The Russians clearly don't have much good experience with counter insurgency warfare, they didn't do so well in South Ossetia either.
And, this time they are going to fly over Soviet territory with tens of thousands fighters. Good luck with that. They didn't. But most importantly, they lacked fuel and trained pilots. Unlike the other nations, Japan and Germany didn't send it's best pilots to train recruts. This lead to deficit of trained pilots, when the aces were shot down. The reason they (Japan) adopted kamikadze tactics. You don't need to train a recrut hard and you don't need a lot of fuel, if it is going to be a one-way trip. Bad for them. Hehehe. Most of Red Army aircraft would kick your aircraft ass any day. La-5 and Yak-3 was superior to any prop-driven model US had in production. Arguably better than Spitfires too. Nope. Most importantly, they were waaay smaller, excepting USAAF. With high statistical probability Soviet airforce was bigger than RAF. The top 10 allied aces were all Soviet pilots. Richard I. Bong was only 11-th. In other words, Soviet Union had better pilots. Shows how ignorant you are. Allies kill/death ratio on Western front was 2:1 compared to 1,3:1 on Eastern front. Basically, US and Britain has less trained soldies or worse officers corps or less courage or all mentioned above. Live with that. Ugh...you were going to say "Americans poor perfomance in Vietnam", right? Also, a guy, who didn't heard "Spetsnaz" word always amuse me. Kicking Western-style trained army in 5 days, surely, is poor....compared...to what exactly? PM me, when you pull out that German сock out of your mouth, fanboy. If it will ever happen. You are so used to it, so...
Spetsnaz are well known, it's how they were utilized in conjunction with Soviet counter insurgency strategy that would be at issue here. And South Ossetia is another prime example of the Russian military tradition of applying a hammer when a scalpel would do the job.
90% not less, of the Nazi war machine was focused on Russia. It works against allies aggrandizement to consider they took on only 10% of the Nazi war effort. Some decades ago, Time magazine dedicated an issue to this topic. With lots of picture graphs to demonstrate, 90% / 10% - tanks, men, etc. Moi
I give credit where its due. They won the war. I acknowledge some of the good weapons they did produce and some achievements and so forth. But I also wont take credit from the Germans (or any other country) for their achievements. The Germans were more efficient per man than the Soviets. We all know this except for KGB. But the Soviets had overwhelming amounts of men that Germany could never hope to mobilize.
I actually examined the numbers of Active German units throughout the war to try to form a study to see if Germany would have been able to beat the Soviet Union if it hadnt been split on multiple fronts. The largest percentage of German forces that were allocated to the Ostfront was in 1941 where 83% of total German operational forces were active. The percentage continues to decrease as the war goes on although I cant recall how low it gets. I dont recall it ever getting below 70% but I cant recall.
Actually the Japanese had a very capable air force that could have stood up to anyone except they lost their best pilots in the first carrier engagements with US forces. They had better planes but we quickly developed better pilots and tactics until later in the war when our aircraft capabilities surpassed theirs. And ultimately no air force in the war could have matched the US in both pilots and aircraft.
Try pulling all those soviet dicks out first. Then we will talk. And btw P-51=faster, higher ceiling, better range, and more firepower than yak-3 or LA-5. Soviet Union didnt even test its first nuke until 49. The allies would have been nuking the Soviets for 4 years before they could even fight back. Cities in ruin and the soviets having no way to maintain a massive army, we would watch it implode on a more massive scale than the Germans. If Stalin thought he could have taken on the allies then he wouldnt have stopped at Germany. He knew that USSR could only control the continent and he had no way of conducting overseas operations, while the Allies could strike him.
The Soviets didn't win the war by themselves. They took on the bulk of the German Army, inflicted the most casualties, while suffering the most, this is true. But stating that they beat the Nazis all by their lonesome is wildly inaccurate.
