Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why does everyone think the Red Army was the best of WW2?
  • Subject: Why does everyone think the Red Army was the best of WW2?
Subject: Why does everyone think the Red Army was the best of WW2?


Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Because the Russian army was armed with little more than anger, and yet they still managed to crush everything the Germans threw their way. The Germans were better equipped, had more experience, had more food and ammunition... and still Ivan handed them their asses. There is no denying that. Germany got ROFLStomped by the poor kid.

Fighting a two sided war is hard, especially when Hitler wasn't exactly the best person to be leading it.
Ahem, three sided.

Supports my response even more, thank you.
:)

  • 10.23.2012 3:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yup.


Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Because the Russian army was armed with little more than anger, and yet they still managed to crush everything the Germans threw their way. The Germans were better equipped, had more experience, had more food and ammunition... and still Ivan handed them their asses. There is no denying that. Germany got ROFLStomped by the poor kid.

Fighting a two sided war is hard, especially when Hitler wasn't exactly the best person to be leading it.
Ahem, three sided.

Supports my response even more, thank you.
:)


Anyone who thinks Russia could have just "roflstomped" -blam!- Germany if it was not fighting on 3 fronts and not led by Hitler but a competent general such as Rommel is a fool.

  • 10.23.2012 3:19 PM PDT

WWII Russia was actually kind of pathetic. Don't get me wrong, i'd HATE to be on the receiving end of the wrath of the Red Army.

Russia was supplied via the lend lease act and recived many things like Churchill tanks for Britain and other things from the US.

Germany outmatched them in terms of technology, training and equipment. Russian tanks like the T-34 or Kliment Voroshilov couldn't hope to go 1 on 1 with a Tiger and survive. The Russians threw tanks and men at the Germans to win.

Winter also played a big part in the Germans defeat in Russia.

Germany was against more than it could handle and more than most people seem to think. Let us not forget the other countries that fought during WWII.

  • 10.23.2012 3:21 PM PDT

The russians bullied hitler and made him kill himself, RIP hitler.

  • 10.23.2012 3:23 PM PDT

Indeed friend.
Posted by: FloodPsychologis

Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Adamal123

Fighting a two sided war is hard, especially when Hitler wasn't exactly the best person to be leading it.
Ahem, three sided.

Supports my response even more, thank you.
:)


Anyone who thinks Russia could have just "roflstomped" -blam!- Germany if it was not fighting on 3 fronts and not led by Hitler but a competent general such as Rommel is a fool.

  • 10.23.2012 3:32 PM PDT

Yeah you wonder why...

  • 10.23.2012 3:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Because everyone forgets that the US acted as Russia's war factory and supplied them with everything they needed to actually fight back.

  • 10.23.2012 3:34 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Because the Russian army was armed with little more than anger, and yet they still managed to crush everything the Germans threw their way. The Germans were better equipped, had more experience, had more food and ammunition... and still Ivan handed them their asses. There is no denying that. Germany got ROFLStomped by the poor kid.

Fighting a two sided war is hard, especially when Hitler wasn't exactly the best person to be leading it.
Ahem, three sided.

Supports my response even more, thank you.

Four sided actually, considering the fighting that was done in Africa, China, and India.

  • 10.23.2012 3:36 PM PDT

1 P17Y 7H3 F00L

KOTOR


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
All right guys here's a fact for you. Russia's wartime production was not ready when the Germans invaded and started kicking Russia's ass across the country side. The only reason they were able to stand and fight at all was because America gave them a massive amount of supplies through the Lend-Lease Act. Had America not given them these supplies Russia would never have had the tools it needed to fight the Germans. Even with a whole lot of people to use as fodder the Russians would not have had the time to push their industry further and further East as the Germans pushed forward. Therefore they wouldn't have the vehicles, weapons, or ammo to fight the Germans.



Also, if Hitler wasn't such a stubborn mule insisting on capturing Stalingrad, a city that no longer had any real value (apart from the political value of being re-named after Stalin), he could have instead diverted his Stalingrad force to supporting the other two arms and actually capture the Caucusus oil fields and prevent Soviet industry from being able to escape and mobilize to react to the German invasion

  • 10.23.2012 3:36 PM PDT


Posted by: Mr Pinata
Because everyone forgets that the US acted as Russia's war factory and supplied them with everything they needed to actually fight back.


And MANY forget that Britain also supplied the USSR.

America wasn't the allied saviour everyone makes it out to be. Everyone who participated was needed for the war to be won the way it was or it could have been drawn outmuch longer, perhaps even lost.

  • 10.23.2012 3:40 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

For the germanophiles: You can't say "well, if they didn't have Hitler."

They did have Hitler. They didn't have a good military leader other than Rommel. That makes them the weaker military. And if they picked a 2 sided fight, that just shows bad decision making on their part.

Germany and Japan were the worst two by the ONLY rule that matters. They lost. The better armies won.

/thread.

  • 10.23.2012 3:53 PM PDT

+1 for you good sir.


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
For the germanophiles: You can't say "well, if they didn't have Hitler."

They did have Hitler. They didn't have a good military leader other than Rommel. That makes them the weaker military. And if they picked a 2 sided fight, that just shows bad decision making on their part.

Germany and Japan were the worst two by the ONLY rule that matters. They lost. The better armies won.

/thread.
We're talking about if it was a war between only Germany and Russia, Charlie. Damn, hop off of Russias D's sometime.

  • 10.23.2012 4:08 PM PDT

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

Order No. 227

  • 10.23.2012 4:13 PM PDT


Posted by: Cpt Nicholson
Order No. 227

So the Russians shoot their own people and make the Germans use less bullets.

  • 10.23.2012 4:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yup.


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
For the germanophiles: You can't say "well, if they didn't have Hitler."

They did have Hitler. They didn't have a good military leader other than Rommel. That makes them the weaker military. And if they picked a 2 sided fight, that just shows bad decision making on their part.

Germany and Japan were the worst two by the ONLY rule that matters. They lost. The better armies won.

/thread.


Your thinking doesn't really make sense. Since they lost they were worse? It's kind of like one wrestler fighting three other wrestlers, and when he loses but damages the other ones badly someone saying "What a bad wrestler." Rommel was in North Africa at the time the invasion of Russia was taking place, if he was actually present on the Eastern Front, Hitler could have been manipulated by Rommel to use better strategies or to avoid certain things in defeating the Russians. Hitler was very sympathetic to what Rommel had to say.

[Edited on 10.23.2012 4:20 PM PDT]

  • 10.23.2012 4:20 PM PDT

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

At first, Germany was able to quickly power through Russia, due to the fact that the Russian's were using outdated equipment and having poor leadership due to the recent purges, making them massively vulnerable to the German army groups. The Russians barely held off Germany outside of Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad largely due to Order No. 227 and the Russian winter. But the gave the Russian industry time to produce good equipment such as large quantities of the T-34, IS-2, IL-2 Shturmovik,numerous small arms, AT Guns, etc. Which were on par with German forces. With the tables turned the Russians quickly began pushing back the Germans until about Poland, that's when they began roflstomping them.

Also, some people here over-credit the lend-lease act. The only major things the Americans supplied the Russians with were Aircraft(only about 14% of aircraft production) and transport trucks.

[Edited on 10.23.2012 4:27 PM PDT]

  • 10.23.2012 4:24 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: FloodPsychologis
Your thinking doesn't really make sense. Since they lost they were worse? It's kind of like one wrestler fighting three other wrestlers, and when he loses but damages the other ones badly someone saying "What a bad wrestler." Rommel was in North Africa at the time the invasion of Russia was taking place, if he was actually present on the Eastern Front, Hitler could have been manipulated by Rommel to use better strategies or to avoid certain things in defeating the Russians. Hitler was very sympathetic to what Rommel had to say.


It makes perfect sense. If they were a better army they wouldn't have taken on so many at one time. You can't pick and choose. You can have the best car on the road and still be a crappy driver.

  • 10.23.2012 4:26 PM PDT

Lets Boogie

Russia would have lost the war if America did not join, nor give economic aid to the allies.

The UK to would have lost to (without American aid, like supplies and later troops, they would have eventually been defeated, most likely through starvation)

Russia was powerful, but without the help of her allies, she would have been defeated. Remember....the Axis wasn't just the Germans.

  • 10.23.2012 4:30 PM PDT


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie

Posted by: FloodPsychologis
Your thinking doesn't really make sense. Since they lost they were worse? It's kind of like one wrestler fighting three other wrestlers, and when he loses but damages the other ones badly someone saying "What a bad wrestler." Rommel was in North Africa at the time the invasion of Russia was taking place, if he was actually present on the Eastern Front, Hitler could have been manipulated by Rommel to use better strategies or to avoid certain things in defeating the Russians. Hitler was very sympathetic to what Rommel had to say.


It makes perfect sense. If they were a better army they wouldn't have taken on so many at one time. You can't pick and choose. You can have the best car on the road and still be a crappy driver.

Then what about all the supplies Russia received from their allies in the early days of the war? Before they had their industry up the American's and British were giving them the supplies to fight. If they don't have the supplies from America and Britain they look like WWI Russia that barely had clothes for their army. You can't pick and choose. You can't take the 1945 Russia that had everything rolling and replace them with the poorly trained and equipped soldiers from 1940.

