World War 2 History

Brave Italian soldiers!

Вось такі гібрыд англіскага танка і нямецкай гаўбіцы 105-мм САУ G.Pz. Mk. VI (e)

plug_nickel wrote:Brave Italian soldiers!

At least they are all in step!

This Youtube video gives a good account of why were German tanks optics better than those of the Allies:

Most informative. Thanks. I need to make some of those tables for the game.

I found an interesting article about a Soviet tanker relating his experience with US Sherman tanks. Apparently the Soviet crews love them. He also says they were not prone to spalling ( spalling is when shards of metal from the internal armour of a tank are flown around inside the tank after a hard hit by a shell on the external armour.) unlike the T34s. Interesting remarks.

https://www.theshermantank.com/lee-and-grant-tanks/soviet-shermans-the-soviet-union-used-and-liked-the-sherman/

Very cool interview. I didn't even know that the USSR operated Shermans.

I am doubtful that they could fit 17 normal sized men inside a Lee tank.

Me too to be honest, even through Ruskies are a wild lot, 17 in a Lee no way!

The Soviets operated tons of US equipement; aircrafts, jeeps, GMC trucks, tanks , apcs. I knew about the Shermans but I didn't know they had that many.

Maybe they were all Putin and Medvedev size.

Lend-Lease shipments of Sherman tanks to USSR was more then 4000 pieces.

According to the ruzzians, they won the war all by themselves.

According to the ruzzians, they won the war all by themselves.

Let's be honest they and Hollywood think the war was won by one country and they are not talking about the same one....

WWII began in 1939 when USSR and Germany were allies and occupied Poland.

frinik wrote:According to the ruzzians, they won the war all by themselves.

Let's be honest they and Hollywood think the war was won by one country and they are not talking about the same one....

Let's be even more honest and realize that a certain portion of the English speaking world has an inferiority complex because their movie industry is non-existent or has a tiny audience.
What is objectionable about an American movie industry making movies about American experiences, that appeal to an American audience?
To be even handed, I don't recall many films from the UK, Canada or Australia about Midway, Okinawa or Guadalcanal, nor would I expect to.
To those that cavil about an American movie industry making movies about battles that America participated in, from an American perspective, I say get busy and produce the stories that you want put out there.

Tanker that's not what i was referring to. For example the The Longest Day with John Wayne features only Americans one would think there were no other nations present that day. Same with Saving Private Ryan, the movie U571 about the capture of a German submarine which led to the deciphering of the German enigma machine giving the Allies the possibility of reading German coded messages was done by a British crew yet the Hollywood film changed the Brits for an all American crew. How many Americans I have met expressed the notion that Europe was saved by the Americans forgetting they entered the war 3 years after it started while Britain held alone. Or telling Europeans if it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German as if the other Allied countries including the Soviets had support roles. I like Americans and the US but I am very aware of the US tendency to be super self-centred when it comes to accomplishments and merits. My comments were not to disparage the Americans or their participations or Hollywood which btw I am great fan of regardless of its foibles.

BTW I am a firm defender of the role of the US in WW2 stating that the Soviets would not have won the war in the East without crucial US lend lease supplies trucks, fuels, tanks aircrafts, boots, ammo, all kind of stuff the Soviets were short of. Likewise US bombing of German synthetic oil facilities and transport logistics was truly effective and shortened the war whereas British indiscriminate night bombings just laid waste to German cities without truly helping the war effort. But WW2 was team effort, had the British capitulated or made peace with the Germans in 1940 then Allied victory would have been impossible as the US would have had no solid soil to land their troops and aircrafts and the Soviets would have faced German might alone. Brits deciphered German code helping the Allies know what the German were going and where they would attack, giving them invaluable edge the Soviets tied 80% of German war potential without which the Allies would not have won in Italy and Normandy. The Brits invented the radar and the sonar which gave the Allies victory in the air and against the U Boote. British colonies and Commonwealth territories gave the US valuable bases in the Pacific against the Japanese. What I am criticizing is the American tendency to give the US centre role and the other countries who were at war much earlier just the support roles. The other day I almost choked on my coffee when I read in an American newspaper that the US gave the Allies victory in WW1 !!!! The US entered the fight in the last few months (1918) and Germany was already battered by 3 1/2 year of war on three fronts and on the verge of starvation because of the Royal Navy sea blockade.

What I said about Hollywood was just a reflection on how Americans see their participation in the war of course Hollywood caters to US audiences which makes perfect sense but sometime there is a lot of appropriation or distortion of history . Americans see themselves a lot through the lens of Hollywood like the Germans do it through Classical music or philosophy , the Russians through classical ballet, the Italians through opera and the French through their litterature and the Brits through the theatre.

Would Germany have surrendered in 1918 if the US had not entered the war with fresh reserves of huge numbers of soldiers?
Was that not the tipping point?  Germany lost all hope at that point.  In addition to crushing any hope of not having to surrender the United States’ production of armaments met not only its own needs but also those of France and Great Britain. American loans to the Allies, totaling $7 billion between 1917 and the war’s end, maintained the flow of U.S. arms and food across the Atlantic. (Google search)

In one sense, the newspaper article is correct, while simplistic and lacking context,  the American entry into WWI did give the Allies victory.
The unfortunate impression that such incomplete articles give to people ignorant of history is that America's entry was the only reason that the Allies forced Germany's surrender.  This leads to the American centered views you're talking about.

Saving Private Ryan was a specific story about an American squad searching for and retrieving an American soldier in the context of D-Day.  With limited time to tell a story, the producers and directors were not going to weave in characters and plot lines from all the allied nations.  

The Longest Day film is a better argument.  Although, including story lines from Gold, Juno and Sword and all the other allied nations would have fattened an already bloated film. A mature John Wayne, who was old looking in every movie I've ever seen him in, portraying a combat officer always annoyed me.

I'll counter that argument by mentioning A Bridge Too Far. This was produced and distributed by American companies, although it had a British director. It also had an international cast. I think it did a fairly good job of portraying a broad view of all participants.

Regarding America's role in WW2 before December 4, 1941, in 1939 the US allowed sale of military supplies to Great Britain.
In 1940 FDR proposed the Lend-Lease program to support Great Britain without demanding immediate payment.
US destroyers were fighting U-boats and escorting convoys at least part way from the US to Britain.
The US provided 50 old destroyers to Britain as anti-submarine vessels in exchange for basing right at British installations. This was done at a critical time in the Battle of the Atlantic.
While it is true, as you said, that if GB had fallen there would not have been a land base from which to launch the invasion of occupied Europe or the bombing of Germany, it is also true that GB did not preserve itself solely through it's own efforts in 1940 and 41.

This is all a bit of rambling on my part. In summary I believe it is a truism that the Allies could not have won WW2 without America's participation but conversely, America could not have won it by itself.

his is all a bit of rambling on my part. In summary I believe it is a truism that the Allies could not have won WW2 without America's participation but conversely, America could not have won it by itself.'

And you and I completely agree in the end. Although some say the Soviet Union even without lend lease and the Allies fighting in the west would have won WW2 by itself but would have needed more time and losses .Winning in 1946 or 1947 instead of 1945.

Personally I don't believe it. I think without US and British bombings on its industry, transport logistics and oil & fuel  production and lend lease support and having to fight and divert some of  its resources in North Africa and Italy Germany could have fought the SU to a standstill. Both would have been exhausted and on the rope with human and material losses but Germany would have had the all its resources available to keep the Soviets fighting a bloody war of attrition and without losing its allies. By May 1945 87% of the male generation born in 1926 in the Soviet Union was either dead or captured by the Germans. That gives an idea of the scale of the human losses. The SU would have run out of young men to fight had the war lasted 2 more years at their rate of losses of 1944-45.

I agree that Germany could have held the SU off, especially if it shortened its front lines, if it did not have to guard all the rest of its empire. Germany was also on the track of an atomic weapon. It was ahead of the SU in that regard.