Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "Germany’s Perspective on the Major Allied Armies of WW2 - Where Did they Rank Them?" video.

  1.  @jakemurray2635  Only 34,000 odd T-34 tanks made by the Russians, and the 29,000 more T-34-85. Plus the 8,000 odd heavy tanks, and the over 20,000 Self Propelled Guns/Tank Destroyers of the SU series. By comparison, Americans sent about 7,000 tanks to Russia, with about 4000 of those being Shermans, the rest being mostly M3 Stuart and the M3 Lee (mostly not used for combat). Exact records of how many were landed versus lost in shipping are unclear. Also of note, the British and Canadians sent about 4,000 Valentines, 1,000 Matildas, and 300 Churchill heavy tanks. Not THAT far behind what the Americans sent there.
    82
  2. Don't forget the extra industrial capacity Gertman got with slave labour.
    19
  3.  @herzog1857  Exactly. Picard's data sources need a lot of scrutiny. USSR produced the second most aircraft of all nations in WW2, only behind the USA, and easily exceeding those numbers created by Britain (3rd) and Germany (4th), as well as easily doubling Japan's production (5th).
    3
  4. They regularly discuss minor nations here. Despite the heroic actions of many smaller nations, the end result is heroism is not better than numbers in a global war of attrition. What ends up deciding "total war" is pretty much availability of critical resources. That's Population, Oil, Raw Metals, Refining Capacity, Production Capacity, Shipping Capacity, Technology and the like.
    1
  5.  @deeacosta2734  Lend Lease? Yeah right. The great American story of America believing it's own lies about being the great saviours. What won the war was the huge sacrifice of 20 odd million Russian dead, despite Russia pleading it's Allies to start a second front to take the pressure off. By the time the Normandy Landings occurred, the Russians had pushed the Nazis back out of the Caucasus, Crimea, Russia proper, most of Ukraine and Belarus. The Germans had lost millions in dead, most of their planes and tanks. The war was effectively already over and it was basically mopping up only. 80% of German troops died in the Russian front. So, lets look at Lend Lease in more detail, eh? USSR got 1/3 of the goods through Lend Lease that Britain did, despite having almost four times the population at the start of the war. So per head of population, that works out of 1/12th the assistance, despite Britain basically being secure in it's sea borders and "Russia" having over a 1000 mile long front engaged in constant warfare. Of that amount of lend lease goods, over half of it was shipped through Russian Shipping through Japanese controlled seas (there was a neutrality agreement between USSR and Japan at the time) under strict inspection routines that there were no arms, munitions or the like onboard. Of the goods that the Americans managed to land in Russian territory, the level of respect for them varied greatly. American trucks and trains were sought after as there was insufficient logistical equipment for the level of industrial production that the Russians were gearing up for. Food was obviously important with so much of Russian lands under German occupation, the "Scorched Earth" defence policy, and the majority of Russian men in the army. Or exterminated on the spot by the Germans, put into death camps or forced labour camps. As for the American tanks, the M3 Medium (Lee) was referred to as "a coffin for seven brothers" and was quickly relegated to training duties. About 2000 early M4 (Shermans) made it to the Russians, and were considered inferior to their domestic tanks, being prone to catching fire easily, due to gasolene fuel, and also sinking into the mud and getting bogged due to high weight with narrow tracks. Both Russia and Germany made wide track vehicles for the Eastern Front to reduce ground pressure to prevent this, because a bogged tank is a sitting target. It was also slower, yet less well armoured than the T-34, and armament was only on par with the early T-34's. The 2000 later delivered M4 Sherman 76mm addressed some of these issues, but by then the Russians were using far superior versions of their own T-34's, specifically the T-34-85, and the 76mm gun was still massively undergunned compared to the standard German tanks of the time About half the total "armoured vehicles" that made it to Russia were M3 "White" half tracks and M3 scout cars, including anti aircraft versions. So many versions of "M3" (let alone the M3 "Stuart" the Russians also recieved) caused great confusion, both for the Russians and also the British using them in Africa, which is how they all got their separate names. Lend Lease had far less impact than Americans think. Any aid was still useful and welcomed, but it certainly didn't have the impact you seem to believe.
    1
  6.  @doublepoet7852  US Claims to have sent: 2.7 million tons of petrol products 4.5 million tons of food Actual amounts are hard to validate due to the amounts lost in transport (sunk ships and the like), spoiled in transport, pilfered and so on. But certainly millions of tons of food and fuel made it there. I've not denied this was the case. But, even using those numbers, 4.5 Million tons of food does not last very long for 190 odd million people for 5 years.
    1
  7.  @deeacosta2734  I guess you don't count the Pe-8 and it's ability to carry a bomb load of 5,000 kilograms (11,000 lb) heavy? Nearly twice the bomb load of B25 Mitchell bombers.
    1
  8.  @BasementEngineer  nope. Where did you get the idea that it was US supplied machinery and factories? The russians made 10 times as many t-34's alone than the combined total of tanks the americans sent them.
    1
  9.  @tyrantsmisery  "The T-34 was a pile of shit that on paper looked great, but in reality sucked" I guess this is why they made so many of them? Because soviets are dumb and love seeing millions of their comrades die at the hands of the nazis? Yeah, nah. not true. The T-34 had bad ergodynamics, but when you have 190 million people to choose from you send your short people to be tankers and your tall people to be infantrymen. This allows you to have a smaller area to armour, and effectively far thicker armour for that crew capsule. This was the downside of heavily sloped armour - confined operational space. The British did this in a different way in the Churchill by making a tight centre capsule, far less protected tracks, so as to allow up to 6 inches of armour, but with square walls. What the T-34 sucked at and the M-4 excelled at was the availability of radio sets, and needing to build a turret that suited their use. This was without a doubt their #1 limitation. But since the soviets didn't have enough radios to go around early in the war they designed their tanks without them.
    1
  10.  @mikebarnwell9702  No. That's completely incorrect. Only 8000 Valentines across 11 variants were made by the British and Canadians over the entire war. How could they send 20,000 in 1942 when there was never even 20,000 made?
    1
  11. The silly thing is that the Prime Minister who declared was on Germany, Neville Chamberlain, had a father who was foreign affairs minister who tried to sign an alliance on multiple attempts with Germany before World War 1. Had this happened, WW1 would have followed a very very different course and we'd be living in a world where most likely France and Russia allied against England and Germany.
    1