What country's involvment was the most crucial to the Allies' victory?

Discussion in 'General' started by trumpetplayer992, Feb 23, 2006.

?

What country's involvment was the most crucial to the Allies' victory?

  1. UK

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. USSR

    6.1%
  3. USA

    21.2%
  4. China

    33.3%
  5. France

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Joint Effort (UK/USA/USSR)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Other (Please State)

    39.4%
  1. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Not from me you won't - 75% of the soldiers lost by Germany were lost of the Eastern Front. If that lot had turned up in the West, we'd have had problems!


    On the other hand, had not the Western Allies kept the Luftwaffe busy in the West, destroying roughly 2/3 of the German planes during WW2, the Soviets might have had more difficult times.
     
  2. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Exx,
    Point taken and I'm not disputing that the Western Allies did not make a contribution especially in the Strategic Bombing arena. HOWEVER the fact remains that the bulk of the land fighting took place in the East. More Men, More Materials. To be honest I dont think any of the Allies can turn around and say they did more than anyone else. All played their part
     
  3. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Exx,
    Point taken and I'm not disputing that the Western Allies did not make a contribution especially in the Strategic Bombing arena. HOWEVER the fact remains that the bulk of the land fighting took place in the East. More Men, More Materials. To be honest I dont think any of the Allies can turn around and say they did more than anyone else. All played their part

    I agree as well. Without the Western allies, the Soviets would have had quite a harder time (no Lend-Lease, less German troops busy in the West, 1/3 more of the overall Luftwaffe strenght to deal with).
    Without the Soviets, things dont look good for the Wessies: at least 3 million more German Soldiers to deal with, thousands of more tanks, planes, guns...
     
  4. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    The Grand Alliance made it impossible for the Axis to have a chance. Remove any of the countries and it would have been more difficult. To me, Russia had the least impact because they were not as efficient in fighting the Germans as the west was. Russia nibbled on Germany in the east "borrowing" the west's eating utensils, the true Allies in the west devoured the Germans with their own silverware.
     
  5. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Exx,
    Point taken and I'm not disputing that the Western Allies did not make a contribution especially in the Strategic Bombing arena. HOWEVER the fact remains that the bulk of the land fighting took place in the East. More Men, More Materials. To be honest I dont think any of the Allies can turn around and say they did more than anyone else. All played their part
    Gott, the west didn't do much land fighting in a relative sense. That was an inefficient Russian system of fighting. The west destroyed armies from the air. Heavy bombers could do in a single run what took Russian armies a year to do. Western fighter bombers eliminated heavy assets ahead of armies to allow them to pit tank against man. If the German eastern forces had been on the western front, there would simply be more operation COBRA type bombing raids to destroy German forces en masse. There would have been more civilian deaths and friendly fire deaths (from the bombing) but there would have been less total allied soldier deaths as the armies would rarely encounter a cohesive German army after the destruction raids.

    My point is that operation COBRA type bombing campaign was one of the most efficient attacks ever carried out. The German losses were horrendous but because 150 allied soldiers were killed by the bombing then the Allies halted it. That was dumb because no way 150 soldiers could have destroyed that much of the German army or its assets. 15000 soldiers couldn’t have done it. The west in their respect for their own could not stomach friendly fire losses even if it in essence saved 10 times more lives.

    By contrast and even with their numbers the Russians were inefficient at fighting an enemy. Yes that had the numbers and disdain for their own enough to run human waves at the Germans to hope a few that are not slaughtered could kill at least one German but as Patton said, the idea of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor b*****d die for his. Of course that logic makes no sense if you are a country where soldiers are useless expendable, replaceable commodities.
     
  6. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    The west destroyed armies from the air. Heavy bombers could do in a single run what took Russian armies a year to do.
    I don't even think that is true today, let alone then.

    There would have been more civilian deaths and friendly fire deaths (from the bombing) but there would have been less total allied soldier deaths as the armies would rarely encounter a cohesive German army after the destruction raids.
    There were and are rules which have to be followed in armed conflict. One of them is that there should be as little collateral damage and suffering for civillians as possible. The other thing is, once you start to show a negligent disregard for the soldiers on your own front line, they stop performing at their best. They havem to want to move forward, and if that meansd they are going to get bombed by their own side they aren't going to be too keen to do it. Then you have all sorts of dicipline problems. Accidents happen. but if they are not sorted ASP the troops feel under valued and worthless and stop performing. Not a combat vet are you Jimbo.

    By contrast and even with their numbers the Russians were inefficient at fighting an enemy. Yes that had the numbers and disdain for their own enough to run human waves at the Germans to hope a few that are not slaughtered could kill at least one German but as Patton said, the idea of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor b*****d die for his. Of course that logic makes no sense if you are a country where soldiers are useless expendable, replaceable commodities.
    The russians may not have had any finese, but they were doing a job with the resorces they had. They were short of tanks, weapons, rations, uniforms, in fact pretty much everythng. And yes, they were helped out by lend lease, but America didn't have the worry of their land being invaded. Yet the soviets still threw everything they had against the German invaders, which is what you'd expect from any country. But it's not right to disrespect the soldiers who went up against better armed troops with very little and very low odds of surviving. Would the americans have done it if they had to? We'll never know, and you'd better hope that you never have to find out.
     
  7. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    I don't even think that is true today, let alone then.
    It is true today and was then as well. Since and including WWII, the US doctrine has been that wars are won by the air and finished up by ground forces. Failure to deploy this doctrine leads to problems. Why send ground forces against tanks when the air can erase them?

    There were and are rules which have to be followed in armed conflict. One of them is that there should be as little collateral damage and suffering for civillians as possible. The other thing is, once you start to show a negligent disregard for the soldiers on your own front line, they stop performing at their best. They havem to want to move forward, and if that meansd they are going to get bombed by their own side they aren't going to be too keen to do it. Then you have all sorts of dicipline problems. Accidents happen. but if they are not sorted ASP the troops feel under valued and worthless and stop performing. Not a combat vet are you Jimbo.
    No, I am not a combat vet. I don’t have to get burned by an oven to know its hot either. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. A couple of months later in we had deployed radio marker beacons to identify precisely the front line positions for the tactical air force. While this prevented collateral damage and allowed the tactical fighter/bombers to operate all the way up within a few hundred feet of the front lines, the heavies never returned to shut down the war by erasing whole armies in a day. The air force destroyed most of the heavy stuff on the ground (a good portion was claimed by artillery too of course). An example of this is that in the destruction of the Falaise pocket, according to the XIX tactical air book I have, it claims that in the post-battle assessment of the destruction of vehicles/armor on the ground, 60-80 percent was caused by the air attacks alone. That’s a lot of armor, a lot of artillery, a lot of MG42s a lot of ammo trucks, a lot of flame throwers, a lot of 88s, a lot of nebelwerfers, and a lot of soldiers that the foot soldiers never faced. That can’t simply be disregarded.

    The russians may not have had any finese, but they were doing a job with the resorces they had. They were short of tanks, weapons, rations, uniforms, in fact pretty much everythng. And yes, they were helped out by lend lease, but America didn't have the worry of their land being invaded. Yet the soviets still threw everything they had against the German invaders, which is what you'd expect from any country. But it's not right to disrespect the soldiers who went up against better armed troops with very little and very low odds of surviving. Would the americans have done it if they had to? We'll never know, and you'd better hope that you never have to find out.
    I didn't make value judgements on the Russian soldier. I simply pointed out their doctrine was inefficient and wasteful of soldiers and equipment. You want to talk about discouraging front line troops, then let them see the previous front line charge a bunch of MG-42s, getting mown down and then realize you are the next wave. I think the way the Russians fought was not out of necessity but out of opportunity. Had Stalin not have killed off his military leaders before the war then he might have executed war differently.
     
  8. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    It is true today and was then as well. Since and including WWII, the US doctrine has been that wars are won by the air and finished up by ground forces. Failure to deploy this doctrine leads to problems. Why send ground forces against tanks when the air can erase them?
    Well I'll just have to bin all my experience and bow to your superior knowledge. Remember the war in Kosovo? The one they said that they won by airpower? Even with all the modern target aquisition methods, much of what was claimed as destroyed by the pilots turned out to have been perfectly servicable of decoys when the soldiers arrived on the ground. And that's 1990s, not 1940s technology. If you fly low and fast over a battlefield, you miss half of what's on the ground. You are moving too fast, trying to avoid being taken out and they are camouflaged. A FAC helps, but that means you can't destroy the enemy until the soldiers on the ground can see them.

    An example of this is that in the destruction of the Falaise pocket, according to the XIX tactical air book I have, it claims that in the post-battle assessment of the destruction of vehicles/armor on the ground, 60-80 percent was caused by the air attacks alone.
    I should formulate my opinions more on the reading of books than my own experiences. Does it say if it's close support air power which is brought in by the soldiers on the ground to specific targets? or as you suggest, taken out long before they get there.... which by the way, I wouldn't believe anyway.

    I didn't make value judgements on the Russian soldier. I simply pointed out their doctrine was inefficient and wasteful of soldiers and equipment. You want to talk about discouraging front line troops, then let them see the previous front line charge a bunch of MG-42s, getting mown down and then realize you are the next wave. I think the way the Russians fought was not out of necessity but out of opportunity. Had Stalin not have killed off his military leaders before the war then he might have executed war differently.
    My point was that it was necessity. As any other oppertunity would have obviously been better all round. Tactically, strategically and for the moral of the soldiers and civilians of the Siviet Union.
     
  9. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    No you are right pilot. The "Ronson Burner/Tommy Cooker" Shermans did chase the Tigers, Panthers and Panzer 4s all the way across France in three months because they could not destroy them with tactical air and medium and heavy bombers.

    I should have known that only soldiers walking up to a tank can identify it. Spotter planes can't do it and pilots patrolling can't see the smoke and fire of guns as we know they possesed no vision or eyesight. Why they took off hours before an invasion knowing that until ground soldiers got there there would be no chance to kill the enemy.

    And you are also right, we should have simply taken the pilots and ground crews and converted them to foot soldiers. Then we could have run them at the heavy German armor in Human waves like our advanced Russian "allies" did.

    You are correct that planes have no trottle so they can't slow down, bank and circle they have to fly at max power or the will fall out of the sky. Absolutely the Germans never complained about fighter patrols destroying their equipment. They also can't dive, they have to come in on a strafing pattern flying like a bat out of hell. They simply have only two axes of motion.

    You are absolutely correct. Glad you were there to set me strait on how useless air power is without ground spotters. Imagine the idea of a flying FAC! Or even worse, putting an air force pilot on the ground to direct the occasional close encounters. That's nuts! That sounds like something those bloody Yanks would try. Again, I don't know where I get these wild notions. Good thing you were there experiencing the limitations of air power so I wouldn't dwell in such ignorance. Thanks for correcting me pilot.
     
  10. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Well your lack of knowledge is proven by your pathetic answer. You make sure you stick to your books. But if all your 'experience' is purely taken from what you get from books, just don't try and tell others what 'your' opinion is. You make yourself look stupid.
     
  11. Panzerfaust

    Panzerfaust Senior Member

    The United States obviously, no need to go into detail there.
     
  12. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Gott, the west didn't do much land fighting in a relative sense. That was an inefficient Russian system of fighting. The west destroyed armies from the air. Heavy bombers could do in a single run what took Russian armies a year to do. Western fighter bombers eliminated heavy assets ahead of armies to allow them to pit tank against man. If the German eastern forces had been on the western front, there would simply be more operation COBRA type bombing raids to destroy German forces en masse. There would have been more civilian deaths and friendly fire deaths (from the bombing) but there would have been less total allied soldier deaths as the armies would rarely encounter a cohesive German army after the destruction raids.

    My point is that operation COBRA type bombing campaign was one of the most efficient attacks ever carried out. The German losses were horrendous but because 150 allied soldiers were killed by the bombing then the Allies halted it. That was dumb because no way 150 soldiers could have destroyed that much of the German army or its assets. 15000 soldiers couldn’t have done it. The west in their respect for their own could not stomach friendly fire losses even if it in essence saved 10 times more lives.

    By contrast and even with their numbers the Russians were inefficient at fighting an enemy. Yes that had the numbers and disdain for their own enough to run human waves at the Germans to hope a few that are not slaughtered could kill at least one German but as Patton said, the idea of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor b*****d die for his. Of course that logic makes no sense if you are a country where soldiers are useless expendable, replaceable commodities.

    As usual, the utter nonsense and total lack of knowledge from the local uneducated expert. The part about armies destroyed by the air, as Pilot pointed out, is just another proof that even today some people are gullible enough to believe such crap.
    The part about the Eastern front is a lovely way of telling the audience that poor Jimbo doesnt have any clue of how actually the war was fought there.
     
  13. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Jimbo to your assertion that War can be won from the air I have just one word: Vietnam. You make out that Normandy was won in the air, well I can rebut that by saying Afghanistan. Airpower is important but so are ground forces.
     
