NationStates Jolt Archive

This was a book suggested by Tactical Grace. It was written by Paul Adair and it discusses the destruction of Army Group Centre via Operation Bagration

If anybody is really interested in the Eastern Campaigns, this is a great little book about Bagration.

For a little book (only 200 pages) Adair does a good job talking about events leading up to the campaign and after the campaign.

Some intresting stuff was that you get to see that Hitler basically caused the destruction of 28-30 divisions with his stance on Fester Platz.

The Soviets did a masterful hiding of their armies and caught the Germans more or less by surprise. Especially when you consider that it involved 2.3 million men and equipment.

The Soviets used men wearing uniforms to try and mislead units into ambushes. Some cases it worked and many cases the Germans shot anybody how didn't have the right paperwork.

The 5th Panzer division is mentioned for its fighting. They lost 58 Panthers (out of 70), 49 Mk IV's (out of 55), and an unknown amount of Tigers (out of 20). In turn they destroyed 486 tanks, 11 assult guns, 119 anti-tank guns and 100 trucks.

The best compliment was heard of Soviet Radio: "if you meet 5th Panzer, try to go around them."

There have been many debates over the victors of WWII and if the Soviets won the war for the West. As I have mentioned it was the group effort and Adair himself mentions that Soviet Historians have tried to dismiss the value of Lend-lease as not really having much worth. He mentions (as has Tac and Neu) that the great contribution were trucks. Espeically the studibakers which allowed for the rapid movement that happened in this campaign.

There was talk of the tanks received as being crap but adair mentions there are newsreals showing Shermans still in use towards the end of the war.

There was talk about German tanks couldn't really compete against Soviet tanks and yet there is the comments of a Lieutenant Degan.

"I must confess we knew the German tanks were very powerful. For example, they had tanks like the Tiger, the Panther, and the self-propelled gun, the Ferdinand. We thought they were very fearsome because for a start they had much thicker armour: the frontal armour on a Tiger was 300mm and on the T34 it was 120mm. The German guns were much more powerful then our 85mm. Their guns had a much higher muzzle velocity and they could hit us quickly at a distance of 2 kilometres.

I couldn't do anything with a German tank like a Tiger or a Panther if I met it head on. If I was going to win, I had to find its weak spot, and that meant approaching it from the side. So our usual tactics, when we were advancing and knew that there might be an ambush ahead, was to advance suddenly, stop and open fire as if we knew there was something there, and often turn round and take to our heals. We hoped they would open fire, and we would then be able to see where they were firing from and could then fight back.

Adair also mentions that D-Day needed Bagration and vise-versa. Both tied up divisions that would have been of great use to each area. For example, many German fighter groups were moved to the West. This allowed for the Soviet Air to strafe and bomb retreating columns at will.

Hopefully someday there will be a detailed account of this battle.

Thanks for the suggestion Tac! It was worth it

Hitler's greatest defeat was the loss of army group centre to the Sovs. His greatest fuckup was following Napoleons strategy and not moving on Moscow when there were heavy tank divisions(tigers, panthers, panzerIV, Flak 88) and SS panzergrenadier divisions 40km from the city

Yeah it is probably one of the most important and decisive, but most unknown, battles in World War Two. I think the Western Allies (USA and Britain) often give themselves more credit than they deserve for the defeat of Germany. The Soviets could have won the war anyway, but the Western Allies couldn't have without the Soviets.

Hitler's greatest defeat was the loss of army group centre to the Sovs. His greatest fuckup was following Napoleons strategy and not moving on Moscow when there were heavy tank divisions(tigers, panthers, panzerIV, Flak 88) and SS panzergrenadier divisions 40km from the city

It is easy to say that now, but the weather proved a major part. It should also be noted that those divisions had just driven 100s of kilometers, with virtually no break, and had taken many casualties and lots of damage.

Yeah it is probably one of the most important and decisive, but most unknown, battles in World War Two. I think the Western Allies (USA and Britain) often give themselves more credit than they deserve for the defeat of Germany. The Soviets could have won the war anyway, but the Western Allies couldn't have without the Soviets.

Eliminate Lend-Lease and it puts a question on that. Especially when you consider what the trucks and medicines did for the Red Army in the early part of the war.

