I'm finishing up a list of British corps (inc commenwealth and Empire) and American corps that were on the field in WWII. I need some help to look for any errors.

The list is read: # Corps, Start date (on the field), End Date (on the field), Total months

A "point" is scored whenever a corps has been on the field for a month. I've also calculated the totals. I was surprised to see the UK end up ahead of USA (even in Asia and Pacific). Although there are flaws with this system such as it doesn't take into account significance or difficulty of the different operations.

So check below as I know some of my stats are a little shaky particularly with the Asian and Pacific theatres.


British Commonwealth and Empire

NE Europe
I May-40 Jun-40 1
II May-40 Jun-40 1
III May-40 Jun-40 1
3

Africa
XIII Sep-40 May-43 33
XXX Nov-41 May-43 19
X Nov-42 May-43 7
V Nov-42 May-43 7
66

Sicily
XIII Jul-43 Aug-43 2
XXX Jul-43 Aug-43 2
4

Italy
XIII Sep-43 May-45 20
V Sep-43 May-45 20
X Sep-43 May-45 20
Can I Sep-43 Jan-45 17
77

NE Europe
I Jun-44 May-45 11
XXX Jun-44 May-45 11
Can II Jun-44 May-45 11
VIII Jun-44 May-45 11
XII Jul-44 May-45 10
Can I Feb-45 May-45 3
57

Malaya/Singapore
III Jan-42 Feb-42 2

SW Pacific (inc Borneo)
Aus I Jun-43 Jul-45 25
Aus II Feb-44 Aug-45 19
44

Burma
XV Dec-43 Jun-45 19
IV Mar-44 Jun-45 15
XXXIII Mar-44 Jun-45 15
49

Europe + Med 207
Asia + Pacific 95

Total 302

-----------------------------------------

USA

Africa
II Nov-42 May-43 7


Sicily
II Jul-43 Aug-43 2
XVI Jul-43 Aug-43 2
4

Italy
IV Sep-43 May-45 20
II Sep-43 May-45 20
40

NE Europe
V Jun-44 May-45 11
VII Jun-44 May-45 11
VIII Jun-44 May-45 11
XIX Jun-44 May-45 11
XV Aug-44 May-45 9
XX Aug-44 May-45 9
XII Aug-44 May-45 9
VI Aug-44 May-45 8
XIII Sep-44 May-45 8
III Dec-44 May-45 5
XVIII Dec-44 May-45 5
XVI Dec-44 May-45 5
XXI Feb-45 May-45 3
XXII Mar-45 May-45 2
XXIII Mar-45 May-45 2
109

Philippines 1
Dec-41 May-42 6

SW Pacific
XIV Jan-43 Aug-44 20
I Feb-44 Aug-44 6
26
Gilberts
V Mar Nov-43 Nov-43 1

Marshalls
4, 7 M div Feb-44 Feb-44 1

Marianas
V Mar Jun-44 Aug-44 2
III Mar Jun-44 Aug-44 2
4

Philippines 2
X Oct-44 Aug-45 10
XXIV Oct-44 Dec-44 2
XI Jan-45 Aug-45 8
XIV Jan-45 Aug-45 8
28

Iwo Jima
V Mar Feb-45 Mar-45 2
2

Okinawa
III Mar Apr-45 Jun-45 2
XXIV Apr-45 Jun-45 2
4

Europe + Med 160
Asia + Pacific 72

Total 232

Well we were fighting for more than 2 years than the americans were and most people (especially the yanks) underestmate the part the british played against the japanese.Infact the largest ever land engagment in the pacific was british(and commonwealth) against japanese,not US forces v japanese.

Imphal lastest 4 days and claimed the lives of 18000 british/Indian soldiers and in excess of 45000 japanese and 15000 of their indian allies.

that wasn't in the pacific though was it nero?



_______________________________________
regards,

ãÇی˜ or ãÇی˜á

"that wasn't in the pacific though was it nero?"

imphal was in burma. so asia.

Pacific/south asia.It was the biggest engagment of the war between the allies-japanese.. anywere.

Americans certainly underestimate the part played by britain and its colonial allies against the japanese.But i think this is mainly because they see it as their war against the japanese,in the same way the british sometimes view the war in europe/africa as their war against the germans.

I can't even begin to imagine how the brits should have felt when the nazi's were at the english channel and the japanese taking over Asia. They should have felt all alone and pretty desperate imo


Don't try this at home lads

quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."

If it wasn't for the US the British would be speaking German and being used as slaves in the capital of the world known as Germania,Has alot of beutiful museums and nice art.

--------------------------------------------



"DIOS Y VICTORIA".
-Alvaro Uribe

I disagree. The Brits deterred a German invasion even before Barbarossa.



"We will write our own military manuals, which the Americans, British, and French can study in their staff colleges."
-Colonel Behrouz Soleiman, Deputy Commander, Iranian 21st Infantry Division

"If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them."
-Mohammad Khatami

"The baseless claim made us laugh. We do not use laptops to keep our classified documents.”
-Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, on American claims that an Iranian laptop they had captured contained evidence that Iran was producing a nuclear warhead

If the americans had never entered the war Russia probably would have lost and the germans would have all the resources to sustain a bloody invasion of the britain. So i agree with Gcap the british would have been german slaves.

"Brazil has rediscovered itself, and this rediscovery is being expressed in its people's enthusiasm and their desire to mobilize to face the huge problems that lie ahead of us."
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva

Personally speaking, I still see the U.S.S.R. defeating Nazi Germany without the United States, and eventually playing a role in the defeat of Japan. The question is, would the U.K. be powerfull enough post-war to stop the eventual Communist take over of western Europe, I doubt it as is.

As far as East Asia/Pacific, Americans see it more in the IJN /VS/ USN, island hoping campaigns, and strategic bombing of Japan limelight.

The Brits do play a undervalued part in Burma and the RN's ops, but by far and large, the United States was the major player, followed up by the Chinese, Aussies, and British.

According to Albert Speer, as stated in his book "Inside the Third Reich," Germany possibly could've had the A-bomb by 1947.

Had not America entered the war, one can only guess if Russia could've defeated Germany. Possibly, but the 'wild card' was the Speer's assertion that he brought out in his book. One could argue that the U.S.A. staying out of the war could've gave time to the Nazis to develop the atomic bomb, which would've brought victory to Germany; however, this is only speculation.

Milkman

Russia was pushing the Germans back before the arrival of any lend lease aid. Russia can't be conquered. It is physically impossible.



"We will write our own military manuals, which the Americans, British, and French can study in their staff colleges."
-Colonel Behrouz Soleiman, Deputy Commander, Iranian 21st Infantry Division

"If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them."
-Mohammad Khatami

"The baseless claim made us laugh. We do not use laptops to keep our classified documents.”
-Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, on American claims that an Iranian laptop they had captured contained evidence that Iran was producing a nuclear warhead

Prior to his death in 1971, Nikita Khrushchev interviewed Edward Crankshaw and brought out some interesting points about American Lend Lease aid.

Weaponry wasn't what was so crucial to the Soviet victory against the Germans in American Lend Lease aid. What helped the Soviets so much were the vast amounts of "soft" goods that were included with American Lend Lease. According to Khrushchev, without the canned meat called "Spam", the Soviets would've never been able to feed their millions of troops.

The Soviets had ample home produced weaponry; however, with Germany overunning the Ukraine and the main agricultural producing areas of the Soviet Union, the Soviets were hard pressed to feed their millions of armed troops. Thus, according to Khrushchev, came the life saving aid of "powdered eggs", Spam, flour, clothing, even fruit juices; this was the vital lifesaver of American Lend Lease.

Milkman

If it wasn't for the US the British would be speaking German and being used as slaves in the capital of the world known as Germania,Has alot of beutiful museums and nice art.

The Battle of Britain took place in 1940, 3 years before American troops arrived on British soil. Lend-Lease did not begin untill mid 1941, hence, the Battle of Britain was won entirely with British resources. The Battle of Britain itself denied Germany air superiority over Britain and thus made invasion impossible. That and the German navy did not have the capacity to ferry troops save for converted barges.

Further, when supplies did start to come through admittedly German U-Boats caused serious losses. However, British convoys did begin to gain the upper hand by 42/43.

"The Battle of Britain took place in 1940, 3 years before American troops arrived on British soil. Lend-Lease did not begin untill mid 1941, hence, the Battle of Britain was won entirely with British resources."

How many squadrons of the RAF were financed by foreign money of exiled governments such as the Netherlands, Norway, France and Belgium? And how many foreign pilots served with them again? And what about the Canadians, Aussies and the rest of the Commonwealth? I may sound harsh, but the British belief that they "stood alone" was and still is factually wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd include the British Empire as Britain and not foreign. You don't 'create' something so to speak and not call it your own. If we'd never colonised Australia and Canada there would have been no Australian or Canadian pilots.

But yes, on the foreign pilots there was a significant contribution which i won't deny. I was more talking about material resources and equipment and trying to show the point that the Americans did not 'save our asses' as some like to think. I think Britain stood alone is a figure of speech in that it was the only sovereign country not yet to be over run. I have no figures for financial contributions but what planes were they flying? (rhetorical)

Nationality Number
Polish 139
New Zealander 98
Canadian 86
Czechoslovakian 84
Belgian 29
Australian 21
South African 20
French 13
Irish 10
Unknown 8
American 7
Jamaican 1
Palestinian (Jewish) 1
Southern Rhodesian 1


"Polish contribution

On 11 June 1940 the Polish Government in Exile signed an agreement with the British Government to form a Polish Army in Britain and, specifically, a Polish Air Forces in Great Britain. The first two (of an eventual ten) Polish fighter squadrons went into action in August 1940. In total four Polish squadrons took part in the battle (300 and 301 Bomber Squadrons; 302 and 303 Fighter Squadrons) with 89 Polish pilots. Together with more than 50 Poles fighting in British squadrons, a total of 145 Polish pilots defended the British sky. Polish pilots were among the most experienced in the battle, most of them having already fought in the September Campaign in Poland and the Battle of France. One must also point out the very high level of pilot training in the pre-war Poland. 303 Squadron, named after the Polish-American hero General Tadeusz Kosciuszko, achieved the highest number of kills (126) of all the fighter squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain, even though it only joined the combat on August 30. To put things in perspective, 5% of pilots were responsible for 12% of the total scores of the Battle.
[edit]

Czech contribution

There was also a significant input of Czech pilots in the Battle of Britain. Two Czech fighter squadrons, 310 and 312, took part in the battle. Together with Czech pilots serving in other allied units, a total of 87 Czechs defended the British sky. One of them, Josef Frantisek, flying with 303 Polish Squadron, was the most efficient allied ace of the Battle of Britain, with 17 confirmed kills.


[edit]

Irish contribution

Among the Irish pilots who flew in the battle was Brendan "Paddy" Finucane, an air ace who went on to down a total of 32 enemy aircraft before being shot down and killed himself in 1942. He become operational in July of 1940 and shot down his first Bf 109 on the 12th of August, getting a second Bf 109 the following day. In a 51-day period in 1941, he shot down 17 Messerschmitt 109 fighters while flying with an Australian squadron. "Paddy" Finucane went on to become the youngest ever wing commander in the RAF, an appointment he recieved at the age of 21. Despite his early death, his score remains the second highest of the "Home nation" RAF aces.
[edit]

American contribution

The RAF recognises 7 Americans as having taken part in the Battle of Britain. Three squadrons of American volunteers, known as Eagle squadrons, also fought with the RAF in this period, although the first became operational in February 1941, after the main daylight battles.
[edit]

Palestinian contribution

The RAF's official "Battle of Britain Roll of Honour" recognizes 1 Palestinian as having fought in the Battle of Britain: Pilot Officer George Ernest Goodman (42598), born in Haifa, Palestine (now Haifa, Israel). The Palestinian contribution is also sometimes described as the "Israeli contribution", although the State of Israel was not proclaimed until 1948. Officially, PO Goodman is recorded as a British airman.

At least 32 (probably 43) Jewish airmen took part in the Battle of Britain. Over three-quarters were British Jews, the rest fighting in the American, Belgian, Canadian, Czechoslovak, Polish and South African contributions (Martin Sugarman, [3]).
[edit]

Australian contribution

Australia had always been a close supporter of Britain, and when war was declared in 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies supported Britain in her war effort. However, due to the home threat of the Japanese, the Australian contribution was low."

On the question of invasion of Britain.

The battle of britain was won before US were involved.

The contributions by people such as the poles shouldnt be
forgotten, but around 85% of pilots were British so
one shouldnt think it was 'the allies' providing the bulk
of pilots.

Financial aid..yep, but then a large amount of aid was sent
to russia by britain later in the war.


As for the british in Japan, after the humiliating start to the

war..and a horrible example of sea powers vulnerability from the air
we were blessed with Field Marshall Slim, imho the most under-rated
commander in WW2 and one of the 'Greats'. Yes the US were bigger
players in the war against japan. But british commonwealth contributions
are often under-stated




______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees

"Infact the largest ever land engagment in the pacific was british(and commonwealth) against japanese,not US forces v japanese.

Imphal lastest 4 days and claimed the lives of 18000 british/Indian soldiers and in excess of 45000 japanese and 15000 of their indian allies."

Imphal was the largest land defeat the Japanese suffered up to that point, but the Battle of Okinawa that came later was slightly larger. The battle of Okinawa claimed the lives of roughly 19,000 Americans, and about 80,000 Japanese soldiers.

Also, Imphal was fought in mid 1944. It had already been clear for some time before that Japan was losing the war. Hirohito even admitted in mid 1943 that Japan's situation had become "very grave."

While not downplaying the sacrifices made British or Commonwealth troops in the Pacific, I think it is safe to say that the US played a similar role in Japan's defeat as the Soviet's played in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

How many squadrons of the RAF were financed by foreign money of exiled governments such as the Netherlands, Norway, France and Belgium? And how many foreign pilots served with them again? And what about the Canadians, Aussies and the rest of the Commonwealth? I may sound harsh, but the British belief that they "stood alone" was and still is factually wrong.

Though weirdly enough noone ever mentions that Germany without robbing the occupied countries and forcing them to work like slaves would never have come that far in WW2. The UK certainly had less "assistance" (forced or voluntarily) from outside (a few poles, French and Irish fighter pilots and a bit of money) than Germany (thousands of French fighting on the eastern front, millions (french,poles, jews) working as slaves in the wartime industry etc...........

Germany mobilized over 15 million Soldiers, these had to be replaced by everything available inclunding massive use of women even if it was contradictory to the official former Nazi Ideology ...

---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !

"hough weirdly enough noone ever mentions that Germany without robbing the occupied countries and forcing them to work like slaves would never have come that far in WW2. The UK certainly had less "assistance" (forced or voluntarily) from outside (a few poles, French and Irish fighter pilots and a bit of money) than Germany (thousands of French fighting on the eastern front, millions (french,poles, jews) working as slaves in the wartime industry etc..........."

Yes, of course, but that's only cause you group Canada, Australia India etc. under the "UK". Tell me then why did those nations declare war on us separately?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Australia etc.... did not do a lot in the Battle of Britain for example. I am not grouping commonwealth countries under "UK", if you don't know that Brits did an awful lot in the war effort then you seem to know little about tghe subject. To me it seems you just have a hatred of everything British, I haven't seen you post/say anything positive about Britain anytime. Again your trying to diminish the UK's war record in WW2, whilst everyone acknowledges that the UK did do a darn lot in the overall war effort, trying to pretend that outside forces saved the Britain in the BoB is nonsense. It was the British aircraft industry, mostly British pilots (over 80% IIRC) and stupid German tactics which ultimately led to British victory. Also you seem to be implying that these nations (France, Poland) helped the UK out of absolutely noble, non selfish idealism, this is quite funny.

"But Australia etc.... did not do a lot in the Battle of Britain for example."

Well, I was broadly speaking not only about the BoB, but also afterwars, a great part of the total British Commonwealth aircraft production and pilot training was done in Canada in particular. Also the land force contributions are evident, Indians and Australians in the Pacific and all of them in Europe. My only gripe is that illusion that Britain was ever alone against Germany when that was never the case.

" I am not grouping commonwealth countries under "UK", if you don't know that Brits did an awful lot in the war effort then you seem to know little about tghe subject."

Sure, because I don't sing praises about the Brits all the time, this must mean that I'm ignorant , yeah right.

" To me it seems you just have a hatred of everything British, I haven't seen you post/say anything positive about Britain anytime."

Do I have any obligation to do so? And, why should I hate Britain? I don't as a matter of fact.

"Again your trying to diminish the UK's war record in WW2, whilst everyone acknowledges that the UK did do a darn lot in the overall war effort,"

I'm not diminishing anything, I'm stating that a whole lot of other countries' actions in that war is somehow forgotten. In a sense I'm trying to speak up for them.

" trying to pretend that outside forces saved the Britain in the BoB is nonsense."

Don't put words in my mouth, I said that they had a hand in it and contributed, the vast majority was done by the UK.

" It was the British aircraft industry, mostly British pilots (over 80% IIRC) and stupid German tactics which ultimately led to British victory. Also you seem to be implying that these nations (France, Poland) helped the UK out of absolutely noble, non selfish idealism, this is quite funny."

No, again, I didn't state what you claim, neither Poland nor France helped the UK out of altruistic motives and neither did the UK help them because of those motives, it was about power as it always was.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we can agree that commonwealth countries were very signifigant
in their help with the general war effort (especially when you
look at the percentage of their population they mobilised).

But that the BOB was generally a british victory.

As for french aid. Well we did have the free french, and the resistance.

But the uncomfortable truth is that vichy forces fought pretty damn
hard against the allies in some arenas so measuring french contribution
is not easy.

______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees

I don't understand why the commonwealth are seen as separate.

Sure, some had dominion status, but it was still very much part of the Empire as far as i'm concerned. Think of it as Federal system. If you have an Empire help from the colonies is legitimate and expected, not a privilege and a separate entity. If these places hadn't been colonised it would have been doubtful these places would have come to our aid.

The fact that we could call upon these places to fight for the mohterland is generally our doing, not some sort of lucky coincidence.

'Imphal was the largest land defeat the Japanese suffered up to that point, but the Battle of Okinawa that came later was slightly larger. The battle of Okinawa claimed the lives of roughly 19,000 Americans, and about 80,000 Japanese soldiers.

Also, Imphal was fought in mid 1944. It had already been clear for some time before that Japan was losing the war. Hirohito even admitted in mid 1943 that Japan's situation had become "very grave."

While not downplaying the sacrifices made British or Commonwealth troops in the Pacific, I think it is safe to say that the US played a similar role in Japan's defeat as the Soviet's played in the defeat of Nazi Germany.'

I agree gyrene,i was just poitning out how understated british/commonwealth war efforts are against the japanese.