World War II

Pretty sure that the British also outnumbered 'em. So that leaves no one.

Now that we are kind of on the subject of numbers and skills of the various armies, I would like to try to put to rest the notion that the German army was in any way better than the American army. People might say, "Oh but what about the Tiger and Panther tanks!" But if you look at the main production models for each country (the Panzer-4, T-34, and Sherman) and since its well known that the Sherman is a better tank than the panzer-4, and only slightly worse than the t-34, which was the best widely produced tank of the war, with the possible exception of the kv-85, but it was also a soviet tank. You can surmise that in general both US and Soviet armor was better than German armor.

Depends which version of the P.4.

During the Desert War the P.4 (variant F1's, F2's or G's) had indeed met it's match (and was perhaps slightly inferior, but that was countered by the superior crew) of the M4A1 Sherman (also known as the Sherman II).
However, by the time Allied Invasion of Italy the P.4 had undergone an upgrade (P4 H) with a better gun and a more armour making it yet again superior to the M4 Sherman.

The only thing T-34 ever needed to upgrade was it's gun ironically.
While at the start an excellent gun (albeit with a bit of short barrel) late 1944-1945 the amount of Tigers and Panthers were beginning to overpower the common T-34/76.
Of course a quick upgrade to the T-34/85 made it a bit more equal again in terms of combat readiness.

But by then the British had introduced the Sherman Firefly, which I think we would all agree is superiour to the panzer 4, at least im pretty sure they had it by that time, not completly sure on that one.

Even during the Normandy (and quite a while after that) Firefly's were pretty rare. And don't even get me started on the Sherman 76 that piece of idiotic crap.

I really think that the soviet and german tanks were superior to most of others is because they had more experience fighting, while the US entered the war very late so they didn't really had the same time the soviets had to develop their tanks.
Also the allies power relied on their aircrafts.

I personally think the Maginot line should've been built spread out at certain points, with artillery positions covering areas that have been left open and anti air primarily defending artillery positions, then anti tank positions second.

In my oppinion, planning like that with limited resources would've helped.

I really think that the Blitzkrieg was the key, the Maginot line wouldn't help anywhere.

I think WWII could have ended quickly if Britain and France quickly launched an invasion of Germany as soon as war was declared, or ASAP.

I think it would be quite tricky to sneak a British army across the English channel, through the Netherlands and halfway through Germany before the Panzerkampfwagen III's were out.

Panzer III's are much better than any British tank, but the British had pretty good model airplanes, just not enough.

The German troops stationed across the Maginot line at the Siegfried line were mostly elderly, sick or boys.

They didn't invade because both France and the British Empire (and more importantly, their commanders) didn't even ever consider going on the offensive.
They planned on adopting a WWI policy of outlasting their opponent (which considering Germany's limited pool of supplies wasn't half bad), they just didn't consider the rules of the game had changed.

I'm also quite sure the British wouldn't go through either the Netherlands or Belgium with the whole not wanting to violate someone's neutrality thing.
France, maybe. They were a bit less keen on us.

The most important aspect of World War 2 to remember is that the Soviets would have been bitterly crushed were it not for their partnership with Britain and the USA.

You make it seem like the United States is the sole hero of all Russians to this day, you make it seem as if without their help, that millions more would be slaved and killed.

Yeah pretty much.

Right wing? Breda I may not be a dirty socialist but I'm no Republican.

No. I do know for a fact, however, that the USSR would have lacked transportation infrastructure, armor, and supplies to combat the Germans almost entirely in the early years of the war were it not for the US and Britain.

Idealistically I love libertarian and anarchistic principles. But by no means do I support those principles in a practical setting. Democrat through and through.

I'm sticking with the Journal of Slavic Military History. They point out several times that the Soviets had virtually no method of combating German armor, or of transporting supplies and troops to the front. The Battle of Moscow was won only by virtue of British armor, losing Moscow would have seriously hampered the Soviet ability to counterattack and would have been a huge morale hit. I've cited all of this in another topic, and I would dig it up, but the search feature is absolutely worthless.

Why did the chinese lose badly to the japanese then, huhuhuhuhu???