Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Did Russia win WWII?
Comments
-
But without Barbarrossa, the Luftwaffe would never have been diverted elsewhere, and would have continued to attack England relentlessly until inevitable victory. A war of attrition - which is what it would have been - would have been utterly impossible for England to win. Germany had - and in massive quantities - more manpower from which to draw, more industry, more raw materials and resources, a larger air force....The battle of Britain was not so much a victory as it was a checking action, it only really became a victory when Britain was saved from invasion and serious attack by the involvement of the SU in the war.0
-
If Germay hadn't attacked Russia I dont think that the allies would have lasted too long in North Africa though.
I think Russia played by far the main part in the defeat of the Nazi's, it's hard to say if they could have done it on their own though.0 -
It might be oversimplified but in my opinion this is roughly the factors bringing Germany down :
- RAF broke the back of the Luftwaffe.
- American equipment and food supplied the Soviet Union.
- The Soviet Union ruthlessly sacrificed millions of it's people fighting the
Nazi's.
- The Royal Navy and the US Navy's success in countering the U-boat
treath.
- And last but not least Hitlers' head first jump into insanity from Stalingrad
on didn't help the German military with too many noddy dogs on the general
staff to counter the wave of irrational drivel from the fuhrer hq. Had Paulus
for example been allowed or had the balls to break out himself from the
Stalingrad encirclement while he still could the war in the East might have
looked significantly different. As the allies were outproducing the Nazi's in
just about any goods essential for warfare and had vast amounts of
manpower left the final outcome is not in doubt but the Cold War could
have been fundamentally different.0 -
TGermany could easily have got enough troops across to secure a front.
With what?
There's some 20 miles of water between the two coasts. Even if the Germans could somehow mass enough equipment to transport enough soldiers to keep a foothold for a while in the UK, they'd never be able to support it. Not least, the Royal Navy would probably object to the use of the Channel. (And don't go overestimating the Luftwaffe's ability to prevent RN interruption, either). Look at the size of the effort it took to go the other way four years later.
NTM0 -
Oops, more western rose-tinted glasses aka myth making there.meathstevie wrote: »It might be oversimplified but in my opinion this is roughly the factors bringing Germany down :
- RAF broke the back of the Luftwaffe.
Six months later the Luftwaffe were back at the same strength they had before the Battle of Britain.
Although historians say they didn't have the same calibre of pilots.
Long after the Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe were still operating over Britain with virtual impunity.0 -
Advertisement
-
LW flew the occasional bomb raid, recce or weather flight, but it was nothing in comparison to the full scale air offensive of BOB.
Apart from Condors, which stayed well away from the British mainland, I wouldn't be too excited over the LW over UK after the BOB.
This doesn't mean, that RAF destroyed LW during the BOB. After all it was only one battle.
From the other hand, Stalingrad, more famous as the 1st significant victory of the RA over WH, then for the destruction of the WH as a such... I see Kursk as being more important, but it always will be open to discussion without end.
Now, a bit of 'what if...' I personally don't think that USA would be too pushed to enter war on their own on different continent and against enemy which doesn't bother them. They had their own trouble with Japan and that was enough.
If Germans hadn't attack USSR, they could put more time and resources into industrial development of the Reich. They might be able to develop long range bomber, they might be able to speed up their A bomb research, they might be able to starve UK through U-boot blockade...
Or, they themselves and whole Europe could be attacked by hungry Russian Bear and perhaps there will be totally different enemy for USA over time. But it is a fiction and always will be.0 -
Interestingly, Napoleon and Hitler launched their invasions of Russia on almost the same date
Napoleon 24 June – 1812
Operation Barbarosa - 22 June 1941
( Granted Hitler was delayed because of Mussolini's failed invasion of Greece )0 -
I've read that the Russians fought 80% of Germany's forces in the big battles of the east.
They took Berlin and got to Hitler ahead of anybody else.
After the war they helped themselves to nearly half of europe.
While the Allies took a comparitively small piece of Germany and the US took a scattering of islands in the Pacific. But these pale in comparison with what the Russians took.
In the west we get bombarded with D-Day myth making, or the Battle of Britain, take your pick.
But seriously, the Russians probably could have done it without British or American boots in Europe at all.
If one country took the gold, it's got to be Russia.
1. Russia won WWII in Europe.
2. It would have done so with, or without Western Allied help. Lend Lease has been overstated incredibly. It constituted at most 15% of the equipment used by the Russians. The vast majority of which was second line war material, such as P-40's and P-39's, both rejected by the Western Allies for ops over Europe. The most important LL vehicle was the excellent Studebaker trucks, but these didn't make their presence really felt until the Summer of 1944 and Bagration. By which time the Russians had effectively defeated the Germans in the East. In addition, the men and material that the Western campaigns tied down was NEVER enough for a decisive outcome for the Germans in Russia.
3. The best the Germans could have hoped for was a stalemate situation. After 1943, that hope was never going to be fulfilled and a defeat was all that was on the cards.
4. D-Day is very much about "myth making", so much so that Steven Ambrose (one of its chief myth makers) once claimed that it decided whether "...this world was going to be democratic or nazi", which is an appalling misrepresentation of the war AND the operation itself. The outcome of the war in Europe (as far as the Germans were concerned) was already sealed with Kursk in 1943, nearly a year before the first Western Allied soldier put a foot on a Normandy beach. In the end, D-Day was more about the shape of post-war Europe and getting a "Western" influence on the continent before the Russians held all the cards.
It's obvious that the Russian participation in WWII has been downplayed immensely during the post-war period, for obvious reasons. The Communist's work was done. They soaked up the lions share of the Wehrmacht and were no longer needed and they were going to be the new "badguys" once the Germans had succumbed to their inevitable defeat. Even today, with a much better representation of the Eastern Front, it's still difficult to get a completely unbiased study of that area of WWII, but things are getting better.0 -
Oops, more western rose-tinted glasses aka myth making there.
Six months later the Luftwaffe were back at the same strength they had before the Battle of Britain.
Although historians say they didn't have the same calibre of pilots.
Long after the Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe were still operating over Britain with virtual impunity.
Not only that, but the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft during the first three months of Barbarossa, than the whole of the Battle of Britain period (July - October).0 -
OK, then. the Russians won WWII. Thank God the Empire did not extend to France or the Atlantic, for then the whole of Europe would have been a Marxist prison camp.
For that we owe the soldiers in D-Day an immense amount of gratitude.0 -
Advertisement
-
that said, of course, it is likely that if the Russians had marched to the Atlantic ( and what would have stopped them?) that the Americans and British would have blackmailed Russia to withdraw with atomic bombs. If that had meant a withdrawal of the Empire to its borders - in reality the Russian borders since Russia has no claim elsewhere - then it would have been to the good, and Eastern Europe would not have beem imprisoned for a generation.0
-
I think a huge mistake Hitler made was not getting the Ukranians fully on side. When they were looking for volunteers to form a Ukranian Waffen SS Division, they actually would up with enough men for 2 full divisions. Other than that, their mistreatment of the population only served to act as a recruiting office for the Partisans. They then ended up having thousands of troops tied up in Anti Partisan actions, which just further hardened the resolve of the Soviets.
Other that that, I can't help feeling that if they didn't subdue Russia by the end of 1942, that game was up. Although the Germans fought some good defensive actions, and went on the offensive again at Karkhov, just after Stalingrad, they couldn't keep up with the Soviets in terms of manpower and material.0 -
2. It would have done so with, or without Western Allied help. Lend Lease has been overstated incredibly. It constituted at most 15% of the equipment used by the Russians. The vast majority of which was second line war material, such as P-40's and P-39's, both rejected by the Western Allies for ops over Europe. The most important LL vehicle was the excellent Studebaker trucks, but these didn't make their presence really felt until the Summer of 1944 and Bagration. By which time the Russians had effectively defeated the Germans in the East. In addition, the men and material that the Western campaigns tied down was NEVER enough for a decisive outcome for the Germans in Russia.
I think that's not fully true, P-39's and Kingobras just didn't suit the RAF or USAF, the Soviets from the other hand found it perfect for their needs.
They didn't like Spitfires too much, but liked Hurricanes, They used B-25s, Bostons and those P-40s.
Shermans were almost as common as T-34s and Stuarts were used very often as well. Just from top of my head.
The GMC, Studebakers and other trucks kept RA moving and if you look at almost any picture of RA motorized column you will see those trucks and western equipment everywhere.
Ehh, and all that 'licenced' production with names like Zil, Gaz...
Eastern front is not western Europe and equipment which is brilliant on the West could be found not suited for rough eastern conditions /Spitfire, for example/ and vice versa.
I would say, that lend-lease was very important for SU as were the unlimited raw material resources.0 -
Yes, The VVS liked the P-39 and P-40...to a degree. They knew they were hidiously outclassed by the BF109 however. Also, the fact still remains that these aircraft were still very much second line equipment, to both the Western Allies and the VVS. The most successful area for the P-40 was up in the far North, where engagements were limited compared to other areas on the Russian front. Simply put, the lack of a supercharger hampered the performance of the aircraft. There are stories of some pilots going back to their I-16's, because they didn't rate the P-40. The P-39 was more liked however and there's no doubt that it was a popular machine with those VVS pilots who flew it, in fact the Russian pilots were the most successful operators of the machine. They especially liked the nose mounted cannon for ground attack purposes and the reliable radio equipment.
There were never too many Spits sent to Russia, mostly MKV's but AFAIK, they were liked by those who flew them. But still, they were very much outflown by the BF109F and the FW190A, which were hacking the MkV down both in the West and the East.
Hurricanes were fine and were mostly used for ground attack (MkIIB's), but their operational life was limited. The VVS were very short of 100 octane fuel and what they used caused the Rolls Royce engine no end of problems. The harsh conditions of the far North, where they were mostly used, was tough on the machines too.
Another thing, there was no way at all, that Shermans (mostly M4A2's) numbered the same as the T-34 on the Russian front. When one considers that one factory, Zavod 183 in the Uralmash complex, produced nearly 29,000 T-34 tanks, this is clearly illustrated. Only one frontline company were equiped with Shermans exclusively and that was in 1945 IIRC. The Sherman and Stuart were considered to be absolutely inferior to the T-34. Quite rightly too IMO.
And yes, the GMC's and Studebaker's were appreciated. However, they weren't available in sufficient numbers until 1944. By which time the Red Army had defeated the German's to all intents and purposes.
Lend Lease equipment was helpful to the Russian victory in WWII, but in NO WAY was it either vital or necessary for that victory. The simple fact remans that the hard won early and mid war Russian victories were won with Russian equipment and were possible, the Russian's prefered to use Russian equipment with certain exceptions like the aforementioned Studebakers. But even they didn't supplant the Russian made GAZ trucks.0 -
Don't like numbers and am not disputing the above, just out of curiosity, found this on another forum:
Red Army tanks
This is one calculation by Pekka Kantakoski, a Finnish expert on "Red tanks":
Between 1941-1945 Russians built 99 395 tanks of various models.
Lend Lease : 12 482 tanks
Destroyed Russian tanks during the WW2:
About 106 000, of which some 20-30% could be repaired and used again.
Some 212 000 Russian soldiers died with their tanks ( 2 per tank crew )
In the front line as WW2 ended: 20 000 tanks
Limits of vodka expenditure for the troops of Red Army's Field Force from 25th of November to 31st of December 1942
Fronts and Separate Armies Limits of vodka expenditure (in litres)
Karelian Front 364 000
7th Army 99000
Leningrad Front 533 000
Volkhov Front 407 000
North-Western Front 394 000
Kalinin Front 690 000
Western Front 980 000
Brjansk Front 414 000
Voronezh Front 381 000
South-Western Front 478 000
Don Front 544 000
Stalingrad Front 407 000
Total: 5 691 000
Transcaucasus Frtont 1 200 000 (wine)
...worth pointing out that 3 out of 9 Guards Mechanized Corps were equipped with Shermans by the end of the war. These were some high-prestige units, and were given Shermans late in the war. The 3rd Guards was entirely re-equipped with Shermans in June '44, 9th Guards became an all-Sherman unit in December '44, while the 1st Guards handed in their T-34/85s in January '45 for M4A2s0 -
Yes, The VVS liked the P-39 and P-40...to a degree. They knew they were hidiously outclassed by the BF109 however.
I'm going to throw a flag on this one, at least where the P-39 is concerned. The BF109 only outclassed the Cobra in certain envelopes, which the Russian front provided few of.The P-39 was more liked however and there's no doubt that it was a popular machine with those VVS pilots who flew it, in fact the Russian pilots were the most successful operators of the machine. They especially liked the nose mounted cannon for ground attack purposes and the reliable radio equipment.
No P-39s were ever placed into service with Soviet ground attack squadrons, it was considered an interceptor or air superiority fighter. The cannon would do quite a number on any aircraft it hit. Though very maneuverable, the aircraft had a very unforgiving stall characteristic accentuated by the thin air at high altitude, which is why it didn't do so well in Western Europe: The battles tended to revolve around high-altititude fights over strategic bombers, and no sensible pilot would risk going outside the flight envelope. In effect, the aircraft never reached its potential.
The Russian Front, on the other hand, focused its air battles on tactical aviation, with most combat occuring at the resulting much lower altitidues. This suited the P-39 far better, and it was pretty much a match for any of the German fighters it would encounter with the exception of some of the later marks.The Sherman and Stuart were considered to be absolutely inferior to the T-34. Quite rightly too IMO.
An excellent read which I cannot over-recommend is "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitrii Loza. It was translated about ten years ago into English, and is written in a very pleasant style. He leaves no doubt that the Emchisti loved their tanks, and in the course of the book he lists various advantages and disadvantages between the T-34 and the M4. For example, Sherman was quieter, with a better gun, lower ground pressure, and was vastly more user-friendly. On the other hand, it had less armour, higher centre of gravity, and a finicky suspension. Give a little, take a little. The Sherman is a vastly under-rated tank, which was good enough that it replaced the Pershing in US Army service in Korea. The fact that Sherman variants were still killing the best the USSR was exporting in 1973 should be testament to this.Lend Lease equipment was helpful to the Russian victory in WWII, but in NO WAY was it either vital or necessary for that victory. The simple fact remans that the hard won early and mid war Russian victories were won with Russian equipment and were possible, the Russian's prefered to use Russian equipment with certain exceptions like the aforementioned Studebakers. But even they didn't supplant the Russian made GAZ trucks.
Recent Russian analyses are apparently differing with this formerly relatively unopposed thought. For example, ""without the Western supplies, the Soviet Union not only could not have won the Great Patriotic War, but even could not have resisted German aggression" (A. S. Orlov and V. P. Kozhanov, "Lend-liz: Vzglyad Cherez Polveka" [Lend-lease, A glance across a half-century])
NTM0 -
Don't like numbers and am not disputing the above, just out of curiosity, found this on another forum:
Red Army tanks
This is one calculation by Pekka Kantakoski, a Finnish expert on "Red tanks":
Between 1941-1945 Russians built 99 395 tanks of various models.
Lend Lease : 12 482 tanks
Destroyed Russian tanks during the WW2:
About 106 000, of which some 20-30% could be repaired and used again.
Some 212 000 Russian soldiers died with their tanks ( 2 per tank crew )
In the front line as WW2 ended: 20 000 tanks
Limits of vodka expenditure for the troops of Red Army's Field Force from 25th of November to 31st of December 1942
Fronts and Separate Armies Limits of vodka expenditure (in litres)
Karelian Front 364 000
7th Army 99000
Leningrad Front 533 000
Volkhov Front 407 000
North-Western Front 394 000
Kalinin Front 690 000
Western Front 980 000
Brjansk Front 414 000
Voronezh Front 381 000
South-Western Front 478 000
Don Front 544 000
Stalingrad Front 407 000
Total: 5 691 000
Transcaucasus Frtont 1 200 000 (wine)
...worth pointing out that 3 out of 9 Guards Mechanized Corps were equipped with Shermans by the end of the war. These were some high-prestige units, and were given Shermans late in the war. The 3rd Guards was entirely re-equipped with Shermans in June '44, 9th Guards became an all-Sherman unit in December '44, while the 1st Guards handed in their T-34/85s in January '45 for M4A2s
Hang on a second, either there's some serious errors of judgement there by this Finnish "expert" or the Russians lost more tanks than they built and had to rely on rebuilds for the end of the war?
Sorry, but that's way off Fise and I'm not buying what Pekka Kantakoski is selling here.
BTW, I don't like numbers either.
Either way, regardless of the handful of units using Shermans in late '44 '45, the vast majority of front units were equiped with Russian equipment. It's true the Russian tankers prefered the 76mm M4A2 to what was on offer before, but I'd say if pushed a T-34/85 was trumps.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I'm going to throw a flag on this one, at least where the P-39 is concerned. The BF109 only outclassed the Cobra in certain envelopes, which the Russian front provided few of.
Sorry, but the BF109F had the edge over the P-39 in every respect, bar low speed low altitude turn fighting, even though the P-39 was itself an energy fighter. USAF pilots said it was "...suited for wide, low, and slow circles" and RAF pilots called it a "widowmaker". But since the Jagdwaffe didn't engage in turn fighting and instead used "boom'n'nzoom" tactics, this advantage was negated. Just because the average dogfight in the East took place at lower heights than the Western Europe, doesn't mean that the Luftwaffe abandoned it's primary fighter tactic.Manic Moran wrote: »No P-39s were ever placed into service with Soviet ground attack squadrons, it was considered an interceptor or air superiority fighter. The cannon would do quite a number on any aircraft it hit. Though very maneuverable, the aircraft had a very unforgiving stall characteristic accentuated by the thin air at high altitude, which is why it didn't do so well in Western Europe: The battles tended to revolve around high-altititude fights over strategic bombers, and no sensible pilot would risk going outside the flight envelope. In effect, the aircraft never reached its potential. The Russian Front, on the other hand, focused its air battles on tactical aviation, with most combat occuring at the resulting much lower altitidues. This suited the P-39 far better, and it was pretty much a match for any of the German fighters it would encounter with the exception of some of the later marks.
That's true, there were no P-39 dedicated to ground attack squadrons. However, VVS fighter squadrons were regularly called upon do perform this duty regardless of what aircraft they were in, there are numerous accounts of VVS fighter squadrons strafing ground targets. And yes, it's also true that most combat took place at around 15.000ft on the Russian front, but IN NO WAY can the P-39 be considered a match for the BF109F or the FW190A at any altitude. We'll have to agree to disagree on that it seems.Manic Moran wrote: »An excellent read which I cannot over-recommend is "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitrii Loza. It was translated about ten years ago into English, and is written in a very pleasant style. He leaves no doubt that the Emchisti loved their tanks, and in the course of the book he lists various advantages and disadvantages between the T-34 and the M4. For example, Sherman was quieter, with a better gun, lower ground pressure, and was vastly more user-friendly. On the other hand, it had less armour, higher centre of gravity, and a finicky suspension. Give a little, take a little. The Sherman is a vastly under-rated tank, which was good enough that it replaced the Pershing in US Army service in Korea. The fact that Sherman variants were still killing the best the USSR was exporting in 1973 should be testament to this.
Thanks for the book tip. I'll have a look. But, either way, you'll always get some users of a vehicle who appreciates what it did for them during the war and yes, the Sherman was a great tank, no doubt. However, it certainly was NOT better than a T-34/76 or /85. The tank which Heinz Guderian caled "...the best tank of the war". In addition, I don't accept that the Sherman had a better gun than the T-34 of any mark. The 76mm of the T-34 outclassed the short barrelled 75mm of the early/mid war Shermans and the 85mm was a better gun than anything that was mounted on any Sherman variant, bar the 17 pounder that the British mounted on their fireflies.
In addition, apart from the inferior qualities you already mention regarding the M4, it also had a higher profile than either the /76 or /85, had much poorer performance on soft ground, a far inferior track system and it was slower too (especially cross country).Manic Moran wrote: »Recent Russian analyses are apparently differing with this formerly relatively unopposed thought. For example, ""without the Western supplies, the Soviet Union not only could not have won the Great Patriotic War, but even could not have resisted German aggression" (A. S. Orlov and V. P. Kozhanov, "Lend-liz: Vzglyad Cherez Polveka" [Lend-lease, A glance across a half-century])
NTM
Hmmmm...to be frank, whoever gave that quote is talking through their hat. The history of the conflict alone would suggest otherwise. Lend Lease played little to no part in the Russian victories at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. That's 1941, 42 and 43. The bulk of the war. LL only had a truly significant play in Operation Bagration and beyond. But by that time, there was only one way for the Germans to go, back to Berlin.0 -
That's what I was thinking first as well... But then I realized that he's talking about tanks built during 4 years of 1941 - 45.
The RA had a plenty of old BT-5s, T-26s, T-28s, T-35s and early T-34s built well before 1941.
So this could add to the total number of destroyed tanks during the whole war.
But that post ment to be a lighthearted one :rolleyes:0 -
That's what I was thinking first as well... But then I realized that he's talking about tanks built during 4 years of 1941 - 45.
The RA had a plenty of old BT-5s, T-26s, T-28s, T-35s and early T-34s built well before 1941.
So this could add to the total number of destroyed tanks during the whole war.
But that post ment to be a lighthearted one :rolleyes:
Hmmm...even so, it doesn't sound correct on any level.
But as you say...numbers are crap...0 -
Advertisement
-
However, it certainly was NOT better than a T-34/76 or /85. The tank which Heinz Guderian caled "...the best tank of the war". In addition, I don't accept that the Sherman had a better gun than the T-34 of any mark. The 76mm of the T-34 outclassed the short barrelled 75mm of the early/mid war Shermans and the 85mm was a better gun than anything that was mounted on any Sherman variant, bar the 17 pounder that the British mounted on their fireflies.
The only advantage the 85mm had over the 76mm gun was the weight of explosive shell. Granted, this is an important factor when the tank's job is infantry support, but in terms of armour penetration and particularly accuracy, the American gun had the advantage, even before you got to the 'special' ammunition, which I'm not sure ever found its way to the USSR. The armour and the suspension certainly work in the T-34's favour, but features such as the gyrocompass, optics, gyrostabiliser, radios and rubber track pads gave the Sherman its own technical advantages. Plus the Shermans were usually far better built, though that's not so much a feature of the design as the builders. (Still, one could certainly say that the track pin design on the T-34 was a little too crude).
And, frankly, the Sherman is just plain 'liveable'. It's a feature which never makes the 'top ten tanks' TV shows, but from the crew point of view, it's far nicer.
Basically I'll agree with you that the M4(76) was not better than the T-34/85. But I'll not accept that it was significantly worse, either.
NTM0 -
Certainly the ammo (certain types) that the M4 employed may have had an advantage over the general Russian ammunition and yes the optics were far better than anything teh Russians had, but the guns themselves were superior to those mounted on the American machines. The velocity of the T-34/85 was greater than that of the M4A2's 76mm gun and the 76mm of the earlier T-34 was greater than that of the short 75mm that the previous Shermans possessed. There's just no gettig around that. In any case the "special ammunition" was in such short supply, many US tankers never even caught a whiff of it.
I also disagree that the rubber tracks of the Sherman was better than the track of the T-34. Even the Yanks did away with them to a large degree when they introduced the T49 and T62 type on later models. The metal wide track of the T-34 was clearly the superior item, even if they were "a little crude", and provided much better floatation on muddy ground. The Americans even had to employ "duck bllls" on their Shermans in Western Europe to overcome the problems they had with muddy ground.0 -
Certainly the ammo (certain types) that the M4 employed may have had an advantage over the general Russian ammunition and yes the optics were far better than anything teh Russians had, but the guns themselves were superior to those mounted on the American machines. The velocity of the T-34/85 was greater than that of the M4A2's 76mm gun
Both have muzzle velocoties of approximately 2,600fps and penetrations (with APC) of about 90mm at 500 yards (Leaning slightly in the 76mm's favour), but that isn't the whole story. If the gun and ammunition don't use the velocity correctly, you're going to have an issue of accuracy: See the overpower problems with the 17lbr and the required reduction in velocity provided by the Comet's 77mm 'cut down' 17lbr. You were more likely to score a first-round-hit with the Sherman's 76mm than you would with the Russian 85mm, all other things being equal.and the 76mm of the earlier T-34 was greater than that of the short 75mm that the previous Shermans possessed
It was indeed, by about 5% on the penetration tables. On the other hand, much as the advantage of the 85mm over the US 76mm was in the support role, the Americans 75mm was a better support gun than the Russian 76mm. Considering tanks tended to spend more time firing at things other than tanks, that's not always a bad thing. The various advantages just flip-flopped between the two generations of tank.
[Edit: I guess it is worth acknowledging that a number of 75mm M4s were re-gunned with the Soviet 76.2mm, but according to Zaloga this was simply a matter of logistics: Once the Americans proved reliable in providing adequate supplies of 75mm ammunition, the re-gunning practise stopped]There's just no gettig around that. In any case the "special ammunition" was in such short supply, many US tankers never even caught a whiff of it.
Which is why I wasn't using those figures.I also disagree that the rubber tracks of the Sherman was better than the track of the T-34. Even the Yanks did away with them to a large degree when they introduced the T49 and T62 type on later models.
As much due to supply issues as anything else. There does appear to be a difference in philosophy between Western and Soviet tank design: I'm hard-pressed to think of a single post-war Soviet tank with rubber pads, and I'm similarly hard-pressed to think of a NATO tank without them. I'm personally used to, and am quite fond of, the rubber pad tracks. The Germans had the right idea with their installable grousers on theirs which removed the one main losing point the rubber tracks provided. Which is more important to you, crew comfort and noise, or traction on icy roads? Both have their advantages.
NTM0 -
To the original question,did Russia win WWII?,does this imply the whole war or just Europe?,didn't the Americans put a stop to it in the end and wasn't Russia also at war with the Japanese.0
-
wasn't Russia also at war with the Japanese.
Only for the last week or so. Interestingly, Loza's book also recounts his time using Shermans in the Manchurian offensive against the Japanese.
There is a theory which states that it wasn't the A-Bombs which caused the Japanese to surrender, but the sudden avalanche of Russians coming at them from the West.
NTM0 -
Haven't thay fought before the official WWII? Well after the 1905 conflict,
was it 1939?
Japanese army was defeated and turned eastwards and sothwards, if I remember it correctly...0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Only for the last week or so. Interestingly, Loza's book also recounts his time using Shermans in the Manchurian offensive against the Japanese.
There is a theory which states that it wasn't the A-Bombs which caused the Japanese to surrender, but the sudden avalanche of Russians coming at them from the West.
There's also a theory that the Russians were the reason for the atomic bombs as well.
Firstly to end the war quickly and stop Russia getting too much of a foothold in South east Asia and also to demonstrate to the red Army just how big and bad the US could be if need be.
Japan and Russia fought in 1904 and 1905 over Port Arthur.0 -
-
That's the one...0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement