Who had the best (overall) military in WW2?

[Blayne]

Oh I just remembered when posting in the France thread; America had the best god damn army trucks in the entire war I think right? 6 wheel drive and could go through some of the worst terrain imaginable, single handedly enabling the Soviet war machine to carry on their strategic offensives in places the Germans thought were impassable for large scale military operations.

Hannibal of the Pripyat Marshes.

[Sea Skimmer]

American trucks were best overall, but certain models of British 4x4 were a lot better for desert fighting (having been designed this way prewar) because with a 6x6 truck you ran a high chance of rocks constantly jamming between the rear wheels. The US 4x4s tended to be smaller (3/4th ton or 1.5 ton capacity) and not really suited to bulk hauling logistical roles, they were intended more for say, being a radio car for a commando post or towing an anti tank gun. Meanwhile the British Bedford QL 4x4 had a max weight of about 15,000lb (design payload was only 3 tons, so this was a very big vehicle in general), while the classic US GMC CCKW duce and a half 6x6 was only intended to be a 10,000lb vehicle, though people overloaded them like crazy and they still worked. Course, if you hit mud the lighter 6x6 is going to work immensely better, but rocks in the desert can get endless. In any event British production of 4x4 models was limited, most were 4x2. They don't seem to have ever done that much with three axle models.

The biggest advantage of American trucks wasn't even so much the generally high quality though, it was how standardized the fleet was. Just a few models made up almost all of the 3 million or so trucks the US built in the war, the CCKW for example had about a half million built. In contrast the French Army in 1940 had over 100 different types, the Germans had something like 140 types (and ultimately over 400 types during the whole war, capturing those 100+ french models plus everyone elses trucks adds up) and even the British had dozens. This was the result of so much of the European automotive sector being in the hands of small companies, plus all the European powers mobilized large numbers of civilian models which almost all had only 4x2 or 6x4 drive. The result was of course a logistical nightmare; though the British at least seem to have been good at keeping the less standard types in the rear areas and only fielding the best models at the front.

Can you imagine the problems that a single German army could have with up to 400 different engines!? Without even considering tanks or aircraft? Even if a single army escaped this, an army group would not. Freaking crazy... it's enough to actually make you want more damn horses almost. At least then you can feed them basically the same food, use the same blacksmiths and harness repair workshops to keep them all going.

[Vashon]

The American one. It supplied its own....everything.


Had America kept going with the expansion and decided to build up the force in Europe to 10million+ American soldiers, it could have. And supplied the rebuilding French Army and the remainder of BE forces. The Soviets, on the otherhand, were almost exactly as powerful as they could have possibly have gotten, with much of their forces being fed and supplied logistically by America. No doubt the Red Army was the sharpest and longest sword on the continent, and likely could have pushed deep into France after rolling the Western Allies.

But if they couldnt make it all the way, thats 4,000,000+ Soviet soldiers gone at a low end. Less to feed but they would never be fully replaced. The question would be whether or not Truman could get enough support to send renforcements to take Europe. If he could, it would be another fullon retreat back to Russia but without the ability to bounce back.


Make no mistake, the Red Army was hugely powerful and formiddable. But it was at exactly its total possible zenith. The manpower reserves were depleted to the point of choosing between fighting men and women and working men and women and farming ones. Without LendLease giving the Red Army the extra boost and letting the USSR put millions of laborers on the battlefield that otherwise would have had to work, the Red Army would have had slightly less here and slightly less there with more dying here and there and less tanks being produced inorder for railway and logistic support to be produced. This would have delayed the otl schedule for weeks at first and then months and maybe up to a year.

Because the longer it takes for the Red Army to mobilize and regenerate, the better equiped and more time the Werhmact have to prepare, recruit and equip. And the more that happens, the more Soviets die and more tanks are shot up.

Which means taking more time to buildup for the next offensive and ship men to the front.


I wouldnt be surprised if Nazi Germany ended up holding a little past Poland by March 1945. Maybe even further east if the BoB resulted in a eventual ceasefire declared between both if LL doesnt happen for them either.


But on subject.


US was economically only getting warmed up and had plenty of manpower to still draw on. The only area where it doesnt already have total superiority is the Land Army. Essentially the easiest for America to usurp.


But as it stood? Red Army wins there. And only there.

The USN was topdog for the entire war. The rest of the US military basically played catchup.

[PainRack]

But if they couldnt make it all the way, thats 4,000,000+ Soviet soldiers gone at a low end. Less to feed but they would never be fully replaced. The question would be whether or not Truman could get enough support to send renforcements to take Europe. If he could, it would be another fullon retreat back to Russia but without the ability to bounce back.


Make no mistake, the Red Army was hugely powerful and formiddable. But it was at exactly its total possible zenith. The manpower reserves were depleted to the point of choosing between fighting men and women and working men and women and farming ones. Without LendLease giving the Red Army the extra boost and letting the USSR put millions of laborers on the battlefield that otherwise would have had to work, the Red Army would have had slightly less here and slightly less there with more dying here and there and less tanks being produced inorder for railway and logistic support to be produced. This would have delayed the otl schedule for weeks at first and then months and maybe up to a year.

Because the longer it takes for the Red Army to mobilize and regenerate, the better equiped and more time the Werhmact have to prepare, recruit and equip. And the more that happens, the more Soviets die and more tanks are shot up.

Which means taking more time to buildup for the next offensive and ship men to the front.


I wouldnt be surprised if Nazi Germany ended up holding a little past Poland by March 1945. Maybe even further east if the BoB resulted in a eventual ceasefire declared between both if LL doesnt happen for them either.

.

Which year are you talking about? Lend lease was relatively insignificant in 1941 and the Red Army began to hit its manpower/machine limits in 1943-1944, by this point in time, Germany was already doomed to defeat. Unless one postulate that the Americans don't expand their own divisions because of Russian reverses, Germany can't possibly hope to errect a defensive line anywhere in the east.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't have any real respect for Vashon's argument, but I must point out that the cumulative effects of Anglo-American involvement in the war go far beyond Lend-Lease. The diversions of manpower and materiel for fortifications on the Atlantic Wall, the massive diversion of planes, guns, shells, and electronics to provide air defenses for the Reich- it would at the very least have been massively more difficult for the Soviets to batter down a German defense reinforced by all those things.

How much of that diversion would have been possible out of British resources alone, I can't say.

[PeZook]

Well, even in purely military terms the lend-lease was incredibly beneficial. You can't scoff at getting six thousand Shermans, can you?

[PainRack]

I don't have any real respect for Vashon's argument, but I must point out that the cumulative effects of Anglo-American involvement in the war go far beyond Lend-Lease. The diversions of manpower and materiel for fortifications on the Atlantic Wall, the massive diversion of planes, guns, shells, and electronics to provide air defenses for the Reich- it would at the very least have been massively more difficult for the Soviets to batter down a German defense reinforced by all those things.

How much of that diversion would have been possible out of British resources alone, I can't say.

True. But I'm questioning Vashon argument that Poland might have been defensible without Lend Lease. If the Soviets didn't receive any Lend Lease aid, this just means that America will fork out more divisions to attack Germany instead.

[ryacko]

I'm fairly certain the United States fed and armed the Soviet Union.

[Thanas]

And you base this amazing insight on what?

[Blayne]

I'm fairly certain the United States fed and armed the Soviet Union.

Yes and no. Lend Lease provided a substantial amount of war material and supplies, logistically American trucks made their greatest impact in allow for Soviet 'flanking' operations in terrain that the Germans often considers impassable and thus only thinly defended. Soviets soldiers often were very fond of American "spam" and other supplies such as jeeps, foodstuffs, and additionally the Americans provided plenty of stuff that aided Soviet manufacturing, such as an entire tire factory. On the other hand by early 1942 the Soviet War Industry was meeting the Red Army's needs in small arms and light vehicals and by early 1943 had largely replaced their 1941 material losses.

Would have the Soviet Union lost any decisive battles (such as Kursk?) without Lend Lease? I don't think so, but it is a fact that it did enable various Soviet Strategic Offensives and allowed them to go further and for longer than Soviet domestic logistics would have allowed. Which would have meant more German troops available to transfer to France as the Germans could potentially trade more space for time in the east to contain the allies in the West.

-Soviet industry was more than capable of equiping the Red Army on its own (after all, they did produce some 50,000 T-34's).

-The Soviet economy was more than capable of feeding itself even with the loss of Ukraine. Rationing had only ended in 1935 and was only a few years ago relative to them, so it wasn't much effort to restore it.

[CaptHawkeye]

Yeah, the Wehrmacht's successes in 1941 vs. the Russians didn't help them get any closer to winning by the time the year was over and the situation in 1941 was far, far worse for the Soviets than anything that happened later. That was before the Lend Lease spigot opened wide and before the Soviets were considered a friend of the Allies. If the Wehrmacht couldn't beat the Soviets at Barbarossa then they just weren't going to do it later. Going for a negotiated settlement may still have been possible up until Stalingrad, but with things like the Einsatzgruppen and Hunger Plan even that may have been beyond reach. It was total victory or bust.

[ryacko]

The Soviet Union produced 200k trucks, 90k tanks, 143k planes, 81 million tonnes of flour during the course of World War 2.

They received 9k tanks, 200k trucks, 19k planes, 4.4 million tonnes of food, altogether 16 million tonnes of goods via lend-lease.

Notably, flour production in 1945 was roughly 50% of 1940 levels and rations were approximately 1800 Kilocalories per person. Each truck they received allowed them to divert production to tanks, and the total volume of food would feed 10 million men.

[Thanas]

Again, that does not mean they could not have done without which would be required for your original statement to be correct.

[Vaporous]

Churchilll also never committed the greatest strategical blunder of the whole war - that dishonour goes to Hitler, who completely unnecessarily decided to attack the Soviet Union rather than focus on the war he was already waging.

I don't think you can find anyone who thinks invading Russia in '41 was a good idea. But what else could the Germans have done against Britain? You know better than I do that Sealion wasn't going to work, and the Africa campaign was utterly meaningless. Was there a realistic chance of a settlement between Britain and Germany in '41? Could such a settlement have been forced by attrition before the U.S. or the Soviets (or both) get involved at a time of their own choosing? And if that was impossible, was the long-shot invasion of the Soviet Union the only option that was left?

[Thanas]

Churchilll also never committed the greatest strategical blunder of the whole war - that dishonour goes to Hitler, who completely unnecessarily decided to attack the Soviet Union rather than focus on the war he was already waging.

I don't think you can find anyone who thinks invading Russia in '41 was a good idea. But what else could the Germans have done against Britain? You know better than I do that Sealion wasn't going to work, and the Africa campaign was utterly meaningless. Was there a realistic chance of a settlement between Britain and Germany in '41? Could such a settlement have been forced by attrition before the U.S. or the Soviets (or both) get involved at a time of their own choosing? And if that was impossible, was the long-shot invasion of the Soviet Union the only option that was left?

There is no real evidence that Stalin ever planned to invade. He wanted the west to wage war as long as possible. Without the invasion of Russia there is no chance of the allies ever pulling off an invasion of the continent. The war may very well be a stalemate - without the Luftwaffe bleeding dry in Russia the air offensive of the British would not have been that successful and there is no reason the assume the U-Boote will be more successful this time around. Still a stalemate is better than a defeat.

[Simon_Jester]

When assessing the outcomes here, are we using hindsight, or not? Because we all know what would have happened if the Germans had tried to keep up a stalemate into 1945-46. But this was not known at the time and could not have been. So it didn't impact planning.

It would, at least, have been interesting seeing what the air war would look like with both sides totally free to concentrate on it.

[Spoonist]

When assessing the outcomes here, are we using hindsight, or not? Because we all know what would have happened if the Germans had tried to keep up a stalemate into 1945-46. But this was not known at the time and could not have been. So it didn't impact planning.

That is really stretching.
Project manhattan relies on pearl harbor, pearl harbor relies on japanese confidence, japanese confidence relies on a soviet at war in the west.
So without barbarossa it is very unlikely that we would have a project manhattan in that time period.

[Simon_Jester]

The Manhattan Project does not rely on Pearl Harbor. The famous letter urging Roosevelt to start the project was sent and read before Pearl Harbor, and it was about the fear of the Germans getting the atomic bomb in their own right. No one was worried that the Japanese would be any kind of long term threat to American or European security. The Nazis got taken a bit more seriously. And any kind of serious war mobilization (such as the US were already starting to make, and would certainly have made at any time they'd gotten involved against Germany) would free up the resources for the Manhattan Project.

Don't assume that because the atomic bomb was first used on Japan, it must have been meant for Japan.

[Spoonist]

No, I just assumed you could read out the context without me having to lay it all out for you. But apparantly you didn't want to.
Note what I said at the end "So without barbarossa it is very unlikely that we would have a project manhattan in that time period." Your resulting response seems to ignore that sentence.

Let's do it like this instead then:

Which year did USA join the WWII?
Why did the USA join the war when they did?
Was the USA likely to join WWII at that time without such events?

Which year did Mark Oliphant present the findings of the Maud Committee to the NDRC Committee on Uranium?
Which year did the manhattan project start?
Which year did the nuclear projects in the US get funding to actually move from basic theory and minimal labs only, to starting tests and build enrichment facilities etc?
Why wasn't the manhattan project or its sister projects fully funded before then?


The answers to those questions should make it pretty obvious that you are indeed stretching and that what I said is true without having to resort to condescending attempts like your last sentance. You really should know me better by now than to assume ignorance.

[Alkaloid]

It's not really relevant either way though. If the US isn't involved in the war and project Manhattan goes ahead anyway, how likely are they to provide any side with the bomb? History says not very, so it may exist but wont have a much effect on the outcome of the war.

[LaCroix]

The main questions should be:

What would the German army look like with no eastern front?
What would Britain look like, with German having near 100% of their assets available to throw at England for all that time?
What would North Africa look like?
How much further would the V2.1 fly by then?
With the freed resources, would German produce non-flawed products?
What would German technology look like?
Would the Germans have found the flaw in their nuclear program?

Far too many variables.

[Alkaloid]

Why would there not be an Eastern front? Russia was never going to collapse without lend lease. The eastern front would be different, probably stalemated for a long period with neither side able to advance, but it would still be there. Actually I think that would be the same for the Western front as well, England unable to cross the channel with the equipment to fight on the other side a long period, but Germany unable to get past the RAF and RAN. North Africa will change, it depends on why the US is not involved. If it's because Japan never attacked then some of the resources for the Burma/Pacific campaign can be moved to North Africa or Europe. If it's because Japan attacked and the US decided for whatever reason just not to get involved then the British are screwed there, will have to abandon Singapore, may decide just to pull out of India altogether and looses all access to Australia. Either way I think the Allies would still win, but they would be relying on far less armour and a lot more infantry so it would be a bloody victory. Crete/Greece would probably never happen because it's too big a risk not knowing the US can plug the gaps if it goes pear shaped, and the Brits never wanted an Italian landing anyway, so that doesn't happen. Most likely outcome is a few extra years of stalemate until the Russians build up the numbers to roll through Germany, at which point the Western Allies might try to retake France depending on how beat up they feel. That would be my guess, anyway.

[LaCroix]

Why would there not be an Eastern front? Russia was never going to collapse without lend lease. The eastern front would be different, probably stalemated for a long period with neither side able to advance, but it would still be there. Actually I think that would be the same for the Western front as well, England unable to cross the channel with the equipment to fight on the other side a long period, but Germany unable to get past the RAF and RAN. North Africa will change, it depends on why the US is not involved. If it's because Japan never attacked then some of the resources for the Burma/Pacific campaign can be moved to North Africa or Europe. If it's because Japan attacked and the US decided for whatever reason just not to get involved then the British are screwed there, will have to abandon Singapore, may decide just to pull out of India altogether and looses all access to Australia. Either way I think the Allies would still win, but they would be relying on far less armour and a lot more infantry so it would be a bloody victory. Crete/Greece would probably never happen because it's too big a risk not knowing the US can plug the gaps if it goes pear shaped, and the Brits never wanted an Italian landing anyway, so that doesn't happen. Most likely outcome is a few extra years of stalemate until the Russians build up the numbers to roll through Germany, at which point the Western Allies might try to retake France depending on how beat up they feel. That would be my guess, anyway.

I was replying to the tangent of "what if they never invaded Russia - stalemate until 1945/46"...

[CaptHawkeye]

There is no real evidence that Stalin ever planned to invade. He wanted the west to wage war as long as possible. Without the invasion of Russia there is no chance of the allies ever pulling off an invasion of the continent. The war may very well be a stalemate - without the Luftwaffe bleeding dry in Russia the air offensive of the British would not have been that successful and there is no reason the assume the U-Boote will be more successful this time around. Still a stalemate is better than a defeat.

What about the very real threat posed by famine? Germany had made Europe's collective food and natural resource situation worse, not better with the war.

[Blayne]

Germany was importing food from the Soviets, and could import from Italy and Turkey in ways unavailable in WWI.