<< First, it's hard to say that Russian tanks were superior to US tanks, though the case can certainly be made. >>
Yes they were superior. Their design was better (in fact, T-34 was so good and lethal that germans copied it's design in their Panther). The standard tank in western armies was the Sherman and it's variants. There were also some tank-killers like the M10. Late in the war you got the M26 Pershing but it didn't have much impact in the war.
Besides T-34, soviets had tanks like:
IS-1
IS-2
IS-3
ISU-122
SU-152
SU-100
All of which had superior armor and firepower when compared to western tanks.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 85
- 91
USSR.... wishful thinking. Yes they stopped the Germans (with a little help of those nice winters over there). I guess you could be more specific in your question. What country or what person.. or?
I would place my vote for the designers of the P-51 Mustang (The ones with the Merlin powerplants). It allowed greater success in strategic bombing. As we have seen in recent wars, it is really quite helpful.
I would place my vote for the designers of the P-51 Mustang (The ones with the Merlin powerplants). It allowed greater success in strategic bombing. As we have seen in recent wars, it is really quite helpful.
<< USSR.... wishful thinking. Yes they stopped the Germans (with a little help of those nice winters over there). >>
At first, russians did get help from the weather, but not in the later stages. And in the later stages, they rolled right over Wehrmacht, no matter what the weather was like.
<< I would place my vote for the designers of the P-51 Mustang (The ones with the Merlin powerplants). It allowed greater success in strategic bombing. As we have seen in recent wars, it is really quite helpful. >>
Strategic bombing didn't gain much. Germans broke all their previous production-records regardless of massive-bombings.
If I had to choose a design-team, I would choose the team who designed the T-34 tank.
<< If I had to choose a design-team, I would choose the team who designed the T-34 tank. >>
Yes, the T-34 was much better than any early model Panzer. It was hailed as the perfect tank design back then.
<<
<< First, it's hard to say that Russian tanks were superior to US tanks, though the case can certainly be made. >>
Yes they were superior. Their design was better (in fact, T-34 was so good and lethal that germans copied it's design in their Panther). The standard tank in western armies was the Sherman and it's variants. There were also some tank-killers like the M10. Late in the war you got the M26 Pershing but it didn't have much impact in the war. >>
Yea, the Shermans were quite bad compared to the Panther. I think it took more than a few Shermans to take out a single Panther. I've also heard stories of tank crews stacking up scrap metal and sand bags on the front of the tanks just to afford better protection. Still the good things about the Shermans was it's reliability and plus they definately had the edge in numbers..
<< Hitler had the most influence in LOSING the war, not winning it
>>Yup. Especially his dumb-@$$ decisions in properly supplying the troops in North Africa. Remember the "Desert Fox" Rommel?
Texmaster,
<< LOL Czar Czar Czar.... How did I know you wouldn't pick the US?
The US for Fighting on both Fronts with more fire and man power than anyone else. >>
I think I'm a psychic! Before I clicked on this thread, I predicted that you'd be among the first replies. I predicted your answer too!
Yeah, I pick the US also.
<< LOL Czar Czar Czar.... How did I know you wouldn't pick the US?
The US for Fighting on both Fronts with more fire and man power than anyone else. >>
I think I'm a psychic! Before I clicked on this thread, I predicted that you'd be among the first replies. I predicted your answer too!
Yeah, I pick the US also.
<< Yea, the Shermans were quite bad compared to the Panther. I think it took more than a few Shermans to take out a single Panther. >>
If I remember correctly, the loss ratio between Shermans and Pathers/Tigers (I forgot which) was 4-5 Shermans destroyed for every german tank destroyed. Ouch!
<< Still the good things about the Shermans was it's reliability and plus they definately had the edge in numbers.. >>
Sherman certainly had it's good points. It was reliable, easy to maintain, easy to transport and cheap to produce. But the bad qualities were pretty serious... It was undergunned and it's amour was thin, it's profile was way too high making it an easy target. Also, they were prone to catch fire when hit.
I would place my vote for the designers of the P-51 Mustang (The ones with the Merlin powerplants). It allowed greater success in strategic bombing. As we have seen in recent wars, it is really quite helpful.
