PDA

View Full Version : More than 50000 American lost their lifes in Korean War.



throw111
04 Jun 09,, 17:11
More than 50000 American lost their lifes in Korean War.And the
CCP help the north Vietnam kill american soldier in Vietnam War.
why the American goverment give up support the China Kuomintang PARTY
in 1949, why why ??? China KMT ,the ally with American in the second
WAR,who save many ,many american and english soldiers life in the
second war fight against Japan.
But KMT can not save american and english people life any longer in
the neclear war.if the China Communist party army use the neclear
weapons attack America , Tens of millions of American people will be
killed at least.When thousands of nuclear bombs fly into sky.Oh,my
God!!!the end of the world. The earth has no peace forever.War occur
in anytime.Let us prepare to fight.

China Communist party ,the most evil and dreadful power in the
world.They are liar and dictatorship.Never trust CCP. CCP has a lot
of spys on the west country, American goverment should monitor CCP
officals and their family whom lived in American, prevent they do any
illegal activity in America. I think West country must help KMT
and Taiwan stronger. Don't let CCP unify and cheat KMT,or cheat
anybody.
I come from Taiwan .I am the Kuomintang PARTY member .

Dreadnought
04 Jun 09,, 17:35
And we ask why we didnt stomp the shit out of them in that war. Hence what we are dealing with today with Kims regime.:mad:

Officer of Engineers
04 Jun 09,, 17:35
And the KMT was better?

ChrisF202
04 Jun 09,, 18:09
And the KMT was better?
Communism killed far more people then anything to the right of it could have ever dreamed of killing. Hitler was a pansy compared to Stalin and Mao. All the far right dictators combined don't even come close to either one of them alone.

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 18:26
Communism killed far more people then anything to the right of it could have ever dreamed of killing. Hitler was a pansy compared to Stalin and Mao. All the far right dictators combined don't even come close to either one of them alone.

Which brings up a question. Why did we cooperate with Joey Stalin to defeat Adolf, if Joey is worse?

tankie
04 Jun 09,, 18:30
Which brings up a question. Why did we cooperate with Joey Stalin to defeat Adolf, if Joey is worse?

Business . ;)

Tarek Morgen
04 Jun 09,, 18:32
First because Hitler was winning, later because Germany declared war on the US. Stalin did not. And the more troops Germany had to send east, the less dead us soldiers in the west.

The liberation of France (and the rest of western europe) was already bloody enough for the allies. Now imagen the same campaign including the German Forces tied up in the east.

Officer of Engineers
04 Jun 09,, 18:41
Communism killed far more people then anything to the right of it could have ever dreamed of killing.We've dealt with this before. Population decline (meaning people who were not borned) were counted as deaths in this statistic, especially for the Chinese.


Hitler was a pansy compared to Stalin and Mao. All the far right dictators combined don't even come close to either one of them alone.Chiang Kei Shek let millions starve instead of taking on the Japanese.

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 18:45
Chiang Kei Shek let millions starve instead of taking on the Japanese.

Sir, can you elaborate a little on this one?

Tarek Morgen
04 Jun 09,, 18:47
We've dealt with this before. Population decline (meaning people who were not borned) were counted as deaths in this statistic, especially for the Chinese.



I don't I understand that sentence correctly. Could you explain it a bit more or point me into a direction where I could read more about it?

Officer of Engineers
04 Jun 09,, 18:47
The IJA disrupted the food transportation network.

Officer of Engineers
04 Jun 09,, 18:50
I don't I understand that sentence correctly. Could you explain it a bit more or point me into a direction where I could read more about it?The famine during Mao's years caused deaths with some claims to the tune of 30-40 million. Only problem with that is that China's population did not decline by 30-40 million. What the people claiming about China's deaths did was to take the birth rates upto the famines and stated that had it not been for the famines that there should be 30-40 million more people.

Several problems with that.

1) People stop having babies
2) How do you know the birth rates of a 3rd world country like China, especially during the war years?

Don't get me wrong. Mao was a butcher. But he should be charged with real crimes instead of imaginary ones.

Tarek Morgen
04 Jun 09,, 19:03
Ok so he did not kill 30-40 millions but the famince caused a "lack" of 30-40 million people.

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 19:04
The famine during Mao's years caused deaths with some claims to the tune of 30-40 million. Only problem with that is that China's population did not decline by 30-40 million. What the people claiming about China's deaths did was to take the birth rates upto the famines and stated that had it not been for the famines that there should be 30-40 million more people.

Several problems with that.

1) People stop having babies
2) How do you know the birth rates of a 3rd world country like China, especially during the war years?

Don't get me wrong. Mao was a butcher. But he should be charged with real crimes instead of imaginary ones.

Sounds like our government accounting at work.

It's a "budget cut" if the budget rose less than the anticipated amount. :biggrin:

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 19:12
First because Hitler was winning, later because Germany declared war on the US. Stalin did not. And the more troops Germany had to send east, the less dead us soldiers in the west.

The liberation of France (and the rest of western europe) was already bloody enough for the allies. Now imagen the same campaign including the German Forces tied up in the east.

I forgot about that little inconvenience.

It would be a good "what if..." scenario if US entered the war against the Soviet Union.

Steezy
04 Jun 09,, 19:17
Which brings up a question. Why did we cooperate with Joey Stalin to defeat Adolf, if Joey is worse?
I never understood why we (UK) and France only declared war against Germany when they invaded Poland but there was no declaration whatsoever against the USSR, who also invaded Poland and were infact Allied with the Nazi's at the time. I mean I...that whole bit I don't get :confused:

The US was always behind the scenes allied with the UK and would've never been on the side of Nazi Germany, and then Japan and Germany declared war against the US which brought them out onto two fronts.

astralis
04 Jun 09,, 19:18
gunnut,

check out operation unthinkable, which the brits were planning. hell, the UK/france was actively considering bombing strikes against the soviet union from the middle east prior to fighting germany.

astralis
04 Jun 09,, 19:19
back on topic,

anyway, the poster whom started this thread is interesting-- sometimes it is hard to believe there are impassioned KMT members still running around!

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 19:34
back on topic,

anyway, the poster whom started this thread is interesting-- sometimes it is hard to believe there are impassioned KMT members still running around!

In Taiwan, probably. Just like there are actually people in Russia who want to return to communism and democrats in CA who think taxes are too low.

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 19:38
gunnut,

check out operation unthinkable, which the brits were planning. hell, the UK/france was actively considering bombing strikes against the soviet union from the middle east prior to fighting germany.

So Hitler should have expanded eastward rather than westward. Carve up the Soviet Union and split the spoils with the British Empire and France. Germany could keep Poland and probably the European portion of the SU, and the Brits and the French could keep the central Asian portion. Ahhh...the colonial days...

Steezy
04 Jun 09,, 20:11
So Hitler should have expanded eastward rather than westward. Carve up the Soviet Union and split the spoils with the British Empire and France. Germany could keep Poland and probably the European portion of the SU, and the Brits and the French could keep the central Asian portion. Ahhh...the colonial days...
And Japan keep China

Dreadnought
04 Jun 09,, 20:50
I forgot about that little inconvenience.

It would be a good "what if..." scenario if US entered the war against the Soviet Union.

Patton had exactly that on his mind.;)

cr9527
04 Jun 09,, 21:10
I am pretty sure according to Japanese, and Russian accounts, it was the Communist side that didn't want to fight the Japanese, the Nationalists fought them with all they had. Which is why the Communists side, on many occasions weren't seen as enemies of Japan.
Mao himself even said so

"The aim is to develop the military power of the CCP, in order to stage a coup d'état. This main directive is to be strictly followed: "10% of energy on anti-Japanese, 20% of energy muddering along, 70% of energy is used to develop(political and military power). Anybody, any groups are not to oppose this paramount directive."

"Some people insisted, to show that we do love our nation, we should be more anti-Japanese, but then the nation belongs to Chiang Kai-sak, we communists, our mother-land is Soviet Union, the common mother-land of the world's communists. The aim of we communists, is to allow the Japanese to occupy more land, then a power triangle will be formed, which consisted of Chiang, Japanese and us, which is the ideal situation, the worst come to the worst, if ever Japanese occupy the whole of China, we would then still be able to fight back, with the help of the Soviet Union."

"Don't have to say sorry, you had contributed towards China, why? Because had Imperial Japan did not start the war of invasion, how could we communist became mighty powerful? How could we stage the coup d'état ? How could we defeat Chiang Kai Sak? How are we going to pay back you guys? No, we do not want your war reparations! "

in my opinion, the US should've just went full way, and rather than stopping at Seoul, go all the way and remove North Korea from existence. But then again... hindsight doesn't always see it all..

Officer of Engineers
04 Jun 09,, 21:37
I am pretty sure according to Japanese, and Russian accounts, it was the Communist side that didn't want to fight the Japanese, the Nationalists fought them with all they had. Which is why the Communists side, on many occasions weren't seen as enemies of Japan.Gen Stillwell had another opinion after being denied the forces he wanted, calling CKS, a monkey's behind.


in my opinion, the US should've just went full way, and rather than stopping at Seoul, go all the way and remove North Korea from existence. But then again... hindsight doesn't always see it all..The US did gone all the way ... right to the Yalu River and MacArthur's total misread of the Chinese (twice) forced the retreat. After that, had the Americans went north again, it would have been exactly the type of war Stalin had wanted - away from Europe.

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 21:51
And Japan keep China

That depends on if Japan bombs Pearl. When that happens, Japan keeps nothing.

dalem
04 Jun 09,, 22:13
That depends on if Japan bombs Pearl. When that happens, Japan keeps nothing.

"-What the?!?!? Wat the fk r nuks?!?!?!"
"-Tojo has left the game."

-dale

Blue
04 Jun 09,, 22:29
Patton had exactly that on his mind.;) I think they should have listened to Ol George more than they did. A great man, IMO.

He wanted badly to go into Russia while the tanks where still warm.

Parihaka
04 Jun 09,, 22:55
We've dealt with this before. Population decline (meaning people who were not borned) were counted as deaths in this statistic, especially for the Chinese.

Chiang Kei Shek let millions starve instead of taking on the Japanese.

And let the Japanese do what they liked while he concentrated on the communists...

gunnut
04 Jun 09,, 23:01
"-What the?!?!? Wat the fk r nuks?!?!?!"
"-Tojo has left the game."

-dale

WTF!? FDR you h4x0r!!! Where did you get that tank army? You had a depression.


:biggrin:

Classic game.

Skywatcher
05 Jun 09,, 07:36
So Hitler should have expanded eastward rather than westward. Carve up the Soviet Union and split the spoils with the British Empire and France. Germany could keep Poland and probably the European portion of the SU, and the Brits and the French could keep the central Asian portion. Ahhh...the colonial days...

If Hitler had any brains, he would have listened to Rosenberg instead of Himmler and co opted the Slavs as fellow Aryans "in need of liberation from godless Bolshevik tyranny."

Of course, it'd still suck to be Jewish (unless Eichmann's little dream of a Jewish colony in Madagascar took off. Still pretty ****y, but beats a concentration camp, I suppose).

Fortunately Hitler decided that if you listen to idiots, listen to the biggest ones of them all.

Bigfella
05 Jun 09,, 10:35
If Hitler had any brains, he would have listened to Rosenberg instead of Himmler and co opted the Slavs as fellow Aryans "in need of liberation from godless Bolshevik tyranny."

Of course, it'd still suck to be Jewish (unless Eichmann's little dream of a Jewish colony in Madagascar took off. Still pretty ****y, but beats a concentration camp, I suppose).

Fortunately Hitler decided that if you listen to idiots, listen to the biggest ones of them all.

Skywatcher,

It wouldn't suck to be Jewish for long because they would no longer exist. Personally I think that would suck, but then I am still here to think that.

While I'm at it, I'm sure the number killed in Korea was closer to 33,000, As I recall the 50,000 plus figure included a whole bunch of deaths from the period that weren't in Korea.

edit: just checked - 33,000 US soldiers & 3,000 odd civilians. Even if you add in all the other UN deaths you don't get far over 40,000.

Johnny W
05 Jun 09,, 19:56
I think they should have listened to Ol George more than they did. A great man, IMO.

He wanted badly to go into Russia while the tanks where still warm.

Patton was wrong there. We defeated the Soviets without going in and with very little bloodshed.

Blue
05 Jun 09,, 20:54
Patton was wrong there. We defeated the Soviets without going in and with very little bloodshed. How do you figure the Soviets have been defeated?

Officer of Engineers
05 Jun 09,, 21:26
We won the Cold War.

Blue
05 Jun 09,, 22:58
But holdovers from the era (putin for one) seem to be causing problems now. So I'm thinking, how much different it could have been today, if we had spread democracy and freedom to Russia by say, 1950 and never had a cold war?

Officer of Engineers
05 Jun 09,, 23:57
There is a big problem with that. Can you get the ABCA populace to carry on this new war? Do recall that we were getting ready for Japan after Berlin.

zraver
06 Jun 09,, 00:21
There is a big problem with that. Can you get the ABCA populace to carry on this new war? Do recall that we were getting ready for Japan after Berlin.

The Brits were broke, exhausted, had just replaced Churchill and were locked in Greece. France was busy showing ehtnic Germans and collaborators how much they had learned from the Nazis, and America was fixated on getting its revenge on Japan.

The Western Allies could have taken all of Germany and probably even Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe if there was the political will, but there wasn't.

The Red Army as powerful as it was, could not have survived under the onslaught of Western air power. With Germany going belly up in early spring they would have faced months of clear weather at the absolute end of a very long and very thing supply chain.

Blue
06 Jun 09,, 04:05
The Brits were broke, exhausted, had just replaced Churchill and were locked in Greece. France was busy showing ehtnic Germans and collaborators how much they had learned from the Nazis, and America was fixated on getting its revenge on Japan.

The Western Allies could have taken all of Germany and probably even Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe if there was the political will, but there wasn't.

The Red Army as powerful as it was, could not have survived under the onslaught of Western air power. With Germany going belly up in early spring they would have faced months of clear weather at the absolute end of a very long and very thing supply chain. And Patton was confident. You're right though. The political will was not there and that's about that. Militarily, I think you're right on as well, but we will never know.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jun 09,, 04:24
Not to mention that Stalin carried out his part of the bargin and attacked Japan.

throw111
06 Jun 09,, 09:47
If Hitler had any brains, he would have listened to Rosenberg instead of Himmler and co opted the Slavs as fellow Aryans "in need of liberation from godless Bolshevik tyranny."

Of course, it'd still suck to be Jewish (unless Eichmann's little dream of a Jewish colony in Madagascar took off. Still pretty ****y, but beats a concentration camp, I suppose).

Fortunately Hitler decided that if you listen to idiots, listen to the biggest ones of them all.


CCP is liar ,they are criminal ,never trust their propaganda to the west country.

throw111
06 Jun 09,, 09:49
Skywatcher,

It wouldn't suck to be Jewish for long because they would no longer exist. Personally I think that would suck, but then I am still here to think that.

While I'm at it, I'm sure the number killed in Korea was closer to 33,000, As I recall the 50,000 plus figure included a whole bunch of deaths from the period that weren't in Korea.

edit: just checked - 33,000 US soldiers & 3,000 odd civilians. Even if you add in all the other UN deaths you don't get far over 40,000.

CCP is liar ,they are criminal ,never trust their propaganda to the west country.

throw111
06 Jun 09,, 09:51
Why isn't CCP more open to reporters?

Why does CCP censor the internet?

Why can't CCP let Taiwan go? They got away in 1949 and are now flourishing on their own. Why does China want Taiwan?

Why does CCP keep its curency value artificially low?

Why isn't CCP as open to our goods as we are to yours?

Why does CCP support the DPRK?

throw111
06 Jun 09,, 09:55
the Chinese and Korean soldiers fought because they were either more frightened of what their own side would do to them or because they'd been brainwashed into following the Party religion.
And you didn't win, the best the Korean war can be described as is a "no-score draw" because there were no significant permanent gains by either side.

Of course you could say that both the Chinese and North Korean people lost - because they have had to suffer from very nasty dictatorships for the last fifty or sixty years

Steezy
06 Jun 09,, 10:44
I hate how people talk about if Hitler did this and that things would've been better, **** that. **** Germany.

Steezy
06 Jun 09,, 10:48
That depends on if Japan bombs Pearl. When that happens, Japan keeps nothing.
Japan wouldn't have bombed the US, Germany wouldn't have declared war against the US. Remember we're going by your little perfect plan of carving up the world here. So Japan keeps China.

ANZAC
06 Jun 09,, 11:50
And Patton was confident. You're right though. The political will was not there and that's about that. Militarily, I think you're right on as well, but we will never know.

Not too sure about shooting our Soviet Allies instead of shaking hands with them on the Elbe.:eek:

Seriously though, it's just as well more stable people stood up to the insane ideas of guys like Patton [a VERY strange dude] MacArthur & Le May, or instead of ending up with a cold war, it could have been a very hot war & almighty slaughter, although the cold war in it's self accounted for deaths in the millions, lucky for the Allies & Soviets, it was third world countries that mainly suffered. [unfortunately]:(

zraver
06 Jun 09,, 17:00
And Patton was confident. You're right though. The political will was not there and that's about that. Militarily, I think you're right on as well, but we will never know.

There are three possible beginnings to a what if WWII carries on Western Allies v the Soviets

1. The Soviets keep going west in May.

The Red Army is huge and they have a large numerical superiority. The T-34/85 is ho hum not much better than the M4A3E8 but the heavy tanks are unmatched by anything the allies have. Thier massed artillery is something the Western Allies have never faced and would probalby induce a lot of shock. The combination of numbers, super tanks and massed artillery under the cover of the by this time huge VVS means the initial fight against the allies is going to cost a lot of English, French and Polish speaking lives.

The bright point is the Soviet supply lines are at the end of their tether, stores are low and men are exhausted. As big as the VVS is its not set up to stop heavy bombers striking the rial lines and down low the Allies fighters/fighter-bombers are better than the Russian fighters with a better quality of pilot as well. Gains would probably be rapid but short lived. The one exception are the Brits in Greece. They can get air support from Italy, but thats about it. Thier numbers and supplies are going to be even harder to keep up than the Soviets in Germany.

2. The Soviets hit in August. Uisng the excuse of shipping troops east they actually send supplies West. The Allied formations are relaxed and not dug in. The Soviets are past master at operational deception so even a modicum of surprise means the Allies are going to be scrambling, huge numbers of Americans have already been shipped out via Operation Magic Carpet. This would give the Red Army its best chance of winning. But can they win before the A-bomb and B-29's, B-17's and B-24's paste their rear areas. They'd face the same problem of the great big honking unsinkable aircraft carrier called Britain that the Nazis faced plus what ever parts of Europe the Allies held on to- Italy, Denmark, Norway probably.

3. Eisenhower gambles and goes for Berlin and the Soviets don't like it and fighting breaks out. This is the worst case for the Soviets because they don't get to set up and spend months planning an operation, the supply lines are not repaired and their men are exhausted. And all of them are in the allied air forces sweet spot. From bases in France the Bombers can reach deep into Poland or the Balkans and the whole of the Soviet's military strength minus only the troops in Asia is in the bag.

Johnny W
06 Jun 09,, 17:34
The Brits were broke, exhausted, had just replaced Churchill and were locked in Greece. France was busy showing ehtnic Germans and collaborators how much they had learned from the Nazis, and America was fixated on getting its revenge on Japan.

The Western Allies could have taken all of Germany and probably even Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe if there was the political will, but there wasn't.

The Red Army as powerful as it was, could not have survived under the onslaught of Western air power. With Germany going belly up in early spring they would have faced months of clear weather at the absolute end of a very long and very thing supply chain.


The Russians had a bigger army with better tanks, while the Allies had a bigger and better Air Force. But the Russian Air Force was not in as bad a shape as the Luftwaffe in 1944, and would have provided more resistance.

Imo, it would have been a bloody stalemate unless the Allies started using Nukes.

zraver
06 Jun 09,, 19:14
The Russians had a bigger army with better tanks, while the Allies had a bigger and better Air Force. But the Russian Air Force was not in as bad a shape as the Luftwaffe in 1944, and would have provided more resistance.

Imo, it would have been a bloody stalemate unless the Allies started using Nukes.

the Russian army was at the end of a very thin logistics tether stretching back through Poland. The only thing the Russians have to protect this is an air force that is geared for combat below 12,000'. This might be able to keep the fighter bombers at bay, but the Liberators and Fortresses are nearly untouchable and at their heights the Mustang and Thunderbolt are the best in the world.

even down low the allied planes and pilots are superior in most areas.

Add to this the fact that the Soviet Army is really not all that more mobile than the Wehrmacht was- lots of horses and foot formations and not enough trucks and too few rail lines and you have the mixings of a nasty situation for the Soviets. Even with mostly secure interior lines the Red Army needs months to prepare for an operations logistics support.

Now added to this assuming one side or the other kept going in may 45. The Soviet's best formations are shot out, the supplies are used up and there are no more vast reserves of men to draw on. There are no more lend lease shipments and there is a civil war in their backfield in the Ukraine and Baltics.

Not a very good position to be in, not good at all.

Triple C
07 Jun 09,, 03:09
Z, John W

Who has the numbers for Red Army in the Eurpe at March 1945?

I recall from Hastings that at the close of the war, the Russians have 500 divisions to Western Allied's 100 giving them a numerical superiority 2.5:1 (if Russian rifle divisions were indeed understrength by 50%), armor superiority of 2:1, but the Allied enjoyed a ridiculous superority in aerial strength, maybe as high as 10:1.

Astralis,

You are very correct. A fervent anticommunist KMT man in Taiwan as of now is a creature of myth. I have not see one of a very long time! Ironic it is, as the Nationalist run the island with decades of anticommunist propaganda for fifty years. I am hoping that the backlash from this wave of China-loving frenzy would beat some sense of how dangerous the CCP are back into the electorate, but one can only wait. Jiang was a despicable dictator, but IMHO he was never quite the monster that Mao became.

Bigfella
07 Jun 09,, 03:25
The Russians had a bigger army with better tanks, while the Allies had a bigger and better Air Force. But the Russian Air Force was not in as bad a shape as the Luftwaffe in 1944, and would have provided more resistance.

Imo, it would have been a bloody stalemate unless the Allies started using Nukes.


Johnny,

Z is on the money here. Don't look at the frontline formations, look at the logistics & the strategic position.

