Who defeated Hitler? Soviet Union or the US? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By The Decay of Meaning
#1093606
- Shermans had radios, aiding in tactics and strategy.


And the Soviet tanks (T-34 in particular) did not have radio and transmitters?
I was under the impression that this was key in tank warfare.. It would suprise me if the Soviets didn't have that.

I don't know, I am asking.
User avatar
By MB.
#1093655
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.



:lol:

You just invalidated your opinion.

Good job.
User avatar
By alyster
#1093661
In which way? I've never said which Tiger I was talking about. I knew there were 2 of them. Tiger I was good at one part of the war Tiger II was better in the end. Only 2 tanks of Mause have been built and they've seen so little combat that if you mean this....Tiger did the hard job. Mause was just the most of them all, a superweapon some call it. And this is a small problem. The main thing is settled T-34 owns Sherman any day of the war.
Last edited by alyster on 12 Jan 2007 23:25, edited 1 time in total.
By Raf
#1093663
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?


It didn't matter. German-american war had already begun. Roosevelt would have certainly declare war against Germany anyway.
User avatar
By MB.
#1093665
Only 2 tanks of Mause have been built and they've seen so little combat


Sigh. The Pazner 8 never saw any combat, ever.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1093714
Was there any point to those huge tanks? Would they have been at all effective in combat?
User avatar
By Attila The Nun
#1093722
I have never heard of nor discussed this weapon, ever.


Trying to say it doesn't exist? Or am I sensing nonexistant hostility?

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.


Are we discussing WWII or Korea?

In which way? I've never said which Tiger I was talking about. I knew there were 2 of them. Tiger I was good at one part of the war Tiger II was better in the end. Only 2 tanks of Mause have been built and they've seen so little combat that if you mean this....Tiger did the hard job. Mause was just the most of them all, a superweapon some call it. And this is a small problem. The main thing is settled T-34 owns Sherman any day of the war.


The Maus had hardly any mobility, indeed, it was originally supposed to fill gaps in the Atlantic Wall. But it was wildly expensive, it had a very high profile making it vulnerable to anti-tank artillery, it was also too heavy to be transported by regular means, or even over bridges. It was a waste of resources.[/url]
By Smilin' Dave
#1093727
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.

Quite positive. The Sherman's stabilisation wasn't perfect (only worked on one plane, modern armour stabilised on two planes) but it was certainly there.

On the other hand, many crews found the stabiliser annoying (since they didn't get to train with it) or too fiddly.

That sounds very iffy.

I admit it is not a concrete argument, but the fact is the Sherman did have good reliabilty. In allied hands it was even better thanks to better rear area logistics, but that is another story.

The effects of the T-34s poor transmission and crudely machined parts however are well documented. Also early T-34s had poor filters which failed to keep dust out, resulting is higher wear and tear on the engine parts.

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.

On the other hand, the Korean war was fairly light in terms of anti tank weaponry. So it isn't really a good point of discussion on tank survivabilty. The tendency for US tanks to catch fire was noted by the Israelis to continue into the M47 and M48.

It was desinged in 1934, hence the name.

Design commenced int 1934 but the first production model had to wait till 1940. And the T34 obr 1940 had a number of issues which needed correction.

Now on to other people's points:
United States. Without its aid and supplies the USSR would have been unable to win against Germany.

Good point... except that the bulk of western Lend-Lease aid didn't start arriving until the battle in the East had started to turn.

You also can't ignore the fact that material alone does not win battles. Again, the Soviets had managed to halt and even push back the Axis before their industrial base had been returned to efficiency after the dislocation of invasion.

Not to mention the Japanese would have had a free hand in the east of Russia were it not for the US.

The Japanese had actually considered, and discarded, the idea of invading the Soviet Union. Basically
- They thought it would be harder to 'go north', since Khalkin Ghol demonstrated the strength of the Red Army over the IJA.
- The resources they actually wanted were more plentiful and easier to extract in the 'south'.
- They already had a big land war to fight in China.
- The political pull of the IJN also has to be considered.

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

It can be if you actually know the specifics of the two.

How many of you realised that the T-34 suffered a similar problem with crew safety to the Sherman (eg. catching fire under the slightest trauma...while limiting crew escape hatches)?.

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

So did the T-34...

German medium tanks struggled with the Soviet KV and IS series of tanks too... Not to mention the Matilda.

and very much of the battles depended on tactics not tank armour supiriority

Soviet tacitcs were inferior to those of the allies or Germans. Operational warfare is another thing, but again the Soviets fall short.

A comparison of tank losses will show what I mean.

He even once told to someone that the tzar Alexander reached Paris when he battled the Napoleon and he[Stalin] only rached berlin.

Who is someone?

Hitler defeated himself.

Doomhammer wins a cookie... but not a chocolate based one.

[/quote]The european fronts were use to heavy tank battles, such as Kursk or some more.[/quote]
...Kursk was still dominated by medium tanks. Actually, infantry was far more important to both sides in the Kursk operations... but that isn't as exciting.

To put an infantry support tank here next to heavy tanks and say it is better is moronic.

None of the tanks Bill mentioned were infantry support vehicles... the Jackson (and its predeccesor, the M10) and Firefly were both tank destroyers used to support tank formations. The Pershing was a heavy tank used in... tank formations.

Which raises the question of doctrine. Where did the Tiger fit into German tank doctrine?

If you want to go into such details then the Maus was probably the best.

Never deployed. Too slow. Vulnrable to air and artillery attack...

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?

Have you ever read anything academic about WWII?

Moreover the mud in Ukrain made it impossible for the tanks to move. They were stuck everywhere. Specially the big heavy german tanks.

Clearly not.

You do however inadvertantly raise a good point. German heavy tanks were noted for poor reliability, especially over long distances. More probably broke down due to wear and tear than were ever shot down by T34s.

De facto T-34 was an excelent tank. It was able to stop the Germans Panters, Tigers and all other Panzers.

You don't think other arms, like the anti-tank, artillery and air support might account for those?

Oh, and the 'Sherman', using your broad overview, also defeated these things.

Sherman had to ram german tanks before it was close enough to penetrate the german tanks.

Actually this phenomena is generally ascribed to the T34...and it probably never happened.

And the Soviet tanks (T-34 in particular) did not have radio and transmitters?
I was under the impression that this was key in tank warfare.. It would suprise me if the Soviets didn't have that.

The Germans were actually pioneers in putting radios into tanks. In the early part of the war the French, British and Soviets were behind on this. Everyone knows Guderian right? Did you know his pre-tank work was in radios?

Prevalence of radios in tanks improved in the Red Army over time, but it was something that had to be added in reaction to some harsh lessons. Apparently Soviet tank formations were more likely to have radios only for the command vehicles, which in turn reflected the Soviet broad view of combat operations.

There is some question of the issuing of tanks with receivers only (so at least they could take orders), but that requires more research.

It didn't matter. German-american war had already begun. Roosevelt would have certainly declare war against Germany anyway.

Raf is also awarded one cookie. Flavour to be determined.
By imagicnation
#1093737
Again, the Soviets had managed to halt and even push back the Axis before their industrial base had been returned to efficiency after the dislocation of invasion.

Yes, but that was because the Battle of/for Britain hadn't succeeded, the British landed in Greece and so Germany had to send several armies to help Italy-the-limp-boot. Because they were late for the invasion, the winter played a HUGE factor in the Battle of/for Moscow and Operation Barbarossa in general.
User avatar
By MB.
#1093788
Design commenced int 1934 but the first production model had to wait till 1940.


I was planning on using that statement to get around to the T-34 being based on the Christie suspension/armor design.

But this thread died when people started generalizing about Tigers and Mice and so forth.

except that the bulk of western Lend-Lease aid didn't start arriving until the battle in the East had started to turn.


Until after it had turned. Nov. 1943.

Not to mention the Japanese would have had a free hand in the east of Russia were it not for the US....
- The political pull of the IJN also has to be considered.


Come again?

How many of you realised that the T-34 suffered a similar problem with crew safety to the Sherman (eg. catching fire under the slightest trauma...while limiting crew escape hatches)?


I knew about the escape hatch issue, which was fixed in later models... but I was unaware of the fire issue.

Regarding crew survivability, was the M4 hull welded or riveted? The Lee was notorious for its rivets (for obvious reasons), IIRC. The T-34 was welded, on the other hand.

Operational warfare is another thing, but again the Soviets fall short


Disagree. The USSR and her allies not only adapted their operational level of warfare throughout the war, but by the winter of 42/43 were surpassing the Axis in this regard. The Allies were fighting a different kind of war, one based on small-scale mobile and long-range amphibious operations (in both theaters). Comparing these operations to the front-wide offensives the Soviets were cooking up would seem chimerical.


Trying to say it doesn't exist? Or am I sensing nonexistant hostility?


I've never heard of the SVT-40in the same way Boon has never seen nor heard of Boondock Saints.


I wouldn't take this thread too seriously if I were you.
By Smilin' Dave
#1093895
I was planning on using that statement to get around to the T-34 being based on the Christie suspension/armor design.

Fortunately it wasn't really. :)

While Christie suspension played a role in its design, the T-34 was an evolution of the BT series. As such the system is related, but heavily refined.

The British Crusader, which IIRC was also a 'Christie' suspension, suffered from reliability problems. It is hard to believe the two systems are related.

Come again?

It was my understanding that the IJN's political power had experienced a bit of an upswing by 1941. Partly because the army had achieved little strategic gain in China. I could be wrong.

Besides, Japanese high command probably felt they should use their expensive navy for something... and boats can't sail in Siberia.

but I was unaware of the fire issue

It might have been related to the external fuel tanks which were used to extend the T-34s range. Sure, they could be jettisoned in battle, but those initial moments of contact could be deadly.

Otherwise it might have been a compromise, in effect saving armour and space at the expense of relatively high risk of ignition.

Regarding crew survivability, was the M4 hull welded or riveted? The Lee was notorious for its rivets (for obvious reasons), IIRC. The T-34 was welded, on the other hand.

Pretty sure the M4 was welded, but early models might have used rivets as a stop gap.

For the rest of you, rivets are an issue because it means the armour degrades rapidly when hit. The rivets also fly off and injure people.

Disagree. The USSR and her allies not only adapted their operational level of warfare throughout the war, but by the winter of 42/43 were surpassing the Axis in this regard.

I may have caused some confusion through poor punctuation/phrasing. I had actually meant the Soviets fell short in tactics. In terms of operational command they had been fairly effective.

Tactically however, the Soviets, while showing improvement throughout the war, were just not quite as good as the their opponents or allies.

The Allies were fighting a different kind of war, one based on small-scale mobile and long-range amphibious operations (in both theaters). Comparing these operations to the front-wide offensives the Soviets were cooking up would seem chimerical.

Any given operational level battle must consist of a series of tactical scale battles however. So there is room for comparison. The catch is the objective of the two and hence their emphasis in design, doctrine, training etc.

Whether emphasis on tactical over operational warfare is better or worse is another debate all together.

Now for someone else:
Yes, but that was because the Battle of/for Britain hadn't succeeded

It never could have succeeded. The German air force was not configured for the sort of battle fought over Britain. Even if the Germans had succeeded it winning in the darkest hours of the Battle of Britain, the British still hadn't commited the bulk of their forces and those forces were beyond Germany's reach.

the British landed in Greece and so Germany had to send several armies to help Italy-the-limp-boot.

As a result Operation Barbarossa was delayed... right?

No. As the German generals have noted, late rains had turned the roads in Poland/USSR to slush. Further supplies were still being stockpiled at this earlier start date. They couldn't have gone anyway, they were not ready and neither was the weather right.

If anything Greece gave the Germans an opportunity to secure their southern strategic areas, beat up on the British, shift power in the Med etc.

Because they were late for the invasion, the winter played a HUGE factor in the Battle of/for Moscow and Operation Barbarossa in general.

Autumn was actually worse than winter. Tanks can drive on hard packed snow... they can't in thick mud.

Not to mention I think the actions of the Red Army were far more important in delaying the Wehrmacht and inflicting a high level of attrition on same. That and the winter effects were worsened on the Axis due to outrunning their logistic tail. Apparently winter coats did arrive... just in time for summer.

Winter also wasn't what pushed the Germans back when they failed to take Moscow.

Now, in the name of not taking this thread too seriously:
Giant Robot Praying Mantises :muha2: :evil: :lol: 8)
By imagicnation
#1093900
It never could have succeeded. The German air force was not configured for the sort of battle fought over Britain. Even if the Germans had succeeded it winning in the darkest hours of the Battle of Britain, the British still hadn't commited the bulk of their forces and those forces were beyond Germany's reach.
That was only because the Brits had RADAR and Hitler was stupid enough to target the cities instead of the factories, airfields and RADAR stations.
As the German generals have noted, late rains had turned the roads in Poland/USSR to slush.

