[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I'm happy the Allies won. Just the Russian ones right?

However, I try to look at the Axis weapons, tactics etc from an unbiased view, and the same goes for Allied gear. For example I'm not a fan of the M4/Sherman because it should have been supplemented with a heavier tank and in effect its continued use as a main battle tank rather than for infantry support cost hundreds of allied lives, most of them being American. Yea and when used as intended it never lived up to its design either right?? Tanks do other things besides walk down the middle of the road like a Hollywood gunfighter taking on the same. You'll agree with that right?

Propaganda is well and good in wartime but over confidence can turn around and bite you on the bum on the battelfield if you underate your enemy and his weapons. Noone is undestimating the German gear, we're just not buying the "nothing can ever beat the superior German tank/plane/ship/etc.." line.

[Aircrafty]

Hey you guys, don't forget to check for any Reds under the bed

[jim]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

No, but they could have. Which is more than could be said for the US

Not so sure about that Aircrafty. I think that if Germany had only one front to fight on they would have crushed Russia.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Hey you guys, don't forget to check for any Reds under the bed

Don't fear them as much as you love them.

[stalag8611]

Originally Posted by jim

Not so sure about that Aircrafty. I think that if Germany had only one front to fight on they would have crushed Russia.

Right on, Jim. Hitler's worst enemy turned out to be himself when he unleashed a second front in the West. If he hadn't done so, the USSR would have disappeared in 1943, not 1989. Gee, I wonder if Aircrafty years for that Soviet Paradise that once the brutal Soviet Union.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by jim

Not so sure about that Aircrafty. I think that if Germany had only one front to fight on they would have crushed Russia.

Until VERY late in the war the military actions (air, land and sea) by the Brits and US didn't have much effect on Germany's ability to make war and this is proved by their increased production, even in the later war years despite being heavily bombed.The Germans had their chance to beat the Russians and blew it. Mainly because Hitler decided to switch from taking Moscow to capturing the southeastern oil fields. Russian industry subsequently retreated well out of reach of German air attack and the Russians were able to build up a good supply of weapons and soldiers that they used to give the Germans a good hiding in ensuing battles. When you examine just how many Germans were involved on the Eastern front you get a good idea of the Russian contribution.

Despite what most Western focused authors may have published, especially Stephen Ambrose, the fact is that the Germans were far more concerned about the Russians. And in fact the western occupied countries such as France were used by the Germans as a regroup and training area for German Divisions returning from the Eastern Front. Later in the war, the two Panzer Divisions near Arnhem when operation Market-Garden occured were sent there to regroup and recover. Btw, the Brits were told about them but apparently they didn't have much faith in the Dutch underground as many of their agents were double agents for the Germans. Of course the American produced movie "A Bridge to Far" made out that the Brits were just stupid rather than suspicious. What's more dangerous, Red bears or Red-necked bears

[jim]

Aircrafty dont forget about all the effort the Germans put into the MTO. Plus they had to garrison all the captured countries.
Look at all the aircraft and munitions involved in the battle of Malta.
The RAF fighter sweeps over France wasted a good many pilots but kept a lot of Luftwaffe units pinned down.
What if all the men and equipment used to fight the Allies after D Day had been available for the Eastern front.
What if there had been no bombing of German factories and transport.
What if the Germans had not had to defend Italy.
What if?

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Until VERY late in the war the military actions (air, land and sea) by the Brits and US didn't have much effect on Germany's ability to make war and this is proved by their increased production, even in the later war years despite being heavily bombed.The Germans had their chance to beat the Russians and blew it. Mainly because Hitler decided to switch from taking Moscow to capturing the southeastern oil fields. Russian industry subsequently retreated well out of reach of German air attack and the Russians were able to build up a good supply of weapons and soldiers that they used to give the Germans a good hiding in ensuing battles. When you examine just how many Germans were involved on the Eastern front you get a good idea of the Russian contribution.

Despite what most Western focused authors may have published, especially Stephen Ambrose, the fact is that the Germans were far more concerned about the Russians. And in fact the western occupied countries such as France were used by the Germans as a regroup and training area for German Divisions returning from the Eastern Front. Later in the war, the two Panzer Divisions near Arnhem when operation Market-Garden occured were sent there to regroup and recover. Btw, the Brits were told about them but apparently they didn't have much faith in the Dutch underground as many of their agents were double agents for the Germans. Of course the American produced movie "A Bridge to Far" made out that the Brits were just stupid rather than suspicious. What's more dangerous, Red bears or Red-necked bears

It is unlikely that Hitler could have decisively beaten the Soviets in November-December 1941, even if he hadn't delayed the advance on Moscow by diverting his central front panzer groups south for the great encirclement battle of Kiev in August and September. Say, the Germans took Moscow in 1941. Then what? They could screw up the Russian's communications, but did this mean that the Soviets would just cave in, especially with their new western allies pouring in war equipment? No one is doubting the magnitude of the Russian contribution to victory over Germany in WWII. But the Soviets were able to concentrate almost all of their effort and manpower against approximately half of the German Army. The German order of battle peaked with about 3-3.3 million men on the eastern front in the Summer of 1941, with, perhaps, '50% of these in a combat role.As the war continued, these numbers declined because of the huge losses incurred due to Hitler's bungling and Allied pressure on other fronts. Sure, they were the best troops and better equipped as well, but half of the Whermacht and an even larger proportion of the Luftwaffe was tied down in the west for most of the war. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, if the Russians had to face the full force that the Germans could bring to bear, without U.S. and British support, one can only wonder whether they would have eventually sued for peace---a plan that Stalin, reportedly, was considering during the initial panic caused by the German invasion in June 1941.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by jim

Aircrafty dont forget about all the effort the Germans put into the MTO. Plus they had to garrison all the captured countries.
Look at all the aircraft and munitions involved in the battle of Malta.
The RAF fighter sweeps over France wasted a good many pilots but kept a lot of Luftwaffe units pinned down.
What if all the men and equipment used to fight the Allies after D Day had been available for the Eastern front.
What if there had been no bombing of German factories and transport.
What if the Germans had not had to defend Italy.
What if?

The captured countries were mostly garrisoned by soldiers that they had captured and turned to fight for them together with some battle affected Germans. There were virtualy no first rate German Divisions committed specifically to the Western front. For example just prior to D-Day the Panzer Division near Caen was the Hitler Youth Div that was unproven in battle (but they certainly made up in fanatacism what they lacked in experience.)

The strategic bombing of Germany had very little impact on German industry or morale. True, the air war tied up thousands of German servicemen, but the Russians would have still won, just taken them longer. The Eastern Front bled the Germans dry over the years and it was only a matter of time before they lost.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

It is unlikely that Hitler could have decisively beaten the Soviets in November-December 1941, even if he hadn't delayed the advance on Moscow by diverting his central front panzer groups south for the great encirclement battle of Kiev in August and September. Say, the Germans took Moscow in 1941. Then what? They could screw up the Russian's communications, but did this mean that the Soviets would just cave in, especially with their new western allies pouring in war equipment? No one is doubting the magnitude of the Russian contribution to victory over Germany in WWII. But the Soviets were able to concentrate almost all of their effort and manpower against approximately half of the German Army. The German order of battle peaked with about 3-3.3 million men on the eastern front in the Summer of 1941, with, perhaps, '50% of these in a combat role.As the war continued, these numbers declined because of the huge losses incurred due to Hitler's bungling and Allied pressure on other fronts. Sure, they were the best troops and better equipped as well, but half of the Whermacht and an even larger proportion of the Luftwaffe was tied down in the west for most of the war. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, if the Russians had to face the full force that the Germans could bring to bear, without U.S. and British support, one can only wonder whether they would have eventually sued for peace---a plan that Stalin, reportedly, was considering during the initial panic caused by the German invasion in June 1941.

I didn't say that the Germans would have won if they had taken Moscow, but they would have had a morale victory if they did, then who knows.

As for the German percentage of combat troops, it was much higher than 50% and about 85% of German casualties on ALL fronts occured fighting the Russians.

One point that is often overlooked is the fact that Stalin was very worried about the Japanese making further advances from his Eastern flank. Which is why his better infantry and tank divisions were intilially stationed in Siberia. And when Japan made an under the table deal with Russia and switched their focus to the US via Pearl Harbour it allowed Stalin to free these divisions to fight against the Germans. Therefore its more accurate to say that Japan going off on its own tangent had the greatest effect on Hitlers plans. If Japan had sat tight the US would have been happy to stay out of the war and Hitler may well have won.

Very late in the war the Russians were advancing towards Japan. And from what I have read from the Japanese viewpoint they were more worried about the Russians attacking them than they were the two atom bombs the US dropped on them - which they well deserved btw.