannot pinpoint the location of every B-29 lost, but the majority of them were doubtlessly lost during bombing raids on Japan.

You are correct on your second point. It was only by late 1944 that B-29s really started coming out of the factories, too late for the ETO. So it was designated for the PTO only.
yes, we sutained losses, no, i do not know how many; wish i did.

and you're wrong; it was developed to serve in both theatres of war, and Germany developed fightes like the FW-190D and others for the specific purpose of shooting down any A-bomb loaded Superfortresses over Berlin! ok, maybe not Berlin, but anyway the war in Europe ended before the B-29 could be brought to bare, so the Japanese became the first targets to feel its wrath!

Is the Pacific El Capitan Theater where they shoot Jimmy Kimmel?

is this where the el capitan outdoor stage is?

Is the Pacific El Capitan Theater where they shoot Jimmy Kimmel?city opera

The show originates from Disney's El Capitan Entertainment Center, located on Hollywood Boulevard directly across the street from the new Kodak Theatre (permanent home of the Academy Awards), the Hollywood %26amp; Highland retail entertainment center and Grauman's Chinese Theatre.

How come they closed Pacific Cinema 6 movie theater?

I live in Oak Park and the only thing we have here is that movie theater in University Square and on July 19th they closed it! I wish there was something i could do but first I need to find out why they closed it down.

Anybody know?

How come they closed Pacific Cinema 6 movie theater?passions soap opera

Check in with your local chamber of commerce. Maybe there is a reason that they HAD to close.

Why did was ww2 called "the european theater?"?

I know ww2 was the great war, but why did people call fighting in europe "the pacific theater?"

Why did was ww2 called "the european theater?"?movie theater

World War 2 was not called either theater. The different area's of battle where considered the theater.

The war in Europe was called the European Theater. (The war against Germany and Italy)

The war in Asia and the pacific was called the Pacific Theater. (War against Japan)

Why did was ww2 called "the european theater?"?tickets opera theater

Because there was the Pacific Theater, the Africa Theater of operations, and the European theater of operations
It manly happend in Europe
The European part of WW II was called the European theater, and the Pacific part, against the Japanese, was called the Pacific theater. In wars, you call different areas of the war "theaters".

Can anybody give me the website for the pacific theaters the grove please!?

its in 3rd street

Can anybody give me the website for the pacific theaters the grove please!?home theater

Pacific Theatres at the Grove

189 The Grove Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90036

(323) 692-0829

How do you spell theater as used in war?

For example, in WWII there was the South Pacific theatre of battle. I have a feeling theres a definite spelling, either theater or theatre, that you're supposed to use, but im not sure.

How do you spell theater as used in war?amc theater

Both 'theatre' and 'theater' are acceptable if you're a Canuck! :)

How do you spell theater as used in war?concerts opera theater

"theater" in the USA

"theatre" in the UK
theatre
same old theatre.

South Pacific auditions?

Last summer, my grandkids had small parts in the play Annie. A few lines for my grandson, chorus song and dance for my granddaughter. They did well. Cooperated, did what was asked of them.

Now, the community theater director has asked their mother to please have them audition for this next summer's production, South Pacific. He was thinking about the part of the brother and sister who sing "Detes Moi". Practically no other children's parts available in that show, I think. The director said that the kids don't have to really be brother and sister, of course. He thought it would be cool if they really were.

My grandson is 12, and is tall and slim for his age. My granddaughter is 9, and tiny and petite. I am sure she could play the little girl and do it well. I am nervous about the boy getting the part.

Can you see a taller, slim boy in the boy's role?

South Pacific auditions?movie theatre

Those are the only 2 kids roles. Whether or not your grandson will get cast depends on how tall he is and how tall Emile and Nellie end up being. What's on your grandson's side is that they don't usually have many boys audition and of course the director asked him to audition. Have him wear very flat shoes or ballet shoes to the audition. Can't get much flatter than that. It's more important for Ngana to be small because she has to be smaller than Liat and Nellie and Liat is generally cast small.

Download the song and have them both practice it. Dites Moi, the first line very roughly translated means "Tell me why the sky is full of music..." http://libretto.musicals.ru/text.php?tex...

If for some reason one child is cast and the other isn't you can always decline the role for the other one or let them know in advance that they are a package deal if in fact they are. Unfortunately theatre doesn't usually work that way. Many parents with multiple kids who do theatre have to run to separate rehearsals because one child was cast in one show but the other one wasn't so they went on to audition for something else and ended up being cast in that.

good luck,

Marianne

South Pacific auditions?playhouse opera theater

yeah it could work. It's really up to the directors vision of the role and how they audition.

Just focus on the audition...
Absolutely. Working with kids who are a little bit older is always easier. Just watch out the boy isn't taller than the leading actors, that might be a dealbreaker. If he's tall enough, he might audition for the men's chorus.

Some questions about World War II in the Pacific?

How many American soldiers died during the war in the pacific?

Who had the harder tour of duty, the American Soldiers or the European Theater??

THANK YOU. if you also know some great websites that relate to my questions ..thatd be great as well.

Some questions about World War II in the Pacific?imax theater

its estimated that 51,983 americans died in the pacific campaign - i dont think this includes those that were injured %26amp;/or diseased that died later as a direct result.

am not sure what you mean on second question unless you mean which was harder on the solders the pacific or europe. my personal feeling would be the Pacific. There are a huge number of websites on WWII just search your particular questions and go from there.

Some questions about World War II in the Pacific?classical music opera theater

There were about 50000 KIA.

In my opinion the war in the pacific was harder for GIs. Climate, strange diseases and the way prisoners of war were treated by the Japanese made it hard.

Europe was much like America. The Geneva Conventions were respected by every nation (except between Germany and Russia; these two treated each others prisoners like vermin, and Russians also treated their own freed prisoners very badly).

Were there more American soldiers in Europe or the Pacific in World War II?

Where did we deploy more soldiers - to Europe or to Asia and the Pacific? What were the troop numbers on each front? And what were the casualty numbers in each theater?

Were there more American soldiers in Europe or the Pacific in World War II?dream theater

Europe, because you had to main combat theatres. Northern Europe ( Normandy, Belgium, Germany) and the Italian Campaign. Most of the Pacific was fought by the US Marines, with the exception of the China Burma India theatre and those Army units that augmented the Marine Corps Landing forces or the Army units that Invaded the Phillipines.

Were there more American soldiers in Europe or the Pacific in World War II?performing arts opera theater

In the Pacific there wasnt vary many Americans. just the Marines. and they werent really supported that well because the Americans wanted to put all the effort into Europe. so most of the fighting forces were in Europe trying to defeat the germans
There weren't very many American soldiers in the Pacific at all, because the Pacific campaigns were fought mainly by the Marine Corps.
yes, the other people were right, more americans went to support the European effort.

to note, the Americans did not help Great Britain , we paid for it, the last payment was made last month, 锟?60 million last month - a tiny amount for a western power. We spend that a day in health care now, But 60 years ago , it was a huge amount. Bearing in mind that US stole an empire and ruined it within 50 years.

Did very many soldiers fight in both Europe and the Pacific during the Second World War?

Normally, I hear of World War II vets having served in either Europe or the Pacific, but I was told that my grandfather served in both theaters. Were there very many soldiers who fought in both Europe and the Pacific during World War II?

Did very many soldiers fight in both Europe and the Pacific during the Second World War?amc theatre

There weren't too many soldiers who fought in both theaters, but it was not impossible, especially if there was a hospital stay or an assignment away from the front lines in-between.

Did very many soldiers fight in both Europe and the Pacific during the Second World War?symphony opera theater

yes, campaigns were taking place in both places.
about 5,000 . . .2,348 died
I wouldn't think so. The army was the predominant military service in Europe, but not so in the Pacific theater.

The navy, marines, air-force and army played about equal roles I would imagine in that theater.

And I would suspect that the logistics of transferring a serviceman, from one theater to another, would prohibit such tactics.

Wotan

When it comes to ww11, everybody remembers normandy, which, besides a few mistakes made was quite su

put the least popular was the pacific theater, iwo jima, guadalcanal, saipan, wake island, etc in which the MARINE CORPS covered most of that besides a few army units. my point is, the european theater is more recognized then the pacific theater of operation but in all actuality the marines done their job with less mistakes then the army made, which is expected. so my question is, why is the european front more glamorized then the pacific theater. and by the way, ww11 was a REAL war, iraq is just mass confusion

When it comes to ww11, everybody remembers normandy, which, besides a few mistakes made was quite successful..imax theatre

The European war was bigger in scale as far as nations and people involved. Additionally, the majority of the island campaigns in the Pacific invlolved just that-islands where there was no happy populace to great the conquering liberators with flowers and kisses.

The Pacific battles were mini battles when compared to the European battles whose engagements consisted of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of tanks and artillery pieces.

I would not say the Marines committed less mistakes than the Army. After all in the European war the US Army WON every battle they were in despite being opposed by an enemy armed with some of the best trained and equipped soldiers.

When it comes to ww11, everybody remembers normandy, which, besides a few mistakes made was quite successful..performing show opera theater

excuse me, the marines did what in Nomandy, it was the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiments that liberated Normandy, get your history straight!!!
The reason for D-days fame is the sheer scale of the invasion dwarfed any marine operation in WW2. The only invasion that would be bigger is the invasion of japan itself thankfully that blood bath never took place. The other reason the European theater is more famous is that the Germans fielded a tech heavy army while the Japanese army was just fanatical. Example would be tanks the Germans had awesome tanks the Japanese had obsolete tankettes and a light tank was as big as it got. There weapons were crap there artillery was crap in short they had guts and little else.
Nobody's really answering your question, but i would venture to say that it boils down to a racial thing...the european war was more 'glamourous' (if i could humanize a thing like war.) The british, Australians, New Zealanders were probably the only countries interested in the direct outcome of the pacific theater, along with the US. I thought the glamour of kamikazes rivaled that of waffen SS divisions on the eastern front, but that's just me.
You can't just say that mistakes were made without mentioning what was a mistake. Good planing and execution to one is a mistake to another.

Your statement, "plus a FEW army units" needs some work done on it. In many cases, there were far more army personel that marines is some of the attacks, of course the marines had their press agents and photographers right with them all the time.

Again, the marines made less mistakes WHICH WAS EXPECTED. Expected by who ? You're just assuming that the marines were better that the army. That is your privilage, but not true. Training was equal to both units. I was at Pearl Harbor Dec.7th, came back, got a commission, and did the entire European war in the army infantry.

Do you think that I would have been a better fighter had I joined the marines instead ? Come on, grow up.

Why was the European front more glamorized ? I'm not sure it was. There sure are a lot of movies and news clips about the navy and air force in the Pacific. Of course it doesn't bother me a bit since I served in both theatres in action.
I think your perceptions are wrong
Gee... if one were to look at Hollywood over the last decade, the Pacific Theater has received equal attention:

"Flags of Our Fathers", "Windtalkers" "The Thin Red Line", and "Pearl Harbor".

"Saving Private Ryan". HBO's "Band of Brothers", "U-571", and "Enemy at the Gates" (Russian Theater).

Simply put, the Pacific Theater was primarily a Navy/ Marine Corps Theater... sure, there was the Army Air-Force and Army units invading Guadalcanal and the Philippines. In Europe, the Marine Corps involvment was aboard ship as gunners.

I think your TRUE whining-rant is a matter of Marine Corps Pride... whether you served or not is immaterial.

Less mistakes on the Marines part ?? Gee, Tarawa was a ROUSING success !!
The Marines had long experience with amphib landings , the army did not .

Yeah , Europe got all the press .

Is the fact that Nazi Germany virtually fought on the Western and Eastern Fronts by themselves again

Allies in WW2 (for six years) a testament to their military ability and strategic skills?

I know Japan fought in the Pacific Theater, but Germany fought more opposition and fought on the Eastern Front. That part of WW2, fought against the Soviet Union, Romania, and Bulgaria, was one of the largest, deadliest, and destructive theaters of war in recorded history. It eventually gave rise to the Soviet Union as a superpower and brought the demise of the Third Reich.

There were other Axis powers, if they deserve being called powers, besides Germany and Japan. Italy was one, but what did they really contribute besides their land space. Mussolini was Hitler's puppet. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Thailand, and the Slovak Republic were involved but mainly out of fear of being invaded and having their government being taken over by Germany. So besides Germany in Europe and Japan in the Pacific, who else really put up a serious threat to the Allies?

Is the fact that Nazi Germany virtually fought on the Western and Eastern Fronts by themselves against the...?concert venue

more a testament to their strategic blunder. A two front war spelled doom, even Mein Kampf stated it would be folly to fight a two front war. The fact that they did conquer most of Europe and reached the banks of the Volga was testament to their blitzkrieg tactics and superior armour.

Is the fact that Nazi Germany virtually fought on the Western and Eastern Fronts by themselves against the...?events opera theater

No one has ever questioned the fact that the German character, educational system, large population, and Imperial history, always made Germany one of the most formidable military powers in the world. However. Germany was not fighting the allies for six years. Only Britain stood alone against Germany from 1940 with the fall of France, to the end of 1942 when both America and the U.S.S.R. started to provide a bit of opposition.

One of the things that is never mentioned nowadays, is that the Nazis were financed by American money, right up until 1941 when U-boats started to sink American ships.

Where else could Hitler get the money to finance the building of all these armaments factories in the 1930's? Germany had been bankrupted by inflation during the time of the Weimar Republic, a coalition government which ruled Germany until Hitler came to power in 1933.

He got it from America who wanted to use the Nazis to fight against communism in Spain and in the U.S.S.R. They also wanted the Nazis to destroy the British Empire which they felt was an obstruction to American imperial and territorial ambitions.

Too late, as usual, the Americans discovered they had a tiger by the tail and that Hitler by conquest had got out of their control.

