What would have happened if...

Ok, lets vote which country had the best:

Air force?

Infantry?

Armor?

Navy?

Special Forces?

Industry?

You can include both regions of the war, Europe, and the Pacific.

Soldjer325 wrote:

Air force?

Infantry?

Armor?

Navy?

Special Forces?

Industry?

Infantry is probably the Soviets. They had the RPG-1, Wikipedia says, but no page for it. They also had a helluva lot of it. The Mosin-Nagant was the best sniper of the war.

Armour is by far the Soviets. They had so much of it as well as first rate guns, good engines, good tracks, good running gear and definitely no shortage of crews. Americans had good gear too though but that was hard to get across the pond.

Navy is probably the Americans. I mean, the experience they had in the Pacific war and the weapons they developed. Although for anti-sub duties you want the Brits(albeit with some American gear )

Special forces is probably the Soviets. What they did in Manchuria cannot be ignored.

Industry is between the Americans and the Soviets. Problem with the Americans though is they have to get it across the pond so that is a draw, I would say.

I meant overall throughout ww2

Soldjer325 wrote:

I meant overall throughout ww2

overall:

Air force: I have to say the skies were controlled by the combination of the US and UK

Infantry: Russia, their numbers were to great to be ignored

Armor: Early in war, Germany, they lost that due to the destruction of their factories. At the end of the war, US had the best equipment, while Russia had the largest numbers.

Navy: the United States

Special Forces: The OSS was the world's first large espionage organization, so I have to give it to them.

Industry: US, then Pre-43 Germany, then Russia.

Soldjer325 wrote:

overall:

Air force: I have to say the skies were controlled by the combination of the US and UK

Infantry: Russia, their numbers were to great to be ignored

Armor: Early in war, Germany, they lost that due to the destruction of their factories. At the end of the war, US had the best equipment, while Russia had the largest numbers.

Navy: the United States

Special Forces: The OSS was the world's first large espionage organization, so I have to give it to them.

Industry: US, then Pre-43 Germany, then Russia.

As for industry, the Americans cannot be put last(correct me if I misunderstand). What I think you are saying is that the Yanks were the second best, after Russia, which isn't true. America supplied Britain, France, ANZAC, so many others. It's oceans are the problem. They were so susceptible to subs until '43.

It's left to right. 1st being US, 2nd being Germany before bombings of its factories, and 3rd is Russia.

Marines, I have to say were the best military special operational force, with their specialization at the time being sea invasions.

Nice, glad we got it cleared up!

And with that I would like to conclude the argument between us. There are too many differing factors, that can lead too many different situations.

Quasi-duck wrote:

The Tiger didn't have sloped armour, was getting wrecked in '43. Tiger II could barely move it consumed so much fuel. The 163 is known amongst pilots to be one of the worst planes ever, I can show you a link about it if you like.

A few hundred tanks couldn't stop the onslaught of thousands of T-34's. Have you heard of the Polish 7TP versus the tanks of the Heer? It was much better than German tanks of time. There wasn't enough of them though and they were overrun. This would happen to German tanks.

this here is just, wow, its almost as if it was a complete different war!

Numbers means shit!

bulge, the allies were outnumbered!

soviets outneumberd the germans in early days of barb, still ddnt stop em from getting to gates of moscow

CoW numbers means shit as well

German armour was superior in 44, for defo

tiger II besides its fuel costs, really would prove to be the best of the bunch

also Im now actually bothered to talk, cos duck just annyos me with his commie side(soz bro)

as for so far soljer has actually said every thing I would say

maybe we have read the same stuff r something

and germany had supieror generals,

espically tank wise

oceanhawk wrote:

Numbers means shit!

You claim to be nonbiased, but you clearly are pro-soviet, so when you balance your facts out, then you argument can be valid. Btw the jet plane were actually quite effective in countering enemy aircraft, and the Germans were leaders in military technology. Russia was behind the other countries in technology, why do you think they had such high casualty rates, they had lower levels of tech at the time.

Soldjer325 wrote:

You claim to be nonbiased, but you clearly are pro-soviet, so when you balance your facts out, then you argument can be valid

Soldjer325 wrote:

Btw the jet plane were actually quite effective in countering enemy aircraft

Soldjer325 wrote:

Germans were leaders in military technology

Soldjer325 wrote:

Russia was behind the other countries in technology, why do you think they had such high casualty rates,

Dude, I'm pro-US, but I recognize the very real threat Germany was to the world, you're treating them like Russia could've fought and won easily one on one.

Uh, they could've compare the sizes of the armies. Look at the battles. Look at the sieges of Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moskva. Look at Kursk, Seelow Heights. Look at Soviet tech, then compare it German. Germans made stuff they couldn't fuel, the Soviets didn't.

Some of Russia's best tech wasn't available until after the war. Numbers is something you have to factor in, but the difference can be overcome by an experienced general, like Rommel, Manstein, and Balck, who is a mostly unknown general of WW2 Germany who despite being outnumbered by the 5th tank army, of the Soviet Union, 7:1 in tanks, 11:1 in infantry, and 20:1 in a local superiority of 7:1 in tanks, 11:1 in infantry, and 20:1 in artillery, along the Dneiper River, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Balck was able to quickly react to each enemy thrust. He repeatedly parried, surprised, and wiped out superior Soviet detachments. His single tank division wiped out over 1000 tanks of the Soviet Union throughout this engagement.

Soldjer325 wrote:

He repeatedly parried, surprised, and wiped out superior Soviet detachments. His single tank division wiped out over 1000 tanks of the Soviet Union throughout this engagement

Soldjer325 wrote:

ome of Russia's best tech wasn't available until after the war

But that was a lone division against the entire 5th Tank Army. You're entire 1 v 1 Soviet victory theory is in question just because of one General, I could reference dozens more who could hold a firm line with Russia, despite superior numbers and any leadership they could offer, if they had access to all Germans troops, and war machines, like it would've been in a 1 v 1. And also numbers don't mean anything if you troop's are ineffective. We aren't talking about Germany on its last leg, damaged by US + UK bombers, and pressured from all sides outside Europe, this a pure all of Germany's forces versus all of Russia's forces. No outside intervention, like the 11 billion dollars worth of resources sent to Russia from the US, or the United Kingdom's crucial aid to Russia which included multiple tanks, aircraft, the training of Soviet pilots, and even parts for Soviet factories. By the end of 1941, according to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).

If you want to look yourself, the information was found on: http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm