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

[FriendlyFire]

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

The Centurion tanks which prototypes which were "Rushed" to the front for combat trials had 17pounders. Production begain later in 47 when they were upgunned to 20 pounders.

A superb tank when it did face T34s and T34-85s in Koera and later upgunned again when isrealise used them to face off T55s

Reminder that the British had only FOUR protypes produced at that time.
The US had something like 75 Pershings produced and issued to combat units.

 

[Dachs]

You obviously didn't read what you wrote.



The 'nazi heavy armament' i underlined because it would mildy imply that the Nazi army didn't have tankettes or didn't use them.

Seizing on a minor possibly ambiguous part of what I'm saying that you elected to interpret incorrectly is the best way to win an argument. If I say that the average mujahid with a rifle isn't going to perform all that well against an American M1A2 shooting a HEAT round, does that imply that Americans don't have rifles? Anyway, the whole cavalry myth is overblown, Poland wasn't that terrible, and it's much easier to hate on them for other stuff instead of going with the passé World War II crap.


Link to video.

 

[cardgame]

World War II is the subject at hand.

We don't have rifles. We have snipers, assault guns, SMGs, machine guns, bazookas and whatnot.

You said

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Every army had tankettes

when in fact you wrote

Poland had tankettes.

Not such a tiny, insignificant point...nor one that was incorrectly interpreted.

I'll change this around and see if it makes sense:

If I say that the average Polish cavalryman with a spear isn't going to perform all that well against a German Panzer shooting an explosive round, does that imply that Germany doesn't have cavalrymen armed with spears?

Somehow I doubt that Germany was... oh, what's the word... incompetent enough to have spear cavalry.
Do you doubt that Poland had spear cav? http://www.geocities.com/hiway2112/images/blitz1.jpg

Spoiler :

owned.

 

[Earthling]

I don't have much to contribute to the argument about Poland, so I'll let others continue there. But anyway, I do agree with the general sentiments the OP expresses - Americans always, for every war, seem to ignore the contributions or effects of any other powers. Another typical example is many Americans being completely ignorant of France's contributions to our own American Revolution. So in general, Americans can be quite ignorant about history and then prone to extreme nationalism (regarding internal history stuff like extermination of Native Americans too) and this applies to the world wars as well; but as others have shown in the thread such nationalism isn't exclusive to Americans either.

So with regards to WWII, it seems pretty undeniable that the heavy lifting in Europe on the Allied side was done by the Soviets. Between the US/Britain - Britain had a longer period of fighting with greater casualties and suffering while the US provided more industrial production/resources, and of course contributions later in the war. Of course it is a valid point that Stalin's rule wasn't great for his own people and Russia's previous dealings with Germany were rather awful, but that doesn't change that Eastern Front was by far the largest in the theatre, and Hitler's losses there were a huge chunk of Germany's downfall.

One other thing, seemed like a misconception somewhere earlier in the thread - all evidence points to Germany not having a real threat of an atomic bomb program of its own. If the war had continued, sure, the US could have used its bombs against Germany, but the race against the clock the Allies feared wasn't really there. Yes, they were looking into it, but from what I've read the intelligence and historical evidence from after the war showed that they weren't on the right track and wouldn't have been even close to production for a long time; even top scientists like Heisenberg didn't know it was feasible.

 

[Neomega]

One other thing, seemed like a misconception somewhere earlier in the thread - all evidence points to Germany not having a real threat of an atomic bomb program of its own. If the war had continued, sure, the US could have used its bombs against Germany, but the race against the clock the Allies feared wasn't really there. Yes, they were looking into it, but from what I've read the intelligence and historical evidence from after the war showed that they weren't on the right track and wouldn't have been even close to production for a long time; even top scientists like Heisenberg didn't know it was feasible.

but science can be unpredictable. They though tit would take a living room full of plutonium to make the bomb work, but what if a German scientist redid the math?

 

[otago]

The Centurion tanks which prototypes which were "Rushed" to the front for combat trials had 17pounders. Production begain later in 47 when they were upgunned to 20 pounders.

A superb tank when it did face T34s and T34-85s in Koera and later upgunned again when isrealise used them to face off T55s

Reminder that the British had only FOUR protypes produced at that time.
The US had something like 75 Pershings produced and issued to combat units.

For most of WW2 British tank design was an utter disgrace caused by idiot weight, width, regulations.
The British did not put a reasonable tank out until the Comet and even it could not carry the Seventeen pounder gun.
Funny how those backward Soviets had reasonable guns and diesel engines in their tanks.

 

[Patroklos]

I wish people would stop bringing up that stupid point about German production going up despite Allied bombing. The whole country was mobalizing for war, that is not surprising. The relevant thing to consider is how much futher it would have increased without the considerable disruption brought about by that bombing.

 

[Patroklos]

Funny how those backward Soviets had reasonable guns and diesel engines in their tanks.

But little optics, intercoms, suspension or other types of things.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

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.

Yea... Not really. Take Russia out of World War 2, and you take out the possibility of a Nazi loss. Take out the US/UK and leave the Soviet Union and the war would have probably ended in the Soviets favor anyway.

 

[cardgame]

Yea... Not really. Take Russia out of World War 2, and you take out the possibility of a Nazi loss. Take out the US/UK and leave the Soviet Union and the war would have probably ended in the Soviets favor anyway.

Possibly... but I doubt it would have been over before the '50s.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Possibly... but I doubt it would have been over before the '50s.

Oh, it would have been much bloodier, no doubt. It would have ended a couple years later. Moscow might have fallen. But I highly doubt the Nazi's could have won. Except, however, if they had tried a massive thrust to the regions producing oil. If the Nazi's had concentrated at that point, and strangled Soviet oil, then a Nazi victory would not only be possible, but probable. However, Hitler was an impulsive strategic military fool.

 

[aelf]

I wish people would stop bringing up that stupid point about German production going up despite Allied bombing. The whole country was mobalizing for war, that is not surprising. The relevant thing to consider is how much futher it would have increased without the considerable disruption brought about by that bombing.

But the problem is not production, but fuel, so the point's kinda moot. 1000 more tanks wouldn't help without fuel.

 

[cardgame]

Oh, it would have been much bloodier, no doubt. It would have ended a couple years later. Moscow might have fallen. But I highly doubt the Nazi's could have won.

I happen to agree. Here, this is a link to another debate about USSR vs. Germany, no other allies involved; http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-73448.html

 

[philippe]

Just check out D-Day by Antony Beevor. fun fact: on D-day more french civilians died then americans

 

[Masada]

Well, when I read a bit on this, I couldn't figure out who the 'Panzer Elite' were supposed to be. I could only find mention of a hastily-trained Hitlerjugend SS Panzer unit and another one that was reconstituted from the remnants of a North African unit. Doesn't sound like it was all that well-manned.

I SS Panzer Corps. Army Group B.

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.

That is also a valid point.

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

Although it was fuel they were going to use in any case...

Just check out D-Day by Antony Beevor. fun fact: on D-day more french civilians died then americans

It wasn't blue on blue so why bring it up?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I happen to agree. Here, this is a link to another debate about USSR vs. Germany, no other allies involved; http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-73448.html

The Soviet advantage is it's sheer size. The fact that it can ship tanks from Siberia to fight east of the Urals. The fact that the winter will come every year.

 

[philippe]

It wasn't blue on blue so why bring it up?

encouraging poeple to read a book is always good, hmm.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Yea... Not really. Take Russia out of World War 2, and you take out the possibility of a Nazi loss. Take out the US/UK and leave the Soviet Union and the war would have probably ended in the Soviets favor anyway.

Stalin even said the war would of been lost without U.S production.

 

[red_elk]

Yea... Not really. Take Russia out of World War 2, and you take out the possibility of a Nazi loss. Take out the US/UK and leave the Soviet Union and the war would have probably ended in the Soviets favor anyway.

Right.

Except, however, if they had tried a massive thrust to the regions producing oil. If the Nazi's had concentrated at that point, and strangled Soviet oil, then a Nazi victory would not only be possible, but probable. However, Hitler was an impulsive strategic military fool.

They tried, in 1942:

Then, Stalingrad happened.

The Soviet advantage is it's sheer size. The fact that it can ship tanks from Siberia to fight east of the Urals. The fact that the winter will come every year.

You'd be surprised, but winter affects Russians too

Stalin even said the war would of been lost without U.S production.

This is probable.

 

[cardgame]

The Third Reich minus Hitler, against the USSR may very well have won, imho. Hitler:general::squirrels:deadly.