Why, do you imagine, America has this huge guilt complex about Israel? Perhaps the fact that they financed the Holocaust may have something to do with it?
But they lost!
operation barbarossa (the invasion of russia) began on june 22, 1941. by the end of the battle of kursk (july 20th, 1943) the german army was finished as an offensive force, and it was just a matter of how long it would take the allies to actually impose their 'total surrender' on what was left of the broken wehrmacht.

by the most generous estimate the third reich fought on two fronts for two years, not six.

when one remembers that at the opening of barbarossa hitler controlled every major armaments factory in europe, while the soviet army was grotesquely weakened by years of stalinist purges; and that the russian's historical tactic in the face of invasion from the west has always been to retreat until the next spring, the two years shrinks to about eight months of successful campaigning.

the wehrmacht never took any major russian city (kiev is ukrainian) and no credible army would have attempted to invade russia over a winter campaign using so many horses anyway.

....

hitler was probably the worst military strategist to lead an invasion since santa anna. his troops successfully stormed through france in the summer of 1940, but then the french government had been on the verge of political collapse for years. after the fall of france there were no more important military victories for germany in wwii.

italy's performance in wwii is largely misunderstood by people who haven't looked at the history properly. mussolini took italy into the war on germany's side because he was aware that his own country was on the verge of a civil war which would have ousted him. after the massive defeats by wavell in north africa italy went into an effective state of civil war anyway, so that the germans had to invade italy themselves in 1943 to stop the entire country from changing sides.

....

you clearly don't know very much about the real history of wwii - you have just watched a handful of warfilms (or maybe only played some computer games).

britain stood alone against germany from the summer of 1940 to the spring of 1942. hitler had the whole of europe at this feet, and he couldn't even neutralise a medium size power on the other side of the channel.

that is how good he was.
Yes well would you have fort with them, under that idiot Hitler?

Regards

Ryan Dior
I discovered a little known fact when I was in India in 76. The Indians sent a whole regiment to Germany to fight with the Germans. First of all Germany considered them Arian brothers. Secondly the Indians were trying to get rid of the British who were controlling their country. Little is told what happened to these guys or where they fought. It would be interesting to know.

After the war independence came to India.
If you're talking strategy I would think the decision to invade Russia was a fatal one.
No one.....

World War II?

Examples of how the fighting in the Pacific Theater was different than the fighting in the European Theater.

World War II?mr messed up

European Theater : Consisted of Germany, Italy, Russia, etc. and had triple the amount of deaths. Won victory in a fighting, soldier to soldier, type warfare. Also plans and sea battles.

Pacific: fought basically as a defense against pearl harbor, and was praticalyy ignored in the first half becuase of the situation in the other part of the world. Japanese sucked! That was until we bombed two of their cities to dust.

World War II?getting late opera theateramazing she got the points and never answered the question. Report It


terrain dictates how you fight. in the relative open country of france and russia, led to numerous tank-to-tank battles. in the pacific where you had very dense, thick jungle, tanks were not that appropriate for use. in the pacific, the infantry would storm the beaches and overwhelm the defenders and take the island, end of the battle. in europe, the frontline was continuous. you had to keep fighting to push back the enemy. in europe, you also had to deal with extreme cold whereas in the pacific you had extreme heat. this too dictates how you fight. the oils and fuels had to withstand the different climates in order for the vehicles and planes to keep working. in europe, it was the traditional land battle, two armies fighting for position. in the pacific, you had close to that but the terrain was different. you had sand, torrential rains, monsoons, snakes, insects, guerrilla warfare, and an enemy that didn't believe in surrendering at any cost. the germans were bad enough but the japs would rather die than surrender. at iwo jima, the japanese general informed his men that in before you die, you need to kill 10 marines. that was how the pacific was different than europe.
In Burma, Chindits fought using guerilla tactics behind the Japanese frontlines, the second-largest airborne attack (after Market Garden) delivered a large force, that operated against Japanese supply lines, air-supplied from India with casualty evacuation. Local populations were won over as scouts and intelligence gathering roles using the 鈥榟earts and minds鈥?principle. The terrain dictated that the formal warfare employed in the west could not be successfully pursued in the east. Many of these methods would be used in Vietnam and Malaysia.
Japanese heavily relied on geurilla warfare on the ground and surprise attacks from the air. While the U.S. Navy relied on constant bombardment (to no or minimal effect) and Marines to invade the island. It was extremely arduous against a very defensive, dug-in, well-trained, and suicidal enemy.

Germans and Italians, on the other hand, relied heavily on trenches (some new and some remaining from WW1), bunkers, trains, planes, and tanks. The Americans, British, and Russians fought likewise. At least this time they learned not to use poisonous gases.
and i should do your homework for you WHY?

look here: http://worldwar2history.info/Pacific/

and here: http://worldwar2history.info/Europe/

and see for yourself how they are different. you will notice the differences quite easily.

g
Fighting The Pacific was A Bit Hard cuz the Japs had traps and aggresive fighters and cool planes and defences but Fighting Europe was not much Hard cuz The Germans dont have much defences except D-Day cuz they knew

Looking back on the 20th century, do you think Japan is too easily forgotten?

In school and pop culture it seems the Nazis get all the attention.

Tons of movies, tv, books, history channel, ect devoted to the evils of Nazi Germany.

Many people I have spoken to usually refers to the Nazis as the top dog of war crimes. Yet, I also find that there is almost an ignorance or willingness to overlook Japan.

However I find that even the SS troops at their worst would have had difficulty matching the brutality, racism, and fanaticism routinely displayed by the Japanese military; their cruelty towards, and frequent mass slaughter of prisoners of war and civilians; their wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages; their rape camps; even cannibalism.

Do you think that Imperial Japan's atrocities are overlooked by people in the west?

Why does the European Theater stick out in American minds and media, when thinkingof ww2, far more than the pacific theater?

What do you attribute it to?

Looking back on the 20th century, do you think Japan is too easily forgotten?tickets

I think the biggest reason why Americans remember the Nazi atrocities more than the Japanese atrocities is that the Nazi acts are far better documented. We have countless hours of video footage of Nazi crimes, but have very little video of the Japanese actions even though both are disgusting.

Looking back on the 20th century, do you think Japan is too easily forgotten?ballet opera theater

I wonder sometimes if Americans think of World War II as ending with the fall of Germany and the Pacific Theatre as being a "mop-up" operation (which, of course, it wasn't). While I agree that the Japanese commited savage atrocities, they don't quite hit the level of Hitler's genocide in terms of impact on the world. On the other hand, many of Japan's atrocities were against Chinese (e.g., the rape of Nanking) rather than Americans or Europeans, so they may not have registered in the American consciousness.
your right the japanese weore some real mo-fo's\
whites
If you knew how much money we owe the Japanese, you'd understand why they aren't vilified as much as the Nazis. Furthermore, we did drop a nuclear bomb on them after they officially surrendered. I think that might earn you a vilification pass.
thats funny harv "droopy nucks" hahaha, seriously i think that in schools in the US there is no emphasis on any type of history but american, and small doses of european and ancient, all focus is usually placed on the founding fathers and how great they were, we never hear about the blunders and mistakes like the reason that started the mexican american war, or how europeans imposed colonialism or the viet nam war its all about keeping it nice and pristine
I think you are psycho.ww2 is over more than 60 years.Germany is one of e.u. founders,by the way who drooped nucks on Japan,was it very human?morans like you are messing peoples minds,instead of building a better world today

AMERICAN Military units of World War II?

