Tested successfully on military aircraft in World War II.

@Narvik: ….and the slaughter of Indians during 1800 was not pointless and unjust ? The slaughter of Indians in the 1800s does not justify American intervention during WWI. Allied victory in WWI did not make the world a better place. It did not result in self-determination, the end of militarism, or any of the other idealistic principles for which Woodrow Wilson said he’d fought. Its main short-term effect was to allow France to exact a petty, unjust, cruel revenge against Germany for its victory in the Franco-Prussian War. The longer term consequence was to rob Central and Eastern Europe of its ability to resist Soviet invasion. According to former Soviet intelligence operative Suvarov, the main reason for the Spviet Union’s invasion of Poland in 1919 was the desire to continue on into Germany. Germany was weak, disarmed, and (in 1919 - '20) largely communist anyway. The German people had been partially radicalized by the famine conditions the Allies had created. Fortunately, that particular Soviet invasion failed, due to the courage of the Polish Army, and due to the fact the Soviet Union was still in a state of civil war. But a disarmed Germany could not forever escape Soviet occupation. Germany’s only long-term hope was to elect a right wing leader–a militarist–who would match the Soviet military buildup with a strong military of his own. Unfortunately, the political circumstances the Allies created in the afermath of their victory were such that only a radical leader would throw off the unjust Versailles Treaty and seek to return Germany to a position of strength. It’s deeply unfortunate that the particular militarist Germany chose was a rabid anti-Semite and anti-Slav. Had WWI resulted in a tie or an Axis victory, Germany would presumably been able to maintain a strong military presence in the post WWI era without politically radicalizing itself. That combination (a strong German military and no radical anti-Semitism) would have yielded better long-term results than anything one could expect from the Allied victory.

@Zooey72: the topic went in a weird direction, to  bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war. If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter.  Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East. The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical.  Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers.  Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it. Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle. Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late. I found out, that it may have been allready implemented to German Soldiers way earlier, like 1942 as the Mkb-42. It happend for tests that those Mkb`s 42 were sometimes dropped off for encircled infantry groups in russia to test run it. (weird) but actually came to positive results of the Mkb-42 aka StGW '44.

@ABWorsham: @Subotai: Imo, no, WW2 was all about production, tech, manpower and what allied powers you had. While manpower won WW2 special forces played an important role. The British commando raids on Norway played a major role in Germany’s decision to build up major forces in the region. When Germany surrendered in 1945, over 400,000 German service men were stationed in Norway! Germany should never invade us in the first place…  My point is that the “special forces” of WW2 did not play an overall important role, compared to what modern special forces can do during peace time, and against third world countries who does not have a modern army. I would say, even if the British commandos was better than the average British soldier, I think it was the “hit and run” tactic which was very wisely used in Norway, as compared to a small number of soldiers who was better trained than the usual ones.

@axis_roll I have not watched the History Channel in years. It became to heavily involved in reality TV. We cut the cord.

Thank you for the information. Korean War is truly the forgotten war.

ME 262

Far from being helpful to American interests, the Soviet victory in WWII was very damaging. FDR was driven to take the actions he did because of ideology, not because he was working to promote the nation’s best interests. If we assume that Landon would have placed American interests above the dictates of a radical Left ideology, it becomes highly unlikely that he would have pursued a Soviet victory in WWII with the same enthusiasm that FDR did. Or even at all, for that matter. Well yes it was far from helpfull but they did not know that at the start up till about 46-47 russia and US/UK where big buddies. The US did not predict that this would change where germany was seen as a treat to be dealth with. Sorry but the US came out of the WW2 a lot stronger and helping others was in their best intrest the countries in europe had big debts with the US as well writing them off would not be a small thing. And having no competition to speak of is also not that bad for a global super power. What would have happened if the USSR and the US stayed friends that would have been verry good for the US.

We would have cut off all ties with them. The next one would have been a declaration of war.