>tfw Krauts and Naziboos actually believe Sealion could have ever worked
maybe if the British let them borrow some boats....
>it's an eternal Anglo gloating about yet another great power war they only survived because they were on an island episode
>>972599
This.
Britbongs shouldn't even be talking about warfare when all they can do is hide on their island until real military shows up to save their ass.
>>972666
USSR?
>>974118
Barbarossa was the emprah, you don't translate the fucking names
>>972599
> not living on an island
you scrub, get on our level
UNITED KINGDOM #1
>>974111
Probably means the USA, you know, the country that bankrolled them and the Soviets.
>tfw Yanks and Angloboos think an invasion of Normandy could have ever worked
Barbarossa seems almost as far fetched if not more from some perspectives. It came close to working though..
>>975822
>Barbarossa seems almost as far fetched if not more from some perspectives.
No, there is no rational way in which anyone can possibly think that an amphibious invasion landing 30 divisions without a navy or transports is less far fetched than Barbarossa.
>>972599
so?
whats exactly wrong with bragging about the strengths and characteristics of your nation?
its basically like saying
>its another eternal yank bragging about winning when they only did so by being a gigantic country on the other side of the world with a huge economy episode
or
>its another eternal ivan gloating about winning a war because his country spanned two continents and he had endless manpower episode
this is how retarded you sound right now
>>974118
>mfw krauts think Operation Barbarossa could have worked
>>975700
>the USSR couldn't have won the war without the USA
>>975822
It really didnt
>>976134
It couldn't probably.
>>976061
This a million fucking times. What a fucking stupid move.
Shows a lot of impatience and over-confidence.
>>976583
They were doing pretty good until winter hit.
One of these days...
>>976583
they should have attacked earlier not later you meme historian. theyd be even more fucked if they waited longer than they did.
>>975879
because Britan had to rely on everyone else dipshit
>>972531
No they don't. Hence why it didn't happen.
>>972531
If you actually want a discussion about British history, you really need to word it like you want a fucking discussion about British history. Even then there's a fuckton of /int/tards ready to meme the thread to death, but that way you may get some people bothering with serious responses too.
>>976735
so did all the allies
>>976621
Like that land bridge wouldn't have been one of the most easily defensible peices of land in history
>>972599
>Being genuinely upset that the landmass upon which your country is located is an inferior piece of shit.
I'd heard there were actually people who envied the British to the point they got genuinely mad, but I'd never seen it until now.
>>976777
I think you underestimate just how much of a difference even a small channel of water can make
>>976735
and everyone else relied on Britain being a free nation from which a counter-attack could be launched.
Without Britain there would have been no way to launch an invasion and Europe would have been raped by the USSR.
You could say Britain literally saved Europe from the USSR and by extension the world, you're welcome.
Sealion would have failed so hard it would have sped up Germany's defeat by at least a year, maybe two.
>>976841
Probably not, if only because it would have been so hard to commit assets to it. German's actual naval capacity couldn't transport more than about a division and a half, and you have maybe a division of paratroopers that can get over.
Sure, they'll be wiped out, your fleet will be hammered, and your air forces will probably take some losses, but none of that would be crippling.
>>972531
the british royals are as physically repulsive as the worst of the habsburg fucking shits
>>976802
you do know the allies had landed in italy?
>>976227
It's actually the opposite. The USSR carried the Western Allies on its back throughout the war. They singlehandedly won both the War in Europe and in the Pacific. I honestly doubt that the USA and UK could have won by themselves.
>>978564
>They singlehandedly won both the War in Europe and in the Pacific
>USSR
>Pacific Theatre
Are you rusing me?
>>978291
Not him, but to be fair, the launching pad for the invasion of Italy was in Tunisia, and the road to Tunisia was from El Alamein on the right and Morocco on the left, both efforts that stemmed from Britian. If you by some magic have a successful sealion in 1940, you're not going to have a North African campaign.
>Mfw britshits think they had a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the war without American intervention
That's what happens when you put an incompetent, disgraced admiral in charge of whole your war effort
>>976061
>mfw communist scum forget how close they came to losing everything at Moscow, Stalingrad and Operation Citadel
>>978579
Press on to Europe and win? Yeah, that'll probably never happen without help.
But how exactly would the Axis destroy the British commonwealth?
>>976134
The USSR was getting the everloving shit kicked out of it before the western allies opened up multiple additional fronts. And that was with American supplies and support. They literally had no chance without America. Keep in mind that the mighty Soviet war machine had gotten btfo by fucking Finland just a few years earlier
Why are we arguing that x would have lost without y's help? Can't we just accept that WWII was a team effort?
>>978602
>Destroy RAF
>Continue to cripple shipping
>Watch Britain starve while being bombed to rubble
>Accept British surrender
Easy
>>978575
The Soviet Union forced the Japanese to surrender by invading Manchuria. The US practically did nothing the whole war.
>>978564
Zhukov sure didn't think that was the case.
>>978629
>Destroy RAF
Last time I check that was tried for months and failed
>>978603
The Soviets won the by themselves at Stalingrad and Moscow. The Western Allies literally did nothing but piggyback on Soviet successes and victories.
>>978616
No, fuck you. The Latvian soldiers carried you allies to victory.
>implying it didn't work out in the end
>>978629
>Destroy RAF
How, when the UK is outbuilding you in planes, they can base their guys outside of what your fighters can escort to, and they have an advantage in recovering pilots due to it being on their home and not yours?
>Continue to cripple shipping
Implying the British ever had "crippled" shipping. Sure, those convoy losses seem like a lot, but British wartime production increased every year, and the u-boats weren't stopping that. In fact, they became less and less effective each year, as defenses kept tightening, especially aerial defenses.
>>978631
I swear, posting this meme unironically should be banworthy.
NO SEALIFT YOU FUCKING RETARD.
>>978640
They just needed to knock out the radio towers. The Germans would have figured it out in due course, without the distraction and material loss of war with Russia
>>978616
Because the Soviets won the war on their own.
>>978642
>what are additional fronts
The western allies didn't have to actually be involved in a particular battle to affect its outcome dumbass
>>978655
>War in Russia
>1940
Imbecile.
And even if they knock out the radio towers, you still need to actually raid and do damage. Those things are hard to knock out and keep knocked out. And worst comes to worst, and the RAF moves its bases into the midlands, what do you do then?
>>978660
The only 'Additional front" active during 1941-42 was North Africa.
German commitments to North Africa were miniscule. If you want to make the case that the 6 or so divisions would have made or broken Barbarossa or Stalingrad, I've got to hear this.
>>976875
>the british royals are as physically repulsive as the worst of the habsburg fucking shits
And except for Diana's kids and grandbabies, almost identical genetics.
>>978652
M8 Churchill himself admitted that the U-boat crisis nearly ruined Britain. We already know how awful the English government is at running an economy
>>978660
Literally useless. Overlord and Husky didn't happen until '43 and '44. The war was won at Stalingrad and Moscow a year earlier. North Africa was a backwater front, and the Pacific could have been won in a few months by the very competent Soviet Army, if they had wanted to.
>>978669
Airspace over Germany is another front you inbred retard
>>978693
>The war was won at Stalingrad and Moscow a year earlier.
What is fucking Operation Citadel you Mong?
>>978564
>The USSR carried the Western Allies on its back throughout the war
I don't think removing Sauerkraut from the Montherland costitutes 'carrying the Western Allies". That said, Overlord was more about keeping the West as liberal democracies than defeating the Germans. Russia was already grinding Germany to a pulp.
>>978631
>The Soviet Union forced the Japanese to surrender by invading Manchuria
wew lad. that's a new meme to me.
>>978684
Churchill said a lot of things. Some of them were even true. This is the man who would vociferously come out and defend the necessity of "area bombing" (strategic bombing in modern parlance) during the war, despite his pre-war statements being overwhelmingly negative about it, in efficacy, not in terms of morality.
The guy was a propaganda machine, and during the war, his best weapon to get the Americans involved was to play poor beleaguered Britain, struggling valiantly but against hopeless odds.
Meanwhile, I would invite you to look at actual analysis of the u-boat war.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiDxZ7__IvMAhWDVz4KHa0KDJcQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjmss.org%2Fjmss%2Findex.php%2Fjmss%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F236%2F251&usg=AFQjCNFNTB4BwOamiulR1mF3zmT8QpaWlw&sig2=ChND3Cd0mXfDuVQ-qNR9Ag
>>978695
Air operations over Germany weren't all that numerous and didn't have a large effect on Germany's ability to wage war until late '42 and early '43.
>>978695
Ooooh, the strategic bombing.
Yes, that tiny pinprick that was around before the Americans got involved was decisive The commitment of 500 night fighters, mostly uuseless me-110 frames, really cost the Germans Russia. /sarcasm.
>>978699
Sorry, it was also very important, and it further proves that the Soviets won the war by themselves.
>>978655
No, that really wouldn't have had a significant impact on the Battle of Britain.
The problem was the Germans were losing planes and pilots faster than they could replace them, the British were producing more planes and turning out more and more pilots, and even recovering most of the ones shot down, than they were losing.
German industry was pretty fucking shit, actually. They couldn't produce nearly as much as they needed, and oil production was a massive problem throughout the war. The BoB served to get a bunch of the veteran, irreplaceable German pilots killed and decimate their bomber core and not much else. In addition to the German industry being weak and inefficient compared to their needs, their training techniques were also bogus. Well suited to turning out highly trained individuals during peacetime, but absolutely horrible at turning out replacements during war.
Dragging out the BoB any longer would have just had increasingly severe losses on the Germans they could not have replaced, while the British only grew stronger as the battle wore on.
>>978705
Exactly. You basically admitted the Soviets won the war on their own. The Soviets could have liberated France, Italy, and the low countries on their own. The west merely threw some troops down so that they could claim some territory.
I really like how you call the truth a meme, that's some great discussion.
>>978655
>They just needed to knock out the radio towers.
And they would also have to be winning the battle of attrition.
Which they weren't.
>>978730
Not really, no. Now, with foreign supply aid the Soviets could have beaten the Krauts without foreign military involvement. Probably would have dragged the war on a bit longer what with another 2-2.5 million German troops to send to the East. Also another 1 million or so Italians, but they wouldn't be a huge factor I don't think. That's also assuming the West keeps up its bombing and just never sends in ground forces to mainland Europe. An unmolested Germany would have turned out about 30% more war materiel and would have had a fucking shitton more oil, of which shortages were the biggest problems facing the Germans in the late war. Without Allied invasions of mainland Europe or the bombing campaign, you're looking at a hundred thousand guns used for AA work and 50% of the Luftwaffe not being on air patrol and instead being sent East to fight the Russians, not to mention 30% more tanks, assault guns and artillery, and about 25% more manpower available for the Germans to fight with if they don't have to worry about doing anything more than anti partisan work in Norway, France, and Denkmark in particular.
>>978655
Hitler's insistence that the Luftwaffe focus on bombers was what lost them the Battle of Britain and eventually the war. Read "The First and the Last" by Adolf Galland for some great insight on this.
>>978719
Citadel failed because the allies landed at Sicily and Hitler had to pull his best units off the offensive
Thanks for playing commieboo
>>978722
>Britain only gets stronger by being starved and bombed
Does allied delusion know no boundaries?
God help you slobs if Stalin had decided to throw in the towel
>>978751
Good job pulling numbers and percentages out of your ass, and vastly overstating the importance of lend lease and foreign aid. We just had a thread over this and another specificallly over Kursk and how lend lease didn't play a role in the Soviet victory.
The Soviets still would've crushed the Germans though, despite your insane numbers.
>>978591
It wouldn't make shit for difference, they'd just have pulled back and back and back. All their industry was safe.
>>978769
Actially wrong. I'd like to see some sources for your claim.
>>978774
how would britain get starved and bombed when it was already winning the battle of atlantic and had won the battle of britain?
>>978644
But Latvians fought for the Axis.
>>978705
>wew lad. that's a new meme to me.
It's positively ancient by /his/ standards.
Everyone's forgetting what a sad, miserable state the German logistics were in. It had reached its breaking point at Moscow and Stalingrad.
>>978776
Zhukov was pretty adamant that American and British lend lease played a significant role in the early war, saying metal shipments arrived when tank production was absolutely critical and totally impossible without specific metals and alloys sent by the Americans.
Then of course you have the fact that in 1942 25% of the Russian medium and heavy armor was made up of British tanks and 20% of the VVS was lend lease aircraft. 100% of their high octane fuel as well.
>pulling out of my ass
>we just had a thread where we all agreed that Lend Lease did nothing
Yeah okay. If you ask me, the massive amount of disinfo, lies, and backtracking by Stalin after the war about Lend Lease is just proof of how crucial it was. He wanted to portray the Soviet Union as the sole champion of WW2 who conquered the Fascists with minimal help from anyone else, when actual materiel aid and military contributions by everyone else was not only significant, but crucial.
I'd link you some Russian scholars who think Lend Lease was not only sold short by Stalin, but entirely crucial to the USSR winning the war. But I feel like you wouldn't actually read them or just dismiss them as fakes or liars or wrong.
I mean, I could be wrong, if you actually want some sources to this I can provide you some.
>>978799
That's how fucking shit the Latvian soldiers were.
>>978830
Better than your average slavshit in Red Army.
http://blogs.voanews.com/russia-watch/2012/09/25/making-the-kremlin-queasy-massive-american-aid-has-helped-russians-three-times-in-the-last-century/
The book, Russia's Life-Saver: Lend Lease by Albert L. Weeks
http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
https://perspectivesofthepast.com/europe-in-the-era-of-the-world-wars/the-significance-of-the-allied-lend-lease-program-and-soviet-victory-during-the-second-world-war/
This one contains Zhukov's quotes from Week's interview, so you don't have to read the book to get it.
>Zhukov is quoted as saying “Today [1963] some say the Allies didn’t really help us…But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”[12] Marshall Zhukov according to Weeks even goes on further to state that the Soviet government engaged in the calculated use of propaganda to systemically demean the importance of the Allied Lend-Lease Program, believing that it distracted from the heroism and sacrifice of the Soviet soldier and people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich
Here are figures for the absolutely massive amounts of men and material tied up in the air war over Germany, as well as further commitments once the Allies made landfall.
In particular
>According to a report made by Adolf Galland, General der Jagdflieger, on 27 April 1944, 500 aircraft and 400 pilots had been lost in the 10 previous operations.[106] Galland also said that in the previous four months 1,000 pilots had been killed. Galland reported that the enemy outnumbered his fighters between 6:1 and 8:1 and the standard of Allied fighter pilot training was "astonishingly high".[107] Some 25% of the German fighter pilot force had been lost in May 1944 alone, while 50% of the available fighters were also each month from March–May 1944.
>>978818
>Then of course you have the fact that in 1942 25% of the Russian medium and heavy armor was made up of British tanks
sauce? that seems disproportionally high given the sheer numbers of tanks produced until that point
>>978799
https://latvianhistory.com/2013/06/28/latvian-soldiers-in-the-red-army-1941-1945/
Those were traitors, the true Latvians carried the soviets.
>>978859
Not him, but he's probably looking at very early 1942/tail end of 1941, when Soviet armor had been pretty much eviscerated. According to Glantz, anyway, by November 1941, the Russians were down to 700 tanks on the main front. I don't know how many were produced above attrition in the early months of 1942, but I would be guessing it's because the Soviet armor force essentially had to be replaced from scratch, and at one point a few hundred British tanks are quite literally a quarter of what they have left.
>>978787
Google it you turbofag
Allies landed in Sicily in July 1943
The II SS Panzer Corps was packed up and shipped out just a few days later. The
XXIV Panzer Corps meanwhile was pulled away from its offensive and left von Manstein nothing to continue with. Hitler's nerve was no longer the same and he was not willing to take grand risks anymore.
>>978853
One man's quote should not be used to evaluate a historical event which can be examined in much more detail by cold, hard facts and numbers. Regardless of whether it's pro-commie or anti-commie.
>>978853
No one ever said that air operations over Germany weren't important. We said that they could hardly be considered an additional front in 1941 and 1942. Your quote even talks about how bad it was in 1944, and not how bad it was a couple years earlier.
>>978862
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THEY WERE THE TRAITORS
>>978865
>the Russians were down to 700 tanks on the main front
i find this rather hard to believe, seeing as about five times that number took part in the defense of moscow...
>>978859
>>978888
It's more late 1941-the mid half of 1942. Most, as in a vast majority, of Soviet tanks made in the early war were light tanks.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?126245-Lend-Lease-to-Russia-The-First-Moscow-Protocol-June-1941-June-1942
>The Russians only managed to produce 2819 medium/heavy tanks from June until December (while total med/heavy AFV losses during the same time amounted to 3200, and pre-war stocks being around 1400), and these were supplemented by 361 medium/heavy British vehicles (with 466 total AFVs delivered).
On December 1st, Red Army tank strength stood at 6347, with only about 1400 being medium or heavy. Thus, British Lend-Lease vehicles represented 25% of all available Russian medium/heavy tanks. The importance of Lend-Lease vehicles becomes even more evident when the situation in front of Moscow is examined in more detail. According to Soviet sources, the Red Army had a total of 670 tanks, of which 205 were medium or heavy. Of the integrated and Independent tanks units operating in the Battle for Moscow, Hill asserts that 30 – 40% of their medium/heavy tanks were of British origin!
During the spring and early summer of 1942, tanks from the UK continued to play a valuable role in Soviet formations.
>>978869
And there are a lot of numbers that support the fact that Lend Lease was significant, crucial even. The common number touted is that lend lease was only something like 7% of Soviet GDP but I believe that number to be outright fake.
Plus, the main contributions of Lend Lease wasn't military hardware. It was foodstuffs, transports, raw material, fuel, clothing. The Soviets would have had starvation without Lend Lease. Even in 1945 they were suffering near imminent starvation in many areas if they didn't start sending soldiers back to the fields to grow crops.
>>978888
that is not to say they could not have lost three quarters of them in the battle of moscow, but rather that this (much higher) number was in front of moscow alone, with other tank forces elsewhere
well this thread went to shitposting pretty fast.
>>978898
It started as shitposting, but that's a good picture lad
>>978892
>Most, as in a vast majority, of Soviet tanks made in the early war were light tanks.
That's not saying much, since it applies to German tanks as well, the backbone in 41-42 was still Pz2s, early 3s, tschechisch tanks etc. desu senpai.
>>972531
Why not?
The pakis have invaded you without even shooting.
>>978892
neat link, thanks
>>978901
Not the point at hand, don't change the subject. Also, PzIIIs in 1941 and early 1942 were considered Medium Tanks by the Germans if you want to be pedantic about it.
The point is until the later half of 1942 when the Soviets actually got T-34 production going they were fighting mostly with BT-7s and BT-5s. Lend Lease armor was a significant boost to their tank forces as although Valentines and Churchills and Crusaders weren't exactly the best of the best, they were far and away superior to most of what the Russians could actually field. Not to mention they actually had radios, the standardization of which (using American radios of course) later in the war helped the Russian armor divisions not suck complete fucking dick like they did in the first half of the war.
>>976621
We should cause an Ice Age.
>>978920
The point isn't being pedantic about the "light tank" label, but whether these could fight the German models. Which they could. As in they were not outmatched in terms of armament or armor (because command and tactics left much to be desired on the Soviet part). This isn't about some video game mechanics where medium beats light, or about Tigers and Panthers and KVs being impenetrable, but about the vast majority of the German tank fleet comprising models comparable to the vast majority of the Soviet ones - that is paper thin 15mm and 30mm armored tanks with 45mm/37mm guns. Meaning they cannot be discarded just because they aren't labelled as "medium tanks" or anything of the sort.
>>978953
Well it's not about their classification (although they were classified so for a reason). British medium and heavy tanks had double, triple, quadruple the armor a BT-5 did. They could actually survive frontal hits and even side hits from a lot of the German arsenal. They were far and away superior to most of what the Russians AND the Germans had at the time.
>>978971
I don't see anyone disputing the efficiency (or is it efficacy? I never know which one to use) of BR armor, nor denying that they made up a quarter of the medium and heavy tank strength. The point is that the vast majority of both sides' forces were comparatively shit but roughly equal tanks, and then suddenly the 360 British tanks need to be viewed in the context of the 6500 tanks total involved in the fighting - to paraphrase >>978901
amd >>978892 - most, as in a vast majority, of ALL tanks were light tanks. Or equally shit ones even if they called them medium.
>>978992
Because boosting your heavy armor by 25% when the vast majority of the enemy's armor is incapable of penetrating them under normal combat ranges is a significant force multiplier.
That's 1/4th more tanks the enemy cannot take head on. 1/4th more tanks that must be flanked or avoided for the enemy to advance. 1/4th more tanks the enemy must divert significant firepower or otherwise effort to destroy or render combat ineffective.
Oh sure it's "only" 1/4th. Since when has 1/4th of anything ever made a difference right?
It worked for the Dutch though.
>>979003
>significant force multiplier
Significant enough even when said tanks comprise some 6 percent of your tank force?
>>979027
In the entire theatre?
No.
In a single battle?
Yes. Which is the context of the number that is most relevant and important. Armies have won and failed on far less than 6%.
>>976875
Elizabeth was a top tier QT in her youth
>>979079
>British standards
>
>
Nah, I'm just fucking with you. I'd have smashed a young Liz, no questions asked.
>>978631
>Manchuria
>crippling Japan
Give credit where do, the Pacific was America's show. The biggest naval battle of all time occurred between the US and Japan in that theater. That's a huge deal.
>>978564
Don't you have better things to do than post here Putin?
>>976629
They shouldn't have attacked at all
>>976629
And when exactly was this window of "Earlier" that would have worked?
Hard to attack before you kick over Poland. And wheen you're occupied with France, you're kind of too busy for the bulk of that campaign season. You want to just ignore the Yugoslavs coming over to the British camp? Attack through 6 feet of mud in early April?
>>978564
Lend lease
Have to say it every damn thread
Soviets could not have pushed a major offencive without the fucking UK and US giving it shitloads of vital supplies ranging from food, to weapons and vehicles, to tech to god damn fucking boots
>>980370
>mfw people say America won because of lend lease but refuse to say France won the American revolution for their exact same system of lend lease
>>980403
Yeah the French were the reason it was successful, never seen anyone on /his/ deny that tbqh
>>978631
>yanks fights war with japs
>fights massive sea battles
>works hard for islands
>worthy enemy
>drops nuke
>it was gg
>forces Japan to surrender
>right before USSR takes Manchuria
>ivans take credit for beating Japanese
>wot
>>976735
Do you even know what the word alliance means?
Like, do you know what one is?
>>976621
OI M8 WE NEED TO BUILD THE BLOODY WALL
>>978631
>The US practically did nothing the whole war.
>pushed the Japs out of all of their pacific holdings
>did nothing
>literally the only power to do fucking anything besides give up clay to the Japs in the PTO before 1945
>did nothing
Fucking Ivan
>>980403
>but refuse to say France won the American revolution for their exact same system of lend lease
I wouldn't particularly call a naval war lend-lease. Either way, France wasn't alone in the Naval war. It was France, Spain, the Netherlands fighting Britain on the high seas and American troops, Lafayette, and a few Prussian generals fighting on land. Hell, the war would have ended sooner had Spain not kept trying to seize British holdings in the Caribbean.
>>978631
>this is what ivan actually believes
>>978642
>The Soviets won the by themselves at Stalingrad and Moscow.
I hope that if there's a heaven, there is a perfectly accurate wargame so I could pull the USA out of the war and let the Soviets get BTFO.
>No lend lease, no steel and studebakers for the Katyushas
>No USAAF/RAF bombings, Berlin can send their fighters and anti-air guns east to BTFO the Red Air Force and tanks with the Flak-88s
>Japan decides to attack in Stalin's east instead, forcing those Siberian troops who helped win the day at Moscow be stationed in the east