  • 10.23.2012 4:33 PM PDT


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
For the germanophiles: You can't say "well, if they didn't have Hitler."

They did have Hitler. They didn't have a good military leader other than Rommel. That makes them the weaker military. And if they picked a 2 sided fight, that just shows bad decision making on their part.

Germany and Japan were the worst two by the ONLY rule that matters. They lost. The better armies won.

/thread.
We're talking about Russia vs Germany.
The later wins.

  • 10.23.2012 4:36 PM PDT


Posted by: haloplayer2kill
Russia would have lost the war if America did not join, nor give economic aid to the allies.

The UK to would have lost to (without American aid, like supplies and later troops, they would have eventually been defeated, most likely through starvation)

Russia was powerful, but without the help of her allies, she would have been defeated. Remember....the Axis wasn't just the Germans.


And the US would have lost if either the USSR or UK wasn't involved.

Serriously, don't let the whole "we won the war" thing get to your head, you didn't.

Not picking on ^you^, just telling any Americans who may go down that path.

  • 10.23.2012 4:37 PM PDT


Posted by: Da chief FWB

Posted by: haloplayer2kill
Russia would have lost the war if America did not join, nor give economic aid to the allies.

The UK to would have lost to (without American aid, like supplies and later troops, they would have eventually been defeated, most likely through starvation)

Russia was powerful, but without the help of her allies, she would have been defeated. Remember....the Axis wasn't just the Germans.


And the US would have lost if either the USSR or UK wasn't involved.

Serriously, don't let the whole "we won the war" thing get to your head, you didn't.

Not picking on ^you^, just telling any Americans who may go down that path.
The flood's better then that. The Allies needed each other.
The Germans, however, could have beat the hell out of the Russians.

  • 10.23.2012 4:41 PM PDT


Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Da chief FWB

Posted by: haloplayer2kill
Russia would have lost the war if America did not join, nor give economic aid to the allies.

The UK to would have lost to (without American aid, like supplies and later troops, they would have eventually been defeated, most likely through starvation)

Russia was powerful, but without the help of her allies, she would have been defeated. Remember....the Axis wasn't just the Germans.


And the US would have lost if either the USSR or UK wasn't involved.

Serriously, don't let the whole "we won the war" thing get to your head, you didn't.

Not picking on ^you^, just telling any Americans who may go down that path.
The flood's better then that. The Allies needed each other.
The Germans, however, could have beat the hell out of the Russians.


They bit off more than they could chew, the Russian winter didn't help and Hitler was a bit mad.

Obsessed with his V weapons, ideas of Amerika bombers and other things. Look up Maus or Ratte(?), at least someone had the sense to cancel some of the projects. Hitler still had these mad dreams to the near end.

  • 10.23.2012 4:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yup.


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie

Posted by: FloodPsychologis
Your thinking doesn't really make sense. Since they lost they were worse? It's kind of like one wrestler fighting three other wrestlers, and when he loses but damages the other ones badly someone saying "What a bad wrestler." Rommel was in North Africa at the time the invasion of Russia was taking place, if he was actually present on the Eastern Front, Hitler could have been manipulated by Rommel to use better strategies or to avoid certain things in defeating the Russians. Hitler was very sympathetic to what Rommel had to say.


It makes perfect sense. If they were a better army they wouldn't have taken on so many at one time. You can't pick and choose. You can have the best car on the road and still be a crappy driver.


It wasn't a majority vote. Hitler was all over the place in where to focus next, and he made the calls. Those tactical failures that resulted from his decisions should be placed on him, not the German forces.

  • 10.23.2012 4:47 PM PDT


Posted by: Da chief FWB

Posted by: Th3Av3Ng3R

Posted by: Da chief FWB

Posted by: haloplayer2kill
Russia would have lost the war if America did not join, nor give economic aid to the allies.

The UK to would have lost to (without American aid, like supplies and later troops, they would have eventually been defeated, most likely through starvation)

Russia was powerful, but without the help of her allies, she would have been defeated. Remember....the Axis wasn't just the Germans.


And the US would have lost if either the USSR or UK wasn't involved.

Serriously, don't let the whole "we won the war" thing get to your head, you didn't.

Not picking on ^you^, just telling any Americans who may go down that path.
The flood's better then that. The Allies needed each other.
The Germans, however, could have beat the hell out of the Russians.


They bit off more than they could chew, the Russian winter didn't help and Hitler was a bit mad.

Obsessed with his V weapons, ideas of Amerika bombers and other things. Look up Maus or Ratte(?), at least someone had the sense to cancel some of the projects. Hitler still had these mad dreams to the near end.
Crazy mofo.

  • 10.23.2012 4:49 PM PDT