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.
European theater the Soviet Union the war between Nazi Germany and the USSR was the most destructive war ever most likely mixed in with an ideology and race......However the US was active in all fronts with the exeception of the East pretty Heavily although the UK and the commonwealth where very important as well......in the end though
USSR 1
USA 2
Which ally contributed the most in human losses? Easily, Russia. Which side contributed the most to the victory? The US and Russia. The US, from 1942-1945 by keeping the North Atlantic open and supplying its allies in Europe and Russia and through the invasion of Europe, The Russians, for pinning down the Germans and swallowing up their resources, and weakening Axis resistance on the western front. In general, the co-ordinated strategic plans of the US and Great Britain (forget Stalin) also played a key role. At the tactical level, everyone (both sides) made a ton of mistakes and many battles were lost by bad tactical decisions and won by luck (incredibly bad decisions by the enemy).
And let's not forget Hitler's "leadership" and the Japanese military's strategic plan for "winning" the Pacific conflict. Both the Axis and the Japanese were doomed from the start.
Which ally contributed the most in human losses? Easily, Russia. Which side contributed the most to the victory? The US and Russia. The US, from 1942-1945 by keeping the North Atlantic open and supplying its allies in Europe and Russia and through the invasion of Europe, The Russians, for pinning down the Germans and swallowing up their resources, and weakening Axis resistance on the western front. In general, the co-ordinated strategic plans of the US and Great Britain (forget Stalin) also played a key role. At the tactical level, everyone (both sides) made a ton of mistakes and many battles were lost by bad tactical decisions and won by luck (incredibly bad decisions by the enemy).
And let's not forget Hitler's "leadership" and the Japanese military's strategic plan for "winning" the Pacific conflict. Both the Axis and the Japanese were doomed from the start.
I say well put. It's one of them question that have a lot of answers.
US code breakers, US Indians speaking in code Germans couldn't break played a major roll as being able to take heat off of the Russians. The US for cutting off North African oil to Germany.
It's about the overall campaign and its outcome, not a few insignificant battles in that campaign. Look at it as a boxing analogy. The individual punches and combos are battles, the rounds are campaigns and the fight overall is the war. The Italians won round 1 because they landed some early blows that caught the British by surprise, then they lost the rest and the fight overall. Do we talk about who won the fight or about who won round 1? The fact they lost doesn't mean that they didn't land some good blows in some of those rounds.
It's more like after the first round & then two other fighters(Australia & New Zealand) came in & screwed Italy over. Then Italy evened out the fight by getting their friend Germany to come in & cover them against the other two. Then, as the other three are faltering, they call in their friend America & eventually brutalize the both of them. Imagine round two continued with just one-on-one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The choice to leave that screening force behind was purposefuly and succesful. The point of that force was to slow down the Italian advance and force them to consume their supplies. It worked. The Italians didn't even get as far as the British thought they would. As for Commonwealth forces being added, what does that matter? They were still British forces.
They took a third of Egypt in a week, now how was that slowing them down in any way. Plus, their 'small screening force' was a third of the 7th Armored Division, the 7th Support Group.
They were Australian & New Zealand, the Commonwealth was an alliance of multiple nations that used to be British colonies. I've poked around the site & seen several people say that they're colonials, but they're not!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
For that matter, the Italians also used non-Italian troops. Over 70% of the Italian Army in East Africa was made up of Askari. They are still counted as being the Italian Army.
They were a weaker & not as well trained force, like all colonials. You can't entirely hold their failures against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Um, no. The M13/40 was a decent tank. It's strength was a good main gun for the 1940/41 time period. Outside of that it had a couple of critical flaws. While the armor thickness was average, the lower hull armor was virtually non-existent making the tank highly vulnerable to mines. The armor was also riveted instead of welded, meaning even deflected hits often knocked off armor plates or sent rivets flying throught the crew compartment. The rivet issue was especially noticable when it came to artillery rounds landing nearby where the concussive force could blow out half the rivets in the tank. The suspension system was derived off the Vickers design, but was purpose built for mountain terrain, not desert terrain. The engine was underpowered for the size of the tank as it was a carryover from the M11, despite the M13 being much heavier. The suspension and engine combined to give the M13/40 a very low operational speed.
You are over exaggerating their flaws, meanwhile in 1940 their competitor had half the thickness of armor then the Italian gun size. Also, British guns had shorter range & inferior ballistic performance. Speed was their only advantage, despite that fact that it barely matters in tank/desert warfare!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The British Matilda Mk II infantry tanks were slow, but their armor was impervious to the Italian tank guns. The Matilda's also sported a 2pdr main gun that could easily punch through the armor of the best Italian tanks. The British cruiser tanks such as the A10 had light armor, but were fast and packed a punch with the same gun as the Matildas. The A13 was a heavier cruiser with armor equal to the Italians, but much faster and again with the same 2pdr gun. When the A15 "Crusader" showed up with even heavier armor, higher speed and a 6pdr gun, it was game over for even the early German Pz.III and Pz.IV's in North Africa.
Now your over exaggerating the British tanks. How much does speed & gun power matter when it's armor's thin enough to shot through with the secondary machine guns, little less destroy it completely with it's main one?
What!? All of the A13 tank's armor was around 6-8mm, the M13/40 was 42mm!
The 57mm gun was on the Mk III, meanwhile the Panzer III had a 75mm gun, do I really have to state the IV's gun at this point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The M13/40 is now classified as basically a light tank. While it was effective against the early British cruisers, the cruisers were nearly twice as fast giving them a distinct advantage. Either tank could knock the other out, so it came down to who could land the blow first. The British also had much better command and control via their radios and utilized superior armored tactics.
what advantage does speed really have in armored warfare!? Also, the Italian's had radios in their tanks too!
what advantage does speed really have in armored warfare!? Also, the Italian's had radios in their tanks too!
I'm sorry, but this is absurd. What advantage ? Are you serious ? Have you heard such terms as Blitzkrieg ? Maneuver warfare? I'd say more but to be honest, after a statement like yours, I don't even know where to begin.
Yac.
I'm sorry, but this is absurd. What advantage ? Are you serious ? Have you heard such terms as Blitzkrieg ? Maneuver warfare? I'd say more but to be honest, after a statement like yours, I don't even know where to begin.
Yac.
Well, that advantage is like radar for the navy. An advantage, yes, a really, game over like, significant one, no.
The War was won by an American, an Italian-American, named Charles Luciano.
The US had previously struck a deal with the Mafia to clear out Axis agents in the US, & took further to help in Operation Husky. They sabotaged & stole the schematics for an Axis blockade, both actions showed why the US took half the island while the British AND Commonwealth AND Partisans took half the beachhead, & how they won. After the capitulation, start of the civil war & the loss of Rome, the Italian Army held off the Nazis long enough to have the Allies assist them. Along with help from what was left of the Italian Army, partisan forces freed several cities single handedly, unlike other partisan groups of other nations. Also, the forces that were sent into Italy were taken out from all over the Reich, including Normandy & the Eastern Front, which aloud both opposing forces to be successful.
That may have helped the Pacific, being that it freed a lot of Allied force before Okinawa, but I'm not entirely sure about this. He at least won the war against the Nazis & Axis Europe.
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.
