Well, of course but T-34/76 saw more action.Longbow wrote:
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-34-85sergeriver wrote:
What's your point? I'm saying the T-34 was the best WWII tank.Longbow wrote:
WWII didn't end in 1941 , yeah ?
Actually the Americans, British and Russians won the war, because each did their part, the French didn't .
Last edited by |=-sL-=|.Cujucuyo. (2006-12-05 09:35:09)
Wrong . BT appeared in 1930 , when Soviet goverment bought excellent offencive light tank from US tank engineer John Walter Christie , whyle US goverment didn't accepted his tanks . I'd say even more , T-34 is heavyly modernized BT-7 . Key idea about mobile tank was introduced by Mr.Christie ( before him tactics said that tanks may be slow and must follow infantry to give it support , not work in huge tank squadrons\batallions\regiments etc. ) , not by USSR engeneers , they only taken it and did T-34 that also showed to the whole world what should MBT be .JaggedPanther wrote:
There is a bit of 'Sherman' suspension in the Soviet 'BT' series of tanks but not the T34/85.
ISU-152 wasnt a tank , it was self-propelled artillery , 'tank hunter' , if you want , same as M-10 Wolverine or M-18 Hellcat ( or StuG \ Jagpanter \ Jagtiger and so on ) . So it is not count if we are speaking about 'tanks' .For the russian side, I would go with a ISU-152, without using armor peircing shells, it's explosive shells had enough kinetic energy to knock out a tiger's mechanics\engine at 14,000 meters, but very low reload rate. The tiger crews survived, but they usually had to burn the immobilized tiger\panther\self propelled guns so they wouldnt fall into the soviets hands.
Yes , I'd say M-26 was one the best WWII heavy tanks ... but it appeared too late to show up how US tanks can kick out german tanks .For the US side I would go with the pershing,
I'd also count chaffee M-24 - imo the best of the best light tanks ever .
Facts please . Espessially about Pz VIE\ Pz VIB 'Tiger II' vs IS-2 . I'd say you're wrong . King Tiger & IS-2 had same armor , same mobility ( but IS was lighter , more then 20 tonns ) but the guns ... 88mm vs 122mmThe Tiger kicked the crap out of heavy Soviet tanks in every category except price.
yea , I may count that soviet scopes wasnt the best . Btw , Tiger II was exellent target for all kinds of weapons . It was too big & heavy even for its fire power & armor . Ppl , King Tiger wasnt that good as you all think ... it had more disadvantages ( expencive , heavy , slow , big , unreliable ) then advantages ( heavy armor , but not so heavy as should be for 68t of weight ; same gun as normal Pz VI 'Tiger' ) .
Too bad I wasn't around when the discussion started, but I read that article a couple of months ago and I agreed with the general point of it: The allies won the WWII, but USSR deserves most credit for the defeat of the fascists.
This is a fact and I wouldn't like the other allies to forget or deny it.
In terms of economics though, the country that "won" WWII was of course the United States. They did not have to rebuild their towns and cities, agriculture and industry so they were very far ahead.
This is a fact and I wouldn't like the other allies to forget or deny it.
In terms of economics though, the country that "won" WWII was of course the United States. They did not have to rebuild their towns and cities, agriculture and industry so they were very far ahead.
so what did the red army do against the Iralin fascists?Wasder wrote:
Too bad I wasn't around when the discussion started, but I read that article a couple of months ago and I agreed with the general point of it: The allies won the WWII, but USSR deserves most credit for the defeat of the fascists.
This is a fact and I wouldn't like the other allies to forget or deny it.
In terms of economics though, the country that "won" WWII was of course the United States. They did not have to rebuild their towns and cities, agriculture and industry so they were very far ahead.
No. The US rebuilt damn near EVERYONE else's towns and cities.Wasder wrote:
Too bad I wasn't around when the discussion started, but I read that article a couple of months ago and I agreed with the general point of it: The allies won the WWII, but USSR deserves most credit for the defeat of the fascists.
This is a fact and I wouldn't like the other allies to forget or deny it.
In terms of economics though, the country that "won" WWII was of course the United States. They did not have to rebuild their towns and cities, agriculture and industry so they were very far ahead.
The soviets do not deserve any more or less credit in fact no separate recognition for efforts. They made it possible for Hitler to go on the offensive in the first place with the non-aggression pact. HUGE DEBIT THERE M8, self inflicted wounds don't earn purple hearts. Had the US not joined in, UK would be only defensive on their home soil/North Africa and Germany would have all of its forces East with conquered minions added to stop the Soviet war machine on the western Ukaine/Polish Steppes. I am not convinced the Germans could defeat USSR in Russia but USSR v Axis leaves Stalin high and dry.
The Soviets were enabled by the Alliance, therefore cannot take lion's share of the credit but simple equal part. Sorry thats the way war math works. A gun without a bullet is a club or spear if you have a bayonet or a pole to tie your white flag on. USSR without UK/US active support = clubs and spears.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-05 20:38:00)
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrongLongbow wrote:
Wrong . BT appeared in 1930 , when Soviet goverment bought excellent offencive light tank from US tank engineer John Walter Christie , whyle US goverment didn't accepted his tanks . I'd say even more , T-34 is heavyly modernized BT-7 . Key idea about mobile tank was introduced by Mr.Christie ( before him tactics said that tanks may be slow and must follow infantry to give it support , not work in huge tank squadrons\batallions\regiments etc. ) , not by USSR engeneers , they only taken it and did T-34 that also showed to the whole world what should MBT be . .JaggedPanther wrote:
There is a bit of 'Sherman' suspension in the Soviet 'BT' series of tanks but not the T34/85.
The Christie suspension was only used for the BT, And the only way the T-34 is close to at BT is the first model (T34\A) is the suspension system, (later models dropped that suspension model). But you are right that even the US army didn't want that suspension.
Last edited by JaggedPanther (2006-12-06 03:19:00)
1. I wonder what killed more Germans on the Esatern Front, Soviet soldiers, or Soviet weather?Spearhead wrote:
I agree with what he says (but of course he knows much more about it than all of us). I think Americans and British like to give themselves more credit for winning the war then we really deserve.
2. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired in battle with the Germans if:
A. Germany had all its forces and resources and concentration on the Eastern front.
B. Germany didn't have to contend with the afore mentioned weather.
3. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired if therse troops were not able to mass along 1 front but rather spread all over the world and diluted.
4. I wonder why that author doesn't acknowledge that WW2 was fought all over the world, and that beating Germany in Europe is NOT winning WW2.
It seems that we all agree that the battle for Europe was a COMBINED victory, even if I did bow to the majority of that victory going to the Soviets. ( WHich I am not). The remaining theaters were MOSTLY and in some cases ALL US efforts. Since WW2 was not confined to to the Eastern Front in Europe, but all over the world, there is no way you can give MOST of the credit for "winning the war" to the Soviets.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-06 03:55:21)
Well seeing as they were fighting 90% of the German army I think an extra 10% would have made very little difference.lowing wrote:
2. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired in battle with the Germans if:
A. Germany had all its forces and resources and concentration on the Eastern front.
Please include the LACK of resources that were kept out of the war by British and American bombing efforts, also the soldiers and resources that were kept OFF the Easter Front to gaurd against an allied invasion of France. Please don't try and tell me that these facts were insignifcant.Vilham wrote:
Well seeing as they were fighting 90% of the German army I think an extra 10% would have made very little difference.lowing wrote:
2. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired in battle with the Germans if:
A. Germany had all its forces and resources and concentration on the Eastern front.
Also, I wrote a lot in that post, by your lack of rebuttal to the bulk of it, I assume you agree with it.
You won war on Pacific ocean , hands down .lowing wrote:
It seems that we all agree that the battle for Europe was a COMBINED victory, even if I did bow to the majority of that victory going to the Soviets. ( WHich I am not). The remaining theaters were MOSTLY and in some cases ALL US efforts. Since WW2 was not confined to to the Eastern Front in Europe, but all over the world, there is no way you can give MOST of the credit for "winning the war" to the Soviets.
Yea , but you , Americans , always forget or don't want to count 1 million army of Japan soldiers in Manchuria defeated by USSR in summer 1945' .
p/s tell me please [ other then Pacific ] theaters where US actually fought against germans\japs themself .
1-I wonder which is worst, Stalin or cold?lowing wrote:
1. I wonder what killed more Germans on the Esatern Front, Soviet soldiers, or Soviet weather?Spearhead wrote:
I agree with what he says (but of course he knows much more about it than all of us). I think Americans and British like to give themselves more credit for winning the war then we really deserve.
2. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired in battle with the Germans if:
A. Germany had all its forces and resources and concentration on the Eastern front.
B. Germany didn't have to contend with the afore mentioned weather.
3. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired if therse troops were not able to mass along 1 front but rather spread all over the world and diluted.
4. I wonder why that author doesn't acknowledge that WW2 was fought all over the world, and that beating Germany in Europe is NOT winning WW2.
It seems that we all agree that the battle for Europe was a COMBINED victory, even if I did bow to the majority of that victory going to the Soviets. ( WHich I am not). The remaining theaters were MOSTLY and in some cases ALL US efforts. Since WW2 was not confined to to the Eastern Front in Europe, but all over the world, there is no way you can give MOST of the credit for "winning the war" to the Soviets.
2-I wonder how the Brits and US would have done in battle with Germany if:
A-Germany had all its forces and resources concentrated on the Western front.
3-The Red Army was 4 times bigger than the US army, they should have done well.
4-It's a known fact that the Germans defeat in Russia, was the major turning point in WWII, as opposite with the common belief that the D-Day was that turning point.
It's true, WWII was not confined to Eastern front, but 90% of Hitler forces were there.
You mean other that the Pacific theater which ONLY includes HALF THE WORLD!!??Longbow wrote:
You won war on Pacific ocean , hands down .lowing wrote:
It seems that we all agree that the battle for Europe was a COMBINED victory, even if I did bow to the majority of that victory going to the Soviets. ( WHich I am not). The remaining theaters were MOSTLY and in some cases ALL US efforts. Since WW2 was not confined to to the Eastern Front in Europe, but all over the world, there is no way you can give MOST of the credit for "winning the war" to the Soviets.
Yea , but you , Americans , always forget or don't want to count 1 million army of Japan soldiers in Manchuria defeated by USSR in summer 1945' .
p/s tell me please [ other then Pacific ] theaters where US actually fought against germans\japs themself .
The Soviet invasion of MAnchuria began on August 8th, in between the first bomb dropped on Japan on August 6th, and the second bomb dropped on August 9th. Japan surrenders on August 12th. Gimme a fuckin' break.
We are not talking about winning theaters, the author says the winning of the WAR is mostly due to the Soviets. NOT the winning of European Theater. But again please address my points on how the Soviets would have done without the rest of the allied efforts over Berlin and the Western Front.
Again, we are not talking about THEATERS OF WAR, we are talking about the WHOLE DAMN THING, as per your little article.sergeriver wrote:
1-I wonder which is worst, Stalin or cold?lowing wrote:
1. I wonder what killed more Germans on the Esatern Front, Soviet soldiers, or Soviet weather?Spearhead wrote:
I agree with what he says (but of course he knows much more about it than all of us). I think Americans and British like to give themselves more credit for winning the war then we really deserve.
2. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired in battle with the Germans if:
A. Germany had all its forces and resources and concentration on the Eastern front.
B. Germany didn't have to contend with the afore mentioned weather.
3. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired if therse troops were not able to mass along 1 front but rather spread all over the world and diluted.
4. I wonder why that author doesn't acknowledge that WW2 was fought all over the world, and that beating Germany in Europe is NOT winning WW2.
It seems that we all agree that the battle for Europe was a COMBINED victory, even if I did bow to the majority of that victory going to the Soviets. ( WHich I am not). The remaining theaters were MOSTLY and in some cases ALL US efforts. Since WW2 was not confined to to the Eastern Front in Europe, but all over the world, there is no way you can give MOST of the credit for "winning the war" to the Soviets.
2-I wonder how the Brits and US would have done in battle with Germany if:
A-Germany had all its forces and resources concentrated on the Western front.
3-The Red Army was 4 times bigger than the US army, they should have done well.
4-It's a known fact that the Germans defeat in Russia, was the major turning point in WWII, as opposite with the common belief that the D-Day was that turning point.
It's true, WWII was not confined to Eastern front, but 90% of Hitler forces were there.
1. I asked the question you tell me.
2. just fine, since all of their resources were bombed out it was only a matter of time.
3. I doubt the Soviets would have won if the US continued the war to including defeating the Soviets at that time.
4.Might have been a turning point in the European Theater, WW2 was a pretty big war
1-Stalin was worse than any cold weather.lowing wrote:
Again, we are not talking about THEATERS OF WAR, we are talking about the WHOLE DAMN THING, as per your little article.sergeriver wrote:
1-I wonder which is worst, Stalin or cold?lowing wrote:
1. I wonder what killed more Germans on the Esatern Front, Soviet soldiers, or Soviet weather?
2. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired in battle with the Germans if:
A. Germany had all its forces and resources and concentration on the Eastern front.
B. Germany didn't have to contend with the afore mentioned weather.
3. I wonder how the Soviets would have faired if therse troops were not able to mass along 1 front but rather spread all over the world and diluted.
