patrick.net

Yep, the Soviets massed produced T-34 tanks like crazy. But this historical fact contradicts the economic dogma of conservatives like FortWayne who could not possibly admit that a communist economy -- not that I'm at all for that economic system -- could have high productivity. And when facts contradict their economic religion, they simply ignore the facts. They are quite good at this.

The Soviets were eating American food and using American fuel, American Trucks, American Ordinance, and they did get some American Tanks and air planes.

Also there is the issue of Soviet War Crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Soviet army had more than 4 times as many tanks on paper as Germans did even at the start of Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, yet lost almost every single battle in the field during the summer and fall. Soviet success in the field later in the war was helped significantly by Western Allies (in addition to Soviets'own sacrifices and ingenuity of course):

1. The most decisive factor in tank battles turned out to be Radio! Coordinating attacks and defense, or running away to hit the enemy's supply trucks or calling in air strikes. Soviet tanks lost numerous battles early in the war despite numerical superiority largely because their reliance on signal flags made tank platoon and company commanders highly vulnerable and small unit action extremely disorganized and therefore defeated in detail. Lend Lease later supplied Soviets with the vast majority of radios for use in tanks.

2. Western Allies diverted more than half of Luftwaffe to the Western Front (strategic bombingfor years before landing), North Africa and Italy. WWII was the first war in which air power dominated both at sea and over land. Starting with Spring 1940 campaign in the west, the power that dominated the air won the campaign despite the opponent having vastly more tanks on the ground. Yes, the French and British had more tanks and better tanks than the Germans, but the latter dominated the air over France.

3. American supply of trucks, fuel and lubricants was extremely crucial to Soviet military success. Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics. The war on the East Front became one of American Jeeps vs. German horse buggies later in the war. That's the difference between the Soviet 1944 and 45 counter attacks could sustain themselves whereas those launched in the springs of 1942 and 1943 could not.

4. Americans using oil embargo to force Japanese strike south removed the threat from Japan for Soviets. Those crucial Siberian divisions saved Moscow during the most dire phase of the war.

Of course, that is not diminish the sacrifices that the Russian, Ukrainian and other former soviet people made during the war. However, praising the soviet system for productivity would be highly misplaced: the Soviet system was good at pumping up high statistic numbers but very poor in terms of effectiveness and controlling cost. For example, for most of the war, soviet tank forces had a very low mechanical readiness ratio. The high tank statistic was achieved at the expense of proper parts stock maintenance and crucial combat components ( such as radio).

zzyzzx says

The Soviets were eating American food and using American fuel, American Trucks, American Ordinance, and they did get some American Tanks and air planes.

Also there is the issue of Soviet War Crimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

The Soviets were also allies of Hitler invading Poland, Finland and the Baltics before Hitler double crossed them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

thunderlips11 says

Hug a Russian if you Hate Hitler

But don't huge a bishop. Vatican City was created by Mussolini so that the Catholic Church could help the Axis powers. And the Germans collected taxes and sent them to Vatican City during WWII. After the war, Vatican City helped former Nazis escape prosecution and relocate to South America. Vatican City has also helped tax evaders, the mafia, and drug cartels launder money. And these guys are suppose to be the moral authority on Earth?

.Reality says

1. The most decisive factor in tank battles turned out to be Radio! Coordinating attacks and defense, or running away to hit the enemy's supply trucks or calling in air strikes.

Agreed. The Soviets had very few radios, from a combination of Russian love of flags and traditional signals, and from pre WW2 Western embargoes on the technology. Not only tanks and land formations - often only the lead unit in a squadron had a simple, older radio and had to give instructions by wiggling the plane or making hand gestures from the cockpit.

Reality says

2. Western Allies diverted more than half of Luftwaffe to the Western Front (strategic bombing for years before landing), North Africa and Italy. WWII was the first war in which air power dominated both at sea and over land. Starting with Spring 1940 campaign in the west, the power that dominated the air won the campaign despite the opponent having vastly more tanks on the ground. Yes, the French and British had more tanks and better tanks than the Germans, but the latter dominated the air over France.

What remained of the Luftwaffe in 1943, you mean.

How did the Russians crush the Luftwaffe?
The Soviets built about 90,000 aircraft during WW2, including around 36,000 (not a typo) Il-2 "Sturmnoviks", the most produced military aircraft in history, and almost as many Yakolev fighters (all types).

The Air Campaign over Germany didn't really get underway until 1943 when the 8th USAAF was created. Before then it was mostly night flights by the British, hoping to hit something important by bombing cities. The first US B-17 strikes were late 1942, they were called off in 1943 because the Flying Fortress was getting torn to pieces by German Fighters, and only resumed once the P-51 for escort duty became widely available in 1944. The Flying Fortress box formation didn't work IRL as it did on the Boeing-USAAF drawing board.

In 1943, the Luftwaffe was already beaten in the East, avoiding dogfights with the Soviets, while in the West the remains of the Luftwaffe were redirected to stopping the daytime bombing of Germany by the Allies. Strategic bombing by the USAAF, just like all other "We can solve it by Precision Bombing" claims by the USAF since WW2 (see Vietnam, Yugoslavia), produced marginal results: German industry continued to produce more every month until the last few months of the war, when it was really a raw materials shortage as the Nazis lost large parts of Europe.

BTW, the 8th USAAF suffered the highest losses of personnel of any combat arm of the Allies in WW2. More than the USMC, more than the US Army. The chances of surviving the 25 30 35 50 mission crush were stunningly low.

Reality says

3. American supply of trucks, fuel and lubricants was extremely crucial to Soviet military success. Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics. The war on the East Front became one of American Jeeps vs. German horse buggies later in the war. That's the difference between the Soviet 1944 and 45 counter attacks could sustain themselves whereas those launched in the springs of 1942 and 1943 could not.

The first three really helped - and of course Spam. Most of the US Lend Lease material didn't arrive until after the start of 1943, and thus after Stalingrad and Defense of Moscow. Grinding the Nazis to a halt was done by the Soviets themselves; rolling them back they definitely used the Studebakers and Jeeps. The Soviets sent the US and UK thousands of tons of gold in repayment (and had to scrap and return many pieces of equipment). It was, after all, Lend-Lease, not "Here you go, complements of the (White) House".

The Soviets got about 1/4 of all US Military and General Assistance given out under Lend-Lease. The British got almost the entire remainder, with much smaller amounts for the Chinese, Australians, Free French and others.

It should also be mentioned the UK and US but embargoes on most goods to the Soviet Union before the fires finally burned out in Europe, within months after the war.
Reality says

4. Americans using oil embargo to force Japanese strike south removed the threat from Japan for Soviets. Those crucial Siberian divisions saved Moscow during the most dire phase of the war.

Nope. After their solid ass kicking by Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese completely gave up their "North Strike" plans to conquer Russia and couldn't sign a non-aggression pact recognizing the Amur River as a border, fast enough. Despite the Tripartite Pact being an Anti-Communist Pact among the Axis, the Japanese pledged the moment Germany invaded Russia not to intervene "For the time being".

Dan8267 says

But don't huge a bishop. Vatican City was created by Mussolini so that the Catholic Church could help the Axis powers. And the Germans collected taxes and sent them to Vatican City during WWII. After the war, Vatican City helped former Nazis escape prosecution and relocate to South America. Vatican City has also helped tax evaders, the mafia, and drug cartels launder money. And these guys are suppose to be the moral authority on Earth?

The Ratlines, running through Croatia to South America using Vatican passports. It's no coincidence that many of the Nazis that agreed to leave the US (and Canada) in exchange for keeping their Soc Sec benefits in the past 20-30 years moved to Croatia where there are many Nazi-symps.

Ante Pavelik, Croatian Nazi, with Bishops.

One of Hitler's first Acts, the Concordat with Rome, pictured here with the Papal Nuncio.

socal2 says

The Soviets were also allies of Hitler invading Poland, Finland and the Baltics before Hitler double crossed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

And do you know why Stalin signed a deal with Hitler?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

France and especially the Liberals in the UK always wanted Hitler to fight the Soviet Union. That's why they "appeased" Hitler - to satisfy his claims in the West, so he'd turn to the East.

It's also why they did nothing while the Nazis invaded Poland - even though only a scratch force of "Stomach and Kidney Brigade" (IBS and Kidney Stone sufferers) guarded the Ruhr Valley.

The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.

The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.

...
"This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement," said Gen Sotskov, 75.

The Soviet offer - made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov - would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany's borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.

But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals.

"Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time," said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. "This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks."

When asked what forces Britain itself could deploy in the west against possible Nazi aggression, Admiral Drax said there were just 16 combat ready divisions, leaving the Soviets bewildered by Britain's lack of preparation for the looming conflict.

The Soviet attempt to secure an anti-Nazi alliance involving the British and the French is well known. But the extent to which Moscow was prepared to go has never before been revealed.

This actually is no secret or post war archive find - this has been known since WW2 itself, mentioned in myriad books on the subject before and during the Cold War, with a multitude of sources from France, the UK, and the Soviet Union.

Most of the territory the Soviets "occupied" under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was formerly Russian territory annexed by Poland in 1920 while the Soviets were occupied and weakened with a Civil War and the Aftermath. These areas were taken from the Soviet Union by Polish Aggression, and were NOT part of the Poland created at the end of WW1 by the Allies. The 20s and early 30s governments of Poland was Right Wing Nationalist (not quite Nazi) and into Polonization - Polonizing Ukrainians and Belorussians of the territories they conquered - and wanted to restablish the Duchy of Poland-Lithuania. The Poles also fought a border conflict with the Czechs as well. We think of the Poland as a hapless victim, but they were quite uppity and obnoxious with several of their neighbors before the War.

There really was no appeasement - the UK and France were counting on the Nazis and Soviets going to war, and looking at a map to get within striking range, Poland had to go. It's why they didn't do jack shit when the Nazis invaded Poland. And remember, the Soviets did not enter Polish territory until two weeks after the Nazis invaded.

At the time, all the Conservatives and Liberals in Paris and London were hooting with joy - the Nazis and Soviets will fight each other, and we'll make big bucks supplying both sides, build up our armies in the mean time, then destroy BOTH later when they're weak from pounding each other (everybody was thinking in terms of WW1 and the huge stalemates and meat grinders that took place)! Then, suddenly, nothing happened, and Chamberlain and Daladier realized they were in big trouble.

