Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Hitler abandoned his invasion plans before he invaded Russia because he was unable to remove the RAF from the picture.All in all, Hitler couldve easily invaded Britain, and thats a fact during 1941.
QFT
Hitler never really wanted to continue the war with Britain and even offered overtures of peace after he finished off France. Britain's navy and Germany's rather anemic navy by comparison made Operation Sealion a dicey proposition at best.
Good read on Operation Sealion
Russia in no way could of defeated Germany without AmericanBritish and others' assistance. America (and Britain) provided a huge amount of material to the Russians after Russia was invaded. The German Luftwaffe was superior to the Americans/Brits/Russians in many ways but was divided into multiple fronts thus eliminating their superiority. Additionally, America probably couldn't of defeated Germany without Russian assistance because if Russia had fallen there would have been a full army and airforce in France and I doubt an invasion could of occurred. With Germans getting close to the nuclear bomb another year of war may have enabled them to develop it and then a stalemate would have occurred. Just my conjecture this early Black Friday morning, LOL.
At the end of the war the Red Army was the most powerful fighting force in the world and they probably had more tanks, artillery and men than all of rest of the allied forces combined.
It makes no difference as the German army and Luftwaffe had most of their units fighting on the Eastern Front while the other fronts had the scraps as it were. As much as it gives you pain to admit it the Russians did the most damage to the German war machine, not the US/British.Of Panzers. Should have clarified that.
Nope. The German forces on the Eastern front weren't really put onto the back foot until late 1943 or so after Kursk, even scoring victories during 1944 by successfully defending. The first Russian winter in 1941 slowed German progress but it wasn't a killing blow by any means. You grossly overestimate the impact of weather (in terms of deaths) and understimate the effect of the Red Army.Destroyed by winter and then replaced with rejects- that is where Russians actually started making progress.
They invaded France to liberate it. That's a little difference to nuking the whole country, wouldn't you say?The allies invaded parts of France during WW2 too- they were not an ally of ours.
That is BS and you know it. You think those scientists were smart enough to split the atom but were too dumb to figure out the isotype they produced would be unstable and hence radioactive?We knew nothing about radiation poisoning at the time.
Drop it where? You think the Germans would've plonked down all 7 million troops along with thousands of tanks, artillery and planes into a single French village with a sign saying "please nuke me?"Large German troop concentration- drop the bomb.
Within hours the soldiers that passed through ground zero would be unable to fight thanks to death/sickness from radiation poisoning.With the very seasoned Pacific soldiers coming back from dozens of D-Days an atomic bomb followed by them spearheading an invasion would have been extremely effective at obliterating the German's shoreline defenses.
In training perhaps but certainly not in numbers of planes.We had them significantly ouclassed in terms of aviation
Nonsense. Their artillery was mainly what they had produced themselves.their artillery was mainly what they had taken from Germany
The Luftwaffe certainly didn't negate them and that was the most powerful airforce in the world until at least 1942 or so. The sheer number of tanks produced took care of that.and their tanks were negated by air power(they were very ineffectual in surface to air operations).
V2 wasn't artillery by any stretch of the imagination as it was nothing more than a terror weapon against London. You were lucky if the V2 could land in the correct city, much less hit a tank.The V2 made everything else look like a joke in comparison.
The T34 is widely regarded as one of the best tanks of WW2 and it was also the second most widely produced tank ever, coming second to only the T54/T55.The T-34-85 was weak at best
Russians were replacing men at a rate of around 500,000 troops a month. Like I said before, look up the tactical fighting strength of the Red Army at the end of the war and you'll see it's the most powerful land army in history.The Red Army was slaughtered by the Germans.
Germany didn't have the production supremacy over the Soviet Union except maybe right at the start when the Russian factories were dormant. In 1943 for example the Soviet Union manufactured 24,000 tanks compared to Germany's 13,000. By the end of the war Soviet manufacturing had increased, not decreased.With the level of air supremacy and production supremacy Germany had(before US/UK intervention) not a chance.
Attacking merchant ships was a tactical move, not a show of power, and it was a tactic that almost starved Britain into submission.Merchant ships. Shows how much confidence they had in their awe inspiring UBoats.
10:1 is a stretch. Its more like 3:1. Also I wasn't referring to casualties, I was referring to the Russian fighting spirit. In battlefield accounts, the Germans were amazed at how much punishment the Russian could withstand.
I meant that if the Germans had not invaded Russia and used those armies instead to fight in Africa, Gibraltar, and the Middle East, the UK could not defend itself and would lose its overseas empire.
Rommel was a division commander.
The Afrika Corp was no more than 200,000 troops. To his credit he managed to fight the UK/US over the period of two years with this small force.
Why would we go nuking French cities, when it would be better to nuke German?
As much as it gives you pain to admit it the Russians did the most damage to the German war machine, not the US/British.
"I knew first that the Luftwaffe was losing control of the air when the American long-range fighters were able to escort the bombers as far as Hanover. It was not long before they were getting to Berlin. We then knew we must develop the jet planes. Our plan for their early development was unsuccessful only because of your bombing attacks.
"Allied attacks greatly affected our training program, too. For instance, the attacks on oil retarded the training because our new pilots couldn't get sufficient training before they were put into the air.
"I am convinced that the jet planes would have won the war for us if we had had only four or five months' more time. Our underground installations were all ready. The factory at Kahla had a capacity of 1,000 to 1,200 jet airplanes a month. Now with 5,000 to 6,000 jets, the outcome would have been quite different.
"We could have trained sufficient pilots for the jet planes despite oil shortage, because we would have had underground factories for oil, producing a sufficient quantity for the jets. The transition to jets was very easy in training. The jet-pilot output was always ahead of the jet-aircraft production.
"Germany could not have been defeated by air power alone, using England as a base, without invasion -- because German industry was going underground, and our countermeasures would have kept pace with your bombing. But the point is, that if Germany were attacked in her weakened condition as now, then the air could do it alone. That is, the land invasion meant that so many workers had to be withdrawn from factory production and even from the Luftwaffe.
"We bombed cities in England instead of concentrating on aircraft and engine factories despite my original intention to attack only military targets and factories, because after the British attacked Hamburg our people were angry and I was ordered to attack indiscriminately.
"Allied precision bombing had a greater effect on the defeat of Germany than area bombing, because destroyed cities could be evacuated but destroyed industry was difficult to replace.
"Allied selection of targets was good, particularly in regard to oil. As soon as we started to repair an oil installation, you always bombed it again before we could produce one ton.
"We didn't concentrate on four-engined Focke-Wulf planes as heavy bombers after the Battle of Britain, because we were developing the He-177 and trying to develop the Me-264, which was designed to go to America and return. Because our production capacity was not so great as America's, we could not produce quickly everything we needed. Moreover, our plants were subject to constant bombing.
"If I had to design the Luftwaffe again, the first airplane I would develop would be the jet fighter, then the jet bomber. It is now a question of fuel. The jet fighter takes too much. The Me-264 awaited only the final solution of the fuel-consumption problem. According to my view the future airplane is one without fuselage (flying wing) equipped with turbine in combination with the jet and propeller.
"Before D-Day, the Allied attacks in Northern France hurt us the most because we were not able to rebuild in France as quickly as at home. The attacks on marshaling yards were most effective, next came low-level attacks on troops, then attacks on bridges. The low-flying planes had a terror effect and caused great damage to our communications. Also demoralizing were the umbrella fighters, which after escorting the bombers would swoop down and hit everything, including the jet planes in the process of landing.
"The Allies owe the success of the invasion to the air forces. They prepared the invasion; they made it possible; they carried it through.
"Without the U. S. Air Force the war would still be going on elsewhere, but certainly not on German soil."
--Hermann Goering
The first Russian winter in 1941 slowed German progress but it wasn't a killing blow by any means.
They invaded France to liberate it. That's a little difference to nuking the whole country, wouldn't you say?
That is BS and you know it. You think those scientists were smart enough to split the atom but were too dumb to figure out the isotype they produced would be unstable and hence radioactive?
Drop it where?
Within hours the soldiers that passed through ground zero would be unable to fight thanks to death/sickness from radiation poisoning.
In training perhaps but certainly not in numbers of planes.
Nonsense. Their artillery was mainly what they had produced themselves.
The Luftwaffe certainly didn't negate them and that was the most powerful airforce in the world until at least 1942 or so. The sheer number of tanks produced took care of that.
V2 wasn't artillery by any stretch of the imagination as it was nothing more than a terror weapon against London. You were lucky if the V2 could land in the correct city, much less hit a tank.
The T34 is widely regarded as one of the best tanks of WW2 and it was also the second most widely produced tank ever, coming second to only the T54/T55.
Russians were replacing men at a rate of around 500,000 troops a month. Like I said before, look up the tactical fighting strength of the Red Army at the end of the war and you'll see it's the most powerful land army in history.
Germany didn't have the production supremacy over the Soviet Union except maybe right at the start when the Russian factories were dormant. In 1943 for example the Soviet Union manufactured 24,000 tanks compared to Germany's 13,000. By the end of the war Soviet manufacturing had increased, not decreased.
Attacking merchant ships was a tactical move, not a show of power, and it was a tactic that almost starved Britain into submission.
afaik the Germans nuclear ambitions were eliminated with a raid by the british on their heavy water plant in Norway and subsequent sinkings of the ships carrying what was left of their heavy water.
Most indications however seem to point towards martime use of nuclear technology for the germans. They wanted a power source that would allow their U-Boats to be at sea for months at a time.
Originally posted by: gorcorps
and I believe I've seen a red nvidia card (i'm thinking some 6600 but can't remember)
What is 'The T34"? The T34 was a product line that ranged from laughable joke to barely more serious then a sport ute. The entire T34 line was weak, they were small, agile, and utterly ineffective against the Panzers unless they had a 5 or 6 to 1 advantage. They were very poor tanks.
It is amazing how everyone under plays the importance of some and overplay the importance of others. Then they bicker and use facts and quotes from certain generals who are going to be biased as their proof!
No one was there and no one knows for certain.
As for dropping nukes, that is such a careless thing to do.
War is a sad thing, but sometimes is neccessary. Sometimes I think people do not understand war properly and glorify it.
You posted links saying the Allied bombing campaign was effective. That's great and all but that was never under scrutiny. Also your quotes have absolutely nothing do with the Russian front and have nothing to do with land attacks.But what would he know?
Blitzkrieg was already slowed down when it hit the cities like Stalingrad as it doesn't work in street to street fighting.Slowing down a lightning war kind of it killing it.
What the hell does an operation in Madagascar have to do with nuking France? Also the Madagascar forces were controlled by Vichy France. I'm sure you kew that, you just like to waste time on irrelevant tangents.OPERATION IRONCLAD- Look it up.
At one stage it was claimed the Earth was flat but that doesn't change the fact that radical progress in science was still being made. Like any paradigm there are good theories and bad theories and the theory you refer to was obviously a bad theory. That theory was also not only deemed unlikely, it was deemed impossible and it was refuted at the time by other members of the Manhattan project.During the 1940s there were a considerable amount of physicists who refused to partake in the Manhattan project because they felt nearly certain that such an atomic bomb would cause a cascade reaction that would turn the entire planet into one giant nuclear reactor.
All you would get on the coast is a few bunkers with a few nested machine guns, a far cry from the damage the Soviets did to the Germans on the Eastern front.To soften for D-Day? A couple miles or so back from the coast is where they likely would have done it.
Propaganda? At ground zero where the bomb hits a person is literally coverted into a streak on the wall, assuming the wall survives.Good propaganda- not much in the way of accuracy but effective to those that don't know any better.
Sure, those that weren't at ground zero when the bomb hit but were instead many miles away. The probability of radiation poisoning drops with distance. Of course it dramatically increases as you approach ground zero, something Allied soldiers would've done as they passed through France.Many of the people who were impacted by the radiation following Nagasaki and Hiroshima saw no symptoms until years later.
The air battlle over Kursk between the Russian air force and the Luftwaffe was one the largest air battles ever fought. The Russians committed around 2400 aircraft into that battle and the Germans 1800. While it's true the US airforce was superior technically and numerically to the Russian airforce it doesn't change the fact that the Russions had quite a significant air force themselves.You have to be kidding- the Russians could not handle a simplistic bombing mission against the Luftwaffe after we had nearly wiped them out entirely.
Nope, the bulk of the Luftwaffe were fighting in the Eastern front and the bulk of their force was defeated there as well.They were focused in the West, they had to be.
When it was fielded in 1940 it was one of the best tanks in existance.The T34 was a product line that ranged from laughable joke to barely more serious then a sport ute
In terms of men for land forces, artillery and tanks the Russians were ahead of the US.I know the stats in terms of man power- you seem to be quite ignorant to those of the US forces and armaments.
Also after the Luftwaffe had sustained heavy losses in the Eastern front, dramatically reducing their overall tactical strength and their ability to defend the Western skies.Notice you quote numbers years after the allies started destroying Reich factories.
Of course not, everyone knows all the Germans needed to do was nuke the Atlantic and that would've solved their problems. :roll:That certainly didn't requre subs.
T-34/76 was further development based on T-32 medium tank, which was based on A-20 and A-30 prototypes. Pre-production models were produced in early 1940 and full scale production commenced in mid-1940. T-34 Medium Tank (Tridsatchedverka), when introduced into production in June of 1940, was the most advanced tank design in the world. It was superior to any other tank in the world, including feared German tanks. Its revolutionary design featured sloped armor, speed, hitting power and low silhouette along with reliability and low production cost. T-34 although available in small numbers in the early stage of fighting on the Eastern Front gave German Army a nasty shock when first encountered and remained that way until introduction of more powerful anti-tank armament
"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.
"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt
On July 4th, Das Reich had 48 Pz. III's, 30 Pz. IV's (1/4 with short barrels), 12 Tigers, 8 Pz. III command tanks, 18 T-34's, 33 StuG's, and 10 Marders combat ready. On the fifth, the first day of Citadel for the division, its Tigers knocked out 23 tanks in some 6 hours of heavy figting near Beresoff and Hill 233.3 to the north. On the 6th, south of Lutschki, I Bn. Tigers destroyed 10 tanks of the 2nd Guards Tank Corps, but anti-tank fire killed the 6th Pz. company commander, Ustuf. Worthmann. After being awarded the Iron Cross First Class as a company c/o in I/"Langemark" Hstuf. Dieter Kesten took over the 6th Pz. company. By July 13th, Ustuf. Hans Mennel in Pz. IV #621had knocked out 24 tanks during the campaign.
Although from July 5th through the 16th, Das Reich accounted for 448 Russian tanks and SU's, losing a total of 46 panzers and assault guns destroyed, Army Group South failed to completely break through to the final Russian defense line south of Kursk. On the 28th, before it departed for Italy, the Leibstandarte handed over to Das Reich 9 Tigers, 39 Pz. IV's, and 4 Pz. III's, which already had 33 Pz. III's, 17 Pz. IV's, 2 T-34's, and 2 Tigers combat ready.
In the most famous action of the day the T-70 and T-34 tanks of the Red Army's 18th and 29th Tank Corps of the 5th Guards Tank Army charged headlong at the SS's Tigers. The T34s were faster but more lightly armoured and armed - they aimed to exploit weaknesses in the German machines' armour at close range. The Germans destroyed most Soviet tanks at long range, and relatively few became involved in short-range exchanges of fire. German units actually incurred relatively light casualties (only 2 Tigers were lost), and for most of the day they fought in good order. The battle can best be described as a very costly tactical loss but an operative success for the Soviets. The Soviets lost 822 tanks (more than half of them beyond repair), had more than 1000 dead and an additional 2500 missing or wounded. German losses reached less than 10% of that and they had the battlefield at the end of the day.
You posted links saying the Allied bombing campaign was effective. That's great and all but that was never under scrutiny. Also your quotes have absolutely nothing do with the Russian front and have nothing to do with land attacks.
Not only that but without the Luftwaffe's commitments in the east (of which the bulk of their forces were stationed there) the US/British would not have enjoyed the same tactical advantages in the air as they did.
Also the Madagascar forces were controlled by Vichy France. I'm sure you kew that, you just like to waste time on irrelevant tangents.
That theory was also not only deemed unlikely, it was deemed impossible and it was refuted at the time by other members of the Manhattan project.
Additionally as early as 1934 it was known that artificial radioactivity could be created in stable elements by bombarding them with alpha/neutron particles and hence your claim that scientists had no idea about radiation from nuclear weapons is utter lunacy, being second in terms of lunacy only to your claim that nuking France was a viable option.
All you would get on the coast is a few bunkers with a few nested machine guns, a far cry from the damage the Soviets did to the Germans on the Eastern front.
Propaganda? At ground zero where the bomb hits a person is literally coverted into a streak on the wall, assuming the wall survives.
Sure, those that weren't at ground zero when the bomb hit but were instead many miles away. The probability of radiation poisoning drops with distance. Of course it dramatically increases as you approach ground zero, something Allied soldiers would've done as they passed through France.
The air battlle over Kursk between the Russian air force and the Luftwaffe was one the largest air battles ever fought. The Russians committed around 2400 aircraft into that battle and the Germans 1800. While it's true the US airforce was superior technically and numerically to the Russian airforce it doesn't change the fact that the Russions had quite a significant air force themselves.
Nope, the bulk of the Luftwaffe were fighting in the Eastern front and the bulk of their force was defeated there as well.
In 1941/1942 it dominated German tanks due to its ability to move through mud and snow with ease and it easily stood up to any German tank.
In terms of men for land forces, artillery and tanks the Russians were ahead of the US.
Also after the Luftwaffe had sustained heavy losses in the Eastern front,
Are you sure you aren't one of those US Cold War generals from the 1960s? Their universal answer to the world's problems was to push the red button and I'm detecting a similar thought pattern in your "nuke France" policy.
Originally posted by: Gamer X
1.They are red
2.The are less technologicaly advanced and they try to make up for that by employing higher core speeds,but in the end they are less effecient than nvidia cards,Soviet weapons were less technologicaly advanced,bigger,and less effecient than American weapons.
note:If ATI goes out of business that would be a third reason.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Hitler abandoned his invasion plans before he invaded Russia because he was unable to remove the RAF from the picture.All in all, Hitler couldve easily invaded Britain, and thats a fact during 1941.
QFT
Hitler never really wanted to continue the war with Britain and even offered overtures of peace after he finished off France. Britain's navy and Germany's rather anemic navy by comparison made Operation Sealion a dicey proposition at best.
Good read on Operation Sealion
Russia in no way could of defeated Germany without AmericanBritish and others' assistance. America (and Britain) provided a huge amount of material to the Russians after Russia was invaded. The German Luftwaffe was superior to the Americans/Brits/Russians in many ways but was divided into multiple fronts thus eliminating their superiority. Additionally, America probably couldn't of defeated Germany without Russian assistance because if Russia had fallen there would have been a full army and airforce in France and I doubt an invasion could of occurred. With Germans getting close to the nuclear bomb another year of war may have enabled them to develop it and then a stalemate would have occurred. Just my conjecture this early Black Friday morning, LOL.
afaik the Germans nuclear ambitions were eliminated with a raid by the british on their heavy water plant in Norway and subsequent sinkings of the ships carrying what was left of their heavy water.
Most indications however seem to point towards martime use of nuclear technology for the germans. They wanted a power source that would allow their U-Boats to be at sea for months at a time.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
My god people wash over Hitler's shenanigans. HItler had a close aide air drop into England to try to convince England to join him because technical the angles are germanic peoples. That person was thrown in jail immediately. Hitler let the british army survive Dunkirk too.
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
On the T-34s
On July 4th, Das Reich had 48 Pz. III's, 30 Pz. IV's (1/4 with short barrels), 12 Tigers, 8 Pz. III command tanks, 18 T-34's, 33 StuG's, and 10 Marders combat ready. On the fifth, the first day of Citadel for the division, its Tigers knocked out 23 tanks in some 6 hours of heavy figting near Beresoff and Hill 233.3 to the north. On the 6th, south of Lutschki, I Bn. Tigers destroyed 10 tanks of the 2nd Guards Tank Corps, but anti-tank fire killed the 6th Pz. company commander, Ustuf. Worthmann. After being awarded the Iron Cross First Class as a company c/o in I/"Langemark" Hstuf. Dieter Kesten took over the 6th Pz. company. By July 13th, Ustuf. Hans Mennel in Pz. IV #621had knocked out 24 tanks during the campaign.
Although from July 5th through the 16th, Das Reich accounted for 448 Russian tanks and SU's, losing a total of 46 panzers and assault guns destroyed, Army Group South failed to completely break through to the final Russian defense line south of Kursk. On the 28th, before it departed for Italy, the Leibstandarte handed over to Das Reich 9 Tigers, 39 Pz. IV's, and 4 Pz. III's, which already had 33 Pz. III's, 17 Pz. IV's, 2 T-34's, and 2 Tigers combat ready.
Link.
Another take-
In the most famous action of the day the T-70 and T-34 tanks of the Red Army's 18th and 29th Tank Corps of the 5th Guards Tank Army charged headlong at the SS's Tigers. The T34s were faster but more lightly armoured and armed - they aimed to exploit weaknesses in the German machines' armour at close range. The Germans destroyed most Soviet tanks at long range, and relatively few became involved in short-range exchanges of fire. German units actually incurred relatively light casualties (only 2 Tigers were lost), and for most of the day they fought in good order. The battle can best be described as a very costly tactical loss but an operative success for the Soviets. The Soviets lost 822 tanks (more than half of them beyond repair), had more than 1000 dead and an additional 2500 missing or wounded. German losses reached less than 10% of that and they had the battlefield at the end of the day.
Link.
If the T-34s were close to as good as you try and make out the Russians were not nearly as inept as I have made them out to be- they were a staggering amount worse. They had the Panzers significantly outnumberd and according to you had superior tanks and yet the Reich managed a ~10:1 kill ratio.
You posted links saying the Allied bombing campaign was effective. That's great and all but that was never under scrutiny. Also your quotes have absolutely nothing do with the Russian front and have nothing to do with land attacks.
That link was about why they lost the war- the top reason according to Goerring was not the oh so poweful Russians as you are trying hard to make people believe- it was the US/UK assault.
Not only that but without the Luftwaffe's commitments in the east (of which the bulk of their forces were stationed there) the US/British would not have enjoyed the same tactical advantages in the air as they did.
Since you like to bring up Kirsk, the Luftwaffe had a 5:1 kill ratio over the completely inept Russians there too- despite the Russians having a numerical advantage(the Soviets lost nearly half their air force in that battle).
Also the Madagascar forces were controlled by Vichy France. I'm sure you kew that, you just like to waste time on irrelevant tangents.
We had an ambassador to Vichy France- the soldiers defending Madagascar were French Army regulars- they were ones we were killing. France was no ally to us.
That theory was also not only deemed unlikely, it was deemed impossible and it was refuted at the time by other members of the Manhattan project.
It is quite demonstrative of how little was known about secondary impacts of the atomic bomb.
Additionally as early as 1934 it was known that artificial radioactivity could be created in stable elements by bombarding them with alpha/neutron particles and hence your claim that scientists had no idea about radiation from nuclear weapons is utter lunacy, being second in terms of lunacy only to your claim that nuking France was a viable option.
How was it that they were to make the connection of what was happening internally inside of an atomic bomb and what the neutron activity was going to be miles away? What evidence did they have that that was going to be a factor? None.
All you would get on the coast is a few bunkers with a few nested machine guns, a far cry from the damage the Soviets did to the Germans on the Eastern front.
A few bunkers and machine guns? That's odd as Hitler already had plans drawn up and wanted work to begin on a construction comparable to the Maginot Line.
Propaganda? At ground zero where the bomb hits a person is literally coverted into a streak on the wall, assuming the wall survives.
Which relates how to troops moving through after the wake is long gone...?
Sure, those that weren't at ground zero when the bomb hit but were instead many miles away. The probability of radiation poisoning drops with distance. Of course it dramatically increases as you approach ground zero, something Allied soldiers would've done as they passed through France.
The people who took years to show syptoms are those that were miles away and then went to ground zero. Kind of like how the invading force would be.
The air battlle over Kursk between the Russian air force and the Luftwaffe was one the largest air battles ever fought. The Russians committed around 2400 aircraft into that battle and the Germans 1800. While it's true the US airforce was superior technically and numerically to the Russian airforce it doesn't change the fact that the Russions had quite a significant air force themselves.
As I will point out again, they were utterly inept at best. You keep talking about raw numbers but ignore that they were completely ineffective in combat- they were one of the poorest fighting forces in history. If you claims are correct they managed to pilot the best tanks in the world and get their @sses handed to them in an embarassing fashion by those operating inferior machinery. Their air force had a large portion wiped out in a single battle, one in which the Luftwaffe lost a whole 200 planes.
Nope, the bulk of the Luftwaffe were fighting in the Eastern front and the bulk of their force was defeated there as well.
Only in Soviet propaganda. Goerring saw it differently.
In 1941/1942 it dominated German tanks due to its ability to move through mud and snow with ease and it easily stood up to any German tank.
The only time the T-34 had an edge was in the mud/snow- the reason I compared it to a sport ute.
In terms of men for land forces, artillery and tanks the Russians were ahead of the US.
In terms of fighting men, men who were capable of actually performing land battle, tanks capable of doing anything but committing a suicide run and every other element the US was far ahead of the Soviets.
Also after the Luftwaffe had sustained heavy losses in the Eastern front,
Heavy losses, what heavy losses? When did these huge losses occur? Were their planes crashing into buildings?
Are you sure you aren't one of those US Cold War generals from the 1960s? Their universal answer to the world's problems was to push the red button and I'm detecting a similar thought pattern in your "nuke France" policy.
Why? When did I ever in the slightest way advocate what I'm saying WOULD have happened? Everyone in this thread who is familiar with the subject matter seems to be well aware of the fact that it would have. Could you please point me to once ever where I have stated that the Soviets should have been nuked or anything remotely like that? I can tell you now you won't find anything. I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that the Russians were weak and inept in combat- they had weather on their side and an enormous margin in sheer numbers over the Germans- they were vastly superior in nearly every other element.