Are you saying that America had the largest navy in 1942? hahaha Don't forget a little thing called pearl harbor which decimated all the battle ships and cruisers but i guess they could re-build the entire fleet again in one year like you said. The british had the largest navy in 1939 but they lost 7 ships before 1942. You clearly don't know what you're talking about with "I think", "im pretty sure". "u-boats woulve been destroyed" like seriously do you think they were defenceless or something? And lastly i literally don't know how to respond to youre midway comment. I said specifically that the japanese missed the american aircraft carriers. And how does have 3 aircraft carriers make them experienced? Do you even know what green means? It's clearly in respect to the pilots, whom compared to the japanese ones were complete amateurs considering that they never had combat experience.

Glad to see that im not the only person here who knows a lot about history.

after "I said specifically that the japanese missed the american aircraft carriers." it should say "at pearl harbor"

no, i dont know what green means. and anyway Pearl Harbor was in 1941 (December) and the US had a whole year to create there Navy again. 1942, I think, means end, not beginning, by which time the US had the largest.
I only use I think and other such things because I'm not sure, whereas you think that everything you are saying is completely right, though not necessarily.

Lets not go off topic here. In ww2, the soviets didn't necessarily have the best troops, but they happened to have a large population, loyal and used to harsh winters, so I think that while they still have a bonus, make them a little bit low since it wasnt that good anyway. I think that the U.S should be getting around 60-70 guys, since they had a large population with fairly good weapons and things like that that they made insane amounts of.

1942 means beginning, or more specifically, when America joined.

Well, lol about burgoos 'kindergarten-level' knowledge of history,(calling him out mostly cause of his general attitude) but anyways I don't like how Britannia won't be able to bunker down in Europe(historical turning point), a few extra armies might help? And pro-Nazi Spain should be pro-Nazi-meybe under mussolini's control.

O, and to brit africa, taking uganda gives u 5 bonus ;)

Germany could've won WW2, but it made the mistake of not finishing off Russia when they could've.

I disagree. Germany should not have focused Russia as hard as they did. Hitler was paranoid. He forced Russia into joining the allies when it was quite obvious that Russia would side with Germany. What lost Germany the war had nothing to do with generals, armies, or micro-strategy; it was Hitler. Hitler doing his massive genocides brought his own country against him. Hitler being paranoid lost him many key generals, Erwin Rommel ring a bell? Hitler betraying Russia then not following through in a timely manner. (NEVER F***ING ATTACK RUSSIA IN THE WINTER). Hitler for underestimating the possibility of American involvement.

What brought Nazi-Germany close to becoming the world's conqueror also defeated Nazi-Germany.

Nothing is perfect.

except me.
ok, i know, completely irrelevant, but i couldn't resist -.-

I'm done talking to you hedja. You even admit you don't know what you're talking about and I know for a fact that I am correct. I even go back to check my responses. If you think that the us had the largest navy your an idiot. And the fact yiu think that the us rebuilt an entire navy in a year makes you the dumbest human to ever live. Your stupidity amazes me. When you don't know what your talking about shut your mouth. Why would you continue to argue when your not even sure? Stop embarrassing yourself. Sidemote: The American navy grew into the largest in the world but your times are wrong.

How do I have a kindergarten level you idiot? I said I started then. Just shut up, and Mussolini controlled Spain? You should be instituntionalized for stupidity.

Hitter should have waited to invade Russia. Instead he should have invaded England. The genocides were simply a waste of supplies. He also tried to make numerous decisions ex: Stalingrad which was the turning point in World War Two would never have happened if not or hitler. They were simply tryin to take oil fields in the cacaus area but instead he got his armies trapped into a two year or so long battle. He then decided to sacrifice the dying army instead of Saving it. Germany should have taken England, then take Russia. Hitler should have also not been in control of the armies. He was a good face from the party and I ideals but not a strategic leader. Also I don't condon his behavior.

:D I got you to further vilify urself (umadbro?). And I just meant that Franco's forces should be like under a small Axis power's control.

Burgoo, cool the flaming. Seriously, Hedja's comments were ignorant but there's no reason to bash the guy for it. I thought Hell Bender's comments weren't well-founded but I never attacked Hell Bender directly, I merely showed my opposition. Gotta be less hostile. ;)

The longer hitler waited to take russia the more time stalin had to prepare. The molotov ribbentrop pact meant nothing to both leaders. Keep in mind after the spainish civil war stalin saw the need to build up a better army he was in the middle of it when hitler invaded. Had he waited until 1943 when the Russian army got up to date 1941 guns and up to date tanks into the army, it would've been a long war. Remember Britain was ready to fight to the death. And Mr Roosevelt was itching for a reason to get America into the war, I'm sure an attack on the UK would've brough us in.

Someone mantioned only germany had quality armed forces. Not true!

I think you will find Britain won the battle of Britain with odds against and had to and did do kill german planes at a rate of 4:1. That is the sign of a good quality airforce. Althought ht spitifre had a technology edge becuase it could turn faster and was more manueverable, remember the majority of fighters were hurricane not spitfire so the vicotry must be due also to training, guts and quality pilots.

Lets look at the army: British troops were well known for holding out just like the germans and had many quality troops at their disposal such as the guards, the newly formed commandos, paratroop units, imported units such as the gurkas, the 8th army in africa did very well.

I think a german soldier onece said that although the americans were very good at taking ground when the germans counterattacked they lost it oo easily where as the british would dig in and be hard to budge.

Britian didnt become get and keep an empire without having quality troops at its disposal.

I have to go but I will continue this rant later. :P

I genuinely don't believe that other nations troops can compare to that of the nazis. The reason why Britain won the Battle of Britain was a few reasons, not because of a small plane superiority because the messhersmidt was a great high altitude interceptor. The real reasons for their victory were radar, the fact that they were protecting the homeland and families, and that Germany had to cease because of devastating losses. I think if they continued it would have turned into the Germans favor. But that's a matter of opinion. I also think German units were better trained, had better leadership, and moral(debatable). I think we can agree that this is between England and Germany atleast. England had there commandoes and basic grunts but the Germans had the waffen, shutzstaffel, fallshirmjäger, gebirgsjager, and other highly trained groups. Some being extremely radical, others not as much but still very loyal. Although I don't dismiss English quality I still firmly believe the Germans were the strongest force in WWII

And it's the Russians were a massive horde. Ok they had the t34 but they were never going to win by quality or strategy even if they did make a better army. It was always going to be about numbers. They had moral(which mistifies me) and numbers that was it.

O ok, I thought it was by the end of 1942, because in Midway all 4 Japanese carriers were damaged, whereas they damaged the same carrier, twice, thinking it was a different one. This one the had hit twice was also damaged earlier in the Pacific War, (not sure if Pearl Harbour or not) but was repaired. The Japanese thought they had destroyed 3 US carriers, and lied about their losses to the public.
BK, I'm saying what i think happened, you happen to think that whatever you say is 100% historically accurate and if i checked on-line not all of what you say would be true. I really can't be bothered to check Navy lists for the beginning, and anyway I'm righting an essay about how much of an influence GB was in the war on Germany, next week it'll be one on dropping the nukes, unfortunately neither need me to see numbers of Japanese fleet compared to the US.
Though we disagree on the Navy, I see we agree on that Hitler should have invaded Britain, and left another year to attack Russia at a more opportune moment. Also Japan should have invaded Siberia (Russia) instead of bringing the US into the war in 41. And to help the Germans finish of the Russians before they concentrate on fighting the US.

go check what i say, i make sure that i back up everyting i've said with resources. so i know all my words are 100% true. also my opinions on the nukes is a positive and i believe it was totally warranted.