Who was more effective against Germany, Western Front or Eastern Front?

i think the eastern front was very effective against germany

 

brndirt1,

A very well thought out and constructive post, bravo.
Im not sure we disagree either.

One can easily be over whelmed when looking at what seems to be staggering figures, however, the break down of these numbers in terms of time frame of delivery and quality can perhaps paint a clearer picture?


Speaking solely on military equipment received prior to Stalingrad. The 2200 tanks which look impressive on paper had a very different reaction from Russian troops operating them on the battlefield. Frankly, the tanks were detested. Of course these machines were better then nothing, but they were worse then what the Soviets themselves had. Now I am by no means denigrating the help which the Allies (primarily America) provided. All I am saying (just as you are), that while LL was responsible for shortening the war and saving countless lives, it was not the ultimate deciding factor in outcome of the war.

As your Appendix shows, most of this help really began to pour in only after Stalingrad by which time the 3rd Reich's fate had already been sealed.

41' 360,000 (tons)

42' 2,453,000

43' 4,794,545

44' 6,217,622

45' 3,673,819


I too believe that food and mechanized infantry were the favorite and today (probably) the most recognizable contributions to the war effort in the east by the west.

 

That is why I had the disclaimer on the AFV spot:

All AVF types including tanks; 2,249 (mostly light Stuarts and those sad stop-gap M3 Lee/Grants). Everybody, American, British, and Soviet disliked the stop-gap M3s, Stalin really disliked them because they ran on aviation gasoline in their radial engines, and he was short on that stuff. But that said everyone had a completely different opinion of the Stuart tank, the British nicknamed them the "Honey" becasue they were so sweet and ran so well. But the Stuarts were still a light tank.

But better a bad medium (Lee/Grant), and a good light (Stuart) than no tanks at all; right? I think the Soviet troops called the M3 a "coffin for six brothers" or something. Nobody liked those buggers, but they did share many parts (hull, powertrain, tracks) with the M4 Shermans which showed up later, and which the Red Army gave good reviews to. I was sort of surprised that America didn't send the diesel powered M3s (we made quite a few) to the Soviet Union, we did send them diesel powered Shermans when they came out in late '42 early '43. In fact I think the Red Army got more diesel Shermans than our own USMC did. I'll have to look that up.

I don't believe we are in disagreement either, only on the percentage figure you were sticking with I think. And that is a minor difference, 10% instead of over 14% in war material only. The other percentages are demonstrably higher than 10% in material used by the USSR, it wasn't really the tanks, guns, planes and ammo anyway that make the biggest difference to the Soviets. It was the un-glamorous stuff like canned meat, trucks, shoes, and fabric that really helped.

 

While brndirt is correct about the Lend lease significance it is still overshadowed by how many hurdles the Russians overcame.

You can still see examples of their achievements today, look a Sverdlovsk for example, a city in the mountains which wouldnt have been very impressive during the 40's but look at what the Russians did. They hauled all their industry by foot and truck over a length of unimaginable odds and turned it and many other remote city's into industrial metropolis zones.

The Stoicism and bravery of the Russians is what saved them from conquest.

 

Seriously read a book. These guys have been far too gentle with you.

 

the eastern front. Because more people fought and died on the eastern front than in all other theatres of world war 2.We know that in world war 2 30,000,000 million people died. one-third of this total was dead in the eastern front, and eastern front was called war of extermination.

 

Just put he/she on ignore, everything will be fine.

 

Russia alone lost 28 million...

PPSH! Give em' a few stars and look what happens!

 

Didn't mean to cause problems.

 

Out of that 28 million,how much did Stalin kill himself??? Also,when Russian soldiers wanted to retreat,they were shot by there own very persons.

 

Yes you are! You are trying to cause problems with me! I saw you're post you and wolfyss.

My posts before has clearly have alot of meaning about the Russians efforts against germany or was that there own leader stalin???
How any one give Russian soldiers the benifit of the doubt for wining ww2,when there own leader shot the russian soldiers for retreating (not even by emeny fire) and before ww2 that russia treated there own persons like sub-humans!god knows how many were killed by stalin himself.

Any one what to say russia was the one that put more effort in destroying germany now?

 

Yes Stalin killed his own people, yes he was far from an angel, what is your point?

I always find it interesting how others remind us Russians of how evil Stalin was, its almost as if we forgotten our own history....

What does Russia's internal problems and history have to do with her contribution to the war, Heidi?

What does Russian soldiers being shot by their own men have anything to do with their contribution????

If anything, their contribution should be magnified because they fought against the Germans and Stalin's infamous order of "NOT ONE STEP BACK".

And please stop saying "Russia" treated their own as sub-human. It was NOT Russia but Stalin that did this.

 

What does Stalin's purges have to do with the fact the Soviets destroyed 85% of the Nazi army?

 

Heidi, his comment wasn't really as "trouble starting" as you take it. It's about the general condition of your posts. You come across as someone who has not read a lot about WW2 yet so you often post things that may be questionable.

Granted, I am no WW2 genius either but I have the basics down and have read a bit on certain things (weapons, troop organization, tactics, tank missions, the SS, etc).

Wikipedia is really one of the best sources to get concise general knowledge. Try looking up things that you are curious about and read their articles:

World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

hey don't change subject here,some one mention Russia losing 28 million in the Eastern war effort against german army,my point was this-
How do you not know that half of russian Soldiers could have been killed by there own boss Starlin and not germany!
If this is true,than russia did not have more effective agianst germany! also (going of f topic here)during the cold war,did not starlin treated Russian persons like sub-humans? Would this be the same case during ww2???
(of cause,not saying russians are bad people,saying Stalin was evil to his own persons) No offence to russian members.

28 million Russians perished were not caused by fighting the eastern front and being killed by germans.

 

Wolfly- you are correct,i have not read much books.
Please don't get me wrong,i post what i beleive is right,i never try and make thingd up.
I will do what you have mention,i'll put some effort into it.

 

Most of them were killed by the Germans Heidi. I would say even 90% or more.

 

That's a good attitude. Keep it up and you'll go a long way.

As for who was more effective, I would have to say it was the USSR.
I'll put my answer in the context that was mentioned earlier in this thread.
The 1941 German war machine made France surrender and forced England to retreat to England. The USSR did indeed got knocked about and was on the ropes but it was able to absorb Germany's best punches and come the next round, forced the Germany into the defensive.
It took more than a couple of rounds for the Allies to bounce back.

 

I know that you mean no harm Heidi, but nothing good can come out of such a statement, other then showing the members of this forum about how unfamiliar you are with the war in the east and Russian history. This is due to the lack of reading which you yourself have admitted to.

Out of the 28 million Russians that perished, 18 million or so were civilians. They died not from Stalin, but from the uninvited guests.

Heidi, it is silly to argue about a topic which clearly you know little about. Perhaps if you listened to some of what was being said and maybe check up on it to broaden your knowledge might be a little more constructive and educational? After all that is why we are all here.

That is exactly what they perished from.