Correct Those big heavy Sovietsky trucks transporting the instruments of war were "made in America". Unfortunately, after the war, Truman failed to soften Stalin with an American rebuilding program such as experienced by Japan and Germany - and less so England and France. What a lark Moi
The Soviet Union defeated Germany more because of its size, the size of its population, and its winter weather than anything else. German forces were not sufficient to hold so much ground; they were outnumbered and under-equipped. These liabilities were obvious, but Hitler and his circle actually believed what they said about "race," so they attacked without regard. The Germans made another crucial mistake, which was probably their undoing. When they first invaded, they were welcomed as liberators by most Soviets. Stalin's regime had been so cruel that the people could only imagine the Germans would be an improvement. The Germans were greeted with celebrations in many communities. In fact, an entire Soviet army, commanded by General Vlasov, surrendered to the Germans at his command and actually fought on the German side. (After the War, Stalin hunted down all "Vlasovites" and had them tortured and killed.) Stalin himself fled Moscow, the Soviet armies retreated, and it seemed that the Soviet regime, having already murdered tens of millions of its people, would be cast off by a union of Germans and Soviet citizens. That was when the Germans made their fatal blunder. Instead of embracing the Soviet citizens and making common cause with them, they acted on the Nazi theory that eastern Europeans were "untermenschen" (under-people) and unworthy. They killed and persecuted the very people who had welcomed them. Pity the poor Soviet people! They were caught between two murderous regimes. So they had to fight the Germans because the Germans killed more people, more immediately, than even Stalin. That was when the tide turned. Even then, the Soviet citizens were so reluctant to attack Germans, whom they still hoped might help them overthrow the communists, that Soviet commanders threatened to machine-gun any retreating Soviet soldiers. The Soviet commanders made good on this threat, and many thousands of retreating soldiers were gunned down. That was how the Soviet soldiers became so desperately brave - they were caught between Germans on one side and their own commanders on the other. It was a blunder for Germany to invade so large and so populous a country as the Soviet Union, an enterprise for which they had neither the manpower nor the equipment. It was madness to reject the support of rebellious Soviets ready to help them. That was how Germany lost on the eastern front. This whole story can be found in Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago," and other histories.
nah it's a good assessment, the western front was virtually non existent until D-Day and even after the bulk of german army was fighting the soviets...from june of '41 until june of '44 the soviets did the fighting the africa campaign being little more than a sideshow operation... the soviets would have won the war on their own if D-Day had never occurred, D-Day only hastened the end by a year...
the germans regarded the slavs as less than human and only a step up from jews so being allied with them was problematic...
I disagree. The allies consisting of GB and USofA implemented a strategic bombing campaign that hindered both the logistical and manufacturing facets of the German war machine. The Soviets did not have the inventory of long range bombers and attack aircraft to harass the Germans within the borders of Deutschland the way their other allies did. To fend off the bombers, the Luftwaffe shifted many resources away from the Eastern front to take on the bombers, usually unescorted until the introduction of long range fighter aircraft like the P-51. The Soviets deserve much credit for what they did accomplish; however to flatly state they could have taken Berlin by themselves is an historical inaccuracy. You're Canadian right? Take pride in the fact that Canadian aircraft and pilots did a remarkable job in their own right decimating the Luftwaffe. Many of the aces of WW2 were Canadian. Make no mistake, air power won the day when it was all said and done and whoever controlled the skies over the battlefield usually won the battle. To give you an idea of the influence of even a single aircraft in a battle space...consider the legendary Hans Rudel....piloting his Stuka claimed over 500 Soviet tank kills on the Eastern front. Two or three division's worth of armor and vehicles destroyed...by a single aircraft and crew.
I was referring to the fact that they were on the winning side and one of the biggest contributors not that they were the only victors of the war.
Dont forget the Navy. The navy and air force of the USA and UK more or less strangled Germany and allowed the Soviets to wear them down to nothing.
I'm going to have respectfully disagree with you. Stalin was on the verge of defeat, only to be saved by the famous Russian winter. If the Germans could have used every asset they had, I'm under the opinion that the Soviets would have lost the war. Hitler's meddling also aided the Soviets. If it would have been left to his generals, there's a possibility the outcome would have been different. Next, lend-lease played a more vital role than people give it credit for. I just think it's too simplistic to say one nation defeated the Nazis alone. - - - Updated - - - I apologize I misinterpreted what you stated.
I wonder if that takes into account the hundreds of thousands of Russian POWs who volunteered to fight for the Germans?
I think it's fair to say that the Soviets never could have defeated the Germans on their own without the help of Britain and America, and vice versa.
Maybe, though I suspect Hitler would of most likely found a way to screw it up no matter what happened.
Not so. It would have taken the USSR longer to defeat Hitler but, yes they would have done it. That's why you don't get in a land war in Asia. Too big. Too many Asiatics. Moi
historically weather is always a factor in war,great leaders use it to their advantage and bad ones pay the price for ignoring it...Hitler ignored napoleons struggles with the Russian winters but arrogantly thought he could defeat the soviets before winter set in and failed to properly equip his armies for a winter war...the soviets were equipped to deal with the weather...so it wasn't winter that defeated the Germans but poor logistics which is surprising considering typical German efficiency I posted the same several pages back... the english channel and american channel(atlantic ocean)also played a more vital role than people give credit for... I never said that, it was combined effort but the soviets carried the heaviest load by far...
quite possibly, his armies were so well lead they were often victorious in spite of his screw ups but even a great army can only tolerate a limited number of Stalingrads...
we'll never know how it may have unfolded had Hitler allowed Guderian continue the drive to Moscow...
