[Bridgeburner]

As per supplies, USSR was far more better positioned in logistics department than western allies, namely most of their supplies were not coming from offshore.

Lets see how far into Europe the Red Army gets without Studebakers and American logistical lend-lease aid. Hint: not very far. The fact is that Lend-Lease has already halted and the Soviets have no way to replace the machinery lost, their industrial is tooled for producing very specific things, with Allied help to fill in the gaps. The sheer manpower loss has left the USSR exhausted industrially.

Now, air power, USSR is not 1944 Germany, her airforce slightly outnumbers western allies airforce, add that to an organized ground based air defense system, and overwhelming Red Army with airpower sounds like a pipedream. Heck Germany with less than 1/6 of airforce compared to allies managed to inflict double the causality in air, thanks to organized air defense system.

The VVS is an antiquated joke and from an organizational perspective cannot touch the USAF and Allied Airforces for air superiority, Sturmoviks will be dropping like flies. Allied tactical fighter-bombers would flatten troop concentration of the Soviets, and heavy 4 engined bombers would destroy infrastructure and key transit points. The Soviets only have the PE-8, good luck touching penetrating any Allied airspace with that hunk of junk. The uncontested air superiority allows the allies to drop a nuke on any front, and, theoretically even attempt passage to obliterate Moscow via the Artic corridor from Canada.

On land USSR completely dominates in every way, it was really an unthinkable operation, the only trump card allies have is nuke and how are they used, whether successfully or not.

In the matter of tanks, yes, the USSR dominates but after the Fulda gap they are being funneled into an area of limited "space" facing an enemy that has numerically more numbers than the Germans did with the ability to fight an industrial war. The Soviets don't have the massive steppes to outmanouevre and use their fixing forces against the Germans, they will have to fight for every blood inch into Germany and Western Europe, and every loss the Americans suffer CAN be replaced by American industry (unlike German losses where German industry was flattened)

Anti-Soviet partisans from Central Asia through to the far-East can be empowered, Japanese and German military units reintegrated under American control, the Soviets were hurting far, far more than the Allies following the war.

This is all theoretical however. The Wallies war weariness would not have permitted such a situation.

[fuser]

Lets see how far into Europe the Red Army gets without Studebakers and American logistical lend-lease aid. Hint: not very far. The fact is that Lend-Lease has already halted and the Soviets have no way to replace the machinery lost, their industrial is tooled for producing very specific things, with Allied help to fill in the gaps. The sheer manpower loss has left the USSR exhausted industrially.

You are overestimating the effect of LL, it generally happens when people just compare the Soviet production during ww2 and items received through LL during the war while completely ignoring things like pre war stock. For example logistically the most important item was imo railcars and locomotive but now let's look at the numbers.

11,000 railroad cars and 1200 locos were send to USSR but set against 600,000 railcars and 28,000 locos that already existed in Soviet stocks. How much USSR has stocked all these items in this scenario? Why can't it replenish the losses? The highest percentage for western motor vehicles in Red Army reached in may 45 and at that time it was somewhere around 30% of all soviet motor vehicles.

Basically you are giving too much importance to LL.

The VVS is an antiquated joke and from an organizational perspective cannot touch the USAF and Allied Airforces for air superiority, Sturmoviks will be dropping like flies. Allied tactical fighter-bombers would flatten troop concentration of the Soviets,

What? Why would you pit Sturmoviks against US fighters? What about Yak9, La7 who are actually superior fighters compared to something like P51 Mustang.

According to Unthinkable plan itself, In aircraft, the Allied Tactical Air Forces in North West Europe and the Mediterranean consisted of 6,714 fighter planes and 2464 bombers. The Soviets had 9380 fighter aircraft and 3380 bombers. Add that to an organized land based air defense system and I just don't see how allies are going to magically take air superiority. Yes probably in 3-4 years as US industrial might will slowly grind down Soviets but its more than doubtful that allies will survive a 3-4 years of another war.

The Soviets only have the PE-8, good luck touching penetrating any Allied airspace with that hunk of junk. The uncontested air superiority allows the allies to drop a nuke on any front, and, theoretically even attempt passage to obliterate Moscow via the Artic corridor from Canada.

Its a good thing then that for air superiority VVS doesn't depends on something like PE8 neither heavy bombers are going to play a big part in operational planning of USSR, planes like Yak and La will be contesting for air superiority, I am not sure why are you ignoring these planes when discussing air superiority. Besides, I am yet to see how this air superiority will be achieved and simply saying VVS is a joke is seriously not good enough.

In the matter of tanks, yes, the USSR dominates but after the Fulda gap they are being funneled into an area of limited "space" facing an enemy that has numerically more numbers than the Germans did with the ability to fight an industrial war. The Soviets don't have the massive steppes to outmanouevre and use their fixing forces against the Germans, they will have to fight for every blood inch into Germany and Western Europe, and every loss the Americans suffer CAN be replaced by American industry (unlike German losses where German industry was flattened)

In matter of tanks, artillery, men etc USSR does dominates. But its a good sign when you have automatically given allies a defensive posture in order to get them some sort of favorable result in this conflict while the original premise called for allies marching to Moscow. So you agree that western allies didn't had the capability to move towards Moscow and the only way they could hope to get a favorable result is to maintain a defensive posture? Actually the scenario you have envisioned here is a victory for USSR in accordance with op premise.

This is all theoretical however. The Wallies war weariness would not have permitted such a situation.

I agree with this 100%. Neither USSR nor Western allies had stomach for another war just after May 1945.

[JohnRawls]

Also, you people need to note that nuclear bombs were a limited commodity back in 45. Even by 48 america had only 30 of them. After 49 and 50 production was expanded and america had around 300 in the 50s.

Note that those warheads were not even megaton ones. So in case of a war between Russia and Allies in 1945, the 10 million army of the Soviets would have mown down the 2.5 million army of the allies. They had 4 to 1 manpower advantage and 3 to 1 tank advatage. Nuclear bombs wouldnt make a difference in such a scenario. I doubt it would take the soviets longer than 3 years to finnish of most of europe and the middle east.

I also dont think that 30 nuclear bombs would be enough to damage the soviet union that much(Those 30 bombs are plane delivered). By 1949 the war would be over because Soviet Union would have nuclear bombs of its own.

[Zamuel]

Also, you people need to note that nuclear bombs were a limited commodity back in 45.

The Nuclear option wasn't ever considered with regard to a possible attack against the Russians ... Nothing was really considered beyond Patton's (unauthorized) plan to neutralize the potential threat posed by Zhukov's troops. SACUER was (privately) encouraged to plan for an advance on Moscow, but referred the matter to the white house for advisement without proceeding. Eisenhower was well aware of the pressure to redeploy the army to the Japanese theatre in order to exploit the marine and air corps hard won advantage. Likewise Patton's overtures were ignored (in fact an alarmed Eisenhower made advanced plans for Patton's relief ... which came in handy).

Patton's idea was sound. Zhukov had effectively lost control of the advance on Berlin. It had become a mad dash and his forces were in complete disarray. Not to mention having exhausted their supplies and failed to establish any kind of defensive posture. As has been noted, soviet air power was a joke ... it had improved, but that wasn't saying much. The USAF had perfected JABO and Low level tactical bombing to a fine art that paralyzed any ground force it encountered, destroying anything that presented itself as a target. Someone mentioned soviet "anti-aircraft defenses." That's also a JOKE! The only thing the Russians had of any significance was American M-17 quad mount halftrack (over 50% of their AA capability) ... Sorry, No idea how many Zhukov might have had with him (a total of 2800 were give to Russia as Lend Lease over the course of the war). It was effective against low flying aircraft, but this decreased as aircraft speeds went up towards the end of the war.) AND - it required American Supplied .50 Cal ammo.

Had such an attack proceeded, the Russians numerical advantage would have served only to starve them into submission that much faster. It's likely Zhukov would have tried to centralize his forces in Berlin, but that wouldn't have fed them or replenished their lack of ammunition to fight with. The Russian threat would have been neutralized and Moscow forced to retreat at least to the prewar border with Poland.

BUT ... this would effectively have prevented ANY redeployment to the Pacific theatre and extended the need for European reinforcement indefinitely. Japan would have had an opportunity to significantly improve their defenses and deploy recently developed technology.

While a great deal of anti-Soviet sentiment had been spread throughout the US military and state department by 1945, it was NOT generally a public sentiment until the US began discharging GIs after the war. It's unlikely the US population would have reacted favorably to any Allied aggression against the soviets.

Zam

[fuser]

Nothing was really considered beyond Patton's (unauthorized) plan to neutralize the potential threat posed by Zhukov's troops

You still haven't heard of Operation Unthinkable?

But I love how the pro western allies arguments boils down to, Soviet army was a joke and we will win because ummmmm magic be damned the actual facts on the ground.

[Zamuel]

Nothing was really considered beyond Patton's (unauthorized) plan to neutralize the potential threat posed by Zhukov's troops

[You still haven't heard of Operation Unthinkable?

Yes ... evidently YOU still don't understand it ... Patton's plan was developed to facilitate the goals of "unthinkable." And I guess you still don't get that the plans title reflects the expected AMERICAN response to it, not the British fear of Russian Potential once American Troops withdrew.

Zam

[JohnRawls]

So you consider 4 to 1 manpower advantage and 3 to 1 tank advantage not a consern. 10 million troops vs 2.5 million troops makes it very easy to win for the soviets even if we agree that they had no logistics, air power etc (Which is wrong btw)

[Zamuel]

So you consider 4 to 1 manpower advantage and 3 to 1 tank advantage not a consern. 10 million troops vs 2.5 million troops makes it very easy to win for the soviets even if we agree that they had no logistics, air power etc (Which is wrong btw)

Troops and tanks with no ammo are more of a liability than an asset. The Biggest problem SACUER would have faced if they had implemented Patton's plan would have been "Caring" for all the prisoners.

Zam

[SolarCross]

So you consider 4 to 1 manpower advantage and 3 to 1 tank advantage not a consern. 10 million troops vs 2.5 million troops makes it very easy to win for the soviets even if we agree that they had no logistics, air power etc (Which is wrong btw)

The Germans were grossly outnumbered by the Soviets as well as fighting on two fronts yet all by themselves delivered more hurt on the Russians than the Russians inflicted on them. If Western Allies went full mobilisation and drew manpower and production not just from the US & UK but also from Canada, Australia, India, newly liberated France, Germany, Italy and well as all the other odd parts of Europe and the Commonwealth then it seems entirely possible to field far greater numbers than the Russians ever could. By the fall of Berlin the Russians had lost nearly a eighth of their population (including civilians) whereas the Western Allies had barely any lost and in total had a larger population from which to draw, most of whom had yet to be funneled into the military.

Anyway numbers thrown into the meat grinder is a sloppy way to win wars. It isn't so much what you have as what you do with it.

All in all it was a missed opportunity though I suppose in the long run it didn't matter as the SU was caput just a few decades later and eastern europe liberated in the end.

[Bridgeburner]

You are overestimating the effect of LL, it generally happens when people just compare the Soviet production during ww2 and items received through LL during the war while completely ignoring things like pre war stock. For example logistically the most important item was imo railcars and locomotive but now let's look at the numbers.

I really am not. Don't forget the majority of the Red Army was utterly destroyed in Barbarossa and had to be rebuilt from scratch. Pre-War stock is more or less irrelevant..American Lend Lease provided food and logistical support - locomotives are important but American 8x8 Studebakers are even MORE important, because the majority of Russia does not have the degree of rail transportation that the West enjoyed. All of this allowed Soviet heavy industry to focus on critical things like tanks and small arms.

11,000 railroad cars and 1200 locos were send to USSR but set against 600,000 railcars and 28,000 locos that already existed in Soviet stocks. How much USSR has stocked all these items in this scenario? Why can't it replenish the losses? The highest percentage for western motor vehicles in Red Army reached in may 45 and at that time it was somewhere around 30% of all soviet motor vehicles.

How is your supply chain going to continue working when you can't get goods from a to be due to a lack of American "logistical grease"? You need to ramp down production of war material to build trucks, but this means that the Soviets are much slower in rebuilding and resupplying armies. Remember that what basically happened to the Wermacht in Western Europe will be happening to Soviet Armies - air attacks shooting up logistics.

Basically you are giving too much importance to LL

.

I most certainly am not. Without Lend-Lease the war continues into 47 at the earliest and the Soviets lose millions more men, and probably link up with the Western Allies in Poland.

What? Why would you pit Sturmoviks against US fighters? What about Yak9, La7 who are actually superior fighters compared to something like P51 Mustang.

Because sturmoviks are all that would be left - the VVS's doctrinal difference emphasized CAS, it did not emphasis multirole capabilities, it's fighters were niche and specialized and it absolutely neglected altitude, nightfighting and air control. The VVS only managed to "achieve" force parity on the Eastern Front in 1943, onwards from that point they weren't being completely duckhunted by German aces. Soviets are scraping the bottom of the barrel for trained, qualified pilots (due in part to their asinine training systems), and the kill counts of German pilots show it. The fact that the Luftwaffe being in the state it was in (being pounded by Western Ally air-raids and targetting) managed to completely maul the VVS is telling of the poor quality of management and training that the Soviets created. The IL-2 was the only remotely successful thing to emerge from the Soviet Union with regards to conflict in the air, the LA-7s arrived late, the LA-5 was outclassed soon after its introduction. The Yak-9 was good, however it's telling that again, Soviet pilots preferred American P39 bell Airacobras and P63 Kingcobras

According to Unthinkable plan itself, In aircraft, the Allied Tactical Air Forces in North West Europe and the Mediterranean consisted of 6,714 fighter planes and 2464 bombers. The Soviets had 9380 fighter aircraft and 3380 bombers. Add that to an organized land based air defense system and I just don't see how allies are going to magically take air superiority. Yes probably in 3-4 years as US industrial might will slowly grind down Soviets but its more than doubtful that allies will survive a 3-4 years of another war.

If we go by the parameters of this plan you are ignoring the fact that Americans can vector bombers in from all parts of the globe, British India, East Asia, and over the Artic passages even to fly over Moscow. The Soviets had nothing comparable to reach those heights or stop mass-bomber formations of 1000s of planes. And we don't even have to start with night-fighters, the Soviets didn't have one of those till the 50s. Brits had perfected night bombing raids.


[quoteIts a good thing then that for air superiority VVS doesn't depends on something like PE8[/QUOTE]

It doesn't have anything for air superiority that has the loiter time of a P-51 or P-47 or the high-altitude operational ceiling that American and Brit planes (to a lesser degree) used. In fact, Soviet designs largely focused around a ceiling lower that 4500m. This is why the Luftwaffe time and again managed to ravage the VVS.

neither heavy bombers are going to play a big part in operational planning of USSR, planes like Yak and La will be contesting for air superiority, I am not sure why are you ignoring these planes when discussing air superiority. Besides, I am yet to see how this air superiority will be achieved and simply saying VVS is a joke is seriously not good enough.

Seriously, how is this going to be achieved? How are Yaks and Las going to fight at those altitudes when they aren't designed for that?

Look at where Soviet planes engaged in (altitude envelopes) for the majority of the Eastern Front. I'm a big fan of the USSRs armored doctrine of deep battle, but the VVS was and is shocking in performance, with its only real highlight the success and sheer indestructability of the IL series of ground attack CAS aircraft.

have a read of this

http://www.warhistoryfans.com/allied-ve ... 97772.html

And look at the data here.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

I'll never contest the fact that the Red Army destroyed the Wermacht almost single-handedly, but I will also never agree that the VVS was anything approaching successful in its attempts against the Luftwaffe. It's antiquated training, doctrine, attitude towards fighter pilots, focus on the mission and not downing aircraft were all symptomatic of a thoroughly backward organization.

In matter of tanks, artillery, men etc USSR does dominates. But its a good sign when you have automatically given allies a defensive posture in order to get them some sort of favorable result in this conflict while the original premise called for allies marching to Moscow. So you agree that western allies didn't had the capability to move towards Moscow and the only way they could hope to get a favorable result is to maintain a defensive posture? Actually the scenario you have envisioned here is a victory for USSR in accordance with op premise.

Soviets have to attack or America destroys them piece by piece via industrial might and concentrated bomber attacks upon oilfields and industrial centres in the Urals.

Add to this the mobilization of the Pacific Allied armies and pathways into the USSR through Iran, the Korean peninsula and you have a USSR that HAS to use its force advantage to attack. However, good luck achieving force concentration when the Allies can drop a nuke on your crack spearpoints.

America came out of WW2 unscathed. The USSR did not.

I agree with this 100%. Neither USSR nor Western allies had stomach for another war just after May 1945.

Still a shame that the dismantling of 600 years of Russian imperialism couldn't occur.

Also, you people need to note that nuclear bombs were a limited commodity back in 45. Even by 48 america had only 30 of them. After 49 and 50 production was expanded and america had around 300 in the 50s.

Note that those warheads were not even megaton ones. So in case of a war between Russia and Allies in 1945, the 10 million army of the Soviets would have mown down the 2.5 million army of the allies. They had 4 to 1 manpower advantage and 3 to 1 tank advatage. Nuclear bombs wouldnt make a difference in such a scenario. I doubt it would take the soviets longer than 3 years to finnish of most of europe and the middle east.

I also dont think that 30 nuclear bombs would be enough to damage the soviet union that much(Those 30 bombs are plane delivered). By 1949 the war would be over because Soviet Union would have nuclear bombs of its own.

How are the Soviets going to mass troops or form troop concentrations for an offensive when the KNOW the Americans have a nuke capable of blowing a hole in their entire front?

How are they going to translate that manpower advantage into gains without concentrating force to penetrate Allied lines?

Obliterating one axis of advance would be more than enough to stall a Soviet offensive in its tracks, how successful do you think a Soviet assault without any leadership would be?

After a nuke has been used once, twice, thrice on a massed Soviet front prior to attack, do you think they'll keep continuing to do that?

With that said, if the Americans obliterated Moscow the leadership squabbles that would emerge in the USSR would fracture it in its entirety.

[fuser]

I really am not. Don't forget the majority of the Red Army was utterly destroyed in Barbarossa and had to be rebuilt from scratch. Pre-War stock is more or less irrelevant

No, its absolutely not, you guys ar once again going in dismissive mode without providing any reasoning at all. Its obviously very very important as you know it can be used too and they were used irl.

American Lend Lease provided food and logistical support - locomotives are important but American 8x8 Studebakers are even MORE important, because the majority of Russia does not have the degree of rail transportation that the West enjoyed. All of this allowed Soviet heavy industry to focus on critical things like tanks and small arms.

And as I already provided you the data where the maximum proportion of LL motor vehicles reached in may 45 and it was meager 30% and as per locomotives and railcars compared to Soviet stocks it was too meager to even compare it, so indeed you are exaggerating the effect of LL.

How is your supply chain going to continue working when you can't get goods from a to be due to a lack of American "logistical grease"? You need to ramp down production of war material to build trucks, but this means that the Soviets are much slower in rebuilding and resupplying armies. Remember that what basically happened to the Wermacht in Western Europe will be happening to Soviet Armies - air attacks shooting up logistics.

You are just repeating yourself without providing any additional info, a) exaggerating LL's effect as already shown and b) once again magically giving allies air superiority. 45 USSR is not 44 Germany, it isn't numerically inferior by almost 1: 6 but instead numerically superior.

