Did the USA actually "win" World War II?

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
It is claimed to be an Australian invention (invented by Monash)
I think it was french, first tried at the somme, but infighting bewteen the services required,meant everyone got thier timing wrong.The way the story was told to me was that Monash being an Australian, got on with everyone.Traditionaly ,the army hates the artilery and tank and air forces were seen in even less light because they were new services, thus cooperation was limited. Monash was able to overcome all these diffulcuties. In late 17 and into 18,he was the one that pushed a starved wermach back. Really, the germans should of been beaten long before this, but the british army has always been bullies and bullies only.They couldn't bully Germany, so the incompetance was evident.
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
the lessons of WW1, the Germans were pretty much conquering Europe.

The speed and operational tempo of Blitzkreig wasn't magic - it was well trained combined arms warfare. By 1944, the Americans, British and Soviets had relearnt the lessons and could apply them against the Germans.
Interesting stuff really.
The Russians were very competant in july 41 in this tactic, used to great effect. Probably what saved Moscow and Lenningrad. From the moment barabarossa began they were maing massive incursions with whole armies behind German lines. You have quite some knowlage on military tactics, its evelution, go learn about what the russians did and what they call 'counter strokes' from July 41, until the germans hit Kursk in 43.
 
I think it was french, first tried at the somme, but infighting bewteen the services required,meant everyone got thier timing wrong.The way the story was told to me was that Monash being an Australian, got on with everyone.Traditionaly ,the army hates the artilery and tank and air forces were seen in even less light because they were new services, thus cooperation was limited. Monash was able to overcome all these diffulcuties. In late 17 and into 18,he was the one that pushed a starved wermach back. Really, the germans should of been beaten long before this, but the british army has always been bullies and bullies only.They couldn't bully Germany, so the incompetance was evident.

I would like to see the Italian version..........
 
The Russians were very competant in july 41 in this tactic, used to great effect. Probably what saved Moscow and Lenningrad. From the moment barabarossa began they were maing massive incursions with whole armies behind German lines. You have quite some knowlage on military tactics, its evelution, go learn about what the russians did and what they call 'counter strokes' from July 41, until the germans hit Kursk in 43.

The US mastered the concept of producing cheap ships designed to only last three voyages as statistically they would get blown up or have no use after the war.

The Russians adopted this with a massive fleet of cheap tanks that were inferior to the germans but the weight of numbers made them supreme. They did this with their soldiers too with one in three having rifles and as the guy in front dropped, the one behind would pick up the rifle and continue the charge.
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
The Russians adopted this with a massive fleet of cheap tanks that were inferior to the germans but the weight of numbers made them supreme. They did this with their soldiers too with one in three having rifles and as the guy in front dropped, the one behind would pick up the rifle and continue the charge.
There's a recording avaialble online, made by Finlands security/intelligence of when Hitler visted in 42 as barabarossa went pear shaped. The german leader was quite frank and passionate about what they were finding in russia and the factories building these very tanks you speak of.

12 hour shifts for kids and women, 1 meal, replaced by another shift. 5-6 days a week. This is the s**t that won that war.
 
Oct 5, 2004
5,186
3,749
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
The Russians were very competant in july 41 in this tactic, used to great effect. Probably what saved Moscow and Lenningrad. From the moment barabarossa began they were maing massive incursions with whole armies behind German lines. You have quite some knowlage on military tactics, its evelution, go learn about what the russians did and what they call 'counter strokes' from July 41, until the germans hit Kursk in 43.

Will do. From Russia's perspective it has been saved twice in the last 300 odd years by virtue of its geography, which provides it with physical, strategic depth.

An opponent simply can't advance fast enough because the country is so vast east west that it allows effective mobilisation of reserve and 2nd ech forces behind any potential attack, not to mention continuation of industry.
 

Max Rockatansky

Cancelled
Jul 24, 2010
1,150
442
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Silverton Hotel
The Russians adopted this with a massive fleet of cheap tanks that were inferior to the germans but the weight of numbers made them supreme.

The T34 & KV1 were actually superior to the PzKw III & PzKw III in 1941. The Panther & Tiger didnt come till Germany was on the backfoot & they had many teething & maintenance problems as well as taking a lot longer to produce & service.
 
Oct 5, 2004
5,186
3,749
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Just to post something on topic - I would suggest the ALLIES did win - and I'd to back to Clausewitz to examine why.

Clausewitz' emphasis on the importance of the pursuit and exploitation, and his concept of the result in war never being final.

The allies did not make the mistake of WW1. They occupied both aggressors for years, and ensured they would not have the capacity to seek retribution or think that the situation they were in was temporary. Clausewitz would consider this complete and total victory I would say.
 
The Russians were very competant in july 41 in this tactic, used to great effect. Probably what saved Moscow and Lenningrad. From the moment barabarossa began they were maing massive incursions with whole armies behind German lines. You have quite some knowlage on military tactics, its evelution, go learn about what the russians did and what they call 'counter strokes' from July 41, until the germans hit Kursk in 43.

So, when the Russian army was being pummeled, driven back, and massive numbers of their troops were being encircled and forced to surrender, you think they were being "very competant"?

They had T-34s, which were so far advanced on the German tanks of the time that the Germnas literally couldn't pierce the T-34s armor and they had to 'sucker' the Russians into moving to where the german antoi tank guns were setup in order to destroy them...and they did, repeatedly.

While the the Russians did get quite decent at combined arms warfare, they never really got a 'blitzkrieg' type attack going due to lack of all the 'supporting' stuff (logistical, command and control)...Hell, it wasn't until ~43 that their tanks had radios by default.
 
WW1 combined arms was foot infantry and artillery. The main 'advance' was working out how useless Cavalry was (mostly).

Tanks, at least as we know them now didn't really exist (top speed of a light, 'mobile' tank was 15-20KPH) and most saw it growing into 'new' cavalry (good for scouting and shock/impact, but leaving the bulk of the fighting to the infantry), and generally considered tanks best used in small units as infantry support.

A few people (Liddle Hart has been mentioned, but also Guderian, Manstein, Tukhachevsky and to a lesser degree, de Gaulle) thought about it and figured out how to make it work if you grouped them together and added mobile infantry to pierce through the enemy lines take vital centers and hold them (and if they were really good, go on and take more).

Liddle Hart was probably the first to really consider this, but didn't really get anywhere because there was little interest in the UK in radical new land combat tactics...After all, they'd won the 'war to end all wars' with their current tactics, and figured future wars would be more likely to be smaller, colonial type encounters.
Tukhachevsky moved the Russians that way, then got purged , which put 'non standard' thinking on hold until the war, when Zhukov & Konev took up the baton.
Guderian and Manstein got lucky in finding a new leader who was strategically ignorant and desperate to avoid the last war so eager to embrace new plans that would avoid it. (somewhat ironically, Hitlers lack of understanding led to some of their bigger successes, and he told them to do things they didn't think were possible, like the attack on France through the Ardennes).
De Gaulle didn't really come up with much 'new', but embraced the ideas of others so strongly, the French actually had a pretty decent armoured force in 1940 (although they only really half did it, with a lot of their tanks still used for infantry support.)
 

Frankster177

Cancelled
Dec 22, 2007
1,331
78
Earth
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
AC Milan
Blitzkrieg was an allied tactic first developed in ww1. germans thought ,phuq if they got thier timing right we'd be fried fritz. One of those was young erwin Rommel.

Which brings me to another point of yours,the nth african campaign. Don't get me wrong the africa core was good, all german units at that point were. But it was how bad the eighth army was that had more to do with what the africa core achieved. The eight army was split up by Churchil, all his generals warned him, half went to greece , a campaign they were never going to win. The most experienced divisions tended to be sent there. The british press talked up Rommel,to hide the british incompetence. Fact is the british were no better than the italians in fighting wars.

Tactics in new gunea were interesting.The americans never took heed. They got smashed by those very tacticts (devloped by australian units in ww2 )in Vietnam. There soldiers in nam were scared shitless, turned to drugs ect. Couldn't handle something they arrogantly ignored when their allies developed it.

Nothing knew about gurila warfare,but what the australians did pushing east from the owen stanleys, the units behind enemy lines, even in Bouganville a few years later when we would venture out every day from the compound the yanks built and stayed in.

The Russians though, developed a science of war unlike any one has. Probably saved the cold war going hot on us. War was a science to them, they could simplfy it to a simple case of mathamatics.They knew noone could beat them if it stayed that way. The russian way of thinking was,Your sentry has 10 shells in his clip, I'll attack him with 11 men,in broad daylight.

Aussies talking bad about the Italians again.... give it a rest for once.
They weren't as bad as you lot make them out to be.
You could talk about the Italian good things for once.
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
Aussies talking bad about the Italians again.... give it a rest for once.
They weren't as bad as you lot make them out to be.
You could talk about the Italian good things for once.

I'm australian. I live in australia, if i want to talk down a bunch of soldiers who attacked my countrymen,I will. They were bad, they were so bad even the germans would shoot at them when they run away. Ted ballpitt captured hundreds with his chefs hat. They were that bad. You forgot to see that I compared the Italians to the english, apparantly according to englishmen,they (the english) won ww2.

It doesn't really matter if i praise or critisize, you're only gonna see what you want to.
 
May 20, 2006
11,550
5,623
In the Clique.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
aussie6.jpg
 
So, when the Russian army was being pummeled, driven back, and massive numbers of their troops were being encircled and forced to surrender, you think they were being "very competant"?

They had T-34s, which were so far advanced on the German tanks of the time that the Germnas literally couldn't pierce the T-34s armor and they had to 'sucker' the Russians into moving to where the german antoi tank guns were setup in order to destroy them...and they did, repeatedly.

While the the Russians did get quite decent at combined arms warfare, they never really got a 'blitzkrieg' type attack going due to lack of all the 'supporting' stuff (logistical, command and control)...Hell, it wasn't until ~43 that their tanks had radios by default.

Initially the T-34 were far superior, was one of the best tanks of the second world war. However, Germany developed the Tiger and Panther in 1942 and 1943 respectively to destroy T-34s and they did so easily. Tiger was a heavy tank and had the 88mm artillery gun tacked on. But it wasn't the most mobile of tanks.

Panther was given a smaller 75mm turret, which could easily penetrate the turret of a T-34 at a range of 2km and the front armour at 300m. Thankfully Germany was on the ropes later in the war and couldn't produce sufficient numbers of them to counter all the allied tanks being sent against them.

Soviets captured a Tiger in 1943 and found that the T-34's 76mm turret couldn't penetrate the front armour of a Tiger at all and could only penetrate the side at very close range. They made a variant that had an 85mm turret which could penetrate a Tiger in 1944 but focused more on artillery than tanks to counter the Tiger. They had more success with the 122mm artillery, but post D-Day the arms race was moot.
 
Initially the T-34 were far superior, was one of the best tanks of the second world war. However, Germany developed the Tiger and Panther in 1942 and 1943 respectively to destroy T-34s and they did so easily. Tiger was a heavy tank and had the 88mm artillery gun tacked on. But it wasn't the most mobile of tanks.

Panther was given a smaller 75mm turret, which could easily penetrate the turret of a T-34 at a range of 2km and the front armour at 300m. Thankfully Germany was on the ropes later in the war and couldn't produce sufficient numbers of them to counter all the allied tanks being sent against them.

Soviets captured a Tiger in 1943 and found that the T-34's 76mm turret couldn't penetrate the front armour of a Tiger at all and could only penetrate the side at very close range. They made a variant that had an 85mm turret which could penetrate a Tiger in 1944 but focused more on artillery than tanks to counter the Tiger. They had more success with the 122mm artillery, but post D-Day the arms race was moot.

You are correct, I was referring to the early phases of the war ( the initial invasion). Even before the Tiger came in, they had upgunned the Pz III. (with a better 50mm gun) and Pz IV that gave them options for killing T-34s 'straight up'.

The Tiger, used 'correctly', was practically invulnerable...Lots of armor, a huge gun, and (the bit most miss), fantastic optics (they could target, very well, at range..the German optics industry pre-war was world leaders)....Doctrine was that it sit on a hilltop 1-2KM from the battlefield and just pick off targets. Of course, this wasn't always possible/practical, and doesn't make a lot of stories because it's not 'sexy', but I'm sure you could see how brutal it would be.

As for the T34/85, it came out in '43 (IIRC), and became the standard...I think they made about 20,000 of them.
 
You are correct, I was referring to the early phases of the war ( the initial invasion). Even before the Tiger came in, they had upgunned the Pz III. (with a better 50mm gun) and Pz IV that gave them options for killing T-34s 'straight up'.

The Tiger, used 'correctly', was practically invulnerable...Lots of armor, a huge gun, and (the bit most miss), fantastic optics (they could target, very well, at range..the German optics industry pre-war was world leaders)....Doctrine was that it sit on a hilltop 1-2KM from the battlefield and just pick off targets. Of course, this wasn't always possible/practical, and doesn't make a lot of stories because it's not 'sexy', but I'm sure you could see how brutal it would be.

As for the T34/85, it came out in '43 (IIRC), and became the standard...I think they made about 20,000 of them.

Panther was arguably the best tank build during WW2 despite it's many problems due to being rushed because of the T-34 success vs the Panzers. It had two massive advantages, it had neutral drive system which allowed one track to go forwards and the other backwards allowing it to turn in tight circles and it had the most accurate targeting system allowing it to far more reliably hit a turret of enemy tanks at long range.

When Panthers went up against T-34s the kill ratio was 9:1 in favour of the Panther, 5:1 vs the Sherman.

Problem was you had 6,500 Panthers and under 2,000 Tigers vs 49,000 Sherman M4s and 57k T-34s. Some of the components weren't designed for a 45 ton tank so it had some major issues, at any given time 2/3rd of the Panthers were not in commission because they were being repaired for mechanical problems and it was a complex, time consuming process. In 1944 more Panthers were abandoned due to fuel or mechanical issues than were destroyed by enemy fire.

Germany also was losing the ability to produce hardened steel due to the loss of supply lines and had begun to use the majority of Panthers and Tigers as reserve and defensive units rather than front line forces, that made them a lot more vulnerable to artillery.

Here is a good video which kind of summarises the Panther. http://military.discovery.com/weapons-technology/videos/tank-overhaul-the-panther-part-1.htm
 
Panther was arguably the best tank build during WW2 despite it's many problems due to being rushed because of the T-34 success vs the Panzers. It had two massive advantages, it had neutral drive system which allowed one track to go forwards and the other backwards allowing it to turn in tight circles and it had the most accurate targeting system allowing it to far more reliably hit a turret of enemy tanks at long range.

When Panthers went up against T-34s the kill ratio was 9:1 in favour of the Panther, 5:1 vs the Sherman.

Problem was you had 6,500 Panthers and under 2,000 Tigers vs 49,000 Sherman M4s and 57k T-34s. Some of the components weren't designed for a 45 ton tank so it had some major issues, at any given time 2/3rd of the Panthers were not in commission because they were being repaired for mechanical problems and it was a complex, time consuming process. In 1944 more Panthers were abandoned due to fuel or mechanical issues than were destroyed by enemy fire.

Germany also was losing the ability to produce hardened steel due to the loss of supply lines and had begun to use the majority of Panthers and Tigers as reserve and defensive units rather than front line forces, that made them a lot more vulnerable to artillery.

Here is a good video which kind of summarises the Panther. http://military.discovery.com/weapons-technology/videos/tank-overhaul-the-panther-part-1.htm

I remember a story I read about Stalingrad.

After Manstein's failed attempt to break through the lines and reestablish a connection with the pocket, a second attack was proposed, led by 1 battalion....The first Battalion of Panthers to come off the production lines. The Germans realised how good they were, and how effective they'd be, and thought they'd make a decisive difference.

Cooler heads prevailed, and pointed out things like how they were still training the crew and commanders in how to use them effectively, and that they seemed to be having a few mechanical issues that needed to be worked out and the lack of logistical support (both supplies and trained mechanics).

Would have been interesting though :)
 
if australia went to war tomo, could we pump out as much tanks as russia did in ww2?

No...and if we did, we'd probably lose.

Given the manpower required to produce, supply and maintain roughly 100,000 tanks, we'd struggle to have anyone left to drive them!

Russia had ~175 Million people at the start of WW2, and equipmen then was a lot easier to make/maintain.
 
if australia went to war tomo, could we pump out as much tanks as russia did in ww2?

We can produce shitloads of high quality steel, don't think our capacity to produce machined goods is very good though.
 
We can produce shitloads of high quality steel, don't think our capacity to produce machined goods is very good though.

I doubt there are many places in the world (apart from those who build tanks already) that could produce the thick sheets of composite armour required for modern tanks.

Given 6 months (at wartime speeds/priority), we'd be able to produce something better than a T-34. Real, modern, tanks production would require years.
 
Back