Which is the best army in the world?
- Thread starter AnonymousDoe
- Start date
- Status
sorry friend,but you cannot hold that against the capabilities of US army.come on man,its war and in war you use all means available with you to fight the enemy.sure,US army called for air strikes many times in vietnam,but that can be seen only in the combined arms perspective.though i dont quite agree that they won the war in vietnam,they were successful in repulsing the north vietnamese army offensive.they lost many posts and garrisons to the vietnamese during the tet offensive,but regained them after some bitter fighting...aegis said:
Here's a snippet taken from a website. I did a bit of searching for the various items listed here, there are numerous other sites that corroborate the numbers here +/- a very minor deficiency.
The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. In addition to this, the Americans sent nearly 500,000 trucks to the Soviets from 1941 through 1945! Now somebody please tell me that the Russians would have achieved victory without all this help! I'm not even including the British and Canadians contributions to Russian which were nearly equal in airplanes and tanks.
The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. In addition to this, the Americans sent nearly 500,000 trucks to the Soviets from 1941 through 1945! Now somebody please tell me that the Russians would have achieved victory without all this help! I'm not even including the British and Canadians contributions to Russian which were nearly equal in airplanes and tanks.
This is only help Russian in the early stage of the war to survive against the German on-slaught.But the most important factor that contribute to Russian victory over German is Russian themselves! It is thier own make T-34,KV-1 that destroy large number of German tanks.U must remember German commits most of thier ground forces in the eastern front and supply the best unit and equipment .Imagine German reverses their priority and make Africa their priority,the British and American will have been destroy long time ago!(But German will be destroy by Russian earlier if they do this) Remeber their tank(sherman) and equipment is all the while Inferior to the German(Panther)!Gremlin29 said:
I would say only the allied warplanes really contributed to the Russian and help them build up a credible airforce but the tanks and ground equipment is crappy and better than don't send!
LOL
i jsut watched star trek today
wha happened was soem timetraveleing alien races decided to change earts path, so some1 had shot lenin in 1916 making communism never emerge and germany never had to worry bout russia in WW2 and it just beat europe to a pulp and took easter america
LOL
how coincidential
i jsut watched star trek today
wha happened was soem timetraveleing alien races decided to change earts path, so some1 had shot lenin in 1916 making communism never emerge and germany never had to worry bout russia in WW2 and it just beat europe to a pulp and took easter america
LOL
how coincidential
Not at all true, the lend lease program continued right up through 1945. If you honestly think 500,000 trucks didn't make much of a difference, I see no use in even arguing the point with someone that isn't grounded in reallity.
Even though the T-34 (an improved version of American Mr. Christie's design) and to a lesser extent the KV-1 (totally outclassed by the Panther, Jagdpanther and Tiger and only an equal to the much lighter Pzkfw IV) Russian armor losses vs German exceeded 10 to 1 in favor of the Germans.
The Germans were completely incapable of opening a theater in Africa any larger than they had going. By the time the Americans entered Africa the German Navy had been completey destroyed and thus the Afrika Corps was doomed.
The Panther was a fantastic combat tank, perhaps the overall best of the war. But it was a Heavy tank while the Sherman was a Medium tank so comparing the two is irrelevant. The US chose to produce a numerical superiority, however the M-26 Pershing which saw service in the very end of the war was an equal to anything the Germans could field. Also remember this, the US was not on a peace time footing all the way to 1941, and didn't start mobilizing for WW2 until early 1942.
in terms of production teh states had a n advantage becuz unlike the other european powers theie country wasnt under direct attack
and their industry and economy grew making arms for both sides in the war and the british had invested heavily in america earlier on in order to counter growing german GNP
and their industry and economy grew making arms for both sides in the war and the british had invested heavily in america earlier on in order to counter growing german GNP
Since Russian knows how to make complicated things like tanks,u think russian don't know how to produce trucks?Russia industries were so powerful that Geman with combine industry with France cannot match Russia!One clear example is Kursk,despite heavy losses in Kursk,russia were able to quick replace all the losses easily while German nvr recovered! Is just that allies were already supplying them trucks which russia sees no necessary to produce but continue received(free! why not?).Without allies truck,russia had the abilities to produce themselves.Is just that they decide to concentrate everything on armour! Even the construction of truck lies on russia,it will only take up small amount of concentration from armour production and they can still win the war!Gremlin29 said:
When Panther introduced? Tiger? Panther perfection only comes in the late 43' which by then German losses initiative and resoucres.General Geridan was so furstrated with panther reliabilties that he wrote some comment abt it in the mid 43'.
