Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yankelovich, never heard of it? Was the chief designer/founder of the design bureau any relation to this guy?Considering that I knew something about Zeroes and Vals and Kates and Bettys and Tonys and Emilys and others, it seems a shame that it took me so long to discover those planes built by Yankelovich, Lavochkin, and Ilyushin.
Some things cannot even be explained with spell-check. Fixed.Yankelovich, never heard of it? Was the chief designer/founder of the design bureau any relation to this guy?
View attachment 651856
Hogan's Heroes.
I do remember as a youngster seeing Colonel Klink and Sargeant Shultz always in trouble and threatened with being sent to the "Eastern Front" - and not comprehending.
Yak-3 | Mitsubishi A6M0 |
General characteristics
| General characteristics
|
The word "only" would be pushing it too far, of course, but I didn't say that. But I do agree that it is obvious that Russia bore most of the weight of the fighting. Even though they did none of the strategic bombing of Germany, the sheer numbers of soldiers, on both sides, involved in the land war in the East was far larger than in any other theater of operations. I cannot find a quick and exact reference for number of soldiers, but it appears to be somewhere around 4 million Allied soldiers in the West in late 1944, and around 6 million Russian soldiers in the East, with a greater number of German soldiers facing the Russians.I have no problem with what you posted. Just with the premise that there are those who could say it was only between Germany and Russia with help from other countries. Anyone who says that, has no real grasp of the history.
You are correct but the inference was there. And I'm not saying that is your opinion, just that you made a statement that I found a bit weird - that there would be people that think a "world" war was only between 2 countries with some hanger-ons. Just commenting on a portion of your post.The word "only" would be pushing it too far, of course, but I didn't say that. But I do agree that it is obvious that Russia bore most of the weight of the fighting. Even though they did none of the strategic bombing of Germany, the sheer numbers of soldiers, on both sides, involved in the land war in the East was far larger than in any other theater of operations. I cannot find a quick and exact reference for number of soldiers, but it appears to be somewhere around 4 million Allied soldiers in the West in late 1944, and around 6 million Russian soldiers in the East, with a greater number of German soldiers facing the Russians.
Having the Communists on "our" side was a problem for many. There is even evidence that Hitler thought that he could persuade England to join him in fighting against the Russians. There is also evidence that Hitler planned from the beginning to attack Russia, and that the "Non-aggression Pact" between the countries was intended by Hitler only to buy him some time to concentrate on Britain, after which he could focus 100% of his military power on conquering Russia.But you are realizing that in 1941 Soviets have switched side just because Hitler found them bigger threat than western democracies? Soviets have "won" just becuse of single reason - they sacrificed whole generation of their own nation - which was result of their disrespect for their own peoples and power hunger of their red rulers. Best prove of this statement is that untill now they are unable to establish their own casulty numbers - spread in Russian's sources is from 7 up to 30 millions.
There is even evidence that Hitler thought that he could persuade England to join him in fighting against the Russians.
There is also evidence that Hitler planned from the beginning to attack Russia, and that the "Non-aggression Pact" between the countries was intended by Hitler only to buy him some time to concentrate on Britain, after which he could focus 100% of his military power on conquering Russia.
what you mean "on our side" ? - soviets havent been in fact on allied side just accidently have common enemy and they used west to defeat germany. I think western allies were very, very naive in their push to count soviets as allies, and i cant understand why they have traded 1/3 of the wurope just to satisfy red tsar. Pobably it was fear and overestimating soviets - in 1944 Soviet Union has been close to depleting its demographic reserves and allies has started land action in very critical for soviets momentHaving the Communists on "our" side was a problem for many. There is even evidence that Hitler thought that he could persuade England to join him in fighting against the Russians. There is also evidence that Hitler planned from the beginning to attack Russia, and that the "Non-aggression Pact" between the countries was intended by Hitler only to buy him some time to concentrate on Britain, after which he could focus 100% of his military power on conquering Russia.
Trying to imagine Germany waging a single-front war (either Western or Eastern) is hard, but it seems at least likely that Germany could have conquered Russia if there had been no British/American help, and that it would have taken the West a lot longer to win the war if Russia had not required over half of Germany's military production. Still, the Battle of Britain was won without Russian assistance, and the Battle of the Atlantic probably would not have turned out much differently even if Germany had been able to build more submarines. More Luftwaffe fighters available to defend against bombers might have had an appreciable effect in prolonging the conflict, but my guess is that in the end the sheer weight of American and British material production would have won the war anyway. But all those P-39 Airacobras and Il-2 Shturmoviks chewing up the German tanks and infantry certainly took a good bit of load off of the Western forces. (By the way, "Shturmovik" wasn't really the official name of the Il-2. It was never given a name; that was just a generic word for "ground attack plane" that caught on because I guess we Westerners had to call it something.)The Allies could not have successfully invaded northern Europe any sooner than 1944.
First reason was the Luftwaffe - their effectiveness needed to be reduced.
And let's not forget that the Allies were not idle while Russia was engaged with Germany - the North African and Italian campaigns were effective both in retaking land held by Germany as well as diverting valuable and irreplaceable German assets from the eastern Front.
The U.S. could fight a two-front war, Germany could not.