Worst Military Leader of all Time

Best Tank of WW2....T34
Best all round Plane of WW2...IL2
Best General of WW2....Zhukov
Greatest Production of Planes and Tanks...Russia
Greatest source of ManPower....Russia

No second World War...no beef between Russia and USA...due to Japan being between their interests....

The Sturmovik was a piece of **** compared to the British planes.
Greatest Source of manpower was China.
Best general, I absolutely agree, greatest production was actually the USA.

The Russians and the Americans would have clashed over ideological concerns; American political thought has always been dominated by realism and a Russia with access to the Indian Ocean as Imperial Russia had always wanted did not bear thinking about - which is precisely what a dominant Russia would have wanted.

Quoted from SearrarD
omfg....does a change of General staff change anything to do with the task of defending the motherland?

One word. Finland. It was Voroshilov who started out in charge of the Soviet Army, so foregoing a German invasion would mean it was still he, not Zhukov who would have lead any invasion of Western Europe.

Quoted from SearrarD
The enemy is the same, the borders are the same, the army/equipment is the same...different people have to mange the new task...but ultimatly all strategic decisions were Stalins...it was his finger on the map and that was as to be done!

Wrong, it was not Stalins hand on the map come the more successful periods of the second world war - hence he launched a new purge after the war to clean out the Generals he thought had made names for themselves.

Quoted from SearrarD
I'ds say that USA would have let Japan and Russia piss each other off...and would Niels Bohr have bothered his arsed to create such weapons..if Einstein hadn't goaded FDR into the idea in the first place...commiting USA to a European war is no easy feat and Russia could not have the resources to piss them off

USA would have pushed for peace and Russia....considering the logistics of attacking on a new Landmass...Stalin would have took it with a sneery smile......



now after I have disected that Turd of a post....you go and say that Germany would have been a pushover by Russian Standards...

IF Hitler had not attacked Poland and Russia had instead attacked Germany, given that Russian tactics were still based on lining up troops rather than proper tactical positions (except in Southern Russia / Ukraine), Russia would have had to go through Poland - which is another enemy on to the list - and Rumania, and Antonescu would have been quaking had there even been a hint of a full scale invasion; the Germans would have been well readied. The Russians were in no way prepared to fight a war - and while fighting a war anyway, they would have removed the troops from the East, knowing from Richard Sorge that the Japs would go after the US islands that ringed them in - as well as striking south for Singapore and the British territories.

With this in mind, consider that Britain, faced with an attack in the East and a possible threat to the continental balance of power (a model she followed assiduously) from Russia, whatever the protestations of Winston Churchill, might have decided that the best way to save her own empire was to forge an alliance of necessity as she had so often done in the past; with Germany, France and the USA - some allies in one theatre, others in another. And don't forget that Italy and Romania, (ever vengeful after Russia seized her north-eastern oilfields) and Bulgaria would have been allied against a Russian incursion, disgusted even more by 'bolshevism' than by Nazism, which as we know many members of both French and British governments sympathised with.

Russia, while producing plenty had not the resources to fight Germany alone in the beginning - and by the time she would have been ready to fight Germany properly (ie after the same initial shock of losing so many battles had worn off enough to allow Stalin to change STAVKA around and re-institute single-heirarch command), the other western powers would have been looking to the east with fear and apprehension - possibly enough to catapult them into the war. Stalin was prepared to sacrifice the Ukraine whole to stave off an invasion; with that thought in mind remember that Russia was not capable of fighting an offensive war had there not been a second world war.

With the USA, China, Britain and France slowly but surely bleeding Japan dry in the east and with their own armies more than likely bogged down in the west due to the same problems of supply that they faced on the drive the Berlin and given that the Germans would have had a much better organised fighting force in a war fought without Stalingrad, the Soviets would have realised they were going nowhere - and that if Japan was defeated, she might face a two prong counter-attack. The USA having been at war with Japan would have developed the nuclear bomb - and probably still even have dropped it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, leaving the Russians no chance in hell.

One last thing, your little declamations are entirely puerile so I suggest you take some time to grow up before you reply.

Quoted from SearrarD
READ MY DAMN POST BEFORE YOU REPLY PLEASE!

Now now child, you must learn to keep your temper.

Quoted from SearrarD
China wasnt a GOD DAMN country at this stage...(please say you are not counting Mao)

Sorry, why wasn't China a country yet?

Quoted from SearrarD
Strategic Decisions are are the goals made out by Stalin...the General staff must complete them...

USA and Russia were on friendly terms withregards to japan

No, strategic goals could be made by anyone, they just had to have Stalin's approval.

And no, one of the first thing any GCSE student learns about the second world war is that the USA decided to use the atom bomb in part because they wanted to keep Russia out of Japan, despite their earlier hope that Russia would aid them. They were already pissed off at the Russian march of Manchuria - in fact that laid the foundations for the Korean War.

Quoted from Spoiirt
you see, what eomers problem is, is that he isnt able to just give facts, he has to put some stupid quip in after he makes his point. makes him feel big. and its perfectly safe for him to do it , cos its on the internet. of course if he were talking to someone face to face, he naturally wouldnt have the bottle to say that, which makes him not only a hippocrit, but also very sad.

so eomer post your little comeback, and feel safe, you sad little man.

I'm sorry Spoiirt, I didn't mean to tread on your insecurity complex.

Originally posted by SearrarD
Ground Control to Major Èomer...

The Republic of China (1911-49)

1931 Japan occupied Manchuria
1937- 45 Sino-Japanese War

I wouldnt so much as call it a war, but foreign occupation seems to take a country out of world standings in terms of industry, military but not politics.....

Conquered and rebelled chinese got their independence in 1945 after Japan's surrender to the USA.....àlthough fighting an Axis power they had nothing to offer the Allies efforts

WTF?
GCSE students make baby Jebus cry!

Please back up that wild accusation por favor!

China was in the midst of civil war (Gen Chiang Kai Chek vs Mao) when the Japanese invaded Manchuria. Before that, the last emperor fell because of the Boxer Rebellion in 1902 which resulted in a fragile government that European colonial powers tried to manipulate. Chek and Mao combined their forces through a temporary peace to resist the invaders. It is true that China did not have the tanks and airplanes to complete with Japan, but it was still a very real war of attrition. Talk to any Chinese whose forefathers were involved in WWII, and they will say it was a real war. And contrary to what you may have learned, only the coastal cities with their surrounding areas and Manchuria were completely conquered. Central (Mao) and southern (Chek) China were not. One proof is the American Volunteer Group of Col. Charles Chenault (The Flying Tigers) that fought the Japanese in several significant air campaigns.

Best General
I am going to use a different approach and talk about tactical genius. I would put three in this category: Yamamato who revolutionized naval combat by making the carrier, not the battleship, the premier weapon, Chenault who revolutionized air combat tactics, and Rommel who epitimized blitzkrieg tactics to an art form. Close second include Patton, Zhukov, Bradley, Montgomery, Hap Arnold, and Nimitz. World War II probably had the greatest number of innovative combat commanders since the war has been studied.

Best "Plane"
You are going to have to have three categories here: fighter, bomber, and fighter-bomber.
Fighter: In the early part of the war, it was the Spitfire, Me 109, and the Zero (type 21). Later part of the war, it was the P-51 Mustang, with a metro-merlyn engine, and the P-47 Thunderbolt

Bomber: It has to be the B-17 Flying Fortress and the British Lancaster bombers. Close second include the B-24 and B-29 as well as the numerous medium bombers that dominated World War II.

Fighter-bomber: This is a tough one, but it goes to the British Typhoon and the Russian Il-2. Both of these planes were built with the specific purpose of close air combat support and tank busters.

Best Tank
There were three types of tanks in World War II: main battle tank, infantry support tank, and scout tank. I know there were hybrids like the Panther and KV-2, but these were more likely armoured defense busters than anything elses.

Main Battle Tank: Since there were only two in World War II, Tiger and the T-34, the winner will have to go to the T-34. It had slightly better armour and endurance while the Tiger was the "Mercedes" version of all tanks.

Infantry Support Tank: The M-4 Sherman, M-3 Lee, Matilda, Churchill, Mark iv and Mark iii tanks were all equally good, but the best infantry support tank has to go to the Sherman. It had better armament and armour for the task, but was not a main battle tank. It cannot knock out any Tiger or T-34, but was primarily used to support infantry when attacking defenses, like that of the old tanks in WWI.

Scout Tanks: The only one that I can cite from memory is the M2 Stuart. However, scout tanks were not used very much and the only reason why I put this category here was because they were used intermittenly in various battles in the European and Pacific theater.

sorry i took a while to reply, didnt have internet access

Originally posted by spanner
A Mediterranean blockade? Do you forget the German conquest of Greece, Cyprus and the absolute battering that Malta took?
so are you trying to tell me that the german navy was in control of the mediterranean? because i think you should definately do your homework there, there might not have been a water tight naval blockade on the part of the british but by the stage when rommel and monty were fighting in north africa british naval power was by far superior in the med. even though malta took a beating it stilled remained in british hands. britain always retained gilbraltar and fortified it up to the hilt so that germany could not move its alantic navy into mediterran or a large amount of its submarines in. this meant that german occupation of greece and cyprus were useless in terms of there naval impact in the key year of 1943



This is irrelevent; at no time could Germany have won the war once convoy shipping began; the losses to the German U-boat fleet were unsustainable and the sinking of the Bismark effectively marked the end of Germany's attempt to grab the seas.

i think it is relevent because the germans did sucessfully disrupt british maratime machine and if hilter had maybe placed more emphesis on building up his submarine corp and surface vessels britain would have been hurting a lot more at sea. It is very relevant because the german naval campain severely affected the british war machine and the british civilian life with rations been imposed. I think if it hadnt been for the british cracking the german engima code the naval battle might of turned out a lot different.



Wrong. The enemies that Germany excelled against were outdated years before the advent of blitzkreig (which was a Russian idea by the way) - for example the Polish and the French armies still utilised the ancient stationary gun-emplacements-and-fortress battle lines which were entirely undermined when paratroopers came on the scene - and paratroopers were not restricted to the German army either. All I have to say is Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn.`

it is true to say that thepolish army wasnt as up to date as the germans but come on are you trying to tell me that france which would be considered as one of the top armies in the world were "outdated". I think you are arguing a losing battle to suggest that the german decimation of the entire french army, the british expenditionary force, the entire low lands,poland most of the balkans was nothing but spectatular. add to that europe was expecting this war for 8 years at least so france had plenty of time to prepare(even if the magnot line wasnt probably the best defence) its still no excuse to say the french and british were "outdated". they were considered the most powerful countries in europe.
yes Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn were a sucess in the way they encircled the german 6th army but with the italian 8th army what chance did they stand of breaking out or of the german general hoth breaking in.



Stalin's coups prevented 'deep operations' coming to the fore in the Russian tactical rulebook (because Stalin's crony Voroshilov oh he of Finnish War infamy was not in favour of it) and despite the fact that Stalin had executed plenty of the young blood of his army in 1938, they still were pulled around by Zhukov and annihilated the 4th Panzer Army and 6th Army at Stalingrad plus defeated an overstrength Leibstandarte division later in the Winter of '43.
no one denies Zhukov was definately a great military leader but i belive the the reason why the germans lost the battle of stalingrad was the fact that hilter intervened directly in the battle not allowing a tatical retreat which General Friedrich Paulus favoured. so the germans had to fight street to street urban warfare which they were not used to and with the fanactial attitude of the russians because the city bore the name of their leader the battle was eventually won.

No you said that if Hitler had left decisions to his generals, then the war could have been won; this is not the case; the German officer corp were severely anti-bolshevist and wanted to destroy Russia also - they would have invaded, with or without the Balkan campaign and if they had made the invasion of Russia without the Balkan campaign, then Russia might have been worse hit but Britain would have been in a much better position in North Africa and the Mediterranean - and the landings at Dieppe may have ended up landing in Taranto given the deployment of German troops!

i think you misunderstand me, i do not mean that decision like were they were going to evade would be left up to the generals, what i meant was operational decisions during the battle were hilter intervened and made a mess. this was evendent in the battle of stalingrad.the Caucasuses oil fields seemed to be at Hitler's mercy. Then he changed his mind and ordered part of the forces that were to occupy them to the siege of Stalingrad instead. By diverting them to this ultimately futile attack Hitler wrecked the Caucasus campaign, which had a good chance of success. the battle of stalingrad was the verdun of the second world war and should never have been entered into the way it was by germany.

i think this arguement you are trying to prusue that german military machine wasnt the best or even one of the best is going no were. russias size and variable weather conditions meant that even the best eurpean armies have not managed to conquer it.
[/B]

I am about to go to bed here so I will get back to the rest of the posts in due course but I had to ask spanner about this quote

Quoted from spanner
it is true to say that thepolish army wasnt as up to date as the germans but come on are you trying to tell me that france which would be considered as one of the top armies in the world were "outdated

Go and read Sir Basil Liddel-Hart's history of the second world war. France's army was almost as outdated as that of Poland. If you want more evidence, I have told you where to find it, I am not going to type it all out.

Originally posted by shock
Compared to the germans at the start of ww2 most armies were outdated. the most obvious area where you can see this is in their tank forces, but also in aircraft and tactics most armies lgged behind the germans.

my sentements exactly, germany outshone every european nation and russia at the time. so Éomer of Rohan you only prove my point more which is that the german war machine was brillant and to be admired but not there policies. in my opinion it was the greatest war machine since the days of julius cesear

who were more dumb than the french in their strategical defense in 1940?!
the maginot line? what a joke:D

so, what happened?
why the french didn't concentrate their forces in the ardennes?! is it a question of tanks who were to heavy for this sort of fight?

me think the french have been always late of one war! and i asked myself too why the general de gaulle hasn't been heard.

why US didn't help us sooner?

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Anyway had the French invaded German (through Belgium ?) in 39 things could have been a lot different ...

It all stems from ww1 - if the treaty of Versailles was scrapped in favour of Woodrow Wilson's "7 points" plan, Germany wouldn't have been broken, it's attempt at democracy wouldn't have failed; and the rise of fascism and communism (probably) wouldn't have happened. To a certain extent, I accept France and England's attitude at the end of the war; that Germany should have been made to pay, but to foot the cost of an entire war, and give up it's land was incredible (especially considering that Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire were both experiencing famine during 1918), and we paid for it with another, more disasterous war that STILL has echos today.

Originally posted by klaz
We didn't pay for it, Central Europe did. Ireland wsn't really affected by the war, except that we reaffirmed our version of "neutrality".

We singulary as a nation didn't, but viewed as Western civilisation, "we" paid for it. Plus Ireland didn't completelysee the war pass us by; we were bombed a couple of times (albeit by accident); the treaty ports were a bone of contention with Britain, and even Germany tried to drag DeValera onto the axis side with temptation of Dunkirque weapons and vehicles left behind by the BEF in exchange for German use of Irish ports.

Originally posted by klaz
Yup. Germany would have been justified in invading and occupying France. Had the French invaded, I (personal opinion) don't think they would have succeeded.
...

I don't think it's as clear as that. Assuming that a joint British-French force invaded Germany, I don't think it would have been beaten back _that_ easily. The british matilda tank and French somua as I said were problematic for the Germans, and the number of troops Britain committed was sizable; deGaulle would have eventually changed allied tank movements purely based on results - and remember that most of Hitler's generals were _against_ invading France, and Hitler basically pressurised them into following his orders. You're still probably right - Germany had the edge at that point in the war.

Originally posted by klaz
In regards to Ireland, i've always thought that Ireland acted in a way that tarnished our Neutrality. British pilots shipped to Britain free to continue the war, while German Troops were either arrested or passed to the British for questioning.