Also: France and the UK intended to seize parts of the Kola Peninsula and supply Finland during the Russo-Finnish war, but it was over before they could execute the plans.

thunderlips11 says

It was, after all, Lend-Lease, not "Here you go, complements of the (White) House".

actually Lend Lease did put into abeyance "cash and carry" arms sales.

We charged them $1B for $11B worth of stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

going with $10,000 per-worker GDP, that's a million man-years of labor output.

By rights, the Germans should have booted the Russians past the Urals in '41.

Problem was it took 4 lunges to get to Moscow, and the last one failed by a nuthair.

Bellingham Bill says

We charged them $1B for $11B worth of stuff.

Ah, but the US picked up a lot of stuff back in Murmansk after the war. American observers watched as thousands of Jeeps were crushed, and took the scrap metal back. I suppose because the USG already had too many Willies to sell at auction.

The British never paid back more than a fraction, and they received several times the aid Russia got.

In any case, you can consider the remainder an indemnity for the Americans invading and occupying the Soviet Union. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition

That bum Wilson. Another Hallmark of his Regime: The final disenfranchisement of Blacks (and many poor Whites) in the South. The age of "A Birth of a Nation" and maximum Klan membership.

thunderlips11 says

Concordat with Rome

more of an armistice than a collaboration, I think

The Nazis didn't want any competing power centers in the new reich, but they were willing to tactically bury the hatchet and smoke the peace pipe with Catholics.

The Catholic Zentrum party had been critical in passing the Enabling Act establishing the dictatorship.

The right had 60% (370 votes), short of the 2/3 needed. The Catholic Center (72 votes) voted for it unanimously. SPD voted 0-94, and the 81 KPD members weren't allowed to vote at all.

Bellingham Bill says

The Catholic Zentrum party had been critical in passing the Enabling Act establishing the dictatorship.

Interesting - didn't know that.

Dan8267 says

Most of the US Lend Lease material didn't arrive until after the start of 1943, and thus after Stalingrad and Defense of Moscow

Almost all of lend lease in 1941-42 was British. . By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks which was 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941.

In total during the war 3,000+ Hurricanes were delivered to the USSR along with 4,000+ other aircraft, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 bren carriers, 1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines and 15 million pairs of boots, food and medical supplies were delivered. Naval assets supplied included a battleship, 9 destroyers, 4 submarines, 5 mine sweepers, 9 trawler minesweepers, over 600 radar and sonar sets, 41 anti submarine batteries, several hundred naval guns and rocket batteries.

A fact that always escapes US history books.

thunderlips11 says

In 1943, the Luftwaffe was already beaten in the East, avoiding dogfights with the Soviets, while in the West the remains of the Luftwaffe were redirected to stopping the daytime bombing of Germany by the Allies

You are discounting luftwaffe losses in the battle of britain.

What broke the back of Luftwaffe combat force was not the soviet Red Air Force, but first the Battle of Britain then fighting in North Africa. The Luftwaffe consistently had less than half its total combat strength on the Eastern Front. The newest and most effective combat aircrafts and squadrons were consistently deployed to the West and Southern fronts against Western Allies. The soviet Red Air Force achieved near air-parity during the Battle of Kursk only because massive attritions in the west was making the Luftwaffe running short of aircrafts and trained pilots: even during the Battle of Kursk itself, the Red Air Force could control the sky only in sectors where Luftwaffe was rotated out to other sectors of the battle. Even during the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, soviets lost far more aircrafts and tanks every day than the attacking Germans. Before that, for much of 1941 and 1942, Red Air Force was largely chased from the sky where Luftwaffe could reach, only bad weather and deprivation of airairfields on the ground (like during Stalingrad) prevented Luftwaffe from dominating the air over the battlefield on the east front prior to Kursk. I.e., prior to the massive losses in North Africa against Western Allies and the need for massive air deployment to the west to defend against air raids all over Europe by Western Allies.

The massive production numbers out of the former Soviet Union did not at all reflect combat effectiveness. Many of those numbers were little more than mental masturbation by bureaucrats who had no expertise in combat or production. For example, tanks and aircrafts having no radio and easily lost and defeated in detail in combat against enemy with much lower numerical count; the near absence of parts inventory left some 1/2 to 3/4 soviet tank count unready for battle! Hey, if the bureaucrats wanted to keep all produced parts to the factory in order to maximize finished tank count at the factory gate, that's what they did, and the brand spanking new tank would be immobilized within weeks of deployment (often without even seeing combat) simply because lack of replacement parts in the deployment zone.

Also the massive production of obsolete aircrafts and/or wrong airccrafts. The start of the war saw Red Air Force having a vast inventory of biplanes! Even the supposed fighter Sturmovik was not effective in air-to-air combat, but a ground attack plane that tried to put in a few shots down at enemy ground forces before itself was shot out of sky. That's how desperate Red Air Force was: essentially making pilots and aircrafts disposable flying coffins. Red Air Force tactics were also questionable for much of the war. Dogfighting was an obsolete tactic in 1942, if not as early as 1940. The correct tactic was zoom-and-kill, using deflection targeting.

The soviet bureaucrats used people's blood and sweat to cook the impressive numbers: goosing the expenditure number (how much sub par toys were produced) in lieu of paying attention to what was achieved in combat effectivevness, because the former is easily measurable whereas the latter is not measurable before combat. Russians and other people in the former USSR paid in blood and sweat for those follies. A process rather similar counting government spending as GDP and pretending that adds to the real economy.

On the Zentrum, or Catholic Center Party in Germany, the party itself was very much split on the Enabling Act despite its members' final votes due to "party discipline." The real ramification of the vote and Enabling Act were very much exaggerated. While I agree that they should have voted no in a symbolic gesture, but any such act would accomplish nothing more than getting themselves banned just like the KPD before the vote and SPD after the vote, and potentially putting an even more radical faction of the Nazi party than even Hitler in power.

Yes, surprisingly, even Hitler's faction was considered "moderate" in the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Hitler's primary competitor in the party, Ernst Rhom headed a faction that was even more radical, and thoroughly believed in street revolution. He was the head of the infamous SA, or Brown Shirts, who were not only organizing street battles, but also filtering the parliament itself: preventing legistlators opposed to the Enabling Act from entering the building. Under such circumstances, if the Enabling Act was not passed, there would just have been a re-vote, or dictatorship by proclamation like what happened in Italy or Russia, with potentially Rhom as the dictator instead of Hitler, resulting in a regime rather similar to Stalin's in character.

Russians and other peoples of the former USSR probably would have been better off if the US had not insisted on all other powers withdrawing from the former Russian Empire. Someone like Pyotr Wrangel taking over Russia would have saved the people living in the Eurasian landmass over 100 million unnecessary deaths that would result from the Bolshevik type / Stalinist governments in the following few decades in peace time!

Probaby also preventing the rise of Hitler, as well keeping the Japanese busy absorbing the land east of Baikol instead of trying to start a war in the Pacific.

thunderlips11 says

.Reality says

1. The most decisive factor in tank battles turned out to be Radio! Coordinating attacks and defense, or running away to hit the enemy's supply trucks or calling in air strikes.

Agreed. The Soviets had very few radios, from a combination of Russian love of flags and traditional signals, and from pre WW2 Western embargoes on the technology. Not only tanks and land formations - often only the lead unit in a squadron had a simple, older radio and had to give instructions by wiggling the plane or making hand gestures from the cockpit.

What about the weather? The cold Russian winters played a big part. Wasn't Napoleon's army decimated due to the freezing Russian weather?
They say "Britain won the war with American money, and Russian blood"

thunderlips11 says

Hug a Russian if you Hate Hitler

I would hug a Russian even more if they booted out Stalin #2

bob2356 says

Dan8267 says

Most of the US Lend Lease material didn't arrive until after the start of 1943, and thus after Stalingrad and Defense of Moscow

Um, Bob is false quoting now? Real quote is...

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

Hug a Russian if you Hate Hitler

But don't huge a bishop. Vatican City was created by Mussolini so that the Catholic Church could help the Axis powers. And the Germans collected taxes and sent them to Vatican City during WWII. After the war, Vatican City helped former Nazis escape prosecution and relocate to South America. Vatican City has also helped tax evaders, the mafia, and drug cartels launder money. And these guys are suppose to be the moral authority on Earth?

Reality says

. For example, tanks and aircrafts having no radio and easily lost and defeated in detail in combat against enemy with much lower numerical count; the near absence of parts inventory left some 1/2 to 3/4 soviet tank count unready for battle!

Reality says

Even the supposed fighter Sturmovik was not effective in air-to-air combat, but a ground attack plane that tried to put in a few shots down at enemy ground forces before itself was shot out of sky. That's how desperate Red Air Force was: essentially making pilots and aircrafts disposable flying coffins..

Any documentation to back all this up other than I say so?

The Stumovik was never a fighter, it was designed for ground support. Look it up in any wwII plane book. Infantry called it the flying tank. The yak -3 -7 -9 were equivalent to the bf 109 /fw 190 and were far from flying coffins. The only real difference is the yaks didn't have a supercharger and couldn't go high. All soviet tactics were based on low altitude ground support. This has been documented many, many times. Oddly enough the soviets were very successful against the luftwaffe with the p-39 a plane that everyone in every other country hated. Here is a reprint from a german tactics manual (with some translation enhancements I think), the luftwaffe certainly respected the -9. Note they are talking about the gustav the best fighter of the 109's made in large numbers.

BF 109G-6 vs Yak 9

Most of all, If I can emphasize one thing when fighting Yaks, it's stay high. When in doubt, climb. When not in doubt, climb. Down low the Yak 9 is a fast, maneuverable killing machine, while up high it's slow, awkward, and an easy kill. Even staying above 1km can give you the edge in a chase situation, if you find yourself on the deck in a chase with a Yak 9 on your 6, there may be little hope unless you have a wingman with you.

Reality says

Dogfighting was an obsolete tactic in 1942, if not as early as 1940. The correct tactic was zoom-and-kill, using deflection targeting.

