• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

73 years ago today, WWII was brought to an end

The pre-1944 T-34's were poorly made, poorly designed, and suffered disproportionate losses. In addition to their oil fliter's clogging issues, their exhausts pointed straight at the ground, with all the problems that causes, it leaked water, causing its electrical system to short out, making even a light rain capable of disabling it, its armor was too soft, a flaw which sloping couldn't off-set, it had a very high fuel consumption rate, and last but not least, its transmission and controls were horrible; drivers had to be issued friggng sledgehammers with them in order to move some controls, they were so stiff. The transmissions broke and disabled more tanks than the Germans did. The American engineers' list of recommendations weren't implemented until 1944, with the T34/85 going into production. Even though it was a good tank for the Russian plains, where its speed could utilized, it didn't do well in other terrains.

the much maligned Shermans performed well against them in Korea, too, due to the terrain handicaps on T-34s, until the new 48's arrived in numbers.
 
Last edited:
Gulf an:

The Soviet Union and the USA won WWII. The Soviets did most of the heavy lifting and dying, defeating the bulk of the German and some other Axis militaries and in doing so won a thick buffer zone of subservient client states to shield the USSR from the next possible invasion from the West and was also able to exploit economically those satellite states. The USA paid much less in blood and treasure and got "the Grand Area", a short-lived atomic weapons monopoly and economic, military and political influence/hegemony after the war.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Well OK. But neither wuld have won if the British Commonwealth had not fought for two years all by themselves. Luck that Hitler declared war on both the Ussr and the US, otherwise the Brits might have been alone for several more years.
 
Well OK. But neither wuld have won if the British Commonwealth had not fought for two years all by themselves. Luck that Hitler declared war on both the Ussr and the US, otherwise the Brits might have been alone for several more years.

Britain couldn't win alone, but soon I expect some Brit to come along and tell us all how Montgomery won the war and the U.S. was merely his helpers, mostly in the way and incompetent ... lol

FDR and Ike pandered to them for political reasons, a little too much. They produced some handy inventions, though, no questions there, but in the long run the U.S. could have won without either the Soviets or GB; it just would have taken longer, a couple years more, maybe 3. Their roles were reduced to hired mercenaries after our entry. they had a handy base across the channel, is all.
 
True. The Arrival of British aid and the 125 tanks saved Moscow; the Soviets had nothing left at that point. What factory machinery they had was out-dated and pretty crappy, most of their rail networks were in the western parts of the country, mostly under German control; it's another myth that they 'could have kept on retreating forever', since they would have been reduced to walking and carrying every thing left on their backs or in donkey carts.

Of course they couldn't keep on retreating forever, but that's not really the point. The Germans doomed themselves to failure when they decided to drive on Moscow after taking Kiev.
 
Says the Russians, who themselves admitted lend lease was absolutely essential....


Source ?


...again, says the Russians--and the Germans, for that matter.

Stalin slaughtered huge numbers of his top commanders--anyone who he perceived as a threat, aka anyone who showed initiative whatsoever---and the result was immense Russian casualties in the Winter War, 1941 and 1942....

Really?

Again where is your source ?

When did Zhukov or Stalin ever say that the 1930's purges cost the USSR or Red Army anything significant ?



...that's really basic history bud.


By all mean post your sources of your basic history bud.
 
The Russians ripped through the shattered remnants of the Kwantung Army in 1945, whose best units and halfway decent troops had been transferred away years ago.

And came out of WWII with not insignificant gains in the PTO wouldn't you say ?

The USSR was a winner in WWII...albeit only for a generation or two.
 
But the Germans continued to push into Russia and continued to inflict serious defeats on the Red Army. They didn't take Moscow, but arguing that they were "decisively defeated" is simply, untrue....

Yes, as I stated Germany retained the initiative until the defeat at Kursk because the Red Army had to be basically re-built.

What "serious" defeats did the Red Army suffer after the battle of Moscow ?

The outcome of WWII in the East was decided with the defeat of Nazi Germany's military at the battle of Moscow. All that was left to be decided was the duration of the war, not who won it.
In that sense, yes Germany's defeat before Moscow in the Winter of 1941/42 was ultimately decisive.


...actually, what set the tone of the war in 1941 and 1942 was incompetent Soviet commanders getting huge numbers of their troops wiped out and the Soviets struggling to hang on until decent leadership could be placed in charge

Where were "huge numbers" of Red Army troops wiped out after 1941 ?
 
“Quoting no less a military genius than Marshall Zhukov: "Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Moreover, Zhukov underscored that "we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany."

Konstantin Simonov's (Soviet journalist/poet/novelist) truthful recounting of these meetings with Georgi Zhukov for his book of interviews with Marshall Zhukov (which took place in 1965 and 1966), are corroborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov hiself, which were recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs from 1963 until the Marshall’s demise: "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us? We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance." Interestingly this secretly recorded conversation of Marshall Zhukov is in contradiction with Zkukov’s own book where he "toes the party line" and denigrates the Lend-Lease aid. In view of the Soviet control of publishing, I wonder which I would put most faith in?

….While Zhukov down-played the contributions of Great Britain and Canada, together they dispatched about a million and a half tons of war supplies and food to the USSR between 1941 and 1945 and among the equipment shipped were thousands of aircraft and tanks and well over 200,000 tons of wheat and flour. The United States provided by far the greater share of the aid and sent about sixteen million tons of stores under the Lend-Lease and earlier agreements. Of the total 17,500,000 tons of material aid dispatched to the USSR, it arrived by the North Atlantic sea route to Murmansk and Archangel and also through Persia (Iran/Iraq). The Pacific route, in spite of the fact that it included a long rail haul across the breadth of Siberia, eventually proved capable of importing as much as the North Atlantic and Persian routes combined. Even the entry of Japan into the war against the United States did not seriously check the flow into Vladivostok since all available Soviet freighters were moved over to the Pacific and a large number of United States vessels were transferred to the Soviet flag.

The biggest value of US trucks sent to the USSR was in reverse engineering them and building copies.
 
Britain couldn't win alone...

No but the point is that without Britain hanging in there for two years alone, WWII in Europe would have been won by either Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Neither of which is very appealing.
 
Source ?




Really?

Again where is your source ?

When did Zhukov or Stalin ever say that the 1930's purges cost the USSR or Red Army anything significant ?







By all mean post your sources of your basic history bud.

Do you actually think someone in the USSR could have come straight out and said that the purges were bad when Stalin was alive without taking a bullet?

Are you actually that ignorant?

Khrushchev’s denouncing of Stalin is as close as a regime like that could get.

As for lend lease, Zhukov himself admitted it was desperately needed.

https://www.rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/0...ies-aided-the-ussr-in-its-darkest-hour_575559

For example

“For example, the USSR was very dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically ended rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,[25] with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.[26] In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease,[24] including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars[27] which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.[28]

Furthermore, much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance

Sorry that this exposing your fantasy of Soviet supermen winning through sheer proletarian might, but facts are facts.

I still think it’s hilarious that you actually thought Stalin was capable of admitting he was at fault for any disaster, much less a major one :lamo
 
True. The Arrival of British aid and the 125 tanks saved Moscow; the Soviets had nothing left at that point. What factory machinery they had was out-dated and pretty crappy, most of their rail networks were in the western parts of the country, mostly under German control; it's another myth that they 'could have kept on retreating forever', since they would have been reduced to walking and carrying every thing left on their backs or in donkey carts.



There is no evidence that the Generals that were purged were any better than those that replaced them; the ones that were purged were also political appointees themselves.

Well, before the purges the Red Army was at the forefront of many new tactics such as airborne warfare(paratroopers) and after the purges they were ineffectual at best.

Clearly something changed.....
 
Re: Entirely the wrong attitude - as if racial differences meant anything in physics

It wasn't a question of focus, it was a question of denigrating the high-level physics needed for a theoretical understanding of possible nuclear reactions leading to detonation of a weapons-grade device. The standard Nazi dismissal of high-energy, high-level physics was that it was Jewish physics - & unnecessary to the Third Reich. They were quite right, & doubtless died wondering what went wrong.

The German physicists who estimated the amount of U needed for a military weapon were either poorly informed, or they deliberately sabotaged the project. Either way, the Nazis never pursued the possibility of a nuclear device with any great seriousness.

As to aircraft, Germany never did build a long-distance heavy bomber (during WWII). They apparently thought the air war would be entirely tactical. Yes, they could have designed & built & fielded a long-distance heavy bomber - but they didn't have a consistent approach to what was needed. & they were too busy trying to keep up & improve conventional weapon production, let alone build a design bureau from the ground up, on a theoretical weapon that might not be ready in time for the current war. There were several severe theoretical hurdles to jump over to get to weapons production - TMK, the Nazis balked @ every one.

Mostly it was Hitler who balked. For example, Hitler delays mass production of jet fighters for nearly 2 years demanding a 4 engine jet bomb be built. His fixation on attacking British civilians was one of hundreds of horrible decisions he made, most of all when he made himself head of the Germany military.

