answersLogoWhite

0

USAStrategic: - Unskilled and timid generals- poor over all strategy (straight ahead mass attack) - decision to limit army size to 60 divisions (The other combatants had total mobilization with 100's of divisions) - isolationist stance led to being late out of the gate with design and training (tanks, planes) - incorrect armored strategy (tank destroyer concept) - Pacific strategy dissipated strength (two paths of attack) - unskilled troops at all levels - replacement concept

Tactical: Poor tanks (armament and armor) - poor airplanes (initially) - tank destroyers - defective torpedoes - lack of light MG - poor anti-tank weapons

USSR

Strategic: - Unskilled generals, timid - officer corps decimated by purges - political operatives co-leading military units - poor overall strategy (straight ahead mass attack) - disregard for life

Tactical: poor airplanes (initially) - poor low level leadership (initially) - poor troop training - disregard for troop welfare - shortage of arms (initially) - uneducated troops

UK

Strategic: Extremely timid generals(early in war) - class bound officer corps - small army(early in war) - Small airforce (early in war)- Last war thinking(early in war) - Forces spread out all over the globe - dependence on imports along extended supply lines, Tactical: poor tanks(early in war)

AnswerNot at all, they were strong enough to win. AnswerI agree with the last answer. The Allied Forces had a substantial role in defeating Hitler and the German Empire, along with the other countries like the Red Army.

The French army was much larger than the Germans and they had some very good tanks. There tactics were the pitts and they got there butts kicked.The Russian army was the largest in the wotld

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

What else can I help you with?