Skimmer and Stas Bush

[Sokar]

Just calling it like I see it Stas, Im ethnic Romanian, but I have no connection to that country as I've never set foot in it , don't really know the culture or the language, so Im American. But if you really feel like a German, alibet one living in RUSSIA, thats your perogative.

[K. A. Pital]

Sokar

but I have no connection to that country as I've never set foot in it

I did. I was in many countries. Germany is the one most of my relatives live.

don't really know the culture or the language

Ich weiss beide, Arschloch... So if you don't like someone being German and Russian at the same time, it's solely your problem.

But if you really feel like a German, alibet one living in RUSSIA

Yeah, not to mention that I live in Germany for 3 month every year.
Edit: So what about my points?

[Sokar]

Oh , you mean the ones in this drawn out WWII wank fest your all engaging in , I really dont give a damn.

Sould have let both your evil empires, Hiterite Germany and Stalinist Russia bleed each other white and then cleaned out the whole lot of vipers at a stroke , would have saved us 50 years.....

[Crayz9000]

Oh yes. Reich also had a shortage on volfram. Yet their tanks KICKED Shermans all too good.

Because the Panzers were overengineered, while the M4 Sherman was designed quick and dirty for mass-production. It wasn't DESIGNED to be superior, it was designed to OVERWHELM THROUGH MASS OF NUMBERS.

In case you haven't noticed, numbers are one thing that the Germans were sorely lacking.

I wonder, are you really fooling around or just pretending? Check your years. US heavy bombers? Where these fuckers were in 1941-1942, I wonder... Oh, nowhere near? What a pity!

Maybe because the USA only declared war in December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor. America couldn't declare war before that because of the Neutrality Act.

[K. A. Pital]

Crayz9000
Right, everything true. But you just noted the same as I, without objecting the points. I was not speaking on how Sherman defeated Tigers and Panthers (it was 1:17 in Africa and 1:8 in Normandy). I was speaking of German shortage due to bombing. I wonder what shortage could have occured due to that in 1941-1942? Wow! Unstoppable bombing!

Maybe because the USA only declared war in December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor. America couldn't declare war before that because of the Neutrality Act.

I consider the fact America needed forces agains Japan. But that means they were of little use for Europe, exactly what I say! And: consider the time spent before the Allies aquired and mass-used heavy long-range bombers. Isn't it a bit... oh... long?
BTW: The lend-lease act was in March 1941. See?

[Crayz9000]

The lend-lease act was in March 1941. See? And I consider the fact America needed forces agains Japan. But that means they were of little use for Europe, exactly what I say! And: consider the time spent before the Allies aquired and mass-used heavy long-range bombers. Isn't it a bit... oh... long?

They did have to tweak the bombers a bit before they were really combat-ready. The RAF had a dozen early-model B-17s delivered to it, and they complained that they were unreliable. In the meantime, Boeing was working on the problems in the B models onwards. The B-17G was the longest production run (at 8,000 aircraft) and had most of the bugs worked out. That started in 1943, I believe.

The B-24 had similar troubles, if not worse.

At any rate, yes, the British were producing insane amounts of Lancasters, but let's face it, they were also very weak in terms of survivability, and had the expected lifespan of flies when they went into combat. The B-17 didn't get the nickname "Flying Fortress" for nothing; it could soak up damage and keep on going.

The British started bombing the shit out of Germany, but they were also strapped for resources by the time the USA entered. It's doubtful if they could have survived the entire war without assistance.

[K. A. Pital]

Crayz9000
Yeah, agree (!!!). Did you read what was the discussion? About heavy bomber's help. I just said: it was LATE in the war.

It's doubtful if they could have survived the entire war without assistance.

The British? Maybe not, maybe - yes... Depends on whether Hitler defeated Russia: until that, no attack on Britain was possible.
Sokar
It was obvious to me. You support the war in Iraq: but you don't give a shit about WWII fights and crimes. I suggest previous wars have told us a lesson, but some prefere to deny this lesson and rejoice for the bloody war in Iraq.

[Crayz9000]

In case anyone isn't running kdeclock, you might notice that it's 1:30 AM here in Los Angeles. I'm rather sleepy...

[K. A. Pital]

Crayz9000
Sorry Have a good night than.

[Frank Hipper]

Stas, am I reading you correctly in that you are trying to make a point about lack of American commitment by stating that U.S. heavy bombers were not available immediately?
Statistics about the U-boat campaign may not seem chilling at this late date, but anyone in a position of authority in Great Britain at the time would have told a very different story.

