Western Allies won WW2 with numbers

[p_panzerschreck]

Many claimed that the Russians won WW2 with numbers. But what about the Western Allies?

American tank production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...g_World_War_II

Total tanks, every kind included: 101253

German tank production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...g_World_War_II

Total tanks, every kind included: 50439

Total American aircraft: 303713
Total British aircraft: 131549
Total German aircraft: 119871

Total American artillery: 257390
Total british artillery: 124877
Total German artillery: 159147

the list goes on. And a reminder, the 80% of the Germans killed was at the Eastern Front, what were the Allies doing?

[MaxPower]

Yupp the Soviets did most the damage against the Nazies and their Axis allies, more then a million axis allies invaded the Soviet Unnion in 1941 and during the more around 2 million Soviets changed sides

But all losers allways complain and can never say they lost

Yes in the first years the Soviets lost huge nummbers but things stabilized after Stalingrad and after Kursk the Soviets most often killed more then they lost

But the Cold War made it very hard for the truth to come out so myths started growing and since the Soviet war archives were closed for so long the myths became truths

And a small side note, the Allies never ever killed more then they lost on the ground they only made progress because they hade so many more planes (20000 to Germanies 400 on the western front on D-day) and other nice toys and because they were fighting mostley young boys and old men since everything of real value was on the eastern front

If you want to learn more about ww2 and the nummbers just go to any university and study ww2 and the eastern front

[Doctor Mick]

The Western Allies won their side of WWII with Winston Churchill and with the vast resources of men and machines mainly provided by the USA. It also helped that Hitler was a nutter and made some serious mistakes, not least of which was trying to invade the Soviet Union.

But I don't see the Japanese in the above equation. Or the Italians. Or the many other fronts of the War.

[henrylee100]

Originally Posted by Doctor Mick

The Western Allies won their side of WWII with Winston Churchill and with the vast resources of men and machines mainly provided by the USA. It also helped that Hitler was a nutter and made some serious mistakes, not least of which was trying to invade the Soviet Union.

But I don't see the Japanese in the above equation. Or the Italians. Or the many other fronts of the War.

the Italians were total crap as soldiers, the only thing they were ever good at was mass surrender. Initially the north african and Mideterreanian campaigns was an Italian affair, but the Italians FUBARed it so fast and at a such a grand scale that Hitler had to commit troops ASAP to at least slow down the inevitable and buy himself some time, thus the African corps and all that followed. By 1942 neither side took the Italians seriously.
The pacific theater was a 90% American affair, the Brits mostly played a fringe role in Bruma, helping the jungle to bog the Japanese down. The only more or less major role played by the Brits in the Pacific was that of martyr POW's after the 35 thousand strong Singapore garrison surrender to circa 15 000 japanese with little to no resistance. Obviously they were too shocked by the spectacular sinking of task force Z or whatever designation the Repulse and Duke of Wales had.
The Soviet Army carried out a swift 10 day campaign against the 1.1 million strong japanese Kwantung army in northern china in agust 1945. The operation was code named August Storm and while it was an exemplary combined arms op it had probably even less real significance than the D-day landing.

[ANDY-J1]

The battle for Malaysia and Singapore which cost the British about 8000 prisoners-the rest being Indians, Australians or native Malays lasted for over two months and the events and reasons for that defeat are well known, several hundred pages of literature being devoted to them. The sinking of force Z had little effect on the land battle and in the "little or no resistance" the Japanese suffered around 9000 combat casualties which was roughly the same as the British. The small matter of 400 Japanese tanks as opposed to the British total of zero and complete air supremacy combined with unhindered supply lines was the reason for Japanese victory. The British destroyed an entire Japanese army in Burma when the Japanese were still "invincible" warriors. The Russians waited until Japan was on its knees before tearing up its neutrality pact and sticking the knife in Japan's back. Beating an enemy who is already defeated isn't a great achievement.

[Kubik]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J1

The battle for Malaysia and Singapore which cost the British about 8000 prisoners-the rest being Indians, Australians or native Malays lasted for over two months and the events and reasons for that defeat are well known, several hundred pages of literature being devoted to them.....

A well-known example to that literature was "King Rat" of James Clavell. Not a history book surely but should not be too far from what has really taken place there, considering the sufferings of POW.

[Duck1987]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J1

Beating an enemy who is already defeated isn't a great achievement.

i say the same for the allies from june 1944 and on...