Yep, that's what they said in vietnam also. Didn't work out that way there either. An out of the sun diving attack is always the best tactic, ask the red baron. But in the real world it doesn't happen very often, especially with planes of similar speeds and climb rates. Any of the front line fighters in WWII could win a fight with any of the others. Pilot experience and ability to use strengths against weakness was (and still is) the key. Claire Chenault's tactics cleaned up with obsolete P40-B's against the same zero that decimated F4F's, spitfires, and hurricanes all across the pacific. Read Robert Johnson's (27 kills in the P47, a plane the brits said would be shot out of the sky) account of mock dogfighting a P47D against a supposedly superior Spitfire IX sometime. Or chuck yeager's mig 15 vs F86 matchup. Yeager won easily with either plane

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

Dan8267 says

Most of the US Lend Lease material didn't arrive until after the start of 1943, and thus after Stalingrad and Defense of Moscow

Um, Bob is false quoting now? Real quote is...

What is false quoted? Patrick has a bug, I quoted off thunderlips post and your name showed up. I was backing up what he were saying. US lend lease didn't start in force until 1943. He was incorrect in that the lend lease materials were sent prior to that from the british, some of which were used in Stalingrad and the defence of Moscow . The average american, if they've ever heard of lend/lease, doesn't know the british sent anything to russia based on what they were taught in history class.

bob2356 says

What is false quoted? Patrick has a bug, I quoted off thunderlips post and your name showed up.

Fine, but it's on you to correct that. Although I think in this case, it's probably user error. I've never experienced that bug and I quote a lot.

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

What is false quoted? Patrick has a bug, I quoted off thunderlips post and your name showed up.

Fine, but it's on you to correct that. Although I think in this case, it's probably user error. I've never experienced that bug and I quote a lot.

Who gives a shit? I didn't even see it. Don't you have anything at all more important to get your knickers in a wad about?

bob2356 says

Who gives a shit? I didn't even see it. Don't you have anything at all more important to get your knickers in a wad about?

Honey, if you are going to misquote someone, deliberately or not, you should expect them to point it out. And obviously you did give a shit as you replied and felt the need to attack me to deflect from your mistake.

By the way, the appropriate response, the one I would have given if I somehow misquoted someone, is
I'm sorry. My bad. I was trying to quote thunderlips11 and something went wrong.

See that's not hard.

LOL, the BF-109G vs. Yak-9 "citation" only proves the poor quality of "documentation" from some posters.

Anyone with half a clue about WWII combat aircrafts should know that the premier German battlefield air-superiority fighter on the East Front was Fw-190A and then later Fw-190D, which were far superior to the various Yak's and Mig's of WWII. BF-109G was not nearly the best German fighter by the time Yak-9 was introduced at the end of 1942. Messershmidt's crony connection with some Nazi party members kept the 109 production contracts and numbers up, and the primary use for 109G's late in the war was as high altitude fighters countering Allied strategic bombers.

Of course any plane can win against any plane if the pilot of the superior fighter is dumb enough. Just like even a crop duster can shoot down a jet fighter on take-off and landing. You and I can probably win a game of chess or tennis against Mike Tyson the boxer. LOL The crucial difference in air tactics, zoom-and-kill vs. dog-fighting, deflection-targeting vs. getting-on-six dog-fighting is shown when both pilots are good at their craft. The zoom-and-kill deflection-targeting tactic commanded battlefield initiative for the simple reason that the ones trained in that tactic would dictate whether the combat would take place or not. The difference was shown in spades during the Battle of Phillipine Sea: as the Japanese spiraled in circles trying to entice the opponent into dog fights, while the Americans zoomed by and shot them up. The battle was called "Mariana's Turkey Shoot" for the lop-sided kill ratio. Most biplane fighters probably can win a spiraling mutual tail-chasing dog fight against most jet fighters if the latter allow that to happen, simply because the bi-plane with more wing surface area can make tighter turns while the jet fighter would have much higher stall speed, but most jet fighter pilots know better than allowing that to happen, and would kill the bi-plane in a fast zoom pass deflection shooting before the bi-planet has a chance to tangle

In order to make those fast killing passes, a plane with initial altitude advantage has a huge leg up due the ability to convert gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy in a diving attack. Yak-9's lack of a super-charge/turbo-charger hence making its engine lose power dramatically at high altitude goes to show the backwardness of Soviet fighter design. The omission was almost as bad as all those tens of thousands of soviet tanks built without radios in them.

Reality says

LOL, the BF-109G vs. Yak-9 "citation" only proves the poor quality of "documentation" from some posters.

Anyone with half a clue about WWII combat aircrafts should know that the premier German battlefield air-superiority fighter on the East Front was Fw-190A and then later Fw-190D, which were far superior to the various Yak's and Mig's of WWII. BF-109G was not nearly the best German fighter by the time Yak-9 was introduced at the end of 1942.

Yes I can tell from the high quality of your documentation that you are providing you are certainly someone with half a clue. . Of course anyone with half a clue knows the premier fighter was the 190. That's why the Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring fighter aces of World War II: Erich Hartmann, the top scoring fighter pilot of all time claiming 352 victories, Gerhard Barkhorn with 301 victories, and Günther Rall claiming 275 victories. All of them flew with Jagdgeschwader 52, a unit which exclusively flew the Bf 109 and was credited with over 10,000 victories on the Eastern Front.

I have a copy of Jagdgeschwader 52: The Experten (Aviation Elite Units) by John Weal. Actually I have all of John Weal's books as well as all of Martin Caidin's books. What is your source of information other than your anal orifice?

Russians lost a lot more planes than the luftwaffe. There isn't any real reliable numbers on how many were in lost air combat. Over 2000 were destroyed on the ground in operation barbarossa alone. No doubt early in the war the luftwaffe had a very high kill ration. But as the war went on with better soviet planes and pilot training against worsening german pilots the ratio was certainly a lot closer.

Reality says

Yak-9's lack of a super-charge/turbo-charger hence making its engine lose power dramatically at high altitude goes to show the backwardness of Soviet fighter design.

Soviets designed planes first and foremost to support troops. That was their choice. They managed to shoot down an awful lot of 109/s and 190's with their backwards designs. They even got a bunch of aces with the p39, yet another low altitude designed for ground support plane.

Reality says

The difference was shown in spades during the Battle of Phillipine Sea: as the Japanese spiraled in circles trying to entice the opponent into dog fights, while the Americans zoomed by and shot them up. The battle was called "Mariana's Turkey Shoot" for the lop-sided kill ratio

Simply ridiculous. Where do you read your history? This was late 1944. Experienced US pilots in up to date F6F's against obsolete by 1944 zeros filled with hastily trained japanese pilots because all the experienced pilots were killed at coral sea and midway.Many of the japanese pilots in the battle were pulled out of flight school. BTW did you read that the US planes outnumbered the Japanese 300 to 65 in the first wave and it got worse after that? Battle of Phillipine Sea was a suicide mission for the Japanese pilots. Japanese didn't spiral in circles, they went in to attack the carriers and were shot out of the sky. Utter nonsense. BTW Toyoda failed to inform Ozawa as he attempted to ‘lure’ out the Americans that all the land based planes that were supposed to support him were already destroyed.

Dan8267 says

But don't huge a bishop. Vatican City was created by Mussolini so that the Catholic Church could help the Axis powers. And the Germans collected taxes and sent them to Vatican City during WWII. After the war, Vatican City helped former Nazis escape prosecution and relocate to South America. Vatican City has also helped tax evaders, the mafia, and drug cartels launder money. And these guys are suppose to be the moral authority on Earth?

Two Thirds of the inner circle of the Third Reich were practicing Catholics at one time or other in their life. Even towards the end of the war as the Nazi atrocities were getting harder and harder to deny, the only Catholic excommunicated in this circle by the Church was Joseph Goebbels. His sin? Marrying a Protestant.

Bob,

Your writings are only further proving your ignorance on the subject:

1. The high kill number of JG52 should have made it obvious to you that the unit was deployed to the East Front at the beginning of Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, when it was a turkey shoot. Fw-190 was not deployed to the East Front until late 1942, about the time Yak-9 was deployed by the soviets. JG52 always flew Bf-109 and attributed away, down to 9 operational aircrafts at the time of Crimea evacuation.

2. Fw-190 was superior to Bf-109 in every way except for very high altitude performance. That was clear to German pilots. The German air ministry gradually replaced 109's on the East Front with 190's. JG52 itself was allowed to keep 109's and attrit away because existing pilots were accustomed to 109's.

3. The Battle of Philippines was cited because it was the most obvious and most well known example of the lopsided kill between the two tactics clashed. Clair Chennalt commanding the Flying Tigers proved the superiority of zoom-and-kill tactics over turning dogfights as early as 1941-42.That is, if we do not count the direct experience between German vs. Soviets at the beginning of Barbarossa, and British vs. German experience before that.

4. You may want to read up on some of the battle details of the Battle of Phillipines, not just the usual summaries of the battle. Japanese loss had a lot to do with wrong tactics.

Nazi regime having large number of ex- Catholics was simply due to thr fact that Hitler's power base started in Munich, which had traditionally been catholic. Much of Nazi regime's racial prejudices however had roots in Norse mythology and Calvinist pre-determinism.

Reality says

What broke the back of Luftwaffe combat force was not the soviet Red Air Force, but first the Battle of Britain then fighting in North Africa. The Luftwaffe consistently had less than half its total combat strength on the Eastern Front. The newest and most effective combat aircrafts and squadrons were consistently deployed to the West and Southern fronts against Western Allies. The soviet Red Air Force achieved near air-parity during the Battle of Kursk only because massive attritions in the west was making the Luftwaffe running short of aircrafts and trained pilots:

Okay, I don't disagree with this entirely. There's no doubt that after Stalingrad the Germans were concentrated on preventing the Daylight Bombing of Western Europe. They sent the vast bulk of the fighter squadrons to Western Europe and North Africa in 1943, and kept only 20% of the fighters on the East Front (including protecting the Romanian Oil Fields) at that point. Also, the reason the Nazis didn't bomb the Beachheads of Normandy was because the Soviets swept the Dive and Medium bombers of the LW from the Skies. The Luftwaffe did not send JU-87s or He-117s up to 20,000 feet to attack B-17s.

Reality says

That broke the back of Luftwaffe combat force was not the soviet Red Air Force, but first the Battle of Britain then fighting in North Africa. The Luftwaffe consistently had less than half its total combat strength on the Eastern Front

The Germans entered Barbarossa with as many Luftflottes and more Aircraft (both combat and transport) than they did the Battle of Britain.

The downward spiral began after Barbarossa: December 1941 was the last time the Germans could keep the Luftwaffe at the same level they had at the start of the Battle of Britain. The LW had only 800-1000 of about 2500 combat aircraft left operational at that point. As von Rundstedt said (Paraphrased), "Stalingrad was the last time we saw the Luftwaffe."

bob2356 says

Almost all of lend lease in 1941-42 was British. . By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks which was 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941.

The Briitish Tanks were post-WW1 obsolete Matilda and Valentine models with 40mm Cannon, totally inadequate for stopping Panzer IIIs and IVs. However, it is true that about a hundred or so British Tanks were used in the Battle of Moscow - mostly in Stalin's stupidly useless attempts at spoiling counter-attacks.

At no point did imported tanks make up more an a fraction of Soviet Tank Forces, and again, to send Grants and Matildas against Panzers III+ and StuGs was nearly suicide. But the radar and sonar sets, the motorcycles, and the Hurricanes for defending the Northern Convoys, that was the big help.

The best thing about Stalin is that starting after the Battle of Moscow, he stopped micromanaging things. The worst thing about Stalin is that he reasserted himself in 1946.

bob2356 says

Us gold reserves went from 8000 tons to 20000 tons (60-70% of the worlds gold reserves depending on whose numbers you believe) in WWII thanks to arms sales and lend lease. Those ships had to carry something back. It was a very, very profitable war.

Yep:

One of the Royal Naval sailors sweating over loading these heavy boxes remarked to his officer: "It's going to be a bad trip, Sir! this is Russian gold, dripping with blood." Quite a pronouncement as it all turned out in the end.

This gold with a value at that time, of 45 Million Pounds sterling was destined for the United States Treasury, being part payment for all the munitions and materiel despatched to Russia from America.

and:

The Port Nicholson is a steel-hulled, 481 ft. merchant ship, coal fired freighter built in 1918 at the Tynes & Wear shipyard. She was carrying two special envoy USSR agents overseeing the delivery of a very important Lend-Lease payment from the USSR to USA. She along with 4 other commercial vessels were being escorted by an unusually high number of military ships. The normal ratio at the time was near 1:10 or less but this convoy ratio was 6:5. Maybe it was the fact they were delivering 1,707,000 oz. troy, in 400 oz. bars of platinum. Strangely the two USSR special envoy individuals quickly disappeared after being rescued and brought to American shores. They were not de-briefed like all the other survivors were.

1.7 million ounces of Platinum in 400oz. bars. That's $2B in today's money.

thunderlips11 says

That's $2B in today's money

Why didn't anyone tell me about this 30 years ago??? I would have dedicated my life to retrieving this hoard of PM laying off the coast of Maine.

Actually, doing some googling, I see the above story is bogus.

Churchill in his 6-volume history of WW2 recounts the drama of having to sell off so much of the UK's NIIP to Roosevelt, prior to Lend-Lease changing the rules in early '41.

I suspect the Edinburgh's cargo of gold was repayment to the UK for goods sent from the UK, not "Lend Lease" per se.

saroya says

Two Thirds of the inner circle of the Third Reich were practicing Catholics at one time or other in their life

Plenty of those whacked by the SS in June 1934 were Catholics, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Gerlich

They would have whacked Papen, too, but for the need to stay on Hindenburg's good side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_speech

Stauffenberg was the prototypical conservative Catholic who edged away from Naziism as it went off the rails.

He was perfectly fine with Germany liquidating the Poles, and settling accounts with the French, but Hitlerism was a bridge too far for him, and many like him.

Conservative catholics sided with Hitler initially to fight the rising real-deal Stalinist communism and socialism in general.

The Church wasn't democratic, why should the State be. But events soon demonstrated the value of democracy.

Reality says

Your writings are only further proving your ignorance on the subject:

1. The high kill number of JG52 should have made it obvious to you that the unit was deployed to the East Front at the beginning of Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, when it was a turkey shoot. Fw-190 was not deployed to the East Front until late 1942, about the time Yak-9 was deployed by the soviets. JG52 always flew Bf-109 and attributed away, down to 9 operational aircrafts at the time of Crimea evacuation

Reality says

The German air ministry gradually replaced 109's on the East Front with 190's. JG52 itself was allowed to keep 109's and attrit away because existing pilots were accustomed to 109's.

My ignorance on the subject doesn't contradict itself constantly. So the Yak-9 was a disposable flying coffin that just happened to shoot one of the best Luftwaffe groups out of the sky. How does that work? It doesn't of course.

It's not obvious to me there was a turkey shoot because I have the history of the unit sitting open on my desk. JG52 had 882 kills out of the over 10,000 unit kills by the end of operation barbarossa dec 1941. Hardly a turkey shoot. By the end of code blue and the siege of stalingrad dec 1942 JG52 had 4000 kills. In 1943 JG52 was the ONLY complete geschwader on the entire eastern front and their kills soared to 8000 by the end of 1943. By 1944 russians were getting the upper hand and JG52 kills went down a lot. May 1944 kills were up to 9000 then 10000 by dec 1944. The II./JG52 gruppe (just the II./gruppe not the entire geschwader) was reduced to 9 planes in may 1944 during the defence of the oil fields in Romania because they were being double teamed by the russians and the 15th USAAF. The II./JG52 was reequipped and redeployed. JG/52 was moved to austria and czechslovakia in spring 1945 where the geschwader, still a full 4 gruppes equipped with 109g's surrendered to the US forces. The kills were questioned for years, but after the soviets opened up their records the kills were confirmed. So much for for your version of history, where do you get your history from BTW? You keep dodging that question.

There is no FAR superior fighter in the front line fighters of WWII. It depends on models and years, theatre of operation, opponents, etc., etc.. It more depends on the pilot than anything. The late 190 was a superior newer fighter compared to the 109g especially in the D9 and later variants. The aerodynamics of the 109 reached the limits of development in 1943. But the 109 carried the war until 190's were produced and deployed in larger numbers late 1942 into 1943. That doesn't mean the 109 was obsolete after that. It was an effective front line fighter right to the end. All allied pilots respected the 109, even p51 pilots. Read Bud Anderson's To Fly and Fight were he comes literally inches away from being killed in a P51 by a 109. That was summer 1944. The plane most feared by the luftwaffe pilots was the p38, der Gabelschwanz-Teufel (the forked tail devil). Yet it had a horrible operational record in northern europe and was hated by pilots. Why? Earlier models had huge problems operating in the severe cold of northern europe and lacked dive brakes so they had compressability problems in dives. There were over 4000 blown up engines changed in 6 months and pilots literally got frostbite. The 9th and 8th air force shipped them all to north africa where they were highly desired, very successful, and loved by pilots.

If you want to go by kill ratios the best plane in WWII was the Brewster F2A-1 B-239 Buffalo, a plane that Zeros used to eat for breakfast. Lightened by the removal of its naval equipment, the export Brewster B-239, as flown by the Finns, was credited with 496 Soviet aircraft for the loss of 19 (a kill-to-loss ratio 26-to-1).

Reality says

3. The Battle of Philippines was cited because it was the most obvious and most well known example of the lopsided kill between the two tactics clashed. Clair Chennalt commanding the Flying Tigers proved the superiority of zoom-and-kill tactics over turning dogfights as early as 1941-42.That is, if we do not count the direct experience between German vs. Soviets at the beginning of Barbarossa, and British vs. German experience before that.

You keep acting like you've discovered the secrets to the universe with the idea of a diving attack. Diving attack has been the preferred tactic by every pilot and air force since the first 2 planes had a gun mounted. Even the zero pilots tried for a diving attack first. It's like saying the sun rises in the east. The problem is the people being attacked don't just sit around and say kill me please. There are many defences to spoil a diving attack and diving attacks quickly become turning fights. The battle of the phillipenes didn't have any clash of tactics. The japanese bore in to attack ships and the navy shot them out of the sky. Feel free to provide any literature to the contrary. Or any literature at all. Chenault's pilots didn't dive and zoom. They dove and kept going. No one zooms anywhere with a heavy not very powerful p40b. I have a copy of Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942 by Daniel Ford and Flying Tiger: The True Story Of General Claire Chennault And The U.S. 14th Air Force In China by Jack Samson if you would like to read about it. That was the preferred tactic of early mustangs also. They were nicknamed the runstang. German 109/190 pilots learned that it was not a great technique for attacking p47's (or breaking off a fight) unless they were going really fast, which makes hitting anything pretty hard. Lot's of german pilots got killed learning how fast a p47 could dive. Once the p47 got water injection and paddle blade propellers germans couldn't outclimb a p47 either. See Thunderbolt!: An Extraordinary Story of a World War II Ace by Robert S. Johnson.

Well, in any case, one Sailor's yarn doesn't negate the fact that Russia exported countless tons of Gold, Platinum, Manganese, Asbestos,etc. to the US and UK. The Murmansk Convoys did not return empty.

Also, the Russian attack against Japan was probably as or more important a factor in Japan surrendering than the Atomic Bomb.

But Cold War history makes it sound like the 20+ million Russians that died and caused 80% of the Wehrmacht's casualties (some say 90%) from all causes (including the Invasion of France, Partisan Activity, North Africa, etc.) was outweighed by a few thousand trucks and jeeps.

And that the invasion of Manchuria by Russia was perfidy, when the Soviets followed the agreement to the letter: 90 days after the War with Germany.

If there had been no East Front, there was no way the US and UK could have succeeded a beachhead in France. The vast, vast majority of the SS and Wehrmacht formations were in the East.

Obligatory Panzerfaust reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust

The Panzerfaust (lit. "armor fist" or "tank fist", plural: Panzerfäuste) was a cheap, single shot, recoilless German anti-tank weapon of World War II. It consisted of a small, disposable preloaded launch tube firing a high explosive anti-tank warhead, and was operated by a single soldier. A similar but smaller weapon was named the Faustpatrone. The first generation Panzerfaust was in service from 1943 until the end of the war.