Most military historians believe that strategic bombing did diddly squat to stop the Germans; some make the case that strategic bombing itself is entirely useless (ugh i dun wanna dig up article). It certainly wasn't useful in Yugoslavia; it was useful in Iraq because there was an army (pape's theory is the army is the anvil that makes the opposition come out to face it while the air force is the hammer that smacks 'em when they come out; without the anvil the hammer will be attacking fake tanks like in Yugoslavia).
In Germany:
The Nazis' troops and equipment weren't significantly hindered by bombing, and with some notable exceptions it really didn't slow down production, nor did it make the people unwilling to fight. The argument in the defense of strategic bombing is that it made Germans concentrate more on air defense, but the counter-argument is that the allies had to put more money into bombers/fighters instead of ground troops.
Oh, and I consider killing 7/8 of all germans who were killed in the war to be something of an accomplishment.
As for Russian tanks, my only complaint was that i understood they couldn't be produced too easily and they were prone to problems, what with being russian made and all i could be way off base on this though.
edit: i understand germans called the US tanks Ronsens (sp) on account of their ability to light up like a Ronsen (lighter) upon being hit. Ouch.
Most military historians believe that strategic bombing did diddly squat to stop the Germans; some make the case that strategic bombing itself is entirely useless (ugh i dun wanna dig up article). It certainly wasn't useful in Yugoslavia; it was useful in Iraq because there was an army (pape's theory is the army is the anvil that makes the opposition come out to face it while the air force is the hammer that smacks 'em when they come out; without the anvil the hammer will be attacking fake tanks like in Yugoslavia).
In Germany:
The Nazis' troops and equipment weren't significantly hindered by bombing, and with some notable exceptions it really didn't slow down production, nor did it make the people unwilling to fight. The argument in the defense of strategic bombing is that it made Germans concentrate more on air defense, but the counter-argument is that the allies had to put more money into bombers/fighters instead of ground troops.
Oh, and I consider killing 7/8 of all germans who were killed in the war to be something of an accomplishment.
As for Russian tanks, my only complaint was that i understood they couldn't be produced too easily and they were prone to problems, what with being russian made and all
i could be way off base on this though. edit: i understand germans called the US tanks Ronsens (sp) on account of their ability to light up like a Ronsen (lighter) upon being hit. Ouch.
<< As for Russian tanks, my only complaint was that i understood they couldn't be produced too easily and they were prone to problems, what with being russian made and all
i could be way off base on this though. >>Well, the heavy tanks are of course more difficult to manufacture. But T-34 was pretty easy to make. It was a no-frills tank and they made vast numbers of 'em. The simplicity of the design made it possible to build lots of them. Also, to my knowledge, they were pretty damn reliable.
I'd say its impossible to choose, the US, Britian, and Russia all were crucial to winning the war, and it would have been impossible for the allies to win had any side dropped out of the war. Hitler did make the most mistakes though, left Rommel on his own, failed to destory the RAF when he had the perfect chance (decided to raze London instead), and invading Russia before defeating Britian. That was almost as stupid as the Maginot Line
<<
<< Yea, the Shermans were quite bad compared to the Panther. I think it took more than a few Shermans to take out a single Panther. >>
If I remember correctly, the loss ratio between Shermans and Pathers/Tigers (I forgot which) was 4-5 Shermans destroyed for every german tank destroyed. Ouch! >>
I could be wrong, but it could much much higher. The Germans had the tanks, but really, only a small handful ever confronted the Shermans in battle, many of them were still sitting on train boxes during the whole time.
A few point's
The Russians did the most fighting (at least in Europe- in Asia they jumped in after the 1st A bomb was dropped)
The British provided the will, and in a way the logistical support (it was one Huge Storage depot before Normandy) Never underestimate the importance of the logistics- thats what makes officers Generals! Also, consider that the British navy was pretty much able to command the Atlantic, letting the US deploy a higher percentage of it's ships to the Pacifc
The US provided the productivity
A qualitative note about tanks- beyond a shadow of a doubt, the best tank of the war was the T34 Russian- the Geman Panzer were a fair match in a 2-1, but 1-1 the T34 was superior. The Sherman was vastly outgunned and out armored- however, it was availabe in mass quantity
The Russians did the most fighting (at least in Europe- in Asia they jumped in after the 1st A bomb was dropped)
The British provided the will, and in a way the logistical support (it was one Huge Storage depot before Normandy) Never underestimate the importance of the logistics- thats what makes officers Generals! Also, consider that the British navy was pretty much able to command the Atlantic, letting the US deploy a higher percentage of it's ships to the Pacifc
The US provided the productivity
A qualitative note about tanks- beyond a shadow of a doubt, the best tank of the war was the T34 Russian- the Geman Panzer were a fair match in a 2-1, but 1-1 the T34 was superior. The Sherman was vastly outgunned and out armored- however, it was availabe in mass quantity
<< Texmaster,
<< LOL Czar Czar Czar.... How did I know you wouldn't pick the US?
