Patton's take on WWII

[JakeStarkey]

lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?

That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer, c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
a, or b or c or ?.

whatever.
this question was not for you.

Answered and sustained, nevertheless.

 

[elvis]

Back to the claim of the OP

I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.

But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.

What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first? We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.

But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?

We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later

Did he really die in an accident?

 

[JakeStarkey]

uh huh..... what a crock.


American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing Germany to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..

Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.

By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand

killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.

You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.

I will make the point again, and provide an example.

Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.

When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....

Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.

Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell, only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .

Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions that wound up being sent to West and to Italy in 43 never would have went as well.

on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....

Strawman arguments and immaterial. For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire. The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43. But it didn't, and that's the point. We have to deal with what happened.

Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.

And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."

 

[rightwinger]

Back to the claim of the OP

I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.

But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.

What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first? We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.

But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?

We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later

Did he really die in an accident?

Yes. It was not much of an accident but he hit his head and died a few days later

 

[elvis]

Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.

By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand

killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.

You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.

I will make the point again, and provide an example.

Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.

When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....

Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.

Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell, only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .

Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions that wound up being sent to West and to Italy in 43 never would have went as well.

on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....

Strawman arguments and immaterial. For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire. The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43. But it didn't, and that's the point. We have to deal with what happened.

Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.

And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."

you don't think without our help Germany would have succeeded in starving Britain, or knocking her out of the war?

 

[westwall]

1. In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2. If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.

I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.


In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....


In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.

uhm by the end of may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.

Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched. Really hard.

The Soviet counterpunch would have been obliterated by our air force. They wouldn't have been able to move anything without our allowing it. That is a simple fact. They would have certainly controlled their immediate area until they ran out of fod and munitions and then had to slink back to their border. Patton would have actually done quite well. He fought like Manstein did and Manstein was able to halt Soviet attacks even though he was outnumbered by 20 to 30 to one at times. Patton would have had the advantage of absolute command of teh skies and a good supply system the Germans could only dream of.

I do agree though that it would have been terribly bloody but you guys give almost no credit to the American war machine. By the end of the war the Russians were tired. Hell they were exausted. Our command of the air would have been the defining issue.

 

[westwall]

You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.

They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights

lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?

That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer, c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?


a, or b or c or ?.

YES TO "a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"

YES TO b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,

YES TO c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?

Not borne out by fact. If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust. They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition. That is simply madness. Even with that they almost won it on the bounce. Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expenditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.

 

[westwall]

Back to the claim of the OP

I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.

But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.

What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first? We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.

But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?

We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later

No, he was very serious about it. Ike and Bradley had to reign him in because of Monty. Patton made one mistake during the war and that was to send a Combat Command out to relieve a Pow camp under Captain Baum. Other than that Patton captured and killed more Germans and more importantly suffered fewer casualties than any General officer in the allied force.

Now the last question would we have been better? I think not. I think far more people would have died had he gone ahead and attacked than were lost throughout the entire Cold War. So it is good he didn't attack.

 

[Trajan]

Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched. Really hard.

please explain my fallacies.

and think on that manpower blurb.....

No manpower "blurb" existed in fact. Go back and study the relative strengths of the various coalition members in May 1945.

You are still missing it.

"the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one...." Patton then would have had the same problem going east if it were a problem as the Russkies would going west.

if the goal was throwing the Russian out of germany, no he would not have had that issue at all....he would have been using the European gauge.

"the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies": think it through ~ no strategic air capability was necessary (90% of the production was done in the U.S.: the Soviets couldn't have reached the U.S. even if they had B-29 bombers and imagine the logistical problems for the U.S.)

there fore the Russians could not hurt us a wit while we could further a strategic air force means destroying rolling stock and rail centers, urban areas , logistics would have been a chaotic event vis a vis the Russians supplying themselves into any part of Germany hence Europe. The western allied tactical air forces would have had a field day. read a few after actions reports on german formations moving toward Normandy.

"Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken" ummm. . . more than a 100000 dead Japanese, more than a 100000 dead Okinawan citizens, and more than a 100000 American casualties. No reason existed to think it was going to be anything but harder.

what does that have to do with my point?

No one here is more patriotic than I, having served faithfully and honorably.

The debate here is not about patriotism but rather about realistic expectations.

I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany, what does the above have to do with that?

 

[westwall]

Back to the claim of the OP

I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.

But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.

What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first? We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.

But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?

We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later

Did he really die in an accident?

He was involved in a minor automobile accident. The only thing I can think of is he suffered the same kind of injury as Dale Earnhardt did. The injury was out of proportion to the damage done to his vehicle and he was the only one injured. That is why there are quite a few people who think he was assassinated.

 

[elvis]

Back to the claim of the OP

I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.

But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.

What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first? We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.

But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?

We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later

Did he really die in an accident?

He was involved in a minor automobile accident. The only thing I can think of is he suffered the same kind of injury as Dale Earnhardt did. The injury was out of proportion to the damage done to his vehicle and he was the only one injured. That is why there are quite a few people who think he was assassinated.

It's the only conspiracy theory I'm interested in. But I'm not that interested, as I haven't researched it.

 

[rightwinger]

lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?

That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer, c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?


a, or b or c or ?.

YES TO "a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"

YES TO b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,

YES TO c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?

Not borne out by fact. If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust. They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition. That is simply madness. Even with that they almost won it on the bounce. Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expinditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.

We will never know, will we?

When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.

By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth

 

[westwall]

YES TO "a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"

YES TO b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,

YES TO c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?

Not borne out by fact. If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust. They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition. That is simply madness. Even with that they almost won it on the bounce. Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expinditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.

We will never know, will we?

When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.

By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth

By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, Typhoon and Stalingrad. England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there. And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different. We mobilised the entire Soviet Army. The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end. The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft. We gave them millions of small arms. We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions. Without that they would not have prevailed.

 

[rightwinger]

One thing we do know..

If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.

We would have saved England and thats about it

 

[Trajan]

Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.

By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand

killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.

You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.

I will make the point again, and provide an example.

Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.

When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....

Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.

Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell, only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .

Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions that wound up being sent to West and to Italy in 43 never would have went as well.

on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....

Strawman arguments and immaterial. For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire. The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43. But it didn't, and that's the point.


We have to deal with what happened.

No thats not the point, do you remember your own claim?

I was explaining events that took place at the same time, why your belief is false, I used real examples, you now want to say nothing matters, and strawman? I addressed your argument, but you really don't have a refutation other than to say hey no fair we are not allowed to consider why the Russians would not have taken Stalingrad if the Americans had not invaded and taken Africa or invaded italy and tied down German forces and resources. whatever.....

Within the context of what happened:

translation; I will ignore historical fact, and will ignore any points that I find contrary and declare myself right. wonderful, another waste of time.

the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help

hey you cannot proved that. you have not made one argument that makes that even tempting to consider.

eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.

means squat and I explained why, another waste of time.

And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."

supposition sans deatil, thanx for the 'explanation'.

 

[rightwinger]

Not borne out by fact. If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust. They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition. That is simply madness. Even with that they almost won it on the bounce. Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expinditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.

We will never know, will we?

When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.

By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth

By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, Typhoon and Stalingrad. England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there. And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different. We mobilised the entire Soviet Army. The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end. The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft. We gave them millions of small arms. We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions. Without that they would not have prevailed.

Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing. Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.

 

[Trajan]

We will never know, will we?

When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.

By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth

By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, Typhoon and Stalingrad. England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there. And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different. We mobilised the entire Soviet Army. The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end. The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft. We gave them millions of small arms. We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions. Without that they would not have prevailed.

Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing. Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.

Links please.

 

[westwall]

One thing we do know..

If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.

We would have saved England and thats about it

Actually Stalin was getting ready to invade Europe. It would have happened in either 1942 or most likely early 1943. Stalin feared Hitler and hated Europe. He wanted to destroy it.

 

[westwall]

By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, Typhoon and Stalingrad. England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there. And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different. We mobilised the entire Soviet Army. The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end. The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft. We gave them millions of small arms. We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions. Without that they would not have prevailed.

Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing. Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.

Links please.

No, he's accurate here. The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans. Their tanks were better. A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955. The Germans however, used them far better. The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters. The Germans however once again used them better. The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.

They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale. In tank production alone it is almost a joke. The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war. The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone. Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.

 

[Trajan]

Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing. Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.

Links please.

No, he's accurate here. The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans. Their tanks were better. A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955. The Germans however, used them far better. The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters. The Germans however once again used them better. The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.

They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale. In tank production alone it is almost a joke. The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war. The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone. Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.

he is? the quote was-

But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role

where is this version?