No but you can destroy their fortiforcations with them.
URSS could have won WWII by itself
- Thread starter Varda
- Start date
No but you can destroy their fortiforcations with them.
A Late 43 tank would not have been a factor in this scenario. The Germans would overrun Russia by end of 42' or never at all as the historical scenario.
The T34 was superior to anything the Germans had in 41' except maybe the PZIV with 75mm.(parity)
Tank type were not a factor in Russia's early losses. Their complete ineptness in the operational art of war was.
Neither can you with tanks, the only units that can truly capture cities are infantry.
Air can be used a variety of ways such as reconissance, deployment, firepower support etc.
No they couldn't have.
Here is the thing, the only advantage, and I stress ONLY advantage the Germans had in operation Barbarossa as far as armor goes was that the T-34 tankers were inexperienced nincompoops.
The T-34 which was the standard soviet tank was on par with the most advanced German medium tank, the Pz. IV and far superior to the standard Pz. III and Pz. II
A single T-34 was describes as driving over a 37 mm antitank cannon, crushing it in the process, then destroying two panzer II's, and then proceeding to go on a 9 mile "rampage" until it was stopped by a German howitzer at close range.
The panzer II could not penetrate the T-34's armor nor could the vast majority of German anti tank weapons.
The fact was that the Germans were betting that the Russians were using the aged BT-7, BT-5, BT-2, and T-26. Instead they were already using the superior T-34. The Germans literally had no clue what was hitting them.
It was not until later on in the war after the German advance was slowed significantly that the Germans actually developed superior weaponry.
Firstly, one should note that when discussing armour penetration, the range at which the anti-tank weapon is fired is important. To say something is immune to most anti-tank weapons usually means those weapons are ineffective at medium to long range.
Secondly, I shall quote from the same Wikipedia article where your T-34 rampage story comes from:
Wikipedia said:
The T-34 didn't exist in large enough numbers to change the outcome of the war, and by the time it existed in such numbers it was already obsolete. By far the best feature of this tank was the time spent on making it cheaper and easier to manufacture, although in the early years it truly was an excellent design and better than what the Germans were using. What ultimately stopped the Germans was a lack of supplies, unpreparedness for the Russian winter, fighting on multiple fronts against multiple opponents, and a poor choice of strategic targets. Russia very nearly lost this one, they're lucky they were able to recover so many combat-age men and industries from the regions they liberated to stave off a total collapse.
Robert Schunk
Registered Senior Member
Agreed!!
Maybe shooting your officers just before a was isn't the best idea under the circumstances.
Robert Schunk
Registered Senior Member
But, just one teensy tinsy little point regarding the T-34 (obviously the best tank of WWII); it was designed very much on the basis of the work of the American engineer J. Walter Christie, designer of the "Christie Suspension System" used primarily by Soviet, bur also by Bristish WWII tanks.
Why was Christie's genius allowed so to flourish following his emigration to the USSR, while the primary US WWII tank was the Sherman, with thin armo(u)r, a 75mm popgun for main armament, tracks so narrow they were hardly an improvement over tires/tyres in iffy terrain, and a gasoline/petrol engine which earned the tank, when used by the British, the German nickname of "Tommy Cooker", due to its propensity to catch fire?
***
The T-34 was, indeed, the greatest tank of the war, but how many of the accounts that you've read have properly credited Christie with the design concept underlying the T-34's suspension system?
How many more account have you read crediting eventual Soviet air superiority to US-supplied P-39 Aircobras, supplied via lend-lease?
I'm not yet finished, but I am tired, so you'll just have to wait for the rest of my piece.
Why was Christie's genius allowed so to flourish following his emigration to the USSR, while the primary US WWII tank was the Sherman, with thin armo(u)r, a 75mm popgun for main armament, tracks so narrow they were hardly an improvement over tires/tyres in iffy terrain, and a gasoline/petrol engine which earned the tank, when used by the British, the German nickname of "Tommy Cooker", due to its propensity to catch fire?
***
The T-34 was, indeed, the greatest tank of the war, but how many of the accounts that you've read have properly credited Christie with the design concept underlying the T-34's suspension system?
How many more account have you read crediting eventual Soviet air superiority to US-supplied P-39 Aircobras, supplied via lend-lease?
I'm not yet finished, but I am tired, so you'll just have to wait for the rest of my piece.
the P39, was certainly a boon to Soviets in 41', but it was not a superiority fighter. It was better than the other shit they had(biplanes of all things and crappy armed early migs(3s I believe))
The cannon on the P39 allowed it to actually be able to shoot bombers down.
The cannon on the P39 allowed it to actually be able to shoot bombers down.
I have the impression that the primary role of the P-39 (on the eastern front) was air to ground, i.e. shooting up tanks.
No certainly not tanks. Possibly "soft" targets. Mostly used for Air to air and intercept.
Not the best way to compare.
Luftwaffe pilots logged more hours throughout the war and largely came into Barbarossa experienced vets. On top of this they did have a massive advantage in aircraft capability and tactics in 41'. They survived and many professional Russian pilots did not...compounding the skill disparity into 42'. With 43' and roughly equal planes the Russians started holding their own and many of their aces started to survive more often.
Some German aces held victories from multiple campaigns (Poland, France, BoB and even Spain). Many German top aces actually did not even see the eastern front (Galland, HJ Marseilles et all). They tended to have higher scores that their Allied counterparts because of "more targets" syndrome. The lone exception of an Allied pilot being the "ace of aces" in his theater of combat goes to Canadian Ace "The Falcon of Malta" George "Buzz" Beurling, during the Malta Campaign. Beurling also benefited from a target rich environment, any time they went up in the air over Malta in those days, they were sure of a dogfight.
Hans-Joachim Marseilles being a case in point. The Germans knew what you wrote above well enough to send only one or two experienced pilots to shoot up a formation (where they had that luxury) while leaving the less experienced above watching. I have a view of him being the best fighter pilot of the war.
That said, I still believe that skill disparity was exactly the same thing which enabled Britain to remain in the war after Dunkirk. I remember an earlier thread you were in a long time ago, Nietzsche, where I said that Dunkirk might have been the beginning of the end for the Germans, one reason being that many of the pilots they lost in France were those who had gained experience in Spain prior to the official outbreak - losses compounded later during the battle of Britain.
Air power wins wars. Infantry take the objectives, sure, armour makes that easier, but it is in the air that the strategic battle is won. In the context of this thread, the Germans had that over Russia. Kerfuffles over Stalingrad and Moscow notwithstanding, armies stationed on the Western Front and in Africa would have been free to advance on the Urals, the oilfields in the south, and other areas of more strategic importance. Stalingrad was won mostly because the Russians could afford to simply keep pumping men into the city in order to delay until the Germans ran out of time. Had the troops from the west been available to the Germans to advance on areas the generals wanted to, as well as keep Hitler happy, that would probably have been a different story.
A tank is no good without fuel; considerations of how technically good the T-34 was are largely irrelevant.
That said, I still believe that skill disparity was exactly the same thing which enabled Britain to remain in the war after Dunkirk. I remember an earlier thread you were in a long time ago, Nietzsche, where I said that Dunkirk might have been the beginning of the end for the Germans, one reason being that many of the pilots they lost in France were those who had gained experience in Spain prior to the official outbreak - losses compounded later during the battle of Britain.
Air power wins wars. Infantry take the objectives, sure, armour makes that easier, but it is in the air that the strategic battle is won. In the context of this thread, the Germans had that over Russia. Kerfuffles over Stalingrad and Moscow notwithstanding, armies stationed on the Western Front and in Africa would have been free to advance on the Urals, the oilfields in the south, and other areas of more strategic importance. Stalingrad was won mostly because the Russians could afford to simply keep pumping men into the city in order to delay until the Germans ran out of time. Had the troops from the west been available to the Germans to advance on areas the generals wanted to, as well as keep Hitler happy, that would probably have been a different story.
A tank is no good without fuel; considerations of how technically good the T-34 was are largely irrelevant.
Hans-Joachim Marseilles was the greatest fighter pilot to ever live. Rudel was the best Pilot ...ever.
Ya losing so much in the BoB was a mistake obviously.
Ya losing so much in the BoB was a mistake obviously.
It is the best way to compare for those that doesn't understand the complexities. For top aces, I mean the ones with 200, 300+ kills.