4. I wonder why that author doesn't acknowledge that WW2 was fought all over the world, and that beating Germany in Europe is NOT winning WW2.
It seems that we all agree that the battle for Europe was a COMBINED victory, even if I did bow to the majority of that victory going to the Soviets. ( WHich I am not). The remaining theaters were MOSTLY and in some cases ALL US efforts. Since WW2 was not confined to to the Eastern Front in Europe, but all over the world, there is no way you can give MOST of the credit for "winning the war" to the Soviets.
2-I wonder how the Brits and US would have done in battle with Germany if:
A-Germany had all its forces and resources concentrated on the Western front.
3-The Red Army was 4 times bigger than the US army, they should have done well.
4-It's a known fact that the Germans defeat in Russia, was the major turning point in WWII, as opposite with the common belief that the D-Day was that turning point.
It's true, WWII was not confined to Eastern front, but 90% of Hitler forces were there.
1. I asked the question you tell me.
2. just fine, since all of their resources were bombed out it was only a matter of time.
3. I doubt the Soviets would have won if the US continued the war to including defeating the Soviets at that time.
4.Might have been a turning point in the European Theater, WW2 was a pretty big war
2-You are making assumptions, since you can't know because all of the war would have been different. Nazis outnumbered US troops 3:1 and you still think you would have defeated them alone in their own continent?
3-So, you think you would have won against Hitler and Stalin?
4-Indeed.
As far as I remember there were 3 war theaters : Pacific , European ( which can be devided into Eastern , Western & Mediteranian theaters ) & African . If you want I may loose my own time to find out the direct numbers of troops from each sides in both 3 theaters and compare them .lowing wrote:
You mean other that the Pacific theater which ONLY includes HALF THE WORLD!!??
I'd say US wins Pacific theater themself , without any help from other Allies .
African theater were won by US & UK
But European were won mostly by USSR , because even without drop in Italy in 1943' & Normandia in 1944' USSR should have won . It was only a question of time . Drop in Normandia was necessary in 1942' , when our army was suffering from german offence on the whole front .
Wikipedia says Japan surrenders on the 2nd of September , 1945'lowing wrote:
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria began on August 8th, in between the first bomb dropped on Japan on August 6th, and the second bomb dropped on August 9th. Japan surrenders on August 12th. Gimme a fuckin' break..
I get your point of view . I'd say the WWII were win by Allies , but the major contribution in this war did USSR . The turning point of the war was in Europe , in Stalingrad ( winter 1943' ) and Kursk ( summer 1943' )lowing wrote:
We are not talking about winning theaters, the author says the winning of the WAR is mostly due to the Soviets. NOT the winning of European Theater.
More time & victims in army / civilians . The only threat USSR couldn't defeat was Japan Navy .But again please address my points on how the Soviets would have done without the rest of the allied efforts over Berlin and the Western Front.
Just as the Soviets could not likely defeat Germany on their own territory alone so the US could not have won the Pacific (at least as handily) without UK and Chinese efforts depleting Japan and causing them to disburse forces over a very broad theater.
Zoom out.
You can't usually get a math problem right by ignoring half the formula and leaving out steps. I read Davies' article and based on the article alone Davies' doesn't prove his point very well by ignoring so much. However, the article posesses a logical fallacy that may not be present in the book.
African Theater was won by US/UK BECAUSE of the reinforcements slated to the Afrika Korps in Summer '43 were redirected to the Eastern Front lol - Had Rommel gotten those reinforcements as promised he would have taken the 2nd battle of El Alamein (which he only narrowly lost) and on to the oil fields, instead of 2 Pz Divisions (MKIV) and a Pz Grn Division he got a Light Infantry Div. In turn siezing the oil fields would have given Germany the oil they needed to open a fully resourced second front in USSR.... man you just can't leave anything out, it all balances.
One last idea. It isn't how many pawns you lose or take but whether you achieve checkmate.
Zoom out and look again.
Zoom out.
You can't usually get a math problem right by ignoring half the formula and leaving out steps. I read Davies' article and based on the article alone Davies' doesn't prove his point very well by ignoring so much. However, the article posesses a logical fallacy that may not be present in the book.
African Theater was won by US/UK BECAUSE of the reinforcements slated to the Afrika Korps in Summer '43 were redirected to the Eastern Front lol - Had Rommel gotten those reinforcements as promised he would have taken the 2nd battle of El Alamein (which he only narrowly lost) and on to the oil fields, instead of 2 Pz Divisions (MKIV) and a Pz Grn Division he got a Light Infantry Div. In turn siezing the oil fields would have given Germany the oil they needed to open a fully resourced second front in USSR.... man you just can't leave anything out, it all balances.
One last idea. It isn't how many pawns you lose or take but whether you achieve checkmate.
Zoom out and look again.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-06 11:50:57)
US = Nope They just put an end to it with Hyroshima.
UK = Yes, Many died for the cause + Lots of civi's.
Russia = No but thank their cold winter.
Russia was just as bad as Germany due to the fact Stalin had 6 MILLION of his own people killed.
UK = Yes, Many died for the cause + Lots of civi's.
Russia = No but thank their cold winter.
Russia was just as bad as Germany due to the fact Stalin had 6 MILLION of his own people killed.
Winter in Russia isn't 365x24 . It is not antarctic or arctic country . White bears don't walk the streets ... fuck , what bullshit are you all told in your schools ?Knightnifer wrote:
Russia = No but thank their cold winter.
You think a few months of cold weather can crash the power of 2-3 million soldiers ?
well...yes.Longbow wrote:
Winter in Russia isn't 365x24 . It is not antarctic or arctic country . White bears don't walk the streets ... fuck , what bullshit are you all told in your schools ?Knightnifer wrote:
Russia = No but thank their cold winter.
You think a few months of cold weather can crash the power of 2-3 million soldiers ?
The question isn't if but how MANY armies has the Russian Winter attritted, slowed or detered? Also the hard winter that year lead to a wet early spring further slowing Axis advance. To a couple of my Russian and Ukrainian friends understanding the "Russian Winter" is a matter of historical pride. The Russians don't own winter but they pwn with it as an ally.
Weather is a force unto itself like terrain, troop quality, leadership quality, timing....
Winter was a factor , but not the main reason why germany got pwned in Russia .OpsChief wrote:
well...yes.
The question isn't if but how MANY armies has the Russian Winter attritted, slowed or detered? Also the hard winter that year lead to a wet early spring further slowing Axis advance. To a couple of my Russian and Ukrainian friends understanding the "Russian Winter" is a matter of historical pride. The Russians don't own winter but they pwn with it as an ally.
Weather is a force unto itself like terrain, troop quality, leadership quality, timing....
I can't argue that as a "main" reason, however it is a significant reason/Future armies considering an attack into Russia would be well advised not to ignore the time of yearLongbow wrote:
Winter was a factor , but not the main reason why germany got pwned in Russia .OpsChief wrote:
well...yes.
The question isn't if but how MANY armies has the Russian Winter attritted, slowed or detered? Also the hard winter that year lead to a wet early spring further slowing Axis advance. To a couple of my Russian and Ukrainian friends understanding the "Russian Winter" is a matter of historical pride. The Russians don't own winter but they pwn with it as an ally.
Weather is a force unto itself like terrain, troop quality, leadership quality, timing....
...if you take the first winter and the German armor's trouble with cross-country mobility and given the speed with which they previously flanked, cut off and destroyed everyone before the Soviets, the Russian Winter turned the German Blitzkrieg into a series of relatively slow moving roadbound frontal assaults using higher rates of ammunition, and casualties, than usual. And they burned oil at a double rate to keep engines and crews in working order. The first panthers sucked mud into the bogies and threw tracks left and right until modifications were applied. We could go on and on about the trouble it caused.
I can say one thing I learned after reading many a time the Collier's Pictoral History of WWII. That picture of the frozen German soldier in Russia gave me strong motivation to keep moving at times when the cold could have driven me into hiding in a sleeping bag or hypothermia, or worse. Sitting in the driver's seat of a tank in January at midnight with rain turning to ice....no man we haven't even begun to talk morale affects of cold weather.
I question whether the Allies would have defeated the Axis without the efforts of the USSR, which would have been an incredibly difficult if not near impossible task. However, on the other side, I doubt that the USSR needed the Allies to win the war. While the efforts of the Allies did create a favourable situation for the Soviets, the likely situation would have been that the USSR would have won eventually. The situation in the Pacific, with the Japanese unwilling to invade Siberia, allowed Stalin to completely focus his attention on the Eastern Front (Stalin's West, I suppose).
The efforts and sacrifice of the Soviet Union cannot be compared to that of the Allies, any of them. This does not mean that the war was won alone by the USSR, but that its involvement was instrumental.
Of course, the weather played a factor, but it was not why the Axis lost. The German High Command knew about the weather. They knew it would be detrimental, but it wasn't why they lost. Even Soviet soldiers fighting in the Winter War suffered from its effects as they attempted to invade Finland (A personal hobby, because of my Finnish heritage). It was the industry, the manpower, the resources, the tactics, and yes, the aid of the Allies that resulted in a Soviet victory.
The efforts and sacrifice of the Soviet Union cannot be compared to that of the Allies, any of them. This does not mean that the war was won alone by the USSR, but that its involvement was instrumental.
Of course, the weather played a factor, but it was not why the Axis lost. The German High Command knew about the weather. They knew it would be detrimental, but it wasn't why they lost. Even Soviet soldiers fighting in the Winter War suffered from its effects as they attempted to invade Finland (A personal hobby, because of my Finnish heritage). It was the industry, the manpower, the resources, the tactics, and yes, the aid of the Allies that resulted in a Soviet victory.
DrakefDrakef wrote:
I question whether the Allies would have defeated the Axis without the efforts of the USSR, which would have been an incredibly difficult if not near impossible task. However, on the other side, I doubt that the USSR needed the Allies to win the war. While the efforts of the Allies did create a favourable situation for the Soviets, the likely situation would have been that the USSR would have won eventually. The situation in the Pacific, with the Japanese unwilling to invade Siberia, allowed Stalin to completely focus his attention on the Eastern Front (Stalin's West, I suppose).
The efforts and sacrifice of the Soviet Union cannot be compared to that of the Allies, any of them. This does not mean that the war was won alone by the USSR, but that its involvement was instrumental.
Of course, the weather played a factor, but it was not why the Axis lost. The German High Command knew about the weather. They knew it would be detrimental, but it wasn't why they lost. Even Soviet soldiers fighting in the Winter War suffered from its effects as they attempted to invade Finland (A personal hobby, because of my Finnish heritage). It was the industry, the manpower, the resources, the tactics, and yes, the aid of the Allies that resulted in a Soviet victory.
I read about Soviet "Snow Jumpers" invading Finland somewhere (maybe I remember it partly wrong it was a very long time ago) lol man...jump out of an airplane with no parachute into huge snowbanks to pad the fall!!! That's hard to the core.
But there was no Soviet, or US, or UK victory sorry to say. It was an Allied Victory until the politicians and revisionists got hold of it.
1. The weather was a MAJOR factor in the stopping of the momentum that Germany had built up in its battles with Russia.sergeriver wrote:
1-Stalin was worse than any cold weather.lowing wrote:
Again, we are not talking about THEATERS OF WAR, we are talking about the WHOLE DAMN THING, as per your little article.sergeriver wrote:
1-I wonder which is worst, Stalin or cold?
2-I wonder how the Brits and US would have done in battle with Germany if:
A-Germany had all its forces and resources concentrated on the Western front.
3-The Red Army was 4 times bigger than the US army, they should have done well.
4-It's a known fact that the Germans defeat in Russia, was the major turning point in WWII, as opposite with the common belief that the D-Day was that turning point.
It's true, WWII was not confined to Eastern front, but 90% of Hitler forces were there.
1. I asked the question you tell me.
2. just fine, since all of their resources were bombed out it was only a matter of time.
3. I doubt the Soviets would have won if the US continued the war to including defeating the Soviets at that time.
4.Might have been a turning point in the European Theater, WW2 was a pretty big war
2-You are making assumptions, since you can't know because all of the war would have been different. Nazis outnumbered US troops 3:1 and you still think you would have defeated them alone in their own continent?
3-So, you think you would have won against Hitler and Stalin?
4-Indeed.
2. NOT an assumption........Germanies resources WERE bombed out day and night by allied bombing, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME. When Germany lost air superiority, their war was lost.
3. Yup I do, Germany was beaten, and Russia about out of EVERYTHING.
4. SO to say Russia really WON the war is pretty damn inaccurate, since it was fought all over the world and Russia only fought on the one front.