Eliminate Lend-Lease and it puts a question on that. Especially when you consider what the trucks and medicines did for the Red Army in the early part of the war.

I believe it was Churchill who said something like "It does not matter where the front lies, all that matters is that there is a front", refering to the Eastern Front. The aid to the Soviets surely helped them win the war faster, but I believe they would have won anyway.

Eliminate Lend-Lease and it puts a question on that. Especially when you consider what the trucks and medicines did for the Red Army in the early part of the war.

Think in terms of blood. Russians win, gallons to drams.

Hitler started his Russian campaign on the same day that Napolean started his. And with the same lack of preparedness for the Russian winter. Hitler believed he would walk through the Russiaan army and therefore did not have to worry about winter equipment as much.

Also, Hitler's greates mistake was the very thing that brought him to power. Namely, his treatment of the Jews. had he kept this part of his population he would have been vastly more dangerous in terms of scientific creativity and know how.

I believe it was Churchill who said something like "It does not matter where the front lies, all that matters is that there is a front", refering to the Eastern Front. The aid to the Soviets surely helped them win the war faster, but I believe they would have won anyway.

Possibly not. The Russian front reduced the amount of supplies that would have otherwise have been directed to the Afrika Corps. But then again, would there have been anything that counted as a total victory for the Nazis short of conquering the whole world?

Whether the western allies could have recorded a military victory without the Russians is debatable, I don't think they could have. But it is probably irrelevant, the third reich would have eventually come undone from the inside. It's good to see youg people actually taking an interest in military history I must say.

Adair also mentions that D-Day needed Bagration and vise-versa. Both tied up divisions that would have been of great use to each area. For example, many German fighter groups were moved to the West. This allowed for the Soviet Air to strafe and bomb retreating columns at will.

Hopefully someday there will be a detailed account of this battle.

Thanks for the suggestion Tac! It was worth it
Yep.


Germany got OWND!

Think in terms of blood. Russians win, gallons to drams.

sheer manpower is not a sound argument for the soviets winning the war themselves. they had the manpower from the beginning but were getting thumped early on. Stalin knew the soviets couldnt take on the nazis and thats why he made the pact. the soviets needed to boost industry and modernise fast, this would not have been possible without allied help. straight up soviets vs nazis the soviets would have spilt all their blood before they'd strengthened their forces enough to make use of their numbers.
there was a similar situation in the pacific theatre. chinese took all the casualties, and had been doing for years before WWII, but again it was the allies who had the tech and the cash to build up sufficient forces.
dont get me wrong the soviets did heaps but they were no match for the nazis alone

I just have something to say.

Now, in the beginning of WWII, Hitler's army first oppressed his own nation, then invaded the countries closest to him. After that, he then did his expansion outwards. Now. If Hitler had used the resources he had and did a full scale assault/invasion of the British. Wouldn't he of had a better edge now that One of the Wester powers is eliminated?
Also. I think that his biggest mistake was to exclude those enitre races. Meaning Jewish, Muslim, Gypsy, and so on. If he had included those into his army, and just put down his personal grudges against them, he would of had a few million more soldiers at hand. That would of given him an even sharper edge.
Now, I may be a bit short on the knowledge about the rules of war...but why the hell do you want to keep POW's? Why not just behead them for opposing you and get it over with? I mean. If the POW camp is liberated...that's just adding more enemy soldier's to the opposition.
Another thing. (And this is referring to Pearl Harbor.) Where were the Submarines? They should of been at a far enough distance to of seen at least one bloody Japanese ship! If the Americans would of just thought ahead, then they wouldn't of had to endure such a blow.

Okay. Now on a different course. Russians. Yes they were pretty darn good. They were best at the European Assault, but is there any accounts of them in the Pacific Assault? I haven't heard of the Russians even helping out with fighting the Japanese. Of course, I'm probably wrong. But the Pacific Assault was mostly consisted of Americans. Heh.
Hmm.
Now that I'm thinking. WHERE WERE THE AMERICANS AT THE BEGINNING OF EITHER WAR? They were always late. If they had just come in when they were needed, there would be at least a smaller amount of lives lost. Not only that, but Germany wouldn't of expanded as much.

Now this whole thing could of been easily avoided if the Allies would of kept a closer watch on Germany. Maybe Establish a base or two within the German border...or at least a few just outside..incase of a ressurection of the German Army.
Also...Poland, I love you to death...but...WHO EVER HEARD OF BANNING GUNS?! As many of my friends like to joke, if North Korea ever tried invading let's say...Texas. They would not get further than 10 miles inland. With all of the guns most people have per household there...heh...yeah...upon average it's about at least twenty guns per household. But then again, you can say "good bye" to Maine. Although...they wouldn't last in NYC...

Just words for thought...

sheer manpower is not a sound argument for the soviets winning the war themselves. they had the manpower from the beginning but were getting thumped early on. Stalin knew the soviets couldnt take on the nazis and thats why he made the pact. the soviets needed to boost industry and modernise fast, this would not have been possible without allied help. straight up soviets vs nazis the soviets would have spilt all their blood before they'd strengthened their forces enough to make use of their numbers.
there was a similar situation in the pacific theatre. chinese took all the casualties, and had been doing for years before WWII, but again it was the allies who had the tech and the cash to build up sufficient forces.
dont get me wrong the soviets did heaps but they were no match for the nazis alone

Exactly. With the Allies almost infinate funding, the USSR along with most other places wouldn't be where they are today without it. Of course, USSR broke up later on due to it going bankrupt....oops. That's a lost cause...lol

dont get me wrong the soviets did heaps but they were no match for the nazis alone

Hmmm... Yes lend lease was very important and the Soviets could never have inflicted as much damage upon the Nazis as they did without it, but the most dangerous time for the Soviet Union was in the first six months of fighting and in that time lend lease could not have had a huge effect. While it is possible to say just what would would have happened I think it's likely that the Soviet Union could have held off the Nazis without collasping even if they hadn't received lend lease aid. Of course this was only possible due to the Nazis losing much of their own technical edge after the first year of fighting and any advances agaisnt the Nazis would have been slower and more painful.

The Soviet Union recieved $9-10 billion dollars in lend-lease aid which is very roughly 7% of Soviet GDP in 1941, or about 2.3% of total Soviet GDP. So while lend lease was extremely helpful and helped prevent production bottlenecks, it still was not an enormous amount compared to total Soviet production.

(Note: These figures are rough because the Soviet economy wasn't exactly transparent.)

Okay. Now on a different course. Russians. Yes they were pretty darn good. They were best at the European Assault, but is there any accounts of them in the Pacific Assault? I haven't heard of the Russians even helping out with fighting the Japanese. Of course, I'm probably wrong. But the Pacific Assault was mostly consisted of Americans. Heh.
Hmm.

The Russians gave the Japanese a bloody nose at the beginning of WWII. But I guess for yanks, that war didn't start until 41, so it doesn't count.

The reason the Russians did not press home the advantage gained was due to the Russo-Finnish war, and the carving up of Poland. However, until Barbarossa, they did keep a sizable force in the east.

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/nomonhan.htm

Now that I'm thinking. WHERE WERE THE AMERICANS AT THE BEGINNING OF EITHER WAR? They were always late. If they had just come in when they were needed, there would be at least a smaller amount of lives lost. Not only that, but Germany wouldn't of expanded as much.


The Americans didn't want to get involved in a European war. It wasn't our problem, it was yours. I don't remember why we decided to get involved in WW1. In WW2, we supported the Allies from the start, but it took Perl Habor to get us involved militarily.

As for the Russians, they DID recieve assistance and it's questionable whether they could have won without it. It's also true that most of the German deaths were on the Eastern front, and it's very doubtful that we could have won without them, and even if we did, our death toll would have been far higher than it was.

I think I read that one reason the Russians had trouble early in the war was that many people considered Hitler as a liberator from Stalin. But it soon became clear that he was even worse.

I also agree that without the Jewish scientists who fled to the West, Hitler might have gotten the Bomb first, and German rockets were the best in the world. Scary thought, but something for any would-be oppressors to think about.

Exactly. With the Allies almost infinate funding, the USSR along with most other places wouldn't be where they are today without it. Of course, USSR broke up later on due to it going bankrupt....oops. That's a lost cause...lol

It's also worth noting that the US were actually actively and directly funding the nazis. Even until late in the war. They were prepared to do business with anyone that would; they didn't necessarily care what the end product would be used for. You only have to look at the Dehomag situation to see what was allowed to happen.

Figures such as Prescott Bush and Thomas J. Watson campaigned in order to persuade Roosevelt not to enter the war, in the interest of business. Edwin Black's book, "IBM and the Holocaust", provides an excellent account of this.

Maybe the question should not be, did US funding help win the war for the allies? But, could it have been ended sooner, and with less loss of life, if they weren't funding the enemy?

The Americans didn't want to get involved in a European war. It wasn't our problem, it was yours. I don't remember why we decided to get involved in WW1. In WW2, we supported the Allies from the start, but it took Perl Habor to get us involved militarily.


I think it is pretty noble some European countries were prepared to defend other countries' sovereignty, democracy and liberty, rather than turn a blind eye to attrocities that were being committed.

American citizens were being killed on cruise liners in WWI, but it wasn't until the US government received intelligence that they would be invaded by Mexico, that they decided to act.

In WW2, we supported the Allies from the start, but it took Perl Habor to get us involved militarily.
Um, no the US didn't. The US were funding the Germans as much as anybody else. It wasn't until Germany declared war on the US, that they decided to respond back.

I think I read that one reason the Russians had trouble early in the war was that many people considered Hitler as a liberator from Stalin. But it soon became clear that he was even worse.

.

I think, if we're are talking about the Eastern front, one of Hitlers big mistake was opressing the Ukrainians and Bellorrussians and other minorities. They lined the streets and cheered the German army on when they "liberated" them from the Soviets and could have provided a huge help to the campaign. In terms of a new population to recruit from, production, and the fact that if they're on your side they won't screw with your logistics. But Hitler decided to opress them instead and he got the opposite.

Then there's the fact that Hitler held off the invasion for a few weeks so he could deal with Yugoslavia and Greece, which probaly did cost him the war in the East. A few more weeks of summer and Russia would have been in a whole lot more pain, this was probaly Germany's greatest mistake.



As for Lend Lease, granted Russia could have won the war without the military equipment given, albiet with more casualties and it would have taken more time, but Russia would not have won without the resources and especially medicines. Without the medicines that America supplied Russia with sooner or later disease would have hit their armies and their populace. Without the rubber and other resources given by America, how would Russia have utilized its massive production capability? I don't think Russia has any rubber of its own.

It's also worth noting that the US were actually actively and directly funding the nazis. Even until late in the war. They were prepared to do business with anyone that would; they didn't necessarily care what the end product would be used for. You only have to look at the Dehomag situation to see what was allowed to happen.

Figures such as Prescott Bush and Thomas J. Watson campaigned in order to persuade Roosevelt not to enter the war, in the interest of business. Edwin Black's book, "IBM and the Holocaust", provides an excellent account of this.

Maybe the question should not be, did US funding help win the war for the allies? But, could it have been ended sooner, and with less loss of life, if they weren't funding the enemy?

How many tanks, planes, jeeps, guns and planes went over to Germany? The bussiness that went on with Germany was private bussiness, and while its easy now with 20/20 vision to say, look, Germany was bad, look at the Holocaust, look at this and that, but in 1940 know one knew about the Holocaust, there wasn't a "Bad" side and a "Good" side. Anyway, Britian recieved tons more than Germany did, and in material help.

Actually, in August 1945 the Red Army annihilated a million-strong Japanese Army in two weeks, capturing what is now China and North Korea in the process.

How many tanks, planes, jeeps, guns and planes went over to Germany? The bussiness that went on with Germany was private bussiness, and while its easy now with 20/20 vision to say, look, Germany was bad, look at the Holocaust, look at this and that, but in 1940 know one knew about the Holocaust, there wasn't a "Bad" side and a "Good" side. Anyway, Britian recieved tons more than Germany did, and in material help.

Before the US entered the war, Germany didn't need material help. Even at the end of the war they still had massive technological superiority, they wouldn't have wanted US equipment. They needed cash, paper and functional organisational equipment. BUSINESS deals with the US gave them this.

The west knew what was going on. Certainly Thomas J. Watson did. It is more likely that they didn't know what to do about it.

Anyway, Britian recieved tons more than Germany did, and in material help.

So, it would be okay if Britain had funded the Iraqi army whilst the invasion of Iraq was going on?

Actually, in August 1945 the Red Army annihilated a million-strong Japanese Army in two weeks, capturing what is now China and North Korea in the process.

But by then it didn't matter, it was more a land grab than anything else.

Before the US entered the war, Germany didn't need material help. Even at the end of the war they still had massive technological superiority, they wouldn't have wanted US equipment. They needed cash, paper and functional organisational equipment. BUSINESS deals with the US gave them this.

The west knew what was going on. Certainly Thomas J. Watson did. It is more likely that they didn't know what to do about it.

And how was America supposed to know, in 1940, not to support Germany? No one knew about the Holocaust or any other war crimes that Germany was committing. If America had gone to war with Mexico(I know this doesn't make much sense, but assuming Mexico had the strength to put up a fight) in 1939, and not Britian and Germany, I'm willing to bet that while Britian would have leaned to America's side, there would be Brits and some British companies who would deal with the Mexicans.

Maybe the government did know about it, but what right did the government have in interfering with private, international bussiness? America was not at war with Germany, nor had Germany given America any reason to cut off ties. I'm not saying, that with the 20/20 vision I have looking back now that it was right, because it wasn't, but you can't look at it that way.

So, it would be okay if Britain had funded the Iraqi army whilst the invasion of Iraq was going on?

There was no need to.

Australia did!

Bahaha!

And how was America supposed to know, in 1940, not to support Germany? No one knew about the Holocaust or any other war crimes that Germany was committing. If America had gone to war with Mexico(I know this doesn't make much sense, but assuming Mexico had the strength to put up a fight) in 1939, and not Britian and Germany, I'm willing to bet that while Britian would have leaned to America's side, there would be Brits and some British companies who would deal with the Mexicans.

Maybe the government did know about it, but what right did the government have in interfering with private, international bussiness? America was not at war with Germany, nor had Germany given America any reason to cut off ties. I'm not saying, that with the 20/20 vision I have looking back now that it was right, because it wasn't, but you can't look at it that way.

I was talking about Mexico in WWI...

I'm sure the flood of refugees said absolutely nothing about their treatment at the time...

Hitler's greatest defeat was the loss of army group centre to the Sovs. His greatest fuckup was following Napoleons strategy and not moving on Moscow when there were heavy tank divisions(tigers, panthers, panzerIV, Flak 88) and SS panzergrenadier divisions 40km from the city
They didn't have most of that. Tigers and Panthers saw their first use on the Eastern Front at Kursk half a year later, and were immobilised from the start because the transmission and gearboxes on the first production models were crap. It wasn't until 1944 that their presence on the battlefield really counted. Through 1942, the most powerful German tank was the MK IV, and the most numerous the MK III, which couldn't penetrate the armour of a T-34 unless it fired through its belly while its hull rose over a bump.

Having said that, when the Tiger and Panther did appear in large numbers and with their quality control issues worked out, they were individually far superior to the T-34. Some captured Tigers and Panthers were even given to elite Russian tank crews as rewards, so there is no doubt they were respected. But they were also fairly easily outmaneuvered, a typical Russian tactic being a zig-zag approach to one side, followed by a sharp turn and charge towards the flank. By the time the German tanks were sufficiently good to make such tactics essential to victory, the Red Army had the overwhelming numerical superiority to make them work.

The divisions you mention were also out of supplies and days away from getting hammered by the better-equipped Siberian divisions which had just pwned the Japanese.

Regarding the Manchurian Offensive, the "land grab" idea does not stand up to scrutiny. Any time one contemplates a collision between two million-man armies with one being dug in, a grasp of planning and logistics are necessary. The mastery of logistics the Red Army displayed in Manchuria, including parachute drops to refuel tank divisions, crossing mountain ranges with heavy armour, crossing parts of the desert considered impassable, then owning a million-strong army for 8,500 dead, scared the shit out of US planners who then had to contemplate having all that parked in Eastern Europe.

It's like saying the First Gulf War wasn't a proper war, and the American victory didn't count. It was because they were so damn pro, that the offensive was so one-sided. Compare their performance in Finland just years previously.

The flood of refugees where?

The flood of refugees where?
The US, Canada, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Palestine. Just about every western nation accepted some, but not many. I suppose Einstein just magically appeared in the US. No, he was born and bred there actually.

Regarding the Manchurian Offensive, the "land grab" idea does not stand up to scrutiny. Any time one contemplates a collision between two million-man armies with one being dug in, a grasp of planning and logistics are necessary. The mastery of logistics the Red Army displayed in Manchuria, including parachute drops to refuel tank divisions, crossing mountain ranges with heavy armour, crossing parts of the desert considered impassable, then owning a million-strong army for 8,500 dead, scared the shit out of US planners who then had to contemplate having all that parked in Eastern Europe.

It's like saying the First Gulf War wasn't a proper war, and the American victory didn't count. It was because they were so damn pro, that the offensive was so one-sided. Compare their performance in Finland just years previously.

I meant that by the time that offensive had taken place it didn't matter towards the outcome of the war. HIroshima had already been bombed, and Nagasaki wasn't far away. Seven days after the offensive took place, Japan surrendered. Although it did show just how far the Soviet army had come.

I meant that by the time that offensive had taken place it didn't matter towards the outcome of the war. HIroshima had already been bombed, and Nagasaki wasn't far away. Seven days after the offensive took place, Japan surrendered. Although it did show just how far the Soviet army had come.
Well, in terms of contributing to the end date of the war, no, it didn't matter.

But in terms of "Just a couple of weeks left... OK, ready? Watch this!" it was total ownage.

The US, Canada, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Palestine. Just about every western nation accepted some, but not many. I suppose Einstein just magically appeared in the US. No, he was born and bred there actually.

I didn't know what you were talking about. Yes, Jewish refugees fled out of Germany, but under Germanies permission before the war, Germany wanted the Jews out. Those Jews did bring news about how horrible it was to be a Jew in Nazi Germany but not word of the Holocaust, the death camps had not gotten off the ground yet. Yes there were rumors, but nothing hard, people didn't think, including the British people, that Germany was slaughtering a whole race at the time.

Well, in terms of contributing to the end date of the war, no, it didn't matter.

But in terms of "Just a couple of weeks left... OK, ready? Watch this!" it was total ownage.

Ture, and your right, it did scare the shit out of the West.

Okay. So now I've been called a bloody Yank and a Bloody Euro. Sweet! Lol

Well now that I have been enlightened just a bit.

Here's more for thought. Now this isn't entirely on subject.

How come the Americans were late for both wars. Held some of their power back. Didn't really put much into the rebuilding. Didn't do much of anything afterward except for competing against the USSR. Then Demand the help of her allies for Both Gulf wars? Of course you have to acknowledge the different presidencies that the US goes through...but still.

Okay. So now I've been called a bloody Yank and a Bloody Euro. Sweet! Lol

Well now that I have been enlightened just a bit.

Here's more for thought. Now this isn't entirely on subject.

How come the Americans were late for both wars. Held some of their power back. Didn't really put much into the rebuilding. Didn't do much of anything afterward except for competing against the USSR. Then Demand the help of her allies for Both Gulf wars? Of course you have to acknowledge the different presidencies that the US goes through...but still.

In the interests of the economy.....




profiteer?

I didn't know what you were talking about. Yes, Jewish refugees fled out of Germany, but under Germanies permission before the war, Germany wanted the Jews out. Those Jews did bring news about how horrible it was to be a Jew in Nazi Germany but not word of the Holocaust, the death camps had not gotten off the ground yet. Yes there were rumors, but nothing hard, people didn't think, including the British people, that Germany was slaughtering a whole race at the time.

It's generally regarded that the holocaust started in 1938...

[QUOTE=Dephire] Didn't really put much into the rebuilding. QUOTE]

Didn't put much into the rebuilding? Now, I may be biased being a Yank, but America put more into the rebuilding of Europe after WW2 than any single other nation. Have you heard of the Marshall Plan?

As for being late in WW2, America had no reason to be in the war. America was not allied to any of the nations involved, and nothing had been done to America, same reason Russia didn't join the war untill directly attacked by Germany. Although some say that Roosevelt actively tried to find ways to enter the war, but I don't know how true that is.

