BF2S Forums English Historian says "Hitler was defeated by the Russians"

Mogura wrote:

55 min ago

HADITHA, Iraq (Reuters) - One Marine was killed and three servicemen were missing after a U.S. transport helicopter with 16 people on board made an emergency landing on water in western
Iraq on Sunday, the U.S. military said on Monday.

It said the Ch-46 twin-rotor Sea Knight, the Marine version of the Chinook, was carrying 16 personnel including the crew when it came down in volatile Anbar province, heartland of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.

However, an Iraqi military intelligence official in Anbar province told Reuters the helicopter crashed early on Monday, an account backed up by residents who said it landed in Lake Qadisiya in Haditha, 250 km (150 miles) northwest of Baghdad.

The official, who asked not to be identified, said the helicopter had been shot down. It was on its way to rescue a group of U.S. soldiers who were attacked as they crossed the Euphrates River in boats, he said.

kthx

Vilham wrote:

Mogura wrote:

55 min ago

HADITHA, Iraq (Reuters) - One Marine was killed and three servicemen were missing after a U.S. transport helicopter with 16 people on board made an emergency landing on water in western
Iraq on Sunday, the U.S. military said on Monday.

It said the Ch-46 twin-rotor Sea Knight, the Marine version of the Chinook, was carrying 16 personnel including the crew when it came down in volatile Anbar province, heartland of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.

However, an Iraqi military intelligence official in Anbar province told Reuters the helicopter crashed early on Monday, an account backed up by residents who said it landed in Lake Qadisiya in Haditha, 250 km (150 miles) northwest of Baghdad.

The official, who asked not to be identified, said the helicopter had been shot down. It was on its way to rescue a group of U.S. soldiers who were attacked as they crossed the Euphrates River in boats, he said.

Just like to say, if your not posting anything relavent to this topic... dont post.

lol, exactly what I was thinking. You know I was trying hard to put it together with the topic but no luck.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

the main reason I hate that statement is that fact that purportes the whole "numbers matter"  thing that ercks me personally.  casualty percentages is a really terrible way to base an argument on overall victory.  i hate hearing death numbers thrown about so matter of factly,  seriously, that 20% to 80% yadda yadda nonsense is silly.   Like I said, only somebody who sees combat by casualty reports like this english scholar has no idea about military operations.

numbers do matter.

the Germans were THE most technologically advanced army in the world for the time. this is partly the reason they lost. towards the end of the war, German tanks had a 10:1 ratio (They lost one tank for every ten American/Russian tank destroyed) but their tank numbers in comparison were too small.

Panzer > Sherman

Tiger I/II > T-34

when it comes to the kind war they were waging, numbers are everything.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Hitler defeated himself.

/win

i shouldn't... but

you say numbers matter then you continue to tell me about the QUALITY of german tank crews.  thanks for backing up my argument of quality over quantity.

Are you incapable of understanding both matter???

Well it's 12 pages of post so I don't know if they got said, but in my watching the Hitler Channel(for those of you not in the U.S. it's the History Channel but all they play is WW2 stuff) is that the Russians actually won the war due to mother nature. The winters were horrible in Russia and contributed to much of the German looses of troops.

Longbow wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Well it's 12 pages of post so I don't know if they got said, but in my watching the Hitler Channel(for those of you not in the U.S. it's the History Channel but all they play is WW2 stuff) is that the Russians actually won the war due to mother nature. The winters were horrible in Russia and contributed to much of the German looses of troops.

Vermacht have had only two winters in Russia - 1941\1942 & 1942\1943 . In the period of 1943\1944 & 1944\1945 winters german army was already pushed back to eastern europe .

p/s : one big reason why Hitler lost the war against Russia was his tank armyes were out of oil , thats the right answer .

Ahhh Yeah I do remember that as well, but if I remember correctly some of the snowfall really slowed down the supplies lines and that the russian's where railing as well.

Man I love the Hitler channel

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Hitler defeated himself.

/win

Bertster7 wrote:

Yup. With operation Barbarossa.

he may or may not have been referring to the fact that Hitler killed himself. either way, it works.

