The WWII Thread

[mrstickball]

Player1x3 said:

mrstickball said:

Russia had a few other guns during the war that also were precurors to the AK-47.

The initial development of the AK-47 sprung from the SKS, which was developed and chambered in the 'intermediate' 7.62x39 cartridge which became the de-facto golden standard of firearm calibers for the next 50 years. The SKS was developed in parallel with the STG-44, so one could argue that neither were more innovative than the other. The SKS was more rifle-based while the STG-44 was more machine-pistol based (with its smaller x33 cartridge configuration).

The SKS is an amazing, AMAZING weapon. Not as proliferated as the AK by any measure, but my dad (ergo my brother and I) own 3 - two Chinese types and a Russian type. Fantastic weapons of war. A lot of poorer nations adopted the SKS if they couldn't afford/get their hands on an AK-47 like Vietnam did during their struggle for independence and their war against America.

Why do you liberationists love guns so much? :p Im guessing you support 2nd amendment too?

Because I like freedom. Freedom to own, do, and say things.  In the case of America, we directly obtained these rights through the usage and ownership of firearms. In application to World War 1 and World War 2, many of our best soldiers defeated the Nazis due to their familiarity with platforms before military training.

I wholeheartedly support the 2nd amendment and freedom of people to purchase and utilize firearms. Additionally, I support those that choose not to own or utilize firearms.

 

ghettoglamour said:
All I have to say is Russia won the WWII, NOT USA.

I could rebut that and say that Russia won because the US gave them metal and gunpower to fight the Nazi's.

But don't take my word for it, Gregory Zhukov, the Soviet Union's most prominent commander said the same thing. If it were not for that materiel, they wouldn't of been able to fight nor be as effective as they were.

This is not to say that what Russia did was not important. They played a huge part, but I feel that no allied nation was the sole reason the allies won.

If it were not for Britian and its territories, the Nazis would of taken over more of Europe quickly, and taken over the Middle East wit its oilfields. Thereby having a bigger industrial juggernaught, leading to the destruction of Russia in a timely fashion.

If it were not for Russia grinding down the German machine, the allies would of never been able to land at Normandy or Sicily as quickly or as effectively as they did. The Russians bore the brunt of the German war machine, and were indespensable for it.

If it were not for America supporting Russia and Britian through lend lease, and their eventual involvment in the European theater, neither Russia nor Britian would of been able to win. Both were cash and material strapped. Additionally, let us not forget what the US did in the Pacific theater. They almost single-handedly beat the Japaneese in the theater. If it were not for this involvment, then I am near certain that Japan would of pressed through Manchuko to Siberia and forced Russia into a two-front war... Something they had no chance of winning.

All sides were imperative for the allies. Without any of the three, the war would of dragged on much longer. With any of the three being allied with Germany, the war would not of been won or resulted in radioactive fallout over much of the world. To say that one specific allied nation 'won' borders on stupidity, especially towards the sacrifice of every British, Russian, and American that died during the war - civilian or military.