Hmm. Alright. Then what about the USSR. After it fell, the US could care less. I mean, yeah. They tried to help bring in democracy...but it's never been the same country it once was..
Japan is now a world power...
China is on the verge of their World Campaign.
USA is going "Shopping."
The UK is doing OK.
Canada is extremely poor so are the countries south of USA's border.

Now that I'm thinking. WHERE WERE THE AMERICANS AT THE BEGINNING OF EITHER WAR? They were always late. If they had just come in when they were needed, there would be at least a smaller amount of lives lost. Not only that, but Germany wouldn't of expanded as much.


It would not have mattered. At that time. Army small. Badly equiped and badly trained. There were only a few combat capable division. Tanks were crap. Aircraft crap. Navy small.

American involvement in 39 would not have done much.

Eliminate Lend-Lease and it puts a question on that. Especially when you consider what the trucks and medicines did for the Red Army in the early part of the war.
I agree with you.

They didn't have most of that. Tigers and Panthers saw their first use on the Eastern Front at Kursk half a year later, and were immobilised from the start because the transmission and gearboxes on the first production models were crap. It wasn't until 1944 that their presence on the battlefield really counted. Through 1942, the most powerful German tank was the MK IV, and the most numerous the MK III, which couldn't penetrate the armour of a T-34 unless it fired through its belly while its hull rose over a bump.

Having said that, when the Tiger and Panther did appear in large numbers and with their quality control issues worked out, they were individually far superior to the T-34. Some captured Tigers and Panthers were even given to elite Russian tank crews as rewards, so there is no doubt they were respected. But they were also fairly easily outmaneuvered, a typical Russian tactic being a zig-zag approach to one side, followed by a sharp turn and charge towards the flank. By the time the German tanks were sufficiently good to make such tactics essential to victory, the Red Army had the overwhelming numerical superiority to make them work.
I agree with that also, but in repect to the Panzer III and Panzer IV vs T-34...

Could they penetrate its side armour?
-------------------------------------------------





Germany couldn't handle an invasion of Britain in 1940 The Maori Battalion would have thumped them.;)

Hmm. Alright. Then what about the USSR. After it fell, the US could care less. I mean, yeah. They tried to help bring in democracy...but it's never been the same country it once was..
Japan is now a world power...
China is on the verge of their World Campaign.
USA is going "Shopping."
The UK is doing OK.
Canada is extremely poor so are the countries south of USA's border.
Oh, the misery! The poor Canadians are starving to death just North of the border. Millions are trying each year to cross the Niagara, hoping for a better life. America, please open your borders to receive the hungry Canadian masses! :p

Well, in terms of contributing to the end date of the war, no, it didn't matter.

But in terms of "Just a couple of weeks left... OK, ready? Watch this!" it was total ownage.

On the contrary, it did matter, and quite alot from the Japanese pov.
It was less on the military impact the Russians entry had on the Japanese, it was the psychological impact of being kicked when you're down.

The Japanese regarded the Soviets as 'neutrals' in the conflict and hoped they could be used as a broker between the US and Japana for peace negotiations. All Japanese back channel diplomacy went through Moscow because US/Japan had cut ties. I don't know why they thought the Soviet Union was neutral, the had just fought in 1939, but maybe it was some miskewed 'Samurai' sense of honour. They whooped ass in Korea and Manchukuo. In fact, I think they caught the US off guard in Korea. The US had to rush troops in there to prevent a total capitulation to the Soviets.

When the Emperor head that USSR entered against them he knew all hope was lost for a truce, and stood up to the 'hawks' in cabinet.

But yes, the Kwantung Army received pwnage.

The Japanese were idiots to think that Russia would not be hostile to them. in the 1800's Japan began industrialising and militarising. After this they went on a land grab going to war with the Russians in manchuria in 1909 and then to war with the Chinese in 1933. Japan was too powerful in the Pacific/Asia region and the Russians were now powerful enough to oppose them and had held a grudge against the Japanese since having to surrender Manchuria. They were never going to be neutral to the Japanese while there were veterans of the Japanese-Russo war still alive.

In a way the Battle of Britian was his greatest defeat , it allowed the british to send Troops to Greece which in turen made hitler divert troops to attack Greece and thus delay the Invasion of the USSR if Htiler had won then more then likely he would of been in a better situtation at the onset of winter