Stick to economics.
in a quick, decisive campaign, MAYBE they had a chance. after that they simply didn’t have enough muscle to pull it thru. the Russians commanded a gigantic ground force with lots of planes, armor, artillery. bottom line- us had no hope of winning a prolonged war with USSR. zippo.
don’t forget the Germans gave the western allies a hard fight in Italy and Normandy. where the allies had MASSIVE superiority in manpower and arms. they also beat them in Holland. the US picked on weakened foe with an air armada and they thought they were hot shit.
- An original by the same engineer that made the MP44.
Your article suggests that Schmeisser primarily worked on the manufacturing process, not the design. Furthermore, the AK has signifigant differences in it’s internals, it’s far from a “copy”, and is in many regards a superior weapon to the MP44.
The rest of your post I agree with, I just dislike people unessecarily degrading certain weapons. There’s a lot of cold war myth still going around that dismiss Soviet weaponry as the inferior tools of the barbarian horde, and hype up German superiority.
Except it was the Soviet Army which had become expert at offensive campaigns and in 1945 held the immediate advantage in men and experience. In any war in 1945 it would have been the force on the offensive.
Does anyone besides yourself take you seriously? Because if they do, I am unaware of their existence.
- in a quick, decisive campaign, MAYBE they had a chance. after that they simply didn’t have enough muscle to pull it thru. the Russians commanded a gigantic ground force with lots of planes, armor, artillery. bottom line- us had no hope of winning a prolonged war with USSR. zippo.
By late '45, the Russians were fairly exhausted. As we’ve said they had a lot of mobilized forces, but if they started taking continued heavy losses thier industry, especially without the help from the US, was no match for the western allies. Ignoring political complications, a prolonged war would have favored the US.
That is true. For the long term the US had more war potential. In a prolonged war the question was wether there would be sufficient will to mobilise this potential and to take the sort of losses required.
In the immedate and in theatre itself the Soviet + allied ground forces were superior to the Western Allied ground forces and offensive action was the stuff of fantasy.
by winter 1941-1942 what were the german losses?
It is not a democracy. I have no doubt among people who have taken a look at specialist history the sort of thing I have stated is taken more seriously than the sort of thing you have written.
We are taught to think of the Soviet war machine as a power-house of industrial might, but the centrally planned Soviet economy practically didn’t produce a technological innovation on it’s own. It was entirely dependent on the west for military technology. In the 40’s all Soviet vehicles, tanks, planes and ships were copies of western models. Many Soviet industrial complexes had been delivered by western companies down to the last bolt, and there wan’t one that had been built without western help. The Soviet union had received practically it’s entire productive capacity in the form of 1) western support of the Bolshevik revolution (President Wilson even sent troops), 2) western aid during WW1, 3) massive purchases of technology and material with oil money, 4) espionage, 5) lend-lease, and 6) transfer of German industry, technology and experts after WW2. The Soviet economy and ability to wage war would completely have fallen apart without a continuous stream of western support. The west could easily have defeated the Soviet Union. But they didn’t want to. Soviet sympathy in the west had something to do with it. But more importantly western governments wanted the Soviet Union as an enemy to justify it’s authority and military buildup.
What I’m saying is this: Your posts are consistently of low quality and are rude. I went into this thread to post a half-sarcastic response consisting of a few thoughts thrown together without rhyme or reason. You can’t expect much else from a kinda-sorta-peacenik. You could’ve ignored my post for being of low quality, which it was. That’s what I usually do to your posts. OR, if my post was of such low quality, you could’ve easily destroyed everything I said. Instead, you opted to insult me and then claim some kind of authority on the subject (LOL?). You’re in blatant violation of Rule #4. Just sayin’.
I found this list of German losses by month.
How is what I said degrading the weapon? I’m degrading Soviet technological progress. They outsourced everything.
They were still receiving foreign aid even after WW2.
I didn’t realise you wrote partially tongue in cheek. I have seen the sort of stuff you had written written deadly seriously on many occassions.
But can you explain what was the purpose of your post? Why do you suggest I should have argued against your post when you say it was only half-serious and you therefore did not stand behind it? So were you then fishing?