S! Leonid
You asked me to post material regarding which airforce was the most responsible for the destruction of the Luftwaffe. I did so in my post: "Who destroyed the Luftwaffe?". But I don't see a comment from you.
By the way, I am not biased against the Soviets. Neither am I an American trying to show how wonderful they were. I'm a Canadian and I grew up admiring Spitfire and Typhoon pilots. But the facts say the US Strat bombing campaign was the largest factor in destroying the Luftwaffe's ability to control the air over its troops and Germany.
In regards to the discussion ongoing regarding the contribution of the Soviets on the ground:
The Soviets did more damage to the Werhmacht than any other nation. Without a doubt the Lend Lease which was provided to them by the U.S. and Britain was very helpful, perhaps crucial in a logistical sense. But the vast majority of the material which the Soviets used to fight the German Army was Soviet produced. Their tanks were superior to any the Allies sent them. In fact many experts believe the Soviet Tanks were superior to the German. Their guns usually had equal armour penetrative ability, but additionally they usually were a larger caliber, which made them more effective versus Infantry. They were usually faster, and had as good armour protection. Their treads were larger, which gave them better cross country ability. The IS-122 was more than a match for the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II. The only area where the Germans had significant advantages was in Optics. The better lenses on the Panzers allowed them to engage successfully at much longer ranges. The Soviets compensated for this by extensive use of smoke to obscure the view of the attacking tanks.
The German Army never had less than 55% of its troops committed to the Eastern Front. During the crucial years '41-'43, the number was closer to 70%. While the British were fighting 4 or 5 German Divisions at El Alamein, the Soviets were facing 100's. And beating them. The fact is, the Soviet Armies would have driven to Berlin whether or not the Allies had invaded at Normandy. Beginning in 1943, the Soviets launched offensives twice a year, in Summer and Winter. These always cracked the German Fronts within a few days. The subsequent advances only ended when supply distances to depots became too great for trucks (yes U.S. Supplied often) to supply the attacking columns, or the heavy artillery to keep up. (Normally supply came from railheads, and the Russian rail gauge was a different width from the standard European and German, and since the Germans had converted all the rail to standard, the Soviets had to regauge it as they advanced. This took some time.)
Once the advance ended, the Soviets would simply begin preparations for another offensive. They would bring up and emplace their artillery, restock their divisions, create new supply depots and when everything was ready, would simply break the front again. There was nothing the Germans were able to do to stop them.
Matching up the Soviet Armies versus the Western Allies in 1945 shows to the Allies disadvantage. The Allies only had advantages in the area of artillery fire control and in the air. The Soviets greatly outnumbered them, and their equipment was generally superior. It is likely that with the start of hostilities, the Allies would have been driven back to the Rhine. But Strategically, the Soviets would undoubtably have lost in the end, ever without considering the Atomic bomb.
The fact was, the Soviets were actually exhausted by '45. They had suffered 27 million dead, (mostly civilians killed during the incredible barbarism of the German occupation, their military losses were in the 8 million range) They were actually beginning to run out of manpower to replenish their divisions. They needed to rebuild their infrastructure, the Germans had destroyed everything of value as they retreated. The Soviets needed to put people back to work rebuilding their country, not keep them under arms.
One last comment: Someone above mentioned he thought that the Soviets needed a leader like Stalin in order to win the war. I strongly disagree. Stalin was the primary reason the Soviets had so many problems initially in surviving the German onslaught. It was his purges in the '30's which eliminated the experienced Officer corps, and it was his idiotic commands during the summer of '41 which saw 1/2 the Soviet army destroyed. It was only when he surrendered tactical command to Zhukov and allowed him to prepare the Moscow Counter-Offensive in November of 1941, that the Soviets began the long road back. Even then he didn't learn his lesson. In the Spring of 1942, Stalin insisted on the ill-considered Kharkov Offensive, which lost the Soviets close to 500,000 troops which they could ill-afford. They should have been held back to meet the Summer '42 German Offensive. After that he let his generals run things until 1944, by which time the situation was very much under control. Stalin was a parasite on his people. Only the ordinary Russian soldier's incredible heroism and stamina saved the Soviet Union.