Exactly. The roads were mush, the couldn't push (New Zealand accent)
They couldn't have gone anyway, they were not ready and neither was the weather right.

Then how come the got right up to Moscow without trouble?
Not to mention I think the actions of the Red Army were far more important in delaying the Wehrmacht and inflicting a high level of attrition on same.

You mean the constant retreating? Yes it was effective in that the German troups couln't 'live off the land' as the Russians had burnt it all. However, it wasn't until the Germans had slowed their advance and re-inforcements had arrived from Siberia. Basically it was the same old tune that Napoleon had to play.
User avatar
By MB.
#1093907
It might have been related to the external fuel tanks


Duh. I should've remembered those.

I may have caused some confusion through poor punctuation/phrasing. I had actually meant the Soviets fell short in tactics. In terms of operational command they had been fairly effective.

Tactically however, the Soviets, while showing improvement throughout the war, were just not quite as good as the their opponents or allies.


Right, however I just don't like generalizing about tactical decisions. You know- so and so commander here did such and such, so I'm sure in some areas Soviet tactical command was superb, not so in others. etc.

suffered from reliability problems. It is hard to believe the two systems are related.


The British weren't exactly known for superb AFV design.

It was my understanding that the IJN's political power had experienced a bit of an upswing by 1941. Partly because the army had achieved little strategic gain in China. I could be wrong.

Besides, Japanese high command probably felt they should use their expensive navy for something... and boats can't sail in Siberia.


Ah, ok. I just hadn't followed you this far.

That was only because the Brits had RADAR and Hitler was stupid enough to target the cities instead of the factories, airfields and RADAR stations.



I'll let Dave take the rest, but really- He's right on when he says the Germans couldn't have won the BoB.

It's part of the British national myth that the battle was close, or down to the wire, or what have you. In reality, it was anything but. Certainly it was violent, certainly it was terrible, but was it clearly one-sided? Yes. The British had superiority in literally every single regard:

Home turf, fuel, range, weaponry, aircraft, numbers, RADAR, anti-aircraft, etc, etc.
Last edited by MB. on 13 Jan 2007 06:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#1093908
The Soviet Union did, obviously. Consider the dates, force numbers, etc.
By imagicnation
#1093912
he British had superiority in literally every single regard:
Home turf, fuel, range, weaponry, aircraft, numbers, RADAR, anti-aircraft, etc, etc.

But they were outnumbered and exhausted with the almost constant bombings. Again it comes back to Hitler though.
The RAF sent a bomb squad which bombed Berlin. Hitler was outraged and turned his bombers on London. It was exactly what the Brits needed. If memory serves me well, the Brits were able to turn out around 700 fighter planes a day, the only thing stopping them was the bombings. With a couple of days break, the factories booted up and the pilots got rest.
Even so, it's still prooving my point. Without the Brits, the Germans wouldn't have been strung up in a major two front war, whether it be in Britain herself, the Balkans or Africa/Middle East.
User avatar
By alyster
#1093996
He even once told to someone that the tzar Alexander reached Paris when he battled the Napoleon and he[Stalin] only rached berlin.


Who is someone?



Averell Harriman U.S. Ambassador to USSR
User avatar
By Zagadka
#1094257
No single power won or los the war. I'd say that the eastern front was clearly the largest and stupidest. The Pacific front comes in second, then the Africa/Italy and followed up by D-Day (had what, 5,000 casualties? Other battles eat that for lunch..

At the largest stakes, numerically, would be the Pacific front sans nukes, namely the possibility of a three-way war between the US, Japan, and China.. the US would have to have spent a TREMENDOUS measure of force... it would really be a race between the US and USSR to occupy China.. the Chinese would split again and it would be very, very bloody.
By Maas
#1094308
No single power won or los the war.


I disagree. Who lost is obvious.
Who won the most: USSR.

To my opnion it became a rat-race who would be in Berlin first to get Hitler's head. Secondly came who controlled what at the end of the war. I don't think the other winners were too happy that the USSR had so much land in controlle.
By kami321
#1094385
Britain lost the war, so did France, and Italy, and Germany.
USA and USSR were the obvious victors.
By Smilin' Dave
#1094466
I'll pick on someone else first for a change.
That was only because the Brits had RADAR and Hitler was stupid enough to target the cities instead of the factories, airfields and RADAR stations.

