Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Quote: bulls**t. The Factories in the Ural Mountains (Which the Soviets literally picked up and moved there) were producing the bulk of the Soviet warmachine's goods. The US sent some Lend-Lease stuff, but it was not until momentum had shifted to the Soviets and it was a small amount compared to what the Soviets cranked out.

As for oil, the Russians had plenty of it in the Caucusus, which was the main reason that Hitler attacked Stalingrad, so he could capture the Volga River and take the rich Russian oil fields.

Of course the Russians had massive industry no one can searously dispute that, but the American and by extension British contribution to the Russian war effort were a huge reason for the Red Army holding where it did and staying in the field.

The main support that the Americans sent were not Tanks, Aircraft, or Small Arms, though of course they sent those the most prolific of them being the Thompson or the Tommy Gun (?), but what they sent was rubber, industrial diamonds, refined metal, refined oil, boots, medical equipment, field telephones, anti aircraft guns, trucks and jeeps etc.

Their contribution was that they supplied the resources needed to keep the Red Army in the field, they alleviated much of the Soviet Unions concern with it's own resource harvesting and fed the warmachine themselves.

Yes they had plenty of oil, but they couldnt tap into it well at all. They had crude ineffective refining facilities, if any at all.


Quote: Britain needed food far moe during WW1. Even without Britain Russia woudl have won.

Whether that is true or not, and I have no reason to believe you are lying, we have well established records and fact that Churchill and his cabinet made it very clear that the devistating losses of shipping could strangle Britian if it kept constant at the peak month.

Quote: No we would have won in Africa regardles of whether America showed up 2 months before the end of the theatre of not.

Arguable but probable, not because of the fighting prowess of the British Army, but because of the immense damage to the very vital German shipping across the mediterannian.

Quote: Pretty sure it was and most of the aid was transported by the British to Russia.

The majority of the aid without a doubt was of American origin, however what ended up happening was that Lend Lease equipment bound for Britian at Winston Churchill's request was diverted to Russia. This lasted through out the war always a portion of Britians Lend Leas goods were sent to Russia. But they were American made and created, but many times British delivered of course by convoy and by air transport.

Quote: Britain and its Armed Forces were s**t during most of the war

False by an enormous length, the British however man for man were not a match for their German counterparts who had tactics and equipment that surpassed what the British had, as well as the fact that they were outgunned heavily and outnumbered heavily at almost every engagement until the Americans joined the fray. This accounts for the long string of British defeats despite their heroic and brutaly heavy fighting.

[thundertaker]

Quote: False by an enormous length, the British however man for man were not a match for their German counterparts who had tactics and equipment that surpassed what the British had

In terms of tactics, this was probably true of conventional forces, as for equipment, allied artillery was almost always superior to that of the Germans. And it was artillery that was responsible for most of the killing on the battlefields.....

[superskippy]

Quote: In terms of tactics, this was probably true of conventional forces, as for equipment, allied artillery was almost always superior to that of the Germans. And it was artillery that was responsible for most of the killing on the battlefields.....

In terms of both equipment and tactics, even in artillary the British artillary wasnt better, they just had a more available pallet of guns like the heavy 25lbs. The German Artillary functioned just fine and on an equal level as British guns in fact the famous 88's served as Flak Guns, Anti Tank Guns, and Artillary, its just that in certain fronts they had less of it such as in the Desert.

Nor was Artillary even close to being responsable for the bulk of the casualties.

[thundertaker]

superskippy wrote: Quote: In terms of tactics, this was probably true of conventional forces, as for equipment, allied artillery was almost always superior to that of the Germans. And it was artillery that was responsible for most of the killing on the battlefields.....

In terms of both equipment and tactics, even in artillary the British artillary wasnt better, they just had a more available pallet of guns like the heavy 25lbs. The German Artillary functioned just fine and on an equal level as British guns in fact the famous 88's served as Flak Guns, Anti Tank Guns, and Artillary, its just that in certain fronts they had less of it such as in the Desert.

Nor was Artillary even close to being responsable for the bulk of the casualties.

Small-arms fire accounted for relatively few casualties. From what I have read, artillery inflicted far more, in conjunction with air-power. I read this in Max Hasting's book on the D-day landings. He said that German equipment was superior in just about every field apart from artillery and something else......

[superskippy]

The British didnt have better artillary per se but it was certaintly on par with the Germans, but they had massive pallet of artillary types and a great pre-war arsenal of Artillary, ranging from 2lbs, 6lbs, 17lbs, 25lbs, etc I probably missed a few calibers above and in between. And thats only for their standard guns, the German doctrine did not focus in massed artillary or even a heavy reliance on their guns. Their main artillary pieces were multi purpose weapons meant to make them more versatile and thus more mobile and adaptable. Such as the aforementioned famous 88.

As for Artillary causing the bulk of the casualties that simply doesnt stand up to the facts, all one has to do is look at the types of battles and fronts without even bringing up the quite clear statistics. Artillary had been reduced in role by WW2, mobility overtook ability to bring about heavy firepower. Artillary by it's nature is large and cumbersome and in a high speed engagement it is inadvisable to use it in a spearhead, which is why aircraft took over that job.

Artillary was only used at an operational level in preset defensive positions, or in preplanned front egagements, other than that Artillary was religated to a battery level whos job was to prove supporting fire to the attached Brigade.

Out of all weapons small arms(counting machine guns), tanks, aircraft, artillary, I'd put it in thise order, 1. Small arms, the bolt action rifle, the pistol, the machine gun, the grenade, they brought about at the very least 15,000,000 deaths during World War 2. 2. Aircraft. 3. Tanks. 4. Artillary.

[mathurin]

Jehan wrote: Russia was the big player of the Allies when it came to winning the war, despite what most Americans think.

i can agree, to some extent

ever heard the quote (damn, i cant find the exact match)
paraphrased
roosevelt is willing to fight hitler to the last russian
ive heard it attributed to churchill as well


essentially, the western powers wanted to let germany and the soviet union fight eachother as much as possible, because they knew they had to fight germany eventually, and assumed they would have to fight the soviets, they had no way of knowing the nukes would be developed and lead to the cold war

just because the ringer stands aside and lets someone else fight, does not mean he couldnt have won without the fighter, just that he chose not to dirty his hands at that time

but i understand what you mean, they did have the largest part, and victory would be a question mark if they hadnt joined

[Slava]

mendosan wrote: Every figure I have ever seen says the opposite apart from tank production, you must have seen pictures of Russian soldiers US made Tommy guns and the like.
To be honest, this is the first time I hear about the Red Army using Tommy guns. Can you give a link?

[thundertaker]

Slava wrote: mendosan wrote: Every figure I have ever seen says the opposite apart from tank production, you must have seen pictures of Russian soldiers US made Tommy guns and the like.
To be honest, this is the first time I hear about the Red Army using Tommy guns. Can you give a link?

He must be confusing the Tommy Gun with the PPSH-41 Which looks a bit like a tommy gun....

[Slava]

thundertaker wrote: Slava wrote: mendosan wrote: Every figure I have ever seen says the opposite apart from tank production, you must have seen pictures of Russian soldiers US made Tommy guns and the like.
To be honest, this is the first time I hear about the Red Army using Tommy guns. Can you give a link?

He must be confusing the Tommy Gun with the PPSH-41 Which looks a bit like a tommy gun....
I also thought that he probably confused Tommy with PPD-40, PPS-43, or PPSh-41.

[antonio62]

superskippy wrote: Of course the Russians had massive industry no one can searously dispute that, but the American and by extension British contribution to the Russian war effort were a huge reason for the Red Army holding where it did and staying in the field.

The main support that the Americans sent were not Tanks, Aircraft, or Small Arms, though of course they sent those the most prolific of them being the Thompson or the Tommy Gun (?), but what they sent was rubber, industrial diamonds, refined metal, refined oil, boots, medical equipment, field telephones, anti aircraft guns, trucks and jeeps etc.

Their contribution was that they supplied the resources needed to keep the Red Army in the field, they alleviated much of the Soviet Unions concern with it's own resource harvesting and fed the warmachine themselves.

Yes they had plenty of oil, but they couldnt tap into it well at all. They had crude ineffective refining facilities, if any at all.

None of those things with the exception of rubber meant Russia would win the war. I don’t know if Russia produced any of its own rubber of not so I cant comment on that but they had plenty of metal and oil which they did refine themselves. They also had the Iranian oil fields and refinery’s which they could use. Trucks helped speed up the victory but I think Russia could have coped without them especially in the later stages of the war where the Germans had no oil. The Russians received just less than 10% of there machine guns from the allies. I don't think anti aircraft guns were that necessary either. If you combine the allied production of aircraft minus Americas against the whole of the axis the allies produced far more aircraft about 100,000 more I think.


Quote: Whether that is true or not, and I have no reason to believe you are lying, we have well established records and fact that Churchill and his cabinet made it very clear that the devistating losses of shipping could strangle Britian if it kept constant at the peak month.

If they managed to sink all the ships they possibly could have stopped us but they were never going to stop all the ships getting to Britain. If they had they would have had to do it in the early part of the war. During WW1 we were down to 6 weeks food at one point I have never heard of Britain being in that kind of situation during WW2.


Quote: The majority of the aid without a doubt was of American origin, however what ended up happening was that Lend Lease equipment bound for Britian at Winston Churchill's request was diverted to Russia. This lasted through out the war always a portion of Britians Lend Leas goods were sent to Russia. But they were American made and created, but many times British delivered of course by convoy and by air transport.

It could be true that it was originally American then given to Britain which Britain gave to Russia. I have heard it said quite often that Britain gave the majority of the aid. They may be taking it as meaning if I give you a present and then you give it to someone else its still you giving the present not me.

[ozymandias]

i'll have to check this but i'm pretty sure artillery was a huge killer in WWII, more than small arms. can't remember the figures but i seem to remember reading that in an american (just an example) something like 80% of soldiers never aimed their weapons, 18% never fired them at all and about three or four guys in every company were the only ones aiming and actually doing damage. again, i'll work to pin down these figures. this means that artillery is inherently more capable as the enemy is out of sight and more of an abstraction. of course this has probably changed with modern training techniques for western infantry.

[ozymandias]

and what were the figures in vietnam? something like 60,000 rounds for every kill?

[milo1047]

In World war II, artillery was the big killer, no matter what movies you may have watched where every soldier aims carefully at his target. The basic tactic of every infantry unit in the war was to suppress the enemy by firing as much as they could in their gheneral direction to keep their heads down. Thsi allowed them to close and destroy and/or capture the enemy.

The British had a fin e army, but they were espescially cautious in it's use. This was mainly because many of the older, higher officers were WWI vets who did not believe in frontal assault. Also, Britian did not have the man power of the United States or Russia, and could not afford heavy casualties.

[antonio62]

Britain could call on the whole empire for soldiers and it did. 2.6 million Indians served for Britain. In India alone Britain had a population base larger than the Soveit Union and the US combined. Not to mention most of Africa the other areas of Asia and Britain itself.

[foadi]

sovunion won wwii unfortunately. this is the source of most of the problems in the world today. teh wrong side won that war.

[Bobicito]

What problems? I think most of the problems today live in thee middle east.

[Slava]

foadi wrote: sovunion won wwii unfortunately. this is the source of most of the problems in the world today. teh wrong side won that war.
Would you be more fortunate if 'the right side' - the Nazi Germany - won the war? I really doubt this.

Generally speaking I think the question is wrongly worded. Of course, the US won the war (or would anyone argue that it lost it?), because it was part of the Allies. So did the USSR and Britain.

[Bobicito]

Quote: Generally speaking I think the question is wrongly worded. Of course, the US won the war (or would anyone argue that it lost it?), because it was part of the Allies. So did the USSR and Britain.

HIstory has it down they won the war, so I'm going to go with that.

[red dragon]

Bobicito wrote: Quote: Generally speaking I think the question is wrongly worded. Of course, the US won the war (or would anyone argue that it lost it?), because it was part of the Allies. So did the USSR and Britain.

HIstory has it down they won the war, so I'm going to go with that.

?????? :roll: :roll: :-| :-|

[foadi]

Slava wrote: foadi wrote: sovunion won wwii unfortunately. this is the source of most of the problems in the world today. teh wrong side won that war.
Would you be more fortunate if 'the right side' - the Nazi Germany - won the war? I really doubt this.
Yes. Communism is pure evil and must be destroyed. Europe going fascist (not like thats much of a change anyways) is preferable to half of the world going communist.