U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

That was what the German High Command thought when they invaded Russia.

 

It seems to be the total production run,he has got mixed up.

During its 50,000-unit production run, the US Army built seven principle variations of the M4 Sherman. These were the M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4, M4A5, and M4A6.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vehiclesarmor/p/M4Sherman.htm

 

The Germans didn't figure on Stalin issuing orders to his leaders to never retreat or be shot.

It's staggering to think about what the Russians endured. 1 in 10 citizens was killed between 1939 - 1945. Stalin had secret Reserves of fresh troops that crossed the frozen Volga river. Meanwhile the German troops were getting weaker, ill equipped to deal with Russian Winters. Russia endured and prevailed, no doubt about their resolve.

Hitler under-estimated Russian resolve, that is for sure...however Europe is not their homeland. Defending your house is one thing, defending foreign territory is another. The impetus for Soviet fervor capturing Berlin was revenge. I'm not sure if they would fight with the same fervor maintaining captured territory as they did their homeland...or with the same zeal and hatred they had for the Germans. Yes America was never "popular"...but I don't think the average Russian soldier looked upon American troops with murderous intent the way they did the Germans.

I don't think the Americans were all that game to fight the Soviets either at that time.

The Berlin Airlift is more indicative of how things went...we saved West Berlin from communism without firing a shot. Folks were just tired of fighting at that point...on both sides. Maybe I'm wrong. Germany capitulated to Soviet control...but some freedom was saved. The start of the Cold War began...

 

That was total production.

This is one table of production I came up with for 1944:

Tank and self-propelled artillery production (including German assault guns)
Country 1944
UK 4.600
USSR 28.963
USA 20.565
Germany 27.300

I don't know whether this is accurate or not, but it seems plausible.

If you compare armor to armor-every piece of Soviet's armor was equal or superior to American, and only the Brits had anything really decent.

The Sherman biggest point was its reliability- but the T-34's were very reliable also. But even the earlier T-34 varient was faster and better armored than a Sherman, and the T34/85 outclassed it on every level.

Really looking back and comparing American combat aircraft versus American armor developement in WW2 it is hard to explain how a country that could develope the P-51 and the Hellcat so fast, took so long to develope armor that could go toe to toe with German armor.

 

That would explain it. In comparrison the Soviets produced around 47,000 T34 and T34/85. The Soviets would probably have won that one.

 

I think you are right.

 

Hard to say. The states had the bomb, and they showed that they weren't afraid to use it. The USSR had the numbers, and showed they weren't afraid to use them.

If we bombed them, we probably could have come out on top. If it was fought like the rest of ww2, the soviets would have probably come out on top.

 

The German High Command didn't account for the Russian winter, and we're not talking about invading Russia but expelling them from Europe, which we would have accomplished relatively easily had we wanted to. We outclassed them in virtually every category, and one intangible that is hard to quantify was our strategic expertise and our small unit tactical proficiency, which has always been far ahead of everyone else's. American warriors have always had a creative edge over their foes. Our troops are great at improvising and adapting to situations. Plus, once the Marines arrived from the Pacific, the Russians would have learned why the Germans called them "devil dogs"...

 

No, small unit tactical was a US weak point. The Germans were the masters of that.

 

A ridiculous statement from a ridiculous individual.

Ever heard of Easy Company, 101st Airborne? They showed the Germans who the "masters" of tactical maneuvering were...

 

For the most part the US came up against lower rate German troops.

The Germans were masters of small unit tactical. Their soldiers were trained to think for themselves. US soldiers were trained to follow orders.

And I doubt you would ever have mentioned Easy Company except for the miniseries Band of Brothers, so who is being rediculous now?

 

The point is ultimately moot....so this becomes an exercise in identifying who had the superior military at the time.

One note that so far hasn't been mentioned...an invention that in many ways won the war for the allies...that the Soviets had not yet mastered.

Proximity fuse.

Artillery shells could be "programmed" to detonate over a target, thereby showering the "kill zone" with high velocity shrapnel. Versatile on both ground and air targets...including tanks.

I'd give the edge to American artillery in that regard.

P-47's loaded out with HVARs (essentially rockets) equipped with proximity fuses could detonate over a column of tanks sending a shaped charge at high velocity that could readily penetrate armor of the day. At least in theory.

 

Sounds like you're confusing more modern rockets with WW2 rockets. P47 just fired powerful rockets that used HE.

 

I doubt that was true any more so for the Americans than the Germans.

The real difference was that 1) the Germans had far more fighting experience, and 2) the Americans had far more support and equipment.

 

Proximity fuses can be extremely effective when used right.

But America and the USSR clashing whould be a titanic fight and the outcome would depend on a long list of factors. Finding a winner will be very complicated and message boards are mostly known for brief posts which don't cover the complexity of subjects such as this.

 

No, late model P-47s had HVARs.
shape-charged warheads with a proximity fuse.

 

Yeah my bad. Production peaked in 1943 at 28k medium tanks (mostly M4s). Total tank production for that year was about 37k. By 1944 the U.S. was actually scaling back it's tank production. I do think its feasible that it could have come close to that 50k number had it fully mobilized through 1945 though.

 

In essence yes, though I think its feasible that they could have hit close to 50k a year in total tank production by 1945. The U.S. produced about 100k total during WW2...slightly less than the Soviets. However, the Soviets had their tank production fully mobilized for several years more than the U.S. and they also lost significantly more. In a war scenario, the U.S. (and its allies) would have certainly had more tanks than the Soviets (albeit mostly inferior ones).

 

By 1944 the U.S. had scaled down production. It produced almost twice as many tanks in 1943 as 1944.

It's not about individual tanks as I mentioned earlier. Its about logistics and combined arms warfare. The U.S. could probably field 3 Shermans for every German tank (if not more). They used numbers, Infantry, tank destroyers, and air to knock out tanks. The Shermans were much easier to repair, produce, and fuel. The Germans used many different kinsd of tanks that all had different parts and ammunition which made logistics a complete nightmare.

 

Over a much longer period of time. The U.S. "war machine" didn't get fully going until 1943/44. By that time the Soviets had been engaged in a war of survival for 2+ years. There's no question the U.S. could have outproduced the Soviets in tank production....their GDP was more than 4 times the Soviets.

 

A very common misconception. That said, the Germans were highly competent and experienced, especially in small units. By late 44 early 45 I think American/British and German troops were pretty close in terms of tactics. At the begining of the war the Germans certainly enjoyed an advantage though.

Also, you're rewriting history by claiming the Germans used less experienced troops on the Western front. By late 1944 early 45 almost half of the German Army was deployed on the Western front.

 

That is possible but we will never know. The Russians could probably have done the same thing. And then it gets really hypothetical...

 

Yep- the Americans had a lot of experience against Germans. Everything you say about the Sherman could be said about the T-34/85 also- except it was faster, better armored and better gunned. Numbers wouldn't have been factor- at best there would have been parity.

Airpower would have made the difference. But airpower is subject to the weather.

 

Again, look at GDP numbers. The U.S. produced significantly more war materials than the Soviets by the end of the war. This isn't even a question. I believe there's a quote somewhere that said by the end of the war the U.S. had more war material than the rest of the world combined.

 

There definitely would not have been parity in numbers for the reasons stated previously. Either way, tanks are just one small component of land warfare.


Also, consider the incredibly heavy casualties that the Soviets took in the last 6 months of the war. In the battle of Berlin the Soviets took 300k casualties.