Would The US Been Able to Win WWII Without the USSR?

[superdesk2007]

What do you think?
Heres what I think.

Could Russia have done much without the Lend Lease? What would the US have done if the Russians didn't tie up the German Armies(100 something in 42 or 43 in Russia I'm not sure about the time of invasion).

[Star_Base_CGI]

I doubt it. The Germans had moved into Russia and taken several Russian cities. Russia would have had to pull back to protect itself. Moscow was falling.

The US came out of WW2 as the worlds first dominate superpower. If the Japanese hadnt attacked pearl harbor things might have been different but as it was they were stupid enough to bring it to the worlds first, largert most powerful republican democracy.

[Collegeboy]

You all know my point, so I will not state it again.

[SlartyBartFast]

The question should be would the ALLIES have won the war.:mad:

If the USSR wasn't fighting the Nazis, they might have sold them fuel and supplies. Much of the war was won/lost depending on who had enough oil. The Germans were desperate to fight their way through the USSR precisely to get to the Russian oil fields.

But, questions like this are pointless. There are so many variables involved that we should just be thankful it all turned out the way it did.

[LawFox32]

well remember that Hitler attacked the USSR, so they were in it; if the non-aggression pact had held together, more than likely Britain would have fallen,

[Jack_Dubious]

I think a better question would have been, "If the Nazis could have succesfully controlled the power of the Ark of the Covenant, would they have won WW2?"


JDub

[Crighton]

If germany had never attacked russia. I doubt the US would have won. Russia was a meat grinder for the german armies. It tied up countless numbers of men, machines, and material. I think germany would have taken england most of africa and of course the middle east to secure its fuel oil. Germany would have mass produced the ME-262 and advanced u-boats. Then we would have german scientists complete the A bomb ahead of the US. Not a very bright picture for the USA.

[slateman]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
I think a better question would have been, "If the Nazis could have succesfully controlled the power of the Ark of the Covenant, would they have won WW2?"


JDub

Uhmmm... I think your thinking of Indiana Jones. Wrong reality.

This is what I truely love about history. Speculation. The "What ifs?"

The answer to your question depends on several other variables
1. Would the Japanese have attacked the U.S.? One of the Japanese's grievances against the US was the fact that they were giving weapons to their mortal enemy (although this was minor and just about everyone was their mortal enemy). No weapons to the USSR could have kept Japan at bay (but thats doubtful). If there is no war in Japan, then all the units that faought there cold go to Europe. If the Japanese don't attack, the does the US ever join in the war effort?

2. What would Germany have done differently? They would have used the same weapons and tactics, they just would have had more of them. As long as there was a palce for the Liberty ships to go on that side of the Atlantic, then Germany wasn't going to win. Their equipment, while ususally superior, took way to much time and money to produce. They didn't learn this until the war was jsut about over.

3. Two words: George Patton. As long as this guy was alive, the Allies had a chance. The Germans feared Patton above all other Allied Generals and Admirals. The reason was simple: Patton would have used the Germans tactics against them. Manuever warfare and the blitzkrieg tactics. Patton would have sped through Europe like he did through N. Africa and Scicily.

[eric]

I think we would have, but it would have been longer and way more people would have died.

Had Germany not been basically out of the war by the time we dropped the A-Bombs then I think we would have produced a lot more than 2. No nation would be able to stand up to having their cities obliterated one by one. The question is, had Germany not been under serious attack, would they have gotten the bomb first and would they have had a plane to deliver it?

[logamus]

Originally posted by slateman


Uhmmm... I think your thinking of Indiana Jones. Wrong reality.



obviously you are not familiar with jdub sir.

btw, very underrated line jdub.

[HoboJudge]

Originally posted by slateman

This is what I truely love about history. Speculation. The "What ifs?"


Theres a good book about whats ifs, called What If?. Theres also a What If? 2 which I'vfe bought, but haven't gotten around to reading yet.

Anyways, I don't think the Allies would have won. The U.S.S.R. was selling supplies to Germany before Germany attacked them. Hitler's attack faced Germany with a two-front war, instead of a one front. This took a large percentage of Germany's war-making power away from the western front.If that was put on the Western front, the D-day landing probably would have easily been repelled (assuming D-day still would have happened).

[Newbie215]

Fellas come on Russia was in the deperession as many countrys where, but russia was preety much in a depression before the great depression. Russia in world war two had 50% of her army with out a rifle every other solder was issued a wepon. There where maulnutritioned and lack of ablity to fight. a good resistance with 1/2 the army unequiped the russians where just another brick in the wall and was just a speed bump for the axis powers. The russians might as well had ran at them and preform a human wall for the others. Why do you think they lost so much land in WWI to whom went to Poland. Russia should haven't even been in WWII being changed in goverment. The russians where going through a civil war at the same time.

Heres a history lesson for you.

Civil war in russia-

Many people where opposed to the Bolshevik or, Communist, regime. These people included not only the loyalist to the Tsar (or Czar) but also the liberals and anti-Leninist socialist. Bolshevik or red army which intun demened a red scare OR red terror to influnce the Comunnist ideal. Russia is a jar full of jelly when it comes to the World wars 1&2 Lennin in ww2 wanted to join the leig on nations (the now day UN) but because russia removed it self from the war (ww1) they did no join. Leon Troski on the other hand in ww2 made a big influnce on the work programs.
Also not to mention the tank warfare russia would have never been able to compete. But now days russia has over 100,000 tons of resin and arsenic in a compound being seceretly raided by terrorest. Russia is the most feared county when it comes to chemical war fare. But the Mighty United States will allways be suprem.
I could go on and on and on but I got pms and e-mails

[AutomagRT1483]

Thats a darn good question. I think it would have ended in a stalemate if Russia was never against Germany in WWII. Then again, Russia might have still been on the side of Germany like they were when they invaded Poland together. There are just to many possibilities. I'll have to contemplate this and get back to ya.

[Jonneh]

In Soviet Russia, war wins you!

[Mango]

The United States would win no matter what, because WE WILL ALWAYS WIN!

End of story.

[Jonneh]

Originally posted by SprayingMango
The United States would win no matter what, because WE WILL ALWAYS WIN!

End of story. Just like you won in Vietnam. http://www.digitalbrain.com/jonneh/emot-ninja.gif

[Curly]

Originally posted by Jonneh
Just like you won in Vietnam. http://www.digitalbrain.com/jonneh/emot-ninja.gif

Zing.

[Mango]

Originally posted by Jonneh
Just like you won in Vietnam. http://www.digitalbrain.com/jonneh/emot-ninja.gif


Wow Jonneh, you are so smart. How bout you pull your head out of your arse and learn some World History hot shot.


Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.

The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.

THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.

Facts about the end of the war:

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification.

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives.

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Newbie215
Fellas come on Russia was in the deperession as many countrys where, but russia was preety much in a depression before the great depression. Russia in world war two had 50% of her army with out a rifle every other solder was issued a wepon. There where maulnutritioned and lack of ablity to fight. a good resistance with 1/2 the army unequiped the russians where just another brick in the wall and was just a speed bump for the axis powers. The russians might as well had ran at them and preform a human wall for the others. Why do you think they lost so much land in WWI to whom went to Poland. Russia should haven't even been in WWII being changed in goverment. The russians where going through a civil war at the same time.

Heres a history lesson for you.

Civil war in russia-

Many people where opposed to the Bolshevik or, Communist, regime. These people included not only the loyalist to the Tsar (or Czar) but also the liberals and anti-Leninist socialist. Bolshevik or red army which intun demened a red scare OR red terror to influnce the Comunnist ideal. Russia is a jar full of jelly when it comes to the World wars 1&2 Lennin in ww2 wanted to join the leig on nations (the now day UN) but because russia removed it self from the war (ww1) they did no join. Leon Troski on the other hand in ww2 made a big influnce on the work programs.
Also not to mention the tank warfare russia would have never been able to compete. But now days russia has over 100,000 tons of resin and arsenic in a compound being seceretly raided by terrorest. Russia is the most feared county when it comes to chemical war fare. But the Mighty United States will allways be suprem.
I could go on and on and on but I got pms and e-mails

Dude that has got to be the funniest piece of Russian/USSR history I have EVER seen.

The Civil War was 1918 to 1920
Lenin died in 1924
Trotsky was kicked out of Russia in 1928 (or so) and died shortly after.
I will not even touch the enemy at the gates mentality.

[Johnny_Reb]

Mangos right, the Americans won every major battle in vietnam,however frequent use of ambushes and gorilla tactics caused a high loss of life on the american side. Nixon realized that there was a growing dislike for the war in the US(stupid hippes!:mad: )and needed to end it quickly. He then initiated many air strikes on the Vietcong which brought on peace talks. America then left the war and as we all know when we left the Vietcong overan South Vietnam. SV lost the war not the US.

As for WWII, ya I think in the end we would have won even without the USSR. At the rate our military was building we would have been able to eventually defeat the nazis, of course then the war would have lasted longer with a greater loss of life, but we wouldve still won:)

And Newbie you obviously dont know what your talking about, the Russians had a great army and were very tenacious. One former nazi officer once compared the German army to an elephant and the russians to ants, the elephant could kill millions of ants but the ants would keep coming and they would eventually overwhelm and eat the elephant.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

do we REALLY need another one of these threads? They all turn out the same...

[Newbie215]

just like we lost nam huh????

well it seems your not a us citizen so you may want to understand that nam wasent a war it was a joke *no offence*
but i got recordings of radio transmisions saying that the plane tht just took off had to land and change its bombs because washington said so even have recordings of a plane doing this twice the only reason we lost is because washington wouldent leave the troops alone to fight and it is also true we never lost the southern vietnamise did

[Newbie215]

Not to go back to WW1 but many feel ww1 and ww2 where combined with just a break in the middle.Not to say this but Germany only said that after the war. The only reason he said that because the population of the army. If you took 4 russians 2 would have rifles and 2 would have food not a good army to me. The Shiefenplan in WWI was the plan for a 2 front war, Russia and France they sent alot less to the Russian front...Not to mention the Russians military tatics at the time. The Russian might have just shot them selvs the germans had motorized cannon. The russians had peashooters.. The next time you say I dont know what im talking about say something agressive.

[1stdeadeye]

*grabs head* *migrane sets in*

Not another one! Please make it stop!!!!;)

JReb,

The Soviets did not have a good or even presentable army at the onset of WWII. Stalin had killed a large percentage of the Armies officers. The Soviet army got better as the war went on as much through trial and error as desparation. Look at the huge advances the Germans made.

Also, the Russians were fighting a 1 front war. All of their man-power, efforts and resources were thrown at the Germans. We are one of two nations to fight a two front war in WWII. Unlike the Germans, we won!;)

Here is a question for you. Could the Soviets have stood if the Japanese invaded them from the east? Could they have fought a two front war? Probably not. The Japanese bombers would have hit all of those factories out of the German reach. The Japanese armies would have rolled north out of China into the underbelly of the USSR. Without their tanks and planes, no matter how determined, the Soviets would have been rolled.

As for Eric. The US and British are the ones who bombed Germany into ruin, not the Soviets. The US and British were bombing Germany while Germany was still on the offensive inside of the USSR. American and British bombing stopped the Germans from building their bomb among other things. No USSR, the Americans and Brits still would have bombed Germany hard. Ask Dresden!:rolleyes:

[-Jôker-]

Originally posted by slateman


3. Two words: George Patton. As long as this guy was alive, the Allies had a chance. The Germans feared Patton above all other Allied Generals and Admirals. The reason was simple: Patton would have used the Germans tactics against them. Manuever warfare and the blitzkrieg tactics. Patton would have sped through Europe like he did through N. Africa and Scicily. [/B]

i really think patton is over rated... yea he was smart and good but... he coudnt take not winning doing it his way and he coudnt take the fact of him not winning the battle for us if he didnt.... just look at the battle of bastogne patton supposedly saved our airborne guys but really was they were kickin *** and givin it to the krauts.... this is just my opnion so please dont get mad if you disagree, oh and dont think i dont respect patton ;)

[Collegeboy]

Most of you all are thinking just on the US ways of battle and thinking that if someone couldn't do what the US did, then that means they couldn't have won.

The US did not have the manpower that the Russians had, so they had to rely on bombing, the Russians didn't have the bombs that the US had so they had to rely on mass amounts of people. Comparison, the US lead Berlin invasion force had something like 125,000 or so, the Soviet lead invasion force had something like 2 million. That is one of the reasons why Ike let the Russians take Berlin.

There was no way that the Japanese could reach the Soviet industrial plants without a mid air refuel, so this being WWII, no it was not possible for them to do so.

But this is all planning on the premise that Japan would have attacked Russia, which is as far as my research goes is an non conclusion. Japan was turning their attention to the SE, to Indochinia. Then out to the pacific. The US would have eventually had fought the Japanesse when they incroached on their land, but the Japanese would have never attacked the Russians.

Also the enemy at the gates mentality that two men one gun is a complete falsity. Did the USSR have problems getting ALL their soldiers weapons, yes, but the vast majority did have weapons and more then enough ammunition.


And about Vietnam, To say the US didn't lose Vietnam is like trying to say that just because you fight in a war, if you leave just before it falls and are not there for the fall then you didn't lose. Never mind you didn't accomplish any of your goals. Never mind you could never have defeat the enemy. As my father says about Vietnam. How could you defeat an enemy who you didn't know if that child in the stroller is it, or that 99 year old grandmother is. Every Vietnam soldier I have talked to, and that is a lot, that has gotten over the emotional binds of fighting in vietnam, have said we have lost that war. You have to make alot better arguement then saying since we wasn't there for the fall then we didn't lose, to convince people that the US didn't lose Vietnam.

[Johnny_Reb]

Well your right about the beggining of the war, Stalin had over 40,000 officers killed, Germany took precious Western holdings from the Russians, and they lacked weapons. The Soviets sent many inexperienced soilders that learned on the battlefield to fight the Germans. Since they were untrained and inexpereinced, the Soviets had a high deathtoll and at the end of the war, the greatest. But while many of the soilders died, others lived, making up from their lack of training through expereince on the battlefield. As the war progressed the surviving Soviets were as expereinced as the German soilders.While the Germans came close they were never successfully able to take out the USSR, and I'm sure you know that the Soviets did more to stop the Germans than anyone else did.

As for Japan, according to "The World at War" DVD set the Soviets expected a Japanese attack all through the war. But Id have to agree with Collegeboy, the Japanese didnt want to take on Russia, only to increase their holdings in Indochina and the pacific.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Most of you all are thinking just on the US ways of battle and thinking that if someone couldn't do what the US did, then that means they couldn't have won.

The US did not have the manpower that the Russians had, so they had to rely on bombing, the Russians didn't have the bombs that the US had so they had to rely on mass amounts of people. Comparison, the US lead Berlin invasion force had something like 125,000 or so, the Soviet lead invasion force had something like 2 million. That is one of the reasons why Ike let the Russians take Berlin.

Wrong. The US bombed because we did not have a foothold in Europe to launch an offensive from until D-Day. So we brought them death from above and destroyed their infrastructure and ability to support a war effort. After D-Day, we moved as many men in a s we could.

The Soviets obviously had the land to attack from and threw waves of soldiers at the German lines.

Each allied force fought the best way they could. I just take umbrage at your assertion that the USSR could defeat Germany alone while the US could not. The USSR would not have been able to stem the German supply lines if alone. The USSR would have faced advanced German jet fighters if alone. The USSR would have face Geman A-Bombs if alone. No nation can win a nuclear war. Think about it. If the British and Americans had not destroyed the German Heavy Water project, the Soviets faced the real possibility of being nuked!

If alone, the British and the Americans still would have overwhelmed German Industry via bombings. The Allies would still have won the battle of the Atlantic. The Allies would still have destroyed the German Heavy Water project. The difference for us would have been time. The war would have been much longer and if the A-bomb was brought to bear on the European continent to end the German threat, the devastation would have been far greater then it already was. My argument is simple. No American and British Operations, Germany has the nuke and uses it on the Soviets. The Germans still have their industry cranking out Tanks and planes to match the Soviets. The Soviets can not withstand a one sided nuclear war, no one could. The American bombers still devastated GErman industry. Longer war for us, but eventually, we are dropping the A-Bomb on Berlin. Again, no country can withstand a one sided nuclear war, Germany surrenders.

Seems like a pretty simple argument to me, why can you not grasp it! How could the Soviets withstand Moscow, Lenningrad, Stalingrad and their front lines being nuked! No one could!

There was no way that the Japanese could reach the Soviet industrial plants without a mid air refuel, so this being WWII, no it was not possible for them to do so.

If they are launching from bases within Northern China or caputred airfields in the USSR, they sure as hell could! How did US Bombers reach Japan, that is right, through captured island bases!

But this is all planning on the premise that Japan would have attacked Russia, which is as far as my research goes is an non conclusion. Japan was turning their attention to the SE, to Indochinia. Then out to the pacific. The US would have eventually had fought the Japanesse when they incroached on their land, but the Japanese would have never attacked the Russians.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You are basing your argument on the US not joining the European war. When you bring hypotheticals in to play, anything could happen. What if aliens landed in the middle of Moscow and abducted Stalin? :p

Also the enemy at the gates mentality that two men one gun is a complete falsity. Did the USSR have problems getting ALL their soldiers weapons, yes, but the vast majority did have weapons and more then enough ammunition.

Not until the later stages of the war.


And about Vietnam, To say the US didn't lose Vietnam is like trying to say that just because you fight in a war, if you leave just before it falls and are not there for the fall then you didn't lose. Never mind you didn't accomplish any of your goals. Never mind you could never have defeat the enemy. As my father says about Vietnam. How could you defeat an enemy who you didn't know if that child in the stroller is it, or that 99 year old grandmother is. Every Vietnam soldier I have talked to, and that is a lot, that has gotten over the emotional binds of fighting in vietnam, have said we have lost that war. You have to make alot better arguement then saying since we wasn't there for the fall then we didn't lose, to convince people that the US didn't lose Vietnam.

Do not go there. You are not the only one with family that served there. Your father is but one opinion. Quite a few in my family served. They have a different outlook on Vietnam. My father is convinced that politicians lost the war by keeping it limited. Did you know that one of the conditions for the 1973 peace talks was that the USS New Jersey had to leave the theatre of battle? The North Vietnamese were quite intimidated and devastated by 2000 pound shells hitting their country at the rate of three a minute for HOURS ON END! Did you know that the North Vietnamese were a few weeks away from surrender due to the incredibley heavy bombing they were under. Had Nixon not caved to political pressure and kept the bombing up, the NV would have been forced to surrender. My father worked in logistics during the war, so maybe his opinion is a bit more informed then your fathers? But that probably is not possible right?:rolleyes:

[slateman]

The US didn't have the manpower that the USSR had. But the US had better soldiers (you see, they had actually been to some sort of training. That probably helped:D )

The Soviets never would have been bombed with an A-bomb. Germany was at least 6 months from figuring out that making an A-bomb with heavy water is impractical at best. To my knowledge (not that I'm an expert on these things) it has never been done. And knowing Stalin, he would have launched every soldier,sailor, and airman (or woman) at whatever facilty that he thought was developing it.

Joker: How dare you insult my god!!! If it were possible I would reach through the phone lines and strangle you!!!

There's no way Patton was over-rated. He wasn't well known enough to be over-rated. Was he a "glory hound"? Absolutely (but then, what god doesn't deserve glory?:D ).

How were the airborne guys "kickin *** and givin it to the krauts"? They were trapped, w/o adequate food, ammunition, or proper clothing. Yes the Airborne won that battle. But that was because all they had to do was repulse the Germans. If they had had to force the Germans out of their bunkers in mid December, they would have gotten their a**es handed to them. Within two days, Patton turned his entire army ninety degrees and raced towards Bastogne (BTW: Montgomery and Bradely said it woudld take at least a week).

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There was no way that the Japanese could reach the Soviet industrial plants without a mid air refuel, so this being WWII, no it was not possible for them to do so.

But this is all planning on the premise that Japan would have attacked Russia, which is as far as my research goes is an non conclusion. Japan was turning their attention to the SE, to Indochinia. Then out to the pacific. The US would have eventually had fought the Japanesse when they incroached on their land, but the Japanese would have never attacked the Russians.



I agree with you on the industrial bombing issue. However, Japan encroaching on the USSR from the East would have significantly changed the Russian's capabilities in WW2.

In fact, there was a large series of talks between the Nazi's and the Japanese about opening a front in the East, but because the Japanese did not, the Russians were able to send one of their military masterminds (Zhukov- who was instrumental in the defense of Moscow) with several large army groups from the East to the Western Front against Germany.

Along with this, one of the Allies' significant fears was that the Germans would be able to link up with the Japanese through what is now India-Pakistan-Iran with a German front in the Middle East/Caucasus' Area. But as the Germans were defeated in Africa, and German Army Group B failed to take Stalingrad (because most of it's armour had been transferred to) Army Group C in the Southern Caucusus, this was not possible.


You are also right about Japan's focus. They were looking more to the oil rich (one of the primary necessities of war, especially to an island country with limited resources) areas around Indonesia rather than expanding a front into Eastern Russia.



Pardon my ramblings...

[Johnny_Reb]

Without their tanks and planes....

deadeye the Soviet tanks and planes were hardly helpful in WWII. The Soviet pilots were horrible and the tanks were taken out by Germany early on in the war. An abdunce in soilders not tanks and planes, is what made the USSR able to fight the Nazis.

EDIT:sorry about the quote thing, im still getting used to it lol.Yes it was deadeye who posted it.;)

[-Jôker-]

Originally posted by slateman

Joker: How dare you insult my god!!! If it were possible I would reach through the phone lines and strangle you!!!

There's no way Patton was over-rated. He wasn't well known enough to be over-rated. Was he a "glory hound"? Absolutely (but then, what god doesn't deserve glory?:D ).

How were the airborne guys "kickin *** and givin it to the krauts"? They were trapped, w/o adequate food, ammunition, or proper clothing. Yes the Airborne won that battle. But that was because all they had to do was repulse the Germans. If they had had to force the Germans out of their bunkers in mid December, they would have gotten their a**es handed to them. Within two days, Patton turned his entire army ninety degrees and raced towards Bastogne (BTW: Montgomery and Bradely said it woudld take at least a week).

they did it with lead,sweat,blood and courage... yea they were trapped yea they had no supplies but that didnt matter to them. they were highly outnumbered but they held the germans off thats how they kicked their butts.

if you seriously think that highly of a loose cannon like patton was you have problems... whats this about him not being known? i think pretty much everybody knows of patton

[Johnny_Reb]

Joker you obviously dont realize how big a help Patton was, besides being a great general for the US he also inspired those around him to fight well.

IMO with the exception of Robert E. Lee and Stonewell Jackson he could very well be one of the best generals in United States history. Yeah and "holding them off" doesnt exactly mean they were "kicking their butts". Sure holding off Germans while outnumbered is impressive but unless they drive em off they didnt kick their butts IMO.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by slateman
The Soviets never would have been bombed with an A-bomb. Germany was at least 6 months from figuring out that making an A-bomb with heavy water is impractical at best. To my knowledge (not that I'm an expert on these things) it has never been done. And knowing Stalin, he would have launched every soldier,sailor, and airman (or woman) at whatever facilty that he thought was developing it.



Excuse me. The Soviets did not bomb Germany, the Americans and Brits did. The Germans were well on their way to constructing an atomic device. Had the Western allies not been involved and all of Germanies resources were on the Eastern Front, Germany could have dragged the war out long enought to finish their nuke and use it. They would have had air superiority and would have nuked the Soviets into the stone age. The West did bomb Germany A WHOLE LOT! Had it been one sided our way, the war would have been longer, but Germany still would have been bombed. We would still have had the A-Bomb and Germany would have gotten one or two of them from one of our B-29s!:p

As for Heavy Water-Think H-Bomb!:rolleyes: The Fission of two hyrdogen molecules to form helium. More destructive then an atom bomb.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Johnny_Reb


deadeye the Soviet tanks and planes were hardly helpful in WWII. The Soviet pilots were horrible and the tanks were taken out by Germany early on in the war. An abdunce in soilders not tanks and planes, is what made the USSR able to fight the Nazis.


Uhm, wrong. When the Soviets went on the offensive, it was led by their armor and close support fighters. All mass produced. Their equipment stunk at the beginning of the war, but when they began to make their knock-offs of the wester fighters, their numbers most definitely helped. No infantry is ever going to defeat a tank army without support!:D

[Johnny_Reb]

deadeye's right the Soviets never bombed Germany. Soviet pilots at the time were horrible and probly wouldve crashed on the way over there. As for the US, we bombed em like crazy. Near the end of the German war Berlin had few blocks untouched by American bombs. By the way, I cant remember when the A-bomb was developed. Was it after the Germans surrended or was it developed near the end of the German war and we just didnt see a point in using it?:confused:

[Johnny_Reb]

deadeye Im pretty sure the tanks didnt help the USSR much. I remember reading somewhere that the Germans took them out when they first invaded. Ill see if I can find where I read that.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Johnny_Reb
deadeye's right the Soviets never bombed Germany. Soviet pilots at the time were horrible and probly wouldve crashed on the way over there. As for the US, we bombed em like crazy. Near the end of the German war Berlin had few blocks untouched by American bombs. By the way, I cant remember when the A-bomb was developed. Was it after the Germans surrended or was it developed near the end of the German war and we just didnt see a point in using it?:confused:

The A-Bomb was finished by mid 1945. Had we fought Germany alone, the war would still have been raging then. Enter the A-Bomb!:D End of war!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Johnny_Reb
deadeye Im pretty sure the tanks didnt help the USSR much. I remember reading somewhere that the Germans took them out when they first invaded. Ill see if I can find where I read that.

At the start of the war you are correct. As the war drug on, they mass produced better ones. The T-34 they had at the end of the war was formidable. Those tanks led the Soviet Army on their advance to Germany.

[Johnny_Reb]

1945 ok Thanks. You know what Ive always wondered, had Hitler not declared war on the US what wouldve happened?:confused: When the Japenese bombed Pearl Harbor we were intent on only fighting the Japense, but then Hitler declared war on us and we decided to focus on the Western front first.

Had Hitler kept his mouth shut would we have gone into the Cold War against Germany instead of the USSR?:) Or once we defeated Japan would we have fought Germany then? If we hadnt helped fight Germany would they have delevelped the Atomic bomb? Would Germany be the superpower now instead of the US?:D

[Collegeboy]

The Soviets had argueably the best tank in the war. The German tigers while being well armoured and well armed, they were slow, ate up too much oil, and were a mechanics nightmare. The t34 was fast, could travel a long distance, decently armoured, and a great gun.

The Soviet forces at the begining of the war was well armed, they were just taken by surprised, and their leadership sucked.

Here is something you are forgeting 1de. Would the US have been able to have a place to launch off from and land and transport the abomb to Europe. If Hitler had no russian front, he would have taken England. He would have taken all of Europe except those areas of Soviet holdings. He would spread out his industrial buildings, etc.... All by the time the US would have gotten their bomb. (which would be much later).


And on Vietnam, how did the US not lose the war?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Jôker-


they did it with lead,sweat,blood and courage... yea they were trapped yea they had no supplies but that didnt matter to them. they were highly outnumbered but they held the germans off thats how they kicked their butts.



Two things:

On the third day of the attack, the weather cleared and allied air power was brought to bear on the German atackers, decimating their armor and lines.

Second: "Nuts" :D

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The Soviets had argueably the best tank in the war. The German tigers while being well armoured and well armed, they were slow, ate up too much oil, and were a mechanics nightmare. The t34 was fast, could travel a long distance, decently armoured, and a great gun.

Don't start the tank argument again. It was formidable, but not as high quality as the German ones.

The Soviet forces at the begining of the war was well armed, they were just taken by surprised, and their leadership sucked.

No they were not. Much of their armor was old and destroyed by the Germans during their stroll though the USSR to Moscow. (Which they never reached, nor encircled ergo no siege! :p)

Here is something you are forgeting 1de. Would the US have been able to have a place to launch off from and land and transport the abomb to Europe. If Hitler had no russian front, he would have taken England. He would have taken all of Europe except those areas of Soviet holdings. He would spread out his industrial buildings, etc.... All by the time the US would have gotten their bomb. (which would be much later).

Uhm did you forget the Battle of Britan. The Luftwaffe was virtually ineffective after that. How would the Germans have crossed the English Channel with English domination of the sea? The Brits controlled the seas. German U-Boats harrassed shipping, but never challanged British dominence. So how would the Germans have reached England. Here is how, they wouldn't. Thus, the US would have used Fortress England to Bomb Germany into submission. Ther German Army as strong as it may have been at it's peak would not have been able to swim the channel to invade. The Germans had no real Navy after the destruction of the Price Hoygen and Bismark to protect and invasion flotilla. The English Navy would have sent hundreds of thousands of would be German invaders to a cold and watery grave. Hey, maybe that is how the Allies would have beat the Germans. We could have drowned them all. You who claims to be a student of history should know an Invasion of England was all but impossible with English domination of the Seas and Allied control of the Air! As for moving production around, Remember a madman ran Germany. His Fortress Europe and 1000 year reich would never have let him spread out. Notice he had France for a few years and all he put there were Airbases and V1 launch ramps. Remember, Hitler was one of the reasons we won the war. The German Generals were far superior to the Soviet Generals and better then most of the Western Generals. Imagine Rommell running the invasion of the Soviet Union unhampered by Hitler's innane mandates. Pretty scary, eh?

And on Vietnam, how did the US not lose the war?

Vietnam was a political defeat, not a military defeat. The US had the North Vietnamese on the verge of surrender. Had Nixon continued to bomb NV, the war would have ended there. Now I do believe that as soon as we left with the war won, the NV and Viet-Cong would have broken their armstice and attack again as they did in 1975 when they broke the armstice that ended hostilities in 1973. Nixon could have left The New Jersey off the Vietnamese coast for the entire war as far as I am concerned. 3 2000lb shells a minute, 24 hours a day for a few months would have leveled Hanoi.

I place the blame for Vietnam squarely on Nixon. Had he shown political will after his re-election, he could have ended the war on our terms. The US never lost a battle in this war. But this was never really a war, it was a police action against terrorists and guerillas. Had we stuck to air power, we could have ended it in 1972 when the bombing was at it's fiercest. During the 11 days that Nixon authorized, the US dropped 100,000 bombs, not pound but bombs. This equaled 5 times the destructive force of the Hiroshima A-Bomb. North Vietnam was staggering at this point. They could have taken the South, but had no country left in the North. Pololitical weakenss by Nixon ended the bombing. I will also say that even had we won and forced a NV surrender, we would probably have troops there to this day enforcing it. But again, Vietnam is another mess we can blame on the French. Had the dealt fairly with the Vietnamese after WWII, would a war there have occurred, probably not. But the French wanted all of their colonial possessions back. Thank god they did not drag us into Algeria!:rolleyes:

So the US army was not defeated, the politicians back home gave up, big difference, Defeated is what the Germans did to the French in WWII!:p ;)

Also, had Goldwater been elected in 1964, the war would have been over in 1965. Of course North Vietnam would have been the largest Nuclear testing grounds on Earth, but who cares?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Two things:

On the third day of the attack, the weather cleared and allied air power was brought to bear on the German atackers, decimating their armor and lines.

Second: "Nuts" :D

Actually it was Aw Nuts, but that is alright.

Did you actually know that it took Patton and his army (one of which was my grandfather, redball express), like 3 days or so longer then suppose to, to reach Bastogne.

[Jack_Dubious]

"1stdeadeye, you magnificent bastard! I read your thread!" -General Patton (if he was on AO)
:D

JDub

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Actually it was Aw Nuts, but that is alright.

Did you actually know that it took Patton and his army (one of which was my grandfather, redball express), like 3 days or so longer then suppose to, to reach Bastogne.

Why? Because of the weather. The same weather that held allied airpower on the ground, slowed Patton to a crawl. It was not lack of effort on his part to get there, but bad roads and weather.

Hey CB-"Nuts to you!:p

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Two things:

On the third day of the attack, the weather cleared and allied air power was brought to bear on the German atackers, decimating their armor and lines.

Second: "Nuts" :D

My mistake. The weather cleared on the 7th day, not the third. Talk about getting biblical on the Germans!:p

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
"1stdeadeye, you magnificent bastard! I read your thread!" -General Patton (if he was on AO)

Thank you sir! Now if you will please stop hitting me, I promise I'll stop crying like a woman.;) :p

[Greg98]

Originally posted by SprayingMango
The United States would win no matter what, because WE WILL ALWAYS WIN!

End of story.

Don't forget the war of 1812, you guys lost that one too. And don't try and debate that one, you tried to take over our country and failed, that is a loss. End of story ;)

[-Jôker-]

Originally posted by Johnny_Reb
Joker you obviously dont realize how big a help Patton was, besides being a great general for the US he also inspired those around him to fight well.

IMO with the exception of Robert E. Lee and Stonewell Jackson he could very well be one of the best generals in United States history. Yeah and "holding them off" doesnt exactly mean they were "kicking their butts". Sure holding off Germans while outnumbered is impressive but unless they drive em off they didnt kick their butts IMO.

look im not putting the guy down yea he was good yea he helped but hes overrated ok simple as that

[Johnny_Reb]

How is he overrated Joker, im curious?;)

[-Jôker-]

lots of ppl and books think he was the stuff... but he was just really smart ;) like i said he was good but not that good

[Johnny_Reb]

Just who are these ppl and books your losing me bro;) Just forget it everyones entitled to their own opinions I s'pose:p

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Greg98


Don't forget the war of 1812, you guys lost that one too. And don't try and debate that one, you tried to take over our country and failed, that is a loss. End of story ;)

Uhm you are wrong. The War of 1812 was mainly over the US demand for British respect of our Sovereignty! The straw that broke the camel's back was thye British Practice of Impressement. They would force American sailors into service on their ships. This was almost the War of 1810 after the British attacked the USS CHesapeake.

The Invasion of Canada was a by-product, not goal of the war. There were wins and losses by both sides. The British burning parts of DC was a tremendous loss for the US. However, we were not defeated. We forced the British out and carried on the fight. The war ended as much as it started, in a stalemate. The difference being that the War of 1812 cemented our independence around the world, brought the US Navy to promenince and ended the British boarding of American vessels and "kidnapping American Sailors". By the way, as communication was slow back then, the Battle of New Orleans was fought one month after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. In it General Andrew Jackson with 5,000 troops (Militia, Indians, and African-Americans) soundly defeated Maj. Gen Packenham's 14,450 man force(Composed of West Indian troops, and the British Elite Black and Whites). While many smaller skirmishes were fought, Jan 8th was the climax. Over 2000 British were killed with American losses of 71 to contrast. Maj. Gen. Pakenham was among the dead. It was a total victory agains Britan's finest troops.

So as the US achieved their goal of stopping the practice of impressment and true recognition of their country by the Brits, although a statlemate, we got what we wanted. Again, Canada was an afterthought, not a goal!;)

[steveg]

actually it was a goal
“The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent.” Thomas Jefferson, 1812

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by steveg
actually it was a goal

Not again! No, it was a byproduct of the war, not the goal. The War of 1812 was not about conquest, but American Sovereignty. If we look at it your way, Britainia definitely lost the war, because they did not reconquer the United States. Since Britan lost, the US must have won!:rolleyes:

Canada was invaded by an ambitious Genreal named Hull. He was repulsed. Detriot was captured, but not held. Canada was not the main battlefield for the War of 1812. Sorry Canucks, you were the side show. The main battles were fought on American soil and in American territorial waters. Each side came away from the war claiming victory, but the US cemented their existence.

*Cheap Shot at Canadians coming up*;) :p

Hey the United States of America took our Freedom, we did not wait and hope that some far off empire would give it to us!:p

So nanny nanny boo boo!;) :p

[steveg]

huh?:rolleyes:
not a cheapshot, just one based on prejudice
and, an unquestioned belief in your own myths and
propaganda.
NO-ONE "gave" us our "freedom" (as if you people were
the only free people on earth, what a laugh)
we made a country for ourselves as we like it, without
having to kill anyone.
the fact that we didn't have any wars of independence
or especially awful, civil wars is something that
we are pleased about.


and according to OUR history there were several attempts
(of US invasion)
unrelated, before and after your independance.

but no doubt I'm wrong so I'll say no more

[Johnny_Reb]

Where exactly do you hear about these "attempts"? In 1812 Canada was only a battlefield a few times because Britain held it. So where are you reading that the US made several attempts to take in canada.

[Greg98]

your thoughts on whether it was a primary goal or not is beside the point....you tried to invade our country and we held our ground. I've also always been a bit curious as to when we consider someone in our country a citizen. I mean I know their were British regulars, but there was also Canadian Militia and I believe Tecumseh and his formidable force of Native Canadians. Yes the militia came from england, but when are they considered Canadian? Everyone in America was from britain early on your eastern seaboard, yet somehow they were always American. I hope somebody understands that rambling of mine. The war of 1812 was simply about America finding a ground on which to fight the british, they couldn't sail over there, so they simply went North. Invasion and annexation was a goal, I believe it was the american concept of manifest destiny.

"Detriot was captured, but not held" 1stDeadeye

Actually, IIRC, we never intended to hold Detroit. Our foray down the east coast was simply revenge for when Americans burned down much of York (now Toronto), so we went down into detroit, burned down some buildings, then headed down to washington and burned down the white house :p thats why you have that pretty new one. We (or britain, however you wish to look at it) did not lose the war. your goal was to take the country over, we stopped you, thats a victory right there. yes they suffered defeat at new orleans (a quirk of history, rather strange circumstances!) and they also took a severe loss in a sea battle when they were led by a man who underestimated the American navy and basically walk into a slaughterhouse. I don't recall his name, I've got too much history stuff in my head, lol. but if you wish to continue debating, please do, hopefully we both can learn some more :)

and please, no cheap shots on Canada. I know it's hard for some Americans to comprehend, but we can be extremely proud of our country as well.:D


Oh, I see someone wanted to know about other attempts on Canada, and I believe the Fenian raids was another attack, not so much an invasion. About 10,000 Irish Americans tried to strike at Canadian cities and such to try and draw British troops away from Ireland, so they could retake their homeland. It was unsuccesful, obviously ;)

[Sooky]

Those darn drunken Fenians!:D

There had also been much interest in annexing the North West, when Canada still consisted of Ontario, Quebec, NB, and NS. Heck, fear of the USA partly drove Canada to expand west. Louis Riel even tried to stir up the USA to annex the west during the Red River Rebellion. One of the Metis even recruited some Fenians to assist in the rebellion. There were also several Americans in now western Canada working to bring the area under US control.

[Johnny_Reb]

Our goal WASNT to take over canada. Ill try and simplify what deadeye has been saying. You see Britain didnt recognize America as a country and boarded american ships and stole sailors and pressed them into service. The goal of the War of 1812 was to insure the US as a country. The war ended as a stalemate. The Battle of Orleans the Americans under Andrew Jackson easily defeated Britain's finest. Britain then recognized the US as a country, that was the goal of the US throughout the war, so the US won.

As for losing to Canada? No way! Canada hadnt even won its independence yet so they werent really canada yet. Thats like British troops coming over to colonize the US but being driven away by Native Americans and the US claiming victory for it when the US wasnt even formed yet.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Greg98
your thoughts on whether it was a primary goal or not is beside the point....you tried to invade our country and we held our ground. I've also always been a bit curious as to when we consider someone in our country a citizen. I mean I know their were British regulars, but there was also Canadian Militia and I believe Tecumseh and his formidable force of Native Canadians. Yes the militia came from england, but when are they considered Canadian? Everyone in America was from britain early on your eastern seaboard, yet somehow they were always American. I hope somebody understands that rambling of mine. The war of 1812 was simply about America finding a ground on which to fight the british, they couldn't sail over there, so they simply went North. Invasion and annexation was a goal, I believe it was the american concept of manifest destiny.
Uhm, whatever. America declared war based on the illegal conscription (kidnapping) of American sailors at sea by the British Navy. I guess the US was looking for any excuse, eh? :rolleyes: You Canadians were Brits until 1932. You waited 150 years longer then we did for our independence. P.S. Manifest Destiny was about reaching the Pacific, not the North Pole! :p You also invaded our country and got your butts kicked. *cough* New Orleans *cough*

"Detriot was captured, but not held" 1stDeadeye

Actually, IIRC, we never intended to hold Detroit. Our foray down the east coast was simply revenge for when Americans burned down much of York (now Toronto), so we went down into detroit, burned down some buildings, then headed down to washington and burned down the white house :p thats why you have that pretty new one.

Study your history fool. No Canadian Army or British one for that matter swept down from Canada and invaded the East Coast. Washington was attacked by the British Army and Navy coming UP the Chesapeake. They attacked our capital, but were defeated at Fort McHenry. Some guy wrote a song about it, some Banner thing!;) That was no Canadian/Indian army in that battle, but British regulars who were turned back!

We (or britain, however you wish to look at it) did not lose the war. your goal was to take the country over, we stopped you, thats a victory right there.

Actually our goal was to protect our sovereignty and stop the British from Impressing American sailors into their Navy by force. THe war ended that, so I guess we won. The American declaration of war never had anything to do with expansion.
What we also did do was cement our claims to the Louisiana purchase and force Britan to acknowledge this. Again, Canada was an afterthought, not the whole war. Sorry to burst your bubble. :p

yes they suffered defeat at new orleans (a quirk of history, rather strange circumstances!) and they also took a severe loss in a sea battle when they were led by a man who underestimated the American navy and basically walk into a slaughterhouse. I don't recall his name, I've got too much history stuff in my head, lol. but if you wish to continue debating, please do, hopefully we both can learn some more :)

The Treaty of Ghent is one of the more remarkable documents in History. It allowed both sides to declare victory and depending on how you looked at the conflict, both sides did win. We however got the better end of the deal as we did accomplish what was stated in our Articles of War.

and please, no cheap shots on Canada. I know it's hard for some Americans to comprehend, but we can be extremely proud of our country as well.:D

Somebody cue up "Blame Canada"! ;)


Oh, I see someone wanted to know about other attempts on Canada, and I believe the Fenian raids was another attack, not so much an invasion. About 10,000 Irish Americans tried to strike at Canadian cities and such to try and draw British troops away from Ireland, so they could retake their homeland. It was unsuccesful, obviously ;)

Hey you guys want next? I am sure our military could use you guys for training exercise now! It can be our Canadian Victory lap or do you think you guys can take us? ;)Or should we be on the look out for the mighty Canadian Navy! Should I post the picture or would someone else like to?

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Uhm, wrong. When the Soviets went on the offensive, it was led by their armor and close support fighters. All mass produced. Their equipment stunk at the beginning of the war, but when they began to make their knock-offs of the wester fighters, their numbers most definitely helped. No infantry is ever going to defeat a tank army without support!:D


Now, the German tanks (specifically the Tiger and King Tiger tanks) were the most superior tanks of the war. I will agree that they were oil eating machines, Collegeboy. But, then again, that is the nature of tanks anyways. And they weren't necessarily slow, but rather large and cumbersome. This wasn't a problem in the steppes and plains of Russia, but did prove quite troublesome in the confined areas of the Ardennes in the Battle of the Bulge. It would have been wiser had the Germans used the smaller Panther and Panzer mark IV's to force a breakthrough there.

But guess what, the change from the Tiger to the King Tiger was to change from the boxier shape of the Tiger to that of the more rounded Russian T-34.

In fact, the T-34 was a highly regarded tank, even by the Germans. Some of this may have had to do with the large number of them deployed by the Russians. But, their comments matched with the design changes made by the Germans definitely shows that the Russians had a winner in the T-34.

Then there was the IL-2 Shturmovik. This thing was basically a tank in the air. Equate it with the modern day A-10 Warthog, because it was designed as a tank killer from the start.

With their advances throughout the war, and their superior numbers of men you can begin to see why the Russians were able to turn the Germans backward. [One has to take into account however, the opening of the Western Front in France, and the constant Allied bombing from the West, performed by the RAF and USAF.] Had the Germans fought ONLY the Soviets it is quite possible they would have beaten them.

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by Greg98
Everyone in America was from britain early on your eastern seaboard, yet somehow they were always American.

It is not wise to make blanket statements in an argument. Of the 13 original colonies that declared independence, they were not all originally British holdings.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by alkafluence



Now, the German tanks (specifically the Tiger and King Tiger tanks) were the most superior tanks of the war. But guess what, the change from the Tiger to the King Tiger was to change from the boxier shape of the Tiger to that of the more rounded Russian T-34.

