![[E] Eunjun](https://mc-heads.net/avatar/Steve/128)
Fettuccini wrote:
Well the U.S. was THE leader in mass production, ahead of Russia, Germany AND Japan. My point stands. <object class="emojione" data="https://resources.enjin.com/1489581540/themes/core/images/emojione/svg/1f60e.svg?0" type="image/svg+xml" standby=":cool:">:cool:</object>
Germany did mass produce, look it up. Germany had 5 times more missiles and 10 times more ammunition than the allies combined. Germany did not have huge access to oils, and since focused on synthetic oil. Their jets were actually the most advanced at the time, due to their piston nature (better than the wooden propeller crap everyone else was using). German weaponry also lasted longer than Russian weaponry (the leader in Allied military manufacturing) and since fired 3 times more bullets during a gun's lifetime. The US was the leader in manufacturing in tanks, sure... but what good did those tanks do when their tank army was 10 times bigger than Germany's Tiger division, yet the Tiger division was able to wipe out 80% of the Sherman tanks? And again, Germany's SMALL army was spread out across 50% of Europe, whilst the Allied army was concentrated on two fronts, with 70% of their forces on the French front (only about 40% of the Axis army was located on the French front). I find it pretty funny how you're making these claims that America was the best at the time, when the Allied forces BARELY won WWII. I'm not supporting Germany's actions towards the Jews or whatever, I don't really care. In fact, I'm only trying to say that what you're saying is of no use. Also... Japan was an Axis nation, not an allied nation. Just saying. What's better? More crap tanks at lower quality, or less tanks but at a high quality? Think about that... 1 tiger tank was equal to about 3-4 Sherman tanks (in comparison to durability, weapon discharge and the such). As well... do you know who we had make our tanks after WWII? We've had Germany manufacture our tanks since the 1950's. lolol. Now then, why would we do that? Germany's manufacturing of tanks is far greater than we could ever do. Numbers are meaningless if there is no weight behind them. What about the Spartan war against the Persians? Yes, it is true about the "300" movie, to some degree. There were an estimated 300 Spartans against an estimated 1,000,000 Persians. Why did the Persians lose that war? Yes, the Spartans all died, however the Persians were diminished to about 100,000 military force, and the general killed in battle. The Spartan army had more advanced training than any standing army at the time, even if their technology was weaker. Training, in a sense, IS technology, though. Germany had more advanced technology, and due to that the Allied forces struggled like hell to defeat Germany. The Allies lost 60-70% of all battles from the beginning to the end of WWII. If Germany's empire wasn't so big and they were able to move their forces quickly enough, they'd have won WWII. Then again, they spanned from France all the way into Russia... that's about a 3-4 day drive if you do it continuously. If you read up on WWII, you'll find that if Germany only had 10% more military numbers, that they'd have won WWII. They'd still be outnumbered 4:1, though, and they'd still win. Kind of funny, yeah? My point stands.
