It was quite the opposite the USSR had to literally rebuilt its army because Germany kill almost everyone in it when they in circled them in the beginning of the advance on the Soviet it only turned around in the Soviets favor when the Germans were getting spread thin from fighting on 4+ fronts
This is neither important nor relevant. Most were guys and white in US, UK, Nazi and Soviet, then the japanese guys. few units were female in soviet sure, and a few were black in US sure. Good as is with few premium squads with those other, leave it at that least ruin the immersion of the game. And really? golden order weapons as arguement? you buy 1 rare weapon for a gold to one of you dudes, and now you want to go full woke leftist history revision cause of that? get out of here!
you’re a joke
2 Likes
It wasn’t a question of time. The US supplied a ridiculous amount of food, boots, trucks, trains, as well as virtually all the aviation fuel used by the Soviet Union. Without that aid the Soviets could not have built up a reserve force for a counter attack with a highly focused industrial base which doesn’t have to make all the other necessary wartime supplies.
Far more prominently than elsewhere, but it cannot be overstated how rare this was in general. It’s shoved in your face for propaganda purposes but it was statistically irrelevant.
1 Like
“I don’t see any reasons for “bad totalitarian regime” to lie about this?”
Yeah governments never lie, especially some of the worst ones in history.
Not like propaganda is a thing
In the grand scheme of things, sorry Italy, but it’s barely comparable to something like Rzhev.
It’s not about how many men you lose, it’s about the impact, I believe.
E.g.: Germany loses 6th army in Stalingrad = whole of army group south is done.
While Italy was done even before capitulation and not a real threat to anyone. It’s like Finland capitulating.
Super important achievements, indeed.
However, even without air superiority (which Germany still had during Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk to an extent) and even with gained intelligence (credit to the Brits for informing about Kursk plans), someone still had to shoot the millions of guys who came to your home to burn your villages and send your family as workforce by trains (if they aren’t disposed of since they ‘aren’t human’).
Iirc 182 British tanks were used in the battle of Moscow.
Meanwhile in the second half of 1941, the USSR produced 4649 armored vehicles.
Full credit for the subsequent ramp up of supplies of food, powder, locomotives, trucks, boots, fuel, etc.
But in 1941-early 1942 when the main German offensive was stopped, lend lease wasn’t really there yet in significant numbers.
You’re repeating the same mistake as the Germans, thinking it was the army, while the initial encirclements and losses were bad, it was some divisions and regiments, not the whole army, as Germans had though.
Lmao what 4+ fronts? The 40k guys in Africa?
90% of German forces were at the Eastern Front and the war turned around when those got stopped, mauled and counter attacked at Moscow, then Stalingrad, then Kursk, then operation Bagration.
You can’t seriously think we can know what would have happened without the lend lease?
The Germans barely touched the Volga, look at how much land and people there is beyond it.
You think the Soviet people would accept extermination?
Obviously none of us know how alternative history would play out but I think it’s safe to say Germany bit more than it could chew in any case.
2 Likes
For the Soviets maybe.
Mostly because of Allied “actions” and it stilll opened a gate to Europe.
Yeah, after having possible the best “K/D” in the entire war and forcing Soviets to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops because of the stupid and pointless Winter War…
1 Like
Just compare the number of divisions/vehicles used in those other fronts.
Americans are hyping up their battle of Anzio and it was… 20k Germans.
That’s like every other village fight on the Eastern Front every day for 4 years, just not PR’d as much.
And what did the gate lead to?
Please, Italy was irrelevant since 1941.
I’m talking about second Finland capitulation in 1944 – just like Italy, it was nice but not a game changer.
1 Like
Yes! Was kind of surprised we got Moroccan auxillaries for Tunisia, but no Ghurkas yet (??), no Senegalese tirailleurs… so much material left unmined. Also for Tunisia, Bosnian Handschar unit. And for Stalingrad, could we beg for maybe a single Italian or danube unit?? I was so disappointed when that campaign came out to feature… an exclusively German lineup identical to the Moscow campaign. What was the point? Hungarians, Romanians and Italians all fought in the Kessel.
So basically most Soviet battles.
Dunno man. If the Soviets would have give a crap about their own soldiers and have a decent strategic plan, they wouldn’t lose like 20k men for some stupid village and that wouldnt be normal.
And now numbers matter?
Germany needing to waste ressources and manpower to prevent Allies from sworm the continent which is a bit easier since Italy is not flat shithole and Allies prefer not to lose 100k soldiers for some random village.
Yeah sure.
so do I. The Soviets needed to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops for a"not game-changing" nation, which still managed to inflict a similarly high number of casualties (again) for around three years plus increasing the pressure on Leningrad where the Soviets needed how many years and troops again to lift the siege?
Pretty sure those resources and manpower could have helped elsewhere.
1 Like
Iam talking about that of your post:
And ia was saying that:
I mean less men , higher level of motorisation. Other way of fighting.
That is misconception. As I said, axis number of miltary personell was growing through war, not declaining. It was eqipment and gas they were lacking. And they were lacking because coudnt sea trade (blocade) and couldnt produce (air strikes).
well, its more like fact resulting from some of statistics.
No, low temperatures were equally devastating for both sides. Main reason why nazi offesive was stoped was streached ligistic lines. And heare me out here. After war started in 39 germans were bulding extensive railroads on territory of Poland. Wishaut it barbarossa wouldnt be so sucesfull in first months. To continue war on east, so far from major industrial centres they had to reastablish proper supply chains.
Its not something strange. Red army also had to have ,breaks" after every offnsive the lounched against axis. It wasnt one great tsunami of en and steal how it is often depict.
And Iam not saying tha nazi would won easy if they stoped for the moment. But it is still veary possible that 1vs1 would and with lebensraum or other nazi s*it.
Well, no. Wermacht after failing barbarossa (what wasnt total failure as we know) was still veary much capeable of doing harm. Even if we will assume that it couldnt move forward, he could easy just sit intreached on already occupaied territory. Red army hadnt enough eqipment, to luch full scale counter-attack without material help from allies. Yes, there was that winter offensive what results were far from destroying wermacht potential. Also we can argue that if japan atacked zsrr as nazi hoped at some point this offensive wouldnt had a place.
But it just proves that third reich couldnt wage war with everyone at onece without cordinating it with rest of axies, as they did.
ffs sorry I meant was GDP.
just beacouse they were killing or capturing soviets faster. and i dont think it was majority of eastern front, more like concentrated forces on some offensive directions
Also:
it wasnt super. It just wasnt handicapted as red army was.
soviet propagada. veary popular one
gueas what would happend if axis didnt fought in weast, east and south in 1941 and commited of all forces in barbarossa? It would be like additional big number of basicly evrything. And this number was occupied at the moment by fighting with allies, quite the opposite how Soviet and later Russian ideologues would like you to think.
It’s not losses.
There were 20k Germans at Anzio IN GENERAL.
And those sizes of battles weren’t even considered battles on the Eastern Front because they happened like every day.
It started declining at one point obviously. There is a video I quoed above with lots of data.
Nope, more like alternative history speculation.
Yes, but the main thing about stopping an invasion is fighting.
You still need to fight even the logistically failed enormous wehrmacht.
Barbarossa was the last time Germany could mount a multi-dimensional offensive with millions of men.
After they got bonked at Moscow they never again had the steam to launch an attack on such a front and had to go with smaller attacks (Stanilgrad – super bonked, Kursk – still bonked).
That would be like +5% men and +1% tanks.
Insignificant.
Like please, there were under 40 Tiger tanks in North Africa at any point.
And Germany made ~1350 till August 1944.
Guess who fought and destroyed the 1350-40=1310?
Huh? Until 1944 like 85-90% of German forces and focus was on the Eastern Front.
lol no. untill 44 it was f growing
well, whole Great Patriotic War story is altrnative history speculation for me.
But main reason for stoping actually there in my unqualified opinion was lacks in logistic. Noone saying that soviets didnt fight. They fought from the start (there is myth that they preferred to surrender bc they hated stalin, its bullshit ofc). But what is more conserning is narration that soviets fought alone and nazi war effort directed into west was nonexistent.
and that is bc they had still milions of man, but were lacking eqipment and petrol. Again, it was coused by bomb runs and sea blockade.
idk where you got that statistics. Also air force would be more important.
bc there were not any tigers anywhere yet (yes first few were introduced on estern front, but they were abounded. Soviets didnt even noticed them) . And why tigers would be so important anyways? Also as I said there were more ubots produced than tigers in war. If there had not been a war on the ocean, there would have been much, much more armored equipment.
again why tigers alone are so important for you xd? I would understand stugs bc of its costeffective.Why tigeres alone would pushed whole front or decide about war? Its just overgloryfied tank prduced in rather small quantities.
if we dont count fleet and air forces just maybe. Ebven then rested 15% of strength would make a big difference. And soviets had the biggest problem with luftwaffe. And to the and of the war. And air superiority was basis of all german operations.
also it looks like you think that all produced tigers ware used exclusively on eastern front. and all were destroyed there,
It was just used as random example number.
Then it wouldnt make them more important. It again just cleary shows the poor strategic performance of the Soviets.
20k Germans attack village X = poor strategic performance of the Soviets?
Dude, please.
I understand downplaying USSR/Russia is trendy, but let’s not pretend 40k axis in North Africa is comparable with 4 million axis in western USSR.
1 Like
Yeah, like I said earlier, it’s on par with the number of Blacks who saw combat in US service.
In all fairness just about every side in WW2 had horribly inept leadership. Stalin was a bastard, no argument. But we also have Hitler with his own Germany either wins or disappears, Mussolini with his let’s start a war and yolo approach, Churchill who was more or less single-handedly responsible for such brilliant strategies like the Gallipoli massacre in WW1 and who proposed to throw anthrax and poison gas on the French in hopes of getting some Germans in the process. Then we have Hirohito that couldn’t get his house in order or make his army remotely coordinate with his fleet. Also the same Hirohito who conveniently turned a blind eye to massive genocides and blatant war crimes when it suited him. Lastly you have FDR who saw lend-lease and war (economy) as a means to fix the crashing US economy at the time. Casualties and peoples sentiment be damned.
They all sent young men to die in a war with little to no concerns other than how it would reflect on their fiscal bottomline.
Ever heard of exaggeration?
Jesus Christ…
Dunno man. If some people write how Stalin saved country x without jking, I would rather be concerned about that, not to mention that the “no-downplayers” apparently have a humor level of Germans.
Ironic. At first, its not only numbers but now we are ging back at numbers I guess.
I dont know how this is supposed to be about the poor Soviet leadership if the comparison is bad apart from the strategic stupidity of Germany and Italy and Japan (even though it doesn’t make sense in that relation beyond the infight between the Army and the Navy).
When Churchill lost in Turkey, he got removed from his position and was politically burned for many years. Never heard of the gas thing in WW1, only in WW2 as a response to the Germans attacking British and French cities with V2 rockets. Was any of the generals truly demoted or so, who failed against Finland or even witnessed the same fate as the “traitors” during the Great Purge?
I also dont see how the economy-focus of the US during WW2 means that they have issues with strategy on the same level as the Soviets or the Germans. The stupidity would rather start in Vietnam, maybe even in Korea before they removed McArthur.
Well. Not really as long as you want to get reelected or prevent your dictatorship from facing a similar fate as the USSR with Afghanistan.
1 Like
Oh boy are you in for a treat, then. Or to put it in the words of the man himself: “Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?” cirza third battle of Gaza in 1917, or “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.” around August 1919 when used against Bolsheviks near Archangelsk. There’s also the “It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.”
“uncivilized tribes” apparently including everyone except the British.
Voroshilov escaped getting shot by a hair, Meretskov the same except the NKVD reportedly beat the ever loving crap out of him for several months. Shtern was tortured until his eye apparently popped out of his head due to massive electricity that was used, and shot a year or two later. Dukhanov was set to be shipped to Siberia but was pardoned after the Germans invaded. Frolov very much the same.
The theme seems to be that the Germany invading saved their skins because it became apparent to even Stalin that he can’t kill ALL of his generals. Especially during wartime.
It’s all good as long as you’re winning.