yourmumsdomain.com

Calix wrote:Get them, although i'm concerned as to her appearance considering that story..

Either invisible or wishes she was probably.

Would you not attribute the Soviet army being designed that way due mainly to incompetance and bad planning? I'm not a military history fanatic (why study the tools of history above those who use them), but I've picked up enough because it's obviously impossible to fully grasp diplomatic or economic history without knowing about it. I do know, as I should think you do, that Russia built far more tanks than any other nation in her five year plans in the 1930s. But, as it was a period of rapid technological change, they mostly became obsolete before the war started. It's exactly the same kind of incompetance and poor planning.

Not trying harder to seize the French fleet was strange. I would speculate that she prioritised using U-boats to fight a naval battle, and most of the ships were in N. Africa, near the Mediterranean where Italy had a good chance to gain supremacy.

I think Britain's army was pretty poor in 1939, agreed, but as you have pointed out the French army was actually the envy of the world. With some back up and Britain's naval support (or even use of the ridiculous amount of long range bombers we had built) victory would have been possible.

About Poland - just look at a map. It's kinda in the way of any conquest of Russian territory don't you think? Hardly the same as Romania and Hungary. Hitler wanted to drive towards the Urals, not the Black Sea.

I never suggested that St Petersburg could be attacked from the sea. If I seemed to convey that then I must not have phrased my point clearly enough. My point was that ports, obviously, could be used for moving large amounts of men, supplies, artillery or whatever else the Russian's probably don't want to be amassed 32km from their 2nd city.

I wouldn't say it was sheer luck the Americans joined the war. This really is my domain now I'm afraid. I have read nearly every important document regarding American foreign policy during WWII. Churchill was shrewd in his communication with Roosevelt and seemed daring and confident to cross the Atlantic to meet him by ship. His oratory that so lifted the British public also touched nerves with public opinion in the states. I won't say Churchill was the main reason the US entered the war. It's far too complicated and Roosevelt was obviously the man who relentlessly worked to bring public opinion behind it. Also, the blitz and the occupation of France really stirred up American sentiment against Hitler's barbarity.

Regarding the Soviet army, obviously it's a books worth of text to go into everything in detail, but seems as we mentioned tanks. This is probably incredibly boring but nm.

As you say, the Russians had an insane number of tanks. There's a Hitler quote I can't be arsed to look up, something along the lines of "If I had known the Russians possesed such a number of Tanks, I wouldn't have started this war"

The Soviets produced yearly, (from 1933 until 1941) between 3,500 and 4,000 tanks. When the Germans launched the attack on Poland they had 3,819, the total of their production since beginning rearmament.

Of the 20,000+ tanks the Soviets started 1941 with, the most common were of the 'BT' designation(over 6,500). These are the ones commonly referred to as obsolete. Obviously they did have certain deficiencies, but the best two tanks(overall) of the war, the Russian T34 and the German Panther, are direct descendants of the BT models.

The BT tanks possessed a 45mm cannon, something not matched by British and American tanks until 1942. The BT tanks had 36.4 horse power per ton of mass, compared to 13.9 in the German Panzer III J, the most common German tank in 1941. The BT had a speed of 69mph, the fastest of the war. The BT was also the first tank in the world to be developed to be able to ford rivers whilst completely submerged.

The scariest statistic about this tank is that it could run for up to 630km on it's tracks and 1,250km on wheels. A tank designed for massive advances. The name itself, BT, is "high speed" apparently - it was a tank designed exclusively for attack. Another interesting fact is that it was the only tank able to trade off tracks for wheels when using paved roads for increased performance. Now even in 1939, there were no highways in Russia. Where exactly was this tank planned on being used on paved roads?

The BT wasn't obsolete. It was superior to a large % of the German tanks in 1941, and was one of the poorest tanks used by the Russians. The T34 and KV1 were the two best tanks in the world in 1941, both Russian designs. The T34 is arguably the best tank of all time, and the KV1 was inpenetrable by all German tanks in 1941, 88mm Anti-aircraft guns had to be used to knock them out.

A few other statistics: The Russians had over 2,500 T37-A tanks. Not a very impressive tank on paper, until you see that it was designed as a completely amphibious tank, with a record of crossing 55km across Lake Luga in an excersise. These tanks were not designed for defense.

Without going on too much more: The entire Russian force of tanks was designed for offense, not defense, wasn't obsolete if used as intended, and was beaten in summer 41 due to bad doctrine and bad positioning, as well as German strategic brilliance.

"In the battles to come, we shall operate on the territory of the enemy. That is prescribed by our rules" - Colonel A I Rodimtsev, speech at the eighteenth congress of the communist party, 1939.

Oh a scary post-Trotsky quotes for you, out of context but related to what you mentioned earlier about Stalin's Russia not being interested in world revolution.

"The Red Army will consider its Bolshevik mission complete when it achieves control of the entire globe" - Jan Gamarnik, chief of the political directorate of the red army, march 15th 1937.

I agree France and Britain combined more than likely would have beaten the Germans in 39. Either alone(especially Britain) wouldn't have managed it.

It's silly to say that just because Poland stands in between Germany and Russia that an alliance between the two was impossible.

Leningrad comments: Fair enough.

I didn't explain the America comments very well. What I meant was, we were lucky to time things well enough to meet the Soviets so far east, with our army intact. It could easily have been the Rhine rather than the Elbe that became the iron curtain, the Russians certainly wouldn't have waited for us.

urmum

There is enough content posted in this thread to make a modern version of THE WORLD AT WAR documentry.

World at war is a great series! i should buy it on boxset!

http://www.thehut.com/dvd/the-world-at- ... 79332.html
£17.85 delivered.

Nice price. Got that series on my computer, could do with the space freeing.

Been a bit busy for the last week.

Seems like we are by and large in agreement now, I don't really have any issues with your judgements in your last post even if I don't see it exactly the same way. That's just history, someone says something, someone disagrees and it just goes on and on until both arguments whittle away all the unsubstantiated points and then blend together.

It's TANKZ not tanks.

Doh. Lrn to sp3ll.