Iranian Naval Power-As of 2007 [Archive] - Page 2

Zraver

07-23-2007, 01:50 PM

natiosn like Cuba, Lybia, USSR were all saved from regimes that were brutal that later regimes were not white knights does not detract form what the US did. I included Iraq on the lsit for a reason, or does some actually think Saddam should have been left in power? The liberation was ruined by Bush's incompetance but that doe snot change the fact that Iraq now has a democratically elected goverment that was able to bring Saddam and his cronies to justice.

Without the US in WW2 the Soviet Union would never have been able to liberate all of its territory incluing the majority of its European population centers. Even with American aid by 1945 the USSR was out of men and industrial production was on the verge of total collapse for lack of workers. This was evident a bit earlier and the Soviets adopted newer tactics that relied less on masses of men and more on wieght of firepower. India and Pakistan liberated itself form the British, but that was post WW2. During the war Japan invaded the Indian subcontinet. and if not for American arms would probalby have won.

America has made huge msitakes in dealing with other countries, some were forced upon us by the times (such as propping up KSA to keep the USSR out of the Persian Gulf and away from Europes oil, or the 1953 coup efforts in Iran) and others via arrogance such as the Bay of Pigs but I beleive that no nation is without mistakes.

Stealth3

07-23-2007, 05:17 PM

Oh, and from the wikipedia source, a breakdown of USSR aid from the US:

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

All those contributions were insignificant in terms of WW2. For example, the Soviets lost 1600 tanks in in battle alone. In a few days of war, they lost that much.

American tanks that were supplies (Sherman and cheap Stuart light tanks) were useless on the Russian front. There are reports of the Russians not even using the Sherman because of its tracks not suited for the terrain and because rubber components were in the track.

As for the rest of the stuff, they were good contributions but it didn't change the outcome of the war. Saying that would be joke of the year.
It is true that without that aid, it would have been harder for the Soviets to win, but their victory was still embedded in stone.

If you turn the logic around, you can conclude that the Soviets save the US's *** since 80% of the German army was destroyed on the Eastern Front. Now you see how stupid that logic sounds?

About Japan, their army would have been weak for the Red Army. Japan was suited for island wars, therefore the carriers. Also, Japan dragged the US into the war, so it wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union, but continuing to take parts of China and bomb the crap out of US Pacific bases.
So the US didn't do anybody a favor by fighting Japan, it did itself a favor.

Zraver have you not read anything I wrote? Being ignorant and continuing posting your crap myths shows your maturity or lack of. Show some understanding of history before talking about such issues. It is clear that you know nothing of WW2 history.

Zraver

07-23-2007, 09:49 PM

All those contributions were insignificant in terms of WW2. For example, the Soviets lost 1600 tanks in in battle alone. In a few days of war, they lost that much.

American tanks that were supplies (Sherman and cheap Stuart light tanks) were useless on the Russian front. There are reports of the Russians not even using the Sherman because of its tracks not suited for the terrain and because rubber components were in the track.

As for the rest of the stuff, they were good contributions but it didn't change the outcome of the war. Saying that would be joke of the year.
It is true that without that aid, it would have been harder for the Soviets to win, but their victory was still embedded in stone.

If you turn the logic around, you can conclude that the Soviets save the US's *** since 80% of the German army was destroyed on the Eastern Front. Now you see how stupid that logic sounds?

About Japan, their army would have been weak for the Red Army. Japan was suited for island wars, therefore the carriers. Also, Japan dragged the US into the war, so it wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union, but continuing to take parts of China and bomb the crap out of US Pacific bases.
So the US didn't do anybody a favor by fighting Japan, it did itself a favor.

Zraver have you not read anything I wrote? Being ignorant and continuing posting your crap myths shows your maturity or lack of. Show some understanding of history before talking about such issues. It is clear that you know nothing of WW2 history.

You need to study history, flat out you don't have any idea what your talkign about. I am a double major in history and polisci with a 3.86 GPA who has been studying this stuf since I was a kid. theres not much about WW2 I don't know.

The vesion of the M4 Sherman supplied to Russia was the same as the one used by the USMC with a desiel engine* and did not ronson and its gun was equal to the Russian 76mm and it had equivalent armor and manuverability. The Russians had whole tank armies made up of Shermans. The Staurt/Honey Light tank was the best (small gun) light tank of the war and frontal armor suppior to early German medium tanks (Pz III, PV IVG)

As for the rest of the supplies, the Soviet Union had to strip its feilds of men, with out US food the USSR would have starved. Without trucks to supply the frontline the Germans would have not been over run during Bagration becuase horse drawn carts and panji's could not have kept up. Without the 8th Airforce battling the Luftwaffe to death over Europe the Russians would have faced another million men and thousands more 88mm guns as well as 2 more Luftflottes which would have meant the VVS never would have achieved air domiance after 44. The USSR was never able to provide all the tools her soldiers needed to win. Stalin and Stavka made a conscious choice to rely on imports in critical areas and to focus on guns for doemstic production. Part of this was nessecity, alot of production was lost to the invader in the west. And the Russian miracle in the East was not nealry so complete as people think. Tankograd spent much of the war without roofs over the factories, or proper housing for the workers The shift east also disrupted production and Russia did not achieve a palpable lead in numbers until after the Battle of Kursk.

As for Japan vs the USSR you might want to look up the early history of the most famous Russian of WW2- Zhukov. He first gained noterity in 1938 after the short sharp Glakin Ghol war vs Imperial Japan. His battle hardened far eastern divsions saved Moscow in 41 after Stalin got word from his (German) spies in Tokyo that Japan's goal was the west and not the USSR, allowing Stalin to pull troops west for the counter attack that drove the German Army back.

Could the USSR have won without the west? Doubtful, throughout the war Germany had higher steel production nearly equal AFV production**, upwards of 10 million men in the feild, superior technology and other advantages. The best Stalin could realistically expected was a draw somewhere west of the Urals (which is why he had Molotov in secrets talks in early 43). This would have meant the loss of most of European Russia, Belorus, and the Ukraine the heart, mind, and muslce of the Soviet state.

* Becuase USMC units had to be supplied by naval vessels that used deisel turbines USMC tanks were equipped with deisel engines. This proved benifical to the USSR whose industrilisation in the 30's had emphasized desiel over gasoline. For the US Army, Britian, and Germany with thier backgorund of civil automotion gasoline was the obvious choice beucase of refining capacity.

** While the USSR built more T-34's than any other single AFV in the war. German AFV production of all types vs Soviet production of all types was not nealry so lopsided as comparign Pz IV vs T-34 would suggest. If Germany had not had to fight on so many other fronts the Panzer reserves so carefully horded by Mainstein (the source of the German armored might for the Watch on the Rhine) would have been much larger. While the effecitveness of these reserve reserves is debatable. Soviet losses in the last 4 months of the war very nearly broke the Red Army. One or two more months of fighting like seen around Budapest, Berlin, Seelow etc would probably have seen the Red Army grind to a halt.

Stealth3

07-23-2007, 11:31 PM

You need to study history, flat out you don't have any idea what your talkign about. I am a double major in history and polisci with a 3.86 GPA who has been studying this stuf since I was a kid. theres not much about WW2 I don't know.
You should worry about getting a job. With your understand of history, I feel sorry for whoever hires you. And what is "polisci"?

The vesion of the M4 Sherman supplied to Russia was the same as the one used by the USMC with a desiel engine* and did not ronson and its gun was equal to the Russian 76mm and it had equivalent armor and manuverability. The Russians had whole tank armies made up of Shermans. The Staurt/Honey Light tank was the best (small gun) light tank of the war and frontal armor suppior to early German medium tanks (Pz III, PV IVG)
Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Nice job of posting false crap.
I feel like your worthless to correct because you know nothing on the issue. Every little thing you said was wrong. The armor values are not the same, and the T34 had slope armor which counts a lot. The gun is not the same, do some research.
T-34 - 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 tank gun
Sherman - 75 mm M3 L/40 gun

The speed of the T-34 was about 20 km higher so how dare you even compare them? It had wider tracks for mud and winter terrain. It as about 5 tonnes lighter.
Why do you think they called the Sherman the "lighter"?

The rest of the stuff that you said is also wrong, so do your research. I feel sorry for whoever believes you.

The rest of your article is so flawed, that I will fill up a page correcting you. I won't bother with that. I already proved you wrong on obvious facts, I won't correct you again. Do the research and correct yourself. This is a forum and nobody cares, but in the real world nobody will take your crap.

Edit: Also note that T-34 models from 1943 and up (T34-85) were fitted with a 85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun. You said so many false and inaccurate statements, that I won't bother to take you seriously anymore.

Have a nice day.

Zraver

07-24-2007, 02:28 AM

You should worry about getting a job. With your understand of history, I feel sorry for whoever hires you. And what is "polisci"?

Political Science

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Nice job of posting false crap.
I feel like your worthless to correct because you know nothing on the issue. Every little thing you said was wrong. The armor values are not the same, and the T34 had slope armor which counts a lot. The gun is not the same, do some research.
T-34 - 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 tank gun
Sherman - 75 mm M3 L/40 gun

The speed of the T-34 was about 20 km higher so how dare you even compare them? It had wider tracks for mud and winter terrain. It as about 5 tonnes lighter.

M-4A1
Weight 30.3 tonnes (66,800 lb)
Length 5.84 m (19 ft 2 in)
Width 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in)
Height 2.74 m (9 ft)
Crew 5 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver, co-driver)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor 19 - 91 mm
Primary
armament 75 mm M3 L/40 gun
90 rounds

Secondary
armament 1x .50 cal Browning M2HB machine gun
300 .50 rounds
2×.30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns
4,750 .30-06 rounds

Engine Continental R975 C1 gasoline
400 hp (298 kW) gross @ 2400 rpm
350 hp (253 kW) net @ 2400 rpm
Power/weight 14 hp/tonne
Suspension Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS)
Operational
range 120 miles @ 175 US gal (145 imp. gal) / 80 octane
193 km @ 660 l / 80 octane
Speed 38.5 km/h (24 mi/h) (brief)

Designer T-34 Main Design Bureau
Designed 1937–40
Produced 1940–56
Number built about 84,070
Variants see T-34 variants
Specifications (T-34 Model 1941)
Weight 26.5 tonnes (29.2 short tons)
Length 6.68 m (21.9 ft)
Width 3.00 m (9.8 ft)
Height 2.45 m (8.0 ft)
Crew 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor 52 mm (2.0 in)
Primary
armament 76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 tank gun
Secondary
armament 2×7.62 mm (0.308 in) DT machine guns
Engine 12-cyl. diesel model V-2
500 hp (370 kW)
Power/weight 17.5 hp/tonne
Suspension Christie
Operational
range 400 km (250 mi)
Speed 53 km/h (33 mph)

The two tanks are remarkably similar, both used sloped armor the Sherman having better thickness but being slightly slower,the Sherman also had much better quality steel than war time T-34's that were rather well known for shattering under impact. Several examples or pictures of shattered T-34's still exist. The guns were of roughly the same hittign power both being unable to defeat German Panthers and Tigers from the front.

Why do you think they called the Sherman the "lighter"?

If you had bothered to read my post I adressed that issue. The M4A1 and A3 variants supplied to the US Army and the Shermans provided to the UK used gasoline. Models provided to Russia and the USMC used desiel and did not "ronson" when hit.

The rest of the stuff that you said is also wrong, so do your research. I feel sorry for whoever believes you.

Prove it, except you can't.

The rest of your article is so flawed, that I will fill up a page correcting you. I won't bother with that. I already proved you wrong on obvious facts, I won't correct you again. Do the research and correct yourself. This is a forum and nobody cares, but in the real world nobody will take your crap.

You haven't corrected anybody and everythign I said is correct. If you could refute it you would have instead you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Edit: Also note that T-34 models from 1943 and up (T34-85) were fitted with a 85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun. You said so many false and inaccurate statements, that I won't bother to take you seriously anymore.

Have a nice day.

And your point? Later Shermans had the highly effective 76mm cannon with APBC and the tank was equipped with thicker armor and wet storage for the ammo- M4A3/76W. The best war time Sherman the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" saw service agaisnt T-34/85's in Korea and handily defeated them. Shermans also beat the T-34/85 in the Arab-Israeli wars.

Stealth3

07-24-2007, 12:17 PM

The two tanks are remarkably similar, both used sloped armor the Sherman having better thickness but being slightly slower,the Sherman also had much better quality steel than war time T-34's that were rather well known for shattering under impact. Several examples or pictures of shattered T-34's still exist. The guns were of roughly the same hittign power both being unable to defeat German Panthers and Tigers from the front.

Wrong, the Sherman doesn't use slope armor. Not like the T34, and comparing it with the T34 is idiotic. The Sherman is a piece of crap compare to it. Read some damn historical accounts. The T34 is one of the best tanks of WW2 while the Sherman is one of the lackluster of WW2. And did you not hear that versions 1943 and up were fitted with more armor and an 85 mm gun?

And why the heck did you ignore what I said about speed, track thickness and everything else? Geez you sure know how to debate do you?
If you had bothered to read my post I adressed that issue. The M4A1 and A3 variants supplied to the US Army and the Shermans provided to the UK used gasoline. Models provided to Russia and the USMC used desiel and did not "ronson" when hit.
What are you talking about? It was called a lighter because of its ammo compartment. When hit, the ammo would go in flames. Not because of its engine.

And your point? Later Shermans had the highly effective 76mm cannon with APBC and the tank was equipped with thicker armor and wet storage for the ammo- M4A3/76W. The best war time Sherman the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" saw service agaisnt T-34/85's in Korea and handily defeated them. Shermans also beat the T-34/85 in the Arab-Israeli wars.
My point is none of those Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union. You might as well bring in the Firefly.....

I'm done talking to you, you have no idea how to debate, and its the second time you falsify info. You said they were the same, now their similar, yet in reality theres a huge difference.

Zraver

07-24-2007, 02:22 PM

I didn't falsify anythingWrong,

the Sherman doesn't use slope armor. Not like the T34, and comparing it with the T34 is idiotic

Your completely ignorant you know that right? The Sherman did use sloped armor jsut look at pictures of the two tanks it also did not have the T-34's dangerous shot trap, it also had thicker frontal armor. The ammo fire problems also existed in the T-34 with its thinner armor which is why Russia lost tens of thousands of them, at least in the sherman you had the Wet storage solution. Like I said Soviet models also had deseil engines which also greatly reduced the rsk of fires.

Wet stowage for ammunition was added in an attempt to combat fires. Thirty-eight gallons of water mixed with antifreeze and an anti-corrosion product called "ammudamp" was needed for 100 shells. The suffix 'W' indicated this modification, as in M4A3(75)W.

The T34 is one of the best tanks of WW2 while the Sherman is one of the lackluster of WW2.

The Sherman didn't earn its reputation until after Normandy when the ordance coprs haivng failed to convivne the army to upgrade did not follow its schedule and add the 76mm guns. If you look at the Shermans performance in North Africa and Scicily you see a very different reoutation where the Sherman was the only allied tank capable of taking on the Pz IV on equal terms. Vs the Later Panther and Tiger no medium tank was on even terms until 1945 when the Comet and Centurion were introduced. This also applies to the T-34 whose last two variants the T-34.m43 and T34/85 require dmultiple tanks to take out a single Panther or Tiger exactly as the Sherman.

And did you not hear that versions 1943 and up were fitted with more armor and an 85 mm gun?

And, I already adressed that. The 85mm gun was no more effective vs the Tiger than the upgunned Sherman with the 76mm. The Russians beucase of war time production issues went with bigger HE charges over velocity. The same patter was used with the Animal Killers (SU and ISU 122/152). After the war the Russians excellent gun the D-10 was used but the high tolerances of the gun limite dits useful ness in WW2 to a few JS prototypes and the SU-100.

And why the heck did you ignore what I said about speed, track thickness and everything else? Geez you sure know how to debate do you?

Becuase you dont know what your talking about. Track width and leangth combine with weight determine ground pressure the T-34 had a ground pressure of 9.1 psi the Shermans was 14 (w/o track extensions) this is comapred to a 40 ton T-72 with a ground pressure of 12.8. Simply put the Sherman didn't sink. The T-34's track was 55cm wide (22in) the Sherman's 42.1 cm {16.57in). They may not have been as fast across soupy conditions but they didn't bog down like the very narrow tracked early war designs.

What are you talking about? It was called a lighter because of its ammo compartment. When hit, the ammo would go in flames. Not because of its engine.

Already adressed with the west storage information. However you are giving the impression that the T-34 didn't ignite. Both tanks were dead meat to German high velocity guns and hollow charg epanzerfaust. At least the Sherman was invulnerable to the German pak 38 59mm ATG. The T-34 was vulnrable to this weapon.

My point is none of those Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union. You might as well bring in the Firefly.....

The Soviet Union's nickname for the M4 medium tank was Emcha because the open-topped figure 4 resembled the Cyrillic letter Ч (pronounced "cha").

A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6 percent of all Lend-Lease Shermans.[

Lend-Lease Shipments: World War II," Section IIIB, Published by Office, Chief of Finance, War Department, 31 December, 1946, p. 8.)

Ohh how does it feel to be busted out? Not only did the USSR ge tthe 76mm gun, but a slight majority of all the Shemrans provided had the 76mm as a side note all 76mm equipped tanks had wet storage.

I'm done talking to you, you have no idea how to debate, and its the second time you falsify info. You said they were the same, now their similar, yet in reality theres a huge difference.

Uhmm you lost, you have provide no figures, no sources, and no proof.

have a nice day

Kermanshah1

07-24-2007, 03:35 PM

natiosn like Cuba, Lybia, USSR were all saved from regimes that were brutal that later regimes were not white knights does not detract form what the US did.

The US helped the communists defeat Batista? Come on... You supported him fully nad did all you could to keep the dictator in power but you lost. And you didn't help the Russians against the Tsar either, you even attacked Russia after the revolution trying to topple the new regime.

I included Iraq on the lsit for a reason, or does some actually think Saddam should have been left in power? The liberation was ruined by Bush's incompetance but that doe snot change the fact that Iraq now has a democratically elected goverment that was able to bring Saddam and his cronies to justice.

Life under Saddam was heaven for the Iraqis compare to thier life now. hundreds die daily due to suicide bombings, Saddam might have been bad but long not as bad as it is now, you should have left him in power.

Without the US in WW2 the Soviet Union would never have been able to liberate all of its territory incluing the majority of its European population centers. Even with American aid by 1945 the USSR was out of men and industrial production was on the verge of total collapse for lack of workers. This was evident a bit earlier and the Soviets adopted newer tactics that relied less on masses of men and more on wieght of firepower.

Twisting the story, Americans have always been good in turning things their way. The truth is: America would have lost if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. They where the ones that did the fighting and you are the ones that take credit. Their whole country was destroyed, they lost 20 million people while you lost 200,000 and that's cause they fouhgt 60% of the German army on their own while you fought a small part of it together with all other nations at your side.

India and Pakistan liberated itself form the British, but that was post WW2. During the war Japan invaded the Indian subcontinet. and if not for American arms would probalby have won.

The Japanese never invaded the Indian subcontinent, they attacked but didn't advance much. They had to heavy losses in the battles and couldn't break threw so they called it of.

America has made huge msitakes in dealing with other countries, some were forced upon us by the times (such as propping up KSA to keep the USSR out of the Persian Gulf and away from Europes oil, or the 1953 coup efforts in Iran) and others via arrogance such as the Bay of Pigs but I beleive that no nation is without mistakes.

Yes you took out Irans democratic gouvnerment and replaced it with the Shah's dictatorship and now you have created your biggest enemy. Same kind of thing in Cuba, you force them to have a dictator with is your puppet then the people hate him and kick him out and you attack only you lost that one, hopefully you lose in Iran aswell.

javid khan

07-24-2007, 03:52 PM

The US helped the communists defeat Batista? Come on... You supported him fully nad did all you could to keep the dictator in power but you lost. And you didn't help the Russians against the Tsar either, you even attacked Russia after the revolution trying to topple the new regime.
.

yeah but US has final laugh you lost cold war, your Soviet collapsed into tiny pieces

Life under Saddam was heaven for the Iraqis compare to thier life now. hundreds die daily due to suicide bombings, Saddam might have been bad but long not as bad as it is now, you should have left him in power.
.

I agree, but we all know truth of Soviet Union in Afghanistan which eventully lead to the collapse of the so called once mighty soviet war machine

Twisting the story, Americans have always been good in turning things their way. The truth is: America would have lost if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. They where the ones that did the fighting and you are the ones that take credit. Their whole country was destroyed, they lost 20 million people while you lost 200,000 and that's cause they fouhgt 60% of the German army on their own while you fought a small part of it together with all other nations at your side.
.

US rebuilt whole world after WWII what USSR do apart from bring misery and poverty to Eastern Europe and North Korea and Cuba and any other commie state

The Japanese never invaded the Indian subcontinent, they attacked but didn't advance much. They had to heavy losses in the battles and couldn't break threw so they called it of.
.

thats because US helped China keep the Japs tied down inside China mainland, ever heard of the flying tigers

Yes you took out Irans democratic gouvnerment and replaced it with the Shah's dictatorship and now you have created your biggest enemy. Same kind of thing in Cuba, you force them to have a dictator with is your puppet then the people hate him and kick him out and you attack only you lost that one, hopefully you lose in Iran aswell.

Iran is doing deals with US in baghdad as we speak, US will never attack Iran everyone knows this

Kermanshah1

07-24-2007, 03:58 PM

yeah but US has final laugh you lost cold war, your Soviet collapsed into tiny pieces

I was't discussing who won the cold war but I was arguing with Zravers claims that the US freed Cuba.

I agree, but we all know truth of Soviet Union in Afghanistan which eventully lead to the collapse of the so called once mighty soviet war machine

So what, this isn't about the Soviets, this is about that the US f*cked Iraq up and didn't free it or make it better at all. Saddam killed 200,000 but since the US has "liberated" them and has brought them "democracy" between 60,000 and 900,000 have died.

US rebuilt whole world after WWII what USSR do apart from bring misery and poverty to Eastern Europe and North Korea and Cuba and any other commie state

Again that doesn't take away the fact the US did not free the Soviet Union from the Germans

thats because US helped China keep the Japs tied down inside China mainland, ever heard of the flying tigers

The Chinese did not fight there, neither did the Americans. It where the British and the Indians.

Iran is doing deals with US in baghdad as we speak, US will never attack Iran everyone knows this

Nah, America can never have good relations with Iran. The Zionists woldn't let them.

javid khan

07-24-2007, 04:04 PM

I was't discussing who won the cold war but I was arguing with Zravers claims that the US freed Cuba.
.

you werent but i was because its a fact are you running from facts!

So what, this isn't about the Soviets, this is about that the US f*cked Iraq up and didn't free it or make it better at all. Saddam killed 200,000 but since the US has "liberated" them and has brought them "democracy" between 60,000 and 900,000 have died.
.

like i said i agree but soviet crimes are worse

Again that doesn't take away the fact the US did not free the Soviet Union from the Germans
.

US take on crack Japanese fighter aces and German Nazis 7000km from home what u expect , Soviets like cowards took Sakhalin and Kurils islands from Japan in closing days of war when they realise japs give up

The Chinese did not fight there, neither did the Americans. It where the British and the Indians.
.

wrong chinese 5th and 6th root army stop japs in burma, ever heard of the burma road?

Nah, America can never have good relations with Iran. The Zionists woldn't let them.

Iran is home to largest jewish community outside israel itself and Israel helped Iran during Iran-Iraq war come on now who do you think ur talking with

Zraver

07-24-2007, 05:37 PM

The US helped the communists defeat Batista? Come on...

Spain

You supported him fully nad did all you could to keep the dictator in power but you lost.

Quite a few (hundreds of thousands) prefer life in the US and will risk everything to get here, Fidel has never the suoport of all Cubans.

And you didn't help the Russians against the Tsar either, you even attacked Russia after the revolution trying to topple the new regime.

But we gave Russia mountiasn of arms and supplies to keep the Germans at bay, but Russia still lost. The US also recognized the Govemrent of Alexander Kerensky as the legitimate goverment.

Life under Saddam was heaven for the Iraqis compare to thier life now.hundreds die daily due to suicide bombings, Saddam might have been bad but long not as bad as it is now, you should have left him in power.

Saddam killed upto 1 million Iraqies between his wars and brutality (this does not include sanctions, 300,000 brutality, 375-600,000 Iran-Iraq war, 100,000 Kuwait War). That breaks down to around41,666 a year on the upper end. According to www.iraqbodycount.org wich list victims by incident the death toll is maxxed at less than 74,366 over 4 years thats 18,951 a year or less than half as deadly.

Twisting the story, Americans have always been good in turning things their way. The truth is: America would have lost if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. They where the ones that did the fighting and you are the ones that take credit. Their whole country was destroyed, they lost 20 million people while you lost 200,000 and that's cause they fouhgt 60% of the German army on their own while you fought a small part of it together with all other nations at your side.

There was no way for America to lose WW2 to Germany who lacked the naval power or long range bombers to strike at North America. Germany and the Soviet Union combined did not equal America's production. The US had the A-bomb by 45 and a bomber that could hit Berlin from North America by 1948. The fact remains that without American suplies the USSR would not have been able to feed itself, move supplies etc. Soviet wartime production was geared almost exclsuively towards guns and tanks (which even then never met the need of the forces in the feild) which are only a part of the requirement to fight a mechanized war. Without SPAM , trucks, tanks, planes, and the tousands of implements of war the US shipped over the USSR, the counter attacks after Kursk never would have been possible. Look at a map of Operation Bagration the death knell of the Wermacht, the massive Soviet advance would not have been able to reach so far or so fast without hundreds of thousands of American trucks. If that offensive had to be supported by horse drawn suplies (like the Germans) Army Group Center might have escaped into Poland battered by intact.

The Japanese never invaded the Indian subcontinent, they attacked but didn't advance much. They had to heavy losses in the battles and couldn't break threw so they called it of.

The invasion of India itself failed, it never really got any momentum but it was tried, but it proves the Japanese had eyes on India and without American and Chinese efforts at keeping Japan tied up India would have been easy prey to the Imperial Army. As for the subcontinet, The IJA took all of Burma which sits on the Indian plate http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TectIndiaTibetCollisUSGS.gif

Yes you took out Irans democratic gouvnerment and replaced it with the Shah's dictatorship and now you have created your biggest enemy. Same kind of thing in Cuba, you force them to have a dictator with is your puppet then the people hate him and kick him out and you attack only you lost that one, hopefully you lose in Iran aswell.

I wish Iran would dump A-jad and the clerics and adopt a govemrent that isn't hell bent on war. Iran gets ride of the clerics, Ameirca gets rid of Bush and peace might jsut break out all over the M.E.

Kermanshah1

07-25-2007, 05:20 AM

Spain

If you call colonising freeing then yes.

Saddam killed upto 1 million Iraqies between his wars and brutality (this does not include sanctions, 300,000 brutality, 375-600,000 Iran-Iraq war, 100,000 Kuwait War). That breaks down to around41,666 a year on the upper end. According to www.iraqbodycount.org wich list victims by incident the death toll is maxxed at less than 74,366 over 4 years thats 18,951 a year or less than half as deadly.

He did not kill over a million. People died during his wars but he didn't kill them and even then it would not be a million.
74,366 in 4 years now you must be joking, every day you hear of a new suicide bombing with 100 or more deaths and also people die in the fighting and US bombings. The Iraqis where sertainly better off with Saddam than with this new regime.

There was no way for America to lose WW2 to Germany who lacked the naval power or long range bombers to strike at North America. Germany and the Soviet Union combined did not equal America's production. The US had the A-bomb by 45 and a bomber that could hit Berlin from North America by 1948. The fact remains that without American suplies the USSR would not have been able to feed itself, move supplies etc. Soviet wartime production was geared almost exclsuively towards guns and tanks (which even then never met the need of the forces in the feild) which are only a part of the requirement to fight a mechanized war. Without SPAM , trucks, tanks, planes, and the tousands of implements of war the US shipped over the USSR, the counter attacks after Kursk never would have been possible. Look at a map of Operation Bagration the death knell of the Wermacht, the massive Soviet advance would not have been able to reach so far or so fast without hundreds of thousands of American trucks. If that offensive had to be supported by horse drawn suplies (like the Germans) Army Group Center might have escaped into Poland battered by intact.

Germany might not have been able to invade the US but the US would have sertainly not been able to free Europe and the Germans wwere busy developing nuclear bombs, if it was only the US they were fighting they might have made it in time. Germans where winning in Norht Africa, they started with 300 tanks while thier enemy lost more than that every battle, there is no doubt the Germans were much better than the Brits and Americans. They lost there because they did not have enough of anything and that was because everything they had had been send to fight the Soviets. If all Germans that had been send for the invasion of the Soviet Union had been send to North Africa they would not only be better but they would have more aswell. Then el Alamijn would have fallen and So would Egypt, the Suez canal and Sudan. Then they could help the Itanians take over Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania. There the British did not have enough soldiers, they only won because the Italians wich had numercial advantages and were better equipped fought so badly. Germany could have then invaded Palestine and Trans-Jodrdan via Egypt and Syria, they would be able to use full force and if it wasn't for losing Stalingrad the Spanish would have been allies. They dent men to fight for the Germans only they pulled them back as they didn't want to lose. How could you have invaded Europe if the Germans had their full force stationed there, you only fought 20-30% while the rest was fighting in N-A (not many) and against the Soviets (many).

The invasion of India itself failed, it never really got any momentum but it was tried, but it proves the Japanese had eyes on India and without American and Chinese efforts at keeping Japan tied up India would have been easy prey to the Imperial Army. As for the subcontinet, The IJA took all of Burma which sits on the Indian plate http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TectIndiaTibetCollisUSGS.gif

You helped them? Sure. But you didn't free them as you only supplied them with weapons

I wish Iran would dump A-jad and the clerics and adopt a govemrent that isn't hell bent on war. Iran gets ride of the clerics, Ameirca gets rid of Bush and peace might jsut break out all over the M.E.

Nah that wont happen. Iranians might chose peace with the US over hostilities but only if the US stops trying to take over the Middle East. US is attacking everyone, placing puppet regimes everywhere, interfearing with Irans nuclear program ect. Stop that and your war against muslims and then you'd be able to make peace with Iran. But don't think Iran will kick out their govnerment and you'll have a regime like the Shahs one again, tat wont happen. Iranians hated the Shah, they all wanted to get rid of him (except for some rich ******** that prefered the American culture over the Iranian and wich profited from his regime), we wanted the clerics. everyone hated what had happend to Iran, a muslim nations had now turned into a state of America with your culture wich you think everyone else likes forced up on us. We wanted Iran to be again like it was, muslim and Iranian. That's why Iran chose Khomeini and his regime over that of the Shah. But these clerics are going to far. Sure we don't want all that porno and thikng of the Americans but things like executing a little girl for swimming in her garden... They have gone to far, they torture people and imprison people witch are agains them just like the Shah did. We sont' want criminality like in America but cutting peoples hands off if they steal is not on. The regime has to change but we should not go to far the other way, licking Americas ***, making peace with Israel and that kind of Sh*t.

But even if Iran changes and becomes less extremist and more friendly towards America. Khatami wanted to restore bonds with the US but Bush sais Iran is evil and he will not negotiate with evil. America is to stubborn, they want it all their way. Either Iran stops making it's own weapons, installs a democracy in wich only *** lickers of the US can win, stops it's nuclear program, cuts ties with all "terrorists" and recognises the Zionist state or America doesn't want.

Even if America is willing to sattle for what I said, there is still one big problem: the Zionists. The Zionists have so much power in the US they will not possibly let this happen, Iran has to recognise Israel and stop supporting the freedom fighters. Iran will not do this, Israel will have to be destroyed and the US won't let that happen. Helping the Jews occupying Jerusalem is not the right way to make peace with Iran. Hamas and the other recistance goups wont Israel destroyed and in the other side Israel is not willing to devide the land equally. While muslims wnat either Israel completely gone or maybe the land devided equally the Zionists are thinking between only 1 state and that is Israel or give back the Gaza strip and parts of the West Bank (behind the wall). That is not on, they don't even want to go back to the 1967 borders leave alone the UN peace proposal of dividing it completely equally.

Oriellien

07-25-2007, 02:24 PM

Stealth3

07-25-2007, 04:52 PM

There were dozens of American pilots fighting in China against Japanese raiders. Also, while the USSR was fighting 60% of the German army, that doesnt make the other 40% easy, plus the US was fighting Japan at the same time.

And the Germans lost in North Africa...
It wasn't 60%, it was around 70-80%.

The only reason the Germans lost in North Africa is because they were handicapped. Rommel had little supplies. He was fighting with his hands behind his back. And you know why?

Because all the supplies were going to the Eastern front. And it was the British who were fighting in North Africa mainly, it has little to do with America.

Vladimir80

07-25-2007, 05:03 PM

There were dozens of American pilots fighting in China against Japanese raiders. Also, while the USSR was fighting 60% of the German army, that doesnt make the other 40% easy, plus the US was fighting Japan at the same time.

And the Germans lost in North Africa...

It was CCCP that that defeated Hitler, it was CCCP that defeated Japan on the mainland. Don't act like it was USA doing all the work. In actual combat USA didn't even compare to CCCP contribution.

Kiaar

07-25-2007, 07:05 PM

It was CCCP that that defeated Hitler, it was CCCP that defeated Japan on the mainland. Don't act like it was USA doing all the work. In actual combat USA didn't even compare to CCCP contribution.

So I'm guessing it was Russia that defeated the entire Japanese Navy and the majority of it's airforce?

CCCP soldiers would also have been starving and their supplies very quickly falling behind the front lines if not for American aid. I've already posted a giant list of those in another thread. Over 100 trains were given to Russia by the US, without which they would have had a lot of trouble moving any supplies forward. They would have kicked out Germany regardless, but the advance would not have been able to move as far forward and many more soldiers would have died doing it.

And obviously the US didn't have as much to fight. The US was only attacked twice on it's own soil- one was a raid, the other a failed attempt by the Japanese to establish a hold in Alaska. Almost the entire war for the US was offensive on both fronts. Russian soldiers didn't have to cross an ocean either and Russia never had to deal with large naval engagements.

On a side note, Russia never had any major engagements after 1939 with Japan in WWII. According to what I can find, anyway, there were never anything more than border skirmishes between the two. The war was over before Russia had a chance to invade.

This was the only major battle I could find between Japan and Russia during the WWII era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Russia won that, but never moved south of that border. Casualties in that battle are also heavily disputed, so it's hard to tell how effective either side was in the battle aside from Russia not losing any ground. Americans and the Chinese did much more to battle Japan on the mainland than Russia did, which had the vast majority of it's forces fighting in western Europe/Russia, whereas the US was split in two entirely different places of the planet.

No one here has claimed the US did all the work, but don't act like the US did nothing either, because it did play a major role whether you want to admit it or not.

Vladimir80

07-25-2007, 08:16 PM

So I'm guessing it was Russia that defeated the entire Japanese Navy and the majority of it's airforce?

The Allies begged us to enter Pacific war because they couldn't touch Japanese troops on the mainland. In Operation August Storm we did more in one month than the US did against Japanese Army during the whole war.

CCCP soldiers would also have been starving and their supplies very quickly falling behind the front lines if not for American aid. I've already posted a giant list of those in another thread. Over 100 trains were given to Russia by the US, without which they would have had a lot of trouble moving any supplies forward. They would have kicked out Germany regardless, but the advance would not have been able to move as far forward and many more soldiers would have died doing it.

This debate isn't about supplies... it's about who did the most fighting.

And obviously the US didn't have as much to fight. The US was only attacked twice on it's own soil- one was a raid, the other a failed attempt by the Japanese to establish a hold in Alaska. Almost the entire war for the US was offensive on both fronts. Russian soldiers didn't have to cross an ocean either and Russia never had to deal with large naval engagements.

Exactly... That and the fact your Shermans sucked sooo bad we saved you from the excessive slaughter.

On a side note, Russia never had any major engagements after 1939 with Japan in WWII. According to what I can find, anyway, there were never anything more than border skirmishes between the two. The war was over before Russia had a chance to invade.

This was the only major battle I could find between Japan and Russia during the WWII era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Boy... you need to learn some history son. Look up Operation August Storm and look at what we did.

Kiaar

07-25-2007, 08:42 PM

The Allies begged us to enter Pacific war because they couldn't touch Japanese troops on the mainland. In Operation August Storm we did more in one month than the US did against Japanese Army during the whole war.

Operation August Storm was commenced after the war was pretty much over. The first bomb had been dropped, and Japan was already in shambles. The only thing left was whatever ground troops they had.

This debate isn't about supplies... it's about who did the most fighting.

I'd expect you of all people to know that supplies and logistics can be just as important as the actual fighting.

Exactly... That and the fact your Shermans sucked sooo bad we saved you from the excessive slaughter.

It really doesn't matter. 55,000 Shermans were produced during WWII. Sheer numbers alone were overwhelming the Germans. The Sherman was a piece of crap, but there were enough of them that it didn't matter.

Boy... you need to learn some history son. Look up Operation August Storm and look at what we did.

See my post above.
Also, information I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

Even without August Storm Japan was finished, especially after the Emperor saw the A-Bomb.

The operation played a part in Japan's decision to surrender, as the article itself said, but in reality it probably just stopped more nukes from being used assuming Japan wasn't going to surrender from the two bombs anyway. This also took place between the bomb droppings, so Japan hadn't yet felt the effect of the second.

While this was the greatest land battle against Japan, at this time Japan was also more or less defeated. The Navy was gone, the air force was more or less done, and Japan itself was being bombed.

Vladimir80

07-25-2007, 09:46 PM

Operation August Storm was commenced after the war was pretty much over. The first bomb had been dropped, and Japan was already in shambles. The only thing left was whatever ground troops they had.

What! The war wasn't over until the Emporer surrendered and he did so because we whiped out the Manchuko Army.

I'd expect you of all people to know that supplies and logistics can be just as important as the actual fighting.

This isn't what this debate is about... it is about combat participation.

It really doesn't matter. 55,000 Shermans were produced during WWII. Sheer numbers alone were overwhelming the Germans. The Sherman was a piece of crap, but there were enough of them that it didn't matter.

Contrary to popular belief it wasn't the crappy Sherman that defeated Hitler. It was the T-34...

See my post above.

See my post above.

Also, information I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

Even without August Storm Japan was finished, especially after the Emperor saw the A-Bomb.

The operation played a part in Japan's decision to surrender, as the article itself said, but in reality it probably just stopped more nukes from being used assuming Japan wasn't going to surrender from the two bombs anyway. This also took place between the bomb droppings, so Japan hadn't yet felt the effect of the second.

The REAL reason USA dropped the A bomb was to encourage the emporer surrender before Red Army took over all of Asia. After what we did to the Manchuko Army was what made the emporer surrender. He didn't give a crap about A bombs... I tell you why. The fire bombings of Tokyo were far worse than the A bombs and he didn't flinch then. He surrendered like the article said, to Red Army superiority.

While this was the greatest land battle against Japan, at this time Japan was also more or less defeated. The Navy was gone, the air force was more or less done, and Japan itself was being bombed.

5 minutes ago you didn't even know about Manchuko defeat and you is crappying on us already.

There was plenty of men, equipment, and supplies left in Manchuria. You Americans always try to belittle others achievements and then take credit for them. :(

Kiaar

07-25-2007, 09:50 PM

What! The war wasn't over until the Emporer surrendered and he did so because we whiped out the Manchuko Army.

He also did so largely in part to the nuclear bomb which could wipe out the better part of a city with just one.

This isn't what this debate is about... it is about combat participation.

You can't participate in combat without food and weapons.

Contrary to popular belief it wasn't the crappy Sherman that defeated Hitler. It was the T-34...

I never said it did...

The REAL reason USA dropped the A bomb was to encourage the emporer surrender before Red Army took over all of Asia. After what we did to the Manchuko Army was what made the emporer surrender. He didn't give a crap about A bombs... I tell you why. The fire bombings of Tokyo were far worse than the A bombs and he didn't flinch then. He surrendered like the article said, to Red Army superiority.

That was one reason. The US could have invaded Japan too to race with the Russians, but that would have been even bloodier.

There was plenty of men, equipment, and supplies left in Manchuria. You Americans always try to belittle others achievements and then take credit for them. :(

Men and weapons in Manchuria would not have helped if Japan itself was attacked, considering they had little way of getting home without a Navy.

I've not denied once in this thread the USSR played a huge part in the war. I've merely supporting my original intent that you're belittling the part the US played in the same way you hate when Americans do that to your country.

Vladimir80

07-25-2007, 10:13 PM

He also did so largely in part to the nuclear bomb which could wipe out the better part of a city with just one.

Your A bombs were weak, they didn't have enough to make a difference anyway. Firebombing was much more effective at mass terrorism.

You can't participate in combat without food and weapons.

The US gave us those supplies because they didn't want to have to do any REAL fighting.

I never said it did...

Your implication here was that it did... when it fact it was the superiority of the T-34 that overwhelmed the Germans because they used all their armor on the Eastern Front. If you had faced the Germans with their full numbers of Tiger/Panther tanks against all of your Shermans they would have destroyed the invasion.

Sheer numbers alone were overwhelming the Germans.

That was one reason. The US could have invaded Japan too to race with the Russians, but that would have been even bloodier.

The Americans never had the stomach for such an invasion. All they had to do was starve them out. The use of the A bomb was a political decision based on the success of Red Army and their fear that they would take over all of Asia. US did not have to use A bomb nor invade... that is just an excuse for why they used it.

Men and weapons in Manchuria would not have helped if Japan itself was attacked, considering they had little way of getting home without a Navy.

The US never controled the Sea of Japan outright. The loss of Manchuria was a necessity to make them surrender to cut off their supply base.

I've not denied once in this thread the USSR played a huge part in the war. I've merely supporting my original intent that you're belittling the part the US played in the same way you hate when Americans do that to your country.

This whole thread turned into a America won WWII while CCCP did nothing at the hands of another member that you played right along with.

Kermanshah1

07-26-2007, 04:11 AM

Without the Soviet Union you would have lost. The Germans were so much better than the allies in Noth Afrika, they lost because they didn't have enough soldiers, tanks or supplies. All German soldiers were send to the East, they used their Air Force in the East and left the Afrika corps without air support, all their supplies went to the east. If the total German army was send to Norht Afrika then Afrika and the Middle East would have been thiers by the time America joined. The British would be finished as their armies would have been destroyed and Germany and Japan (and Italy because if Germans won at AFrika Italy couldn't have been invaded) could together fitght the US and they would have won. Maybe they wouldn't have taken the US mainland but they would have sertainly taken what they wanted and forced America to sign a peace treaty.

This whole thread turned into a America won WWII while CCCP did nothing at the hands of another member that you played right along with.

Because Zraver claimed the America has saved all Soviet states from a brutal reigme. I asked wich regime that was and he sais America saved Russia from Hitler while it was more the other way round.

Vladimir80

07-26-2007, 05:14 AM

Because Zraver claimed the America has saved all Soviet states from a brutal reigme. I asked wich regime that was and he sais America saved Russia from Hitler while it was more the other way round.

Well Zraver has been proven to be a fraud so we don't take what he has to say seriously. For a history major he must have graduated from University of Phoenix Online with his knowledge.

ThePuss

07-26-2007, 08:07 AM

The US gave us those supplies because they didn't want to have to do any REAL fighting.

You do a great disservice to the US citizens who served and fought during WWII and to all who served in the Allied cause. Let’s not forget the Russian government honoured the sailors of the Artic conveys so they must have valued their contribution. You’re supposedly an ex-soldier, well a comments like makes you more of a keyboard warrior to my mind.

ThePuss

07-26-2007, 08:10 AM

Without the Soviet Union you would have lost. The Germans were so much better than the allies in Noth Afrika, they lost because they didn't have enough soldiers, tanks or supplies. All German soldiers were send to the East, they used their Air Force in the East and left the Afrika corps without air support, all their supplies went to the east. If the total German army was send to Norht Afrika then Afrika and the Middle East would have been thiers by the time America joined. The British would be finished as their armies would have been destroyed and Germany and Japan (and Italy because if Germans won at AFrika Italy couldn't have been invaded) could together fitght the US and they would have won. Maybe they wouldn't have taken the US mainland but they would have sertainly taken what they wanted and forced America to sign a peace treaty.

You seriously need to buy a history book, that statement has got more holes than a lump of swiss cheese.

Vladimir80

07-26-2007, 08:22 AM

You seriously need to buy a history book, that statement has got more holes than a lump of swiss cheese.

There is nothing wrong with his statements... Rommel and his Afrika Corps was superior as long as they had supplies. It was the decipher of enigma that killed the African campaign.

ThePuss

07-26-2007, 10:29 AM

Rommel and his Afrika Corps was superior as long as they had supplies.
They didn't get them because of the RN and RAF pressence in the Med.
At the end of the day who won?
That's all that really matters, not the ifs, buts or maybes.

Vladimir80

07-26-2007, 10:34 AM

They didn't get them because of the RN and RAF pressence in the Med.

Nothing of which had anything to do with US... thanks for proving my point. :laugh4:

ThePuss

07-26-2007, 10:53 AM

Nothing of which had anything to do with US... thanks for proving my point. :laugh4:
Not really as Operation Torch caused the Africa Korps to have to fight in two directions. Admittedly the US forces performed poorly in the early battles but as time went on the improved and eventually between them they squeezed Germany out of the ME. It also sent a signal to Hitler and more importantly Stalin that the US would commit troops to the Western Front and not just the PTO.

Zraver

07-26-2007, 10:56 AM

Vladimir,

T-34 was not superior to German tanks, the Soviets lost tens of thousands of them in combat. The T-34 enjoyed a period of domiance from June 1941 to about March 1942 when German 75mm and longer barreled 50 mm guns. After that point the T-34 had some advantages speed- ground pressure, and NUMBERS, but German tanks had thier own advantages- better guns, radios, better trained crews etc. The same applies to the Sherman 76's some advantages some disadvantages.

Durig WW2 America had 11 million men in arms plus an extensive merchant Marine. In termsn of manpower in actual combat only the USSR had more. The US went with a 100 divsion plan focusing most of its effort sin the air and on the sea. Both of these areas which were German "wins" before America's involvement were critical to winning the ground war.

In North Africa, Rommel's single attempt at defeatign "green" unblooded Ameircan forces failed. After some intial gains at Kasserien Pass, Patoo rallied other American units andquickly plugged the gap and cpunter attaked forcing the German's elite panzer units back. American superority in tanks (75mm Sherman vs 50mm Pz III) artillery, radios, mechnization, and airpower ame the US the only ally to never have spent any signifigant time in retreat beofre rallying and pushing the Germans back. Patton and Montgoemry also teamed up in Operation Husky the first allied ground attack on an Axis nation, and later Italy. Rome was liberated from the Germans beofre D-Day and before Bagration.

In the west the armor battles of the Normandy campaign actually involved more German armor (over the leangth of the campaign) than at Kursk. Some of these units have gone down in history as some of the greatest fightign formations of all time- Panzer Lehr, 12th SS (Hitlerjugend) Panzer Div, 1st Panzer Divsion, 1st SS (Liebanstarte Adolf Hitler) Pnzer Divsion, and the famed Tiger tank ace Whittman. At the same time these storied units were dying in France the massive Russian assualt called bagration was unleashed. How would the Russian advance have faired if these extra tanks had been availabe in the East, of if the Luftwaffe's planes had not died in the massive air battles over Germany?

Did the US do most of the ground fighting? of course not, but it did do most of the air and sea fighting, provided the bulk of the men to the allied cause in the west, and provided the bulk of the supplies. You cannot fight a war on an empty stomach, you cannot fight a mechanized war without trucks. Without American supplies the manpower of the USSR would never have had the tools it needed to push the invader back.

BTW Vlad, this debae isn't about who did the msot fighting, but who contributed the most to victory. And my knowledge of histry is superior to you and your Anti-American Russo-centric view. It's rather funny to watch you claim the USSR beat Japan. The Manchuko army was a ghost of its former self. It was starved for fuel, had not recived modern munitions, its best divisions had been transffered to the pacific, and the IJAAF had been stripped of planes and pilots for the failed effort to secure New Guinea on the belief that the American and Austrailian goal was the Dutch East Indies.

The Emperor had already started the ball rolling looking for a peace solution when Tojo was forced outin July of 1944. By then Japan had already lost and it was simply a matter of time until the American's forced Japan back. The First allied orces to take histoically Japanese territroy was the USMC who secured Okinawa (a prefecture of Japan itself) by June 1945 that is secured a full 2 months ahead of August Storm.

The USSR did a lot of the fighting, and they did most of the dying, but they didn't come anywhere close to all of the fighting. Fightign 60-70% of the Wermacht is an imporessive feat, but that missing % plus the bulk of the Luftwaffe and the massive armoy of men and 88mm guns stuck on air defense duty cannot be discounted. Betwen the force sin Normandy, Italy, and over the skies of the Reich the amount of German manpower faced by the Western allies climbs quite a bit compared to just army vs army.

But you knew that and chose to lie by ommision anyway.

Ohh BTW my college is the University of Central Arkansas where I am a member of the UCA Honors College which was recognized by the Carnegie foundation as one of the best of its kind in America.

Kermanshah1

07-26-2007, 12:18 PM

they squeezed Germany out of the ME

The Germans didn't realy fight in the M-E. It were the Vichy French in Syria and they didn't want to fight so surrendered and the Iraqis fought the British in Iraq, the Germans played no major roll in that. It's Noth Afrika we're talking about.

Not really as Operation Torch caused the Africa Korps to have to fight in two directions. Admittedly the US forces performed poorly in the early battles but as time went on the improved and eventually between them they squeezed Germany out of the ME. It also sent a signal to Hitler and more importantly Stalin that the US would commit troops to the Western Front and not just the PTO.

Rommel was succesfull with such small amounth of men, he lost because he didn't have enough men or weapons. Why didn't he have that? Because they were all fighting in the Eastern Front against the Russians. If the Eastern Front hadn't been there the Germans could have used their total force in Africa and then they would have won in North Africa and so destroyed the British army completely. With the Brits out of the Way the Germans and the Japanese could together have fought the Americans, Italy wouln't have been invaded so they would have also helped and the Germans winning in N-Africa could have taken Palestine and Jordan meaning they had conquered the M-E aswell as Syria & Lebanon (under the Vichy French) and Iraq were at their side. Without the Soviets British wouldn't have invaded Iran and Germans could have send forces into India via Iran while Japanese were attacking it from the other side.

Without the Americans the British would still have beaten the Italians (wich could have as well not fought as they were so rubbish) and the Africa corps wich was far to small to win against the massive allied armies it wasw fighting although it was succesfull untill their lack in numbers and supplies (wich were all in the East) became their end. The British with victory in the North woudl have still won in Italy they only needed to take Sicily and Italy surrendered. The Russians would have still won in the East (although it without American supplies would have taken longer and more casualties for the Russians. D-day could still have been done but by far not as effective, this way the Germans would probably have been beaten 1948 and the Russians would have had whole Germany.

The only difference would have been in the East. The Japanese would have invaded China and all colonies of the Allies. Also they would have conquered China but not India. Maybe the allies would have settled for this and peace would have come. If the Russians joined the British they would have won otherwise Japan woudl have their empire.

So: The US did not free Russia, the was not as important as Russia and the Allies could have done without them but couldn't have done without Russia.

Zraver

07-26-2007, 02:28 PM

The Germans didn't realy fight in the M-E. It were the Vichy French in Syria and they didn't want to fight so surrendered and the Iraqis fought the British in Iraq, the Germans played no major roll in that. It's Noth Afrika we're talking about.

Not entirely, the battle in North Africa had a direct bearing on keeping the Persian supply route to Russia open.

Rommel was succesfull with such small amounth of men, he lost because he didn't have enough men or weapons. Why didn't he have that? Because they were all fighting in the Eastern Front against the Russians.

This is completely false, Rommel was flown out of North Africa so Hitler's faorite would not be forced to surrender, his deputy was left to do that. When the Axis surrendered 275,000 troops went into captivity after operation Retribution blocked the evacuation fleet. This is more troops than surrendered at Stalingrad.

Quite simply after the reversal agaisnt the Americans and the British defeat of the Mareth Line the Germans were doomed in North Africa. Rommel's problem was supplies not men. Allied air and sea power (often using Ameican supplied equipmnt and running on American supplied fuel, firign american supplied bullets) condcted the worlds first sucessfully air and sea blockade.

If the Eastern Front hadn't been there the Germans could have used their total force in Africa and then they would have won in North Africa and so destroyed the British army completely.

In the east the amount of forces Gemrany could commit was limited by rail capacity, in North Africa it was surface tonnage. In neither case did Germany have enough transport to commit its total force anywhere.

With the Brits out of the Way the Germans and the Japanese could together have fought the Americans, Italy wouln't have been invaded so they would have also helped and the Germans winning in N-Africa could have taken Palestine and Jordan meaning they had conquered the M-E aswell as Syria & Lebanon (under the Vichy French) and Iraq were at their side. Without the Soviets British wouldn't have invaded Iran and Germans could have send forces into India via Iran while Japanese were attacking it from the other side.

and if pigs had wings they could fly. Hitler's refusal to commit airborne forces for an assault on Malta after the heavy losses of Crete ultimately doomed the Axis effort in the Med and thus the M.E.

Without the Americans the British would still have beaten the Italians (wich could have as well not fought as they were so rubbish) and the Africa corps wich was far to small to win against the massive allied armies it wasw fighting although it was succesfull untill their lack in numbers and supplies (wich were all in the East) became their end. The British with victory in the North woudl have still won in Italy they only needed to take Sicily and Italy surrendered. The Russians would have still won in the East (although it without American supplies would have taken longer and more casualties for the Russians. D-day could still have been done but by far not as effective, this way the Germans would probably have been beaten 1948 and the Russians would have had whole Germany.

With its colonial troops tied up fighting the Japanese after Dec 1941 the British could not have launched D-Day without America. By 1944 the Britsh Army was shrinking as units were disbanded to provide re-inforcements.

Without the threat of D-Day the Russian's would ahve faced major problems. The amount of concrete, land mines, men, tanks, guns, and aircraft require dto guard agaisnt the expeced invasion and the air battles over the Reich paved the way for the Russian advances. Becuase Russia lacked an effective interddiction campaign other than partisan bands as the German army fell back its effective rail capacity increased so the material in the west could have been used defnesively in the East. This would have been enough to keep the Red Army in check. Germany was effectively fighting a 4 front war France, Italy, Air, East. Without the drain of the three western fronts some 2 million men, thousands of AFV. thousands of 88mm guns, hundreds of fighters, millions of tons of concrete, 10's of millions land mines, at least 100 more trains Russia would ahve been stopped cold beofre liberating Poland or parts of European Russia/Ukraine

So: The US did not free Russia, the was not as important as Russia and the Allies could have done without them but couldn't have done without Russia.

Please show how lacking American material and facing the addition of the forces and material used in the West the Soviet's could have beaten Germany when by May 1945 they were out of men and industrial production plummetted as the factories were combed for men for the front. At the very least the men used in August Storm would not have been avaiable for the attack on the Japaneses and the USSR would ahve to have used the sub par far Eastern divsions which had not been upgraded durign the war and would have had to fight the Japanese without modern equipment or combat experiance.

IRGC

07-26-2007, 03:15 PM

^^^

I think thats the longest reply i've ever seen on IDF.

ThePuss

07-26-2007, 03:29 PM

The Germans didn't realy fight in the M-E. It were the Vichy French in Syria and they didn't want to fight so surrendered and the Iraqis fought the British in Iraq, the Germans played no major roll in that. It's Noth Afrika we're talking about.

Rommel was succesfull with such small amounth of men, he lost because he didn't have enough men or weapons. Why didn't he have that? Because they were all fighting in the Eastern Front against the Russians. If the Eastern Front hadn't been there the Germans could have used their total force in Africa and then they would have won in North Africa and so destroyed the British army completely. With the Brits out of the Way the Germans and the Japanese could together have fought the Americans, Italy wouln't have been invaded so they would have also helped and the Germans winning in N-Africa could have taken Palestine and Jordan meaning they had conquered the M-E aswell as Syria & Lebanon (under the Vichy French) and Iraq were at their side. Without the Soviets British wouldn't have invaded Iran and Germans could have send forces into India via Iran while Japanese were attacking it from the other side.

Without the Americans the British would still have beaten the Italians (wich could have as well not fought as they were so rubbish) and the Africa corps wich was far to small to win against the massive allied armies it wasw fighting although it was succesfull untill their lack in numbers and supplies (wich were all in the East) became their end. The British with victory in the North woudl have still won in Italy they only needed to take Sicily and Italy surrendered. The Russians would have still won in the East (although it without American supplies would have taken longer and more casualties for the Russians. D-day could still have been done but by far not as effective, this way the Germans would probably have been beaten 1948 and the Russians would have had whole Germany.

The only difference would have been in the East. The Japanese would have invaded China and all colonies of the Allies. Also they would have conquered China but not India. Maybe the allies would have settled for this and peace would have come. If the Russians joined the British they would have won otherwise Japan woudl have their empire.

So: The US did not free Russia, the was not as important as Russia and the Allies could have done without them but couldn't have done without Russia.
But that didn't happen did it so what is your point?
If you would drop your anti-USA views for a momment, and I will repeat you do a great disservice to all allied veterns with your views, you would realise it took a combined effort on all fronts to defeat the axis powers not just one nation.
When will you admit to this?

Oriellien

07-26-2007, 06:04 PM

Russia would not have won WWII by itself, even in wonderland. Obviously the rest of the allies wouldnt have won without Russia, but Russia wouldnt have won without them either.

Also, I never said the US won WWII by itself, I never said Russia didnt do anything, what I said was the US did something too. You embarked on that patriotic rampage on your own. Edit: It was my post you quoted so im assuming you think I said the US won WWII.

Vladimir80

07-26-2007, 10:03 PM

Vladimir,

T-34 was not superior to German tanks, the Soviets lost tens of thousands of them in combat. The T-34 enjoyed a period of domiance from June 1941 to about March 1942 when German 75mm and longer barreled 50 mm guns. After that point the T-34 had some advantages speed- ground pressure, and NUMBERS, but German tanks had thier own advantages- better guns, radios, better trained crews etc. The same applies to the Sherman 76's some advantages some disadvantages.

T-34 was the superior mass production tank which is the comparison to Sherman which is made. For every Tiger produced we could pump out a dozen T-34s. When the Germans came up with their new tanks we added 85mm gun to take them out. The T-34 was the tank that won the war... not the Sherman.

Durig WW2 America had 11 million men in arms plus an extensive merchant Marine. In termsn of manpower in actual combat only the USSR had more.

Your comparing Merchant Marine to Red Army... of course you would. :roflmao3:

In North Africa, Rommel's single attempt at defeatign "green" unblooded Ameircan forces failed.

Rommel lost because of British contributions... not much to do with Americans.

In the west the armor battles of the Normandy campaign actually involved more German armor (over the leangth of the campaign) than at Kursk. Some of these units have gone down in history as some of the greatest fightign formations of all time- Panzer Lehr, 12th SS (Hitlerjugend) Panzer Div, 1st Panzer Divsion, 1st SS (Liebanstarte Adolf Hitler) Pnzer Divsion, and the famed Tiger tank ace Whittman. At the same time these storied units were dying in France the massive Russian assualt called bagration was unleashed. How would the Russian advance have faired if these extra tanks had been availabe in the East, of if the Luftwaffe's planes had not died in the massive air battles over Germany?

The small garisson left in France was NOTHING compared to what was thrown on the Eastern Front. You are comparing Oscar Delahoya to Mike Tyson... :no1:

Did the US do most of the ground fighting? of course not, but it did do most of the air and sea fighting, provided the bulk of the men to the allied cause in the west, and provided the bulk of the supplies. You cannot fight a war on an empty stomach, you cannot fight a mechanized war without trucks. Without American supplies the manpower of the USSR would never have had the tools it needed to push the invader back.

We didn't recieve as many supplies as you think, half of it went to the bottom by U boats because they wouldn't protect the convoys.

BTW Vlad, this debae isn't about who did the msot fighting, but who contributed the most to victory. And my knowledge of histry is superior to you and your Anti-American Russo-centric view.

Just another racist example of your arrogant attitude...

It's rather funny to watch you claim the USSR beat Japan. The Manchuko army was a ghost of its former self. It was starved for fuel, had not recived modern munitions, its best divisions had been transffered to the pacific, and the IJAAF had been stripped of planes and pilots for the failed effort to secure New Guinea on the belief that the American and Austrailian goal was the Dutch East Indies.

The Manchuko army was no match for the Red Army, it never was. It still had plenty of men, equipment, logistics and supplies. So much so that the US never entered Manchuria because they couldn't even deal with it so they beg Stalin to do it for them.

The Emperor had already started the ball rolling looking for a peace solution when Tojo was forced outin July of 1944. By then Japan had already lost and it was simply a matter of time until the American's forced Japan back. The First allied orces to take histoically Japanese territroy was the USMC who secured Okinawa (a prefecture of Japan itself) by June 1945 that is secured a full 2 months ahead of August Storm.

While your little island hopping campaign was cute and all it really was nothing compared to what we was doing everyday. You was wasting your men fighting for some worthless islands... really it was stupid.

The USSR did a lot of the fighting, and they did most of the dying, but they didn't come anywhere close to all of the fighting. Fightign 60-70% of the Wermacht is an imporessive feat, but that missing % plus the bulk of the Luftwaffe and the massive armoy of men and 88mm guns stuck on air defense duty cannot be discounted. Betwen the force sin Normandy, Italy, and over the skies of the Reich the amount of German manpower faced by the Western allies climbs quite a bit compared to just army vs army.

But you knew that and chose to lie by ommision anyway.

It wasn't about Western allies... it was about US ally and their lack of participation. The only ommission made was the laugh at the ignorance exhibited.

Ohh BTW my college is the University of Central Arkansas where I am a member of the UCA Honors College which was recognized by the Carnegie foundation as one of the best of its kind in America.

Never heard of it... let me check and see if it is ranked... NOPE! :sorry3:

Zraver

07-27-2007, 02:28 AM

T-34 was the superior mass production tank which is the comparison to Sherman which is made. For every Tiger produced we could pump out a dozen T-34s. When the Germans came up with their new tanks we added 85mm gun to take them out. The T-34 was the tank that won the war... not the Sherman. [quote]

Wasn't aware that T-34's liberated France, Italy, the low countries, North Africa, Greece, or parts of the Reich. In fact I could swear that those natiosn were freed by Shermans.

[quote]
Your comparing Merchant Marine to Red Army... of course you would. :roflmao3:

No I said the US had 11 million men in uniform plus a merchant marine.

Rommel lost because of British contributions... not much to do with Americans.

Are you really that dense? What where the British using, where did the supplies come from and what about Operation Torch? The simple fact is until the American's began flooding the British with supplies and then backing them up physcally the much smaller Panzer Army Africa was able to attack and threaten the entire British posistion. Egypt was only saved multiple times because Rommel out ran his supplies.

The small garisson left in France was NOTHING compared to what was thrown on the Eastern Front. You are comparing Oscar Delahoya to Mike Tyson... :no1:

Really, this proves your ignorance. small force in France? Yes when compared to the entire Eastern theater the force apears small. But the units had a higher proportion of mechanized units and the troop density wasn't lower. the allies packed in 1.5 million men (80%+ American) and Germany committed 380,000 by the end of the first month and a half. Thats nearly 2 million men in a very small area.

We didn't recieve as many supplies as you think, half of it went to the bottom by U boats because they wouldn't protect the convoys.

Did you miss the posted list of supplies posted, half the supplies never faced a U-boat threat at all (reflagged American merchant marine vessels sailing to vladivostock). 4.5 million more tons went through Iran where the U-boat danger was low. Of the remaining 50% of supplies that had to come via the artic convoy route. Contray to yuor claims that half of them got sunk, only 85 mercant vessels were sunk out of 1400 involved. Total losses were 85 merchant vessels and 16 warships. And if as you claim the convoys were not protected how did 16 warships go down taking at least 30 U-boats with them?

As usal you either have no idea what your talking about or you lied. which is it?

Just another racist example of your arrogant attitude...
pointing out yuor uber-Russo-centric world view makes me a racist wow! How low can you stoop?

The Manchuko army was no match for the Red Army, it never was. It still had plenty of men, equipment, logistics and supplies. So much so that the US never entered Manchuria because they couldn't even deal with it so they beg Stalin to do it for them.

huh? How woud the US land troops in China and why would they land troops in China?

While your little island hopping campaign was cute and all it really was nothing compared to what we was doing everyday. You was wasting your men fighting for some worthless islands... really it was stupid.

Really it destroyed the IJN, gutted the best units of the IJA. But then it wasn't Russian so it was worthless and pointless.

It wasn't about Western allies... it was about US ally and their lack of participation. The only ommission made was the laugh at the ignorance exhibited.

America made the overwhelming majority of the western allies after December 41 and the western allies fought as an alliance and so cannot be easily seperated. American units were often suborniated to British Command to beef up thier fightign streangth.

Never heard of it... let me check and see if it is ranked... NOPE! :sorry3:

"An Ivy League education at a bargain basement price."

-- Dr. Terrel Bell, former Secretary of Education and U.S. Commissioner on Education

"One of the most widely imitated programs in the country."

-- Carnegie Foundation

Kermanshah1

07-27-2007, 03:11 AM

Not entirely, the battle in North Africa had a direct bearing on keeping the Persian supply route to Russia open.[QUOTE]

Not at all. The Battle for Norht Africa was when Italy attacked Egypt. They got beaten and Germany send a small amounth of troops there to stop the British do a land invasion in Italy.

This is completely false, Rommel was flown out of North Africa so Hitler's faorite would not be forced to surrender, his deputy was left to do that. When the Axis surrendered 275,000 troops went into captivity after operation Retribution blocked the evacuation fleet. This is more troops than surrendered at Stalingrad.

Quite simply after the reversal agaisnt the Americans and the British defeat of the Mareth Line the Germans were doomed in North Africa. Rommel's problem was supplies not men. Allied air and sea power (often using Ameican supplied equipmnt and running on American supplied fuel, firign american supplied bullets) condcted the worlds first sucessfully air and sea blockade.

At the beginning he was succesfull. The britsh were advancing quickly when he came and they all were forced to retreat. He beat them everywere xcept for Tibruk. Because of Tibruk he couldn't advandce further and eventually the Brits invaded some of Libya. But then Rommel beat them took Tibruk and advanced further than ever only eventually when they reaced el Alamijn the Brits had so much more thatn he had of everything that eventhough the Germans were so much better they couldn't have won. Those 275,000 surrendered in the end because they couldn't win anyway they saw no point in fighting further, by this point the Africa corps had already lost.

In the east the amount of forces Gemrany could commit was limited by rail capacity, in North Africa it was surface tonnage. In neither case did Germany have enough transport to commit its total force anywhere.

70/80% of their forces fought in the East together with: the Bulgarian army, the Hungarian army, the Romanian army, the Slovakian army, the Italian army, the Finsh army, volunteers from occupied nations and the blue division from Spain and Portugal. If this had all been send to Africa victory would be theirs.

With its colonial troops tied up fighting the Japanese after Dec 1941 the British could not have launched D-Day without America. By 1944 the Britsh Army was shrinking as units were disbanded to provide re-inforcements.

Withouth America the Brits would have lost in Asia but still the Germans would have been beaten.

Without the threat of D-Day the Russian's would ahve faced major problems. The amount of concrete, land mines, men, tanks, guns, and aircraft require dto guard agaisnt the expeced invasion and the air battles over the Reich paved the way for the Russian advances. Becuase Russia lacked an effective interddiction campaign other than partisan bands as the German army fell back its effective rail capacity increased so the material in the west could have been used defnesively in the East. This would have been enough to keep the Red Army in check. Germany was effectively fighting a 4 front war France, Italy, Air, East. Without the drain of the three western fronts some 2 million men, thousands of AFV. thousands of 88mm guns, hundreds of fighters, millions of tons of concrete, 10's of millions land mines, at least 100 more trains Russia would ahve been stopped cold beofre liberating Poland or parts of European Russia/Ukraine

Nah it wouldn't have made any difference. By the time D-day had been launched Russia had already won. D-day was just to take western Europe.

]
Please show how lacking American material and facing the addition of the forces and material used in the West the Soviet's could have beaten Germany when by May 1945 they were out of men and industrial production plummetted as the factories were combed for men for the front. At the very least the men used in August Storm would not have been avaiable for the attack on the Japaneses and the USSR would ahve to have used the sub par far Eastern divsions which had not been upgraded durign the war and would have had to fight the Japanese without modern equipment or combat experiance.

By May 1945 they were not out of men. They had the largest army in the world. By May 1945 the Germans were defeated. Hitler comitted suicide, Berlin had fallen, their army was destroyed. the Russians would have had the west without needing to invade it.

ThePuss

07-27-2007, 04:14 AM

While your little island hopping campaign was cute and all it really was nothing compared to what we was doing everyday. You was wasting your men fighting for some worthless islands... really it was stupid.

The fighting here between the USMC and the Japs was as brutal as any battle on the Eastern Front, at least Russia faced an enemy who would surrender. As for the campaign you need to take a strategic look at it, evey island taken was another airbase closer to the Japonese mainland. In the end how else do you get close enough to drop the A bomb or invade?
Also as a former military man I still do not see how you can you such much contempt for any allied war veterens.

Vladimir80

07-27-2007, 04:37 AM

The fighting here between the USMC and the Japs was as brutal as any battle on the Eastern Front, at least Russia faced an enemy who would surrender. As for the campaign you need to take a strategic look at it, evey island taken was another airbase closer to the Japonese mainland. In the end how else do you get close enough to drop the A bomb or invade?

The USMC casaulty figures were nothing compared to one day on the Eastern Front. The war could have been ended much sooner if the Americans just went for the head rather than trying to work their way up the body.

Also as a former military man I still do not see how you can you such much contempt for any allied war veterens.

If you was a military man serving in the Cold War then you must have been asleep to ask how a Russian can have contempt for Americans claiming to be the major reason for winning WWII. I think as a UK man your sensibilities would be hurt by Zraver taking credit for winning North Africa when we know it was the British who made that possible.

Kermanshah1

07-27-2007, 04:38 AM

Zraver

07-27-2007, 04:40 AM

Not entirely, the battle in North Africa had a direct bearing on keeping the Persian supply route to Russia open.

At the beginning he was succesfull. The britsh were advancing quickly when he came and they all were forced to retreat. He beat them everywere xcept for Tibruk. Because of Tibruk he couldn't advandce further and eventually the Brits invaded some of Libya. But then Rommel beat them took Tibruk and advanced further than ever only eventually when they reaced el Alamijn the Brits had so much more thatn he had of everything that eventhough the Germans were so much better they couldn't have won. Those 275,000 surrendered in the end because they couldn't win anyway they saw no point in fighting further, by this point the Africa corps had already lost.

Panzer Armee Afrika (it was no longer just a panzer corps) was defeated in Tunisa a long long way from the Lybian Egyptian border. The Germans were force dback beucase of the weight of American made material supplied to the 8th Army and then Operation Torch it was a combined effort.

70/80% of their forces fought in the East together with: the Bulgarian army, the Hungarian army, the Romanian army, the Slovakian army, the Italian army, the Finsh army, volunteers from occupied nations and the blue division from Spain and Portugal. If this had all been send to Africa victory would be theirs.

How would it get to Africa? Germany and Italy combined did not have enough surface tonnage to keep them supplied and the rail line from Gibraltar across North Africa was not big enough often only single spur.

Withouth America the Brits would have lost in Asia but still the Germans would have been beaten.

Please qualify this statement. Germany had higher steel production than both nations (UK/USSR) combined, nearly as many men in the feild, secure oil supplies etc. The entry of America changed the course of the war.

Nah it wouldn't have made any difference. By the time D-day had been launched Russia had already won. D-day was just to take western Europe.

No No No No, Germany transferred several crack divsions out of the east, diverted millions of tons of concrete and steel, tens of millions of land mines, and most of its fighter aircraft and thousands of 88mm guns had been diverted for Reich defense. These forces amy well ahve proved to be the differance between the death of Army Group Center and a sucessful German defense in the east

From Feldgrau.com http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

Wermacht 1944 12 million
Luftwaffe 1944 1.5 million
Kriegsmarine 1944 1.5 million
Waffen SS 1944 .6 million
total 15.6 million

Losses in the East (41 through 11/44)
KIA 1,419,728
MIA/POW 997,056
WIA 3,498,060
Total= 5,914,844 causalties

Losses in the west (North Afrika, Norway, Greece, Home Front, France, Italy trhough 11/44)
KIA 263,183
MIA 533,445
WIA 677,234 (does not include figures for home front, Low Countries, Balkans 41, or North Afrika)
Kreigsmarine all types 39/45 197,287
Total= 1,671,149

at 28.25% of all German losses occured in the West or verses the Western Allies. With large figures missing from the WIA rolls and if everythign else transfers then roughly a third of Germany's entire military might was tied up vs the West. Any way you cut it that is a very signifigant percentage and if avaialbe in the east would have stopped the Russians cold.

By May 1945 they were not out of men. They had the largest army in the world. By May 1945 the Germans were defeated. Hitler comitted suicide, Berlin had fallen, their army was destroyed. the Russians would have had the west without needing to invade it.

They were out of men, the USSR suffered 27 million causalties 910.6 million military) out of a population of 197 million thats more than 13% losses. Thats devestating thats almost an entire generation. They had the largest amry in the world but it was all but out of replacements there were no more untapped reserves. If the war had been extended another year or two byt the additon of the forces in the west to the German OOB the Red Army would have begun to shrink and do so rapidly.

Zraver

07-27-2007, 04:44 AM

I think as a UK man your sensibilities would be hurt by Zraver taking credit for winning North Africa when we know it was the British who made that possible.

I said America made victory possible stop twistign my words.

Kermanshah1

07-27-2007, 04:46 AM

They were out of men, the USSR suffered 27 million causalties 910.6 million military) out of a population of 197 million thats more than 13% losses. Thats devestating thats almost an entire generation. They had the largest amry in the world but it was all but out of replacements there were no more untapped reserves. If the war had been extended another year or two byt the additon of the forces in the west to the German OOB the Red Army would have begun to shrink and do so rapidly.

They would have reached Berlin no matter what adn that was all they needed to do. After Berlin was taken the Germans were defeated. The Russians would have reached the rein and might have even passed it if the Germasn had decided to fight the west but in the end the Germans decided to stop fighting the west and only fight the east and still the Russians beat them.

Zraver

07-27-2007, 05:07 AM

Vladimir80

07-27-2007, 05:40 AM

Wasn't aware that T-34's liberated France, Italy, the low countries, North Africa, Greece, or parts of the Reich. In fact I could swear that those natiosn were freed by Shermans.

They did by taking on 80% of German armor on the Eastern Front.

No I said the US had 11 million men in uniform plus a merchant marine.

... and compared them to Red Army soldiers. :huh2:

Egypt was only saved multiple times because Rommel out ran his supplies.

This was thanks to BRITISH breaking of enigma... nothing to do with US.

I said America made victory possible stop twistign my words.

Stop taking credit for others success, everyone knows it was breaking of enigma that annihilated Rommels supply line and it was British doing it.

Really, this proves your ignorance. small force in France? Yes when compared to the entire Eastern theater the force apears small.

Proves your ignorance by contradicting your own statement.

Did you miss the posted list of supplies posted, half the supplies never faced a U-boat threat at all (reflagged American merchant marine vessels sailing to vladivostock).

No... they just faced the Japanese threat. They sunk reflagged ships all the time. The point is we didn't recieve all of the goods listed. Lend lease was originally a way for the US to stay out of the war so we know what the intentions were.

pointing out yuor uber-Russo-centric world view makes me a racist wow! How low can you stoop?

No... claiming to be superior to me because of my Russian views makes you racist.

huh? How woud the US land troops in China and why would they land troops in China?

There was plenty of ways to get troops to China. The US left them to be slaughtered by Japanese troops by not given them the priority they should have been given. If the troops used in the island hopping campaign had been filtered to China the US could have had inexhaustable manpower and an easy way to defeat Imperial Japan.

Really it destroyed the IJN, gutted the best units of the IJA. But then it wasn't Russian so it was worthless and pointless.

The best units of the IJA were not on those islands... they didn't get many tanks over there did they. The IJN could have been taken on anywhere. It would have been better to do it at PEARL HARBOR! Any idiot could have seen it coming.

"An Ivy League education at a bargain basement price."

-- Dr. Terrel Bell, former Secretary of Education and U.S. Commissioner on Education

"One of the most widely imitated programs in the country."

-- Carnegie Foundation

Let's see what the Princeton Review ranks UCA in the best 361 colleges... NOTHING.

Ivy League my arse...

ThePuss

07-27-2007, 06:39 AM

The USMC casaulty figures were nothing compared to one day on the Eastern Front. The war could have been ended much sooner if the Americans just went for the head rather than trying to work their way up the body.
As two theatres of operation you cannot compare the Eastern and Pacific fronts. It is much easier in terms of strategy and supply for Russia to target Berlin as its objective as it is all land in between the objective.
In the Pacific, and to a certain extent the Western front, you have a large expanse of water to cross first before you can meet the enemy. That means you have to build the ships to get you there, land you there and protect you whilst you are there. Kermanshah1 says the islands were worthless but that is wrong. Each island you take becomes a supply base and as you go you build up a chain of supply bases and airbases for air support for your next invasion. Each island takes you nearer and nearer Tokyo, any way would you really leave an occupied Japanese island in your rear? Once the US get to Okinawa they have the perfect place to bomb Japan from and build up an invasion force. Also you can’t get close enough to Japan by going through SE Asia so the island hopping campaign was really the only viable way.
I agree many more were lost on the Eastern front but that was probably down more to tactics than the quality of enemy faced. I would rate the Germans and Japanese and equals when it comes to fighting men though will their no surrender policy maybe the Japanese just edge it.

If you was a military man serving in the Cold War then you must have been asleep to ask how a Russian can have contempt for Americans claiming to be the major reason for winning WWII. I think as a UK man your sensibilities would be hurt by Zraver taking credit for winning North Africa when we know it was the British who made that possible
I grew up during the cold war, which is why another nuclear armed country worries me, but I don’t dislike Russians because of it. Problem you and him have is that you are patriots and therefore believe that anything your country does is the best out there. Nothing wrong with that per se but it does tend to lead to an unbalance view. You are arguing about the merits of the T34 and the M4 trying to prove yours is the best. All I would say to that is if you took a step back you would see advantages and disadvantages in both and by the end it is hard to pick a winner.
I am a realist and recognise that the allied victory was a combined effort, any American or Russian saying otherwise is talking out their somewhere. In North Africa the Brits were very grateful for the M3 Grants that the US supplied, it gave us the first tank that could fire HE rounds as well as AP. Some to an extent he is right, the US did aid the British victory there but a combined victory.

Vladimir80

07-27-2007, 06:55 AM

As two theatres of operation you cannot compare the Eastern and Pacific fronts. It is much easier in terms of strategy and supply for Russia to target Berlin as its objective as it is all land in between the objective.

The source of Japanese industrial might was Manchuria... with the loss of the Manchuko holdings they were forced to surrender. If the US had focused their strategy to support Chinese rather than wasting it island hopping you would have witnessed and much quicker and less bloody campaign.

I grew up during the cold war, which is why another nuclear armed country worries me, but I don’t dislike Russians because of it.

It is hard to take that with anything but a grain of salt considering the subordinate postion the British always take when under the heels of the US.

ThePuss

07-27-2007, 07:48 AM

The source of Japanese industrial might was Manchuria... with the loss of the Manchuko holdings they were forced to surrender. If the US had focused their strategy to support Chinese rather than wasting it island hopping you would have witnessed and much quicker and less bloody campaign.

At some point the Allies need to put boots on the ground so where does the campaign start?
It is hard to take that with anything but a grain of salt considering the subordinate postion the British always take when under the heels of the US.
Is there a reason I should hate Russians?
Showing slight signs of paranoia there.
Governments like that it stops the citizens blaming them whilst blaming the outsiders.
As to the UK-US relationship, well we use the same language, our interests seem to be the same and we did once own them after all.

Vladimir80

07-27-2007, 08:07 AM

Is there a reason I should hate Russians?

Is there a reason you are expelling our diplomats?

Showing slight signs of paranoia there.

Exactly what your people are doing...

As to the UK-US relationship, well we use the same language, our interests seem to be the same and we did once own them after all.

It appears you have gone from being the owner to owned.

ThePuss

07-27-2007, 10:24 AM

Is there a reason you are expelling our diplomats?

We have indentified a suspected murderer who polluted our enviroment and may have caused future deaths just to silence a government critic. Our legal system would like to give him his day in court. There would appear to be a reluctance on the part of your government to allow this to happen. I know, I know it is in the constitution, wonder why that was put their in the first place. While we are at it why is London suddenly the capital of choice for Russians to conduct their turf wars? See we kicked another hitman out last week, this one also brought his son along for the ride. Interesting age to enter that trade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6905271.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904066.stm

It appears you have gone from being the owner to owned.
Let the new PM settle in and we will see where things go. We have always acted as a useful buffer between the US and Europe and vice versa.

Kermanshah1

07-27-2007, 11:47 AM

2/3 of Germanies military (roughly 7-11 million) might killed 27 million Soviet losses. Adding 1/3 to the German number (no America in WW2)would add more than 1/3 to the causalty total as the Soviets equipment, food, and fuel already never enough just from domestic production would ahve been spread even thinner becuase of greater numbers and no lend lease and German mobile reserves would have been more common. Soviet military causalties might well ahve increased by 50% or more and might have doubled. No nation anyhwere at anytime can absorb 10% of its total population in the battle deaths of its breeding age males.

There is no way the Germans could have send all those forces to the East. Who is gonna fight in North-Afrika then? Who is gonna defend the West then? Who is gonna stop the British invade? The Germans send all they could and they were beaten. When the Germans attacked the Soviet Union there was no western front yet.

Zraver

07-27-2007, 12:52 PM

Vlad

They did by taking on 80% of German armor on the Eastern Front.

Why are you sp ready to give ancillary effects to the T-34 and Red Army but not the US efforts? Those T-34's wpuld not have gone very far witout American supplies. Your biased as usal.

and compared them to Red Army soldiers.

I daresay the brave souls in the Merchant Marine didn't have it easy, unlike a soldier they couldn't shoot back and they were all volunteers. Like the bobmer crews they had an effect far larger than mere numbers would indicate.

This was thanks to BRITISH breaking of enigma... nothing to do with US.

Really? Where did the planes, guns, and fuel used to slaughter the Axis supply feriers come from? Reading the other guys mail is all well and good, but if you don't have the assets to make use of the information its worthless.

Proves your ignorance by contradicting your own statement.

The troops in the west had the same troop density or greater, more armor, better defensive terrain, and shorter supply lines.

No... they just faced the Japanese threat. They sunk reflagged ships all the time. The point is we didn't recieve all of the goods listed. Lend lease was originally a way for the US to stay out of the war so we know what the intentions were.

Do you have any proof at all that the reflagged vessels were sunk? Or is this just another Vladimir lie? Like your claim that half the supplies were sunk. Since only 7% of the Murmansk bound vessels were sunk that means yuor claiming that between Iran and Vladivostock 43% of all the cargoes shipped were lost- YOUR A LIAR.

If the US Govemrent wanted to stay out of the Europe's War then why send supplies or commit the USN to defending the convoys west of Iceland before the ballon went up? It wasn't our war, we dodn't cause it , start it, or have a horse in it.

No... claiming to be superior to me because of my Russian views makes you racist.

I am superior to you beucase your an idiot and a liar, not beucase your Russian. (see below)

There was plenty of ways to get troops to China. The US left them to be slaughtered by Japanese troops by not given them the priority they should have been given. If the troops used in the island hopping campaign had been filtered to China the US could have had inexhaustable manpower and an easy way to defeat Imperial Japan.

1- How the only available route was to fly over the "Hump" technology of the day did not allow people to fly tanks in planes, as it was the air corridor known as the Hump was already crowded and during the war hundreds of aircraft crashed (486 US, 43 Chinese) along its 800 km route. The losses to crashes sometimes reached 50% but the piltos kept on flying dleeivering 650,000 tons of supplies by air and reaching a monthyl deleivery rate of 7000 tons. It was the largest airlif tin history until the Berlin Airlift. In Berline the commander was William H Turner the same man who ran the Hump.

2- What other access to china existed for the US to ship troops and supplies to China so they could strike at Manchuko? Soviet Russia sure didn't want US troops traveling its territory.

Really your claim is so baseless, but as usal you'll either stick to it inspite of the face of the evid