How were the Russkies able to pull off the biggest half-time

They were motivated by pure and beautiful worker's paradise and not the racist meth-mongering of White Mugabe

>>2506501

They were desperate as all hell.

Serious home court advantage and deep bench

Because the German strategy was the equivalent of them playing a hockey game where their goalie disappears if they're not up by 3 at the end of the first period.

T-34s and massed tube artillery

>>2506501
The fucking weather changed midway thru the second quarter...........

>>2506501

British military supplies saved them from the initial German attack and from their they were able to utilise overwhelming weight of numbers and industrial output to subdue the Kraut.

The Germans planned to be in and out in like 4 months. They didn't plan for the winter or the fact that Soviets didn't care how many of their own people had to die.

The Germans would always kill like 5 times as many people as their own armies lost but the Russians kept pouring more and more people on them.

>>2506501

Primarily because Hitler underestimated the USSR and thought that if the initial shock attack was great enough, the USSR would collapse. Furthermore, the order not to undertake retreats is what ultimately doomed the 6th army at Stalingrad and thereby halted the axis offensive in the Eastern front.

Once the Russians knew the Japs wouldn't invade from that side; they were able to bring 45 divisions from the East to West Russia during halftime.......

After the winter was over Fritz' goose was kooked and only matter of time before Fritz is ready to eat.........

People did not learn from WW1 and were still under the impression that conditional surrender was possible.

Hitler was hoping that a shock attack with serious gains (that he new were not sustainable in the event of prolonged confrontation) would bring Stalin to the table to cut a deal that saw Germany getting all of what they had overrun.

Of course common mentality had changed by that point and the war turned into something of a war of survival rather than a chess match of old, Stalin dug in and 50 million people died.

There weren't very man scenarios where Germany could actually beat the USSR while so stretched out in terms of logistics and resources. Imo the only thing Hitler could have done to save his position would have been to more aggressively pursue a relationship with the UK early on in anti-communist alliance and ensure naval supremacy that would have surely choked the Soviets out.

File: Hitler_1914_1918.jpg (13KB, 170x265px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 170x265px

>publish your personal diary including plans to take over the Soviet Union
>surprised the Russians didn't openly believe the Germans wouldn't try shit and ramp up defences

The main thing people always forget was it wasn't a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Not even in the European theatre. The Allies had much more men and much more resources.

>>2506585

This, people forget Britain played a massive role as well and I know it is easy to forget they were in WW2 at all but even the USA made a small contribution.

>>2506501
Eating boiled leather shoes gives you superpowers.

>>2506664

More than small, in a certain context. At the critical stage of the beginning of Barbarossa the US provided material aid that the Soviets needed badly to buffer the tide while setting up new production in the East.

On top of that, the United States engaged Japan, ensuring that the Japanese would not attempt an invasion in the far East and allowing for Stalin to re-route 70 experienced Siberian divisions to fight the invading Germans.

Once the USSR was back on its feet it didn't require so much support from the US but in the early stages of lack of preparedness they did much to allow them to get there.

Many things.
The Nazis severely underestimated the industrial output of the Soviet Union and its allies.

They also failed to take Moscow due to a failed offensive and the subsequent re routing of troops to Stalingrad.

Even then they still had a chance but weather bogged down their mobility and bought the Soviets time to mount counter offensives.

This is textbook war.

>>2506696
>More than small, in a certain context. At the critical stage of the beginning of Barbarossa the US provided material aid that the Soviets needed badly to buffer the tide while setting up new production in the East.

That was Britain not the US.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

>>2506536
Did you know a year has 4 seasons and ww2 lasted for more than a year?

>>2506501
Russia only won because America started sending them trucks and other motorized vehicles. If it wasn't for that then they would've been stuck at WW1 levels of mobility and have lost the war.

>>2506753
Are you trying to impress us with your understanding of '4' and '2'. Go sniff some glue - eat the whole tube

>>2506766

They were already winning by the time significant amount of US supplies came through.

>>2506781
Thems fancy numbers

>>2506766
> If it wasn't for that then they would've been stuck at WW1 levels of mobility
Probably.
> and have lost the war
Why tho? They would still had both the manpower and the industry advantages, it would just took more time to crush the Germans.

File: gitgood.png (311KB, 590x376px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 590x376px

>>2506501

levels of autistic fury that shouldn't have been possible.

>>2506713

Whenever people bring up aid Britain send to Russia, I ask them

"So where did Britain get that material?"

>DATS RIGHT MOTHER FUCKER, AMERICA SENT IT

>>2506894

>British build material
>the US sent it

You are one imaginative mother fucker I'll give you that.

>>2506902

ok fine, you tea sipping redcoats sent radios too

>>2506933

And the British build tanks that saved Moscow.

>>2506713

Are you serious? Britain was already starved for material and getting it from the United States. Why on Earth do you think they were the ones producing it.

>>2506960

I already gave a source. Would you mind giving your's rather than ranting based on your own imagination and vague understanding of WW2 from Disney films.

>>2506894
haha before America even entered the war! woohoo!

>>2506969

Disney > "historynet"

File: Frodo.jpg (200KB, 1600x1201px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1600x1201px

>>2507001

I see.

>>2506954
Yeah those Matilda tanks were so useful compared to the t34

Can someone explain this with a food analogy rather than hockey? I don't play hockey.

>>2507544

The T34 was certainly superior to the Matilda, there is no doubt about that. I'm glad we can agree the Brits and the USSR saved Europe.

File: routes_map_small.jpg (99KB, 800x620px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 800x620px

>>2506501
>How were the Russkies able to pull off the biggest half-time comeback in history?
logistics wins wars

>>2507636

>we could've won without america! ex de

Just remember, 2 out of 7 continents on Earth are named after the USA.

>>2507606
nazis bit off more then they could chew

>>2507690

The USA is named after one continent and that is possibly the most irrelevant and retarded "point" I have ever heard.

File: 1480814146937.jpg (254KB, 884x757px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 884x757px

>>2506501
sekrit dokuments comrad

Americans refballed them to victory

They tried to make Stalin hit his pre-set kill limit but he'd lost that in an operating system crash when his wife shot herself.

File: 7-continents-of-the-world.gif (37KB, 1488x850px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1488x850px

>>2507705

American fuel, food, and material to make shit was pretty important to england at the time desu.

Thinking the soviets had any value placed on life was the reason. Hitler was like The Riddler and Stalin was The Joker.

>>2507781

I love the way you are attempting to slowly move the goalposts from "the USA supplied Russia with the military supplies that helped beat Operation Barbarossa" to "the USA was engaging in international trade with the UK".

I appreciate the attempt at rhetoric but not all of us are retards that are so easily able to be diverted from the discussion in hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Nazis ~15 miles from Moscow, where they were pinned by a fuckhuge rag tag army and stopped long enough for one of the worst winters in the 20th century to set in.

There must be more to this though- someone please fill in the blanks if you know

>>2507846

I get that english is your second language, but I'm not moving goalposts.

What I'm doing is supplementing my original point.

We gave shit to anglos AND to russkies.

If it makes you feel any better America provided the means to kraut killing, anglos and russkie did the bulk of the fighting.

Meanwhile in the pacific America BTFO the japs without any european help.

>>2507910

This is the most vague post ever. What is your original point?

The people on this board are fucking idiots

>>2507874
Pretty sure they weren't "rag tag"

IIRC they were a well-equipped and well-trained army from the far east

>>2507973
cool, thanks for the fact. I guess they were well-trained in anticipation for another war with Japan?

I think the rag-tag army I was thinking of were the people actually waiting in Moscow for the Germans, if the army transferred from the east failed to stop them?

It's because of Zhukov.

File: 1486451784750.jpg (1MB, 1340x1868px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1340x1868px

>>2507994
>I guess they were well-trained in anticipation for another war with Japan?
Yes, right on the money

>>2506544
>a few British tanks stopped the Germans at Moscow which was fought in conditions far below zero
t. lindybeige

>>2506501
Nazis fucked up really bad in almost every area.

Intelligence
Counter Intelligence
Logistics
Occupation
Transport
Arming of Allies
Use of Allies

The only reason they lasted so long was that they were initially better led and better trained while counting with more aggressive commanders. This made their initial successes great and made it take longer to tear them down.

That said their eventual defeat at the hands of the soviets was a foregone conclusion. The only questoon was how long.

>>2508023
haha, as if russian bullets could best a well-forged katana

>>2507874
The red army defeated the Wehrmacht not the winter.

>>2506501
The gemans depleted their reserves within months of barbarossa.

The Russians still had ample reserves by the fall of Berlin.

>half-time comeback
Not really no.

>>2506501
It was a numbers game. 1 german for 100 russkies and they still kept coming...
Soviets won by sheer numbers, not by skill or equipment

>>2508086
>Soviets won by sheer numbers, not by skill
The red army was better than the Wehrmacht in every way.

File: frodo.png (325KB, 560x559px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 560x559px

>>2508027

This has already been backed up.

Here's Quickipedia...

>In June 1941, within weeks of the German invasion of the USSR, the first British aid convoy set off along the dangerous Arctic sea routes to Murmansk, arriving in September. It was carrying 40 Hawker Hurricanes along with 550 mechanics and pilots of No. 151 Wing to provide immediate air defence of the port and train Soviet pilots. After escorting Soviet bombers and scoring 14 kills for one loss, and completing the training of pilots and mechanics, No 151 Wing left in November, their mission complete.[46] The convoy was the first of many convoys to Murmansk and Archangelsk in what became known as the Arctic convoys, the returning ships carried the gold that the USSR was using to pay the US.

>By the end of 1941, early shipments of Matilda, Valentine, and Tetrarch tanks represented only 6.5% of total Soviet tank strength, but over 25% of medium and heavy tanks in service with the Red Army.[47][48] First seeing action with the 138 Independent Tank Battalion in the Volga Reservoir on 20 November 1941,[49] Lend-Lease tanks constituted between 30 and 40% of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941.[50][51]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Here's a pop-his source...

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

This is a proper academic source, which I guess you don't have access to since you're an internet shitposter rather than someone interested in genuine study of history.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518040600697811

Go fuck yourself with your Youtube tier bullshit, I wouldn't have even heard of "lindybeige" if it wasn't for low quality posters like you.

Germans terminated russians as if they were roaches, at one point there wasn't enough germans to keep BTFOing russian insects

>>2508086

Get the fuck off my board you fucking normie idiot.

>>2508092
red army
>shit, outdated weapons from XIXth century
>shit tanks
>shit generals that couldn't think of a single tactic aside from zerg rush
>russians can't fight for shit
>lot of infihting between different ethnic groups within red army, to the point where they're impossible to control
>human waves
wehrmacht
>superior soldiers
>superior weapons
>superior tanks
>superior tactics
>only downside was they were massively outnumbered by reds, like 1 x 100

>>2508086
wrong
>>2508092
wrong

>>2506501
Zhukov making victory achievable + Stalin not allowing anyone to lose.

A betting man would have said that France wouldn't have succumb to Germany so quickly, if at all, and that Russia almost certainly would have capitulated.

The attack east came shortly after Stalin purged his best generals, and the Red army had a terrible track record abroad. France, on the other hand, had the Maginot Line prepared and a long track record of successfully resisting Germany, or outright defeating Germany, in some cases. Even in the last world war, Russia performed poorly and was only survived by Germany mostly being tied up in the western front, with the national Russian attitude being "peace, at any cost".

Surprisingly, the Germans quickly overcame the half-hearted resistance the Line provided, and the French government capitulated within a month. Stalin, poured seas of blood to resist Germany, and Zhukov was able to lead the Red Army in successfully taking Berlin, albeit at tremendous casualties, all throughout the advance into Germany.

>>2508132
Once Russia got its shit together its tanks were clearly superior to German ones, and weren't overengineered to break down every other day.

>>2508096
Holy shit

#UtterDecimation

>>2508149
I thought Germany poured a vast majority of its military into the east, and only a fraction into the western and north african front?

>>2508157
They did, in the second. In the first world war, Germany's overwhelming attention was in the west.

I think russians could try to invade Latvia and still lose 10 times the latvian population in soldiers.

>>2506544
Haha, no it was the American lend lease program that saved the eastern front, hahaha..

>>2508168
oh fuck I misread, sorry

>>2508096
And who supplied the British which made all that possible?

>DATS RIGHT MOTHER FUCKER, AMERICA

>>2508203

We went through this as well, c'mon Terence did you think you could just sneak back into the thread later? >>2506894 >>2506902

>>2508177

Nope. The US lend lease program primarily happened after the USSR was already winning, that's not to say it wasn't useful, but it was a bit late in the day.

>>2508234
America propped up the economies of both Britain and the USSR. They owe everything to us.

>>2506501
Based Stalin didn't even care about how many of his people died so the Germans had to literally murder all the men, women and children to win.

>Americans bragging about their grandpa's wearing pretty pink aprons to make the real men weapons to fight

lol

>>2507690
Both continents your speaking of were named after an itallian sailor.

>>2508308
We won you the war you ungrateful prick

>loadsamoney from the yanks

and

>italy being a complete fuckup yet again (the invasion of greece)

They had a mobile IV drip of steroids in the form of US and UK aid.

They were also playing with more players on their team.

>>2506501
napoleon didn't think they'd really just burn their own shit to mess with him

>>2508157

They were doing so in 1942, but even by 1943, the split of the Heer (the land army, the air forces had almost always been predominantly against the West) was about 80/20, and by 1944, about 60-40. One thing that often gets overlooked is that the casualty ratios are very different from the deployment ratios: The Western Allies had a command of the sealanes that forced the Germans to spend lots and lots of men guarding areas that were never attacked and were often cut off by the actual Allied advances. The Soviets were able to do this far less often, with the Courland pocket being the only one I can think of offhand still "active" at the end of the war.

The germans actually never had a chance.

>>2506501
is he ok?

>>2509081
This. They were only good at quick offensives. They never had a chance at long term war.

>siberian divisions meme
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

>>2508140
>>2508092
>wrong

In what strategic area was the Wehrmacht superior to the red army in 1945?

>>2508153
You're right, they were under engineered to break down every other day.

>>2508132
>superior soldiers
Huh?
>superior weapons
No. Soviet weapons were as good as the German ones
>superior tanks
No. The T-34 was much better and cheaper to produce
>superior tactics
In the beginning of the war maybe
>only downside was they were massively outnumbered by reds, like 1 x 100
1 x 100? You can't be serious.

>>2506533
>T-34s
nice meme

>>2509173
Better at retreating

>>2506547
That optimism wasn't at all restricted to Hitler.

Disregard this if you're just using Hitler as shorthand for the whole German war apparatus though.

>>2506766
No, American L/L helped the Russians to keep up momentum during their comeback, but the Russians already stopped the German offense by that time. Lack of L/L trucks would have slowed (probably stopped) Russian momentum and prolonged the war. Germany might have had a chance to mount another offensive in that time, but they would have eventually lost regardless.

>>2506501
Just easy man, go Gain some creeps and splitpush until you can late game

>>2509799
The Reds were even better at that.

>>2508132
Yeah, outnumbered 1 to 100

Forgot about the 1.3 billion serving in the Red Army during WW2

>>2509853
And here comes yet another person who knows very little about what L-L actually amounted for.
Soviets wouldn't produce half their shit due to lack of resources, wouldn't feed millions of people and so on.
Yes, the winter 41 was basically solely Soviet achievement, but claiming that from that moment on the war was over is just plain stupid.
Everyone is also disregarding the Japanese, and their potential of threatening the eastern Soviet Union, had it not been for American involvement.

>>2508096
riperino.

The hitler/mannerheim discussion sums it up pretty well; if you haven't listened to it it's a candid recording of hitler on the eastern front.

>>2506894
Or, and i know this is pretty weird but just give me a bit of liberty here, maybe the british (now just a second) built some things and sent them as well.

>>2508275
Might aswell post a frog with that.

>>2508096
Those are small numbers and most definitely don't support your claim that Britain saved the USSR.

>>2509132
Well to be fair the Germans held on to most of Germany for a most of the wars.

>>2506501
- Russian winter
- Germany was being bombed by Britain and America
- America was supporting Russia via lend-lease

>>2508096
Why aren't Ruskies today sucking Britain's dick for saving their asses?

>>2508086
>This meme
>war is mindless zerging

>>2508086
This.

>>2508132
>shit tanks
>superior tanks
Sure pal, because high numbers of cheap, effective slope-armoured tanks with wide tracks for tank-bogging terrain are shit compared to the heavy, parts lacking, sinking in mud, running low on fuel overpriced toys the Germans threw at the Russians.

>>2508043

>*drinks vodka*
>ROSSIYYAAAA

>>2506501
That deed did not Russkies, but Sovetskies, nation, more bold nation (polynation).
Also in modern offspring of Sovetskies in all countries of exUSSR are a lot of people which unhappy with modern shitty capitalism.

Starting from 1939 Stalin started building factories in Syberia near Ural. Shortly before WW2 started all men should've served in army, before that it was mixed. You can't use same tactic you used vs France to defeat Russia. Hitler's ego. Patriotism.

>>2508096
Your second link literally said it didn't save them
Retard

>>2510406
>Sure pal, because high numbers of cheap, effective slope-armoured tanks with wide tracks for tank-bogging terrain are shit compared to the heavy, parts lacking, sinking in mud, running low on fuel overpriced toys the Germans threw at the Russians.
But for the Germans, the Panther was a cheap, effective slope-armoured tank with wide tracks for tank-bogging terrain.

According to the post-war Swedes, the Panther had better terrain mobility than the Sherman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38

Sure it had transmission problems, but when you're on the defensive for the entire second half who cares.

>>2507768
Underrated post

>>2508132
Kek, there were probably none who fought harder than the russians in stalingrad.

A lot of the mistakes and mismanagements of 1941 were rather simple to fix. Had Stalin been listening to some of his purged officers instead of, well, purging them, the germans would have never gotten as far as Moscow.

File: Lend Lease to USSR dates.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

>>2509892

Pot, meet kettle. Here are some figures as to what got shipped when.

>Everyone is also disregarding the Japanese, and their potential of threatening the eastern Soviet Union, had it not been for American involvement.

What potential? They barely could retain offensive footing in China, you think they had enough direct manpower in the army to open up a second front with a far more powerful adversary?'

>>2506509
fpbp

>>2506515
And deep operations

>>2506547
>Primarily because Hitler underestimated the USSR and thought that if the initial shock attack was great enough, the USSR would collapse
If the initial shock attack was good enought the USSR WOULD have collapsed.

The problem was the Nazi shock attack wasn't good enough and they weren't able to trap and destroy the Soviet Army in theater as planned.

>>2507846
Supplying The United Kingdom through Lend-Lease isn't "engaging in international trade".

File: 2626677.png (143KB, 975x470px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 975x470px

Mostly because the Germans never stood a chance.

Despite the myth they never inflicted a 2:1 battlefield kill ratio on the Soviet army. The differences in deaths are from them killing loads of civilians/POWs

>>2512737

It was all paid for.

>>2509892
>Everyone is also disregarding the Japanese, and their potential of threatening the eastern Soviet Union, had it not been for American involvement.
It's the opposite. The Japanese were defeated by the Soviets in 1939 and Tokyo decided to get their natural resources in southeast asia instead of in siberia. They signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR and were desperate to maintain it as they waged war against the US/UK/Netherlands.

They were much more confident of victory against the Western Allies than USSR. They saw the West as weak and spineless and more important the Japanese navy was much more competent for these types of operations than the badly equipped army would be in the plains of manchuria

Had the Japanese invaded with the Germans things would have gotten dicey for the Soviets, but the Japanese had absolutely no intention of doing that so it's a moot point.

>>2507943
>>2507910
Both of you kys. The Brits both got some stuff from the U.S., and produced some of their own, and the U.S. and UK shipped the stuff to the soviets

>>2508086
>>2510393
kill ratio on the Eastern Front was 1:1.4 in favor of the Germans

>>2509173
you didn't specify 1945. You're moving the goalposts

>>2512760
>It was all paid for.
No it wasn't, and the materials the UK gave to the Soviet Union wasn't all an act of charity either.

>>2512767

You're missing the point though, the early material that really helped the USSR when they were in the shit early on was from the UK and not from the US or even material that was shipped from the US to the UK then to the USSR, the other guy was trying to move the goalposts by turning a point about specific early shipments from the UK to the USSR into a general "the US was trading with the UK and giving them stuff too" conversation with nothing except vagueness to back him up.

>>2506501

By underestimating the ability of the Russian military.

>>2508132
well lads, here it is: the single most retarded post in the thread