Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries)

But you claimed these generals were incompenent! :)


They had to, given how many troops were behind Stalins line and how significant were the 3 main cities they attacked.


Last i checked they overrun Finnland, eventually. Not to mention they had to contend with Mannerheims line and winter.

Now go read up, its fun reading history American style though:)

It's hard to assess their competence when many of them were mere cogs in the wheel with virtually no leeway. Let us not forget the absolutism of Hitler's plans, they were all or nothing. They did what they had to!

and they didnt even fit a panel to protect the gunner of the 50 MM machine gun from return fire.

There is no issue; the original Sherman was a piece of crap. That is why it earned the name the 'Ronson Lighter'.

By 1944 these M-4s were "up armored" and the gun was swapped (I don't believe the Americas added the new gun during production) over to a British seventeen pounder.

These changes raised the capabilities of the tank.

Yeh thats apparently right, i didnt know that.

Im sure one of the worst weapons or accompaniments as the case may be was the leg bag, invented by the British and given to every paratrooper of the 506 on D-Day. As they jumped out of the plane almost every bag came away from its owner as the strap snapped. I think the main reason was the low altitude that which the paratroopers were jumping from as a result of German flak. In any case its a slap on the wrist for us Brits.

There was also a 90 mm gun fitted to an open topped Sherman....It was classed as a tank destroyer rather than a tank , and most Sherman units would have one or two that they could drag out if a lurking Tiger was reported....

Yeh thats the tank i use on "Company of heroes" when playing the allies.

it was not the incompetence of the high command - only Hitler's interfering in war plans - as for incompetence Russians were much less competent

Russian command was of high quality.Zhukov,Rokosovsky.What did the English have?Montgomery?The guy who failed in Arnhem and could not advance in Normandy?Or the other who needed 2 years to capture half of Italy?

Fight or we'll kill you anyway, success through fear.


Ahh didnt Montgomery defeat Rommel the Desert Rat before any Russian successes? Im not a fan of Montgomery any way, General Patton is a personal favourite. Eisenhower claims to the day he died that Operation Market Garden was a worthy campaign. He was commander in chief, not Montgomery....

Russia lost what 20% of its population during the campaign, what does that tell you.

Zhukov was the one who conceived and planned the encirclement of Germans in Stalingrand.Has any marshall of the allies ever come with such a brilliant strategy?Did allied troops ever encircle german troops?


First russian success was the defense of Moscow in 1941.Montgomery defeated 4 german divisions a victory with little military value since US troops were already landing in Algeria thus Afrika Korps had to retreat to Tynis whether El Alamein battle happened or not.Montgomery wanted a victory for the 8th army for prestige reasons before the Americans arrived.

In Stalingrand only there were 16 german divisions which were annihilated,4 times the Afrika Korps.And in Bagration 28 german divisions.

They cut off a huge number in the Falaise pocket in France....but many more got away....

Yes,40000 a very huge number.Do you know how many managed to escape from Stalingrad and how?

Zhukow had the resources, women and children no less. The Germans were done for anyway it wasnt a tactical master piece by any circumstances.

Brilliant strategy my ass, an obvious choice if you ask me. Talk up the Russian war effort as much as you like but the facts are in the figures Russia lost 20% of its population, period.

Yes but thats not due to Russian ineptitude or German awesomeness, its because after over 20 years of communist rule people in power didnt give a sh*t about human life, Zhukov used to clear minefields with people for example.

Not many escaped from Stalingrad...they were ordered to fight to the last bullet...in the end they surrendered.....few of those survived....

Yeah, right around the time he was executing operation Mars... :')

Not exactly true; German allies who also had soldiers in Russia included, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovak Republic, and of course the inept Spanish Blue Division among others which included volunteers from other countries like Iraq.

Now, look up what percentage of Germans were killed by the Soviets vs killed by western powers.

Yes,with german POWs.

Something like 80 to 20 percent....

Nope sorry, you dont release enemy soldiers and allow them to advance in the direction of their own lines, it never happened outside of your head. There were penal battalions or just regular infantry to do that.

German povs were in the case of various police organisations executed on the spot (survival rate of various SS, Gestapo and other assorted criminals in uniforms was 6% when captured) regular soldiers were sent to Gulag branches.

Problem with German tanks was that although they were technically and armour-wise superior to any of their opponent's tanks, they were designer-tanks. Masterpieces of construction, but very slow to build. It took much longer to build a Tiger in a factory than it took to build a T-34 or a Sherman tank, so although the Tiger was superior to both of them, he lost out because it took too long to build. Time and resources Germany didn't have. So, although the Tiger was feared by the Allies, it didn't make any difference in the end because there were too few.

M-G (PzKfw V is my favourite tank - see pic: it's a beauty)

A great tank......i think the Jagdpather version with the 88 mm gun was even better....but made in such small numbers....

Brilliant; the Germans fought a greater number of adversaries, by nationality, then the Soviets did. It only stands to reason that German casualties would occur at the hands of multiple nationalities.

Seven out of ten (conservative) German casualties (KIA/WIA/MIA) occurred at the hands of the SU.

Spin it any way you want to spin it but the SU destroyed the cream of the Wehrmacht crop.

Never a mention of the Romanians during operation Barbarossa!! Didnt they have a full on army at the front along side the gerries? still not googling.

My understanding is that the Germans, having had the Hungarians and Romanians as allies, had to keep the two separated because of their feelings about one another.

The great issue about Stalingrad was that the Germans (Hitler) stripped his flanks of Germans and fed those Germans into the cauldron. Hungarians and Romanians, sans anti-tank weaponry and some say those same allies lacked any effective weaponry, filled in on the flanks.

The Soviets were ready to move against the Germans but had to wait until the ground froze over. I believe that day was Nov 19th 1942.

The rest, shall they say, is history.

It was an amazing victory make no mistake the German 6th army sure got their just deserts.

Back to topic:

The Nuclear bomb: a decisive blow for the Allies and undoubtably the most awesome weapon of WWII. Would Trumen/Eisenhower have dropped one on Berlin had the technology been hypothetically available?

Yes,but it was ready to be used only after Germany had already surrendered.So it did not play any role in the war.(as Hitler had already foreseen).

I was under the impression that it was German scientists that basically invented it, as a result the Yankees only had it after defeat of Germany as the German scientists handed technology to the US, in effect they worked for the US after the fall of Germany? as i keep saying im not googling just what i have in my head - for now....

That was the issue with all the "newer" German tanks in WW2: they were great, but very complicated to construct. It simply took too long to manufacture them in order to be truly effective.

M-G (the four S'es: Sh*t, Shower, Shave, Shopping)