Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
John, out of curiosity - what makes your opinions facts and the opinions of others just that - opinions ? This is an interesting thread and I wouldn't want it to end too soon.
John, out of curiosity - what makes your opinions facts and the opinions of others just that - opinions ? This is an interesting thread and I wouldn't want it to end too soon.
Yac.
I give facts. If others give opinions I challenge. If you think parts of what I write are not factual then prove it with some source. Simple.
This is an interesting description of the Spitfire vs the P-47 Thunderbolt supposedly given by a WW2 British Pilot who flew Spitfires but whose squadron was forced to change to the P-47.
Scroll down to the last part of the web page, entitled 'One Pilot's Initial reaction to the P-47 Introduction'.
My read of it was that the British pilots loved their Spitfires and abhorred the P-47, but eventually discovered that while the P-47 wasn't a match for the Spitfire in intricate dogfighting, the P-47 had its advantages over the Spitfire:
Quote:
Gradually, we learned how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude, she was a hot ship and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to mix it with the enemy, but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory—where the action was.
This is an interesting description of the Spitfire vs the P-47 Thunderbolt supposedly given by a WW2 British Pilot..
Quote:
Gradually, we learned how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude, she was a hot ship and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to mix it with the enemy, but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory—where the action was.
My read of it was that the British pilots loved their Spitfires and abhorred the P-47, but eventually discovered that while the P-47 wasn't a match for the Spitfire in intricate dogfighting, the P-47 had its advantages over the Spitfire:
The P-47 never had an advantage, apart from range, over the Spitfire. What was in your post confirms that. The British pilots saw the strong points of a P-47 and looked to where they could use those points in battle. "the technique was not to mix it with the enemy". They saw they had to get in fast and get out fast. A Spitfire or Mustang could mix it.
The P-47 never had an advantage, apart from range, over the Spitfire. What was in your post confirms that. The British pilots saw the strong points of a P-47 and looked to where they could use those points in battle. "the technique was not to mix it with the enemy". They saw they had to get in fast and get out fast. A Spitfire or Mustang could mix it.
Exactly.
In its niche as a short range mix-it-up dog-fighting interceptor, the Spitfire was best. Outside of that niche, the plane's shortcoming was revealed.
The P-47 never had an advantage, apart from range, over the Spitfire. What was in your post confirms that. The British pilots saw the strong points of a P-47 and looked to where they could use those points in battle. "the technique was not to mix it with the enemy". They saw they had to get in fast and get out fast. A Spitfire or Mustang could mix it.
Actually, far from true. The Spit and Mustang had a major failing-a single liquid-cooled engine. Good as both planes were, one shot that hit any part of the cooling system meant that they were going down. The P-47 was a far more rugged plane than either, capable of taking and dishing out far more punishment than either. That point isn't such a big deal on a point defense fighter (which the Spit was)...if your plane's engine seizes over your own country, it's inconvenient, but hit the silk and you're back in action as soon as you catch a ride to your airfield. Over enemy territory...not so much; better like German food. The Spit had a very significant advantage over the Mustang....it was in service much earlier in the war and was around when needed. The P-38 was the only first-rate AAF fighter that can say that, being in service since early '42. It was largely responsible for sweeping the enemy from the skies in the Pacific and the MTO. In the Med it was consistently outnumbered and our relatively "untested" pilots fought against the best, most experienced German pilots, and more than held their own. The MTO campaign severely cut the population of experienced German pilots and planes...meaning that by late 43-44, when the Mustang hit the ground in decent numbers, it both had a numerical advantage in most engagements, it was also not fighting against the best pilots Germany had produced. The Lightning had another major advantage...while it's engines were liquid cooled as well...it at least had two to make it home on. Many P-38 pilots made it home in badly damage planes...while Spit and Mustang pilots became guests of the Germans. Early in the war the '38 was faster and had a greater rate of climb than any other fighter. Like everything else, as newer variations went into production, performance leaped from one fighter to another.
Hello, everyone. I recently did research on Red Army's manpower during WWII and found some staggering statistics. According to Wikipedia, That adds up to 34,401,807 Soviets who fought in WWII.
I fully understand how many a million people is. 34 million is just beyond comprehension. That is far more than the entire population of countries like Romania and Holland. I realize the USSR had a population of 200 million at the time. But still, being able to conscript that many men and women into the military service is just unprecedented. At the time, only a handful of nations could dream of drafting barely 3.4 million men for its military. Again, 34 million is just unheard of and incomprehensible.
I have three Qs for you guys.
1. Could anyone give me insights on how this gigantic draft was possible? 2. With such inexhaustible manpower, how did the USSR produce enough uniforms and weapons?
3. How did the Red Army train such vast number of troops?
Thanks in advance for any insights.
1) Basically the same way it was it was possible for all the other countries that had total or near total mobilization. All males (and many women) between the ages 17-45 had to fight. Women and children worked in wartime industries (often doing overtime or working after school).
While the Red Army suffered massive defeats at the start of the war and millions surrendered or even defected, once it became clear that Hitler was even more brutal than Stalin and came with the intent of enslaving and exterminating the populace, the Soviet people say the war as protecting the Motherland and not as protecting Stalin. Even Stalin realized that and the propaganda changed from "Let's protect our glorious Revolution in the name of Lenin!" to "Vengeance to those that rape and pillage the Motherland!"
It wasn't hard to find people willing to fight soldiers that invaded their country and were raping and slaughtering like the Golden Horde.
2) The Soviet soldiers had constant supply issues and were often short of supplies, but they did it the same as other countries did. Almost all resources went towards the war effort.
The Soviet Union wasn't fully industrialized at that time, but all that industry went towards the war machine. The Soviets also had access to stockpiled weapons from pre-Revolutionary Russia and would often equip their soldiers with those.
The USSR's and even modern Russia's weapon design philosophy is based on two principles "Keep it simple" and "Quantity has a quality of its own". Although Soviet weapon designs are in many cases inferior to their Western counterparts, they are often still pretty good and in some cases just as good (see AK-47 versus M-16 debates) or arguably even better (the RPG-7 is a great weapon).
German weapons were often the best in the field, but they were often over-engineered and often required as much as four times the resources as their Soviet counterpart. Now, if one side has a weapon that is twice as good as its rival, but its rival has four times as many weapons; who is going to win?
Take for the T-34 for example. It is an incredibly basic machine, but it also had sloped armor (the first of its kind) and a large gun. It wasn't going to win any beauty contests or set any speed records, but it well-armored and well-armed and there were far more of them.
It should also be noted that the US and Canada supplied the Soviet Union with trucks, jeeps, and grain throughout the war as well.
3) Training was relatively light and there was plenty of "on the job training" so to speak. I have heard stories of soldiers in basic training who would have to share a rifle among their training platoon when learning marksmanship and how to maintain the rifle. They would just stand on line and wait their turn. I have also heard of soldiers throwing potatoes and being told to imagine they were grenades and then collecting the potatoes because that was their supper. I am no sure how true some of the stories are, but it wouldn't surprise me.
America, thanks for the help, the American Medical alcohol was needed most.
Russian was needed a lot of American medical alcohol.
American Food and shells and guns were also needed.
The Americans had a strong and powerful long-range bombers, B-17
Which destroyed the industry of the Third Reich, it is also a big help.
But B-17 Americans did not deliver Russian, B-17, Americans enjoyed themselves only.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
