JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Manch on August 24, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
-
I saw some very uninformed statements about role of the USSR in the WWII. Please people, get some real, academically sound books, read memoirs of Soviet and German generals, look at statistics before making a fool out yourself by asserting that USSR just "helped" to win WWII.
Just a small example that illustrates who really defeated nazi beasts and the attitude of the opposing forces. Wenck's 12th army and the remnants of the German 9th army (destroyed by Red Army) were senselessly fighting advancing Red Army just to surrender to American forces. German guns continued to fire on advancing Red Army troops and Americans on the other side of Elba river watched and did nothing! Majority of German POWs on that day hoped and believed that Americans are going to join with Germans to drive out invading Soviet Army. Until allied invasion in 1944, more the 90% of Wehrmacht's best troops and best equipment were engaged in the Eastern front as most of the Romanian, Finnish and Hungarian armed forces. Italians had a contingent in USSR that was larger than their Afrika Corp. There was a Spannish "Blue Division", French LVB and later SS Charlemagne division (last defenders of Reichstag), Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian SS divisions, Belgian, Dutch - Nordland and Viking SS Divisions, etc, etc.
Yes, America helped to win the war, but majority of this help was through land lease of gunpowder, great Studebaker trucks (2/3 of trucks in Soviet Tank Armies), portable radio sets, air cobras
Leng Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
-
here is a great book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990
-
Yes, America helped to win the war, but majority of this help was through land lease of gunpowder, great Studebaker trucks (2/3 of trucks in Soviet Tank Armies), portable radio sets, air cobras
Leng Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
You don't think that this was significant? In 1941 and early 1942, the Soviet industrial base was shot. Without trucks and tank engines and suitable planes (and in 1941-2, the majority of planes in the VVS were nowhere near modern), the Red army would have come to a grinding halt.
-
USSR enabled the breaking of the war by Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement. Without the Lend-Lease and the Air campaign, the USSR would have lost. But its true that they contributed the most killing. Too bad their killing it was not limited only to the Nazis and their allies.
The fact is that the USSR didn't liberate any nation, it simply supplanted Germany as the occupier.
-
Yes, America helped to win the war, but majority of this help was through land lease of gunpowder, great Studebaker trucks (2/3 of trucks in Soviet Tank Armies), portable radio sets, air cobras
Leng Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
You don't think that this was significant? In 1941 and early 1942, the Soviet industrial base was shot. Without trucks and tank engines and suitable planes (and in 1941-2, the majority of planes in the VVS were nowhere near modern), the Red army would have come to a grinding halt.
Bones,
I am not one of those morons on the other side of the debate to say that US/UK help was insignificant, particularly in 1942. It was instrumental in USSR turning the tide in 1942/1943 But the gist of what I am saying is let's keep in perspective - there is a huge difference between those who helped and those who fought the war to break nazi's neck
-
USSR enabled the breaking of the war by Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement. Without the Lend-Lease and the Air campaign, the USSR would have lost. But its true that they contributed the most killing. Too bad their killing it was not limited only to the Nazis and their allies.
The fact is that the USSR didn't liberate any nation, it simply supplanted Germany as the occupier.
I disagree - You can't compare Soviet occupation and Nazi one. USSR would never lose to Germans, with or without US help. There would be more losses, but the whole continental Europe would be captured by commies
-
I don't compare. But the Soviets were not liberators, and they were evil. Just think what would happen if instead of Bolsheviks, Russia was under a semi-democratic Kerensky type or regime.
It is too speculative to guess the result of Germany vs. Russia without western allies. But I think without the mad man Hitler, Germany could subdue Russia in 1942. BTW, here is another "what if" scenario- Had Japan invaded Russia instead of attacking the USA, what do you think would have happened ?
-
I don't compare. But the Soviets were not liberators, and they were evil. Just think what would happen if instead of Bolsheviks, Russia was under a semi-democratic Kerensky type or regime.
It is too speculative to guess the result of Germany vs. Russia without western allies. But I think without the mad man Hitler, Germany could subdue Russia in 1942. BTW, here is another "what if" scenario- Had Japan invaded Russia instead of attacking the USA, what do you think would have happened ?
the japanese didn't invade the ussr because zhukov humiliated them in 1939 at khalkhin gol.
-
The Soviet Japanese expedition was a rather marginal, fringe detachment that did not use Japan's elite, frontline units. Yes, it is true that the Red Army was tougher (thanks to their vast superiority in armor technology primarily), but they never got to face the cream of Hirohito's crop either. Also, the Japanese air force would have made mincemeat of the crude and primitive VVS.
-
It is too speculative to guess the result of Germany vs. Russia without western allies. But I think without the mad man Hitler, Germany could subdue Russia in 1942. BTW, here is another "what if" scenario- Had Japan invaded Russia instead of attacking the USA, what do you think would have happened ?
I think if the Allies didn't open the second front in Western Europe after the Stalingrad battle, the Soviets would have conquered the whole Europe.
But if the West didn't do anything from the beginning of the war, the USSR would have lost. Just think about the German armies of Erwin Rommel that fought in Africa, they could have been used against the Soviets too. Plus all the military might of Japan would strike Russia from the East. In this scenario, the Nazis would certainly captured Moscow and Leningrad and pushed Russian east of the Ural mountains. Plus Germans were rather close to the creation of atomic bomb, and in this scenario they would have time to invent and produce it. They would have nuked the remaining Soviet territory.
-
The Soviet Japanese expedition was a rather marginal, fringe detachment that did not use Japan's elite, frontline units. Yes, it is true that the Red Army was tougher (thanks to their vast superiority in armor technology primarily), but they never got to face the cream of Hirohito's crop either. Also, the Japanese air force would have made mincemeat of the crude and primitive VVS.
like they did at klalkhin gol? If you want to see how an entire japanses army would have faird against the Soviets, look up operation august storm
-
I think if the Allies didn't open the second front in Western Europe after the Stalingrad battle, the Soviets would have conquered the whole Europe.
After Stalingrad, the Nazi war colossus was being increasingly worn down by U.S. bombing raids, the fall of North Africa, and the new front in Italy. Without all of those things, it is far from certain that even in 1943, the Russians would have won the war.
But if the West didn't do anything from the beginning of the war, the USSR would have lost.
I don't see how any serious historian could disagree with that.
Just think about the German armies of Erwin Rommel that fought in Africa, they could have been used against the Soviets too.
Without a North African front, Russia probably would have fallen by the end of 1941. Without the great losses that the RAF wreaked on the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain the year before, Russia almost certainly would have fallen well before the end of '41 even with all the Lend-Lease in the world. That was the cream of the Nazi airforce and Nazi pilots that had to fight modern Western pilots were more hardened than those who were only experienced with inferior Soviet planes/pilots.
Plus all the military might of Japan would strike Russia from the East.
Thank G-d Tojo decided against that.
In this scenario, the Nazis would certainly captured Moscow and Leningrad and pushed Russian east of the Ural mountains. Plus Germans were rather close to the creation of atomic bomb, and in this scenario they would have time to invent and produce it. They would have nuked the remaining Soviet territory.
:o
-
like they did at klalkhin gol? If you want to see how an entire japanses army would have faird against the Soviets, look up operation august storm
*yawn* alternate histories can "prove" anything, dude. Communist soldiers suck and they can only win in vast hordes, and sometimes not even then.
-
I saw some very uninformed statements about role of the USSR in the WWII. Please people, get some real, academically sound books, read memoirs of Soviet and German generals, look at statistics before making a fool out yourself by asserting that USSR just "helped" to win WWII.
Just a small example that illustrates who really defeated nazi beasts and the attitude of the opposing forces. Wenck's 12th army and the remnants of the German 9th army (destroyed by Red Army) were senselessly fighting advancing Red Army just to surrender to American forces. German guns continued to fire on advancing Red Army troops and Americans on the other side of Elba river watched and did nothing! Majority of German POWs on that day hoped and believed that Americans are going to join with Germans to drive out invading Soviet Army. Until allied invasion in 1944, more the 90% of Wehrmacht's best troops and best equipment were engaged in the Eastern front as most of the Romanian, Finnish and Hungarian armed forces. Italians had a contingent in USSR that was larger than their Afrika Corp. There was a Spannish "Blue Division", French LVB and later SS Charlemagne division (last defenders of Reichstag), Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian SS divisions, Belgian, Dutch - Nordland and Viking SS Divisions, etc, etc.
Yes, America helped to win the war, but majority of this help was through land lease of gunpowder, great Studebaker trucks (2/3 of trucks in Soviet Tank Armies), portable radio sets, air cobras
Leng Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Learn history - youtube comments are not a good source of accurate information Neither is wikipedia. Stick your nose in some real book books that were printed in the late 40's and early 50's and not the revisionist crap that's printed today. Russia fought an 18 century war they were even more backwards than Poland was at the start of hostilities. As I said this morning the only thing that really saved them was the fact that Hitler was fighting a two front war and the Russian winter. Russia suffered great losses during the war but they were in no way the main player. On more then one occasion American troops had to withdraw from hard fought ground so Soviet Troops could make a grand entrance to stroke Stalin's ego. Unless you have some fancy degree that makes you a authority on this issue your informed statements are no better then mine. I have well over 1000 books here at my home by most of the prominent people of the last century and today was the first time I honestly ever heard anyone say that Russia was the main player of WW2.
-
like they did at klalkhin gol? If you want to see how an entire japanses army would have faird against the Soviets, look up operation august storm
*yawn* alternate histories can "prove" anything, dude. Communist soldiers suck and they can only win in vast hordes, and sometimes not even then.
what alternate histories are you talking about? I take it you have no clue as to what operation august storm was, just as you probably have no idea what operation bagration was. nice post,it shows your ignorance of the war. Only win in vast hordes? Where do you get your history from? movies?
-
I saw some very uninformed statements about role of the USSR in the WWII. Please people, get some real, academically sound books, read memoirs of Soviet and German generals, look at statistics before making a fool out yourself by asserting that USSR just "helped" to win WWII.
Just a small example that illustrates who really defeated nazi beasts and the attitude of the opposing forces. Wenck's 12th army and the remnants of the German 9th army (destroyed by Red Army) were senselessly fighting advancing Red Army just to surrender to American forces. German guns continued to fire on advancing Red Army troops and Americans on the other side of Elba river watched and did nothing! Majority of German POWs on that day hoped and believed that Americans are going to join with Germans to drive out invading Soviet Army. Until allied invasion in 1944, more the 90% of Wehrmacht's best troops and best equipment were engaged in the Eastern front as most of the Romanian, Finnish and Hungarian armed forces. Italians had a contingent in USSR that was larger than their Afrika Corp. There was a Spannish "Blue Division", French LVB and later SS Charlemagne division (last defenders of Reichstag), Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian SS divisions, Belgian, Dutch - Nordland and Viking SS Divisions, etc, etc.
Yes, America helped to win the war, but majority of this help was through land lease of gunpowder, great Studebaker trucks (2/3 of trucks in Soviet Tank Armies), portable radio sets, air cobras
Leng Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Learn history - youtube comments are not a good source of accurate information Neither is wikipedia. Stick your nose in some real book books that were printed in the late 40's and early 50's and not the revisionist crap that's printed today. Russia fought an 18 century war they were even more backwards than Poland was at the start of hostilities. As I said this morning the only thing that really saved them was the fact that Hitler was fighting a two front war and the Russian winter. Russia suffered great losses during the war but they were in no way the main player. On more then one occasion American troops had to withdraw from hard fought ground so Soviet Troops could make a grand entrance to stroke Stalin's ego. Unless you have some fancy degree that makes you a authority on this issue your informed statements are no better then mine. I have well over 1000 books here at my home by most of the prominent people of the last century and today was the first time I honestly ever heard anyone say that Russia was the main player of WW2.
what "real books" have you read about that subject?
-
Operation Bagration was the Soviet offensive on Army Group Center in summer 1944, and no I did not have to Google that, dingus.
-
Operation Bagration was the Soviet offensive on Army Group Center in summer 1944, and no I did not have to Google that, dingus.
i know, you probably just went straight to wikipedia.
-
I saw some very uninformed statements about role of the USSR in the WWII. Please people, get some real, academically sound books, read memoirs of Soviet and German generals, look at statistics before making a fool out yourself by asserting that USSR just "helped" to win WWII.
Just a small example that illustrates who really defeated nazi beasts and the attitude of the opposing forces. Wenck's 12th army and the remnants of the German 9th army (destroyed by Red Army) were senselessly fighting advancing Red Army just to surrender to American forces. German guns continued to fire on advancing Red Army troops and Americans on the other side of Elba river watched and did nothing! Majority of German POWs on that day hoped and believed that Americans are going to join with Germans to drive out invading Soviet Army. Until allied invasion in 1944, more the 90% of Wehrmacht's best troops and best equipment were engaged in the Eastern front as most of the Romanian, Finnish and Hungarian armed forces. Italians had a contingent in USSR that was larger than their Afrika Corp. There was a Spannish "Blue Division", French LVB and later SS Charlemagne division (last defenders of Reichstag), Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian SS divisions, Belgian, Dutch - Nordland and Viking SS Divisions, etc, etc.
Yes, America helped to win the war, but majority of this help was through land lease of gunpowder, great Studebaker trucks (2/3 of trucks in Soviet Tank Armies), portable radio sets, air cobras
Leng Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Learn history - youtube comments are not a good source of accurate information Neither is wikipedia. Stick your nose in some real book books that were printed in the late 40's and early 50's and not the revisionist crap that's printed today. Russia fought an 18 century war they were even more backwards than Poland was at the start of hostilities. As I said this morning the only thing that really saved them was the fact that Hitler was fighting a two front war and the Russian winter. Russia suffered great losses during the war but they were in no way the main player. On more then one occasion American troops had to withdraw from hard fought ground so Soviet Troops could make a grand entrance to stroke Stalin's ego. Unless you have some fancy degree that makes you a authority on this issue your informed statements are no better then mine. I have well over 1000 books here at my home by most of the prominent people of the last century and today was the first time I honestly ever heard anyone say that Russia was the main player of WW2.
what "real books" have you read about that subject?
I have read books by Churchill ...The Gathering Storm,The Hinge of Faith, Triumph and Tragedy, Their Finest Hour. Books by Eisenhower. Paton Diary, Books on the FDR presidency Books on the Truman presidency. Books on Henry Lewis Stimson. Yes they are real books.
-
i know, you probably just went straight to wikipedia.
I've been studying WWII since you were a gleam in your two fathers' eyes, [censored].
-
cjd, according to the books you read, who played the main role in the war?
-
I saw some very uninformed statements about role of the USSR in the WWII. Please people, get some real, academically sound books, read memoirs of Soviet and German generals, look at statistics before making a fool out yourself by asserting that USSR just "helped" to win WWII.
Just a small example that illustrates who really defeated nazi beasts and the attitude of the opposing forces. Wenck's 12th army and the remnants of the German 9th army (destroyed by Red Army) were senselessly fighting advancing Red Army just to surrender to American forces. German guns continued to fire on advancing Red Army troops and Americans on the other side of Elba river watched and did nothing! Majority of German POWs on that day hoped and believed that Americans are going to join with Germans to drive out invading Soviet Army. Until allied invasion in 1944, more the 90% of Wehrmacht's best troops and best equipment were engaged in the Eastern front as most of the Romanian, Finnish and Hungarian armed forces. Italians had a contingent in USSR that was larger than their Afrika Corp. There was a Spannish "Blue Division", French LVB and later SS Charlemagne division (last defenders of Reichstag), Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian SS divisions, Belgian, Dutch - Nordland and Viking SS Divisions, etc, etc.
Yes, America helped to win the war, but majority of this help was through land lease of gunpowder, great Studebaker trucks (2/3 of trucks in Soviet Tank Armies), portable radio sets, air cobras
Leng Lease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Learn history - youtube comments are not a good source of accurate information Neither is wikipedia. Stick your nose in some real book books that were printed in the late 40's and early 50's and not the revisionist crap that's printed today. Russia fought an 18 century war they were even more backwards than Poland was at the start of hostilities. As I said this morning the only thing that really saved them was the fact that Hitler was fighting a two front war and the Russian winter. Russia suffered great losses during the war but they were in no way the main player. On more then one occasion American troops had to withdraw from hard fought ground so Soviet Troops could make a grand entrance to stroke Stalin's ego. Unless you have some fancy degree that makes you a authority on this issue your informed statements are no better then mine. I have well over 1000 books here at my home by most of the prominent people of the last century and today was the first time I honestly ever heard anyone say that Russia was the main player of WW2.
what "real books" have you read about that subject?
I have read books by Churchill ...The Gathering Storm,The Hinge of Faith, Triumph and Tragedy, Their Finest Hour. Books by Eisenhower. Paton Diary, Books on the FDR presidency Books on the Truman presidency. Books on Henry Lewis Stimson. Yes they are real books.
what books have you read about the eastern front? do you realize that churchill and eisenhower obviously would minimize soviet participation in the war, especially right when the cold war was starting?
-
i know, you probably just went straight to wikipedia.
I've been studying WWII since you were a gleam in your two fathers' eyes, [censored].
ww2 probably, just not the eastern front judging by your comments "dude".
-
The person who I take most stock in is Churchill and the next is Eisenhower. From what I gathered over the years is all the main players played important parts in winning the war. One thing that Churchill makes clear if it wasn't for America Hitler would have prevailed against England and most likely against Russia. America would have then been left to face Germany on its own. I would have to say although Russia paid a higher price in human life it was America that made winning the war possible.
-
It is too speculative to guess the result of Germany vs. Russia without western allies. But I think without the mad man Hitler, Germany could subdue Russia in 1942. BTW, here is another "what if" scenario- Had Japan invaded Russia instead of attacking the USA, what do you think would have happened ?
I think if the Allies didn't open the second front in Western Europe after the Stalingrad battle, the Soviets would have conquered the whole Europe.
But if the West didn't do anything from the beginning of the war, the USSR would have lost. Just think about the German armies of Erwin Rommel that fought in Africa, they could have been used against the Soviets too. Plus all the military might of Japan would strike Russia from the East. In this scenario, the Nazis would certainly captured Moscow and Leningrad and pushed Russian east of the Ural mountains. Plus Germans were rather close to the creation of atomic bomb, and in this scenario they would have time to invent and produce it. They would have nuked the remaining Soviet territory.
Spectator, I expected more from you! Which German Armies in Afrika? One poorely equipped 21st Panzer and 5th Leichte (Light) infantry division. Ok, let all the ignoramuses believe that US won the war, but you should know better.
-
The person who I take most stock in is Churchill and the next is Eisenhower. From what I gathered over the years is all the main players played important parts in winning the war. One thing that Churchill makes clear if it wasn't for America Hitler would have prevailed against England and most likely against Russia. America would have then been left to face Germany on its own. I would have to say although Russia paid a higher price in human life it was America that made winning the war possible.
:laugh:
-
ww2 probably, just not the eastern front judging by your comments "dude".
Trivia question [censored]--what Soviet early-war plane was a failure, despite great theoretical performance, because it was badly lopsided?
-
i know, you probably just went straight to wikipedia.
I've been studying WWII since you were a gleam in your two fathers' eyes, [censored].
Bones, I like you but you are mistaken on the subject. Just ask yourself, how come in 1944 Allies did not face any significant German air force? Where did it all go? If you don't want Russian or British sources, I can recommend you german source - Hans D. Seidl - "Stalin's Eagle"
-
Spectator, I expected more from you! Which German Armies in Afrika? One purely equipped 21st Panzer and 5th Leichte (Light) infantry division. Ok, let all the ignoramuses believe that US won the war, but you should know better.
I don't believe US alone won the war. As you could see from the previous thread on this issue, I think USSR played the major part in the battlefield.
It is true that the best tank divisions were used against USSR, but don't forget that USSR was on the brink of defeat. If the wermacht had the African divisions at hand as an addition to what they actually used in the Eastern front, they could have won.
The scenario I was talking about was if Soviets were fighting the war alone from the beginning. Do you really believe USSR would have won the war against the Axis alone?
-
ww2 probably, just not the eastern front judging by your comments "dude".
Trivia question [censored]--what Soviet early-war plane was a failure, despite great theoretical performance, because it was badly lopsided?
lopsided in what way?
-
Bones, I like you but you are mistaken on the subject. Just ask yourself, how come in 1944 Allies did not face any significant German air force? Where did it all go? If you don't want Russian or British sources, I can recommend you german source - Hans D. Seidl - "Stalin's Eagle"
Most of the Luftwaffe was pulverized over six months of futile attempts to stop the B17s and 24s. The Thunderbolt, Mustang, and Spitfire made mincemeat of the painfully obsolete 109s and good but altitudinally challenged 190s. The good Soviet fighters (La-7 and MiG-3) didn't see much use until later in 1944.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
-
lopsided in what way?
Of course you can't answer a basic WWII "Ostfront" question. But here are three more anyway:
1: What was the fatal flaw of the Elefant super-heavy tank destroyer?
2: What did the Soviets do with the Auschwitz Nazi extermination camp immediately postwar?
3: What Soviet plane shot down many German fighters even after it had been destroyed itself?
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
cjd, after 1942 the Soviets fought really well. In 1944-45 German army experienced a real catastrophe and (thank G-d) lost millions.
-
lopsided in what way?
Of course you can't answer a basic WWII "Ostfront" question. But here are three more anyway:
1: What was the fatal flaw of the Elefant super-heavy tank destroyer?
2: What did the Soviets do with the Auschwitz Nazi extermination camp immediately postwar?
3: What Soviet plane shot down many German fighters even after it had been destroyed itself?
its not basic when you say things that don't make sense. You said it was "lopsided" In what way? was one side bigger than the other? was the weight not evenly distributed?
anyway, the elefant wasn't mechanically reliable. If you're thinking about the lack of machine gun flaw, that was an earlier development of the design called the "ferdinand"
the soviets used auschwitz as a prison camp.
your third question makes no sense
-
Bones, I like you but you are mistaken on the subject. Just ask yourself, how come in 1944 Allies did not face any significant German air force? Where did it all go? If you don't want Russian or British sources, I can recommend you german source - Hans D. Seidl - "Stalin's Eagle"
Most of the Luftwaffe was pulverized over six months of futile attempts to stop the B17s and 24s. The Thunderbolt, Mustang, and Spitfire made mincemeat of the painfully obsolete 109s and good but altitudinally challenged 190s. The good Soviet fighters (La-7 and MiG-3) didn't see much use until later in 1944.
nope. most of the luftwaffe was pulverized fighting the VVS on the eastern front. 109s were never "painfully obsolete", new variants and upgrades were introduced until the end of the war. The mustang and spitfire were not inherently superior, they just never had a shortage of experienced pilots.
-
Regarding Luftwaffe at Eastern front, we must take into account the Battle of Kursk.
Luftwaffe has lost 3000 planes in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
-
nope. most of the luftwaffe was pulverized fighting the VVS on the eastern front. 109s were never "painfully obsolete", new variants and upgrades were introduced until the end of the war. The mustang and spitfire were not inherently superior, they just never had a shortage of experienced pilots.
Interesting revision of aviation history. You don't call an airplane that was twice as heavy as a 109G, some 40mph faster, with twice the armament, and had a 4000' higher peak altitude "inherently superior"? Are you huffing some high-octane airplane fumes?
The 109 G-14 was introduced in October 1944, long after Germany's main industrial base had been vaporized by the round-clock bombing campaigns and and the USAAC had made the 190s and earlier 109Gs (which were more than 50mph slower than P51Ds) their kurvas. The G-14 was a little more than 10mph slower than the Mustang, but nowhere near as maneuverable.
The 109K, which was as fast as the latest Allied planes but still nowhere near as agile, wasn't introduced until spring of '45, and in very small numbers.
-
its not basic when you say things that don't make sense. You said it was "lopsided" In what way? was one side bigger than the other? was the weight not evenly distributed?
Obviously you don't have the answer, it's okay to admit that you know.
anyway, the elefant wasn't mechanically reliable. If you're thinking about the lack of machine gun flaw, that was an earlier development of the design called the "ferdinand"
the soviets used auschwitz as a prison cam
How long did it take for Google to give you those answers?
your third question makes no sense
See first response.
One more question for you, when did the siege of Lake Balaton start and when did it end?
-
nope. most of the luftwaffe was pulverized fighting the VVS on the eastern front. 109s were never "painfully obsolete", new variants and upgrades were introduced until the end of the war. The mustang and spitfire were not inherently superior, they just never had a shortage of experienced pilots.
Interesting revision of aviation history. You don't call an airplane that was twice as heavy as a 109G, some 40mph faster, and with twice the armament "inherently superior"? Are you huffing some high-octane airplane fumes?
The 109 G-14 was introduced in October 1944, long after Germany's main industrial base had been vaporized by the round-clock bombing campaigns and and the USAAC had made the 190s and earlier 109Gs (which were more than 50mph slower than P51Ds) their kurvas. The G-14 was a little more than 10mph slower than the Mustang, but nowhere near as maneuverable.
The 109K, which was as fast as the latest Allied planes but still nowhere near as agile, wasn't introduced until spring of '45, and in very small numbers.
what plane are you talking about?
germany's main industrial base was never vaporized, since their best production year was 1944.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
cjd, after 1942 the Soviets fought really well. In 1944-45 German army experienced a real catastrophe and (thank G-d) lost millions.
According to wikipedia, the Soviets had 6,651,000 killed or missing in action while the Nazis at the Eastern front had 4,428,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties
I don't find this ratio too stupid or backward. I don't think wiki is favoring the Soviets either.
-
its not basic when you say things that don't make sense. You said it was "lopsided" In what way? was one side bigger than the other? was the weight not evenly distributed?
Obviously you don't have the answer, it's okay to admit that you know.
anyway, the elefant wasn't mechanically reliable. If you're thinking about the lack of machine gun flaw, that was an earlier development of the design called the "ferdinand"
the soviets used auschwitz as a prison cam
How long did it take for Google to give you those answers?
your third question makes no sense
See first response.
One more question for you, when did the siege of Lake Balaton start and when did it end?
it took me 0.0 seconds to google them. Let me ask you a question with wording akin to yours. What soviet tank was a failure because it was too top heavy and wide?
-
Duh, the KV-2 with its 152mm low-velocity howitzer. Same gun was used successfully later in the SU and JSU-152s though.
-
what plane are you talking about?
germany's main industrial base was never vaporized, since their best production year was 1944.
Learn to read, I said October 1944.
-
Duh, the KV-2 with its 152mm low-velocity howitzer. Same gun was used successfully later in the SU and JSU-152s though.
nope, nice try though
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
-
nope, nice try though
Whatever. LOL.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Please prove it.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
how do you think the german infantry lugged around towed artillery in the war?
-
nope, nice try though
Whatever. LOL.
i guess you laugh when you're wrong? well i guess thats a good attitude to have.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Please prove it.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/cavalry/index.html
I am on a HP mini at the moment thats the best I can do until I am at home.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the deficiency in human numbers.
how do you think the german infantry lugged around towed artillery in the war?
I am consulting with my father who was there and he said you are correct on this the Germans did use horses to move their artillery. Still they had other modern equipment that the Russians could only hope for at the start of the war.
-
i guess you laugh when you're wrong? well i guess thats a good attitude to have.
I laughed because I had you, retard, and you can't face it.
-
No real comment here aside from "The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" or "The Hitler-Stalin" pact being the reason WW2 ever started the Soviets played an important however molested role in WW2. What pisses me off is what is not told. The earlier pact between Stalin and Hitler allowed Hitler the freedom of a single front war, thus starting WW2 without having to worry about the Red Bear. Further is what is not taught is the fact that while Hitler was invading Poland from the West, Stalin's Red Army was advancing from the East. Lastly, the most despicable role of Russia in WW2 was the fact that the allied powers assisted in fabricating the mythology of Nazism being extreme "Right Wing". The propaganda machines of all Allied Nations, especially America and Britain previously to 22 June 1941: Operation Barbarossa, were anti-Communist which everyone knew was Ultra-Left Wing. Thus, the need for justifying a logical and ideological enemy, Nazism was painted as "right wing" which continues in 1000s of books, nearly all educational systems, museums and of course all areas of media today dumbing down the supine...
Russia can sink for all I care. They've earned the hatred of the civilized world. Hell there were more white slaves in Russia then all the black slaves in the West but one never hears of that... Sorry to digress..
-
i guess you laugh when you're wrong? well i guess thats a good attitude to have.
I laughed because I had you, retard, and you can't face it.
how'd you have me? you answered the question incorrectly, and proved yourself clueless with your "hordes" idiocy
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the deficiency in human numbers.
how do you think the german infantry lugged around towed artillery in the war?
I am consulting with my father who was there and he said you are correct on this the Germans did use horses to move their artillery. Still they had other modern equipment that the Russians could only hope for at the start of the war.
give some examples
-
Spectator, I expected more from you! Which German Armies in Afrika? One purely equipped 21st Panzer and 5th Leichte (Light) infantry division. Ok, let all the ignoramuses believe that US won the war, but you should know better.
I don't believe US alone won the war. As you could see from the previous thread on this issue, I think USSR played the major part in the battlefield.
It is true that the best tank divisions were used against USSR, but don't forget that USSR was on the brink of defeat. If the wermacht had the African divisions at hand as an addition to what they actually used in the Eastern front, they could have won.
The scenario I was talking about was if Soviets were fighting the war alone from the beginning. Do you really believe USSR would have won the war against the Axis alone?
Yes, I do. Germans could have reached Ural, but they wouldn't win, no way. By the end of 1942 Soviet Industry was back to its pre-war capabilities and significantly outstripped German industry output by 1943. BTW, why noone reverses teh question - if USSR did not fight nazi, or even worse, joined nazi axis (as it was offered to Molotov by sHitler) what exact force would liberate Europe, save Jews and save UK?
-
Bones, I like you but you are mistaken on the subject. Just ask yourself, how come in 1944 Allies did not face any significant German air force? Where did it all go? If you don't want Russian or British sources, I can recommend you german source - Hans D. Seidl - "Stalin's Eagle"
Most of the Luftwaffe was pulverized over six months of futile attempts to stop the B17s and 24s. The Thunderbolt, Mustang, and Spitfire made mincemeat of the painfully obsolete 109s and good but altitudinally challenged 190s. The good Soviet fighters (La-7 and MiG-3) didn't see much use until later in 1944.
I completely disagree with you, on all counts. Just do some research.
-
I have. The La-7 was not out in any numbers until Oct-Nov '44.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
CJD, you have a lot of hutzpa talking repeating Gobbles propaganda about Red Army, forgetting that it was the force that saved European Jewry, that well over 500,000 Jews we fighting as its soldiers and officers with over 250,000 Jews dead. My grandfathers wore Red Army uniform. what kind of uneducated moron are you?
-
I have. The La-7 was not out in any numbers until Oct-Nov '44.
believe it or not the La-7 wasn't the only "good" soviet fighter. The mig-3 was in service before the war started, and it wasn't really a great fighter, so what are you talking about?
-
Duh, the KV-2 with its 152mm low-velocity howitzer. Same gun was used successfully later in the SU and JSU-152s though.
Why would you say such a nonsense?! Just look at these guns! Why do you care about gun's velocity if you know what KV2 was built for?!
-
Duh, the KV-2 with its 152mm low-velocity howitzer. Same gun was used successfully later in the SU and JSU-152s though.
Why would you say such a nonsense?! Just look at these guns! Why do you care about gun's velocity if you know what KV2 was built for?!
i didn't say that
-
I have. The La-7 was not out in any numbers until Oct-Nov '44.
Most soviet flyers considered LA-5 and YAK-3 to be the best fighters, prefer it to air cobras. Why would you think that LA-7 was a beginning of modernity in VVS? By the way, it is a well known fact that Germans did use a lot of trophied soviet equipment. It is unknown that they've used any alllies' equipment as it mostly was built for 1930s wars.
-
I have. The La-7 was not out in any numbers until Oct-Nov '44.
believe it or not the La-7 wasn't the only "good" soviet fighter. The mig-3 was in service before the war started, and it wasn't really a great fighter, so what are you talking about?
You probably think of LAGG-3. Mig -1 was available before the war. LAGG-3 was an excellent high altitude fighter, but it was used in low altitutes again ME-109 - it wasn't built for dog fights at these altitudes and was very awkward.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Yes, and you probably believe that Poles attacked German tanks by cavalry charges! ;D Buy yourself a book, ignoramus
-
Bones, I like you but you are mistaken on the subject. Just ask yourself, how come in 1944 Allies did not face any significant German air force? Where did it all go? If you don't want Russian or British sources, I can recommend you german source - Hans D. Seidl - "Stalin's Eagle"
Most of the Luftwaffe was pulverized over six months of futile attempts to stop the B17s and 24s. The Thunderbolt, Mustang, and Spitfire made mincemeat of the painfully obsolete 109s and good but altitudinally challenged 190s. The good Soviet fighters (La-7 and MiG-3) didn't see much use until later in 1944.
Bones, only in two months, July and August, following Citadel in 1943, Luftwaffe in the East lost over 1000 aircraft. Common man, you can do some research!
-
I don't know what the hell your problem is dude, but I'm not going to back down from you or anybody.
-
Bones, only in two months, July and August, following Citadel in 1943, Luftwaffe in the East lost over 1000 aircraft. Common man, you can do some research!
You really need to stop reading Soviet propaganda. Nazis lost 1000 aircraft (total losses) over the whole year of 1943 in the East.
-
I have. The La-7 was not out in any numbers until Oct-Nov '44.
believe it or not the La-7 wasn't the only "good" soviet fighter. The mig-3 was in service before the war started, and it wasn't really a great fighter, so what are you talking about?
You probably think of LAGG-3. Mig -1 was available before the war. LAGG-3 was an excellent high altitude fighter, but it was used in low altitutes again ME-109 - it wasn't built for dog fights at these altitudes and was very awkward.
nope, over 1000 mig-3 had been delivered by the time the germans invaded
-
Bones, only in two months, July and August, following Citadel in 1943, Luftwaffe in the East lost over 1000 aircraft. Common man, you can do some research!
You really need to stop reading Soviet propaganda. Nazis lost 1000 aircraft (total losses) over the whole year of 1943 in the East.
lol. completely false. They lost over 600 aircraft at kursk alone.
-
lol. completely false. They lost over 600 aircraft at kursk alone.
Perhaps 600 over Kursk - I don't have these data, but over 1,000 on the whole Eastern Front in those two months. I mentioned July - August which coincided with a Soviet counter stroke which took Red Army far to the West, to Dnepr.
-
It is nice to see some functioning brains here. Good work!
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
CJD, you have a lot of hutzpa talking repeating Gobbles propaganda about Red Army, forgetting that it was the force that saved European Jewry, that well over 500,000 Jews we fighting as its soldiers and officers with over 250,000 Jews dead. My grandfathers wore Red Army uniform. what kind of uneducated moron are you?
Russia saved European Jewry? For what so the could torture it after the war was over? What was the the mode of combat you Jews go first and us Russians will back you up? Not to minimize the sacrifice that the Jewish people living in Russia made but I think you are out of your mind. I am done with this ignorant nonsense.
-
Russia saved European Jewry? For what so the could torture it after the war was over? What was the the mode of combat you Jews go first and us Russians will back you up? Not to minimize the sacrifice that the Jewish people living in Russia made but I think you are out of your mind. I am done with this ignorant nonsense.
I agree with you, it is absurd. It's pathetic to see otherwise right-wing Jews swallowing up Stalinist war propaganda so readily.
-
Bones, only in two months, July and August, following Citadel in 1943, Luftwaffe in the East lost over 1000 aircraft. Common man, you can do some research!
You really need to stop reading Soviet propaganda. Nazis lost 1000 aircraft (total losses) over the whole year of 1943 in the East.
Source?
Here are some of mine:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=gYDN-UfehEEC&pg=PA1466&lpg=PA1466&dq=Luftwaffe+losses+in+the+East&source=bl&ots=zlhZ5vlg_Q&sig=4Z883KNiRRpv6A_Awj9uIs0crqc&hl=en&ei=9jaTSrvUNYXasQOps-TTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=Luftwaffe%20losses%20in%20the%20East&f=false
http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/aircraft/russian/russianfighters.htm
-
Russia saved European Jewry? For what so the could torture it after the war was over? What was the the mode of combat you Jews go first and us Russians will back you up? Not to minimize the sacrifice that the Jewish people living in Russia made but I think you are out of your mind. I am done with this ignorant nonsense.
Well, I am glad it is mutual, cause you are out of your mind. To deny a fact that Red Army save European Jewry from total annihilation is nuts. And speaking of Soviet atrocities against Jews - wasn't USSR the first state to recognize Israel and to send military experts and weapons through controlled Czechoslovakia? USSR did become very antisemitic country after the war, but to compare nazi barbarity to Soviet is crazy.
-
This is obvious PC British Soviet-worship--there was lots of it during and well after WWII (the MiG-15 was made possible, after all, by donations of modern Rolls-Royce jet engines to Stalin as a gift for "standing firm" with Britain against the Nazis).
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Yes, and you probably believe that Poles attacked German tanks by cavalry charges! ;D Buy yourself a book, ignoramus
They did.....You should take your own advice
-
Well, I am glad it is mutual, cause you are out of your mind. To deny a fact that Red Army save European Jewry from total annihilation is nuts. And speaking of Soviet atrocities against Jews - wasn't USSR the first state to recognize Israel and to send military experts and weapons through controlled Czechoslovakia? USSR did become very antisemitic country after the war, but to compare nazi barbarity to Soviet is crazy.
Hitler tried to exterminate every last Jewish man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. Stalin was fine with allowing those Jews who completely gave up their religion and fell down to worship him the right to live. Big improvement.
PS your example of the Soviet Union helping early Israel is laughable--Stalin liked ben Gurion because he was a fellow Marxist, and he thought he would make Israel into a hardcore Stalinist state.
-
Russia saved European Jewry? For what so the could torture it after the war was over? What was the the mode of combat you Jews go first and us Russians will back you up? Not to minimize the sacrifice that the Jewish people living in Russia made but I think you are out of your mind. I am done with this ignorant nonsense.
I agree with you, it is absurd. It's pathetic to see otherwise right-wing Jews swallowing up Stalinist war propaganda so readily.
Like I said Bones, you've gotta read about it - read some German and Russian sources as well. Glantz and Beevor are quite respectable as well. BTW, did you say a curse today for that snake Efrat? I did, I hope my wishes for terminal brain cancer on him and his loved one are forthcoming soon.
-
I think Katyn Forest massacre is a good example of Russian WW2 history....
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Yes, and you probably believe that Poles attacked German tanks by cavalry charges! ;D Buy yourself a book, ignoramus
They did.....You should take your own advice
when exactly?
-
Russia saved European Jewry? For what so the could torture it after the war was over? What was the the mode of combat you Jews go first and us Russians will back you up? Not to minimize the sacrifice that the Jewish people living in Russia made but I think you are out of your mind. I am done with this ignorant nonsense.
Well, I am glad it is mutual, cause you are out of your mind. To deny a fact that Red Army save European Jewry from total annihilation is nuts. And speaking of Soviet atrocities against Jews - wasn't USSR the first state to recognize Israel and to send military experts and weapons through controlled Czechoslovakia? USSR did become very antisemitic country after the war, but to compare nazi barbarity to Soviet is crazy.
I never made any comparisons! Russia was evil in its own right.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Yes, and you probably believe that Poles attacked German tanks by cavalry charges! ;D Buy yourself a book, ignoramus
They did.....You should take your own advice
:laugh: :::D Get a book without pictures!
-
I had a whole beautiful taunt thread for Efrat that Baltimore unfortunately removed. PM him sometime if you want to know what was in it.
-
Well, I am glad it is mutual, cause you are out of your mind. To deny a fact that Red Army save European Jewry from total annihilation is nuts. And speaking of Soviet atrocities against Jews - wasn't USSR the first state to recognize Israel and to send military experts and weapons through controlled Czechoslovakia? USSR did become very antisemitic country after the war, but to compare nazi barbarity to Soviet is crazy.
Hitler tried to exterminate every last Jewish man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. Stalin was fine with allowing those Jews who completely gave up their religion and fell down to worship him the right to live. Big improvement.
PS your example of the Soviet Union helping early Israel is laughable--Stalin liked ben Gurion because he was a fellow Marxist, and he thought he would make Israel into a hardcore Stalinist state.
Yes, I agree with that - Stalin recognized his mistake and became virulently antizionist after he failed to control Israel.
-
I had a whole beautiful taunt thread for Efrat that Baltimore unfortunately removed. PM him sometime if you want to know what was in it.
No, I mean I did ask G-d in my prayer today for this. Literally. First time in my life. Any by G-d, I really want this so much. I begged for it! I hope G-d will answer my prayer!
-
Poland did use some cavalry in 1939.
-
Paying a higher price in loss of life to wear down and enemy doesn't make anyone a main player it makes them stupid and backwards. :read: Try it sometime
so you're saying the soviets just had huge hordes that commonly practiced human wave attacks or something?
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Yes, and you probably believe that Poles attacked German tanks by cavalry charges! ;D Buy yourself a book, ignoramus
They did.....You should take your own advice
:laugh: :::D Get a book without pictures!
Thats your problem you need some pictures.
-
Yes, and you probably believe that Poles attacked German tanks by cavalry charges! ;D Buy yourself a book, ignoramus
They did.....You should take your own advice
when exactly?
I was referring to infamous Pomorska Brigade myth fabricated by nazi journalists and made further popular by Guderian where they insinuated that Slaves, Poles in this incident, were so backward that Polish Lancers attacked German tanks with their sabers.
Here what actually happened:
http://www.polamjournal.com/Library/APHistory/Cavalry_Myth/cavalry_myth.html
-
Stop creating tangents Manch. Nobody is talking about the Poles. We asked you why you so gullibly accept pro-Soviet figures sources. I am going to consult some books and get back to you, but I know that the Soviet/German air loss ratio for all of 1943 was around 9 or 10 to 1. Only in 1945 did the Soviets take more German fighters than vice versa. I had the book in mind but have forgotten it for now. I will post the source as soon as I look it back up again.
-
Stop creating tangents Manch. Nobody is talking about the Poles. We asked you why you so gullibly accept pro-Soviet figures sources. I am going to consult some books and get back to you, but I know that the Soviet/German air loss ratio for all of 1943 was around 9 or 10 to 1. Only in 1945 did the Soviets take more German fighters than vice versa. I had the book in mind but have forgotten it for now. I will post the source as soon as I look it back up again.
No tangent - I just showed that you and cjd learned hitory from youtube comments or from urban tales or from amateurish biased "historians". Ok, I think you numbers are ridiculous, please find some sources. One of the best books that I've read on the subject, albeit a bit biased towards Germans was:
Walter Schwabedissen, "The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of German Commanders", 1960. Walter was a prominent Luftwaffer general.
Also, check out:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=4LrKkp7ynFcC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=german+general+stalin%27s+hawks&source=bl&ots=xrCXwjUBL7&sig=aO-17v1eqMoIH1dBKacLw4S0x7s&hl=en&ei=Xj-TSo2hCI3gsQOZ3bjmDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
&
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html
-
Stop creating tangents Manch. Nobody is talking about the Poles. We asked you why you so gullibly accept pro-Soviet figures sources. I am going to consult some books and get back to you, but I know that the Soviet/German air loss ratio for all of 1943 was around 9 or 10 to 1. Only in 1945 did the Soviets take more German fighters than vice versa. I had the book in mind but have forgotten it for now. I will post the source as soon as I look it back up again.
No tangent - I just showed that you and cjd learned hitory from youtube comments or from urban tales or from amateurish biased "historians". Ok, I think you numbers are ridiculous, please find some sources. One of the best books that I've read on the subject, albeit a bit biased towards Germans was:
Walter Schwabedissen, "The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of German Commanders", 1960. Walter was a prominent Luftwaffer general.
Also, check out:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=4LrKkp7ynFcC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=german+general+stalin%27s+hawks&source=bl&ots=xrCXwjUBL7&sig=aO-17v1eqMoIH1dBKacLw4S0x7s&hl=en&ei=Xj-TSo2hCI3gsQOZ3bjmDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
&
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html
I learned history from You Tube? I don't watch YouTube unless its something thats posted here on the forum sonny boy. I am 51 years old and as I said I don't go for the revisionist crap they feed you little kiddies. You want to bow at he feet of Russians and read the crap they wrote about WW2 be my guest. I read rather read accounts written by the Americans and the English. I grew up around people who fought in the American parts of WW2. I have no use for Russia or its made up history accounts. Soviets needed to thank G-d for and should have built monuments for F.D.R because if they were left on their own Hitler would have slaughtered 2/3 of the countries population. Your nasty remarks throughout the thread makes me feel like I am dealing with a 12 year old and not a very intelligent one at that.
-
While I don't agree with many of cjd's views, I understand him very well. He is an American patriot and he doesn't like when the traditional understanding of his country's contribution to WW2 is challenged. If I were American, I would react in the same way. After all, that's an American forum.
Manch, leave the task of proving that the Soviets won the war to the powerful Russian propaganda machine. Why should we do their job? Would Russians care about Israeli Defence Forces as you care about the Red Army?
-
While I don't agree with many of cjd's views, I understand him very well. He is an American patriot and he doesn't like when the traditional understanding of his country's contribution to WW2 is challenged. If I were American, I would react in the same way. After all, that's an American forum.
Manch, leave the task of proving that the Soviets won the war to the powerful Russian propaganda machine. Why should we do their job? Would Russians care about Israeli Defence Forces as you care about the Red Army?
Thank you Spectator. While its true we did not agree on many things I did enjoy reading and responding to your posts. They contained none of the childish side remarks that were present in Manch's posts.
-
cjd, try also to understand Manch. His support of the Soviet version has nothing to do with love of Russia or communism. His grandfathers were Soviet soldiers during the WW2 who fought Nazi beasts on the Eastern front. Soviet victory was also their and, consequently, his victory. Therefore, he takes all attacks on Soviet version personally. One of my grandfathers also fought in the Red Army against the Nazis and finished the war in Berlin. I am very proud of that.
No matter what quality of command and equipment Soviet soldiers had, their personal contribution to the victory and self-sacrifice are enormus.
-
Another thing is that Russia is trying to use the victory as an excuse to impose its will on the neighboring countries and justify its global imperial ambitions. According to this logic, anyone who opposes Russia's official stance is considered "history revisionist" and Nazi supporter. We shouldn't confuse the heroism of the peoples of USSR (mostly Russians) during the WW2 with Russian geo-politics.
-
cjd, try also to understand Manch. His support of the Soviet version has nothing to do with love of Russia or communism. His grandfathers were Soviet soldiers during the WW2 who fought Nazi beasts on the Eastern front. Soviet victory was also their and, consequently, his victory. Therefore, he takes all attacks on Soviet version personally. One of my grandfathers also fought in the Red Army against the Nazis and finished the war in Berlin. I am very proud of that.
No matter what quality of command and equipment Soviet soldiers had, their personal contribution to the victory and self-sacrifice are enormus.
I really never discredited the contribution that Soviet Russia made to the war they fought a hard won battles. My problem in the original thread and then in this one was the fact that America was made to seem like a side player. This was simply not the case. Manch needs to remember that Russia was fighting for the home turf and if the sacrifice was bigger in blood it needed to be. Lets not forget that America also had to split its resources between the Atlantic and Pacific war something Russia did not have to do. I always thought it was great that the three main players in the game were able to put their differences aside for a while to prosecute the war. I always felt each country did what it was able to to bring the war to a successful close. My hat is off to both your grandfathers they deserve all the respect in the world. I went over to my parents house while we were going through the debate last night and my father who was in Patton's army was quite amused over the tread. He spent some time telling me some interesting accounts about the German and Russian troops and how they fought the war.
-
I really never discredited the contribution that Soviet Russia made to the war they fought a hard won battles. My problem in the original thread and then in this one was the fact that America was made to seem like a side player. This was simply not the case. Manch needs to remember that Russia was fighting for the home turf and if the sacrifice was bigger in blood it needed to be. Lets not forget that America also had to split its resources between the Atlantic and Pacific war something Russia did not have to do. I always thought it was great that the three main players in the game were able to put their differences aside for a while to prosecute the war. I always felt each country did what it was able to to bring the war to a successful close. My hat is off to both your grandfathers they deserve all the respect in the world. I went over to my parents house while we were going through the debate last night and my father who was in Patton's army was quite amused over the tread. He spent some time telling me some interesting accounts about the German and Russian troops and how they fought the war.
Yes it was great that the three sides put the differences aside to fight the Nazi plague.
All respect to you father! What did he tell you about Russians and Germans?
-
I really never discredited the contribution that Soviet Russia made to the war they fought a hard won battles. My problem in the original thread and then in this one was the fact that America was made to seem like a side player. This was simply not the case. Manch needs to remember that Russia was fighting for the home turf and if the sacrifice was bigger in blood it needed to be. Lets not forget that America also had to split its resources between the Atlantic and Pacific war something Russia did not have to do. I always thought it was great that the three main players in the game were able to put their differences aside for a while to prosecute the war. I always felt each country did what it was able to to bring the war to a successful close. My hat is off to both your grandfathers they deserve all the respect in the world. I went over to my parents house while we were going through the debate last night and my father who was in Patton's army was quite amused over the tread. He spent some time telling me some interesting accounts about the German and Russian troops and how they fought the war.
Yes it was great that the three sides put the differences aside to fight the Nazi plague.
All respect to you father! What did he tell you about Russians and Germans?
Well he told me a story about how the Germans did use horses to move their artillery around and how the would hear them doing it at night. He said that one night they were on patrol they actually captured about 10 pieces of equipment. He said that one of the guys they were on patrol with who was Jewish jumped out and startled the Germans. He was able to speak German and convinced them that they were surrounded. They took the Germans prisoner but when they got back to camp with them the officers did not know what to do with them and were slightly pissed. He told me another story about a Russian woman who was a sniper near the end of the war she spent time in the American camp. She would talk about the Germans killing Russians and how she would go out and try to pick off an equal amount of Germans. My father said he asked her how she hoped to win the war like that and he said she told him Russia had plenty of people. My father is having some problems with his eye sight right now but I am sure he would have had more to say if he was able to read the thread yesterday.
-
I saw some here quoting the Soviet estimated losses on the war, excluding civilians of course, is 6.6 million. It is an under estimate by at least 2 million.
Also, the significant of the western fronts, beside the actual number of German casualties and troops occupied with that front, was logistically and operatively immense.
The Naval blockade on Germany forced created critical shortages in many types of resources and commodities and almost shut completely their international trade. It is true that thanks to the so called neutral countries Sweden and Switzerland The Germans could keep trading with the outside world but only to a very limited and crippling level. Moreover, the sea war took immense resources and casualties from Germany. On the other hand, the soviet could get supply for free, including the shipping.
The air campaign severely crippled the German industrial production and transportation. They managed to increase production despite that, but it was still a huge handicap. Without it they could produce and ship to the front allot more supplies and allot faster.
There were Immense logistical losses to the Germans in the African front. Most of the equipment the Germans sent was sunk on the way. And the battle of Britain also took a huge price for the Luftwaffe.
If the Germans had to fight a single front war with no blockade, my opinion is they would have subdue Russia by 1942 at the latest.
-
Jaanai, that is the best example of Muslim cowardice there is. May the West, and Israel, soon awake and throw out EVERY Muhammadan savage from dar al harb.
-
While I don't agree with many of cjd's views, I understand him very well. He is an American patriot and he doesn't like when the traditional understanding of his country's contribution to WW2 is challenged. If I were American, I would react in the same way. After all, that's an American forum.
Manch, leave the task of proving that the Soviets won the war to the powerful Russian propaganda machine. Why should we do their job? Would Russians care about Israeli Defence Forces as you care about the Red Army?
That's a good point Spectator. On the Russian sides there are plenty of imbeciles and ignoramuses who, like cjd, completely deny any contributions by Allies and argue that Soviet Union won the war alone. Yes, most Russians, not all, think that IDF never won a war - it was arabs who lost it. I am not defending Russia, trust me, but it is utterly moronic to make ignorant statements that cjd made.
-
cjd, try also to understand Manch. His support of the Soviet version has nothing to do with love of Russia or communism. His grandfathers were Soviet soldiers during the WW2 who fought Nazi beasts on the Eastern front. Soviet victory was also their and, consequently, his victory. Therefore, he takes all attacks on Soviet version personally. One of my grandfathers also fought in the Red Army against the Nazis and finished the war in Berlin. I am very proud of that.
No matter what quality of command and equipment Soviet soldiers had, their personal contribution to the victory and self-sacrifice are enormus.
There is a difference between Soviet Jewish freedom fighters and the bulk of the Red Army. One could even argue that the Soviet army won in large part due to the efforts of Jewish soldiers. By and large the Russian military was not good in WWII until the Nazi war machine had already been worn down by years of fighting. This is indisputable.
-
The soviets fought an obsolete war they fought on horse back at some points against a modern German army. The Russians made up the defecency in human numbers.
Please prove it.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/cavalry/index.html
I am on a HP mini at the moment thats the best I can do until I am at home.
Great, you never bothered even to read the link you provided?! How does it make you intelligent and honest debater!
This whole article defends the merits of limited use of horse on the Eastern front. In particular, in 1942, when most of the soviet armor was destroyed, Soviet commanders relied on cavalry corps as the only available mobile reserve. That makes them backward?! Perhaps you should read all the the books that you have and get some German, Russian and English ones. At the very least, read the article you provided!
CONCLUSION
The U.S.S.R., with vast distances and few roads, and with severe climatic conditions during much of the year, has used horse cavalry to great advantage during World War II.
By the results achieved, the Soviets have justified the use of cavalry, not as a substitute for armor and mechanized forces, but as an independent arm and as a supplement to armor and mechanized might in operations over severe terrain.
Russian cavalry has great power in supporting weapons. The organization is so designed as to provide a small and mobile striking force with adequate support of artillery, mortars, and automatic weapons. Cavalry and tanks have been combined into a smooth working and effective organization.
BTW, each cavalry corp, at later stages of the war, had two tank and tank destroyer regiments and the most famous Soviet Cavalry Corp commander was Lev Dovator, yes you guessed it - a Jewish general, a hero of the Soviet Union (highest award in USSR), KIA in 1941 while counter attacking Germans, after 150 km raid into Germans rear.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/c/c8/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87.jpg)
-
There is a difference between Soviet Jewish freedom fighters and the bulk of the Red Army. One could even argue that the Soviet army won in large part due to the efforts of Jewish soldiers. By and large the Russian military was not good in WWII until the Nazi war machine had already been worn down by years of fighting. This is indisputable.
My friend, what you wrote here is very, very disputable.
-
While I don't agree with many of cjd's views, I understand him very well. He is an American patriot and he doesn't like when the traditional understanding of his country's contribution to WW2 is challenged. If I were American, I would react in the same way. After all, that's an American forum.
Manch, leave the task of proving that the Soviets won the war to the powerful Russian propaganda machine. Why should we do their job? Would Russians care about Israeli Defence Forces as you care about the Red Army?
That's a good point Spectator. On the Russian sides there are plenty of imbeciles and ignoramuses who, like cjd, completely deny any contributions by Allies and argue that Soviet Union won the war alone. Yes, most Russians, not all, think that IDF never won a war - it was arabs who lost it. I am not defending Russia, trust me, but it is utterly moronic to make ignorant statements that cjd made.
I have seen some story twisters in my day but you Manch take the prize. You should go into politics. You would fit in well with all the low life double talking scum like yourself. Have a great night my friend.
-
I have seen some story twisters in my day but you Manch take the prize. You should go into politics. You would fit in well with all the low life double talking scum like yourself. Have a great night my friend.
Instead of proving you point and providing sources for your statement you just proved how stupid and ignorant you are. Don't get too emotional - get yourself some reading glasses and take some reading and comprehension courses at the nearest city college.
-
There is a difference between Soviet Jewish freedom fighters and the bulk of the Red Army. One could even argue that the Soviet army won in large part due to the efforts of Jewish soldiers. By and large the Russian military was not good in WWII until the Nazi war machine had already been worn down by years of fighting. This is indisputable.
that's so absurd it's laughable
-
Yes t_h_j, those fine Soviet fighters that died at like a 9:1 ratio to Nazis in '41-42.
-
Yes t_h_j, those fine Soviet fighters that died at like a 9:1 ratio to Nazis in '41-42.
The tragedy of 1941 and 1942 is the reason to celebrate and to sneer?! Let's have a laugh then at over 3 mil Red Army soldiers captured and tortured by nazis in 1941! ::) Do you have similar datafor hapless British and French troops of 1940s or Poles of 1939? Any combat statistics there?
Bones, you have not provided one source for any of the asinine statements you've made in this thread. You should have checked the references I provided or provide your sources before making new uninformed statements.