[Sandzaklija]

From Hollywood movies we all know that the US defeated Hitler.

1. The Soviets conquered the Capitol Berlin

2. 11. December 1941 Declared the US the War against Germany

Winter 1942 first Battle between Germans and Americans

The US-Intervention was helpful but not decisive.

16. December 1941 The Germans lost the Battle for Moscovia (Some German Generals saw that the Red Army is superior) The German Blitzkrieg was stopped indepentently by the Red Army.


2. Februar 1943 The 6th German Army was destroyed in Stalingrad, Hitler could not reach Southern Russian Oilfield (Kaukasus), Hitler did not get the Oil...


Am 6. Juni 1944 D-Day the Landing of the Allies (US+UK) in Normandie (Northern France)

[MB.]

Tom hanks single-handedly won WWII. The Soviets were too stone-age backwards to do anything.

December 1941 Declared the US the War against Germany

Germany declared war on the USA.

[Sandzaklija]

Tom hanks single-handedly won WWII. The Soviets were too stone-age backwards to do anything.

That thought Hitler too


T-34
The Soviet Union invented the Tank T-34 wich was the most modern Tank in his time. T-34 was produced in masses 1941 and firstly used in the Battle for Moscovia in December 1941.





Katjusha Multiple Rocket Launcher was also invented by Soviet Union and firstly Used in Summer 1942

Germany declared war on the USA.

You are right, I made a translation mistake.[/img]

[MB.]

I think I played those in Battlefield 1942... they were really easy to destroy with hand-grenades! Heck, the Sherman was clearly a superior vehicle.

Not to mention the M1 rifle!! The Soviets didn't even have a semi-automatic rifle!

[kami321]

I defeated Hitler. Personally.

I came to his bunker in 1945 and assasinated him. Heil me!

[MB.]

I defeated Hitler. Personally.

I came to his bunker in 1945 and assasinated him. Heil me!

I think you're confusing yourself with Tom Hanks.

[Sandzaklija]

I think I played those in Battlefield 1942... they were really easy to destroy with hand-grenades! Heck, the Sherman was clearly a superior vehicle.

Do you know it from Tom Hanks?

In all sectors is the T-34 better:



T-34/85 had an standard armour of 90 mm

Sherman armour 13 - 76 mm


Speed:

T-34 55 km/h

Sherman 38.5 km/h


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman




The Sovjet Union produced 52 000 T-34 in the 2. World War

[Smilin' Dave]

Soviet Guard Tank unit personnel actually prefered the Sherman to the T-34.

Possibly because:
- The Sherman turret was roomier (or better yet, was supposed to have an extra crew member)
- Sherman had a stabiliser for the gun.
- Sherman had better optics (superior weapon range is defeated by not being able to see much).
- Shermans had radios, aiding in tactics and strategy.
- Better turret hatches (improving visibility and crew safety).
- More reliable (arguably the Sherman's transmission was less tempramental, thanks to better machined parts).
- Crew comfort (if nothing else, the crews appriciated having padded chairs).

And those were all advantages that the basic sherman had over the mid war T-34s. Comparing the T34 obr 1944 to the standard Sherman is silly.

And this is before we consider how silly it is to discuss Soviet victories... through the medium of individual tank superiority... Because on that basis the Germans should have won.

The Sovjet Union produced 52 000 T-34 in the 2. World War

There is actually an ongoing debate over where Soviet tank production figures included tanks which were sent back and refurbished (a practice that became more prevalent in the later period of the war).

However people have been too excited by the idea of the Soviets outproducing the US in tanks to pay attention to such things.

[imagicnation]

Are we discussing the facts about the defeat of Hitler, Nazi Germany or Hollywoods portrayal of itself as hero?
No-one defeated Hitler, it was his own inner Jew that told him to kill himself.
The Allies defeated Hitler. If it had just been America and the UK, Germany would most likely have won.
With the USSR, it relies on various factors. One scenario is Hitler has already conquered or signed peace treaties with the UK so he has his hands free to do as he pleases. If Germany had invaded USSR through Poland or Scandinavia then war would have been declared between UK, France and Germany. If Hitler tried going through the Balkans and invading the USSR, the the USSR would merely march straight through Poland and hit Germany.
It's complicated but more than anything, Germany could only have won the war with Hitler, but Hitler was also the reason why they lost.[/quote]

[MB.]

Dave,

Sherman had a stabiliser for the gun.

Are you sure about this? I recall the first tank- ever- to have an onboard stabalizing system (allowing the tank to fire with some degree of accuracy while on the move) was the M26 Pershing.

More reliable

That sounds very iffy.

Sherman had better optics

I was under the impression that only the Germans used weapon optics- on their tanks that is to say.

[Shade2]

United States. Without its aid and supplies the USSR would have been unable to win against Germany.

[The Immortal Goon]

I know nothing about tanks.

I do know that Sherman was a badass and that I have no particular affection for the number 34.

As for the topic at hand, it's really silly to say one did more than the other as the US opened another front. The USSR probably would have reached Berlin anyway, but who the fuck knows if every other front had been closed off? Not to mention the Japanese would have had a free hand in the east of Russia were it not for the US.

The same works the other way, however. If there were no USSR then a landing on mainland Europe (assuming the UK remained intact for no apparent reason) would have been virtually impossible.

I'm no expert in WWII, but I always thought the old axiom, "England paid in time, the US paid in money, and the Russians paid in blood" holds true.

-TIG

[Sniperwolfe]

The T-34 was much, much better for combat then the Sherman, that can't be argued.

However, due to the way it was created and the industry of the U.S.S.R., it wasn't always at it's peak possible performance.

[alyster]

Shermans sucked, sorry guys they had to be in very close range to Tigers to do anything more then scratch the pain job. T-34 was better one, altough my vote for the best tank goes to Tiger. Bit better than T-34 in range. But T-34 was very good one also. Dependingly on modification it gave hard times to nazi Tigers and very much of the battles depended on tactics not tank armour supiriority.

But for the main topic I don't think you can say who won it. Atlist not the way I think the author means it. US supplies to UK and also Russia were strong elemet in the war. It can't be denied. However US wouldn't have been able to do jack sh*t if if wasn't for the red army.

However'd say that Soviet Union didn't win it. In 1945 Stalin refuesed to go to the victory parade cause what had he atchived? He had taken Berlin. Only Berlin!! The "Graza" and the pre war ideas stood for much more then half of the Europe. He even once told to someone that the tzar Alexander reached Paris when he battled the Napoleon and he[Stalin] only rached berlin. So from his point of view under achiveing.

[Raf]

I suppose without American help western part of Soviet Union would be just an eastern province of Great Germania. However, Allies weren't able to conquer Germany with Soviet Union as a Hitler's ally (before June 1941) - Germans were simly to strong to be beaten by western democracies alone.

And just one more comment: T-34 was used for the first time much earlier than during battle of Moscow. It appeared in the very first days of Op. Barbarossa.

[kami321]

I think you're confusing yourself with Tom Hanks.

No, it's Tom Hanks who is confusing himself with me. He is the one who sucks, I am the one who beat Hitler.

[Attila The Nun]

Not to mention the M1 rifle!! The Soviets didn't even have a semi-automatic rifle!

SVT-40?

Anyway, the T-34 proved to be far more successful in the battlefield. I consider the Sherman to be near disastrous on the field of the Western Front, as its armor proved ineffective at dealing with German tanks and anti-tank weaponry and were vulnerable to burst into flames at first hit, its gun was ineffective at normal ranges against German armor and while it might have been good against infantry, was exceedingly weak against other armor and against anti-armor.

[MB.]

SVT-40?

I have never heard of nor discussed this weapon, ever.

I consider the Sherman to be near disastrous on the field of the Western Front, as its armor proved ineffective at dealing with German tanks and anti-tank weaponry and were vulnerable to burst into flames at first hit, its gun was ineffective at normal ranges against German armor and while it might have been good against infantry, was exceedingly weak against other armor and against anti-armor.

Sorry, but this is bullshit.