Goering had tried to target the radar stations but it had been grossly ineffectively. Not only were they hard to hit, they were reasonably easy to repair.

Radar was also only used in conjuntion with other systems (including the old school, spotters on tall hills/buildings). Loss of radar might have hurt, but it wouldn't have won the war.

Targetting airfields and factories... except the majority of these were beyond the range of the Luftwaffe. Even if hypthetically the southern airfields had been destroyed, the RAF could have contested southern Britain from bases beyond Germany's range. You see, the Luftwaffe had been styled as a tactical support force, which paid dividends against the French, Polish and British during the land war. When it came time for strategic bombing, the Luftwaffe was not up to the task.

Exactly. The roads were mush, the couldn't push (New Zealand accent)

So why were you diagreeing with me exactly?

Then how come the got right up to Moscow without trouble?

Before the march on Moscow the Wehrmacht had lost a lot of material and men, enough to cause concern. Further numerous delays were forced due to the threat of strategic flank attacks, undefeated pockets in the rear etc.

In short, it wasn't a trouble free advance at all.

You mean the constant retreating?

Not a lot of retreating went on at the fortress city of Brest... I suggest you not fall for easy generalisations.

Besides, by all accounts Soviet troops tended to by lost in 1941 more often in pointless encirclements than because they retreated. STAVKA actually took fairly harsh measures against retreat.

Yes it was effective in that the German troups couln't 'live off the land' as the Russians had burnt it all.

Modern armies can't live off the land. Petrol doesn't grow on trees. Reality is that the German army was unprepared for winter (due largely to arrogance) and had outrun their supply, preventing losses from being recovered properly and winter gear never arriving till it was too late.

However, it wasn't until the Germans had slowed their advance and re-inforcements had arrived from Siberia.

Completely ignoring why the Germans had to slow down that advance.

Basically it was the same old tune that Napoleon had to play.

Not really... at least Napoleon got to Moscow...

But they were outnumbered and exhausted with the almost constant bombings.

The RAF had always been outnumbered and exhausted... yet they were still inflicting disproportionate losses on the Luftwaffe.

The RAF sent a bomb squad which bombed Berlin. Hitler was outraged and turned his bombers on London. It was exactly what the Brits needed. If memory serves me well, the Brits were able to turn out around 700 fighter planes a day, the only thing stopping them was the bombings.

Notice no one contragulates the British for provoking Hitler, instead they prefer to blame Hitler?

Those 700 planes a day were inhibited by lack of runways (which I have already discussed), not by damage of production. If anything, German fighters were more important in destroying the RAF... but they had meer minutes over Britain in which to do it. Meanwhile, Britain wasn't lossing as many trained pilots.

and the pilots got rest

Not really, they were still expected to drive off the German terror bombing raids. The respite was for airfields.

Even so, it's still prooving my point. Without the Brits, the Germans wouldn't have been strung up in a major two front war, whether it be in Britain herself, the Balkans or Africa/Middle East.

True, but we can't put this down to simplistic characterisations of Hitlerian stupidity or British stiff upper lip either.

Back to Bill:
The British weren't exactly known for superb AFV design.

But the thing is, if both tanks were 'christie' tanks, why did one work completely different to the other? Answer, they were not directly related at all, one or both were evolutions on the earlier design.

The rest:
The Soviet Union did, obviously. Consider the dates, force numbers, etc.

I seem to remember the Soviet Union not fighting the Axis till 1941... so how about some credit to say...Britain, who did it for the whole war?

Force numbers...mmm... imagine how much more the Axis could have had without a Mediterranean theatre, or Italy, or even anti-partisan duty in Yugoslavia.

They were called the allies because they were a team. For any side to claim the greater part of the victory is pretty childish.

Averell Harriman U.S. Ambassador to USSR

In which case I suspect you took the statement out of context. I contrast your quote with Stalin's happyness to let Ike Eisenhower give the Soviets all the credit... which one is correct?

USA and USSR were the obvious victors.

Ah, but some would argue that the damage done to the USSR, both physical and political, was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union.

Like Britain, the Soviets many have won the war, but been unable to maintain their empire for too much longer. Just some food for thought.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.yout[…]

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]