[K. A. Pital]

Frank Hipper.
You know, people can lie. Numbers can also lie, but I prefere to believe the numbers. By the way, research on U-boot Krieg is mainly made by Americans and English. I tried to be as favorable to the U-boot as I can. It was at least economically effective: 2.7 bill. for 26.9 bill. spent by the Allies to fight with it. But it's absolutely useless in strategic matters unless it carries nukes.

[Frank Hipper]

Frank Hipper.
You know, people can lie. Numbers can also lie, but I prefere to believe the numbers. By the way, research on U-boot Krieg is mainly made by Americans and English. I tried to be as favorable to the U-boot as I can. It was at least economically effective: 2.7 bill. for 26.9 bill. spent by the Allies to fight with it. But it's absolutely useless in strategic matters unless it carries nukes.

Unlike the First World War, Germany could have never starved Great Britain. But they could have crippled them to the point where continuing the war would have been impossible, for all intents and purposes.
One hundred more U-boats in Sept. 1939 would have won the war for Germany.

[K. A. Pital]

Frank Hipper
All what you say is correct, but this:

One hundred more U-boats in Sept. 1939 would have won the war for Germany.

This is an exaggeration, I think. The U-boats are a weapon that is not effective in strategic terms not because there are less or more U-boats. In fact, Germany had the largest and the most advanced U-boot Flotte. The U-boats fail due to their nature. Read the comment on U-boat use right here, on SD.net, it's awfully correct.
U-boats are capable of sinking tonnage. They are capable of sinking warships. They could have, if they tried very hard and there were about 200 of them in 1939, to cut supply routes. They can be awfully effective in economical means. But the U-boats cannot secure strategic domination, as battleships and AC can. This is a truth approved by many years of using u-boats. The U-boats could have kicked England out of action. But it already was, watch Dunkirk. Could they have cut the supply routes? Unlikely. Even in the 1942, their most sucsessful year, when they destroyed 1/3 of the passing ships, the actual percent of supplies sunk was only 13%! Could they have somehow prevented any descent, in Africa or in Europe? The answer is no. U-boats constantaneously failed in preventing the landing of descents.
How useful they were or might have been, they were absolutely uncapable of literarly: winning the war. Even the 27 bill. and 3 bill. spent by Germany and Allies are puny in comparison to all war expense. The U-boat war had little strategic meaning and was uncapable of achieving it's goal. So they could be a major pain in the neck, but no way win, except if their opponents are such fools as Japanese Navy, which didn't even bother to protect their ships. Of course, in this case U-boats can ruin the entire country.

[The Dark]

About the U-Boats: Roughly 10% of the armor shipped to Russia under Lend-Lease (2000 out of 22000) were sunk by U-Boats. While not as important a factor as in the First World War, they still managed to inflict significant damage to the war effort. Indeed, at one point England was down to less than one month's food supplies because ships could not reach the Islands. Convoys traveling from the United States past Iceland to Murmansk suffered a 21% loss rate. Those traveling through the Persian Gulf to reach Archangel or Molotovsk suffered a 6% loss rate. U-Boats did have a significant effect on the war. In June 1942 alone 115 ships were lost sailing from the US to Russia, a loss of 603,402 gross tons. While this figure (unlike the others) comes from late war, by 1944 Murmansk was moving 7,000 tons of Lend-Lease cargo per day through its port.

About the Heavy Bombers: The USA had a total of 119 B-17s in 1941, 39 of which were B-17Bs, which were fitted with obsolete engines and were nearly 100 mph slower than the -17C. They had roughly 350 B-18 Bolos, but they were horrible aircraft, worse than the British Lancasters for survivability. They may be called heavy bombers if you're willing to stretch the word. There were 9 B-24 medium bombers built, with more being ordered in December 1941 after the Pearl Harbor attack. That makes for a total of roughly 480 bombers in the United States by the end of 1941. By comparison, Britain launched a single attack with 359 bombers in June 1941. To ask where the American bombers were is to show a lack of understanding of the fact that America was a minor military power until the Second World War. In fact, America was not even in the top ten for military capability until the Second World War.

[K. A. Pital]

The Dark
U-boats sank Russian supplies? Oh sure. It's because the Allies threw a bone to Hitler when they disbanded PQ-17, leaving it for death.
Again, you are giving wrong samples. If the lend-lease itself was insignificant, then what the fucking sence has sinking 11% of these supplies, which are themselves 4% of GPD? I don't get your point.

In June 1942 alone 115 ships were lost sailing from the US to Russia, a loss of 603,402 gross tons

Smart and useless quote. You take the year of the u-boat sucsess apogee and say: "in 1942 alone". Not impressive at all, BTW. The U-boats sunk 14.000.000 gt. Huge number? Yeah, looks good. What that means? Uh... Nothing. It's, as I said, 0,0025 of the total supply transfer. A very comprehensive and detailed count is given in the "Hitler's Subs: Losses of the U-boat War", by Clancy or how's he's name. The statistics speak for themselves. U-boats had no serious impact because the Allies spent 10 times more to fight with them, and that's all! I advise you strongly to read SD.net tactics. It's, I repeat, absolutely correct about U-boat guerre de la course.
Edit: Maybe this would help a little:

by 1944 Murmansk was moving 7,000 tons of Lend-Lease cargo per day through its port

Uh yes... By 1944. Maybe you'll try another year? See, 1944 is when any fool got the point Germany is doomed. Nothing special about that 7.000, since I already gave you the numbers of produced craft and supplied craft, but you ignored them completely.

The USA had a total of 119 B-17s in 1941, 39 of which were B-17Bs

No or small use - in these quantities.

They had roughly 350 B-18 Bolos, but they were horrible aircraft, worse than the British Lancasters for survivability.

Agree.

To ask where the American bombers were is to show a lack of understanding of the fact that America was a minor military power until the Second World War.

Yeah, absolutely right. I was speaking exactly on the lack of bombers and therefore NO use of "valiant bombing" until, I repeat, LATE 1943!!! Is it so hard to understand that America didn't help much?

In fact, America was not even in the top ten for military capability until the Second World War.

Agree. But during the war:

[Joe]

You know, charts aren't really useful unless you tell people what the fuck the being represented on them is.

[K. A. Pital]

Durran Korr,
I think that there are words on the charts, or my comments. One says: construction and losses, the other one shows War Expense by year.
Edit: War expense by YEAR is the last chart.
BTW, All: Does anyone know where can I get an online version of "Hitler's Subs: Losses of the U-boat war" if it exists? I need the book very much to kick some serious ass My own copy is unfortunately not present. I think I'll be with ALL FUCKING numbers in a week

[Joe]

Not the top one, the one on the bottom.

[MKSheppard]

The statistics speak for themselves. U-boats had no serious impact because the Allies spent 10 times more to fight with them, and that's all!

Hey fool, it's because US shipping yards were turning out hulls faster
than the germans could fucking sink them

**********

Main Site
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/macnair/mcnair50/m50cont.html

***

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/macnair/mcnair50/m50c1.html

At a dinner during the Teheran Conference in December 1943, Joseph Stalin praised United States manufacturing: I want to tell you from the Russian point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win the war. The most important things in this war are machines. The United States has proven that it can turn out from 8,000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. Russia can only turn out, at most, 3,000 airplanes a month . . . . The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.(Note 1)

It was more than airplanes, of course. The Soviets received, in addition to thousands of tanks and airplanes, hundreds of thousands of trucks from the United States, which vastly enhanced the mobility of the Soviet ground forces. The United States also supplied Stalin's factories with millions of tons of raw materials and thousands of machine tools to assist the Soviet Union in manufacturing trucks and all the other implements of modern war including tanks. (Note 2)

******

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/macnair/mcnair50/m50c9.html

Everywhere one looks there are very impressive American production statistics throughout World War II. The war on the ground in Europe was often tank warfare. Between 1918 and 1933, the United States produced only 35 tanks, and no two of them the same model. In 1940, after witnessing Germany's Blitzkrieg in Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, the United States produced 309 tanks, versus 1,400 in Britain and 1,450 in Germany.

In 1943, however, the United States manufactured 29,500 tanks, more in 1 year than Germany produced in the entire war from 1939 to 1945.

In all, the United States manufactured 88,430 tanks during World War II versus 24,800 in Britain and 24,050 in Germany

Consider also aircraft. In 1940, the United States had 41 engine and propeller plants; in 1943 it had 81, with 5 built in Canada with U.S. funds (nearly all of the 40 new factories were of considerably larger size than those that existed in 1940).

Aircraft production floor space increased from 13 million square feet in the prewar period, to more than 167 million square feet in 1943, and the value of the facilities mushroomed from $114 million prewar to almost $4 billion in 1944.

In 1939, the United States produced 5,865 aircraft valued at about $280 million, and in 1944 America produced 96,379 airplanes valued at almost $17 billion. (The dollar figure is deceiving because during the war the costs of manufacturing aircraft dropped dramatically.)

Between 1 January 1940 and 14 August 1945 the United States manufactured 303,717 aircraft, and between 7 December 1941 and the Japanese surrender, 274,941 aircraft. And the power, weight, and speed of the aircraft dramatically increased during the war period.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/macnair/mcnair50/m50c12.html

Two products, aircraft and ships, demanded the most investment in people, materials, and infrastructure, and both were equally key to the grand strategy. The production story for both is spectacular. In 1941, the United States completed 1,906 ships, and in 1944, 40,265.

The central tenet of the grand strategy was that the United States should be the "Arsenal of Democracy." But producing the munitions would have been useless if the United States could not move its armaments to its allies. Merchant-shipping production, therefore, was as critical an aspect of the production program as any other, especially given Germany's attempt to starve American allies with the use of surface raiders, airplanes, and submarines. So critical is this aspect of the war production story that in Donald Nelson's memoir, he failed to mention aircraft carriers and battleships at all, and concentrated overwhelmingly on building merchant ships and landing craft and, to a lesser degree, destroyer escorts. In the last half of 1943, the United States was completing 160 merchant ships per month, and in December that year 208 merchant ships were completed, for a total dead-weight tonnage of 2,044,239 tons. In July 1942, it took 105 days to construct a Liberty Ship; less than 1 year later it was just over 50 days; and before the end of the war, it was 40 days from laying the keel to delivery. In World War I, a ship two-thirds the size of a Liberty Ship took 10 months to build.

Of course, more than cargo ships were built. From 1 July 1940 to 31 July 1945, the United States built 64,500 landing craft, and that number was still insufficient. Some 6,500 other naval vessels were also built. Navy firepower during the war increased ten fold.

The United States built 10 battleships during the war (8 of them 35,000 tons or more), 17 large aircraft carriers (able to carry 100 aircraft and displacing more than 27,000 tons), more than 80 smaller carriers (able to carry from 21 to 45 aircraft), 49 cruisers, and 368 destroyers.

No country produced as many warships, cargo ships, airplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps (650,000 of these "faithful as a dog, as strong as a mule, and as agile as a goat" quarter-ton carrying vehicles), (Note 5) rifles, etc. Where the Allies in 1941 produced about as many munitions as the Axis in mid-1941, by the end of 1944 the allied output of combat munitions was three times greater than that of their enemies. Over the war the allied output was 80 percent greater than the total for the Axis, and most of that increase came from the United States. (Note 6)

[Frank Hipper]

In taking Great britain out of the war by 1941 at the latest, U-boats WOULD have had a very strategic impact, don't you think? Of course you can't establish command of the seas with them, but when your opponent's navy, and your opponent himself, is starved into submission, the combat capabilities of your run of the yard Type VII becomes moot, yes?
Hitler would have then been able to concentrate solely on the Eastern Front, and a Russian victory would have been much more costly.
While the B-36 program would have recieved priority and it's service introduction would have been advanced by a couple years, any American bombing campaign on the continent would have been a fraction of what it was in real history.
All for the lack of 100 cheap submarines....

[MKSheppard]

Jesus christ!

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/intro.html

October 1941 to June 1942
Trucks
36,825

1942 and 1943
Vehicles
520,000

A fucking HALF MILLION trucks, and vehicles provided to the USSR
thru lend lease!

[K. A. Pital]

Frank Hipper

the combat capabilities of your run of the yard Type VII becomes moot, yes?

Oh yes, one small detail: the cost of the U-boot Flotte was 2.7 billions, which is a PUNY number. If Hitler fucked all the U-boats it would mean nothing. Check the war expence I posted. I encourage you to read Ruge, Doenitz and most of all "HS: LoUw".
MKSheppard

Hey fool, it's because US shipping yards were turning out hulls faster
than the germans could fucking sink them

Exactly why the U-boot were fucking uneffective. So I'm not the fool here... Neither are you, but you evaded the point.

At a dinner during the Teheran Conference in December 1943, Joseph Stalin praised United States manufacturing: I want to tell you from the Russian point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win the war. The most important things in this war are machines. The United States has proven that it can turn out from 8,000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. Russia can only turn out, at most, 3,000 airplanes a month . . . . The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.

You think Stalin won't give any good word of praise to his allies? However his words are of small factual meaning (that's why I stick to numbers, not statements). Try to watch his worlds at 1942 conf. He said fucking Churchill sent no fucking supplies and opened no fucking second front. Try to use Churchill's estimates of losses at BoB Try to use his "battle for humanity" case. Rulers can exaggerate for politic purposes. Numbers speak a thousand words.

The Soviets received, in addition to thousands of tanks and airplanes

Maybe you stop using the fucking "thousands" and use the 7.000 and 15.000? These "thousands" are one fucking piece of shit, see?

The United States also supplied Stalin's factories with millions of tons of raw materials

Oh yes. USSR had the second in the world resource and material use. Look up, there's some stats

all the other implements of modern war including tanks

Fucking Shermans which burn like fucking shit. Sorry, but I don't have any questions why Russians sticked to T-24-85

In 1943, however, the United States manufactured 29,500 tanks, more in 1 year than Germany produced in the entire war from 1939 to 1945.
In all, the United States manufactured 88,430 tanks during World War II versus 24,800 in Britain and 24,050 in Germany

Did I fucking brag about war expence? Check the diagram. USA spent MORE than anyone. But what the fuck does this have to do with lend-lease, which was only 3% of US war expense? it's all what went to all other countries ex. Britain. Britain received another 10%.
The year 1943 also makes little sence.

303,717 aircraft

of which lend-leased 15.000... thanks.

No country produced as many warships, cargo ships, airplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps (650,000 of these "faithful as a dog, as strong as a mule, and as agile as a goat" quarter-ton carrying vehicles), (Note 5) rifles, etc. Where the Allies in 1941 produced about as many munitions as the Axis in mid-1941, by the end of 1944 the allied output of combat munitions was three times greater than that of their enemies. Over the war the allied output was 80 percent greater than the total for the Axis, and most of that increase came from the United States.

WHAT THE FUCK! I said USA produced MORE than ANYONE! What the fuck does this HAVE TO DO with LEND-LEASE and HELP IN WAR OVER GERMANY?
Please, I consider the USA is the mightiest country in the world. But that's not anywhere near my points!

half a million trucks

Oh yes. Numbers are impressive, unless U fucking consider that 4%, even if it's counted in millions, is puny. I received a lot of bullshit on WWII from those who don't want to know that 14.000.000 tonns sunk by the U-boat is only 9% of the Allied merchant fleet and that all efforts were worth 0.025% of shipping. Fucking the same thing. Don't try to bully with millions.

[MKSheppard]

Exactly why the U-boot were fucking uneffective. So I'm not the fool here... Neither are you, but you evaded the point.

You're missing the point, Germany could have knocked britain out
of the war if she had had 100+ UBoats ready on 1 Sep 1939, instead
of just 30~ broken down pieces of shit (Mostly Type II Coastals, instead
of the newer VIIs)

Maybe you stop using the fucking "thousands" and use the 7.000 and 15.000? These "thousands" are one fucking piece of shit, see?

Then why did the Russians form an entire Tank Army out of the Lend
Lease Shermans they recieved? The shermans were very mechanically
reliable, compared to the piece of shit T-34s, which had engine lives
measured in a few dozen HOURS.

And many top soviet aces achieved their kills in the American Made
P-39/P-63 Airacobra/Kingcobra.

Oh yes. USSR had the second in the world resource and material use. Look up, there's some stats

All the raw materials in the world won't do you shit if 1/6th of your
territory is in enemy hands, and remember, it takes TIME to build
mines, etc etc etc. Meanwhile, you have raw materials coming in
from the US that are already mined and refined

Fucking Shermans which burn like fucking shit. Sorry, but I don't have any questions why Russians sticked to T-24-85

Funny, I didn't know they fitted THIS:



with a 85mm gun

And the Shermans burned only when their crews overloaded them with
ammunition, causing any hit to make them brew up. In properly stowed
tanks, catastrophic explosions were not a problem.

Did I fucking brag about war expence? Check the diagram. USA spent MORE than anyone.

We equipped the majority of the british/Polish/Free French armies
with tanks and equipment, and still found enough left over to equip
our own armies, as well as build 300,000 aircraft, and thousands of
transports, and hundreds of capital ships.

[The Dark]

U-boats sank Russian supplies? Oh sure. It's because the Allies threw a bone to Hitler when they disbanded PQ-17, leaving it for death.

What are you smoking? We did everything we could to avoid losing ships. Why else do you think we refitted World War I destroyers to hunt U-Boats? Because until our shipyards could crank out hulls faster than we lost them, we were in danger of losing all our merchant marine.

Again, you are giving wrong samples. If the lend-lease itself was insignificant, then what the fucking sence has sinking 11% of these supplies, which are themselves 4% of GPD? I don't get your point.

And again you give fallacious data. 4% of GDP insignificant? Considering most peacetime military expenditures are under 4% of GDP (pre-war US expenditures were 3.2%), that's the same as having an entire other nation providing a military for you.

In June 1942 alone 115 ships were lost sailing from the US to Russia, a loss of 603,402 gross tons

Smart and useless quote. You take the year of the u-boat sucsess apogee and say: "in 1942 alone". Not impressive at all, BTW. The U-boats sunk 14.000.000 gt. Huge number? Yeah, looks good. What that means? Uh... Nothing.

It means the loss of 300,000 tons of supplies given to Russia. It means the loss of hundreds of American ships. It means the loss of 18 Royal Navy ships who fought to keep the convoy routes clear. It means the loss of dozens of men who died to save a foreign nation, one that hated their homeland. 21% of ships traveling from Iceland to Murmansk were sunk. I'll admit, June 1942 was when merchant shipping took the hardest hits; that was when the American and Royal Navies began seriously escorting the convoys to Russia, since the Russians wouldn't or couldn't.

It's, as I said, 0,0025 of the total supply transfer. A very comprehensive and detailed count is given in the "Hitler's Subs: Losses of the U-boat War", by Clancy or how's he's name. The statistics speak for themselves. U-boats had no serious impact because the Allies spent 10 times more to fight with them, and that's all! I advise you strongly to read SD.net tactics. It's, I repeat, absolutely correct about U-boat guerre de la course.

Try 0.075, or 30 times your estimate. Out of 4 million tons sent to Russia, 300,000 were sunk. And based on the chart you yourself put up, losses were exceeding new construction until the middle of 1943. This was a serious impact, as it would cause Britain to fall from lack of food in a matter of weeks if convoys could not get through.

by 1944 Murmansk was moving 7,000 tons of Lend-Lease cargo per day through its port

Uh yes... By 1944. Maybe you'll try another year? See, 1944 is when any fool got the point Germany is doomed. Nothing special about that 7.000, since I already gave you the numbers of produced craft and supplied craft, but you ignored them completely.

Your numbers are consistently off. You claim Russia received 7,000 tanks through Lend-Lease. They received 22,800 armored fighting vehicles. You say claims of 100,000 trucks are too high when the actual numbers are 351,700 trucks and 78,000 Jeeps from the US alone. Ask about the phrase Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa. That was what folklore said the letters USA stood for, since it was on so many war vehicles. Great Britain sent 14% of her total tank production to the USSR, even though the Soviets had triple the industrial capacity. Look at the SU-57. That was built off the American T-48 Halftrack. Look at the 38th Tank Brigade in 1942, using 16 T-70s and 30 Matildas. Russia's second-highest ace flew a P-39 exclusively, Pokryshkin.

You talk about Berlin not being radioactive and people living there. People live in Hiroshima also, more than 2 million in 1995 (Japanese census figures). You claim 200,000 died at Hiroshima alone, and that total casualties were 360,000 when it had only 255,000 people there in total, and over 150,000 are known to have survived, with an estimate of 70,000 dead and 70,000 wounded, less than half of your estimate. 240,000 is the total killed and wounded between the two atomic bombs.

And you wonder why I don't trust your numbers.

The USA had a total of 119 B-17s in 1941, 39 of which were B-17Bs

No or small use - in these quantities.

They had roughly 350 B-18 Bolos, but they were horrible aircraft, worse than the British Lancasters for survivability.

Agree.

To ask where the American bombers were is to show a lack of understanding of the fact that America was a minor military power until the Second World War.

Yeah, absolutely right. I was speaking exactly on the lack of bombers and therefore NO use of "valiant bombing" until, I repeat, LATE 1943!!! Is it so hard to understand that America didn't help much?

We helped as soon as we could, since we did not have a military worth speaking about before the war. You did make a convenient snip to ignore my comment about the mass bombings performed by the British in the early 1940s, though. I suppose you won't care about that, though. You'd rather just keep bashing America .

In fact, America was not even in the top ten for military capability until the Second World War.

Agree. But during the war:

That's right. We produced a lot, and we gave a lot of it to Russia. We may have said Lend-Lease, but it ended up being Give-Give. The simple fact is that we never got anything out of the gifts to Russia except a 50-year enemy.

[Nathan F]

Stas, I have found from your arguments, that you are an ingrateful son of a gun who still lives in the Cold War era...