Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Razgovory]

I should point out that simply because more people died on the Eastern front doesn't make a weapon a better war winner then a weapon on the Western front.  For instance, the most common Soviet rifle was a Mosin-nagant, while the most common American rifle was the M1 Garand.  The Garand was a semi-automatic design while the Mosin was a bolt action.  It would be hard to argue that that the Mosin is a better weapon.

[Viking]

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

I find the number of deaths listed in the expulsions in Eastern Europe astonishing. I had no idea they were that high.

You don't expel millions of people from their homes without murdering a substantial proportion of them. All the numbers are huge, but the one I was trying to point to was the 80-90% of germany military deaths coming at the hands of people using T-34s not Shermans.

[Razgovory]

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

I find the number of deaths listed in the expulsions in Eastern Europe astonishing. I had no idea they were that high.

You don't expel millions of people from their homes without murdering a substantial proportion of them. All the numbers are huge, but the one I was trying to point to was the 80-90% of germany military deaths coming at the hands of people using T-34s not Shermans.

And that's why the Anti-tank rifle was the best anti-tank weapon of the war.  Because it was in the hands of people who inflicted 80-90% of the German casaulties.

[Valmy]

All the numbers are huge, but the one I was trying to point to was the 80-90% of germany military deaths coming at the hands of people using T-34s not Shermans.

The Soviets did cheat a bit by murdering most of their prisoners.  Also they had a couple extra years to kill Germans than the Shermans did.  Not the Shermans' fault.

[Berkut]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

That is even more stupid than the people who think the Eastern Front was the sideshow to the West.

Well, not more stupid, but certainly as stupid.

[derspiess]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

The T-34 was such a phenomenal tank in some aspects that its serious flaws often seem to be overlooked.  The two-man turret was a bad arrangement, forcing the tank commander to also double as gunner.  The tracks were brittle and tended to break apart easily.  They had bad transmissions which wore out easily and were a pain to have to shift.  It had a motor to traverse the turret but it was poorly made and tended to break down.  And as you mentioned the lack of a radio was also a big flaw.  I think there are some others I can't remember.

Some of these issues were resolved with the T-34/85, which was a fine tank but still not quite perfect.

[Valmy]

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

Those 300,000 men the Axis lost in Tunisia alone would have had no impact if they could have been used on the Eastern Front eh?

Well probably not a lot of them were Italians after all.

[Tamas]

I should point out that simply because more people died on the Eastern front doesn't make a weapon a better war winner then a weapon on the Western front.  For instance, the most common Soviet rifle was a Mosin-nagant, while the most common American rifle was the M1 Garand.  The Garand was a semi-automatic design while the Mosin was a bolt action.  It would be hard to argue that that the Mosin is a better weapon.

All I was saying that "total number of Shermans lost < total number of T-34s lost" says nothing about the Sherman's comparative performance.

[Syt]

Putin has asked parliament to withdraw the authorization for him to use military force in Ukraine.

[Tamas]

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

Those 300,000 men the Axis lost in Tunisia alone would have had no impact if they could have been used on the Eastern Front eh?

Well probably not a lot of them were Italians after all.

I am not saying it wasn't important but it is quite easy to see that Eastern Front was just on a bigger scale.

[Tamas]

Putin has asked parliament to withdraw the authorization for him to use military force in Ukraine.

They will respectfully decline I assume?

[DGuller]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

That is even more stupid than the people who think the Eastern Front was the sideshow to the West.

Well, not more stupid, but certainly as stupid.

Sounds significantly less stupid to me.  It may not be the truth, but it's a whole lot closer to the truth than the reverse.

[Berkut]

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

Those 300,000 men the Axis lost in Tunisia alone would have had no impact if they could have been used on the Eastern Front eh?

Well probably not a lot of them were Italians after all.

I am not saying it wasn't important but it is quite easy to see that Eastern Front was just on a bigger scale.

The Eastern Front was a different kind of war than that war fought in the West, focused more on raw numbers rather than equipment and technology.

It is like comparing the Pacific War to the European war, focusing only on the bnumber of infantry involved, and then judging that the European war was "bigger". Bullshit. You cannot compare an aircraft carrier to a Panzer division, it doesn't make sense.

When a U-Boat sinks in the Atlantic, that is about 100 KIA. The Germans lost 100 KIA on the Eastern Front without even noticing. So I guess having a U-Boat sunk was about as damaging to the Germans ability to win the war as losing 100 rifleman? Those 100 KIA should be compared man for man with a couple platoons of Wehrmacht infantry and we conclude that the Eastern Front was ever so much of a "larger scale"? Again, bullshit.

You don't win or lose wars by some simplistic calculus that only looks at lives lost as the be all and end all counter of what matters, at least not if you want to understand why countries win and lose wars at anything more than a very, very amateurish and simplistic level.

[Tamas]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

That is even more stupid than the people who think the Eastern Front was the sideshow to the West.

Well, not more stupid, but certainly as stupid.

hypothetical: there is no western front (just economic aid to SU). Would Germany collapse eventually? For sure
hypothetical: there is no eastern front. Would Germany collapse eventually? Maybe.

'nuff said.

[Berkut]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

That is even more stupid than the people who think the Eastern Front was the sideshow to the West.

Well, not more stupid, but certainly as stupid.

Sounds significantly less stupid to me.  It may not be the truth, but it's a whole lot closer to the truth than the reverse.

They are both equally stupid, and both equally fail to understand how the war was fought, and what actually resulted in victory and defeat for the Allies and the Germans.