Bertster7 wrote:

He left himself totally exposed fighting an extremely powerful enemy who outnumbered the Germans massively across a huge front, leaving the whole of Europe vulnerable to invasion. Which is what happened.

True there, but...
|
v

Bertster7 wrote:

The Russians had the best tanks,

nope.

Yes, they did.

The T-34 was the best tank around in WWII. Certainly better than anything the Germans had. Stalin also had many, many more of them than Hitler did.

Longbow wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

Tiger I/II > T-34

omfg ... Tiger - heavy tank . Why are you comparing Tiger to T-34 ? It would be fair to compare T-34 and all of it modifcations and Pz IV and all of it modifications , including Pz IV H .

Tiger , the best of all Tiger mods :

Pz VIB Tiger-II, january 1944
weight - 68t
gun - 88mm KwK 43
armor front/tower/side - 150/200/80
engine - Maybach HL 230 700 h.f.
speed road/field - 35-38/17 km/ph
range,full oil tanks  - 120-170 km - road , 80 km - field

T-34 , the best of all T-34 mods during WWII period :

T-34-85 , march 1944
weight - 32t
gun - ZiS-53S 85mm
armor - 60/90/45
engine - V2 diesel , 500 h.f.
speed  - 55/38 km/ph
range,full oil tanks  - 495\300 km

fuck , just look at this two models' weight ! 68t vs 32t ! T-34 was MEDIUM TANK , with medium tank targets(goals) . If you want to compare Pz VIB Tiger-II and soviet tanks , take our IS-1 , IS-2 or KV-1 . But of course , you have no time to notice that USSR had not only one type of tanks .

p/s

IS-2

ИС-2, october 1943
weight - 46t
gun - 122mm D25T
armor - 120/160/90 mm
engine - V-IS , diesel , 520 h.f.
speed - 37/19 km/h
range - 240/150 km

Yeah the German Tiger is comparable to the Russian ISU-152 or the SU-85. The T-34 is a multi-purpose light-meidum tank with the capability to housing larger and larger guns throughout the war, hence 57,000 of them by the end of '45

add to this Tiger was gasoline and soviet armor was diesel, this also made an impact in daily operations during the winter,  Tiger and Panthers learned from soviet tanks and incorporated wide tracks during the summer months as well,

sergeriver wrote:

During the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, it was discovered that the Soviet T-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could defeat most German weapons, and its 76.2 mm gun could penetrate the armour of all German tanks.

WWII didn't end in 1941 , yeah ?

Longbow wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

During the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, it was discovered that the Soviet T-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could defeat most German weapons, and its 76.2 mm gun could penetrate the armour of all German tanks.

WWII didn't end in 1941 , yeah ?

What's your point?  I'm saying the T-34 was the best WWII tank.

Vilham wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

sergeriver that passage does not explain how the lend lease program allowed the soviets to take on German armor/air until they had their own production going, also with aid from allies.

Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plane does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails....  this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?

The author's passage you quoted ignores that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it."  lol

Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job.

However other than the plane example you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that without one of the smaller contributers we would have still likely won the war, without Russia we would have been fucked.

PS why is it always Americas who argue otherwise? Do you realy hate Russia without any due cause that much?

My point is that combined ALLIED power (of all kinds) beat the Germans, not Soviet or any ONE else had the win. The "One Plane" I refer too in my example is a US B17, Crew:17 payload etc etc. I am not arguing for the USA, UK nor USSR but for the Allies. imho to discuss merits at a level under the Alliance is hypothetical wheel-spinning. To understand the results of a magnificant and sometimes clumsy combination of attrition, economics, logistics, will power and balls of the people who stood against Hitler is the value of this thread.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-04 22:20:56)

Longbow wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Longbow wrote:

WWII didn't end in 1941 , yeah ?

What's your point?  I'm saying the T-34 was the best WWII tank.

T-34\1941 wasnt the best , it was superior to germany early tanks , but I think that true 'best WWII tank' that most of authors mean is T-34-85

You can find many "the best tank" articles and documentaries. What nobody can do is say "the best" without qualifying what the criteria is.