The US for Fighting on both Fronts with more fire and man power than anyone else. >>
I think I'm a psychic! Before I clicked on this thread, I predicted that you'd be among the first replies. I predicted your answer too!
Yeah, I pick the US also. >>
You must be psychic!
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Siva and Ddad pretty much summed up my opinion. No one was necessarily more important than the other, they all made major and necessary contributions.
Europe was the most difficult part of the war and though the US almost single handidly defeated Japan(certainly the vast majority of Japan's defeat was done by the US), once Japan's Navy had been defeated Japan was destined to fall.
Europe was the most difficult part of the war and though the US almost single handidly defeated Japan(certainly the vast majority of Japan's defeat was done by the US), once Japan's Navy had been defeated Japan was destined to fall.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,857
- 13,982
- 146
<< I'd give some credit to europeans and russians, since they were the ones who had to fight on their own soil. As for us, even though we did make a huge contribution, we didn't have to see our cities burned and our civilians killed. >>
Yeah, the US only sent 300,000+ to their deaths to help.
Seriously, I think bailing out a contenent by sending your sons half way around the world to die is not an easy task.
Yeah, the US only sent 300,000+ to their deaths to help.
Seriously, I think bailing out a contenent by sending your sons half way around the world to die is not an easy task.
Yeah let's thank the US and their prompt action to go to war. Wait, wasn't this the country that waited until Pearl Harbor, even though FDR was pushing for war each and every day?
Really, 300 000 is nothing compared to Russia's toll.
Not to take away from US involvement, it was still fantastically important even in Europe, but it's not like this country (FDR excepted) was itching for a fight.
Seriously, I think bailing out a contenent by sending your sons half way around the world to die is not an easy task.
Yeah let's thank the US and their prompt action to go to war. Wait, wasn't this the country that waited until Pearl Harbor, even though FDR was pushing for war each and every day?
Really, 300 000 is nothing compared to Russia's toll.
Not to take away from US involvement, it was still fantastically important even in Europe, but it's not like this country (FDR excepted) was itching for a fight.
Played a game of Axis and Allies to decide.. and the winner was me playing germany
So that correct answer is of course Hitler!!!
So that correct answer is of course Hitler!!!
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,857
- 13,982
- 146
<< Yeah, the US only sent 300,000+ to their deaths to help.
Seriously, I think bailing out a contenent by sending your sons half way around the world to die is not an easy task.
Yeah let's thank the US and their prompt action to go to war. Wait, wasn't this the country that waited until Pearl Harbor, even though FDR was pushing for war each and every day?
Really, 300 000 is nothing compared to Russia's toll.
Not to take away from US involvement, it was still fantastically important even in Europe, but it's not like this country (FDR excepted) was itching for a fight. >>
No, we weren't itching for a fight. And can you blame us after WWI? I mean, really think about this.
However, when it came down to it, the US was there. AND we remained there to keep the Soviets out of western Europe.
And yes, the Soviet's 7.5 million is nothing to sneeze at. However they only have Stalin to blame for that. Had it not been for Stalin's purges (including most of Russia's great military leaders and strategists), Hitler never would have made it nearly as far as he did.
The Soviet victory over Germany was one of pure attrition. If I throw enough babies into a chipper-shredder, it will eventually break. When it does, we can call the babies great heros and victors, OK?
The US and the UK. The US provided manpower and materials. The UK provided the air fields, manpower, and a great place to launch and invadsion.
Edit: or Microsoft.....
Edit: or Microsoft.....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter