Sherman Tank

So I'm wrong even though everything blue said applies to what I said?

 

Lol, sure kid.

 

Well, you ignored how Hitler, Stalin, and FDR were all manipulators, trying to get in a war, while maximizing casualties.

Of course, as someone who notices how to "afford the loses of personal" (sp/sic), you must have some concept, of strategy.

Given what just happened, with Halliburton, Blackwater, and other corporate profiteers, in the Iraq War, you must have noticed, how corporate strategy evolves, toward the Bain Capital/Vampire Authority model, while war strategy revolves around OIL, corporate creed, and religious conflict, for profit.

Do you have some professional insight, to share, given you cut English class, and you label PKwagon "amature?" (sp)

 

What won the war was American and British Lend-Lease aid which brought in food and raw materials and engineering equipment which sustained the Soviet war effort.
Most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA.

 

What won WWII was the Germans and Japanese couldn't decide, how to take over, given they were in a treaty, and they were trying to conquer.

If German and Japanese expansionism were coordinated, instead of haphazard, the Axis would have had a real chance, to win WWII.

German linear management included Hitler, at the top, which doomed the Germans, to defeat. The Japanese were engaged, with the Soviets, in Manchuko, as of 1939, when the de-centralized Japanese let local commanders engage Russians, without any sort of central planning, beforehand.

By the time Hitler was ready, to invade the Soviets, Tokyo was eager to go play, elsewhere. FDR baited the Japanese, by moving the Pacific Fleet, to Pearl, from San Diego. FDR and his co-conspirator Gen.George Marshall went too far, so not only were de-coded IJN transmissions and British intel suppressed, Pearl didn't alert, even when the USS Ward sank a sub AND radar contact with the 12/7/41 first wave were ignored.

This was ALL due, to FDR's meddling, which was similar, to Stalin's and Hitler's meddling.

Of course, there's a guy who posts rants, about "back this up," but the FDR stuff is all from an FOIA lawsuit, put into a book, DAY OF DECEIT, by Robert Stinnett.

Get on the internet and dig this up, since it's out there, and I want to get back, to how all this meddling was the reason tanks like the Grant and Sherman were so lousy, the M-26 was delayed, and WWII was therefore more profitable, for profiteers, like every other war.

Since FDR took the Japanese off Stalin's back, and Hitler was just trying to get a lot of people killed, MAYBE because he actually resented the Holocaust, the US and British were able to prevail, with a lot of other participants getting in.

But once that lend-lease media was PROFITABLE, planners were able to corrupt the process, so all kinds of profiteering and profiteers prevailed.

Profiteering has affected our public policy and wars, since America warred, but this accelerated, since WWII, including during our tank procurement.

For instance, the Democrats keep trying to tank, to the Republicans, in the US. I think this may be due to more under the table money, which they can get, such as when FDR sold the Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938, to Andrew Mellon and W.R. Hearst, or this wouldn't have passed in 15 minutes, to be signed by FDR, right as a hemp corticator was invented, which would have made hemp the number one cash crop, in the world, instead of contraband.

Of course, I only SUSPECT Democrats take pub money, but given the way they keep acting, I think they are taking all kinds of pub money! Throwing a contest is called "tanking," you know.

 

Of course the vast majority of total Soviet war goods and resources were Soviet.

 

General Dwight D. Eisenhower stated 4 things won WW2, "The atomic bomb, the bazooka, the jeep and the DC-3.

...superior to the German Ju-52 Tri-motor...it could carry about 50% more troops/cargo almost 50% faster over 100% more range.

Salute to the DC-3, a game changer.

 

No, Soviet blood, sweat and tears won it.

 

I don't recall the Soviets island hopping with Marines on Guadalcanal?

Enlighten me?

American took on the entire Axis...Japan, Italy, and Germany.

There is no denying the Soviets, in particular the Russians fught bravely defending their homeland and turned the tide of the war...however
without Allied support, Germany could have re-charged their production battery if the Western front had not opened up.

It was Americans, British and other allies, not the Soviets that drove Rommel's Afrika Korps out of N. Africa, then on to Sicily, Italy,
France, Belgium, the Siegfried Line...not the Soviets.

The Soviets had their Eastern Front and deserve recognition for this, but I do not believe this alone would have defeated Germany.

 

North Africa was a side show to get Romel somewhere where his lack of understanding of modern warfare wouldn't cause trouble.

The Soviets also fought the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Finland, Japan...........................

The US of course would not have been able to defeat Germany alone. The US probably wouldn't have been able to take on the part of the Wehrmacht that the Soviets took on alone. The US struggled to defeat the small part of the Wehrmacht that they took on.

 

I think you are being sarcastic.

First of all- the Soviet Union did the heavy lifting against Germany- no question there.

But- if Britain hadn't still been in the game, the Germans would have certainly taken all of European Soviet Union. More importantly- as someone else pointed out- the Germans declared war on the United States- which was a huge mistake.

While the Soviet Union was a powerhouse, there was a reason that Uncle Stalin was pushing the Allies to open the Western front. Without the U.S. in the war, the Soviet Union would have been hard pressed to defeat Germany before Germany developed an atomic bomb.

I am not sure what all this testosterone flexing is going on about in this thread about the pluses and minuses of the Sherman. Shall we start one on the T-34 and discuss how Japan was defeated by Australia?

 

Hmm, looking at the Invasion of Italy, I see absolutely no Soviet forces there. So I am curious as to what Soviet Forces were involved in the Invasion of Italy.

Finland, that had been an ongoing fight ever since Finland seperated itself from Russia in 1917. In fact, this invasion started when the Soviets invaded Finland, just a few months after the Soviets gobbled up Eastern Poland. The Soviets got beat back, and attacked again the very next year. These conflicts predate the war between the Soviets and Germany, and have really nothing to do with WWII, as much as attempts of the Soviet Union to expand it's own territory.

As far as Japan, that was not really participating in the war as getting an early jump on getting what they could off of the carcass of the failing Japanese Empire. While it may have helped determine the time that Japan surrendered, it made absolutely no impact on the war itself. By that time the Empire was essentially done, and as many troops as could be transported and supplied were already on their way back to Japan.

Personally, I have often thought that once the Soviets invaded Poland along with Germany, she should have been case off from the alliance, and left to her own defenses. I actually hold them as guilty as Germany in starting WWII.

 

Italians units fought against the Soviets. Germany required it.

And the USSR fought Japan because the USA paid them to.

And the way the German nuclear weapon's programme was going they wouldn't have had a nuke until some time in the 1950s.

 

Then you might as well say that the Soviets fought the French and Belgians as well, since there were several SS units from there (and many other countries). Just because they fought Italian units, that is not quite the same as saying they fought Italy.

And the Germans never really had a chance of building a nuke, this has been covered here already.

There were 2 main programs in Germany during WWII. The first was Uranverein, which was not a program to develop nuclear weapons, but to develop nuclear power. This was never a weapon program, other then it was hoped that these "atomic batteries" might eventually be used on ships and aircraft.

There was however a group that tried to make an "Implosion Fusion Bomb". And while their theory was sound, it was not complete. They attempted to use Heavy Water (and other isotopes heavy in Hydrogen) to use conventional explosives placed into an implosion pattern to start an explosive fusion reaction. However, with conventional explosives they simply could not create enough heat and pressure to start the reaction, so all their experiments failed.

It was not until the next decade that the "Hydrogen Bomb" became a reality, and it required the heat and pressure of a fission bomb to start the fusion reaction.

So unless the German Scientists made some radical changes to their approaches to the power of the atom, I question if they ever would have actually built an atomic bomb.

 

By advancing through Western Europe to the doorstep of Berlin in less than a year?

 

Which took the Germans 6 weeks to do in the opposite direction.

 

You realize it wasn't U.S. forces manning the Maginot line or the British Expeditionary Force that got swept back to Dunkirk, right? Go back to your original comments and try again.

 

Pure history revisionism at it's finest.

 

No, it was Germany taking on the most powerful nation at the time, France.

Facts are facts. The US took on a tiny fraction of the Wehrmacht. A tiny fraction. This is while the US put the vast majority of its effort against Germany.

 

So what if France had the most powerful military at the time, they had the most incompetent leadership as well. And, their defense of their homeland all but proved that.

 

I see taking you off my ignore list was a wasted effort.

Where's the revisionism?

Rommel lacked understanding of the strategy involved in modern warfare, which is why he was never sent anywhere considered critical.

The Soviets fought all of those countries.

The US did take on a tiny fraction of the Wehrmacht and it is recognised that it wasn't easy and it was a struggle.

The only revisionism here is by Americans who think history should always start and end with, "AMERICA! (*)(*)(*)(*) YEAH!"

 

France was clearly NOT the most powerful military at the time. They may have been on paper, but their doctrines were incredibly flawed. The U.S. and its Western allies took on a large percentage of the Axis forces from D-Day onwards. Your problem is that your looking at the raw numbers. With the allies posing a more immediate threat in France, the Germans redeployed a large chunk of their elite mechanized forces (the ones that made 39/40/41 such a success for them) to France. They also had to do the same in the Med and in North Africa to face the British/Americans/commonwealth etc. in 42/43. The Germans left their lower quality large infantry divisions (with a lot of their allied troops) to slug it out with the Russians. You can't look at it in terms of raw numbers. It's combat power that must be considered.

The same occured with Japan. 90% of their military was in China, mostly loafing around and acting as garrison troops. These were their low quality troops. The elite of their military (about 10 division) was deployed to the Pacific to fight the U.S./Australians etc. in the island hoping campaign. The garrison troops in Japan were often stripped of their heavy equipment to resupply these crack units. You have to consider combat power, not sheer numbers. If you want to see how terrible the Japanese garrison troops actually were, just look at the incredible success the Russians had against them in Manchuria.

The U.S. did NOT put the vast majority of its efforts against Germany. They made Europe a priority, but they still invested an incredible amount into the campaign in the Pacific. Finally, the U.S. didn't even come close to fully mobilizing it's military until 1945/46. More than half of all the U.S. units that "fought" against Germany arrived in 1945 and saw little combat. The war was over before the U.S. could really bring everything it had against Germany in terms of men and material. In the late 30s while Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia were building their militaries, the U.S. was slashing theirs. I don't claim that the U.S. did the lionshare of the fighting against Germany to defeat them; but they were definitely the decisive factor. A fully mobilized and equipped U.S. was more than a match for Germany simply because it had a larger population, MUCH bigger economy, and a homeland that was immune to German attack.

 

The problem here is that the Soviets had already destroyed so much German equipment and killed so many Germans by the time DDay rolled around. By the time '44 rolled around Germany was strating to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

 

Ahhh, very very questionable.

While indeed the Char tank was very powerfull in both attacking and in taking damage, it was incredably slow, with a top off-road speed of only 15 mph (compared to the 20 mph of the Panzer III). And their total production run of these tanks (both in France and sent to their overseas colonies) was less then the production of the Panzer III alone.

And this was their primary battle tank.

Sorry, but I would put even the Italians and Japanese higher in a list of "Most Powerfull Nations of 1939" then I would the French. They quite literally placed all of their eggs in one basket with the Maginot Line, and it was an utter disaster.

Yes, and who was it that destroyed their industrial capacity?

The last time I looked anywhere in history, I saw few to no references to the day and night bombing attacks on the German Industrial Capacity from 1941 until 1945 by the Soviets. And I have not read much of anything about Soviet victories at sea against the German submarines, or any of their Battleships or Pocket Battleships.

And how much did the Soviets have to do with North Africa or the Invasion of Italy?

Now remember, I am far from saying that the Soviets were not a major factor in WWII, but they were not the ultimate victors either.

And consider this: Out of all the Axis Powers involved in WWII, the Soviets were only involved in the occupation of Germany. Not of Italy, not of Japan, only Germany.

If they were of such major importance in WWII, why did they only actually only enter the land of and occupy one nation? I mean, I thought they invaded both Japan and Italy as well, did they not?

Revisionist history is revisionist history, no matter how you look at it.

 

Germany didn't attack France with Panzer IIIs, it did so with Panzer IIs for the most part. That was the main tank of the Heer at the time.

For (*)(*)(*)(*) sake. Show me where I said they invaded Japan and Italy.

LYING about what I said is the revisionism.