Personally, in my opinion the WORST military mistake he made was the holocaust as it not only cost him nearly all his Jewish scientists (even those forced to stay and work were not devoted) and lead to Einstein - otherwise a strict pacifist - to warn FDR about the German bomb program (for which a team was sent to successfully destroy their heavy water production) and for the USA to start its own A-bomb program instead (though not finished until Germany out of it.)
 
And came out of WWII with not insignificant gains in the PTO wouldn't you say ?

The USSR was a winner in WWII...albeit only for a generation or two.

No it wasn't. The USSR survived. The USA won the war in terms of after benefits. The USSR was a far 2nd place.
 
The pre-1944 T-34's were poorly made, poorly designed, and suffered disproportionate losses. In addition to their oil fliter's clogging issues, their exhausts pointed straight at the ground, with all the problems that causes, it leaked water, causing its electrical system to short out, making even a light rain capable of disabling it, its armor was too soft, a flaw which sloping couldn't off-set, it had a very high fuel consumption rate, and last but not least, its transmission and controls were horrible; drivers had to be issued friggng sledgehammers with them in order to move some controls, they were so stiff. The transmissions broke and disabled more tanks than the Germans did. The American engineers' list of recommendations weren't implemented until 1944, with the T34/85 going into production. Even though it was a good tank for the Russian plains, where its speed could utilized, it didn't do well in other terrains.

the much maligned Shermans performed well against them in Korea, too, due to the terrain handicaps on T-34s, until the new 48's arrived in numbers.

The main plus of the T-34 was that it was very simplistic and straight forward design so could be produced in massive numbers. Germany's medium and heavy battle tanks were superior BUT took 5 to 20 times as much manpower to build and were so complex they were not reliable. The main design plus of the T34 was sloped armor, allowing a lighter weigh per horsepower in terms of penetration resistance.

Germany should have stuck with the Panther rather than the extremely labor intense, horrible fuel economy and extremely break down prone Tigers, but Hitler like showy stuff as a ego thing.

The USA's Sherman tank became nearly a completely different tank in combat capability when the original pea shoot cannon was replaced with a bigger caliber gun. The original Sherman was go-to-war-with-what-you-got, same for awful British tanks and French tanks were a joke.
 
And came out of WWII with not insignificant gains in the PTO wouldn't you say ?

The USSR was a winner in WWII...albeit only for a generation or two.

No, not really. Korea was split in half, with a northern communist regime whose aggression soon got it bombed to hell and back.

China was mostly unified, more due to the local Chicoms than the Soviets, and the Russians couldn’t control them like they could the Eastern European puppets.
 
Successful improvisation under pressure is rare



The USA's Sherman tank became nearly a completely different tank in combat capability when the original pea shoot cannon was replaced with a bigger caliber gun. The original Sherman was go-to-war-with-what-you-got, same for awful British tanks and French tanks were a joke.

I remember reading somewhere that the French tanks were good machines, but their deployment was scattered out in penny packets - as a kind of rolling pillbox in support of infantry. The tanks weren't put into specialized mobile units to either cause or exploit a breakthrough in enemy lines, & rampage in the rear areas. Nor did they all have radios.

The Nazis breaking into France nearly lost a crucial battle to French armor, when a German artillery unit pressed their 88mm flak cannon into service as an improvised anti-tank gun line - @ which they were quite good; high-velocity round, flat trajectory. Brilliant making do by a line officer.
 
Yes, as I stated Germany retained the initiative until the defeat at Kursk because the Red Army had to be basically re-built.

What "serious" defeats did the Red Army suffer after the battle of Moscow ?

The outcome of WWII in the East was decided with the defeat of Nazi Germany's military at the battle of Moscow. All that was left to be decided was the duration of the war, not who won it.
In that sense, yes Germany's defeat before Moscow in the Winter of 1941/42 was ultimately decisive.




Where were "huge numbers" of Red Army troops wiped out after 1941 ?

Do you seriously not comprehend the contradiction in your own claims?

The Red Army needed to be rebuilt because not only had its officers been purged, but it had suffered immense losses.

In Barbarossa alone the casualties they took were horrific

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encirclements_of_Soviet_forces_during_Operation_Barbarossa
 
Re: Probably T-34s

Likely T-34s, the premier medium tank of WWII. On a Christie (US) suspension, which the US Army declined to use. Excellent mobility, speed, & with a 76.2mm high-velocity cannon, an excellent tank killer.

All the more amazing is it was produced in 1940 when the premier German tank killer was the PZIII with the 37MM gun.
 
The biggest value of US trucks sent to the USSR was in reverse engineering them and building copies.

The front line Soviet officers would disagree; the U.S. made trucks were preferred by far, to the extent frontline officers would 'commandeer' them, at times even at gunpoint, for their own use in their supply lines. the Soviet made ones were crap.
 
A decent analysis of myth versus actual performance re T-34's.

The T-34 in WWII: the Legend vs. the Performance | Operation Barbarrosa

The T-34’s Overall Combat Results in 1941

"The combat results for 1941 show the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost. (5) If all German fully tracked AFVs (assault guns, tank destroyers, SP artillery, etc) and losses from Germany’s allies are included in the German figures, then the ratio drops to 6.6 to 1 in the German favour.
Of the total of 20 500 Soviet tanks lost in 1941, approximately 2 300 were T-34s and over 900 were mostly KV heavy tanks.(7) Even if the T-34’s loss ratio was better than seven for every German tank, it was still most likely in the region of four or five to one. Frankly, if 2 300 of any new Wehrmacht tank type had been lost within six months of its first deployment, even with a loss ratio of one to one (let alone 0.2-0.3 to one), then most WWII historians would have described the tank’s combat record as an unmitigated disaster."


Those Pz III's were better tanks than T-34's. I already listed many of the problems with the pre-1943 versions, but most people are still stuck on believing the T-34's were always the T-34/85's produced in 1944, not the rolling junk piles of '41-'43. the year by year stats are discussed at the link.
 
Last edited:
I already listed many of the problems with the pre-1943 versions, but most people are still stuck on believing the T-34's were always the T-34/85's produced in 1944, not the rolling junk piles of '41-'43. the year by year stats are discussed at the link.

It's pretty important to remember that the Red Army's poor performance in 1941 was principally the result of poor training and a lack of good low level leadership, moreso than technology or any other factors. A competent Red Army in 1941 would've inflicted far heavier losses on the Germans regardless of the technological parity they faced.
 
It's pretty important to remember that the Red Army's poor performance in 1941 was principally the result of poor training and a lack of good low level leadership, moreso than technology or any other factors. A competent Red Army in 1941 would've inflicted far heavier losses on the Germans regardless of the technological parity they faced.

I don't disagree, and I would answer that the same circumstances applied to their factories' leadership and backwardness of their equipment and machinery.
 
I don't disagree, and I would answer that the same circumstances applied to their factories' leadership and backwardness of their equipment and machinery.

Eh, it was more or less inevitable.

Soviet industrialization was very much a brute force effort but it was also critically essential in modernizing the Soviet Union. Had it not occurred, no amount of lend lease would've saved the USSR.
 
Do you actually think someone in the USSR could have come straight out and said that the purges were bad when Stalin was alive without taking a bullet?

Stalin has been dead for how long ?


...are you actually that ignorant?


Could not Zhukov have said anything at the time Khrushchev was denouncing Stalin ? (I mean he didn't die until 1974)

Are you actually that ignorant ?

Do you have ANY sources that prove or even claim that Stalin's purges actually cost the USSR any significant losses in WWII or cost the USSR victory ?

Or are you just making ignorant claims ?


...as for lend lease, Zhukov himself admitted it was desperately needed....

Desperately needed yes,
Essential for victory ? No.
The USSR was capable of manufacturing trucks.

...“For example, the USSR was very dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically ended rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,[25] with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.[26] In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease,[24] including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars[27] which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.[28]

Furthermore, much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance...

Awesome...since you're into Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II


...sorry that this exposing your fantasy of Soviet supermen winning through sheer proletarian might, but facts are facts....

You don't sound very sorry and your facts are not actually "facts"

Yes the USA and UK send much needed aid to the USSR but it didn't mean the difference between victory and defeat.

The USSR was quite capable of manufacturing what it needed to beat Nazi Germany....and it did.

....I still think it’s hilarious that you actually thought Stalin was capable of admitting he was at fault for any disaster, much less a major one...


You probably find lots of things hilarious...the Cartoon Network would, I suspect, be a major source.

No-one said Stalin ever came out - or would even have the slightest motivation in doing so - and admitted he was in error when he purged the ranks of the Red Army in the 1930's

The questions was who has EVER said Stalin's purges caused a significant adverse performance to the Red Army in WWII.


Sadly I find no humor in yet another sad example, of America's failed education system, to accurately read and interpret printed text.
 
The front line Soviet officers would disagree; the U.S. made trucks were preferred by far, to the extent frontline officers would 'commandeer' them, at times even at gunpoint, for their own use in their supply lines. the Soviet made ones were crap.


Yes, I imagine US built Shermans would be much more preferable to front line soldiers that Soviet built T-34's.

However if I was Stalin, I would not switch production from the T-34 to the M4 Sherman.
 
Back
Top Bottom