The truth about D-day. It was BS. Russia had already annihilated germany

[Picaro]

All true. However, it's a curious quirk that both Hitler and Stalin were paranoid psychopaths. Yet, Russia managed it's resources to produce relatively low tech T-34s and single engine attack/fighter aircraft, while Germany fritted away it's industrial advantage.

I wonder why the difference.

Access to resources, and having Allies with the means to ship you high quality machine tools and all kinds of other goodies while concentrating your production on other things is the difference. After the end of 1942 and early 1943, around May, the Germans had lost, and many of them knew it. The rest of the war Germany was on the defensive and the Allies were basically just mopping up. Losing many men in pointless offensives like Stalingrad and Kursk means you have to start stripping your country of men needed to operate factories, etc.

The soviets even managed to grow their economy at a higher gdp than did the US in the early post-war. We dismissed this as they were very good at producing steel and concrete and building dams, but when it came to innovation, we were better. I'm not sure that's an adequate explanation.

That was impressive, but again it wasn't possible for them to do that entirely on their own, and the quality of their production wasn't very high. If it weren't for Allied aid, they would still been at the Vistula in 1945, and nowhere near Germany, even with the German defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk. They could never have launched offensives, much less large ones.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Opinion based on What?

You have not offered a shread of evidence to support any of your preposterous claims.

I could just as easily claim the Soviets had Ray Gun technology found on an Alien Spacecraft that had crashed in Siberia.

He´s right. The Korea War showed that the Soviet tanks were superior to the American tanks. Not to mention the German tanks. In Addition to that the Soviets did not only have medium tanks but many heavy tanks: The KV and JS series.

Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

The faults of the Sherman were [...] balanced by the sheer number that could be manufactured and the speed of this production. Regardless of the reasons for the Sherman’s problems, individuals of the Third Armored division dealt with them in their daily lives. The Sherman M4 medium tank proved to be both a “death trap” for American soldiers and a poor defense against German tanks. However, its use by almost all of the Allied Forces was crucial to their ultimate success in WWII.

A Poor Defense: Sherman tanks in WW2 | University of Illinois Archives

I see you continue to ignore the M-26......

T-34-85 Vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950 - Steven J. Zaloga - Google Books

Quit dodging, Westwall. The Soviet line of armor was better than the West and in much greater numbers.

M-26 Pershing: In combat it was, unlike the M4 Sherman, fairly equal in firepower and protection to both the Tiger I and Panther tanks, but was underpowered and mechanically unreliable. This became even more evident in the Korean War, where the M26, while an overmatch for the T-34-85, had severe problems with the hilly terrain and was withdrawn in 1951 M26 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Opinion based on What?

You have not offered a shread of evidence to support any of your preposterous claims.

I could just as easily claim the Soviets had Ray Gun technology found on an Alien Spacecraft that had crashed in Siberia.

He´s right. The Korea War showed that the Soviet tanks were superior to the American tanks. Not to mention the German tanks. In Addition to that the Soviets did not only have medium tanks but many heavy tanks: The KV and JS series.

Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

The faults of the Sherman were [...] balanced by the sheer number that could be manufactured and the speed of this production. Regardless of the reasons for the Sherman’s problems, individuals of the Third Armored division dealt with them in their daily lives. The Sherman M4 medium tank proved to be both a “death trap” for American soldiers and a poor defense against German tanks. However, its use by almost all of the Allied Forces was crucial to their ultimate success in WWII.

A Poor Defense: Sherman tanks in WW2 | University of Illinois Archives

^^^^

Your quote does not address the issue, as it does not mention Russian Tanks.

But thanks for trying to bail Jake out of his quagmire of ludicrous unsubstantiated opinions

Samson, you are blathering right along with Westwall.

Amusing.

 

[Picaro]

The T-34 started out as a pos, then evolved into barely adequate, then to okay, then after field testing by U.S. and Brit engineers who then sent along their criticisms and suggested improvements became a very good tank in early 1944.

 

[westwall]

He´s right. The Korea War showed that the Soviet tanks were superior to the American tanks. Not to mention the German tanks. In Addition to that the Soviets did not only have medium tanks but many heavy tanks: The KV and JS series.

I see you continue to ignore the M-26......

T-34-85 Vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950 - Steven J. Zaloga - Google Books

Quit dodging, Westwall. The Soviet line of armor was better than the West and in much greater numbers.

M-26 Pershing: In combat it was, unlike the M4 Sherman, fairly equal in firepower and protection to both the Tiger I and Panther tanks, but was underpowered and mechanically unreliable. This became even more evident in the Korean War, where the M26, while an overmatch for the T-34-85, had severe problems with the hilly terrain and was withdrawn in 1951 M26 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Better yes, but not in greater numbers. And once again, the German armor was significantly better than ours and that didn't help them too much did it. A Hawker Typhoon, launching a 60lb RP up their ass, tended to turn them inside out.

Guess what...that works on Soviet tanks too.

 

[westwall]

The T-34 started out as a pos, then evolved into barely adequate, then to okay, then after field testing by U.S. and Brit engineers who then sent along their criticisms and suggested improvements became a very good tank in early 1944.

The T-34 was NEVER a POS. The T-34/76 (which was a match for even the later marks of Panzer IV) was the best tank in the world when it made its debut. A single one of them halted Army Group Center for nearly 8 hours in the battles before Smolensk.

 

[westwall]

He´s right. The Korea War showed that the Soviet tanks were superior to the American tanks. Not to mention the German tanks. In Addition to that the Soviets did not only have medium tanks but many heavy tanks: The KV and JS series.

^^^^

Your quote does not address the issue, as it does not mention Russian Tanks.

But thanks for trying to bail Jake out of his quagmire of ludicrous unsubstantiated opinions

Samson, you are blathering right along with Westwall.

Amusing.

Once again you insult instead of presenting facts. Why is that Jake?
Remember the old adage, "best keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt."

Time to keep quiet Jake old boy....time to keep quiet...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I will send you and Frank a good reading list on the Eastern Front and on Patton's Folly.

You simply do not understand the subject.

who wrote "Patton's Folly" Paul Krugman?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again you insult instead of presenting facts. Why is that Jake? Remember the old adage, "best keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt." Time to keep quiet Jake old boy....time to keep quiet...

You kept giving unsubstantiated opinions and you want me to disprove them?

That is not how it works.

The Russians would have beaten the Germans, if they did not get the atom bomb, without American help.

Stalin wanted a Western Front in Europe to (1) ease the casualties on the Eastern front, (2) pressure the Germans from the West, and (3) keep the Allies out of Eastern Europe.

The Soviets took casualties that would have brought any western country to its knees. World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia estimates that 1 of 4 Soviets died with a higher ratio of wounded and disposed.

Stalin and his countrymen never would have surrendered.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day, but many people think it was of no consequence.

The Lies Grow More Audacious -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

June 6, 2014

The howlers issuing from these occasions are enough to split your sides. Obama and his lap dog Cameron described the Normandy landing on June 6, 1944, as “the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known” and took all the credit for the US and Britain for the defeat of Hitler. No mention was made of the Soviet Union and the Red Army, which for three years prior to the Normandy landing had been fighting and defeating the Wehrmacht.

The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943, when most of the remnants of the powerful German Sixth Army surrendered, including 22 generals.

Nineteen months previously the largest invasion force ever assembled on planet earth invaded Russia across a one thousand mile front. Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months.

By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up. When the so-called “allies” (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them. The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.

The Red Army won the war with Germany. The Americans and the British showed up after the Wehrmacht was exhausted and in tatters and could offer little resistance. Joseph Stalin believed that Washington and London stayed out of the war until the last minute and left Russia with the burden of defeating Germany.

Hollywood and popular writers have, of course, buried the facts. Americans have all sorts of movies, such as “A Bridge Too Far,” that portray insignificant events, however heroic, as turning points in the war. Nevertheless, the facts are clear. The war was won on the Eastern front by Russia. Hollywood’s movies are fun, but they are nonsense.

Da Comrade, GLORIOUS Soviet Union won war single handedly - running dog capitalist pigs did nothing..


ROFL

What a fucking moron you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We talk about fools, and the Chief Fool appears.

No one suggests that the USSR won the war single handedly: only a fool would suggest that someone said that.

What was said was that the USSR, if the Germans did not develop the atom bomb, would have eventually won the war.

 

[westwall]

Once again you insult instead of presenting facts. Why is that Jake? Remember the old adage, "best keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt." Time to keep quiet Jake old boy....time to keep quiet...

You kept giving unsubstantiated opinions and you want me to disprove them?

That is not how it works.

The Russians would have beaten the Germans, if they did not get the atom bomb, without American help.

Stalin wanted a Western Front in Europe to (1) ease the casualties on the Eastern front, (2) pressure the Germans from the West, and (3) keep the Allies out of Eastern Europe.

The Soviets took casualties that would have brought any western country to its knees. World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia estimates that 1 of 4 Soviets died with a higher ratio of wounded and disposed.

Stalin and his countrymen never would have surrendered.

The Soviets would have at best fought the Germans to a standstill without US help. Please explain to the class the importance to the Soviet armies of the 600,000 trucks we gave them.

Explain further to the class how you can win a war when your side is losing 6 for every one of the enemy? This just deals with tanks (which you seem to be so in love with) but the infantry losses were even worse. Like I said, dying for your country is all hunky dory, but you better have enough troops left over to continue fighting.

The winter coupled with German arrogance as regards the amount of supply they would need, saved the Soviet Union. Of that there is no doubt. "General Winter" was as critical to the German defeat as it was to Napoleons, the century before.


The T-34 in WWII: the Legend vs. the Performance - WAR HISTORY ONLINE

 

[Picaro]

The T-34 was NEVER a POS.

Actually it was, which was why its first incarnations were rejected by the U.S. Army for purchase in the early or mid-1930's.

The T-34/76 (which was a match for even the later marks of Panzer IV) was the best tank in the world when it made its debut. A single one of them halted Army Group Center for nearly 8 hours in the battles before Smolensk.

They got the crap shot out of them for the first few years of the war. It got better as the war went on, but it didn't reach its 'best tank in the world' legend until early 1944, when the new improved models began rolling off the production lines.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The soviets had Germany beat cold, but we shortened the war by a year with our invasion of Europe. The Soviets wanted, and needed our help to take the pressure off them, but the real purpose of the invasion was to keep the Soviets from becoming the masters of Western Europe. Churchill, especially, was thinking about post-war Europe as early as 1942, when he started arguing for an invasion of Southern Europe, to keep the Soviets from the oil fields, the Suez Canal, India, and the Mediterranean, which was, for all practical purposes, a British controlled lake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And once again, the German armor was significantly better than ours and that didn't help them too much did it..

And there were many more Russian aircraft fully capable taking out German armor.

Thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The Soviets would have at best fought the Germans to a standstill without US help."

You are weakening; don't do that.

 

[Vandalshandle]

our tanks were totally obsolete, but we had thousands of them, and the German's could not match our production. We quickly learned not to engage German tanks with our tanks, if possible. Instead, we called up Tank Destroyers to knock them out. They were very good at that.

 

[Picaro]

A bit of history for those who might not know:

Kama tank school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

I do think the Soviet Union could have prevented the German Army from conquering it without any help. Virtually all of Germany's resources were concentrated against it in 1941-2 and the Western Allies had not gotten heavily involved, yet they badly outproduced Germany and blunted their offensive potential. My question is more whether or not there would have been a stalement or a German defeat from 1943 onwards without the Western Allies, particularly in view of the German armaments boom. Axis History Forum ? Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

Interesting.

 

[Picaro]

the Soviet air force relied on Allied shipments of octane booster and av fuel for a majority of its supplies for its high performance aircraft, 59% according to some accounts.

Lend-Lease as a Function of the Soviet War Economy