Could the Soviet Union have won WW2 if they had a better rifle

>>131859437
the real question is could they have won if they had rifles at all. they were grossly under supplied

>>131859437
Pretty sure they'd still win if all they had were bayonets attached to the rifles and no ammunition.

>>131859437
The Soviets only survived because of Allied supplies. Barbarossa is a resounding success otherwise, fact.

>>131859437
They lost WW2?
What?

>>131859437
At the end of the day, they did not lose. If you are talking about when Germany was invading Russia, rifles don't mean shit when 20 German tanks just plow through your line at the drop of a hat.

File: 1485598853477.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

>>131860909
>Barbarossa is a resounding success otherwise

>>131859437
If they managed to industialize properly 10 years sooner, they would have done better, but they won anyway.

>>131861120
Your point? Supplies are still supplies, and without them said resistance folds in a matter of time like it would have without outside intervention.

Robert Kubica has fallen real low

>>131859437
me on the left

>>131861700
DELETE THIS

>>131859437
She has a nice body. And he has very nice hair.

>>131859437

Pretty sure the Russians did most of the fighting in WW2. Look at the casualty figured for the eastern front.