Because sturmoviks are all that would be left - the VVS's doctrinal difference emphasized CAS, it did not emphasis multirole capabilities, it's fighters were niche and specialized and it absolutely neglected altitude, nightfighting and air control. The VVS only managed to "achieve" force parity on the Eastern Front in 1943, onwards from that point they weren't being completely duckhunted by German aces. Soviets are scraping the bottom of the barrel for trained, qualified pilots (due in part to their asinine training systems), and the kill counts of German pilots show it. The fact that the Luftwaffe being in the state it was in (being pounded by Western Ally air-raids and targetting) managed to completely maul the VVS is telling of the poor quality of management and training that the Soviets created. The IL-2 was the only remotely successful thing to emerge from the Soviet Union with regards to conflict in the air, the LA-7s arrived late, the LA-5 was outclassed soon after its introduction.

No Soviets didn't used Sturmoviks to fight against enemy fighters contesting air superiority, it was a highly specialized aircraft used to attack ground targets, it makes no sense comparing Sturmoviks when arguing air superiority. And you are once again going in exaggeration mode, form 1943 VVS was constantly on offensive and as per losses, if you think VVS was being mauled by Luftwaffe after 1943, I am sure you will also say that western air force was also mauled by Luftwaffe, afterall even with better numerical superiority compared to east, Western air force managed to loose more than double the numbers of aircraft than they shot down. Now by your own logic, western air force is a joke now? So, I guess its alright if both sides are a joke, right?

Besides In 45 allies would had been facing mostly something like LA-7, a great fighter plane for air superiority and not sturmoviks and as per pilot you know which country dominates the top ten list for allies fighter aces? Yup, its USSR with all top 10 allied fighter aces being a VVS pilot.

If we go by the parameters of this plan you are ignoring the fact that Americans can vector bombers in from all parts of the globe, British India, East Asia, and over the Artic passages even to fly over Moscow. The Soviets had nothing comparable to reach those heights or stop mass-bomber formations of 1000s of planes. And we don't even have to start with night-fighters, the Soviets didn't have one of those till the 50s

have a read of this

http://www.warhistoryfans.com/allied-ve ... 97772.html

And look at the data here.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Formation of 1000 Bombers? And they also managed to move in to Moscow without being mauled? Please, whoever wrote that is clearly just expressing his bs opinion rather than any fact based observation and ceiling is not everything even when Luftwaffe (except for handful of aircrafts) had nothing in terms of ceiling to match western aircrafts, they inflicted disproportional causality, what sorcery was used there?

Plus of course Western performance is better in sheer numbers and there are many factors, VVS was not deployed to destroy Luftwaffe as fighting force, primarily its function was to facilitate army's advance and it acted as an offensive arm while in west it was the stated goal of Western air force to destroy Luftwaffe, in 1945 I will expect VVS to be on defensive and providing defensive air cover to her marching armies.

I'll never contest the fact that the Red Army destroyed the Wermacht almost single-handedly, but I will also never agree that the VVS was anything approaching successful in its attempts against the Luftwaffe. It's antiquated training, doctrine, attitude towards fighter pilots, focus on the mission and not downing aircraft were all symptomatic of a thoroughly backward organization.

If you think I am saying that then you are misreading me, in fact I agree that Western air force was superior to VVS but that doesn't translate into complete air superiority from the beginning of war, as I already said they will eventually in 3-4 years but by 3-4 years the war would had ended and decided on land and not favorably for western allies.

Soviets have to attack or America destroys them piece by piece via industrial might and concentrated bomber attacks upon oilfields and industrial centres in the Urals.

Add to this the mobilization of the Pacific Allied armies and pathways into the USSR through Iran, the Korean peninsula and you have a USSR that HAS to use its force advantage to attack. However, good luck achieving force concentration when the Allies can drop a nuke on your crack spearpoints.

Soviets only have to attack if western offensive (as per op premise) fails completely and in her tracks, once again at least you are once again giving western allies a defensive posture contrary to op premise or Patton or Unthinkable.

Still a shame that the dismantling of 600 years of Russian imperialism couldn't occur.

Meh, at least Nazism and British Empire ended, so all in all a good result.

Yes ... evidently YOU still don't understand it ... Patton's plan was developed to facilitate the goals of "unthinkable."

No, Patton's plans had nothing to with Unthinkable.

Troops and tanks with no ammo are more of a liability than an asset. The Biggest problem SACUER would have faced if they had implemented Patton's plan would have been "Caring" for all the prisoners.

Why don't you just post US national anthem here and in all of your post, it will be as good as this argument.

[Bridgeburner]

No, its absolutely not, you guys ar once again going in dismissive mode without providing any reasoning at all. Its obviously very very important as you know it can be used too and they were used irl.

How am I being dismissive? The majority of the Red Army WAS destroyed in the opening months of Barbarossa. How are you discounting this?

And as I already provided you the data where the maximum proportion of LL motor vehicles reached in may 45 and it was meager 30% and as per locomotives and railcars compared to Soviet stocks it was too meager to even compare it, so indeed you are exaggerating the effect of LL.

Are you for real? A meager 30%? Do you know what 30% of a fleet of 1,000,000 trucks are? 300,000. Your fanwank worship of the USSR is tiresome, if you don't understand how crippling 1/3 of the logistical supply train of an army will set it back I'm not going to have this discussion. Your figures are flat out wrong. In actuality the USSR only produced 300,000~ trucks, antiquated copies of US 1930 models, the US supplied over 500,000 trucks 8x8 Studebakers which were qualitatively far superior to anything the Soviets had. In addition the SOVIETS HALTED TRUCK PRODUCTION AND HALTED LOCOMOTIVE PRODUCTION BECAUSE OF LEND LEASE. All those factories were converted to tank or armameent production

This is all sourced from Zaloga (armored thunderbolt) and you can find figures on the following websites with primary sources. It's disingeous to claim that its 30%, when in reality it was more than 50%
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... /lend.html
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/d ... /index.htm

Oh, and A.Mikoyan, your own Commissar had this to say about Lend Lease

.. When we began to enter the American stew, shortenings, egg powder, flour and other products, which immediately received significant extra calories our soldiers! And not only the soldiers: something perepadalo and rear.

Or take the car delivery. After all, we have, as I remember, taking into account the losses on the road about 400 thousand first-class at that time, machines such as " Studebaker ", "Ford" cars " Willys " and amphibians. Our whole army was actually on wheels and no wheels! As a result of its increased flexibility and significantly increased the pace of the offensive.

Yes, but ... - I mused Mikoyan. - Without a lend-lease, we would probably still a year and a half extra provoevali

Glantz primary sources from Russian Archives on lend lease amounts

http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

Enjoy 4 primary sources that contradict what you are saying, all of which cite Russian archives.

You are just repeating yourself without providing any additional info, a) exaggerating LL's effect as already shown and b) once again magically giving allies air superiority. 45 USSR is not 44 Germany, it isn't numerically inferior by almost 1: 6 but instead numerically superior.

Nobody but hacks are going to deny the quantity and quality of Allied lend lease, look buddy, the Cold War is done, you really don't get anything from trying to overrepresent what the USSR did and underplay the importance of lend lease. Fact, it was American production and Soviet blood that won WW2, without American assistance we are just seeing greater mounds of Soviets dead.

Allies won air superiority over Germany, they'll do it against the VVS far quicker, most definitely not "2-3" years, especially considering the Soviets relied on the Western Allies for all their aviation fuel.

No Soviets didn't used Sturmoviks to fight against enemy fighters contesting air superiority, it was a highly specialized aircraft used to attack ground targets, it makes no sense comparing Sturmoviks when arguing air superiority. And you are once again going in exaggeration mode, form 1943 VVS was constantly on offensive and as per losses, if you think VVS was being mauled by Luftwaffe after 1943, I am sure you will also say that western air force was also mauled by Luftwaffe, afterall even with better numerical superiority compared to east, Western air force managed to loose more than double the numbers of aircraft than they shot down. Now by your own logic, western air force is a joke now? So, I guess its alright if both sides are a joke, right?

What are you on about. I'm telling you Sturmoviks are the only things the Soviets would have left after their low-ceiling fighters go up against the hordes of P47s and P51s (and then the jets) pumped out by the Allies. The VVS never achieved its operational objectives over control of German airspace, allies did and repeatedly did penetrate it. The VVS never even managed to achieve control over Russian skies, let alone German ones up until Kursk.

Besides In 45 allies would had been facing mostly something like LA-7, a great fighter plane for air superiority and not sturmoviks and as per pilot you know which country dominates the top ten list for allies fighter aces? Yup, its USSR with all top 10 allied fighter aces being a VVS pilot.

LA 7 production figures were only 5000~ in 1946, I'm not sure how you manage to go from that to the entire VVS. It's a good plane for it's role - low altitude fighting. The majority would still be

If we go by the parameters of this plan you are ignoring the fact that Americans can vector bombers in from all parts of the globe, British India, East Asia, and over the Artic passages even to fly over Moscow. The Soviets had nothing comparable to reach those heights or stop mass-bomber formations of 1000s of planes. And we don't even have to start with night-fighters, the Soviets didn't have one of those till the 50s

Formation of 1000 Bombers? And they also managed to move in to Moscow without being mauled?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_o ... omber_raid

Please tell me what magical planes the Russians are going to use to touch a fleet of a thousand B-17s flanked by Mustangs with drop tanks. Nothing the Russians have is even capable of getting up that high without suffering severe performance problems

Please, whoever wrote that is clearly just expressing his bs opinion rather than any fact based observation and ceiling is not everything even

Dude... do you realize what you are talking about? "Ceiling is not everything".

Are you aware that the person with higher altitude in aerial combat has a massive, if not insurmountable advantage? It's called energy fighting, it's why the Luftwaffe aces butchered Russian pilots en masse... Western doctrine had more similarities to the Luftwaffe, please use some logic here and imagine if the same VVS went up against a numerical superior Western force performing with Luftwaffe-esque doctrine and superior equipment, how exactly it is going to perform.

when Luftwaffe (except for handful of aircrafts) had nothing in terms of ceiling to match western aircrafts, they inflicted disproportional causality, what sorcery was used there?

Uh, yes they did. The German planes for the most part could climb that high, FW190 Ds pushing the edge of the envelope before the 262 arrived on the scene.

Plus of course Western performance is better in sheer numbers and there are many factors, VVS was not deployed to destroy Luftwaffe as fighting force, primarily its function was to facilitate army's advance and it acted as an offensive arm while in west it was the stated goal of Western air force to destroy Luftwaffe, in 1945 I will expect VVS to be on defensive and providing defensive air cover to her marching armies.

Thanks, you are basically admitting the entire role of the VVS was CAS, which I said at the start, and that they aren't capable of even contesting air superiority, which is reflected in the technical specifications of their planes. Essentially, it's a foregone conclusion that the USAF and Allied air forces will establish air superiority over the Soviets with ease.

If you think I am saying that then you are misreading me, in fact I agree that Western air force was superior to VVS but that doesn't translate into complete air superiority from the beginning of war, as I already said they will eventually in 3-4 years but by 3-4 years the war would had ended and decided on land and not favorably for western allies.

It's not going to take 3 years for the USAF to dismantle the VVS....I don't know how you reach this conclusion when the VVS can't control the air against a nonexistent Luftwaffe.

Soviets only have to attack if western offensive (as per op premise) fails completely and in her tracks, once again at least you are once again giving western allies a defensive posture contrary to op premise or Patton or Unthinkable.

Soviets have to attack or they will collapse. None of the USSRs objectives are achieved by being on the defensive and the Allies have the ability to strike into her industrial heartland.

Unthinkable was a British plan, not an American one, we know who was calling the shots in SACEUR and it wasn't the Brits.

Meh, at least Nazism and British Empire ended, so all in all a good result.

The British Empire wouldn't have ended if it wasn't for Nazism.

[fuser]

How am I being dismissive? The majority of the Red Army WAS destroyed in the opening months of Barbarossa. How are you discounting this?

You were indeed dismissive of pre-war stocks that USSR had, read carefully. I wasn't talking about Barbarossa.

Are you for real? A meager 30%? Do you know what 30% of a fleet of 1,000,000 trucks are? 300,000.

Yes, it is meager in grand scheme of things. Not only motor vehicles, take away entire 30% of Red Army and it still wields massive superiority on land against western allies.

Your fanwank worship of the USSR is tiresome, if you don't understand how crippling 1/3 of the logistical supply train of an army will set it back I'm not going to have this discussion.

Its rich coming from you, whose whole argument started with, they are a "joke". Yup, clearly no bias, no fanboyism at all.

Your figures are flat out wrong. In actuality the USSR only produced 300,000~ trucks, antiquated copies of US 1930 models, the US supplied over 500,000 trucks 8x8 Studebakers

No my figures are absolutely correct, I am telling you the exact percentage of motor vehicles received through LL that formed the part of Red Army. Absolute numbers means jackshit without taking in account in what proportion they were part of the army and as I said it reached at its peak in may 1945 with just over 30%. Beside a third of these trucks were send in crates and were assembled in Soviet factories, a fact you conveniently ignored while still ignoring the pre war stocks as I mentioned two posts ago and making the same error as all fanboys do by just counting the wartime production and completely dismissing pre war stocks.

This is all sourced from Zaloga (armored thunderbolt) and you can find figures on the following websites with primary sources. It's disingeous to claim that its 30%, when in reality it was more than 50%

The only one being disingenuous is you, I told you why counting only wartime production is erroneous and you are yet to counter that with any argument and no repeating yourself is not an argument.

In may 45, Red Army had a fleet of 680,000 trucks, 32% LL, 58% Soviet produced and rest captured.

Enjoy 4 primary sources that contradict what you are saying, all of which cite Russian archives.

It just means that you still don't understand my argument and no they are not contradicting me at all and as per Milokyan quote, oh please..I can give you quotes from famous people in west heaping mountain of praise to Red Army and vice-versa, but its not really a good fact based argument. The prime example being the British general staff who planned the operation and thought it to be infeasible/impossible but I guess they hadn't heard of fanboys who will dismiss the same opposition as a joke, am i right?

Yes, LL was important but yours or Zamuel's point that without LL in 1945, Red Army is toast, they are a joke is hilariously ludicrous.

Nobody but hacks are going to deny the quantity and quality of Allied lend lease, look buddy, the Cold War is done, you really don't get anything from trying to overrepresent what the USSR did and underplay the importance of lend lease.

Once again its rich coming from you, who is denying the importance of LL? No one. Who is exaggerating its importance to ridiculous level? Its you, so start following your advice, yes cold war is gone and you get nothing from exaggerating LL importance.

Allies won air superiority over Germany, they'll do it against the VVS far quicker, most definitely not "2-3" years, especially considering the Soviets relied on the Western Allies for all their aviation fuel.

Yes with enemy far numerically inferior and in this case the enemy is actually numerically superior, so you can keep repeating your fantasies but it won't become true. And you are once again being disingenuous with your LL data for Aviation fuel. The high graded Petroleum that USSR received through LL went to US/UK planes, VVS aircrafts were not using these high graded petroleum aka your aviation fuel.

To put it absolutely clearly, the total LL was somewhere around 7% of Soviet GNP, yes it was important but stop exaggerating it and giving it undeserved importance.

What are you on about. I'm telling you Sturmoviks are the only things the Soviets would have left after their low-ceiling fighters go up against the hordes of P47s and P51s (and then the jets) pumped out by the Allies.

What a poor attempt at a comeback. So why Sturmoviks? Why not just say peasants with bamboo sticks after western air force magically destroys everything. Look you were completely off the tracks when you tried bringing in Sturmoviks when comparing air superiority, accept it rather than coming with flimsy excuses.

LA 7 production figures were only 5000~ in 1946, I'm not sure how you manage to go from that to the entire VVS. It's a good plane for it's role - low altitude fighting. The majority would still be

Yup, for air superiority VVS would deploy as I said previously "mostly LA7 and planes like that and not Sturmoviks"

Please tell me what magical planes the Russians are going to use to touch a fleet of a thousand B-17s flanked by Mustangs with drop tanks. Nothing the Russians have is even capable of getting up that high without suffering severe performance problems

Oh, indeed thousands and thousands of aircrafts will just go to Moscow and return back while singing and dancing through thousands of kms of hostile space and they will not once be touched, yup no fanbiyism here at all.

Are you aware that the person with higher altitude in aerial combat has a massive, if not insurmountable advantage? It's called energy fighting, it's why the Luftwaffe aces butchered Russian pilots en masse... Western doctrine had more similarities to the Luftwaffe, please use some logic here and imagine if the same VVS went up against a numerical superior Western force performing with Luftwaffe-esque doctrine and superior equipment, how exactly it is going to perform.

a) Its not numerically superior, put some effort in reading counter arguments ffs. b) yup ceiling is not everything, read carefully, I didn't said that its not important but that its not everything.

Uh, yes they did. The German planes for the most part could climb that high, FW190 Ds pushing the edge of the envelope before the 262 arrived on the scene.

Yes, same FW190 that were being shot down by Yak9 and La7s with lesser ceiling but this time by some sorcery western allies planes will simply become invincible. And yes German fighters with lesser ceilings were also shotting down Western allies aircrafts in west ergo ceiling is not everything.

Thanks, you are basically admitting the entire role of the VVS was CAS, which I said at the start, and that they aren't capable of even contesting air superiority, which is reflected in the technical specifications of their planes.

Yes, because there will be no changes (no matter how minor) just because you say so. VVS can absolutely not direct her fighter force to contest for air superiority but will just keep sending Sturmoviks to something like P51s, right?

Essentially, it's a foregone conclusion that the USAF and Allied air forces will establish air superiority over the Soviets with ease.

This argument is as good as my counterargument i.e. no it isn't.

It's not going to take 3 years for the USAF to dismantle the VVS....I don't know how you reach this conclusion when the VVS can't control the air against a nonexistent Luftwaffe.

Of course it will at minimum. Marching 1000 bombers to a thousand kms of hostile territory against an enemy numerically superior and in possession of machines that can hurt you from air as well as ground is nothing but fantasy, the only way it can be achieved is through attrition (as Industrial might of USSR is far inferior) and it will indeed take time.

Soviets have to attack or they will collapse. None of the USSRs objectives are achieved by being on the defensive and the Allies have the ability to strike into her industrial heartland.

Oh they will. I was making the point that how automatically and readily you guys are giving allies a defensive postures in order to get some favorable result regardless of all these plans and op asking them to go in offensive.

Finally of all the talk of airpower, the war would had most probably ended like the joke I posted on page 1 with two Soviet tankist sipping tea in Paris and one of them saying, "By the way does anyone remembers, who won the air war?"

Unthinkable was a British plan, not an American one, we know who was calling the shots in SACEUR and it wasn't the Brits.

This is irrelevant, it was purely a military plan which did accounted for American forces.

The British Empire wouldn't have ended if it wasn't for Nazism.

You are once again thinking singularly, there were plethora of reasons for fall of British empire, ww2 was one of them not the sole reason.

[Bridgeburner]

Yes, it is meager in grand scheme of things. Not only motor vehicles, take away entire 30% of Red Army and it still wields massive superiority on land against western allies.

Okay, you still don't understand how not having 30% of your logistic train affects an army. I'm done, this is absolutely retarded

Its rich coming from you, whose whole argument started with, they are a "joke". Yup, clearly no bias, no fanboyism at all.

Go scroll up and read the bit where I praised the Red Army for its deep operation theory, the only fanboy here is you.

No my figures are absolutely correct,

Fuck off, I've cited over 5 primary sources and you've brought up nothing.

I am telling you the exact percentage of motor vehicles received through LL that formed the part of Red Army. Absolute numbers means jackshit without taking in account in what proportion they were part of the army and as I said it reached at its peak in may 1945 with just over 30%. Beside a third of these trucks were send in crates and were assembled in Soviet factories, a fact you conveniently ignored while still ignoring the pre war stocks as I mentioned two posts ago and making the same error as all fanboys do by just counting the wartime production and completely dismissing pre war stocks.