European Theater of Operations

Pacific Theater of Operations

AMERICAN Military units of World War II?comedy club

European theater: the 101st airborne divison, 82nd airborne divison, 3rd armored divison, 1st infantry divison, 4th infantry divison.

AMERICAN Military units of World War II?sheet music opera theater

The Airborne Infantry Division

What were the casualties during World War II (details...)?

I need to know the separate casualties for the Pacific Theater and European Theater of World War II. Does anybody know the numbers? If you do can you tell me with your source. Thanks a lot.

What were the casualties during World War II (details...)?concerts

Exact numbers are hard to come by - historians still debate what the exact numbers of dead were in some countries.

Rather than give details for every single country, here is a chart:

http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty...

I simply did a google search for "Chart of WW2 fatalities" and got many hits, this was the best one and looks to me like the most accurate (within a few percent of the correct answer)

Let me explain some of the numbers.

You'll see that about 25 million soviets were killed. (Somewhere between 20 and 25 million is what is commonly accepted) The Germans literally carried out a "war without mercy" against the Soviet Union. There was little to no distinction between Soviet soldier and civilian. All over eastern Europe, including Poland, the Nazis deployed their infamous Einsatzgruppen - mobile killing squads that executed civilians - Jewish and otherwise. Slavs (Eastern Europeans) were not much better than Jewish people in Hitler's eyes. This is of course outside the fact that the Germans and the Soviets fought a war without limits using modern technology - tanks, planes, machine guns, ect. The war was very bloody.

China you'll see is the second highest. The Japanese committed many attrocities in China. I recommend doing some further research on "The Rap of Nanking," but to get you started here is a good explanation of it:

http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

The Japanese invaded China far before the officially recognized start of WW2, when Hitler invaded Poland Sept 1, 1939.

Germany is number three. They were outnumberd and fought both the Soviets and the other Western allies. We bombed their cities accounting for the high numbers in civilian deaths.

Poland is number 4 for the same reason the Soviets are number 1, although the Polish civilians were not treated quite as poorly as the Soviet civilians (but not too much of a difference)... at least there was a distinction between Soldier and Civilian.

Japan is number 5.... a little over two hundred thousand of the three hundred thousand civilian deaths came from the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Tokyo. The remaining civilian deaths are due to other bombings... we used Firebombs (basically like napalm, very flamable meant to destroy Japanese wooden/paper houses). Remember that the allies never fought the Japanese on the actual Japanese mainland, so very few of these casualties, if any, would have come from fighting. Most to all were from this bombing.

The rest of the casualties are countries that were invaded, such as France, or countries that did the invading such as the U.S. and Canada... yes, the Canadians had their own beach on D-Day and fought along side the U.S. and British. Other countries such as South Africa and India were parts of the British Empire, and sent troops to help support the allies in Europe.

That's pretty much the story. Again, for a breakdown of Civilian/Military by country go to this website:

http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty...

For a list of who fought on what side (who was an ally, who was allied with Germany/Japan/Italy), look at this chart:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries...

Yes, it's from wikipedia but I've verified it's accuracy with a history book I have.

good luck.

What were the casualties during World War II (details...)?headache opera theater

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1... scroll down to WW II.
Well, lookee here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I...
see link

What was the name of last US navy ship sunk by enemy fire in World War Two?

More Stars for the same question but in; Atlantic theater, Pacific theater.

What was the name of last US navy ship sunk by enemy fire in World War Two?playhouse

USS Indianapolis. Torpedoed on her return from Tinian Island in the Marianas after delivering components for the two atomic bombs later used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That was in the Pacific Theater. The Captain of the Indianapolis also became the only Navy officer to ever be court-martialed and have a former enemy commander as the chief witness for the prosecution. That was the captain of the Japanese submarine which fired those torpedoes.

What was the name of last US navy ship sunk by enemy fire in World War Two?plays opera theater

it was one of ours, fur sure, due to friendly fire, when we blew them up with nukes in the bikini islands.

Did you know oil and wars have always been linked?

The definitive history of the role of oil in modern warfare has not been written, but a lot can be learned from Robert Zubrin’s new book, Energy Victory.

“For nearly a century,” Zubrin writes, “control of oil has been the decisive factor determining victory or defeat in the struggle for world dominance.” That was true in World War I and World War II. Zubrin believes oil will be pivotal in the global conflict now underway as well.

In 1914, the United States was responsible for 67 percent of worldwide oil production. When war broke out in Europe, the Germans used U-boats in an attempt to stop America from sending oil to France and Britain. Worried that he would not have enough fuel for the trucks needed to move his troops, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau declared: “Gasoline is as vital as blood in the coming battles.”

President Woodrow Wilson did manage to get American oil convoys safely across the Atlantic. “The crack German infantry were as tough as they come,” Zubrin writes, “but there was no way they could cope with a new army equipped with fleets of rampaging gasoline-powered land battleships and assisted by unmatched swarms of fighter aircraft.” At a victory banquet in London on Nov. 18, 1918, Lord Curzon declared: “The Allied cause had floated to victory upon a wave of oil.”

Hitler learned from the Kaiser’s mistakes. A few decades later he had tanks – Panzers, in need of large quantities of fuel to blitz France, Poland and other corners of Europe. Nazi fuel requirements expanded further following the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. With that in mind, the Germans set their sights on Baku, the heart of the Soviet oil industry. “Unless we get the Baku oil,” Hitler said, “the war is lost.” They didn’t and it was.

Erwin Rommel’s fabled Afrika Korps was crippled by fuel shortages and prevented by Allied troops from capturing the then-underutilized oil fields of the Middle East. By 1944, Zubrin recounts, though the Nazis produced tens of thousands of aircraft and tanks, “they were nearly all useless due to lack of fuel.”

In the Battle of the Bulge, thirst for oil led the Nazis to try to capture American gasoline supplies in eastern Belgium. A Panzer assault was foiled when American soldiers blew up bridges and set drums of oil ablaze to create a screen of fire and smoke. Before long, the Panzers literally ran out of gas. American aircraft destroyed them where they parked.

Oil was no less pivotal in the Pacific theater. In the 1930s, the growing Japanese empire was in dire need of petroleum resources, the closest of which were in Southeast Asia. When the Japanese invaded Indochina, the U.S. responded by declaring an oil embargo against Japan.

After Pearl Harbor, American submarines in the Pacific made Japanese oil tankers their priority, second only to aircraft carriers. Fuel shortages prevented Japan from training pilots adequately. One result, Zubrin says, was the “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot” in which the Japanese lost 273 planes. The U.S. lost 29. The reason the Americans prevailed in the crucial Battle of Leyte Gulf — despite the Japanese battleships' “hundredfold advantage in firepower and armor” over the screen of destroyers protecting the U.S. troopships — appears to have been that the imperial fleet ran short of fuel.

