|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.167.61.177
In Reply to: RE: Perhaps you should check your facts... posted by jamesgarvin on June 26, 2007 at 08:02:35
What do think happened to the Soviet Union after they survived the initial onslaught ? They ramped up the vast Soviet natural resources to put together tremendous war production capacity. By the end of the war they building warplanes, tanks, artillery, ammunition, etc at a far higher rate than the rate of destruction at the hands of the Wehrmacht and probably at a higher rate than the American military buildup.
What everyone glosses over is the Soviet Union took on arguably the World's finest war machine (and probably 80% of the Wehrmacht, the rest being spread over the piddly Western and southern fronts fighting the Americans/Britsh) toe-to-toe for three (3) years and eventually beat them with sheer numbers. Vast numbers of battle-hardened troops who would have certainly given the Americans a tough fight. "Normandy" ? "Battle of the Bulge" ? mere sideshows compared to the battles on the Eastern front (e.g. Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow).
Follow Ups:
I think the gist of the article is that at the beginning of the German invasion, Russia lost a lot of planes. After the U.S. landed in Europe, combined with Germanies failed assault on England, Germanies air force was basically a non-factor through the rest of the war. The argument that the Soviets ended the Luftwaffe is specious. When the German air force was crippled, the Soviets were able to build their air force, and the U.S. gave them planes. Further, the Soviet's victories on the ground can be attributed to a significant degree to the lack of the German air force to protect their ground troops once the U.S. and the British essentially ended the Luftwaffe.
However, having planes is not the same thing as having a lethal air force. The argument that their pilots were as capable as those of the U.S. and the British, which is as, if not more, important than the number of planes a country possesses, is wrong. That, I think, is the gist of the article.
which source is only as good as the people who contributed to it.
Here's a link to one historian's take on the Eastern front battles:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1373719.htm
Below is a link to a book on the Eastern front air warfare which looks to be worth reading.
- The eastern front consumed over half of the German Luftwaffe's frontline strength from June 1941 (Open in New Window)
The first article you reference seems to support my view. Relative to the portion which discusses the relative air forces, apparently Stalin felt he needed American bomber support, and apparently the American bombing in Germany diverted German aircraft from the S.U., aiding the Soviets in their fight against the Germans on the ground. And Stalin needed American bomber help, why?
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: