Rate your army in ww2 Czech-8.5/10

File: FEB2.png (237KB, 481x400px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 481x400px

Nothing special done but they were not bad either.

I'd say 7/10 tops.

File: sissit.jpg (591KB, 1000x718px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1000x718px

Finland 8.5/10 valiant effort but we would've shared the same fate with germans if we wouldn't have pulled out little early and just settled for the kill count we got.

>Czech army 8.5/10

Pornland did worse than Italy

File: 1478208324764.png (137KB, 870x820px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 870x820px

10/10

>>72201512
Sweden 10/10

slovakia 10/10

Germany 88/10

>>72201512
N.Africa 6/10
Europe 7/10 (8/10 for just air Corp)
Pacific Balls to the Wall/10

Kings of Allied military production though.

Before 1943 - 2/10
After 1943 - 6.5/10

>>72204116
Good job overrunning them with sheer weight of numbers and American boots, first aid kits, and radios.

Army general 0/10
advances beyond the limit and leaves the soldiers leaving the whole to starve in units of divisions

Navy Admiral 0/10
In order to increase the budget allocation rate, a leading cause that led the Japanese government to war with the USA and literally destroyed Japan

Soldier 10/10
The best soldier who can fight tenaciously in the earth, it is by no means fanatical.

>>72204237
>Be America
>Don't get invaded
>Almost no civilian casualties or attacks on mainland

File: hehehe Blitzkrieg.jpg (34KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x338px

88/10

File: 1439113471962.jpg (43KB, 641x491px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 641x491px

>>72204237
>it's a "burger exhibits his ignorance and lack of education" episode

>>72204310
"The Americans are a truly lucky nation. They are bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors and to the east and west by fish."

-- Otto von Bismarck

File: IMG_4936.jpg (92KB, 564x413px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 564x413px

>>72204325
>>72203858

>>72204237
The US contributions to the Soviet Union through lend-lease accounted for a measly 1.3% of the USSR war budget
A total of $50.1 billion worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S. In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies.
That's chump change, and they provided it for 4.5 years (March 11, 1941 and ended in September 1945). Not exactly the saviors you're claiming they are. For comparison, in a single year (1945) Russia spent 17 times that ($192 billion). If we assume the 11.3 billion was spread out equally, then the US contributed a measly 2.5 billion in 1945. That equates to a total US contribution of 1.3% of the USSR war budget.

-7.5/10

>>72204237
Good job opening the second front when the war was already won. Good job profiting from the war by forcibly expanding your markets in Europe. Good job thinking you were specifically the country that won, even though Britain did a lot more than you guys.
Talking about winning more than actually doing it is classic, am I right?

>>72201512
>equipment
-2/10
>soldiers and fighting spirit
9/10

>>72204403
You guys did better than Denmark.

0/10

We got annexed without a fight.

(but we did have rebellions and partisans and such)

>>72204395
>war budget
Without the Allies the USSR would lose due to lack of resources, though.

Just look at how quickly Germany fell once they lost their resources.
Same with Japan.

File: Hitler-stupid-smiling-276417.jpg (46KB, 590x525px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 590x525px

>>72203858
>>72204325
I like you guys.

>>72204469
>Without the Allies the USSR would lose due to lack of resources, though.
What resources? You mean supplies? Germany was in worse situation than them in that regard.

They were already turning the tide and starting to win before they received any help though, and time was on their side.

>>72204469
Resources are included in the war budget. The number of supplies the USSR got from the allies are vastly overstated.

>>72204443
>fight for 6 hours and call it quits
Everyone did better than Denmark.

Norway decided to go for a smaller army in the 1920s because who would invade us right?
If we had an actual Navy and equipment that wasn't pre-WW1 maybe you'd encounter something completely different.

File: finbro.jpg (52KB, 393x576px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 393x576px

>>72204509
We like you too

>>72204469
nobody knows what would be
it's not a historical question

>>72204617
I wonder what an pre-WW1 Navy looks like.

9.5/10

>>72201512
>woow, it took 3 of you to beat us
5/10
poorly equipped and terrible command, but had fighting spirit and fought for the entire duration of the war

>>72201512
10/10

>>72201739
You're kidding right. Between the severe lack of any kind of military supplies, lack of manpower, a ridiculously overpowered enemy and worst starting position in the war the finnish army did the impossible. You can't ask for more than that.

>>72204875
>a ridiculously overpowered enemy
red army was quite bad at that time compared to what is would become later in the war
>and worst starting position in the war
i'm pretty sure being right between hostile Germany and Soviet Union with no natural borders and very flat terrain might be a little worse than that
>You can't ask for more than that.
agree, you did very well