Since World War II, oil production has increasingly shifted to the Middle East. Today, Iran’s oil wealth is being used to finance terrorism and build nuclear weapons (whatever the most recent intelligence estimate claims). Arabia’s oil is being used to spread the Saudis’ supremacist and virulently anti-Western ideology. We give the Islamists money; they give us petroleum — and Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the hijackers of 9/11. Some bargain.

The problem is we can use nothing but oil to fill the tanks of our cars and trucks. The solution is diversity – creating a variety of fuel choices. The quickest way to achieve that, Zubrin argues, is simply by mandating that all new cars be Flexible Fuel Vehicles. Entrepreneurs will then compete feverishly to make alternative fuels available.

The definitive history of the role of oil in modern warfare has not been written. But then, we don’t yet know how the story ends. We do know this: Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Islamism and terrorism have proliferated, as has America’s dependence on a uniquely strategic commodity controlled by regimes whose ultimate goal is “Death to America!” Few of our elected leaders appear to grasp this. Fewer still have proposed any serious steps in response.

Did you know oil and wars have always been linked?classical music

While there are some accurate points there are some inaccurate points as well, especially concerning the WW2 pacific theater. The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, was a result of how Japanese trained their pilots, not fuel. Poor air tactics along with an inadequate training system that wasn't suited for war caused the problem, not oil.

During the battle of Leyte Gulf, if Zubrin had studied that he would have found that while the Japanese battleships held an advantage, the ammo used wasn't the correct ammo. The battleships were firing armor piercing rounds, as a result these round went right though the American ships causing less damage than a high explosive round would have. Against a cruiser of battleships these rounds would have done a lot more damage. Kurita, the Japanese commander, had already been attacked by massive air power losing one battleship, the Musashi, before the engagement even began. He already thought the plan was a failure and retreated early.

As for that last part, I think you should look closely at what is going on right now. Like it or not Bush is trying to do something about that. Think of what it would mean to have a country, like Iraq, that holds oil and isn't anti-American.

I do disagree with the conclusion of Zubrin for WW1. Germany was already breaking trench warfare without tanks. The real turning point wasn't tanks, or even planes, but a new mass influx of manpower by the USA. That was the one thing that Germany feared the most.

Many authors like this are good at picking out certain facts, while ignoring others that are just as critical. Do a bit of research and you'll find not everything is what he claims.

BTW, what about Vietnam? Kosovo? North Korea? Afghanistan (by Russia)? Cuban Missile Crisis? Congo Civil War?

War and oil will be linked (only because it’s now what we use for our war machines) but it's only a small part of what causes war.

I see religious tension in the Middle East between Israel and Iran a much greater concern for the next major war than oil.

Did you know oil and wars have always been linked?ms stress opera theater

I read the answers of all the others that responded, and while I agree that all war in mans history has not been tied to oil I will say that since WWI oil has been the deciding factor. Not only that but I would state that if things continue at current rates, oil will be the new reason for wars, instead to being merely the factor that determines the winner of such wars. Obviously, this is simplifying things, as we all know that there are other factors involved in why nations go to war, but at this point and time in history, oil is the tie that binds most if not all of those other factors. I totally disagree with the idea that flex fuel vehicles are the answer, as you will only be trading one combustible for another and will in the end only further entangle peoples daily lives with the true problem which is not oil per say, but energy. You would, regardless of statement to the contrary, cut into world food supplies in a manner that would guarantee war even faster than oil itself ever could. I agree that alternative need to be developed, yet I believe that the answer in the very short term is a better use of current sources until the next technology is perfected. For example, we need better utilize our solar, wind, hydroelectric, natural gas and nuclear power in a manner that drastically cuts our dependence on oil be it foreign or domestic.
until the Volstead act cars ran on Alcohol or gas, Rockefeller paid the temperance league 4 million dollars to get manufacture and sale Alcohol outlawed, after a few years when all cars had to buy gas, Volstead act is repealed, big oil reaps a huge profit, off what was a useless flammable by product of fuel oil production. Big Oil has been corrupting politics since Tea Pot Dome...

Avatar.....it cuts into food only if you think Corn is a food and pursue corn...corn yields only 200 gal. per acre other crops such as sugar yield 2000 per acre, do not recite supposed fact from oil companies research ie. American petrol institute. these are viable and it must be persued in the next few years or asap.

The problem is we can use nothing but oil to fill the tanks of our cars and trucks. The solution is diversity – creating a variety of fuel choices. The quickest way to achieve that, Zubrin argues, is simply by mandating that all new cars be Flexible Fuel Vehicles. Entrepreneurs will then compete feverishly to make alternative fuels available.
Oil wasn't the only US product the Germans tried to stop us from sending.
Wow! was there even a question in there anywhere?
Don't forget to throw RELIGION in the link.
Yes, I know. No War for Oil!
Whoa I thought we fought the British over tea. Now you tell me it was oil,, Dang and it wasn't states rights or slavery, it was oil. Dog I never knew!
"always"?

Nope, that is definitely NOT true.
duh, it's not just oil, war has (until recently) been fought for some sort of economic or strategic advantage. oil, land, political standing, crops, slaves, etc.... there are so many reasons for the beginning of wars through history, one example is Japan in WW2. the home islands are small, crowded, mountainous, and devoid of most natural and strategic resources, which is why Japan invaded China, Korea, Taiwan, the (oil-rich) dutch East Indies, etc.

bottom-line, you make a valid point; but this point has been made before, multiple times. it's nothing new, and it shouldn't surprise most people.

Why were WWII vets able to adapt back to civilian life more easily than modern vets?

For example, my own grandfather was a veteran of the Battle of Peleliu, an extremely nasty island invasion, along with other landings in the Pacific theater. But when he got home, he was very well-adjusted. He displayed no indication of mental "trauma," just some lingering physical trauma from shrapnel embedded in his upper legs.

He was never impatient or "angry with the world." Never snapped at people, never had inexplicable flashes of rage, and never had "flashbacks" - or, if he did, he hid it until the day he died.

How come vets from the WWII generation are able to adapt back to normal, civilian life more easily than modern vets, who seem to often suffer from a variety of conditions, ranging from depression to a lack of self-control to "PTSD?" Not to mention the Vietnam generation's troubles with drugs and homelessness.

What's up with that?

Why were WWII vets able to adapt back to civilian life more easily than modern vets?performing arts

I sincerely it was the time involved in getting home. Now, ( as in Vietman) you are in a hostile zone one day and on a plane coming home the next. You don't have an opportunity to "gear down."

After WWII, it took weeks, even months, to get the troops home. When hostilities ceased, there was much "mickey mouse " work to do, clean up gear, pack up equipment, ( which took time) then you came home on a slow moving ship. After you reached the US, you were held for out processing , which took awhile, and then,. it was a slow train ride home.

Some troops didn't get home until the middle of 1946.

During this time, they simply "talked it out ": between each other and had a chance to ":gear down."

Now, I remember a friend who was in "Nam." He was in combat and two days later he was home. A truck backfired, and he's there yelling incoming" on a streetcorner in his home town!

I sincerely believe troops who are in Iraq should be held somewher for a week, just to "gear down" and be screened for PTSD.I believe most of the problems would be solved during that week.

Why were WWII vets able to adapt back to civilian life more easily than modern vets?binoculars opera theater

Have to wonder...did you live with him...how often did you see him...??? Most Combat Veterans do not talk about their

experiences...

Also there wasn't the instant communications as there are today...TV/Radio/Internet etc...

Fact being that they had FAR more PTSD problems because

of no available treatment...they stuck the worst cases in Mental wards and long term care...for months and years at a time...still do...

More WW II Veterans came forward later on in their years

as the VVA and Others...pushed for PTSD care...

Things that happened in families of WW II Combat Veterans

was hardly ever talked about...What goes on behind closed doors stayed there...

PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has been around since Cane slew Able...just by other names...Look at your HISTORY instead of trying to get a 30 second sound bite...

Bet your Grandfather...worked 70-80 hours a week...was always busy doing something...never hung out in a crowded

room...etc the list is endless. Probably drank like a fish...There are things that went on in that house that your Grandmother and her Children would never say to you...

Am not trying to belittle your Grandfather who is a "TRUE

AMERICAN HERO"...Most WWII Combat Veterans suffered in silence...and that is the "REAL TRAGEDY" !!!!

Ironic, but the DOD %26amp; VA are trying to do the samething

to the Gulf War/Iraq/Afgan Combat Veterans...

Dening benifits and treatment for PTSD %26amp; TBI...etc...

Making it next to impossible to obtain them...
I think it's because people respected each other more back then. It's an "all for me" world now. My folks used to have big dinners for the guys at Great Lakes who couldn't make it home for the holidays. People just don't care anymore.
Age; the average age of the servicemen in World War Two was 26 years opposed to the average age of 18 to 19 years which has been the case since the Vietnam Conflict. Additionally, the majority of Americans who served in World War Two had survived the Depression (1929-1935) where they developed skills that aided them during the war.
Not all of them did. PTSD was every bit as real then as it is now. However, life was much harder back then and nobody had the sense of entitlement that folks do these days. There was probably less of it because of this.
Ira Hayes died in a drunken stupor...maybe he was the exception?
I think it has a lot to do with the world they come back to as well as the generation.

The 'Greatest Generation' endured the hardships and poverty of the depression while the Baby Boomers and Generation Xers lived a life of luxury until they were put on the front lines. I think the depression was kind of like an inoculation for the older generation.

Also the Vietnam and Iraq vets came back to people protesting and spitting on them while they were expecting a hero's welcome after being put through hell for months or years.

Drugs definitely have an effect on someone's personality too, especially if they amplify their wartime experiences.

WWII was also a war fought by the entire country, with most males entering service and females laboring at home for the war effort or as nurses or ferry pilots. There was a lot of mutual support and friendships after the war; not so with modern conflicts.
They weren't able to adjust as well as you believe.

Instead they had to deal with the effects by suppressing it, alcoholism and other jury-rigged methods to function. It was not until the Vietnam veterans raised awareness about the problem that the medical community even admitted that it exists.

Your grandfather was simply one of the 85% of combat veterans who did not get PTSD.
I believe there were far more people who fought in your grandfathers generation and it may seem like there are less soldiers who suffered the trauma of PTSD and other illnesses because of the higher numbers. I do believe that they suffered the same issues but back then people didn't have any really good studies about it and it wasn't something people talked about. I believe in your grandfathers time they had a greater respect for our veterans and didn't treat them as pariahs after they returned. I think the treatment of our Vietnam Veterans was the most shameful any person in this country could have done to men and women who did as they were ordered to by our leaders.
I think it has to do with the difference in time..Times were very different in the 1940's as compared to the 2000 generation..

Can you imagine having everything thrown in your face every time you listen to the radio, turn on the tv, read a paper..Back then when you were done fighting, you were done and it never got brought up again..

And for every person like your grampa there was plenty who were affected..

War is war no matter the time
WWII veterans spent months coming home - on ships, with their war time peers.

That kind of camaraderie, I think, allowed them to talk through their issues and to leave the war behind them slowly.

Today's veterans get on a plane and are home within hours. There's no transition from war to home. I think that complicates the issue.

We've also become a society of victims. No one is responsible for their own actions - we all want to blame someone or something. This had just started to be true in the '70s, and it's certainly true with the current generation.
WWII vets did have there problems. Most would never admit to it and dealt with it their own way. Back then most everybody enlisted or was drafted. Your friends, neighbors all went to war. They all come home about the same time. Everybody was glad it was over and proceeded to get on with there life.

Add to that, many WWII vets didn't do twelve straight months of combat. They didn't face ununiformed combatants till the push into Germany. The house to house fighting was mostly done where the civilians had fled. It was soldier against soldier, army against army.

By Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan, you spend a year or more in what amounts to a free fire-zone. There is no rear, only degrees of safer. Anything you do, including nothing, can get you killed. That ways on anybody.

They are a stranger in a strange land where the enemy they are fighting looks like everyone they are there to help. Add to that many or soldiers, sailors and airmen now come from the city and suburbs. They are not use to roughing it or doing without.
some were not.....

The difference is that the media and availability of information makes more people aware of what is going on all over the world.

The TV and media today focus on the negative things...the returning soldiers, sailors and airmen are no different. How often do you see a report on a returning person that seperates and gets a good job....or that re-enlists to continue to serve?
First a greater percentage of the population fought in WWII than in Vietnam or Iraq. After WWII the VA benefits were real benefits, so a significant number of returning vets could afford to go to college and buy a house. Without the opportunity for an education or a stable life, vets start to question why they fought for their Country.

The current President and his hero Nixon both cut VA benefits and closed VA Hospitals. The only current candidate for President who wants to give the vets there due is Hillary Clinton. Vets deserve better treat for what they have done for their Country. Just saying thanks is not enough.
As a veteran of two conflicts (VIETNAM and the 1st Gulf War) I have seen a lot of changes. The Vets of WWII had a hard life before the war. They had suffered through the depression and had already had a challenging life. They returned to a grateful nation and one that was much richer than the one they had left.

Today's veterans led a much more sheltered life until faced with combat or the stress of long deployments. The participated in Little League where everyone made the team and everyone got a plaque. They never learn ed to deal with hardship until faced with loss in combat. In our effort to protect our children we have robbed them of the learning how to face hardship when it doesn't mean life and death and when they have to face now they are unprepared and can not deal with it.

