World War 2 Roleplay Final Post

Carking the 6th wrote:

Big myth! Lend lease only provided 7% of Soviet War expenditure according to most reliable sources. More importantly, practically all lend lease support came in 1943, after battles like Stalingrad, and didn’t really affect fighting in places like Kursk. That means that by the time the war was won (most historians say that it was basically over for Germany around 1942; their offensive potential was neutered by then) lend lease had just became a factor. At that point, Germany was no longer in any position to launch an offensive. They could only become weaker while the Soviets would become stronger. While those trucks and that high octane fuel and rubber did come in handy, the Soviets simply would have bought it and maybe took on some debt, still winning the war anyway. Germany was simply too weak at this point to ever conquer Russia.

Even delving into alternate history and assuming the west made peace and stopped fighting the Germans, things might end even worse in Barbarossa. When you look at the state of the Soviet military in 1941, they were in a post-purge transition state and actually preparing to invade Germany in around 1942. Stalin didn’t believe that the Germans would start a two front war and ignored his intelligence saying otherwise. He knew war was coming but expected that he would be able to strike first. If Germany somehow managed to take out the UK and not declare war on the US, then he’d know that the Germans were after him next and go into panic mode. Many generals that were purged into the gulags and released when the invasion had taken place would see their freedom early, and the country would have time to mobilize and go into defensive posture before the Germans attack. The amount of stuff this changes is mind boggling, but it means for one thing that the early collapse of the red army and encirclements of millions of soldiers are far less likely. That alone means that those additional land air and more importantly resources used by the Germans would be compensated for with much less casualties and a better held German advance. Realistically a competent Soviet command would have crushed the Germans from the start after retreating and regrouping a large force, basically what happened in our timeline but with much less land and blood lost.

I’ll write another essay since this kinda disingenuous anyway. The USSR killed 80% of German forces that died in ww2 anyway, but as for all the equipment they provided- that doesn’t really matter as Germany was all out of steam and doomed by then. It may have taken longer but the 11 million soldiers the Soviets had by the end would still crush them.

Germany sent most of its forces in the war to the eastern front. All others were much, much less occupied than you would think, they also used less experienced soldiers. Throwing 7 million of your soldiers into a war zone when you barely had enough logistics for the ones you already sent (which the Germans may do since they don’t think the war will last more than a few months) would doom them even more. Again man, the Soviets took so many casualties since they were caught in transition and their leadership didn’t position them correctly. This is all fantasy but the Soviets acting even slightly smart at the start will just spell instant doom for the Germans.

looking at sources again it actually seems the larger half was in 1944 and 1945. So for 1941-43 there was much less, and the USSR still managed to persevere. They would have won, even it was far more costly and slow. The Germans are just to outnumbered and gunned.

I was more so talking about the extent of the equipment lost on other fronts. In saying Germany had 7 million men, only 3 million of which in the East. I was not implying sending all 7 million there, as they wouldn't have done that.

Still, those they sent was already stretching Germany thin. The other 7 million did almost entirely end up going as other Germans died anyway. The meat grinding hellish nature of the Eastern front basically had that entire force of 3 million dying and getting replaced throughout the war.

Amotah wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Sounds like you are talking about earlier Soviet tanks like the A-20 or something. Whole point of T-34 was that it was easy to maintain and repair for the time they would last. They did usually take a few minutes to repair after breaking down, mind you they broke down at a rate far, far less than German tanks. They functioned well enough either way, and Germans are much more likely to freeze to death than you or your tank.

No. Lack of standards across different factories resulted in a wide range of production quality. Some could run incredibly well for years with almost no issues, and some were pretty much broken as soon as they came off the production line. There was no standard design. Each factory made it themselves.

Those inconsistencies are pretty overstated in how they effected the war effort, though. As the war dragged on production did become more efficient, and even before that most tanks that saw battle were reliable. It was more idiotic leadership sending them on pointless deadly counter attacks than the tanks that caused squalid casualty rates. Either way they still would be more effective than German tanks, which came out in much less numbers and broke down far more often. They were good for the war the Soviets were fighting, an attritional one. It wasn’t about having the best tank, but rather the most good tanks out there fast enough. Unlike America the Soviets didn’t have the time or safety to ensure as good standards to things did have to be rushed. Still, in comparison to the Germans the quality and quantity was in good balance. That’s why they won the war.

I'd say that isn't why they "won", more so why they survived. Despite their doctrine of quantity over quality, the Soviets still found themselves in massive deficits. Deficits that were often diminished by lend lease. The Soviets could not have won the war alone. But your point is valid. Despite its rampant flaws and often extreme unreliability (which would depend on the factory it had been produced in) the T-34 served its purpose decently.

Me pretending I understood it.

My power

Carking the 6th wrote:

Gathering evidence and hoping for it. No response quite yet…

For god's sake, in 2 pages the conversation goes from asking something important, why Claudio can't join, to, in classic forum fashion, a debate on the usefulness of Soviet Tanks in WW2.

Why are you even fighting it? Give in. It's fruitless. You have better uses for your mental energy.

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Why are you even fighting it? Give in. It's fruitless. You have better uses for your mental energy.

I was addressing Zakkty. Trying to get the forum dwellers to stay on topic? Good. Bloody. Luck. With. That.

Lady Aragosta wrote:

I was addressing Zakkty. Trying to get the forum dwellers to stay on topic? Good. Bloody. Luck. With. That.

Zaktty wrote:

For god's sake, in 2 pages the conversation goes from asking something important, why Claudio can't join, to, in classic forum fashion, a debate on the usefulness of Soviet Tanks in WW2.

Zaktty wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

I was addressing Zakkty. Trying to get the forum dwellers to stay on topic? Good. Bloody. Luck. With. That.

Good. Bloody. Point.

Amotah wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Why are you even fighting it? Give in. It's fruitless. You have better uses for your mental energy.

My mental energy dissipated long ago. I only did it to troll Car into wasting his time writing all that stuff. Thats why at the end of my paragraph I told him to stop responding.

GeneralTanke wrote:

Zaktty wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

I was addressing Zakkty. Trying to get the forum dwellers to stay on topic? Good. Bloody. Luck. With. That.

Good. Bloody. Point.

any updates on banning Mauritania man?

Dear friends, how do you enjoy roleplay? I wish I were with you

Still need two players to start.. gotta find people.