What decided WWII?

Well thats because comparatively, shermans sucked. I mean, there were cases where shells from shermans bounced off panzer armor

That’s not what I meant; I’m trying to say that production numbers (economy) was a determining factor in the war. Hell I don’t care if Germany had all King Tigers, US still would’ve defeated them in numbers alone.

@TG:

I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

@EmuGod:

@TG:

I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

I don’t think so. Shrek :) , maybe, but Mayo :D just used Stalin and his toys to do things the ChiCom way.

And it depends how big the production #s are.
Besides the Rooskies had to figure out that they needed to get
behind the Nazi tanks for the best shot.

Actually, that’s not true. Mao Zedong did not get aid from Stalin. He used guerilla warfare to wear down the Nationalist troops which outnumbered him 5 to 1 and slowly began to win the sympathy of the people and ruined Chiang’s popularity or lack thereof among the people. Chiang’s soldiers began abandoning him and sided with Mao. Chiang also got aid from the United States, but even with that he failed.

Another example is the French in Indo-China. Though 75% their war costs were paid for by the Americans, they still lost to the guerillas which they outnumbered and outgunned. But then again, the French in wars are never a good example since the last time they won a war was in the French Revolution when they fought each other.

@El:

@EmuGod:

@TG:

I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

I don’t think so. Shrek :) , maybe, but Mayo :D just used Stalin and his toys to do things the ChiCom way.

And it depends how big the production #s are.
Besides the Rooskies had to figure out that they needed to get
behind the Nazi tanks for the best shot.

or Invent the T-34 and teach em a lesson :wink: …

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise

They were underequipped and undersupplied :-? Notice when I talk about economy I said numbers AND production. If the Chinese nationalists were better equipped, no doubt they would’ve bleed the Japanese (Zeros vs. nothing does not make for a very good arguement)

If you cannot create 85% of the war “business” (logistics) your stupid…regardless of your genereals (especially if they outnumber you by aircraft by about 8:1(conservative)

Like Janus has bin saying there are multiple factors contributing to the end of WW2. i sine what agree with Falk about the Anti Semitism and Racism. if that was not Present Russia would have fell like a Stack of Bricks, there man power would have bin jacked up. but if you look at it WW2 happend because the Third Reich set out on a Crusade to rid Europe of the Jews.

as far as Strategic mistakes go…. Adolf spliiting up AGC during Barborossa. had he not done that Moscow would have fallen in weeks. and the Soviet state and Coms would collapse. If the Soviet Union fell the Allies would have no hope of Defeating the Third Reich unless they got lots and lots of Nukes.

I think splitting AGC was a major tactical mistake, but I think eventually the Third Reich would have fallen in the end anyway. The fall of Moscow probably would have slowed the Russian counterattack, but I doubt it would have completely destroyed Russian morale, especially when they had plans of giving up anyway…also, the more of Russia Germany conquered, the harder it was to supply their armies. Eventually, the Germans would have run out of supplies and the Russians would have been able to counter their offensive.

If moscow had fallen who care…just retreat Stalin and his Cronies into Sibirea…I hear they have nice Geo thermal pools there… if germany made it that far there pop. would probably not support the army throwing them into a tailspin… one way or another from 1939 on most economsts said they couldn’t have won with what they had despite there technology…

If you cannot create 85% of the war “business” (logistics) your stupid…regardless of your genereals (especially if they outnumber you by aircraft by about 8:1(conservative

Yeah, the part that most people forget about. :) I agree, without logistics, it doesn’t matter how go of a general you are on the battlefield.

@TG:

They were underequipped and undersupplied :-? Notice when I talk about economy I said numbers AND production. If the Chinese nationalists were better equipped, no doubt they would’ve bleed the Japanese (Zeros vs. nothing does not make for a very good arguement)

I was talking about the Chinese Civil War after World War 2. Chiang Kai-Shek’s superior industry and numbers over the communists did not help him secure victory.

superior industry? I never got any indication of that.

@TG:

superior industry? I never got any indication of that.

Congquing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Mukden, Harbin, Shengyang, Nanking, Tsingtao, Peking etc. were all controlled by the Nationalists and had facotries. Mao’s forces were bottled up in the plains in northern China yet still won the war. In comparison, Chiang was much more powerful than Mao in terms of industrial resources.

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

Congquing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Mukden, Harbin, Shengyang, Nanking, Tsingtao, Peking etc. were all controlled by the Nationalists and had facotries. Mao’s forces were bottled up in the plains in northern China yet still won the war. In comparison, Chiang was much more powerful than Mao in terms of industrial resources.

Haven’t looked into it myself yet, but I’ll take your word on it.

(well my username and my first post…)
Guerrilla activity might have defeated whatever during The Post-WW2-Chinese War…

shermans sucked

Actually Shermans worked very well at what they were designed for, infantry support. With the machine guns and heavy load out of HE shells they could support infantry far better than their German counter-parts.

When put up against jerry armor shermans didn’t fair too well. A side or rear shot was required for the heavier “cats”. Otherwise ya can sit and watch the 75mm shells bounce off the hull. The U.S. relied more on Tank Destroyers to dispatch enemy tanks.

The U.S. relied more on Tank Destroyers to dispatch enemy tanks.

That and artillery or air power. It’s a sight to behold a King Tiger flipped upside down on its turrent from a flight of American bombers. :)

I think it was Tom Clancy who insisted Logistics win wars more than anything else. I gota agree with him, and Janus.