Today's fighting men and women are every bit as brave and well trained as there predecessor, but they are not conditioned to the hardships.
It's very simple.WW2 veterans just wanted to return home and resume their normal lives.The veterans of today "suffer" all sorts of maladies as a means of securing monetary payments from the government.Regarding the Vietnam veterans,a lot of those guys were messed up before they went to Vietnam.
Because you don't hear about the GI's killing kids and animals like you do today! And the GI's in WW II did not have as much access to drugs as the ones today! Imagine these people higher than a kite with a belt fed weapon under their control! Remember shoot first and ask questions later! Isn't that their policy! Ask these GI's today what the value of human or any life for that matter is and you may be very surprised what their answer is if they answer at all!
I don't think WW@ vets adapted any faster than those of more recent wars from Viet Nam to the present. If your Grandfather didn't show any PTSD then he is just a very lucky man. The battle of Peleliu and Okinawa created a lot of PTSD because of the prolonged fighting and the terrible weather conditions. A good book to read about Okinawa that talks a lot about PTSD is called "The Ultimate Battle" by Bill Sloan. I saw a lot of shell shock in Viet Nam and know many men today who are profoundly different because of combat. I myself am a very different man. Some peoples minds work to block off the terrible circumstances and memories and they never have problems while others have more fragile mind sets and are terribly affected and have those memories haunt them forever. Again I don't think anything is different in today's wars it is merely that your Grandfather is a lucky man and you are lucky to have a well balanced Grandfather around you. Be sure to listen to his memories so they aren't forgotten.
Less senseless killing and less access to drugs.

Questions about the positions of Tech Sgt. and Sgt. Major in WWII?

My grandfather served in WWII and i had a few questions about what his role was.

He was a marine corps combat correspondent in WWII

"I spent nearly two years in the Pacific theater-taking part in amphibious landings and combat aerial missions. What I was discharged at the Washington, DC, Naval Yard, September 1945, I was a Tech Sgt. - five stripes- and was offered a promition to Sgt. Major-a six striper- if I chose to remain in the Corps. My reply was thanks, but no thanks." - from a letter he wrote to me

So my questions are:

What were his duties as a Tech Sgt?

Would that be a very good rank for a noncom?

Would Sgt. Major be a notable rank?

Any other information along these lines would be very helpful

Thanks, Chris

Questions about the positions of Tech Sgt. and Sgt. Major in WWII?symphony

Tech Sgts didn't hold line (command) authority, they received a higher pay grade based on special skills but did not have men that they were responsible for. After WWII there was an entire line of "specialists" replacing the "tech" position, that held higher grades based on their technical skills, but now the only grade of this sort that remains is the single specialist grade. My dad was in the Army during the Korean War, he was proud that he was a Corporal, rather than what he described as a "Chicken Corporal" - the specialist at the same grade as corporal (the specialist patches looked like upside-down non-specialist patches with an eagle in the middle). Tech Sgts insignias in WWII had a "T" between the chevrons and the rockers.

Sgt. Major is a very notable pay grade, it is the most senior enlist grade and considered to be a very high honor.

Can someone can figure out what this army patch stands for?it looks like a corporal badge with a &qu

The patch looks like a corporal badge with a "T" under it? Im not sure what its for? My grandfather was in the 77th divison in WWII serving in the pacific theater, maybe that will help.

Can someone can figure out what this army patch stands for?it looks like a corporal badge with a "T" under it?performing show

if you can get a scan of it and e-mail a picture to me at Dreamweaver10@verizon. net I wil do my darndess to fine out for you

Can someone can figure out what this army patch stands for?it looks like a corporal badge with a "T" under it?opera score opera theater

http://www.flyingtigerssurplus.com/c-12-...

there are a few options on this page
I know what you're talking about. It's not corporal rank at all, it's actually technician (5th class) insignia. I have no idea for sure what a technician 5th class did, but I imagine it was a kind of administrative position.
In my opinion it may mean that your gradnfather's rank designation is a symbol for a "technicians" rank. In other words, your grandfather was a Corporal (E-4) with a specialization by MOS (military occupation) of a particular training in a specific technical military occupation designation. Hopefully this will point you in an approximate direction and that you may seek out a U.S. Veteran of that era in order to validate my opinion. Jose
The patch you described sounds allot like the world war Marine Corps or Army rank of Technical Sergeant. It was used to denote personnel with special skills such as administrative, mechanical or a skill in some foreign languages...
The rank of corporal was in the infantry and ranked a pfc etc. But a technical rank of corporal or sgt got the pay but no the rank. You could be a sgt. tech 6 same pay grade but ranks only over other techs.
Tech 5?

http://www2.powercom.net/~rokats/wwii_er...
If it's an arrowhead (like a corporal's badge), it is the Texas National Guard...
T stand for Translator.

Here's a question for you.?

If you are an Immigrant to the US then would you serve in the Military if the US went to war against your country of origin?

During W.W.II many Japanese Americans were not allowed to serve in the Pacific theater because the US was suspicious of them even though they served in Europe with distinction.

Here's a question for you.?comedy show

As a matter of fact, I am an immigrant to this country and since I now consider myself an US Citizen, I would have no problem going to war against my country of origin... that country was just the place I was born in... I have lived my whole life here, so as far as I am concerned I am and American Citizen.

Here's a question for you.?greek theater opera theater

No i wouldn't.
Obviously some would and some wouldn't. If you still have relatives and friends back in the mother country, obviously they wouldn't want to fight for the US Army, or any army at that.

If they were prosecuted or the mother country made their lives a living hell, I'm sure they would be happy to serve in the US Army and whoop some a$$.
I probably wouldn't. That would probably be a very difficult thing to do. Unless of course I hated the country I came from, and I came to America to escape the communism, slavery, repression, etc. But I would have a really, really hard time killing my own people, if I even could. So I probably still wouldn't serve.
I don't know, but that is a good question. Good Luck:)
If you live here, your alligience better be here

Some World War II questions?

These questions are somewhat related. First, why didn't America just stay focused on the Pacific theater? Germany didn't bomb pearl harbor, nor did Italy, so that's a poor allocation of military resources. And why didn't Germany, after declaring war on the US bomb the country with air raids?It had worked for them before, so that confuses me. And why did Canada get involved in the war so early, rather than show their independence from the UK? They didn't have a real reason to fight. Well, the allies won, which is all that matters, but still I can't think of great answers for these questions.

Some World War II questions?events

1. Germany declared war on us. It was only logical to help the rest of Europe take out Hitler.

2. The Atlantic Ocean. Germany was too busy fighting the European Allies to send the required fleets to American waters.

3. Don't know off hand. Maybe a mutual protection treaty?

EDIT: Nobody had the ability to send planes on bombing runs across oceans, but aircraft carriers were common enough by WWII. But like I said, Germany just didn't have the resources available to send carriers and the fleets needed to protect them to America.

Some World War II questions?home theatre opera theater

Germany declared war on the USA, one of two mistakes Hitler made (the other was invading Russia). German U-boats would have attacked US warships and shipping even if the USA didn't fight back.

Germany didn't bomb the US mainland because it was too far away.

Canada got involved because they still held close ties with Britain. Unlike their southern neighbor (the USA) Canada wasn't isolationist and joined Britain. Even today there are close ties with Britain and the Queen.
Stungforever got most of your questions answered and correctly

The Canada thing: Canada was much closer to England then than now, more like Northern Ireland then an independent country. Even now they are part of the British Commonwealth and the Queen of England is the Queen of Canada
No , Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, the Japanese did. And like a game, people had to choose what side they were to be on. In the first place, no one wins a war, they just kill and take lives of people they don't know. I have to be mad at someone to want to fight with them. Which makes humans worse than animals. At least when they kill, they have a reason. People don't need a reason to kill. War is such a dumb thing to do anyway. Makes you think their parents didn't teach them right from wrong.

Who cares who started what? The end is always the same. People die for stupid reasons, I an ashame to be a human being. I want nothing to do with idiot's!
FDR wisely identified that Germany was the greater threat than the Japanese. Nazi Germany had occupied nearly all of Western and Eastern Europe and was on the brink of securing the Soviet Union and North Africa. Keep in mind, that Germany's military reverses didn't begin to seriously rack up until 1943.

US involvement was crucial. Our troops were a great assist in helping wrap up the North African Campaign. The Brits deserve the credit for defeating the Afrika Korps, but US assistance hastened their demise and set the stage for the Invasions of Sicily and Italy.

Hitler strongly desired to bomb the US. This desire resulted in the delay of the ME-262 Jet Fighter as Hitler screwed around trying to have made into a bomber. This mentality came at huge cost to the Luftwaffe, which needed production focused on fighters as the Allied Bombing campaigns gained intensity.

As for Canada, well they were a Commonwealth nation just like Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa. The King called for troops and they answered the call. Ireland did not participate on the side of the Allies. In fact, German U-Boats were able to bury dead crewman in Ireland on more than one occasion.

One last note to ponder is the scenario where FDR focuses US resources against the Japanese rather than against the Germans.

Had this occurred, the Germans would #1 have been able to kill substantially more Jews and others in the death camps.

#2 - the battle of Kursk may have gone differently. -- Hitler pulled the plug on the battle following the massive tank clash at Prokhorovka. The Soviets had been just as staggered as the Germans, but of course had a greater depth of reserves. The reason Hitler pulled the plug was to send the 1st SS Panzer Div. Leibstandarte and others to secure Italy following the Allied landings in Sicily. The result was that key Panzer formations were removed from the line as the Soviets kicked in their counter-attacks at Orel and Belgorod.

#3 Normandy - again the Normandy campaign pulled away from the Russian Front - the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 17th SS Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Divisions including the heavy SS Tiger formations. The 21st, 116th, and Panzer Lehr Divisions were also pulled away. This represented a huge portion of the available mobile German counter-punch that might have prevented the disaster on the Eastern Front as Operation Bagration destroyed German Army Group Center and rolled the Germans all the way back to the Vistula.

Thank goodness FDR acted as he did.
MARK summed it up perfectly.
Germany declared war on the U.S.A. after Germanies ally Japan bombed Pear Harbour in December 1941.

So an ally of Japan automatically qualified as an enemy of the U.S.A.

Germany did not have the capability to launch any bombing raids on the U.S.A. the distance was too great, but German Submarines had been sinking U.S. merchant ships and killing U.S. Sailors off the coast of the U.S.A. in American waters long before Pear Harbour was bombed.

Italy was allied with the Germans so they became a target for the U.S.A until they (Italians) got rid of Mussolini and went over the the British and Americans.

Canada was part of the British Commenwealth and had political obligations to forefill.

Also America knew sooner or later it would have to face Germany because if they (Germany) succeded in their conquest of Europe the would eventually have turned their attention to the USA. The thought of a world controlled by the Nazis and the Japanese was unthinkable to American policy of the day.
Once Germany declared war on the USA it was in the interest of the Americans to get involved in Europe to protect shipping routes and shorten the war.

Germany couldn't bomb the USA because it was out of range of their planes and they had no heavy long range bomber fleet anyway or aircraft carriers.

Canada got involved in 1939 because it was part of the British Empire and all parts of it supported Britain
1. Japan, Germany and Italy were working together, they called themselves the Axis. Germany and Japan had plans to divide Asia. Italy wanted to reconquer its territories in Africa. To be attacked by Japan was to be at war with the Axis.

2. The UK, France and Belgium were traditional allies of the United States. It was obvious by the late 1930s that Germany intended to dominate Europe, as they had tried to do in WW1.

3. The Germans didn't bomb America because their aircraft couldn't fly that far. Germany and Italy were developing jet fighters that could deliver atomic bombs to American cities, but they were defeated before they could do this.

4. Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, they recognize the Queen as their own. They had as much reason to fight as the rest of the allies. Germany was a fascist country with plans to build a world empire.

5. Are you happy that the US, Great Britain and Canada did fight together? If they hadn't Hitler would've won.

It wouldn't hurt to do your own research.

.
It was a world war.

Roosevelt wanted to go after Hitler for mnay months but held in reserve. It was after the Pearl Harbor attack that Germany declared war on the US and FDR sent troops over to quell the dictator.

Canada and UK were allies always and that was reason for declaring war on Germany.

Read some books on Roosevelt
1) The US had been on Britain's side for a number of years and had already been sending the UK aide. Once Germany declared war we decided to remain true to our allies and fight on both fronts.

2) Germany did not have planes capable of reaching the US at the time, in fact no country had aircraft capable of round trip travel across a major ocean at the time. Germany was working on weapons to reach the US but they were years away and the war ended long before they could go in to production.

3) Canada was still part of the Common wealth, despite being mostly independent they were still very close to Britain, plans were drawn up to evacuate the royal family and national treasures to Canada should Britain fall. I imagine it was out of a sense of loyalty and obligation, not a quality we see much of anymore.

4) US German relations? They have become a little political in the recent years and some people might say they are strained, but generally the relationship is strong. we still trade, the US has bases in Germany and provides a lot of economic infrastructure to the country. I would say warm, but not as warm as it was 50 years ago.
Germany had no real way of bombing the US for one thing. Bombers of that time periods range were way to short and the USA is such a vast nation carpet bombing attacks would cause minimal damage. Bombings original idea was to maximize damage to front line troops, supply lines, factories and military targets. The germans had this problem in Russia where they tried attacking russian factories but the country was so vast they could build factories far beyond the reach of german bombers.

At the point in the war where the USA entered the war was going very bad for the rest of the free world as well. Britain was among the last holdouts with japan taking china and threatening Australia from the south and Germany threatening the whole of the European continent. The USA needed to help the Russia and Britain to survive the german onslaught and did just that with the murmansk and atlantic runs that supplied tanks, guns, fuel and steel to allow them to hold off long enough for the USA and Britain to gain the offensive in North Africa and breech Italy, Germanys soft underbelly and cause them to pull troops off the front in Russia. When this happened, the war had turned and Germany never had the strength to regain the offensive.

If USA had focused only on japan, germany could have stayed on the offensive longer and had control of more then half the world. Then we would have been in the same situation as Britain with no backup.

The political situation was much different in Canada then it was in USA. USA anti war sentiment was high until Pearl Harbour, well Canada still sees the queen as a figure head today.

By the way they had to attack Italy, they were Germany's ally. Mussolinni wasnt much better then Hitler and the Italian people rejoiced when the war for them was over.