The glacias plate on the Sherman was both thick and well sloped. It was a very well designed tank in this regard. Indeed, in Korea, the US prefered the ruggedness and realiaibilty of the Sherman "Easy Eight" with its 76 (or was it 90?) mm high velocity gun and wide thick treads, to the M26 Pershing.

T-34 was used for the first time much earlier than during battle of Moscow. It appeared in the very first days of Op. Barbarossa.

It was desinged in 1934, hence the name.

they had to be in very close range to Tigers to do anything more then scratch the pain job

This is silly- the Sherman was a medium tank designed primarily- in its original conception, for infantry support. Putting it up against a heavy tank such as the Tiger is a very moronic comparison. The US would employ jackson tank-destroyers, or the British , Firefly Shermans when dealing with heavier armor. Indeed, the introcution of the Pershing was meant to rectify some of the heavy/medium armor balances in early 1945.

T-34 was better one, altough my vote for the best tank goes to Tiger

If you knew anything about armor, you'd know that the Panther was HANDS DOWN the best tank ever designed during WWII. The Tiger was slow, inefficient, and horribly outdated by the late war.

Dependingly on modification it gave hard times to nazi Tigers and very much of the battles depended on tactics not tank armour supiriority

Bullshit. A T-34 wouldnt stand a chance against the Tiger. Even a T-34/44 with a 90mm gun and increased armor would be lucky to survive the encounter.

The T-34 was much, much better for combat then the Sherman, that can't be argued.

Yes it can, and I am.

[Doomhammer]

Hitler defeated himself.

Evidence:

1. Psychological problems made him act rashly.
2. Who the hell declares war on USSR to fight on to fronts?
3. Suppose you're already in a two front war against USSR and Britain, why on earth would you further take risks and declare war on USA?

Ergo, Hitler defeated himself.

[alyster]

This is silly- the Sherman was a medium tank designed primarily- in its original conception, for infantry support. Putting it up against a heavy tank such as the Tiger is a very moronic comparison. The US would employ jackson tank-destroyers, or the British , Firefly Shermans when dealing with heavier armor. Indeed, the introcution of the Pershing was meant to rectify some of the heavy/medium armor balances in early 1945.

The european fronts were use to heavy tank battles, such as Kursk or some more. It is the battlefield of the heaviest and the most tanks in the world probably. To put an infantry support tank here next to heavy tanks and say it is better is moronic. Tanks were tanks, infantry support vechicals were other class. You could have said so in the first place and saved many people the trouble if you were talking about infantry support. Pff.

If you knew anything about armor, you'd know that the Panther was HANDS DOWN the best tank ever designed during WWII. The Tiger was slow, inefficient, and horribly outdated by the late war.

Panther was good, but the Tiger II was still better in armour and in fire power. If you want to go into such details then the Maus was probably the best.

Bullshit. A T-34 wouldnt stand a chance against the Tiger. Even a T-34/44 with a 90mm gun and increased armor would be lucky to survive the encounter.

Oh shut up. have you ever been to Ukrain? Eastern Eruope? Where the hell do you take such battlefields all the time where you get 2000+m fireing range? Soviets well used the tactics where they got to manuver closer or to the flanks of Tigers and Panthers. How do you think the battles were won? By Shermans??? No. Not even by Germans!
Moreover the mud in Ukrain made it impossible for the tanks to move. They were stuck everywhere. Specially the big heavy german tanks.

The T-34 was much, much better for combat then the Sherman, that can't be argued.

Yes it can, and I am.

On the bases that Sherman was a poor infantry support vechical. LOL I like to call it that. Sherman the light infantry support!!! Seriously we're talking about one of the best tanks ever built and a cheap american model which was just built with out much experiance against modern german weapons.

De facto T-34 was an excelent tank. It was able to stop the Germans Panters, Tigers and all other Panzers. Sherman was a hopeless pice of junk which only lived cause of the strong support from the air force against tanks. Sherman had to ram german tanks before it was close enough to penetrate the german tanks. I still can't belive that yanks still embarasse themselves with it being good