If you take  1 v 1 tank to tank as the only criteria you miss the point of massed combined arms forces which is how battles are fought. This is like saying that "bunny hopping" is the best team strategy, but hopping is an individual tactic not a strategy! Apples and Oranges.

The next, "the Best", concept must pass the relevance cut. Were there enough of the tanks to be added to the competition? Did they actually have to face each other in combat at all? Same years in production and use? What about the M-26 Pershing?(Deployed after 4/45 I think) Or the King Tiger? Maus? There weren't enough to count? If not then you aren't doing the 1 v 1 comparison. Upgraded models of the T-34 and Shermans were used into the late 1970s/early 1980s, so is longevity a measure? The I-Shermans circa 1970 were far superior to upgraded T34s. If we compare in-class Medium Main Battle Tanks then Tiger v T34 isn't the comparison anyway. The Tiger kicked the crap out of heavy Soviet tanks in every category except price.

I would give that the T-34/85 shared the top spot with 3 tanks of the war depending on your opinion of the most important criteria. The Panther after its teething problems were resolved was better but there weren't enough to round up the massed herds of T34s grazing through Eastern Europe. By then the Panther had a superior fire control system.

Best in Ubiquity/Economy/Effects = Sherman (all variants and recycled)
Best in Quantative Firepower/Defense/Mobility = T34 (all variants)
Best in Technology/Quality = PzKw V, IV
Best in Crew Comfort = lol (you ever climb into a WWII tank?)

History shows it took approximately 10 Shermans to kill 1 Tiger 1 tank. But there were 35 times more Shermans so after all the Tigers run out there are still 30,000 Shermans left to kill something and hungry to do so. I read somewhere, and couldn't find a reference tonight, that the Soviets reprocessed some 5000 lend lease Shermans so I expect there was a little bit of Sherman in those awesome T35/85s.

Now as a tanker, if i had to choose a single tank to go to war in Europe with in 1943/44 or 1v1 against other non-german tanks I think it would be the Tiger Ie (not on the side of the nazis mind you, just the tank). With Winter mobility and speed being the only two areas that lag behind the T34 and there were tactics to reduce those advantages.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

the main reason I hate that statement is that fact that purportes the whole "numbers matter"  thing that ercks me personally.  casualty percentages is a really terrible way to base an argument on overall victory.  i hate hearing death numbers thrown about so matter of factly,  seriously, that 20% to 80% yadda yadda nonsense is silly.   Like I said, only somebody who sees combat by casualty reports like this english scholar has no idea about military operations.

numbers do matter.

the Germans were THE most technologically advanced army in the world for the time. this is partly the reason they lost. towards the end of the war, German tanks had a 10:1 ratio (They lost one tank for every ten American/Russian tank destroyed) but their tank numbers in comparison were too small.

Panzer > Sherman

Tiger I/II > T-34

when it comes to the kind war they were waging, numbers are everything.

you say numbers matter then you continue to tell me about the QUALITY of german tank crews.  thanks for backing up my argument of quality over quantity.

I didn't back it up. The Germans still lost due to the fact that they could not pump out the amount of tanks needed to counter the ever-growing numbers of the American and Russian tanks.

i used the ratio to back up MY facts, not yours.

the Germans were superior in everything EXCEPT numerical supremacy, and they lost.

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you say numbers matter then you continue to tell me about the QUALITY of german tank crews.  thanks for backing up my argument of quality over quantity.

I didn't back it up. The Germans still lost due to the fact that they could not pump out the amount of tanks needed to counter the ever-growing numbers of the American and Russian tanks.

i used the ratio to back up MY facts, not yours.

the Germans were superior in everything EXCEPT numerical supremacy, and they lost.

The German tanks were very high tech at the time, they required a lot of skill and precision to manufacture. The T-34 was designed to be made cheaply, quickly and require a minimum of technical expertise to make, hence the Russians could just draft any random civillians into a factory and get them going, and making new tank production facilities was relatively easy too.

Lots of good tanks then proceded beat fewer very good tanks.

Not true. The T-34 gun could take out all of the German tanks, whereas most other allied tanks apart from the largest of the heavies like A33 couldnt take out the German King Tiger.