Who started WW2?

[syscom3]

That makes them Contiental powers. If you cant project your power across oceans, then your not a superpower.

I dont even think Russia was a contiental power in the 30's as Stalin had "eliminated with prejudice" most of the generals.

The US had a good navy, but its army and marines were VERY small and generally, poorly equipped.

 

[Henk]

A superpower is not about a navy, a large airforce can take care of a Navy very quickly, and a invasion from the air can by pass the navy. SO I will agree with Plan D. Russia had some of the most heavily armored tanks and its army was huge. Japan had a great Navy, it was just poorly used and controlled and its army did suck big time, but they could fight fiercely and was motivated to fight to the last man no matter what.

Germany we all know about. France could have done great things with their army if they just had the right people to controle it and not the idiots they had.

 

[plan_D]

I will take the opinion of the people of the day over yours, syscom. Germany, Great Britain, France and Russia were the superpowers and they had been for decades. The Russia air force and tank force was the largest on the planet, they had some 28,000 planes ... and you consider that nothing?

Would you consider the Napoleonic France merely a continental power? After all, the Royal Navy abolished it's navy.

 

[HealzDevo]

Although, one thing is that Hitler used the image of a glorious Germanic past to get people behind him in 1938 and 1939. As I have often said elsewhere, I find it very interesting to know whether originally the Germans totally realized what they were getting in Hitler. I am questioning the role of symbolism in Hitler achieving victory, talking about the use of the Teutonic Knights as a symbol, the Germanic Hoards image. Hitler did use symbolism and he did believe in the Occultant. It is said that before WW2 Hitler had sponsored many German archology digs looking for items such as the Arc of the Convenent, Noah's Ark, etc. It is unknown however, what if anything was found and where it is in these archology digs. Therefore the question is whether the symbols used in Hitler's speeches betray his original intentions and give us an insight into his thoughts at the time that those speeches were made.

 

[syscom3]

The size of an army is not an indicator on how powerfull it is. Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

The Finns held back the Soviet army for quite some time, thus I would say throughout the 30's, the Russians were a paper "giant".

The French had a good army but had no sea power to project it.

In the 30's, Germany's arm

 

[syscom3]

The size of an army is not an indicator on how powerfull it is. Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

The Finns held back the Soviet army for quite some time, thus I would say throughout the 30's, the Russians were a paper "giant".

The French had a good army but had no sea power to project it.

Through most of the 30's, Germany's army small so it could hardly qualify as a superpower. And it had a small navy and maritime fleet, so it was totally isolated in Europe.

Britain had the maritime fleet and navy. And when you consider that back then, armies could be raised and equiped within months, she could have had both a fleet and an army.

I maintain that Britain was the only true superpower of that decade, and France the true contiental power. Germany was a potential power, and Russia, a paper tiger,

The US didnt even factor into it.

 

[Henk]

The French Navy was not bad at all, it was by far better than the German Navy if you take in Numbers. The Fins had the spirit to fight and not the Russians.

Like I said, the Airforce makes or brakes you your situation during a war, a navy does not mean anything if your navy is being sunk by bomber and your army killed by enemy aircraft.

I would pour money into my airforce and Army and not so much into my Navy. If my aircraft numbers and the skill of your pilots are great you would get somewhere.

Germany and the UK were the Superpowers of the time and not the US, the US were a up and coming superpower like it was said before.

 

[plan_D]

Hitler believed that the Soviet Union was a 'paper tiger' but he was wrong. And you have the benefit of hindsight, and you say the same thing? The USSR may not have been so powerful right then, but it's numbers and production capacity shows that it was a superpower.

France had the army and a navy to project it's power. It had the largest army in Europe, and an air force to match most others. I'm talking 1939 here, when Germany was now a superpower. And even Poland claimed it was a superpower!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Poland?

 

[Soren]

Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

= Germany.

It takes quite the amount of you mentioned above to have virtually the whole world against you and still hold your ground - heck even advance at times...

 

[syscom3]

= Germany.

It takes quite the amount of you mentioned above to have virtually the whole world against you and still hold your ground - heck even advance at times...

In the end, it was the allies who had quality, quantity and leadership.

 

[Gnomey]

While the Allies may of won the war on the ground in particular it was due to quantity over quality. When you can loose 400 tanks in a battle and replace them the next day you are very unlikely to loose the war however good or bad you leadership is, sheer wait of numbers would over run the enemy. Both sides did have some quality pieces of equipment and some that weren't but the one thing the Allies did have in their favour was numbers, the Axis powers were never going to be able to build as much equipment as the Allied powers and so it was just a matter of time...

 

[syscom3]

The germans undoubtably had some great tanks and AFV's, but dont forget the US was beginning to deploy the Pershing tank, which was an equal for the German tanks.

Plus the US had excellent artillery.

In the end, the Allies were producing weapons of good quality in massive ammounts. The Germans werent.

 

[Soren]

In the end, it was the allies who had quality, quantity and leadership.

No, in the end it was the Allies who had superior quantity, and nothing else.

The germans undoubtably had some great tanks and AFV's, but dont forget the US was beginning to deploy the Pershing tank, which was an equal for the German tanks.

The Pershing was a dud... Horribly unreliable and not even on par with the German Panther in terms of firepower. A Panther would make short work of a Pershing in a long range engagement.

Plus the US had excellent artillery.

That they did have, but so did the Germans, and the German artillery was miles ahead in terms of accuracy. A US G.I. commenting on the effectiveness of German artillery: "we were impressed with the accuracy of German field artillery. I've seen a 150-mm battery concentration hit a crossroads so consistently that engineers had to be called on to make it passable for a 2 1/2-ton truck. As far as thoroughness goes, the Germans get more out of a round than the devil himself gets on a lump of coal."

The Allies again however had the advantage of quantity.

In the end, the Allies were producing weapons of good quality in massive ammounts. The Germans werent

In the very end maybe, but even by 45 the Germans were still producing the best quality weapons, however the amount produced had gone down considerably.

 

[syscom3]

So the allies could not produce one weapon or weapon system that was superior to the Germans? Not one? Not even one general who could beat his counterpart?

Dont you think youre being a little bombastic about that assertion?

 

[Soren]

So the allies could not produce one weapon or weapon system that was superior to the Germans? Not one? Not even one general who could beat his counterpart?

Dont you think youre being a little bombastic about that assertion?

You mis-understood me syscom3. Ofcourse the Allies had material which was better, and vice versa, however quality wise the Germans just 'had' to be infront, its in their blood - Precision precision precision!

 

[Henk]

Yup, but it did cost them a lot, like the Tiger tank was huge, powerfull and heavy, but it lacked power and took very long to build. The Allies did not care, the had so many loosing a lot was nothing to them, but the Germans do know about Precision.

 

[plan_D]

The Allies won because they knew how to use what they had effectively. They relied on their production capacity rather than try to beat Germany at it's own game. We must not try and put down the Allied victory as a mere consequence of their size, the Axis was by no means a small force and the production capacity would have been enough to hold of it's opponents had it been handled properly. However, the Germans overcomplicated their production and products while the Allies simplified everything and increased their technology in the most important sector - production technology. The thought process of the Allies was simply - "How can we build more with what we have?" In the respect of total war, Albert Speer was probably the most valuble man in all Nazi Germany.

Both sides had effective equipment and leadership. But while the Germans thought precision, the Allies thought quantity. And it was the war winning weapon, a better thought process in the end.

 

[Soren]

Exactly.

 

[syscom3]

It was more than just that. The allies had plenty of weapons that had no counter parts in Germany.

The Heavy bomber
The Jeep
The 6X6 Truck
The Higgens Boat
The Amtrack
The DUKW
The C47/46/54 Transports
The atomic bomb
The long range fighters (P38, P51, P47N)

And when the US finally figured out it needed heavy tanks right at the end of the war, it was too late to put them into production. Id laike to see how the vaunted Panther and Tiger would have done against a squadron of Pershings. The odd's would have evened up in a hurry.

In some cases, the Germans were superior, some cases they were inferior, and in many cases, it was even odds.