American views of the British effort in D-Day and WW2 in general.

[GinandTonic]

I will stand on the bombing part though, it broke Hitler's promise that his cities would never be bombed, and had a large effect on German morale, both the citizenry and the army, especially the higher-ups.

Except for the part where Bomber Command had been at German cities since may '40 over two years before the USAF lifted a finger and five months before the blitz.

Point that Both US and British bomber commands tied down a large amount ofs Luffwaffen troops including huge numbers of 88s which would have made a significant different elsewhere.

This. Loosing their initial massive air superiority and support along with the fule to use them really hurt the Germans on the east.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Are people actually suggesting the Soviet Union wasn't the most important factor in winning the war? Are you nuts? The Red Army lacked for efficiency at the beginning of the war, but by war-end it was by far the most capable fighting machine left on land. It did not win in the east by sending waves of cannon-fodder. It won by figuring out how to kick ass. Considering there were no nukes left on the US side, there is no wonder the other Allies didn't press the Poland issue too hard. The Red Army probably would have wiped the floor with us all in our crappy, crappy tanks.

 

[cubsfan6506]

The western allies massive air superiourity would be to much for the soviets to overcome.

 

[bigdog5994]

Are people actually suggesting the Soviet Union wasn't the most important factor in winning the war? Are you nuts? The Red Army lacked for efficiency at the beginning of the war, but by war-end it was by far the most capable fighting machine left on land. It did not win in the east by sending waves of cannon-fodder. It won by figuring out how to kick ass. Considering there were no nukes left on the US side, there is no wonder the other Allies didn't press the Poland issue too hard. The Red Army probably would have wiped the floor with us all in our crappy, crappy tanks.

by the end of the war the British had the Centurion tank which would whoop some serious ruskie ass

 

[cardgame]

by the end of the war the British had the Centurion tank that would whoop some serious ruskie ass

By the end of the war the Russians had tens of thousands of T-34-85s

 

[aelf]

The western allies massive air superiourity would be to much for the soviets to overcome.

Even in the Kosovo air war, there are limitations to what can be done by just air strikes alone. Not to mention the fact that Allied bombing of Germany did little to hinder the war effort.

By the end of the war the Russians had tens of thousands of T-34-85s

Not to mention IS tanks, which I think would at least be equal to the Centurion.

 

[RedRalph]

The western allies massive air superiourity would be to much for the soviets to overcome.

It would have been very hard on the USSR alright, but I think with basically all Europe under its control it would have been able to brass it out. We'll never know.

 

[MobBoss]

Are people actually suggesting the Soviet Union wasn't the most important factor in winning the war? Are you nuts? The Red Army lacked for efficiency at the beginning of the war, but by war-end it was by far the most capable fighting machine left on land. It did not win in the east by sending waves of cannon-fodder. It won by figuring out how to kick ass. Considering there were no nukes left on the US side, there is no wonder the other Allies didn't press the Poland issue too hard. The Red Army probably would have wiped the floor with us all in our crappy, crappy tanks.

The most important factor in winning the war was the damage done to the German war production. That was accomplished primarily by the USA and the Uk. Not Russia.

Airpower > Tank Power.

 

[bigdog5994]

By the end of the war the Russians had tens of thousands of T-34-85s

during one battle in the Yom Kippur war 2 damaged Centurion tanks destroyed 60 T-62s

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

during one battle in the Yom Kippur war 2 damaged Centurion tanks destroyed 60 T-62s

Ya, but the Israelis invented

 

[red_elk]

Peak of German military production was in summer of 1944 despite all bombings.
80% of German military losses was at the Eastern front.
Does anybody have doubt that it was the US who defeated Germany?

 

[Esckey]

Does anybody have doubt that it was the US who defeated Germany?

Yes, because they didn't

 

[red_elk]

during one battle in the Yom Kippur war 2 damaged Centurion tanks destroyed 60 T-62s

I bet if Israelis had T-62 and Arabs Centurions, we'd see 60 Centurions destroyed by 2 damaged T-62s.

Yes, because they didn't

Correct answer.

 

[aelf]

WTH, my post got deleted? Why? And the fact that people keep posting the same debunked content is okay. Right...

 

[GinandTonic]

Peak of German military production was in summer of 1944 despite all bombings.
80% of German military losses was at the Eastern front.
Does anybody have doubt that it was the US who defeated Germany?

I'ld say the Russians beat the Nazi's. I'ld also point out that the disolving of the Nazi's whole game plan - which up to that point was working astonishingly well - only happened when they ran out of oil. For which we can thank the RN and other Commonwealth Navies. Though without the Polish, Canadian and Czech pilots perhaps the Battle of Britain could have left the RN et al in a situation where it was unable to stop the Nazi's getting the oil to fight the Russians on their terms. Or perhaps without the Polish cryptographers, Turing or the siege of Malta the nazi's would have had access to mid east oil. Who knows.

The Yanks may very well have saved the Pacific from Japan and even saved contential Europe from Stalin but they didnt save anyone from the Nazi's.

 

[Flying Pig]

I have no idea how this myth started, but it is the naive view of many Americans that we singlehandedly won the war. It was actually the Soviet Union who contributed the most if you want to go by the only metric that really makes much sense: The number of military personnel who died.

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

Canada: 45,300
China: 3,800,000
Poland: 240,000
Soviet Union: 10,700,000
UK: 382,700
US: 416,800
Yugoslavia: 446,000

But D-Day is a bad example:

Omaha: 4,500
Utah: 200
Gold: 400
Juno: 340
Sword: 630

Even though you could argue that Omaha Beach was botched and that so many should have never died.

That only shows who's the best at being killed. We did the cover for D-Day and 3/5 of the work, and also Pegasus Bridge, a great deal of the work in Italy and all the Air work in Greece, not to mention sorting out Africa.

 

[RedRalph]

The most important factor in winning the war was the damage done to the German war production. That was accomplished primarily by the USA and the Uk. Not Russia.

Airpower > Tank Power.

Rubbish. the German production accellerated throughout the war, ye didnt beat the Nazis, ye helped the Russians to do it. their contribution dwarved yours.

 

[RedRalph]

That only shows who's the best at being killed. We did the cover for D-Day and 3/5 of the work, and also Pegasus Bridge, a great deal of the work in Italy and all the Air work in Greece, not to mention sorting out Africa.

Compare D-Day to Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow, etc etc etc.

 

[Flying Pig]

The Russian military doctrine seems to be condensible into 'try and suffocate them under the bodies'. All of the actions that they took part in were tactical losses for strategic victories, while we tended to make tactical victories for strategic ones.

 

[lovett]

the German production accellerated throughout the war

I'd just like to say that I think this is a really silly argument without ancillary data. I believe Aelf made it as well.

The point is that just because strategic bombing didn't reduce German production doesn't mean that said bombing was ineffectual. German production could have increased far more then it did, and that it didn't may well be a result of strategic bombing. Basically, bombing evidently did a huge amount of damage. The claim that that didn't hinder production growth is completely untenable without some proper data to back it up.