Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

By the end of the war the Allies (mainly the GB and the U.S.) had a superb military fighting force capable of standing side by side with anyone. However, aside from the obvious hurdles which the allies would have to get passed in order to defeat Germany, one stands out more than others which has always plagued the U.S. more than any other country during military conflicts, war weariness.

There is not doubt that such a conflict for the allies would be a very long and tough one. Even had the allies came out on top (which they eventually could have),the casualties would be staggering. Could the Allies (mainly the U.S. public back in the states) be willing to sacrifice at least 1/3 of the military casualties which the SU had in order to defeat the 3rd Reich? My answer is no. It is for this very reason why the involvement of thr SU in order to defeat the ultimate evil was indispensable. Roosevelt understood this well.

 

No. Europeans were better at war, that's called tradition.

The Prussians and French are better at land while the British are better at sea. The Americans are bad at land and at sea.

That depends, the ACW had more casualties, etc. But the Franco Prussian war was short.

The franco prussian war involved nearly 80 million people (40 million germans and 40 million french), the ACW involved 35 million.

It was way bigger by that measure, you appear to be ignorant in military history.

Sure....

Africa and India had almost no industry.

Britain had less industry than Germany since 1900. By 1941 Germany had about 2 to 3 times de industrial capacity of England, since Germany anexed a lot of territory, but even before WW2 germany had about 50% more capacity, in 1938, when Britain made 12 mt of steel and germany 23.5 mt.

Thee roman empire as we know it didn't exist in the 5th century. The legions of the first century would have easily destroyed those patethic barbarians.

Well, read that: Amazon.com: Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945 (9780313233333): Martin van Creveld: Books

In Barbarossa the germans used 600.000 vehicles, 30% more than in Overlord.

Each infanty division had 800 vehicles, for a total of 200 infantry divisions we get 160.000 vehicles, the 60 motorized divisions had about 2.500 vehicles each, so we get 150.000 vehicles for them. The other 1 million vehicles were in the wehrmacht doing other stuff than being in divisions.

 

.

 

Have you watched 300? In analogy: The spartans were the germans and the persians were the allies. Who was better? The spartans who lost or the persians?

Napoleon sucked at war too, he lost....

Really? The americans killed about 150.000 german soldiers and about 350.000 civilians in bombing, a ratio of 2.33 to 1.

While the germans killed about 15 million soldiers and about 20 million civilians, a ratio of 1.33 to 1.

 

Check your facts The '300 Spartans' were in fact a Greek force of some 2000 men. You also seem to think Germany fought alone when in fact she had Allies.

Perhaps you could revisit your earlier claim about Luftwaffe losses in the East. A simple 'I got it wrong' would do.

Yor claim about German truck numbers is equally insane

 

I believe you will have a lot of fun disputing this old thread on the "high-tech" German military, read all 26 pages of this thread. Covers the horse-drawn usage quite well. I wonder where those other 1 million vehicles were?

See:

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/24098-high-tech-german-military.html

The Germans used more horses in WW2 than they did in WW1, they were mechanization wanting in the first mechanized war. Not a good plan.

 

Hitler though that he could take on all the world virtually alone because he was completely arrogant about the military capabilitiees of Nazi Germany. Sure, he was quite a retard in that matter....

About 3 million. Sure, nazi germany was the EVIL force. EVILLLLL....

Certainty. He was EVIL.

 

They had 1.2 million horses in 1944 and 1.3 million motor vehicles. So what, did you think that I didn't know that they had 4 horses for every truck in the army?

Well, the Soviet Union had only 300.000 motor vehicles in 1941, while germany had 900.000 (used 600.000 of them in barbarossa).

The first mechanized war? Well, the main belligerent forces, Germany and the USSR, used more horses than trucks.

Sure, the US had trucks, but that doesn't matter much. Why? Because the US ground forces were quite irrelevant for the outcome of WW2 (i.e.: the US army did nothing but reclaimed land from the commies).

 

Sources please?

 

Guaporense, perhaps you misread something somewhere. From my knowledge, the Germans used 600,000 horses in Barbarossa not vehicles.

Not sure about this statement either Guaporense. I cant name anyone who understood war better than Napoleon during that time period. He simply bit of more than he could chew, on several occasions.

 

Give me a date for 'Overlord' Day 1 or day 45?
I will give you an example for comparison. On 6th June alone the Allies landed 1000 tanks.
by August they had around 5000 tanks ashore.

 

France - Napoleon
Germany - WW1 and WW2
US - WW2, Vietnam and Iraq

Germany and France had efficient armed forces, one thing that the US never had.

 

They used 580.000 vehicles and 650.000 horses.

Like germany.... (I was being sarcastic)

 

That's wishful thinking....

 

No. I am illustrating reality with a work of fiction:

Reality: The most effective armed forces in the world were confronted with 65 million enemy soldiers, fought for 6 years, inflicted tens of millions of casualties but eventually succumbed to the weight of numbers.

300: A small band of the most effective soldiers of ancient mythology were confronted with a huge force and eventually succumbed to the weight of numbers.

 

the site said: 2.8 million.

 

Wrong. June 1941
281000 Automobiles
200000 trucks
46000 Tractors

total 527000 of which 278000 were with Operational Forces. The rest were in Reserve Forces and Inoperable Forces.