Considering that we talk about human superiority, why nobody features this channel and talks about what's featured in here?

5485422 Because Soviet Russia did not have stronk tanks. Not until they built the glorious KV-2, built by the very hands of Stalin himself.

5485444

What about which nation contributed the most and who was the one that brought the final blow to the Germans?

Some say that it was the US and others that it was the commonwealth the one that gave the final blow to the German Empire. Isn't that worth discussing?

5485502

Isn't that worth discussing?

Nope.

5485500 KV-2 is stronk tenk! It fires 152meelemeeetr laser guided nukes!

5485512 Legend has it, if you send enough dissidents to the gulag, Stalin himself will reach from the depths of hell to guide your shots towards those fascist and capitalist pigs.

5485502
The main American role (as in the Second World War) was to eliminate outright defeat as a possibility. The US had a practically unlimited quantity of arms and bodies to throw at the enemy. It meant that regardless of how many battlefield successes Germany accomplished, the Entente could refuse to sue for peace from a position of weakness, knowing that America would make good their losses in the long run.

So when Russia collapsed it simply no longer mattered. Sure, Germany could take it's entire eastern army and throw it at the west. But so what? What were they going to do? Seize the rest of Belgium? Overrun Verdun? Capture Paris? None of these things had any real significance any more. The 1918 offensive would peter out somewhere and after that the weight of American troops would force the Germans into a defensive posture.

5485720
Firstly, America had a population of a hundred million to draft from. That 2 million could easily be expanded.

Secondly, America was not fighting alone. Britain and France were nearly a match for Germany together and it's the addition of American troops that proved decisive.

Thirdly, France would just refuse to surrender if Paris fell. They'd move their capital to Orleans or Bordeaux or Nice and wait things out. The French and British armies had retreated before without disintegrating and could do so again.

Nobody surrenders in a war until the cost of surrendering is less than the expected outcome of fighting on. Both the Central Powers and the Entente ended up with very high demands of each other which ensured a fight to the finish. Germany did not call for an armistice until social order was on the verge of collapse and only signed the peace treaty when the blockade and starvation continued. For France to surrender despite American support would mean that something truly catastrophic had happened, like it's soldiers deserting en masse or some kind of peace-at-any-price government being swept into power by desperate civilians. If that happened, America would probably just pack it in and call it a day; the US had little real stake in the war.

5486289 I personally hold that the US entering the war would've won it eventually. As Veylon pointed out the US had 100 Million citizens to call upon. But as you said that still would've taken time. But as you pointed out it was the British blockade the proved decisive. It's just that the US was the final nail in the coffin in my opinion.

5486639

Russia had nearly 200 million, didn't help them :P

That's because their weapons were shit, their training was shit, their morale was shit, their clothes were shit, their equipment was shit, and that everything was shit. The fact that there was an uprising didn't help either.

5486671

I take my statement back; thanks.

I do remember that some of them had shoes made of rope, though...

5486639

See I don't get that. If the prospect of facing America's potentially vast manpower was the final nail, then Germany would have surrendered in 1917 when America entered the war.

Wars rarely end on a flat win/lose. Even if Germany had no prospects for any kind of victory, there was still something to said for mitigating defeat.

Russia had nearly 200 million, didn't help them :P

It helped the Western powers quite a bit. Germany and especially Austria-Hungary lost a lot of soldiers and material battling the Russian Army. War is not a game of chess where all the pieces are returned and set back up to begin the next match fairly. What was lost in the three years on the Eastern front was gone forever.

5486639 Meh, I personally feel that it was the US entering the war (well rather them starting to get troops in) along with the British blockade taking it's toll that really ended WW1.

The thing is on the eastern front there was a hell of a lot more territory move around in, armies could regroup if defeated and such. But on the Western front if one side was able to decisively end the stalemate then god knows how far they could've gone. Sure regrouping was possible but with the amount of manpower that was available it would be too easy to just keep the pressure up by leapfrogging units and keep the pressure up.

So all you wannabe WWI historians argue here, but don't know anything about how Germany was seriously lacking in ammunition that is quite necessary to... you know... shoot at the enemy?

5486768 Alright good point. I'll back down. But I never said that America was the end-all-be-all decisive force in WW1. Sorry if it seemed like that. I only mean to say that it was part of the forces that ended WW1.

5486886 Same, it's a bit annoying.

Char St. Chamond best tonk.

5486289 Dude, Germany was starving and had major logistical problems late in the war. By the time food began to dwindle to nothing, and the addition of American Troops which would just drag it on even longer, there would be no way Germany could win. It's best outcome at that point would be to ceasefire and try to negotiate the least worst Peace Treaty.

5486886 We almost weren't even in it had it not been for the fact Germany was sinking everyone in the Seas. Going into the war was very controversial for a nation that had no care for the Imperial/colonial business of European Nations. American Troops or not, the Germans were going to lose in the long run.

5487547 Yes, it was the sinking of The Lusitania, and not America's Jewish puppet masters demanding a quick return on their war loans, that brought America into WW1

5487576 What exactly is the assertion you're trying to prove?

5485500
The KV-2 was a terrible tank, it couldn't fire unless it's turret was on it's side, the armor may have been thick but it was so fucking flat it couldn't hope to take any anti-tank weapons fire. The damn thing got pushed aside in favor of the IS-2 for a reason.

5486768
American military forces certainly weren't the decisive element although they certainly were another nail in the coffin. American industrial capacity however was a decisive factor in World War I as the majority of its arms, vehicle, food stuffs, metal, oil, and other exports ended up in the hands of the Entente, ie vital war materials. World War I was the world's first truly modern industrial war and the US was in 1914 the worlds largest industrial power, out producing most of the Central Powers but together. By 1915 the US was the world's leading arms producer. This also is not taking into account America's bank accounts.

Regardless this thread has gone massively off topic. This is supposed to be about tanks, considering that tanks are now 100 years old.

5506819 It's a joke. I know the KV-2 was a shit tank in real life, but it's a very popular tank in the video games World of Tanks and War Thunder due to the 152mm Howitzer derp gun's ability to one shot any tank around its tier or heavily damage them.

5506896
Sorry hard to tell with this group sometimes when trying to cut the stupid from the troll.