Did we really have a choice? We couldn't openly support the allies cos our economy was non-existent; we invited the risk of invasion and attack on our convoys. We _certainly_ weren't going to side with the axis. I think the idea that we were "neutral" is silly - we were only neutral in terms of military might and speeches.

Originally posted by klaz
As for France invading Germany, they had heavier & better tanks. But the germans had the best airforce in Europe, which would have decimated the slow moving Allied tanks. Added to this, German Engineers were well trained and equipped, capable of laying minefields and tank traps quite easily against allied formations in a very short time.

So basically we would find ourself back on a ww1 battlefield; Germany gradually being starved assuming it can't break south to Africa (let's take Italy out of the equation in Africa, cos they were pathetic); it's ships trapped at it's North Sea ports (this was a BIG cause for German starvation during ww1), and stalemate across the French German border.
Plus both the Me109 and Stuka were obsolete at the outbreak of ww2, especially the Stuka; the French bombers were quite good, and being on the offensive, the French presumably would have more of their decent aircraft in the sky, unlike the Invasion of france, where Blitzkrieg raped them on the ground.

Originally posted by klaz
As for being invaded by the allies for being neutral, i doubt it. Then they'd find themselves being painted with the same brush as the germans. The Allies couldnt afford such a reputation. Besides, i doubt the US would have supported such a move, and the British, would have done anything to avoid offending the US.

Sorry, I referred to being invaded by axis powers, not the allies. It was a risk, and we were assessed for invasion by the Nazis, using the IRA as a potential ally in unsettling the Irish institutions and infrastructure.

Originally posted by klaz
<Frowns> The Me109, obsolete at the start of WW2? Hardly. It outperformed most fighters until Britain brought out the Hurricane or the Spitfire. Germany's main lack in the air was that it had no heavy or medium bombers. The Stuka while vulnerable, was a decent dive bomber, and excellent for a troop support role.

the Stuka was outdated at the outbreak of ww2, and the Nazis knew it; there were designs accepted for a replacement fighter-bomber (including some bizarre gyroscopic powered VTOL craft - no kidding; will rummage out the details from de' web), but none were workable, so they continued with the Stuka well past it's sell by date.

Originally posted by klaz
The allied planes at the time, weren't up to scratch. It was only around 1941 that the allies started producing superior planes. Also in regards to warfare if France had invaded Germany, German pilots had already seen action in Spain, and they knew their planes were combat effective. France didn't have that. The only planes they knew that had seen combat, were the ones from WW1. Which wouldn't have been capable of competing with Germany's fighters.

How did the De-520 perform ? I can't recall - it was France's main fighter, and seemed quite good when I checked.

Originally posted by klaz
As for reverting to a WW1 situation, i doubt it. Technology had evolved too much for that. Air power was gaining more support, and the use of mechanised forces more important. I doubt that france could have kept a static front against German attacks.

Well assuming that Britain and France kept the Kriegsmarine at bay and penned in the North Sea (though with the inferiority of the British warship design, it was unlikely - how was the French navy?); then the Atlantic would have been relatively free of risk for supplies coming from America; Britain and France's war machine may have quickened pace a lot more, so presumably it would have caught up quicker than it did; a month in reality was never giong to be enough. A pre-emptive strike against known German buildups _might_ have given them the time they needed. Britain would have had less concentrated bombing raids with the front moved to the French border, leaving British factories breathing space to get the medium and heavy bombers rolling off the lines (though RAF bombing innaccuracy would have counted against them) But it's all conjecture Kinda fun though

from school memory, haven't the french navy being destroyed by the british air force in the rade of toulon because they didn't want it be caught by the germans?

British used carriers earlier for anti sub work and convoy escort (invasion of norway) - they had also lost some before japan entered the way. and of course pearl harbour was inspired by raid on taranto.

True, but it was the Pacific campaign that galvinised the idea that the way to go for naval superiority was not huge battleships, but speedy aircraft carriers; and around those tiny islands was where it found most success.