Could any one here tell me about german`s army
- Thread starter Salgado
- Start date
Detail
Could you give a little more detail on what your really looking for. Is there a certain time period or battle you want to know about? In general the way you worded your question the answer would be no, Russia for one had a larger standing army then Germany but it's more complex then that.
Could you give a little more detail on what your really looking for. Is there a certain time period or battle you want to know about? In general the way you worded your question the answer would be no, Russia for one had a larger standing army then Germany but it's more complex then that.
In the begining the Soviet military had recently lost many officers due to Stalin's purges and was not combat ready. Also, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, they had 3 million men, superior equipment,trained soldiers, and clever tactics. At the begining, yes probobly and it stayed this way until the Battle of Stalingrad. From then on the Soviet military was at its full potential and in my opinion mostly recovered from Stalin's purges. Then on, the massive Soviet military with new equipment drove the Germans out, and not too long after the allies landed on the coast of France. The combo of the GIANT Soviet military along with the superbly equipped Americans made Germany's defeat in WWII certain.
And Salgado, welcome.
And Salgado, welcome.
Hi Salgado.
we have had 2 superpowers in this world : Sovietunion and USA.
It would have been amazing if Germany could defeat even one of them, but to defeat both ? at the same time ? impossible !
They did have better tactic though, that helped them for a while until other countries learned the new tactics aswell.
we have had 2 superpowers in this world : Sovietunion and USA.
It would have been amazing if Germany could defeat even one of them, but to defeat both ? at the same time ? impossible !
They did have better tactic though, that helped them for a while until other countries learned the new tactics aswell.
I wasn't gonna touch this thread, however...
Britain? Please.
What they did (in Europe) was:
a) lose half their army's equipment when evacuating before any action in '40
b) stall the German and Italian Navies, though not all that successful at all
c) just so fight off an invasion in '40/'41
d) turn on their ally and sink allied ships
Britain? Please.
What they did (in Europe) was:
a) lose half their army's equipment when evacuating before any action in '40
b) stall the German and Italian Navies, though not all that successful at all
c) just so fight off an invasion in '40/'41
d) turn on their ally and sink allied ships
Very well put. I agree.
Well, of course. They did accomplish quite some stuff - see b) and c) - though it's not like the Commonwealth were the only ones fighting in the early war. "we did a all the fighting at the start" definitely isn't right. Just ask Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia or Greece.
i fully agree with this one.
It would have been another story alltogether for USA to effectively open a 2nd front, had Germany had a half-decent plan and drive their tanks right into dunkirqe, and emmedietly after invade England.
I also doubt they could have got much goods to soviet without any support from english fleet.
Last edited:
Soviet officer problems did not stem from the purges. I would argue that the purges were beneficient in removing incompetent and unreliable figures. The problem is that the Soviet Union did not have good officers to begin with and did not manage to produce a decent officer corps until after the war.
Before WW2 USSR was not superpower by any means. In fact, both Germany and USSR before 1938 had very, very small armies by European standards. USSR on top of that still had quite weak industry - again, much weaker than major European powers. The weak industry, btw, was one of main reasons why USSR tried to stockpile as much weapon as it gets before war.
Contrary to popular belief, most commanders problems in USSR army was not caused by Stalin's purges - these affected army only in minor way - but rather by very rapid army growth within only several years. Just an example: in 3 years (1938-1941) USSR army grew almost 4 times. Stalin's purges somewhat amplified the problem, but were not the direct cause of it.
In 1940-1942 Germany certainly had world most powerful army.
However, I wouldnt bash pre-WW2 USSR army too much for its quality. After all, such respected forces as France or GB armies fared no better against German war mashine...
Before WW2 USA was not superpower by any means either, they had 175.000 men, ruffly the same size as England.(1938)
To my knowledge, noone had even invented the word "superpower".
I was talking about the futile for a medium sized country to take on two giants with endless territory, endless of men, and endless of production capability. -In short: Endless resources
I wouldnt bash them either, they lost 4.5 million men during the first 6 months, and still had enuff men to go on offensive themself.
But you are right in that, on paper, the combined french and english forces had an edge over invading germans, except for air power.
To my knowledge, noone had even invented the word "superpower".
I was talking about the futile for a medium sized country to take on two giants with endless territory, endless of men, and endless of production capability. -In short: Endless resources
I wouldnt bash them either, they lost 4.5 million men during the first 6 months, and still had enuff men to go on offensive themself.
But you are right in that, on paper, the combined french and english forces had an edge over invading germans, except for air power.
Last edited:
winnyfield
New Member
In the European theatre the Soviets pretty much won the war. The E front saw the biggest and worse battle. IMO even if a western front wasn't opened, the Soviets would've still won, they were on a roll.
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/education/education_numbers.html
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/education/education_numbers.html
You're making no sense. If Germany invaded Europe? First off Germany is in Europe. Second off it did invade European countries. Finally we already know what would happen with the Soviet Union because...... *gasp* it actually happened.
Finally the assumption that without England the US could not invade Europe is simply garbage.Navy was substitute for army in US case. US also fulfilled another main requirement for superpower - very powerful & independent industrial economic.
Name me these countries. I dont know any. Territory alone do not mean much - Canada is as big as US - is Canada just as powerful?
After 6 months USSR had lower population than Germany, and substantially lower than Germany + allies invaded USSR. USSR had much weaker industry than Germany alone. Not to speak Germany + axis allies...
Even in air power GB + French aviation was at least good match for German aviation, if not superior.
You'll have to explain this one. You may be right re RAF (you may be), but the French air force definitely wasn't a match at all. Not enough modern frontline fighters to start with, unability to bring them in the air in sufficient numbers and a significant backwardness concerning tactics. A match?