Please tell me in what universe "absolute numbers mean jack shit".

Ah yes, soviets had to build Ikea trucks, so are you passing those off as Soviet manufacturing now? Hilarious

The only one being disingenuous is you, I told you why counting only wartime production is erroneous and you are yet to counter that with any argument and no repeating yourself is not an argument.

It isn't, you are literally ignoring the fact that the majority of the Red Army was DESTROYED and had to be REBUILT

In may 45, Red Army had a fleet of 680,000 trucks, 32% LL, 58% Soviet produced and rest captured.

Primary source now, because Americans supplied 400,000~ upwards trucks, and most definitely exceeded Soviet production according to all the sources I've provided.

Enjoy 4 primary sources that contradict what you are saying, all of which cite Russian archives.

It just means that you still don't understand my argument and no they are not contradicting me at all and as per Milokyan quote, oh please..I can give you quotes from famous people in west heaping mountain of praise to Red Army and vice-versa, but its not really a good fact based argument. The prime example being the British general staff who planned the operation and thought it to be infeasible/impossible but I guess they hadn't heard of fanboys who will dismiss the same opposition as a joke, am i right?

Yep, a Soviet apparatchik apparently knows less about the USSR at war than you, incredible, will your gymnastics not stop. I've linked a fucking US army war college professor who has made ardent defenses of the Red Army and brought their strategic acumen to light, but you clearly are incapable of actually clicking anything. Do that and you might learn something.

Mikoyan doesn't "heap praise", he assess exactly what the impact of Lend Lease was. Another primary source. Your "knowledge" has shit on him buddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastas_Mikoyan

This guy is apparently an Allied plant and a spy. Incredible.

Yes, LL was important but yours or Zamuel's point that without LL in 1945, Red Army is toast, they are a joke is hilariously ludicrous.

Can you try reading. My point is that the Red Army would not even be in Berlin in 1945 if it wasn't for fucking lend-lease. They'd be in Poland in a filthy meatgrinder which would have seen millions more Russians dead.

Once again its rich coming from you, who is denying the importance of LL? No one. Who is exaggerating its importance to ridiculous level? Its you, so start following your advice, yes cold war is gone and you get nothing from exaggerating LL importance.

Uhh, you are? Literally every fucking Soviet hack supporter since the 2nd world war has tried to downplay the importance of lend-lease, with the declassification of archives its apparent the degree of importance the Soviet leaders privately placed upon lend-lease, and given the quantity of material sent over we can analyze the critical impact it had on shortening the war and saving millions of Russian lives.

To put it absolutely clearly, the total LL was somewhere around 7% of Soviet GNP, yes it was important but stop exaggerating it and giving it undeserved importance.

Uhh, more than that when you consider what the Americans donated, not limited to just productive goods but raw material, the amount of effort it saved the Soviet economy and ability it gave them to retool for armaments production is conveniently ignored. "undeserved" importance is millions less Russian dead and a war shortened by years. Yeah, so minor, lmao.

W
What a poor attempt at a comeback. So why Sturmoviks? Why not just say peasants with bamboo sticks after western air force magically destroys everything. Look you were completely off the tracks when you tried bringing in Sturmoviks when comparing air superiority, accept it rather than coming with flimsy excuses.

Have you seen what happened to Dresden and the entirety of Japan? Go ahead and look at the might of Western air power, Gulf War 1 and 2 should serve as another reminder.

How about your reading comprehension advances a bit further than that of a juvenile, and see where I brought up Sturmoviks I referred to CAS (CLOSE AIR SUPPORT). I can't help that you can't read english properly, but that's not my problem okay buddy guy?

Because sturmoviks are all that would be left - the VVS's doctrinal difference emphasized CAS, it did not emphasis multirole capabilities, it's fighters were niche and specialized and it absolutely neglected altitude, nightfighting and air control

Do you know what a multirole aircraft is? It's a P-47, or a P-51. Do you know what isn't a multirole aircraft? A IL-2M.

Now if you are unable to see why a VVS comprised of Ground attack CAS aircraft will be sending Sturmoviks against P-51s because they literally do not have the quality or quantity of fighter craft to fight the USAF, then you are deluded beyond measure.

Yup, for air superiority VVS would deploy as I said previously "mostly LA7 and planes like that and not Sturmoviks"

Yeah, and they have them in limited quantity, with inferior aviation fuel, poorly trained pilots that would be mowed down. These same "wunderwaffen" struggled to achieve parity with dilapidated Kraut planes. The majority of the VVS still is not equipped with these planes by 45, and has early model Yaks, LaGGs, and early model LA-5s.

By the time the VVS has managed to produced LA-7s and 9s in decent numbers, the Allies have already moved onto to Gloster Meteors and F80 shooting stars, and MiG-15 production can kiss a good bye in this timeline when B-17s are raping Soviet industrial capability

:lol: Oh, indeed thousands and thousands of aircrafts will just go to Moscow and return back while singing and dancing through thousands of kms of hostile space and they will not once be touched, yup no fanbiyism here at all.

Allies did it to Germany and Japan repeatedly, tell me, how are teh Soviets going to stop this? The Luftwaffe and IJN were markedly much superior to the VVS. They have no night fighters. They have no capable fighters performing at high operational ceilings in an interceptor role. The Germans had over a 1000 262 Schalbes in production and they couldn't stop it. What is the VVS going to do? Also what fucking air defense? Can you point me to this magical WW-2 Shilka that exists that apparently is going to shoot B-17s down from thousands of metres away?

a) Its not numerically superior, put some effort in reading counter arguments ffs. b) yup ceiling is not everything, read carefully, I didn't said that its not important but that its not everything.

Yes it is, I don't count a shitty I-16 poliakarpov or a PO-2 as combat aircraft. If you think altitude isn't important when it comes to aerial combat I don't know what to say. I shouldn't even be discussing this with you.

Yes, same FW190 that were being shot down by Yak9 and La7s with lesser ceiling but this time by some sorcery western allies planes will simply become invincible. And yes German fighters with lesser ceilings were also shotting down Western allies aircrafts in west ergo ceiling is not everything.

Uhh, ceiling IS everything when you have bomber fleets flying above your capital cities and you can't touch them because your aircraft choke up at high altitudes....If your planes can't climb what are you going to do? Seriously...

Good bye to all Soviet industrial cities and oilfields.

Yes, because there will be no changes (no matter how minor) just because you say so. VVS can absolutely not direct her fighter force to contest for air superiority but will just keep sending Sturmoviks to something like P51s, right?

How is the VVS going to manage a doctrinal and production line change in the middle of a war in time to see effective changes on the battlefield? Yes, literally all they can do and did will be to send CAS to die. Like they did against Germans, repeatedly, throughout the war. It did not learn, unlike the tank armies and commanders, and it was in effect a completely wasteful organization

E
This argument is as good as my counterargument

Glad you admit your arguments have no basis

IOf course it will at minimum. Marching 1000 bombers to a thousand kms of hostile territory against an enemy numerically superior and in possession of machines that can hurt you from air as well as ground is nothing but fantasy, the only way it can be achieved is through attrition (as Industrial might of USSR is far inferior) and it will indeed take time.

What magic soviet plane is going to even intercept a B17 formation, let alone fight a P-51 at high operational ceilings.

Oh they will. I was making the point that how automatically and readily you guys are giving allies a defensive postures in order to get some favorable result regardless of all these plans and op asking them to go in offensive.

Oh no the allies aren't playing "fair" and not attacking, boo hoo. Dude, this is war, not some retarded computer game. Allied divisions marching into a Soviet army giving them a defensive and manoeuvring advantage is smart in which universe? Unless they salt the entirety of Eastern Europe in isotopes it's not realistic.

Finally of all the talk of airpower, the war would had most probably ended like the joke I posted on page 1 with two Soviet tankist sipping tea in Paris and one of them saying, "By the way does anyone remembers, who won the air war?"

Western Europe is not Eastern European plains and fields. The Red Army cannot mass troops for attacks because of the nuclear danger. Good luck finding any sort of force concentration when a nasty little B-17 pack blows a radioactive chunk along an axis of advance.

This is irrelevant, it was purely a military plan which did accounted for American forces.

Yeah, without consulting Americans

You are once again thinking singularly, there were plethora of reasons for fall of British empire, ww2 was one of them not the sole reason.

Bullshit, Brits aren't going to leave their most productive asset without good reason. Nazis and Imperial Japanese did more for Asian independence movements from colonial empires than given credit for. Too bad it doesn't fit in with your slavish anti-Asian Russophilic love masquerading as Soviet "brotherhood".

[fuser]

So you are reduced to, "fuck off", "nuh-uh I am right", great to hear that.

And yes you do need to at least try to read carefully, where did I said LL trucks were not numbered over 400,000? Nowhere but you in all these posts have been a complete failure in understanding the concepts of pre war stocks, the 400,000 numbers is right so is the 30% numbers, deal with it and stop repeating yourself. And no all these pre-war stocks were not destroyed during Barbarossa. Railcars, Locomotives, Trucks etc from pre-war were being used after the war too.

Also stop lying, who said Mikoyan was an allied spy? No one but the another point that you are completely unable to understand that such quotes from famous personality exists for all sides, see my example of British General staff that you ignored and come back and this time try not to put something in my mouth that I didn't said.

And to take words from your dictionary, literally every anti-soviet hack has tried to overestimate and exaggerate LL contribution, I didn't said that it was not important but your exaggeration is indeed ludicrous, as I said overall LL formed a meager 7% of Soviet GNP, deal with this fact too.

Oh and stop pretending that 44-45 Germany and Japan are anywhere close to 45 USSR, this has already been proven not to be the case, no amount of repetition will magically make it so.

And when you brought up Sturmoviks you were literally talking about air superiority and not CAS, its not my fault that you post stupid shit and now have to deal with it. Plus yup, you may not be aware but VVS did had fighters and not only CAS.

As per allies not playing fair, who said anything about being fair, is this post a strawman post to compensate for your utter lack of any new arguments. As per offense and defense, literally the op, Patton and Unthinkable are asking them to go on offensive, its not my fault that even a fanboy like you can't think of a favorable scenario in this case.

Finally

Bullshit, Brits aren't going to leave their most productive asset without good reason. Nazis and Imperial Japanese did more for Asian independence movements from colonial empires than given credit for. Too bad it doesn't fit in with your slavish anti-Asian Russophilic love masquerading as Soviet "brotherhood".

This clearly demonstrate how you are utterly incapable of reading and understanding simple posts. Did I said ww2 played no part? No, I didn't, now tell me were you aiming for a strawman or you really can't read simple posts?

But now I am anti-asian, pro slavish Russophile? Keep it coming man, you are becoming funnier with every post.

[Zamuel]

But now I am anti-asian, pro slavish Russophile? Keep it coming man, you are becoming funnier with every post.

It seems so ... Your reliance on OLD communist Propaganda and denial of Soviet dependency point in that direction. Maybe you should focus on the soviets pleas for MORE and MORE lend lease and MORE and MORE 2nd front activity ... Maybe you should consider the likely hood that Stalingrad would have fallen and that siege ended MUCH sooner, without the lifeline from America and Britain ... AND that would likely have been the END of the Soviet Union. Maybe you should look at the German Submarine Campaign to interdict the flow of Lend Lease into Russian Ports ?

Maybe you should make up some excuses why none of THOSE factors really mean anything regarding the GLORIOUS PEOPLES WAR AGAINST THE WESTERN AGRESSORS ...

Zam

[fuser]

May be you should first stop basically singing your national anthem and pay more attention to facts presented and Stalingrad fallen? LL was not even a trickle till summer of 1943 but I am talking to people who are labeling entire opposition as joke and only concern being prisoners in the war while having the audacity to lecture about biases.

Basically you can keep repeating LL, a thousand times while ignoring all counter-arguments to make yourself look better but the reality persists that its a very poor argument.

But meh keep building your fantasy la la land while irl actual experts dub these plans as infeasible/impossible.

[Zamuel]

that its a very poor argument.

Ah good ... Fuser's Antique Commie Romance Batteries have finally petered out ...

But meh keep building your fantasy la la land while irl actual experts dub these plans as infeasible/impossible.

Patton's plan wasn't dubbed anything except brilliant ... His "Plan" served as the Model deployment for US Army in Germany until NATO took over and enhanced it as a joint deployment posture.


This is the Pistol George Patton used to return fire on a strafing German aircraft with ... Yep ... that actually happened!

Patton was a renaissance man in the US military. In 1912 He competed in the Stockholm Olympics in the modern pentathlon, he studied sword fighting in France, and even designed the last cavalry saber the US Army ever issued.

In Germany Patton usually armed himself with a .45 Thompson when advancing with the troops, he didn't allow photos with it as he didn't want the public to think he was a gangster ... He may have had the right idea ...




Zam

[fuser]

You know, If you pet a cat 70 million times, you will have developed enough static electricity to light a 60-watt light bulb for one minute.

Why? Because why not, now that we are posting random shits, I don't even expect better from conspiracy theorists like Zamuel.

[Zamuel]

You know, If you pet a cat 70 million times, you will have developed enough static electricity to light a 60-watt light bulb for one minute.

AH ... so that's what you've been up to !



Zam