Totally outclass?Pure rubbish! Tiger is faster and more moble than T-34?In fact,Tiger is even slower than KV-1.
Patially or 75% outclass will be better term. Jagdpanther don't even have a turret? How can it be better than T-34? Unless in super flat and open environment which it's gun can outgun russia ones.But they r fighting in eastern front not africa,not much open space like africa
Pzkfw class nvr manage to beat the T-34,its frontal armour is not slope,weight less than 30 tons.If really so good,they will be no need for panther and tiger.From early 1941 to mid 1943,German tanks were always outclass by russia T-34 and KV-1.Panther design is actually a copy of T-34.it was only leadership problem that hamper russia defence in the early stage s of war.They was even a report which states 2 KV-1 hold up 2 German company during the Barbarossa campaign in the 1941 for one whole week.
Russia losses is 10 to 1 against german? Only on some v special cases.If yr theory applies in every scenarios.German kursk losses was 4000 tanks.Russia report losses of 6000 tanks will change to 40000 tanks losses.Logic? Is this the true?
You are ignoring the fact that the Russian heavy industry capability was heavily compromised. While russia was busily churning out KV1's, KV2's and T-34's (often from remelted metal pulled in from all over the country) they did not have logistical backup.Aegis said:
No offence, but you are taking the typical "non-professionals" view of seeing guns and failing to comprehend the absolute importance of logistics. Look at all battles throughout history - and behind every one of them you will find a huge logistics capability. People typically look at command and available toys as the primary issues when logistics is the biggest factor to consider.
Russia had enormous latent ability, but they needed enormous support so as to be able to churn out weapons for their big push. Without allied support in providing studebaker 6x6's (which were the basic GAZ/KAZ future reproductions, Russia would have lost a few years of critical time. Germany mainly lost the war due to bad tactics, but the critical keys were mainly due to poorer or compromised logistics decisions.
There are individual reports of pairs of King Tigers decimating squadrons of enemy tanks (eg Hurtgen Woods). So individual scenarios will always provide alternative examples of capability. The Germans had better anti-tank weapons,. They were the first to develop proper ant-tank tactics and teams, so using a tank as a tank killer was not the "doctrine de rigeure" Hence why they developed turretless SPG's and turretless anti-tank platforms (lower profile, hence harder to kill in a full on contact - its why the Russian SU series for almost 30 years were direct design copies of the german WW2 vehicles. Even the russians considered them superior tank killers)Aegis said:
The T-34 was the most capable of the continental tanks, but it was outclassed by the M-26. Considering the fact that at that stage the USSR and USA were more or less on the same side, it becomes a moot point.
In 1942 Russian production was so critical tank crews were literally at the end of the assembly line mounting the tanks as they were produced and driving them straight into battle. They were so hard pressed they didn't even bother to paint them!
Guderian was disenchanted with the D model Panther which made their combat debut at Kursk. The follow on A model, and later G resolved all of the serious deficiencies the D model had at which time he was more than enthusiastic about their production. And they were by far superior to all versions of the T-34 and KV-1.
PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H were every bit as equal to the T-34, having better guns and optics (Russian manufacturing was very primitive and optics were the achilles hill of their otherwise fine guns). Rudolph von Ribbentrops company of Pzkpfw IV ausf H's managed to destroy over 100 Russian T-34's in a battle in which ranges were reduced to 30 metres. That's fact, not hypothetical. The PzKpfw IV ausf D with it's short 75mm was not match for the T-34-76 at the time but within a year the Germans upgunned the PzKpfw IV with the much improved 75mm which was superior to the Russian 76mm. Jagdpanther proved to be very deadly, there are numerous accounts of companies of 10 whiping out entire Russian divisions, withdrawing only due to lack of ammunition. The Jagdpanther also had a very sloped, and very thick glacis plate making it nearly indestructible to frontal shots form anything other than the IS-2.
All this arguing aside, there is no doubt in my military mind that the Russians would have been speaking German had it not been for the monumental amount of Lend Lease equipment and supplies delivered by the Allies. There's a pretty good reason why Joseph Stalin kept begging the allies to open another front, and it's not so he would have to "share" Germany after the war.
Hey! I hate people making stupid comparrison abt thing of using wrong period and times and try to create aa myth that this certain thing is superior! Just like comparing a Mig-15 to a P-51D Mustang fighter and keep on telling everyone how good Mig-15 is(faster speed,more thrust and acceleration)than a P-51D.
PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H is produced during the 43' to 44' and u use this to compare to a T-34/76 telling everybody how good their new 75mm gun compare to a Russia? By 42's,the Russia T-34/85 model had already coming offf from the production line which is abt the same period abt PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H. Do u think PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H can match T-34/85 in terms of barrel and new curve turret with better armour and capacity.For God's sake,T-34/76 is a model in 39' which shall be compare to earlier PzKpfw which PzKpfw will never match the T-34.That is the reason why Panther is introduce!!!! In the previous post ,there is even someone saying US had more superior tank like M-26 Pershing against the Russia T-34? OMG,then Russia IS-2 is for what? Compare to M-48 MBT? M-26 Pershing and IS-2 r introduced at the same time,so they shall be the same category for comparison!
I would it takes 2 hands to clap.Russia needs allies help for supply and opening southern front.But allies must also be v grateful to Russia for destroying bulk of German army or else allies can forget abt capturing Italy and France.
Yep, that someone was me. The M-26 was introduced during but towards the end of the war, so is rightfully able to be included as a comparison. The fact that it wasn't able to be fielded against T-34's is more of an academic issue rather than a technical issue.Aegis said:
More to the point, during the Korean War, the M-26 decimated T-34/85's and JS-10's. So in an 6-7 year gap, the two platforms did actually slug it out in battle.
Pick either 1945 or 1952 and the result would have been the same as the platforms were still comparable. Even the Russians admit that the Pershing had the T-34/85's and Js-10's measure, so I am not sure why you are getting excited.
Korea war is not a good comparison for armour but u can talk abt airforce,the sabre and mig-15 is the perfect comparison! Communist armour in korea war is always a step behind,bulk of their armour is the T-34/85,few JS10 while UN most tank r Centurion,M-26,M-48.But M-26 peshing is pretty good tanks for the US.gf0012-aust said:
My friend you are guilty of your own charges!
First of all, the ausf G entered production in May of 42, and was present not only throught the late summer of 42 but was present en masse at Kursk (the pivotal tank battle of Operation Citadel). It mounted the L-40 75mm which was the same excellent gun found in the towed Pak 40 and was superior to the Russians 76mm, period. The T-35/85 wasn't even proposed until August of 43, production STARTED in January of 44.
The T-34/76 didn't go into production until 1940 but there were very few available even as late as December of 41 (they were employed in onsies and twosies with tank companies as an attempt to bolster the Russians light tanks).
Sorry,friend.PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H r still not able to compete against T-34 even with the new L/40 75mm gun! It 's armour and mobilities and cross country abilities r far ,far behind! PzKpfw class continue produce was because it was cheap and reliable! Panther was produce to counter T-34 and this is a fact no body can deny! Beacause PzKpfw class is no way going to match T-34/76 even with a superior gun.But russia built T-34/85 to counter the threat of Panther G which its 76mm is not v effective!Gremlin29 said:
If PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H is good,panther will not be built! Only Tiger and King will be bulid to match JS series! Panther is consider a medium tank by the german to counter T-34! Hahaha. Pls tell me Panther is built to counter which tank if not T-34? If PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H is so good against T-34/76,why must have Panther? Can u find me a official website tells me Panther is not built to counter T-34? PzKpfw IV ausf G and ausf H r only fit to fight Sherman!
From www.wargamer.com
So what happened to your claim of the T-34/85 being available in 1942? :roll
The Panzer IV (F2, G and H) was up to the task of engaging T-34/76's tit for tat. Since the Russians lacked even rudimentary tactical skills their only solution to fighting German tanks (or infantry) was in waves of 100 or more and it is this coupled with the T-34's capabilities that pushed the Germans into developing Panthers. T-34/76's didn't stand a chance against the Panther.
The Panzer IV was not indestructible and it's armor could be defeated by the T-34/76 but likewise, the T-34/76 could be handled by the Panzer IV (F2,G and H). The T-34/76 couldn't handle Panthers or Tigers (Tiger I introduced in 1942) even in their massive assault waves so that is why they developed the T-34/85.
The Panzer IV (F2, G and H) was up to the task of engaging T-34/76's tit for tat. Since the Russians lacked even rudimentary tactical skills their only solution to fighting German tanks (or infantry) was in waves of 100 or more and it is this coupled with the T-34's capabilities that pushed the Germans into developing Panthers. T-34/76's didn't stand a chance against the Panther.
The Panzer IV was not indestructible and it's armor could be defeated by the T-34/76 but likewise, the T-34/76 could be handled by the Panzer IV (F2,G and H). The T-34/76 couldn't handle Panthers or Tigers (Tiger I introduced in 1942) even in their massive assault waves so that is why they developed the T-34/85.
I admit it's wrong info!Gremlin29 said:
I'm wondering who is projectile is going to bounce off if the engagement is at 1200m to 1800m since PzKpfw IV front amour is not slope and not even to the standard of T-34 and PzKpfw IV whether up to the task of attacking a T-34 in a muddy and bumpy open field. Armour warfare isn't just abt gun? Armour and mobilities also play an important role!
By the way,I don't think PzKpfw IV L/40,48 is better compare to T-34 F34 gun.From the fact,I find only the L/70 of 7.5cm gun of Panther is consider superior than F34!
The problem with the T-34/76's gun lies with it's optics, or rather it's poor quality optics rather than it's penetrating power. The gun's effectiveness is considerably diminished as range increases which is why standard Russian tactics were to rush waves of tanks forward to engage the Germans at close quarter which is where the T-34 had the advantage. So, the T-34's advantages of better mobility and armor protection were mitigated by the Germans superior gun, gunnery and employment. Also, the T-34/76 had a major design flaw in that the tank commander doubled as the gunner. The T-34/85 was a much better machine with added punch and the addition of a dedicated gunner.
As for your scenario of 12-1800 meter engagements, the T-34/76 wasn't even considered an imminent threat by the Germans until it closed to within 800 meters. There's more to it than muzzle velocity and the ability to penetrate armor. Something fairly unique to German AFV's was their use of face hardened steel which diminshes published armor piercing capabilities. I wont argue that the sloped armor is a big assett, but there are many many reports of Tiger I's deflecting many shots from the T-34/76 in a single battle.
I will concede that the T-34 was a good design, but the advantages it held over the Panzer IV were short lived and nearly negated by it's poor firing capabilities.
As for your scenario of 12-1800 meter engagements, the T-34/76 wasn't even considered an imminent threat by the Germans until it closed to within 800 meters. There's more to it than muzzle velocity and the ability to penetrate armor. Something fairly unique to German AFV's was their use of face hardened steel which diminshes published armor piercing capabilities. I wont argue that the sloped armor is a big assett, but there are many many reports of Tiger I's deflecting many shots from the T-34/76 in a single battle.
I will concede that the T-34 was a good design, but the advantages it held over the Panzer IV were short lived and nearly negated by it's poor firing capabilities.
Which is the best army in the world ?
Jeeez thats a hard one.
The yanks:- Well uncle sams boys are the best equipped, but there always beating up on poor klashnikov toting men who don,t have anything else with them, and even when they do put up a fight, the americans call in air support. If they met like for like then that would be a different story.
The Russians:- Oh please, the Chechens soon broke that myth. Only in the second war when the russians used massive air support, missile attacks, infanty odds of 50:1, attacking civilians and also the use of chemical weapons did they manage to make some inroads.
Europeans:- Possibly the germans, but have not been tested for a very long time. The SAS and SBS british units are probably the worlds elite.
Forget armies... one man defeated the USA police force and volunteer force, in part II he beat the russians and vietnemise and in part III
re-bashed the soviets.....
His name JOHN RAMBO
" he wants his country to love him as much as he loves it"
Who,s gonna get a whupping in part IV,
my bets on saddam.
Jeeez thats a hard one.
The yanks:- Well uncle sams boys are the best equipped, but there always beating up on poor klashnikov toting men who don,t have anything else with them, and even when they do put up a fight, the americans call in air support. If they met like for like then that would be a different story.
The Russians:- Oh please, the Chechens soon broke that myth. Only in the second war when the russians used massive air support, missile attacks, infanty odds of 50:1, attacking civilians and also the use of chemical weapons did they manage to make some inroads.
Europeans:- Possibly the germans, but have not been tested for a very long time. The SAS and SBS british units are probably the worlds elite.
Forget armies... one man defeated the USA police force and volunteer force, in part II he beat the russians and vietnemise and in part III
re-bashed the soviets.....
His name JOHN RAMBO
" he wants his country to love him as much as he loves it"
Who,s gonna get a whupping in part IV,
my bets on saddam.
- Status