  14. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    You cannot take ground from the air therefore the airforce can only clear the way for the ground troops who will be needed for a long time yet.
     
  15. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Well, Gott,

    The discussion had to do with the military not the US House and Senate. They are the ones that killed their own with a highly immoral and incompetent president. But this is a discussion about the relative affect of parts of the army. It is implied in the question of relative value that the others were not eliminated. For then, if you took your army and threw away the navy and air forces, then the enemies air forces would simply blow your army into non-existence. What could you do? No soldier, no matter how brave or well trained, could possibly hold his molecules together when 1000 pound bombs were dropped on his position.

    The point here is why would it be implied in saying "which service had the most effect on victory" and think that means you don't still have use of the others.

    Vietnam is an excellent example of air power. The Tet offensive where the US slaughtered virtually the entire remaining NVA army but thanks to our godless news media agencies whose reporting convinced the American public we had actually lost that battle, for some reason, probably the same one that they try to do today in Iraq, the US decided to pull out. The war is over because you annihilate almost the entire enemy and you decide to pull out? That's the fault of the air force ok.

    Linebacker II also proves how easy it was to destroy a large tactical well defended city. Had it have been moved to Cambodia, then it would have even finished off the NVA before Tet.

    A better example would have been Dessert Storm where only "mostly all" of the enemy was destroyed by air rather that "pretty friggen much all" were destroyed.

    Korea, and Vietnam were all gifts from our Russian "allies" from WWII. It was as though the Russians set out to prove that Patton and Churchill were right and they were the least trustable human beings to crawl on the earth and should be removed at the end of WWII.

    Who was a bigger plague to mankind, the Nazis or the Russians. That’s a classic argument that will transcend time. If you go by the number of dead they caused, its a no brainer.
     
  16. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Lol, well

    good luck Gott if you ever try to find some sense out of all this crap :)
     
  17. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    There is a middle ground here between jimbos:" all air all the time" and Exxleys: "runaway"(monty python you know I would).

    Strategic bombing done without mercy will bring any nation to its knees. Specifically fire bombing. Not small scale(Not diminishing the deadly effect that the raids had during the blitz but they weren't anything in comparison to scale as the latter) like in England, but unopposed massive raids like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo.

    Germany defeated France due in large part to total lack of Allied air support. It was the swordfish that allowed Bismarck to be sunk. No carriers destroyed at Pearl which allowed the Allies to defeat Japan at Midway which put Japan on the defensive. The fire bombings and industrial bombings which crippled the Axis. And the Atomic bomb dropped from an airplane that ended the War. There are many more examples of air power helping to win WWII.

    WWII airpower was severly restricted by weather so we have the other sides argument of the Ost Front, Wacht am Rhein, to an extent Normandy and even the search for Bismarck.

    Vietnam was started by the French and left not lost by the American Military. The US military won just about every battle in Vietnam. But the Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson as well as Congress did their best to create problems for the US Military in conducting the War. The same as the French Government did to their French Paratroopers at Diem Bien Phu. Before Vietnamization both the Phoenix project(Read an ranh) and the American military succeeded. Destroying the VC during TET and successes in every action albeit with casualties 56,000 at wars end. This happens when one doesn't fight a total war. Total War, like the US Civil War, the way Sherman fought.

    You know Exx, don't just call it crap, tell us why it is crap.
    Some of his arguments are rough so fix instead of condemn and maybe we'll all learn something.

    Poo Pooing everything Jim says gets tiresome.
     
  18. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    You know Exx, don't just call it crap, tell us why it is crap.
    Some of his arguments are rough so fix instead of condemn and maybe we'll all learn something.


    I've already posted in another thread some of the analyzis made by research teams from the Tac Air Forces after the Normandy campaign. I've also posted some other figures for German armour losses during that same campaign. Basically, the claim that Air destroyed everything (especially ground forces) has proven to be bogus over and over on this forum.
    Im really not eager to repost it over and over since it will prolly end up the usual way: no more comment from our local uneducated expert, then another blablabla post about it.
     
  19. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    then another blablabla post about it.

    See, I knew one of these times you'd make me laugh. Just hope it doesn't take as many posts for the next time.:lol:
     
  20. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    See, I knew one of these times you'd make me laugh. Just hope it doesn't take as many posts for the next time.:lol:

    Maybe you should read more of Jimbos posts then. Im afraid I cant beat him when it comes to laughable and unsourced posts.
     

Share This Page