In fact, the T-34 was a highly regarded tank, even by the Germans. Some of this may have had to do with the large number of them deployed by the Russians. But, their comments matched with the design changes made by the Germans definitely shows that the Russians had a winner in the T-34.

Then there was the IL-2 Shturmovik. This thing was basically a tank in the air. Equate it with the modern day A-10 Warthog, because it was designed as a tank killer from the start.

With their advances throughout the war, and their superior numbers of men you can begin to see why the Russians were able to turn the Germans backward. [One has to take into account however, the opening of the Western Front in France, and the constant Allied bombing from the West, performed by the RAF and USAF.] Had the Germans fought ONLY the Soviets it is quite possible they would have beaten them.

*ducks* Waiting for CollegeBoy to attack Alka's post!

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


*ducks* Waiting for CollegeBoy to attack Alka's post!

I'm actually tempted to state some of the blunders of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and how the invasion of the channel (Operation Sealion) might have been possible if not for Hitler and his high command's bungling.

I'm not referring to the actual officers, but of stupid decisions made by Goering and Hitler. Such as the decision to stop attacking industrial production and military bases to focus on population centers and morale. The RAF was within centimeters of its death, because the rate at which fighters and more specifically pilots were being lost was greater than the Germans knew.

Additionally, Hitler had decided not to focus on producing a long range-heavy bomber. The Battle of Britain was fought mostly with light to medium bombers on the part of Germany, because this production had been scrapped by Fuhrer directives. Furthermore, the ME-109 or the BF-109 depending on whose designation you go by had only about 30 minutes worth of combat time once it went across the channel, because again Germany did not have need for a longer range fighter until that point in the war. If we look at where Germany had already expanded, there was no need to develop longer ranged heavy bombers or longer ranged fighters, because of the availability of land bases across continental Europe. To a large extent, this is also what prevented the Germans from hampering Russian production of T-34's in factories well behind the front.

Had the industrial and military targetting continued, the RAF would have been neutralized. This would have opened the possibility for Sealion to occur. Granted the Royal Navy did have a large superiority at that point in the war, the Germans still had a reasonable number of surface ships. The Turpitz and Bismarck (real battleships) +the 2 pocket battleships built before the beginning of the war and labeled heavy cruisers to try to skirt around Treaty limitations. They were later refitted with heavier guns. But I'm digressing... The Germans didn't need to control the channel indefinitely... They only needed to hold the crossing for a reasonable amount of time to perform the initial crossing, with their surface fleet. It may have been costly for the German surface fleet to hold this, but it would have been worth it. Furthermore, the deployment of large wolf-packs of submarines at the northern and southern entrances to the channel would have been expected, both during the landings and afterwards, making it risky for the Royal Navy to commit to that area.


Additionally, Hitler was stupid in pressing the war far earlier than his Generals were originally planning for. The original plan did not call for war until 1944. This would have given Hitler ample to time to implement Plan-Z, which called for the development of at least a modest surface navy, which was to encompass at least 2 aircraft carriers and a 144,000 ton super-battleship. (For comparison, the Iowa-class which encompasses the now famous Missouri only displaces 55,710 tons).


Just some interesting food for thought above, but it does seem that if a few variables had been assigned differently (the existing variables regarding the target switch and temporary holding of the channel) Sealion could have been possible.


For all you what-if Generals I highly recommend the Panzer General series of games, which allows to play out a number of what-if scenarios, including a possible German invasion of D.C.

[Collegeboy]

Why would I attack anyone 1de? I have yet to do so, so why do you think I would do it now.

It is my opinion, like I said, that the T34 was the best well rounded tank for it was good on just about any surface, for an extended period of time, didn't break down like the tigers, was faster then the tigers, had a decent gun, and a decent armour. Now people argue over this every day what is the better tank, the tiger, or the t34. It depends on what you place your values on. On one instance if you put your value on the most powerfull tank or other instances then you have to go for the tiger series, but if you put it on the most well rounded tank, and etc... Then in my opinion you have to go with the t34 series. But these are all debates that have done around for decades and will continue to go on.

When did Hitler start allocating troops from the east to the west?

I am not sure the date, but I know that Kursk happened on July 5, 1943 (began). The Germans were already on the run before this and this was there last attempt to attack the soviets.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Why would I attack anyone 1de? I have yet to do so, so why do you think I would do it now.

Okay, whatever. :rolleyes:

It is my opinion, like I said, that the T34 was the best well rounded tank for it was good on just about any surface, for an extended period of time, didn't break down like the tigers, was faster then the tigers, had a decent gun, and a decent armour. Now people argue over this every day what is the better tank, the tiger, or the t34. It depends on what you place your values on. On one instance if you put your value on the most powerfull tank or other instances then you have to go for the tiger series, but if you put it on the most well rounded tank, and etc... Then in my opinion you have to go with the t34 series. But these are all debates that have done around for decades and will continue to go on.

My opinion is the Sherman! ;) Why that little toy you may ask? Because there were so darn many of them! :D :p ;)

When did Hitler start allocating troops from the east to the west?

I am not sure the date, but I know that Kursk happened on July 5, 1943 (began). The Germans were already on the run before this and this was there last attempt to attack the soviets.

1943? Jeez, wasn't Germany under sever bombardment by that time by the US and British bombers? They couldn't re-enforce and re-supply the eastern front as was needed to maintain the front. The Germans collapsed, go figure. I still blame this on Hitler being a moron and letting 200,000+ troops get captured/kiled at Stalingrad amoung other glaring errors he made overriding his Generals. Like I said before, imagine Rommell running the Eastern front with no Western Front or European Wall to worry about building or defending. Scary thought, eh?

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

When did Hitler start allocating troops from the east to the west?

I am not sure the date, but I know that Kursk happened on July 5, 1943 (began). The Germans were already on the run before this and this was there last attempt to attack the soviets.

The western front, should not only be considered France, but Italy as well. As a matter of fact, the Italian campaign was opened due to Stalin's anger over the failure of the western allies to open a western front sooner. Britain and the U.S. were unable to launch the French landing due to the lack of landing craft, so they compromised and opened a front in Italy on September 8, 1943. {Sicily had been invaded as of July 9, 1943}

This tied up Kesselring's entire army group in Italy, comprised of the 10th and 14th armies. Many of these troops would have otherwise been slated for duty on the eastern front.

And of course, it was necessary to man and continue to build the Atlantic well for defense against a potential cross-channel invasion. This ties down more divisions that could have been used on the Eastern front.

My point is, that it was quite possible that the Germans could have defeated the Soviets barring war with the western allies.