Russia had a bunch of advantages on the ground in armour, artillery, mobile AT units like the SU100 & even infantry firepower. No matter who attacks who first, the initial ground combat will most likely favour the USSR. How much that is so will depend on who attacks who & when.

The problem Russia has on the ground is going to be logistics. If you look at where Russia is scourcing most of its supplies from they are areas a LONG way in the rear. This gets worse when supplies from the allies stop coming through Iran & Archangel. Western Russia is devastated & a lot of the infrastructure of Eastern Europe is in a similar state. The Red Army is running on US trucks & US locomotives, none of which will be geting any more spare parts. These supply lines are going to be vulnerable to allied air power and partisans over a significant part of their length.

As you have pointed out, the VVS will be a formidable opponent, but only over the battlefield & only at the very beginning. Unlike both the Germans & the Allies, the Russians didn't have to put a lot of effort into constructing air defences for their rear areas. Now they will. This will thin the concentration of fighters in particular, and even then they won't be much good at high altitude. Have a look at where Allied air power was & could get to by 1945. Even if Russian forces take control of Iran, the Persian Gulf & Korea, the Allies can fly long range bombers from bases everywhere from Japan to India to Norway & the Western Med. It might take a little while to properly set up some of those bases, but it will happen. This makes Russian industrial cities that were free from the threat of German bombing very vulnerable to airforces that had spent years perfecting ways to destroy cities. One of these cities would also make an ideal target for a nuke.

Unless America throws in the towel early, Russia can't win this war. The questions are how long it lasts & how many it kills. The reasons why the Allies didn't actually do it have been eloquently outlined & I think those reasons are understandable in context of the time.

gunnut
07 Jun 09,, 11:07
the Russian army was at the end of a very thin logistics tether stretching back through Poland. The only thing the Russians have to protect this is an air force that is geared for combat below 12,000'. This might be able to keep the fighter bombers at bay, but the Liberators and Fortresses are nearly untouchable and at their heights the Mustang and Thunderbolt are the best in the world.

even down low the allied planes and pilots are superior in most areas.

One more thing, didn't we supply the Soviets with the high octane avgas for their fighters? What would happen if those fighters were forced to burn low octane gas?

zraver
07 Jun 09,, 15:26
Z, John W

Who has the numbers for Red Army in the Europe at March 1945?

I recall from Hastings that at the close of the war, the Russians have 500 divisions to Western Allied's 100 giving them a numerical superiority 2.5:1 (if Russian rifle divisions were indeed understrength by 50%), armor superiority of 2:1, but the Allied enjoyed a ridiculous superority in aerial strength, maybe as high as 10:1.

Just a quick wiki search but... For the battle for Berlin the Red Army started with 2.5 million troops and lost about 300,000. Figure 50% are return to duty wounded and you have about 2.3 million troops in Germany and somewhat more in Eastern Europe, but the best combat formations- the lead assault units are understrength. The Red Army lost almost 1 in 3 tanks taking Berlin so total tank strength of around 4000 is not that much higher than the allies.

By VE day the US 12th Army Group (1,3,9,15th Armies) had 1.3 million men, with two more US Armies in Italy (5,7). and the British 21st Army Group with 15 Commonwealth Divisions, 7 Commonwealth brigades and numerous other allied contingents, plus non-American Allied troops in Italy. Figure Total allied strength that is in or can flood into Germany/Eastern Europe in May 1945 of around 1.7 million or so.



Bigfella,


Russia had a bunch of advantages on the ground in armour, artillery, mobile AT units like the SU100 & even infantry firepower. No matter who attacks who first, the initial ground combat will most likely favour the USSR. How much that is so will depend on who attacks who & when.

Soviet advantages
heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyers
more artillery tubes and rocket
more men
sub-machine gun assault units
bigger at guns that could be used as an infantry gun.
best light bomber of the war (Sturmovik series)

Allied advantages
Turreted tank destroyers
better battle rifle (M1 Garand)
more radios
better artillery (ToT)
better machine guns
better supplies
better transport
better/more infantry squad level AT weapons
mechanized AA assets
more fighter bombers
more fighters
more medium bombers
more heavy bombers
air force that can fight high and low
reasonably secure rear areas and supply lines

Gunnut, once that hi-octane avgas is used up Soviet fighter performance up high falls off drastically. The higher the octane you burn the more boost your turbo can kick in before detonation by shoving more air into the engine at high altitude. The Germans used aeromatics like methanol injection to cool the air to ward off detonation, but I am not sure if the Soviets are set up to produce this.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jun 09,, 15:31
So, while all this is going on, what about Japan?

zraver
07 Jun 09,, 16:45
So, while all this is going on, what about Japan?


With no hope of an invasion for the allies- the submarine offensive continues Japan starves and millions- tens of millions die.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jun 09,, 17:32
Z,

I know what you're saying but for the life of me, I cannot imagine the Americans giving up their blood lust against Japan just to satisfy Patton's overhyped sense of strategic intent.

gabriel
07 Jun 09,, 18:44
but the Allied enjoyed a ridiculous superority in aerial strength, maybe as high as 10:1.


The russian airforce had lost more than 100,000 aircraft in ww2 (almost as much as luftwaffe) at the end of the Manchuria campaign they're airforce strength was around 50.000 combat aircraft, 14% of which was lend and lease .

zraver
07 Jun 09,, 18:58
Z,

I know what you're saying but for the life of me, I cannot imagine the Americans giving up their blood lust against Japan just to satisfy Patton's overhyped sense of strategic intent.

hence one reason we didn't go to war with the USSR. But this is a what if, were things kept going for what ever reason. If the Western Allies and USSR had gone to war, Japan would be the big loser via mass starvation.

zraver
07 Jun 09,, 19:03
The russian airforce had lost more than 100,000 aircraft in ww2 (almost as much as luftwaffe) at the end of the Manchuria campaign they're airforce strength was around 50.000 combat aircraft, 14% of which was lend and lease .

The USSR had about 7,000 combat aircraft in Central/Eastern Europe vs 3x that for the Western Allies. And the Soviet designs, even their best designs were more lightly armed than the western designs as well as having inferior armament and being geared for low level combat.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jun 09,, 19:10
If the Western Allies and USSR had gone to war, Japan would be the big loser via mass starvation.I don't think it would have been just left to the submariners. Curtis Lemay would've continued to firebomb Japanese cities and when the invasion would have came, it could very well have been Chinese and Korean divisions bent on genocidic revenge.

gabriel
07 Jun 09,, 19:19
The USSR had about 7,000 combat aircraft in Central/Eastern Europe

I don't have a detail source for European theater but 7000 seams too low compared to 5,368 aircraft used in the last campaign " august storm ".

zraver
07 Jun 09,, 19:48
I don't think it would have been just left to the submariners. Curtis Lemay would've continued to firebomb Japanese cities and when the invasion would have came, it could very well have been Chinese and Korean divisions bent on genocidic revenge.

The bombing would have continued and had several ten thousand plus death events, but the mass starvation would reach into the cuntry side in a way bombers can't.

The Japanese divisions in China are enough to hold their own without a Soviet intervention. The KMT forces were routed in 44 and the Communist forces were not up for more pitched battles yet either.


I don't have a detail source for European theater but 7000 seams too low compared to 5,368 aircraft used in the last campaign " august storm ".

August Storm was months after the end of combat when the Soviets had plenty of time to clear strips for use as airfields, re-condition worn out planes, graduate new classes of pilots etc. 7,000 combat aircraft in Europe in March-may 45 is being generous to the Soviets.

In 1945 the Eight Air Force alone had 37 heavy bomber wings with around 130 heavy bomber squadrons and 15 Fighter wings of around 75 squadrons. The US Ninth Air Force added added several medium bomber groups in 3 wings and 100 or so more fighter squadrons. To thins need to be added the 12th and 15th Air Forces plus the RAF and RCAF forces.

The Soviets never had anything like the air power the West did. They would concentrate for an attack and give the appearance of numbers, especially after the Luftwaffe pulled so many fighters out for defense of the Reich. But thousand plane operations were generally not part of their tool box. They had 5,000 craft of all types for Bagration and this had increased to 7,000 of all types by Berlin. But that is about as high as their numbers get.

If I am getting my numbers right the basic squadron was around 24 planes for fighters. So the Eight and the Ninth alone are bringing about 4000 or so fighters to the table.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jun 09,, 20:25
The Japanese divisions in China are enough to hold their own without a Soviet intervention. The KMT forces were routed in 44 and the Communist forces were not up for more pitched battles yet either.I was thinking more of the 1950-55 time frame. If the Japanese home islands are to be starved, then the Japanese garrisons in Mainland Asia was not going to last much longer.

As shown in the Burma Road campaign, there was nothing wrong with the Chinese soldier, only the leadership was lacking.

That leadership came about when Lin Biao and Liu Yalou took to the field.

gabriel
07 Jun 09,, 20:29
August Storm was months after the end of combat when the Soviets had plenty of time to clear strips for use as airfields, re-condition worn out planes, graduate new classes of pilots etc.

Still a lot of work to be done in massing that much air support from end of the continent to the other.


The Soviets never had anything like the air power the West did. They would concentrate for an attack and give the appearance of numbers, especially after the Luftwaffe pulled so many fighters out for defense of the Reich. But thousand plane operations were generally not part of their tool box. They had 5,000 craft of all types for Bagration and this had increased to 7,000 of all types by Berlin. But that is about as high as their numbers get.


Bagration was a 5 fronts strategic operation , each with his own air army.
1st Baltic Front- 3rd Air Army
3rd Belorussian Front- 1st Air Army
2nd Belorussian Front-4th Air Army
1st Belorussian Front-16th Air Army
1st Ukrainian Front-2nd Air Army

However this does not include :
Third Ukrainian Front-
Second Ukrainian Front-
( both massed on our border and may i say that it was not exactly fair and square :) )
Fourth Ukrainian Front-vs Hungary
Second Baltic Front-vs Latvia
Third Baltic Front-vs Estonia
Leningrad Front-vs Estonia
and Finland
Karelian Front-vs Finland

Each with his own air army.

zraver
07 Jun 09,, 21:40
Each of those Fronts and attached air armies are not permanent formations. For the attack on Berlin the Soviets gathered about 7,000 aircraft. That is with the Balkans and Baltics secured and months of planning and set up before jumping off from the Vistula and heading west.

gabriel
07 Jun 09,, 23:19
Each of those Fronts and attached air armies are not permanent formations..
If you mean that the number of air divisions attached to one air army is depending on the operational planning needs, yes.


For the attack on Berlin the Soviets gathered about 7,000 aircraft. That is with the Balkans and Baltics secured and months of planning and set up before jumping off from the Vistula and heading west.

As you already pointed out the soviet airforce in 1945 was a tactical airforce not a strategic one.
They were required to operate in close cooperation with the ground forces, on improvised airfield conditions because the germans destroyed every facility they could during they're retreat. Gathering 7000 aircraft only in Poland is not a easy logistical task. Even so, each soviet front who took part in the operation had twice as much air support as it had in 1944.

Chunder
08 Jun 09,, 04:25
I don't think it would have been just left to the submariners. Curtis Lemay would've continued to firebomb Japanese cities and when the invasion would have came, it could very well have been Chinese and Korean divisions bent on genocidic revenge.

Well, since thats the game topic, do we assume that since if the western allies go to war against the USSR immediately - do we really allow Chinese & Korean divisions into Japan when they ultimately need the Allies logistics train for their support. Why not continue the blockade.

Now; is it reasonable to assume, since the primary argument for using Nukes against Japan is to save the lives of Allied soldiers, and the fact that there is now a more pressing war against the USSR Invasion of Japan is unneccessary, and those bombs are able to be deployed on the USSR, with almost equal impunity from around September / October 1945?

It might be reasonable to assume that had the game plan been to transfer material into fighting the USSR and the very central nature of the USSR's decision makers, that a bomb on Moscow would have devastated it's ability to fight at all.

Russias ability to transfer a concentrated force from Berlin back up to the Baltic leaves it extremely vulnerable. Leaving perhaps to a Bomb on Moscow. St Petersberg in Allied hands February 46 if it hadn't capitulated yet.

No strong, centralised communist party anymore... that would be interesting for world history. No Korea.... Net deficit in lives would be? who knows....

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 04:31
If you mean that the number of air divisions attached to one air army is depending on the operational planning needs, yes.


As you already pointed out the soviet airforce in 1945 was a tactical airforce not a strategic one.
They were required to operate in close cooperation with the ground forces, on improvised airfield conditions because the germans destroyed every facility they could during they're retreat. Gathering 7000 aircraft only in Poland is not a easy logistical task. Even so, each soviet front who took part in the operation had twice as much air support as it had in 1944.

And in May 1945 the facilities in Eastern Germany are not much better than Poland. 7,000 is about all they can get in the region and that is simply not enough.

US heavy bombers in France and Italy can reach deep into eastern Europe and in some parts into Russia itself. With the liberation of Norway the Baltics are in reach which means Lenningrad could eat an A-bomb as early as November 45.

Once the Red Army in Europe is routed there is nothing behind in terms of untapped reserves like 41. its fought out. From Poland Moscow can be reached- more A-bombs, Kiev, Minsk, Sevstaopol, Riga poof gone as fresh bombs role off the line.

Officer of Engineers
08 Jun 09,, 05:19
Well, since thats the game topic, do we assume that since if the western allies go to war against the USSR immediately - do we really allow Chinese & Korean divisions into Japan when they ultimately need the Allies logistics train for their support. Why not continue the blockade.Blood lust. And judging Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean reactions whenever a Japanese PM visits a shrine or new school text books been written ... do you really think that these peoples would demand nothing less than unconditional surrender?

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 06:10
And in May 1945 the facilities in Eastern Germany are not much better than Poland. 7,000 is about all they can get in the region and that is simply not enough..

Maybe even less in that short time frame; but i have to ask : enough for what?


US heavy bombers in France and Italy can reach deep into eastern Europe and in some parts into Russia itself. With the liberation of Norway the Baltics are in reach which means Lenningrad could eat an A-bomb as early as November 45.

That sounds like Curtis LeMay speaking :) Leningrad was in ruins already.
By range i presume you mean interdiction ?


Operation STRANGLE was a important milestone in the development of the US military interdiction doctrine.The report's conclusion was that the overriding objective of supply denial was unattainable. Interdiction was a relatively new military strategy at the time, and American commanders lacked understanding us german supply methods. Although supply denial was not the sole mission of the operation ,it remained the primary goal even after it had clearly failed.The effect on troop movement was incidental.



Once the Red Army in Europe is routed there is nothing behind in terms of untapped reserves like 41. its fought out. From Poland Moscow can be reached- more A-bombs, Kiev, Minsk, Sevstaopol, Riga poof gone as fresh bombs role off the line.

And to get back on track:
It would take a lot more than only 50.000 casualties to secure Poland .

Chunder
08 Jun 09,, 06:38
Blood lust. And judging Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean reactions whenever a Japanese PM visits a shrine or new school text books been written ... do you really think that these peoples would demand nothing less than unconditional surrender?

Of course not. But whether they can get to Japan & support themselves without significant Allied help is another thing.

With the western Allies and the Soviets head to head in continental Europe, I wonder if the Allies could be bothered with spending any more invasion effort against the Japanese with a war against the USSR.

Eitherway, the USSR still faces the Bomb. Probably on Moscow, with capitulation probably shortly thereafter. Volgograd is in reach of Tehran.

Chunder
08 Jun 09,, 07:01
Maybe even less in that short time frame; but i have to ask : enough for what?

It's probably not enough to deal with Allied fighters. Let alone dealing with problems of Heavy bombers striking you from the South West, West, North West & from Tehran. (Assuming a redeployment of pacific forces). Which means that getting an A-bomb on your political Centres, and major industrial areas becomes a significant defence problem.



That sounds like Curtis LeMay speaking :) Leningrad was in ruins already.
By range i presume you mean interdiction ?

No point nuking St Petersburg. You need it as a Port & as a political base. Wasn't much of an industrial place anyhow as you mentioned.



And to get back on track:
It would take a lot more than only 50.000 casualties to secure Poland .

Probably. But the allies have two things. They have use of the Bomb, you have 3 -5 months of Fighting before its dropped after Germany falls. What do the Russians do? Do they continue to attack, or do they revert to a Kursk type scenario as hostilities continue after the fall of Germany? So it depends on full on conflict or consolidate & hold. The second thing is that Allies have absolute Sea Control. I think most of the red armies units were deployed foward at that time. So whilst fighting in that area would be bloody, the Baltic is open for exploitation. If you Nuke Moscow, and have St Petersburg the conditions are set for encirclement. In addition there was much suspiceon between politico's in St Petersburg and Moscow, so any future interim government is well placed.

Even if encirclement wasn't ensured, you'd face a major withdrawl from Berlin, across Poland etc... So it depends how long & what posture the soviets take in Germany if hostilities continue. So Poland might be taken with less than 50,000 lives lost.

all based on superficial what if scenario with the allies all but exhausted from their own war effort.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 07:06
Volgograd is in reach of Tehran.

I see a trend in bombing ruined cities :rolleyes:
Chelyabinsk is my number 1 on the A list.

Chunder
08 Jun 09,, 07:10
I see a trend in bombing ruined cities :rolleyes:
Chelyabinsk is my number 1 on the A list.

You do :) But it is more denying the major supply route on the river passes next to it. Nuking it doesn't overly effect its already bad production. What it does do is drive it home militarily that they can't protect themselves from the South. They will have to divert more forces to cover it. They face Moscow gone, along with most of the Hierachy, Their Army between nuke targets and their supply base, and a beachead on the baltic.

All whilst they are down in Germany.

Zhukov might have been good but he was also reportedly sane!

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 07:24
The second thing is that Allies have absolute Sea Control. I think most of the red armies units were deployed foward at that time. So whilst fighting in that area would be bloody, the Baltic is open for exploitation.

I do hope you intend to achieve a total aerial supremacy over the landing zone in the Baltic ( Overlord revisited ) otherwise putting a landing amphibious force in range of the soviet tactical airforce it's not sound.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 07:35
They face Moscow gone, along with most of the Hierachy

Main condition for a decapitation blow is strict security clearance and surprise, from what i have read on the subject , that was not the case.

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 07:42
I do hope you intend to achieve a total aerial supremacy over the landing zone in the Baltic ( Overlord revisited ) otherwise putting a landing amphibious force in range of the soviet tactical airforce it's not sound.

What Soviet tactical air forces? They are in Germany and would have been swamped by allied air power there and in Italy.

Chunder, Lenningrad, Riga and Brest are the three biggest Soviet cities in easy reach if the Allies are not yet in Poland following the Trinity Test. Brest is mostly Polish, Riga is technically an occupied city in the American view that leave Lenningrad as an Object lesson.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 07:47
What Soviet tactical air forces? They are in Germany and would have been swamped by allied air power there and in Italy.


Would that not involve engaging the soviets on their own terms ( low altitude raids ) ?

Mihais
08 Jun 09,, 08:07
''I do hope you intend to achieve a total aerial supremacy over the landing zone in the Baltic ( Overlord revisited ) otherwise putting a landing amphibious force in range of the soviet tactical airforce it's not sound.''
You can always rely on Finland to give a helping hand.In the South you can a expect another 23 August in Romania,uprisings in Hungary,Bulgaria,maybe even Turkey going against the Soviets.With the Allied air and naval supremacy in the Baltic Sea,Med and Black Seas,the Reds in East Germany face a massive Cannae.

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 08:16
Would that not involve engaging the soviets on their own terms ( low altitude raids ) ?

There are two different fights going on in the air. The high level fight with B-17's, B-24's, Lancasters, Wellingtons, P-51's and P-47's.

Then there is the low level fight with B-25, B-26, A-26, P-47, P-51, Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito, Spitfire etc

With the Allies having overwhelming numerical and qualitative superiority in both fights. Just 2 of the 4 USAAF air forces that could be used had around 4000 fighters. Those fighters are faster, more durable, carry a better air to air armament, have better pilots and by 45 are absolutely crack when it comes to wrecking trains. And in the period immediately after the German surrender there are only a couple of rail lines to refill the empty depots the front line troops need.

Switchign to the theoretical Leningrad landing with the USN/RN switching to a holding action vs Japan. Local Soviet air power would be facing the second largest air force in the world the USN- 100 carriers. Plus the worlds biggest battleship fleet and enough landing craft to do corps sized landings with additional support from friendly bases in Denmark, Germany and Norway.

Timing is however important. By the time the operation could be planned and the assets assembled its the spring of 46. So some Soviet cities are already gone. Not bombed out or fought out like Stalingrad- but gone down to the foundations. But there is a btter place to land than Leningrad or along side Lenningrad since there are plenty of assets to do it.

Turkey joined the allies in 44. Once the bulk of the Soviet Army is defeated in Germany and Poland, Turkey could probably be persuaded to make common cause with the allies against this new foe and open up the Black Sea to the USN. The Crimea and Caucuses would be great places to land. Liberate the Ukraine or Central Asian Republics.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 08:20
In the South you can a expect another 23 August in Romania

By may 1945 most of our troops are in Czechoslovakia, we still have a lot of POW in Russia, our king is practically under arrest and they are soviet security troops on our soil.
Hungary -worse than above
Bulgaria - :confused: are u sure ?

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 08:47
There are two different fights going on in the air. The high level fight with B-17's, B-24's, Lancasters, Wellingtons, P-51's and P-47's.
Then there is the low level fight with B-25, B-26, A-26, P-47, P-51, Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito, Spitfire etc
With the Allies having overwhelming numerical and qualitative superiority in both fights. Just 2 of the 4 USAAF air forces that could be used had around 4000 fighters. Those fighters are faster, more durable, carry a better air to air armament, have better pilots and by 45 are absolutely crack when it comes to wrecking trains. And in the period immediately after the German surrender there are only a couple of rail lines to refill the empty depots the front line troops need.

Wrecking trains is the way to go i agree, but the soviets have 4 years of experience fighting at lower altitude , they know how to conceal they're airfields, how to spread and concentrate they're fighters and assault aircraft, they're AAA is very effective at this time and at this altitude, the p-47 does not turn well here.
Further you mentioned Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito, Spitfire etc
Are the British willing to do it ? My impression is that they are not.
So the Mustang must accomplish the following:
1 destroy trains
2 strafe airfields
3 dogfight at tree top
4 excort heavy bombers
5 excort medium bombers
6 dodge soviet AAA
7 in case Zhukov decides to visit Paris or/and Rome hunt down IL-2 bombers.

Mihais
08 Jun 09,, 08:53
Right on everything.But with no significant Soviet reinforcements going in,some CAS from Italy and Greece,some supplies airdropped and with a population that awaited the Americans for 20 years the local Soviets are in peril.Some of the troops we had in Czechoslovakia might have been interned by the Soviets,some would join the Allies.+if Turkey joins the Allies you have USN,RN and the remains of the Italian fleet at Constanta.Bulgaria was subjected to the same treatment as us.No love for USSR at the time.They'll join the Allies when the first paratrooper jumps from the plane.If the Allies move fast they can land in Istanbul,cross the Danube and parade in Bucharest before Soviet forces can react.And the Soviets were mostly security formations,instead of crack troops needed to counter such a maneuver.

Chunder
08 Jun 09,, 09:22
Personally I can't see the soviets holding on for much more than a year after the official end of WW2.

They will be experiencing bombing raids from 3 points of the compass, some of those may be with nukes.

They will be aware of an impending invasion... somewhere... likely imminent from June 46 onwards... (presuming planning had begun back in '42 even without hindsight)...

So they are getting nuked and can expect an allied invasion of 1 million plus men. No control of their own coast. A superficial ability to perhaps intercept planes - but only for a limited time, and an army exhausted by war... Any push they attempt will invariably mean their supply lines will further be exacerbated more than they already are. All to no avail. It's all what if - but they won't have control of the Baltic, and the allies can stage from Norway/Sweden.

It all comes down to an Army Marches on it's Stomach....

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 09:24
Wrecking trains is the way to go i agree, but the soviets have 4 years of experience fighting at lower altitude , they know how to conceal they're airfields, how to spread and concentrate they're fighters and assault aircraft, they're AAA is very effective at this time and at this altitude, the p-47 does not turn well here.

After the massive battle for Berlin, how much supplies do the Reds have left? Not much and that inlcudes the fighters and bombers.If the trains can't run the planes can't fuel.

The allies did not exclusively fight at high altitude.

Most Soviet pilots are poorly trained by western standards.

Soviet AA was not at all that effective. The Ju-87 remained a potent weapon on the East Front until the end of the war.

The P-47 is faster at all altitudes than the Soviet fighters- bigger engine with a bigger turbo, it can also climb faster than most Soviet fighters, and out dive all of them. It also is far tougher to bring down while its 8x .50 cal are pure death to any fighter. Air combat is less about turning and more about speed and teamwork. Shorlty after the War in Europe the P-47N entered service. It blows any pre-jet Soviet fighter straight out of the water. It has nearly a 50mph speed advantage over the La-7. Speed= Height/Height= Speed the fight is in the quality of the lead pilot, the wingman and in the vertical, not in the turns.

The allies have jets entering the war as well.

oh, and that massive overwhelming numerical superiority.



Further you mentioned Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito, Spitfire etc
Are the British willing to do it ? My impression is that they are not.

Britian is not going to drop out, where the US goes, the UK goes and vice versa in 45. Britian was already fighting the communists in Greece. if the Western Allies and the USSR did go to war it would be over something bigger than Patton. Either Stalin kept going west, or tried to block the allies from taking Berlin/ force them out of Berlin.


So the Mustang must accomplish the following:
1 destroy trains
2 strafe airfields
3 dogfight at tree top
4 excort heavy bombers
5 excort medium bombers
6 dodge soviet AAA
7 in case Zhukov decides to visit Paris or/and Rome hunt down IL-2 bombers.

If the Soviets want to send the Pe-2's and Il-2/Il-10's on city bombing missions...

I don't think your getting it, in fighters aloen the Allies had more planes to throw in the fight than the USSR had of all types. No amount of camouflage can hide a rail marshalling yard or switching station. Nothing in the Soviet inventory can fight the American heavies, the best Soviet Ground formations are exhausted and fought out, there is little supply, no hope of re-enforcement, attacks from multiple sides, the A-bomb just a few months away, hostile populations to the Soviets who are very pro-western. Even Tito is not happy with Stalin at this time. The baltic coast is wide open, as is the Black sea coast, no more supplies of parts and fuel via lend lease, and finally a Red Army that is tired of war and that has no stomach for going to war with the West who are not the Nazis.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 10:03
Bulgaria was subjected to the same treatment as us.No love for USSR at the time.They'll join the Allies when the first paratrooper jumps from the plane.If the Allies move fast they can land in Istanbul,cross the Danube and parade in Bucharest before Soviet forces can react.And the Soviets were mostly security formations,instead of crack troops needed to counter such a maneuver.

They did not risk they're airborne divisions in 1943 in Italy why should they do it now ?

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 10:09
Personally I can't see the soviets holding on for much more than a year after the official end of WW2.

They will be experiencing bombing raids from 3 points of the compass, some of those may be with nukes.

They will be aware of an impending invasion... somewhere... likely imminent from June 46 onwards... (presuming planning had begun back in '42 even without hindsight)...

So they are getting nuked and can expect an allied invasion of 1 million plus men. No control of their own coast. A superficial ability to perhaps intercept planes - but only for a limited time, and an army exhausted by war... Any push they attempt will invariably mean their supply lines will further be exacerbated more than they already are. All to no avail. It's all what if - but they won't have control of the Baltic, and the allies can stage from Norway/Sweden.

It all comes down to an Army Marches on it's Stomach....

Or his liver :)
Interdiction was not able to do that in Korea, one could expect better results in 1945 ?

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 11:26
After the massive battle for Berlin, how much supplies do the Reds have left? Not much and that inlcudes the fighters and bombers.If the trains can't run the planes can't fuel.

Pushing south in to germany in 1945 by the americans does not poses the same logistical concerns ?


The allies did not exclusively fight at high altitude.

never claimed that they did.


Most Soviet pilots are poorly trained by western standards.

After 4 years of attrition combat who would not ?


Soviet AA was not at all that effective. The Ju-87 remained a potent weapon on the East Front until the end of the war.

As a antitank platform (very close to the front line not behind it ), it was not able to interdict artillery concentration, supply routes, airfields, bridge crossing; were the AAA operated. During the war, Soviet ground AA guns shot down 21,645 planes: 14,657 were victims of the small-caliber automatic guns (25mm and 37mm), while 4047 destroyed by the 76mm and 85mm guns.

The P-47 is faster at all altitudes than the Soviet fighters- bigger engine with a bigger turbo, it can also climb faster than most Soviet fighters, and out dive all of them. It also is far tougher to bring down while its 8x .50 cal are pure death to any fighter. Air combat is less about turning and more about speed and teamwork. Shorlty after the War in Europe the P-47N entered service. It blows any pre-jet Soviet fighter straight out of the water. It has nearly a 50mph speed advantage over the La-7. Speed= Height/Height= Speed the fight is in the quality of the lead pilot, the wingman and in the vertical, not in the turns.

P-47 is a excellent high altitude fighter and ground attack plane but not a low level fighter mainly because at low level is very little room to dive in and SPEED at low level= bad turning ability. The vertical has his advantages but using only one dimension of the combat maneuvers restricts situational awareness.


Britain is not going to drop out, where the US goes, the UK goes and vice versa in 45. Britain was already fighting the communists in Greece. if the Western Allies and the USSR did go to war it would be over something bigger than Patton. Either Stalin kept going west, or tried to block the allies from taking Berlin/ force them out of Berlin.

Churchill agreed to Stalin demands to the sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe before the battle of Berlin begun.


If the Soviets want to send the Pe-2's and Il-2/Il-10's on city bombing missions...

I did not suggest such a thing, the Pe-2's and Il-2/Il-10's were designed for C.A.S. and thats what they do.


I don't think your getting it, in fighters aloen the Allies had more planes to throw in the fight than the USSR had of all types.

2/1 on fighters , 3/1 if we count the british ( the germans never had such a ratio ,and put up a fight for almost a year after the Normandy landings)


No amount of camouflage can hide a rail marshalling yard or switching station. Nothing in the Soviet inventory can fight the American heavies,

That's not a easy target to hit from high altitude.Many such targets were hit repeatedly during the strategic bombing offensive.


the best Soviet Ground formations are exhausted and fought out, there is little supply, no hope of re-enforcement, attacks from multiple sides, the A-bomb just a few months away, hostile populations to the Soviets who are very pro-western. Even Tito is not happy with Stalin at this time. The baltic coast is wide open, as is the Black sea coast, no more supplies of parts and fuel via lend lease, and finally a Red Army that is tired of war and that has no stomach for going to war with the West who are not the Nazis.

I agree with all above except: what motivation did the Red Army
had to fight Japan ?

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 12:39
Wrecking trains is the way to go i agree, but the soviets have 4 years of experience fighting at lower altitude, they know how to conceal they're airfields, how to spread and concentrate they're fighters and assault aircraft, they're AAA is very effective at this time and at this altitude, the p-47 does not turn well here.


The allies had loads of experience in ground support: 1943 (desert+Italy), 44/45 (France, Germany Italy), these campaigns taught them how to do it. As for experience, the russian air force was bad. Really bad. They might have good planes, but their organization and strategic usage was lousy. Check the german units' reports. Compare them with reports of western-based units. In the east, russian air support was little more than a nuissance, due to their (almost) total lack of proper comunications, both air-air and air-ground. Their air cover was so "good" that Stukas were still flying in the east in 45! In the west, otoh, the germans had to move by night, or in bad weather, otherwise they'd get pounded on by fighters and bombers. As for germnan air cover... after D-day, the only german planes that could fly near the front with some degree of safety where the high altitude Arado recon jets...

Also, afaik, russian mobile AAA was limited to twin or quad machine guns. The germans had much better and the allies dealt with them...

Chunder
08 Jun 09,, 12:39
Or his liver :)
Interdiction was not able to do that in Korea, one could expect better results in 1945 ?

Yes it was...

Officer of Engineers
08 Jun 09,, 12:45
Of course not. But whether they can get to Japan & support themselves without significant Allied help is another thing.Note my timeline in the 1950-55 period. That is the time when the Chinese came to be a military power of her own, even after the self draining Chinese civil war.

There was one reason and one reason only why Chiang Kei Shek never went after the Japanese. He knew the Americans would take care of them for him. If he knew the Americans are no longer capable then, he has to fight the Japanese before he could take on the communists and vice versa for Mao. Neither could afford the Japanese to play the power broker in China.

So, by 1950, the IJA would not be able to stand up to the Chinese anymore. And it would not take much to duplicate the Soviet efforts at Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 13:05
Also, afaik, russian mobile AAA was limited to twin or quad machine guns. The germans had much better and the allies dealt with them...

And less:
Ostwind-44
Wirbelwind-105
37mm FlaK/IV-250
FlaKPz 38(t)- 141
Sdkfz 7/1-319
Sdkfz 6/2 -339
Sdkfz 7/2-123
Sdkfz 10/4:-610

How many M17 MGMC the russians had ?

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 13:25
As for experience, the russian air force was bad. Really bad. They might have good planes, but their organization and strategic usage was lousy. Check the german units' reports. Compare them with reports of western-based units. In the east, russian air support was little more than a nuissance, due to their (almost) total lack of proper comunications, both air-air and air-ground. Their air cover was so "good" that Stukas were still flying in the east in 45!

I have also read reports from our pilots and armed forces fighting on the eastern front, nobody called them a nuissance after 1942.

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 13:41
I have also read reports from our pilots and armed forces fighting on the eastern front, nobody called them a nuissance after 1942.

Actually, that helps me prove the point. Your airforce was small and equiped with planes that were barelly as good as the enemy, and yet it managed to cause massive casualties on the russians, with close to (?) 2000 kills. A similar performance was carried out by the similary outnumbered, outequiped and outgunned Finland.

Let me now ask this (and no ofense...): how long do you think your air force would have lasted vs RAF/USAAF? Two properly managed and controlled airforces?

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 13:53
Let me now ask this (and no ofense...): how long do you think your air force would have lasted vs RAF/USAAF? Two properly managed and controlled airforces?

This is not a hypothetical question ...as it did happen and you can find that answer yourself.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 13:56
Actually, that helps me prove the point. Your airforce was small and equiped with planes that were barelly as good as the enemy, and yet it managed to cause massive casualties on the russians, with close to (?) 2000 kills. A similar performance was carried out by the similary outnumbered, outequiped and outgunned Finland.


We lost .

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 14:38
This is not a hypothetical question ...as it did happen and you can find that answer yourself.

See? ;)

Fact is, the whole "omg russian forces are sooooo big omg boogie man", has allways been a bit overplayed. The airforce had barelly returned to it's prewar size (albeight far better equiped - and don't forget the few thousand planes the US/UK sent in...) but was still severelly short of proper C3, not to mention training and support. The rail and road network were still pretty much 19th century, causing so many logistic problems entire divisions were stopped due to lack of spares and support. How much worse would the situation become once the US stopped the supply of trucks (400000+) and locomotives? The "unending supply of fresh troops" was almost over (20 million+ casualties...). On the other hand, US and UK industry was pretty much safe from russian attack, the end of the Kriegsmarine and Japan would allow the diversion of massive resources to a land/air fight and France and Germany could provide, if not equipment, at least willing recruits (at the very least for rear area support). The RAF/USAAF would crush the USSR air force at mid and low lvl, specially thanks to a far supperior C3 (the allies brough mobile radars ashole in Normandy!) and B-29s by day and Avro Lincolns by night (probably) would pay visits at high altitute to the USSR's industry, starting with the power plants outside Moscow and Gorky that were the dream target of the german Operation Iron Hammer...

As for Russian armour... well, the brits and yanks were used to face bigger tanks on the other side, so... and they were getting big tanks of their own.

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 14:55
See? ;)
Fact is, the whole "omg russian forces are sooooo big omg boogie man", has allways been a bit overplayed. The airforce had barelly returned to it's prewar size (albeight far better equiped - and don't forget the few thousand planes the US/UK sent in...) but was still severelly short of proper C3, not to mention training and support. The rail and road network were still pretty much 19th century, causing so many logistic problems entire divisions were stopped due to lack of spares and support. How much worse would the situation become once the US stopped the supply of trucks (400000+) and locomotives? The "unending supply of fresh troops" was almost over (20 million+ casualties...). On the other hand, US and UK industry was pretty much safe from russian attack, the end of the Kriegsmarine and Japan would allow the diversion of massive resources to a land/air fight and France and Germany could provide, if not equipment, at least willing recruits (at the very least for rear area support). The RAF/USAAF would crush the USSR air force at mid and low lvl, specially thanks to a far supperior C3 (the allies brough mobile radars ashole in Normandy!) and B-29s by day and Avro Lincolns by night (probably) would pay visits at high altitute to the USSR's industry, starting with the power plants outside Moscow and Gorky that were the dream target of the german Operation Iron Hammer...

As for Russian armour... well, the brits and yanks were used to face bigger tanks on the other side, so... and they were getting big tanks of their own.

We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. ;)

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 15:25
Pushing south in to germany in 1945 by the americans does not poses the same logistical concerns ?

More trucks, more ports and no need to switch rail lines from one gauge to another


As a antitank platform (very close to the front line not behind it ), it was not able to interdict artillery concentration, supply routes, airfields, bridge crossing; were the AAA operated. During the war, Soviet ground AA guns shot down 21,645 planes: 14,657 were victims of the small-caliber automatic guns (25mm and 37mm), while 4047 destroyed by the 76mm and 85mm guns.

Funny the numbers your claiming for the USSR amount to almost the total of all Luftwaffe flying losses for the entire war. Germany lost 27,000 planes in aerial combat combat, most vs the Western Allies. It was vs the Allies that the Luftwaffe ground itself too dust not the USSR. meanwhile Soviet losses included over 88,000 combat losses in ground and air action.


P-47 is a excellent high altitude fighter and ground attack plane but not a low level fighter mainly because at low level is very little room to dive in and SPEED at low level= bad turning ability. The vertical has his advantages but using only one dimension of the combat maneuvers restricts situational awareness.

The Japanese fighters were the most maneuverable of the war, and they got shredded by the big lumber US heavy fighters. The vertical is where the foight is at, not the turn. The fighter that is faster can climb faster, the fighter that is heavier can dive faster speed= height, height= speed.


Churchill agreed to Stalin demands to the sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe before the battle of Berlin begun.

And if war breaks out the UK marches with the US not the USSR.


I did not suggest such a thing, the Pe-2's and Il-2/Il-10's were designed for C.A.S. and thats what they do.

yes you did with the idea that Zhukov might want to visit Paris with Il-2's.


2/1 on fighters , 3/1 if we count the british ( the germans never had such a ratio ,and put up a fight for almost a year after the Normandy landings)

On D-day- 2 German fighters got airborne, the biggest post invasion German effort- Operation Boddenplatte cost them 800 aircraft in a week most while they were flying to the loss of about 200 allied aircraft most on the ground..


That's not a easy target to hit from high altitude.Many such targets were hit repeatedly during the strategic bombing offensive.

Rail yards were not particular targets during the strategic campaign vs Germany. Industrial plants and power generation was. It took allied fighters busting locomotives to cripple the German train network. But there is one huge difference, Germany had as many miles of track as the whole of the Soviet Union. The Red Army in Germany is relying on just a few rail lines, cut those lines and the Red Army starves.




I agree with all above except: what motivation did the Red Army
had to fight Japan ?

Stalin at their backs and no where else to go. Vs the allies they would do the samre thing they did in 41- surrender and en masse to escape the communists.

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 15:37
Stalin at their backs and no where else to go. Vs the allies they would do the samre thing they did in 41- surrender and en masse to escape the communists.

Not so sure about this, tbh. By 1942/3 the war had assumed almost mythical proportions for the USSR, thanks to the propaganda campaign and the mass atrocities caused by the germans (yes, I know the russians weren't any saints...). The comon soldier was "Defending Mother Russia Against the Imperialists" and many had no idea of the contribution the west was making, except to think "Oh yeah, they are on it too..." (even today, many in Russia deny it!). And in 41, the great mass of the red army was made up of barelly trained, poorly led recruits, wereas by 45 the army was full of combat veterans, hell bent on winning the war. So I don't see many russians running/defecting...

Ukranians, otoh... now
there the west could win "hearts and minds"...

Dreadnought
08 Jun 09,, 15:46
Then obviously there are alot of people who dont read history. Untold amounts of material were shipped to Russia via Britan from the US Ports. Countless convoys shipped them everything from trucks,tanks,ammunition,spare parts, raw materials such as rubber,copper,nickel etc etc. Are these people under the impression the tooth fairey came and left it for them?:confused: One must also keep in mind not only was the US shipping much of the very same to Britan but fighting a war in the Pacific as well.

This link will give you an idea of the amount of funds Russia recieved and their impact. It also includes the Britsh and Canadians.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOkiEu1hTqEC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=US+exports+to+Russia+WWII&source=bl&ots=ixGd1_vQVa&sig=7_ZHBUhksxdItffHUXodMvzpPkI&hl=en&ei=nCQtSu3PI6CltgeUlYS9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA4,M1

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 16:00
Then obviously there are alot of people who dont read history.

They do read history... problem is, they read the history that was written by soviets to soviets. Even during WWII, Stalin & Co did their best to hide the help from the general population. After the war, whith the Cold War coming up, everything was covered up. So, for 40 years, it was just "ooo poor russia fought off the nazis while the imperialists did little or nothing". The end of the USSR did little or nothing to change this...

And there's no need to go to Russia. Go to Japan and ask the average japanese what they know about the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan death march. Most will just stare at you, or a few might vehemently denied this as propaganda. But they all know about the "millions killed by the evil atom bombs!!"...

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 17:06
Not so sure about this, tbh. By 1942/3 the war had assumed almost mythical proportions for the USSR, thanks to the propaganda campaign and the mass atrocities caused by the germans (yes, I know the russians weren't any saints...). The comon soldier was "Defending Mother Russia Against the Imperialists" and many had no idea of the contribution the west was making, except to think "Oh yeah, they are on it too..." (even today, many in Russia deny it!). And in 41, the great mass of the red army was made up of barelly trained, poorly led recruits, wereas by 45 the army was full of combat veterans, hell bent on winning the war. So I don't see many russians running/defecting...

Ukranians, otoh... now
there the west could win "hearts and minds"...

The Western Allies are not the Nazis. In fact much like the Poles who fled the German invasion there are hundreds of thousands of Russian POWS and anti-communist white Russians ready and willing to fight.

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 17:13
The Western Allies are not the Nazis.

I know that, you know that, but to the average russian trooper, the allies would be just another bunch of foreign invaders...

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 17:18
More trucks, more ports and no need to switch rail lines from one gauge to another

On german territory.


Funny the numbers your claiming for the USSR amount to almost the total of all Luftwaffe flying losses for the entire war. Germany lost 27,000 planes in aerial combat combat, most vs the Western Allies. It was vs the Allies that the Luftwaffe ground itself too dust not the USSR. meanwhile Soviet losses included over 88,000 combat losses in ground and air action.

So first line losses by Germany are lower than US :confused:?
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t100.pdf
I will double check my figures for losses due to the anti-aircraft-artillery they seamed high for my, too but probably they include also transport aircraft .


The Japanese fighters were the most maneuverable of the war, and they got shredded by the big lumber US heavy fighters. The vertical is where the foight is at, not the turn. The fighter that is faster can climb faster, the fighter that is heavier can dive faster speed= height, height= speed.

The japanese made only one mistake : they came out to fight.;)


And if war breaks out the UK marches with the US not the USSR.

Granted but the question is : Will they do it in may-june 1945 ?


yes you did with the idea that Zhukov might want to visit Paris with Il-2's.

Not without the tanks.



On D-day- 2 German fighters got airborne, the biggest post invasion German effort- Operation Boddenplatte cost them 800 aircraft in a week most while they were flying to the loss of about 200 allied aircraft most on the ground..

And with complete air superiority over the battlefield it took almost 2 months of fighting to reach Paris.

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 17:24
And with complete air superiority over the battlefield it took almost 2 months of fighting to reach Paris.

Most of that was spent getting out of that god-awfull defensive terrain on the Normandy...

gabriel
08 Jun 09,, 17:26
This link will give you an idea of the amount of funds Russia recieved and their impact. It also includes the Britsh and Canadians.

Russia's life-saver: lend-lease aid ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOkiEu1hTqEC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=US+exports+to+Russia+WWII&source=bl&ots=ixGd1_vQVa&sig=7_ZHBUhksxdItffHUXodMvzpPkI&hl=en&ei=nCQtSu3PI6CltgeUlYS9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA4,M1)

Thanks for the link :

But sir may i ask :
Why did they do it ?
Why help the soviet union survive, if the western allies could beat Germany, Urss and Japan all by themselves ?
Why help consolidate a ideology against which they are bound to fight a long arms race in the foreseeable future ?

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 17:34
On german territory.

No, the tracking switching is near Warsaw


The japanese made only one mistake : they came out to fight.;)

If the VVS doe snot come out to fight the bombers get to bomb unhindered. The lesson of the Channel Coast fighter sweeps learned by both sodes is that fighters cannot force fighters to fight. But add some bombers and the enemy has to come up and contest the air.


Granted but the question is : Will they do it in may-june 1945 ? [/quote}

When ever you want to set the date the answer is the same- yes.

[quote]Not without the tanks.

The Red Army might reach the Rhine but no further and event hat is in doubt. The lead Soviet formations, their best combat units are exhausted fought out, out of supplies and hopelessly snarled. 1 in 3 tanks and other AFV's around in January is now a hulk somewhere between Berlin and Warsaw. Most of the tanks that remain are T-34's which are not superior to the late war Sherman. The IS-2 units got brutalized. There are not very many forward air fields, a hostile population and several rivers to cross.



And with complete air superiority over the battlefield it took almost 2 months of fighting to reach Paris.

Fighting through some of the best defensive terrain in the world, against prepared positions, with inferior tanks and a seaborne logistics chain. it took two months to get to Paris, but by 2 October the Allies were pushing into Germany proper.

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 17:35
Thanks for the link :

But sir may i ask :
Why did they do it ?
Why help the soviet union survive, if the western allies could beat Germany, Urss and Japan all by themselves ?
Why help consolidate a ideology against which they are bound to fight a long arms race in the foreseeable future ?

Without the allies, the Soviet Union falls, without the Soviet Union the allies can't land in France until after the atomic bomb flattens Berlin.

Dreadnought
08 Jun 09,, 17:56
Thanks for the link :

But sir may i ask :
Why did they do it ?
Why help the soviet union survive, if the western allies could beat Germany, Urss and Japan all by themselves ?
Why help consolidate a ideology against which they are bound to fight a long arms race in the foreseeable future ?

I'm sure there were many reasons to do it not including what was being orchestrated against the jewish populations of the surrounding countries. Many countries have jewish populations and possibly if Hitler did infact conquer Russia he would now have a new source of raw war materials for the
German war machine and factories already set up to produce machinery and parts.

Mihais
08 Jun 09,, 18:06
I'm sure there were many reasons to do it not including what was being orchestrated against the jewish populations of the surrounding countries. Many countries have jewish populations and possibly if Hitler did infact conquer Russia he would now have a new source of raw war materials for the
German war machine and factories already set up to produce machinery and parts.

The fate of the Jews was really that important at the time?

The other reasons make sense from a realpolitik p.o.v.But I think we should not confuse our knowledge,morals and perceptions of the era with the political and mental climate of the 40's.Hindsight is always 20/20.

Dreadnought
08 Jun 09,, 18:23
The fate of the Jews was really that important at the time?

The other reasons make sense from a realpolitik p.o.v.But I think we should not confuse our knowledge,morals and perceptions of the era with the political and mental climate of the 40's.Hindsight is always 20/20.

I'm sure the jewish plight had alot to do with it (one evidence came to light) as well as saving Europe from Hitler. If he conquered Europe it would have been that much more diffacult if not impoosible to defeat him given the vast amount of wealth and war material,resources and logistics he could have summoned and then the threat that if he conquered Europe then he also could have helped the Japanese against the US (which he did but he could have done alot more). Basically, no choice.

Officer of Engineers
08 Jun 09,, 18:47
I agree with all above except: what motivation did the Red Army had to fight Japan ?There were several reasons ranging from the strategic level to the regular Central Asian who hated the Japanese.

1) Both Tojo and Stalin knew that they would go at it once the war with Germany was done one way or the other. Japan's only hope was that Hitler could buy them enough time to get ready.

2) Stalin needed and took the factories, materials, and resources from Korea and Manchuria.

3) There were family ties across the borders in Central Asia and they all heard what the Japanese did to their people in China.

gunnut
08 Jun 09,, 20:16
One more thing about the Soviet doctrine on the ground. The massed formation of tanks, men, and artillery pieces in prepared positions worked against the Germans. That same formation would be suicide against the 8th and 9th Army Air Forces.

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 20:36
One more thing about the Soviet doctrine on the ground. The massed formation of tanks, men, and artillery pieces in prepared positions worked against the Germans. That same formation would be suicide against the 8th and 9th Army Air Forces.

Not to mention counter batery fire from the UK/US
mobile artillery... and didn't the US start to deploy heavy artillery with radar-proximity fuzes?

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 21:25
Not to mention counter batery fire from the UK/US
mobile artillery... and didn't the US start to deploy heavy artillery with radar-proximity fuzes?

Not sure if the radar fused shells made it to Europe, but we did have Time on Target which is something the Soviets never encountered. When a Corps worth of shells all arrive at exactly the same time so there is no warning.... The Germans and North Koreans/Chinese lived in fear of US Artillery.

jlvfr
08 Jun 09,, 21:32
Not sure if the radar fused shells made it to Europe, but we did have Time on Target which is something the Soviets never encountered. When a Corps worth of shells all arrive at exactly the same time so there is no warning.... The Germans and North Koreans/Chinese lived in fear of US Artillery.

Found it!!
A radar history of World War II ... - Pesquisa de livros do Google (http://books.google.pt/books?id=wpFMWeLmp4cC&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=radar-proximity+fuze+wwii+bulge&source=bl&ots=fpz8RYbx0h&sig=8-AfA5EOxG9moOkoZO4i1c7GlCI&hl=pt-PT&ei=InUtStWZKdnPjAfPso3iCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2)

zraver
08 Jun 09,, 21:41
Yup, so the Soviets have to contend with that as well. That is not just bad news for the Red Army but the VVS as well.

Bigfella
09 Jun 09,, 08:18
Thanks for the link :

But sir may i ask :
Why did they do it ?
Why help the soviet union survive, if the western allies could beat Germany, Urss and Japan all by themselves ?
Why help consolidate a ideology against which they are bound to fight a long arms race in the foreseeable future ?

Gabriel,

Others have had a bit of a go at this. I particularly want to tackle it because I have read quite a few posts by residents of former communist countries suggesting that a Nazi victory would have been preferable or no worse that what did happen. I'm not sure if those sort of thoughts are motivating your question, but I suspect they motivate some (others are just idiots with no understanding of history - you are definately not in that category). A very wise person once warned me 'do not ever put hindsight into forethought'. This sort of premise does that on a number of levels.

First a note on perspectives. There are many more people alive today who suffered under communism than did under Nazism. Memories of the horrors of Hitler are more remote, while many more people can connect to personal accounts of communist terror. Further, there are some parts of Eastern Europe whose limited experience of the Nazis was not nearly as unpleasant as their prolonged exposure to Communism. This often leaves Nazism as set of out of context numbers of people killed. I'm going to mix up here what the Allies knew at the time & what we know now to present as good a case as I can as to why siding with Stalin was right. History often forces poor choices, but I think this was by far the least worst.

The first and most obvious point here is that the Western Allies did not rush to associate themselves with the USSR. Indeed, there is a good case to suggest that had they been more amenable to an alliance with Stalin in the late 1930s Hitler would have been boxed in from the outset. As it was they tried to keep a distance from both dictatorships. While the British & French were in no hurry to confront the USSR once it invaded Poland they very nearly interevened in Finland & bombed the Caucases. The Alliance with Stalin was a reluctant one.

Why? Look at the situation in July 1941. Britain facing a triumphant Germany that now controls almost all of Western Europe AND the possibility of Japanese expansion. America is friendly but resolutely neutral (even in the face of ships being sunk by the Germans). What was Churchill to do? he was as resolute an anti-Communist as you are likely to find, but the enemy of mine enemy is very much my friend. When Japan & Germany weighed in against America Roosevelt was hardly going to turn up his nose at the only nation at that time capable of tying up the German Army. Logic alone dictated events.

Next, look at events from the perspective of the time. Germany had swpet all before it for 2 years and Japan had driven the Allies to the edge of their Pacific territories. With hindsight we can now see the gaping flaws in their respective militaries. At the time it was far from certain that Nazism & Japanese Imperialism could be beaten even with the USSR. Without it the task seemed impossible (and it may well have been in the case of the Nazis).

Then there is the strategic issue. Have a look at the relative positions of what would have been the Nazi Empire & what became the Communist Russian Empire. Look at access to industry, infrastructure, resources, oceans. Which is more dangerous? Remember that we didn't see a victorious Nazi Germany get a chance to consolidate its victories. We didn't see it get to properly exploit even the resources it did have. Try to imagine an entity with the population, resources & industrial potential of the USA ruled by Nazis. I don't know about you, but the idea of a Nazi equivalent to the postwar US Navy in addition to equivalents to the threats the real life USSR did pose absolutely terrifies me.

In the postwar world we saw the spread of communism. Some of this would happen no matter what took place in Europe. Indeed, a USSR pushed out of Europe would probably have turned East for more resources - no good news for China there. Most of the remaining communist gains in the postwar world came in former European colonies. If Germany beats Russia there will still be a Cold War - between Britian/US and Nazi Europe. Think of nationalists like Chandra Bose & others in the Middle East. Think of the creole elites of Latin America & even the nationalists of Africa & Asia. I'm betting a good many of those are prepared to take the Nazi coin, especially when its message of virulent & exclusive ethnic nationalism could be made so easily appealing. Look at the violence of some postwar nationalist regimes (Pakistan & Indonesia are a good start) and them scale up. We will never know if the death toll of nazi-inspired fascism/quasi-fascism would have exceeded communism outside China, but I'm betting it does.

Finally there is the question of the bodies. All those bodies. Have a look at nazi killing. it started with a small early purge in 1934, began to get more widespread & professional in 1938 & then took off once Russia was invaded. I don't have an exact figure on how many people the Nazis killed outside combat zones, but Jews & Russian POWs alone gets you close to 10 million. I suspect I could find a few million more without trying too hard. Remember , that is just in 4 years, and it is a regime largely preoccupied with war. We know that the Nazis planned to let tens of milions of Russians starve (their figures). The Naziz planned to clear swathes of Russia & Poland of their populations & reduce the remainder to slavery. There were still millions more Jews to kill, and then there were the likely responses to inevitable uprisings in different parts of Europe. There is no way to compare speculation to what Stalin actually did after 1945, but it looks worse to me. Further, a Nazi victory does not free a single Eastern European from dictatorship. The dictators may have been more papatable, but they might not. The Ustache & Arrow Cross were horrific as the regimes that followed them. Would the Iron Cross have been much better than the Communists?

I have gone on too long here, but I feel its an issue that deserves a decent treatment. I have probably missed a few things here & there, but I think the case for defeating Hitler, even at the expense of a victoriuos Stalin, was both the logical choice at the time and in hindsight.

BD1
09 Jun 09,, 08:36
Bigfella, a very good post, one of the best on this topic i´ve seen anywhere

Bigfella
09 Jun 09,, 08:48
Bigfella, a very good post, one of the best on this topic i´ve seen anywhere

Thanks BD1. It was a bit 'stream of consciousness', so I wasn't sure how much sense made. Glad it was at least coherent.

Mihais
09 Jun 09,, 10:06
''I have probably missed a few things here & there, but I think the case for defeating Hitler, even at the expense of a victoriuos Stalin, was both the logical choice at the time and in hindsight.''

Stalin was victorious,but it was a Pyrrhic victory.As it was argued in this thread,any ''daring'' move after 1945 on his part would result in a devastating defeat.

''What was Churchill to do? he was as resolute an anti-Communist as you are likely to find, but the enemy of mine enemy is very much my friend''

None were ''friends'' of the west.All you have are enemies killing each other.A fortunate event for the Allies.As it turned out they largely destroyed themselves in a protracted fight.If ANY of them wins decisively prior to Allied massive landings in Europe(that is before 1944)you get the worst case scenario you described.Change ''nazis'' with ''communists'' and ''jews'' with ''enemies of the people''.

''Further, a Nazi victory does not free a single Eastern European from dictatorship. The dictators may have been more papatable, but they might not. The Ustache & Arrow Cross were horrific as the regimes that followed them. Would the Iron Cross have been much better than the Communists?''

Most people that lived through the period would argue that the Germans behaved better than the vast majority of Soviets.Still the Germans were allies,the Soviets conquerors.As for what the Romanians really felt I'll give a quote from an interview of Marshall Antonescu with a neutral journalist in spring 1942:''We are allies of the German Reich against Soviet Russia,we consider ourselves neutral in the war between the Western Powers and German Reich,we sympathize with the Western Powers in their struggle in the Far East and Pacific''.Common citizens were much open in their opinions.The Hungarian leader Horthy also did as little as he could for German cause,the Bulgarians almost nothing,the Finns carried a very limited war,Franco sent only volunteers.Regarding the internal politics of these countries,the local Fascists gained power only with direct military support of Germany and only when the situation on the front was dire(see Hungary) So,for former Axis allies it was an alliance of convenience as well.And all of them tried to negociate the peace with the Allies,but were rejected(between morality and strategic interest I'll choose strategic interest)

In the end if some bitterness(for a lack of a better word) is perceived,it's not the result of symphathy towards the Nazis or a lack of understanding about their nature and about what was at stake at that time.It's the regret of getting kicked in the b..t.Twice

zraver
09 Jun 09,, 13:52
Guys I think we misunderstood Gabriel, I don't percieve him arguing for the Nazi's at all. I see him asking- if the Red Army was so easy to beat why even ally with them vs the Nazi's given all the post war turmoil with the USSR? The answer to that question is simple. The bfearsome might that was the allied war machine in 45 is a far different cry from 1941 before the US got into the war, almost as far different as from the allies that landed in North Africa, Scicily and Italy in 43. The Red Army was keeping millions of German troops locked in combat in the east. Without the USSR there is no D-Day. There is no massive effort until, maybe even no Italy until after Berlin gets nuked in late 45.The Germany war machine was just too big.

Likewise without the allies the Soviets might be able to win- I don't think so. But the cost is millions more lives lost. Without the allies the German force in the east is at least a 1/3 again bigger, and the Luftwaffe retains control of the skies.

The relationship between the Western Allies and the Soviet union was a marriage of convenience- both needed each other.

However in May 1945 the situation has changed- the Nazi's are gone, the Western Allies are peaking in their power and the Soviet Union is fought out. The Red Army remains huge and has never been more experienced, better led or better equipped during the war. But this is all smoke and mirrors. The vast reserve of untapped manpower is gone- its bones line the path back across Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine. What they have in Germany is just about all they in the way of real combat units. And those units are sitting in a bag and being fed by very thin and vulnerable supply line. Its best assault units are exhausted, 1 of 3 tanks that was around in January is now wrecked and the vast depots that sustained the drive on Berlin are used up.

The VVS which fought every bit as valiantly as the Red Army is huge by any standard excet that of the Western Allies. Its fighters which finally match German deigns are out classed by the west, its pilots have less training and less experience, its technicians and ,mechanics less skill and it can only fight at low-medium level. It has no ability to save the precious rail lines the Red Army depends on to feed itself- not from massed heavy bomber strikes. No the heavy bombers were not very accurate at hitting individual buildings. But rail lines are another matter entirely. So long as the lead bomber drops short- but not too short the creep of the barrage will walk across the tracks in a mile wide path of moon scape.

How fast can the Red Army fix that damage? 1 day, 3 days, more? The problem is the allied bombers can just keep coming and keep those rail lines dead. No food, no fuel, no new tanks or men, no ammunition to the Red Army in Europe. That equals starvation- the REd Army has about 2.3 million men in Germany- each one of them needs about 5,000 calories a day or 2.5lbs of high quality food give or take- combat toops need more rear area troops some what less. No rail and the Soviets cannot supply the 6 million pounds of food they need. That is just the food.

While the heavy bombers were wrecking the rail lines, the troops would be subjected to the dreaded jabos. The Allies can put more planes into each effort- interdiction and tactical strikes than the VVS has planes in total. I have no doubt the VVS would rise to meet the allies- but its just too big of an imbalance.

Spagnostic
09 Jun 09,, 14:09
I don't get why pro-US guys dont want to take into consideration that,USA had enough of the war at that time,like other western democracies?Would people of USA still had the will to keep fighting against a new but far better,far superior enemy than Germany+Japan of 1945 combined,which is some 10000 kms away?

And USA strategic bombings would have no effect on Soviet war effort,at least wouldnt effect the production and labor force would remain untouched,for they were deep behind Urals (some 300 km east of Moscow),which must be beyond range of even the b-29's.Also Soviet Russia and and her capabilities were unknown,in terms of intelligence,to westerners,unlike Germany,a country being shelled from air since 1940/1941.So in conclusion,high level AC would have little effect on Soviets military capabilities.When it came to CAS,Soviets had(granted, not as much as Allies) the experience and capability to inflict serious damage on Allies.BUt dont forget,Battle of Kursk was the biggest air battle of all times,which was focused on one thing,CAS.

Again,the gigantic losses of Soviet airforce and huge KDRs of Luftwaffe were a thing of pre 1943.They were reorganized,elit units were formed,more training hours per pilot were available.Why Germans still managed to conduct aerial assaults even in 1945?Well the Front itself was so huge to cover(up to 1500km from N to S).

One reason Russians lost so many soldiers tanks and AC was because,they were fighting at the doorstep of their capital,in their own soil.Soviets didnt have the luxury to harness the experience of their veteran troops like USA+UK did.Add the destroyed infrastructure to be repaired in West USSR,they had to finish the war as fast as they could,so they had the manpower and equipment in enormous numbers,they didnt care much about their losses on strategic level.

Since the fight with Allieds be on European soil,not Russian,i think those numbers and KDRs in general would have dramatically changed in favor of USSR(like it did after 1942-43).Since it'd have luxury like the US,to harness the experience of her troops.

And someone even mentioned m1-garand or grand whatever its called as a strategic asset, or western tankillers.

-Russians introduced first semi-auto rifles to their divisions in mass numbers starting from 1940/41(svt-40) which was more reliable than its US and German counterpart.

-Russians werent in dire need of Tankdestroyers,unlike Allies which were underpowered in Tank vs. Tank battles,despite the air superiority they had.Because Soviet tanks were, most of the time,capable of destroying the German zoo-class tanks with ease.Especially after introduction of IS-2,and even more powerful is-3.

Final question,what would the Allieds strategic objective would be with this "what if" war?Capturing Soviet capital and changing regime(impossible)?Pushing Soviets out of eastern Europe(would the cost and risk be worth the prize?)Soviets would still be at the doorstep of Europe,even after Allieds managed to accomplish their objectives...

P.S:Stop mentioning Land-Lease program.2 figures that is enough to judge whether it had an important effect.
Aircraft 14,795 Tanks 7,056(source wiki) sent in 4 years.Soviets lost 1000 tanks and 1000 AC in battle of the Kursk alone.Germans lost more than 1000 AC during the supply of 6th Army in Stalingrad etc..Also add that,Tanks were not up to Soviet standarts,and as AC they receieved were inferior,such as p-39 and p-40.

p.s2:About losses of VVS,more than %20 of those were due to noncombat incidents, mostly due to adverse weather conditions,just like the Luftwaffe suffered on Eastern front.I couldnt find the table/source i saw once,but the numbers were far greater than Allieds suffered on West.Maybe someone knows a link and posts it (ac losses other than combat on east)

jlvfr
09 Jun 09,, 14:13
One of my favorite "what ifs" regarding fighting Russia in WWII is Operation Iron Hammer/Eisenhammer:

Operation Eisenhammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eisenhammer)

Total stoppage of most of Russia's industry in a single raid or series of raids? Amazing, and the scary (for the Russians) is that it was feasible. The germans just ran out of time...

But, imagine the allies doing it. Combine it with a "normal" bombardement campaign, the stop of lend-lease and the stranding (by interdiction) of the best Red army in germany, and I think the USSR would have been in a seriously bad spot...

Course, the allies should also NOT make the mistake of going into Russia in winter! :tongue:

Oh, and the whole "why help russia" thing can, I think, be summed up by that old arab proverb:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Mihais
09 Jun 09,, 14:45
''Course, the allies should also NOT make the mistake of going into Russia in winter! ''
Get winter clothing and anti-freezer.:rolleyes:

Bigfella
09 Jun 09,, 14:48
Guys I think we misunderstood Gabriel, I don't percieve him arguing for the Nazi's at all.

Z,

I certainly didn't take what he said that way, but I have been reading variations on this for a few years now. Most are from people like Gabriel who are putting a genuine what if. I see most people on this board in that light. A few are from braindead anti-communists who have no understanding of history & the occasional one is from someone with a barely concealed desire for a Nazi victory. I decided to cover all my bases as best I could.

No offence intended to those with pure hearts.

Chunder
09 Jun 09,, 15:29
I don't get why pro-US guys dont want to take into consideration that,USA had enough of the war at that time,like other western democracies?Would people of USA still had the will to keep fighting against a new but far better,far superior enemy than Germany+Japan of 1945 combined,which is some 10000 kms away?


It's a what if. i.e British mistrust and plans to go after communism after the Nazi's. It's not actually based on end of war reality :).



And USA strategic bombings would have no effect on Soviet war effort,at least wouldnt effect the production and labor force would remain untouched,for they were deep behind Urals (some 300 km east of
Moscow),which must be beyond range of even the b-29's.

It's a long thread, I had to read it a couple of times before I understood what happened.

But at the fall of Berlin, you have several strategic situations changing somewhat dramatically.

Here are some of them:

1) All of the main soviet force is concentrated around Berlin & other population centers South of the Baltic. They are also depleted, they threw everything at the last Hurrah of Berlin.


2) Norway & Sweden are now Allied territory. The Baltic sea will be defacto Allied territory. The Allies can exert air & sea control over it. (Moscow & for that matter the Urals start to look a bit closer, not least when you consider the following:

3) British exert enough diplomatic control over Iran & Iraq (and for that matter Afghanistan) Enough to allow Deployment of Heavy bombers. (The Urals start to look decidedly within range now)

4) As a result of the Baltics situation & likely Iran Situation, the VVS will have to be split between Three Fronts.

5) Pacific Theatre troops being in part released for further operations.

6) A supply chain comming back online. Countries like Australia & NewZealand instead of supporting Pacific Operations can in part contribute to the operations. Nothing to be sneezed at, the RAAF had the fourth largest airforce by the end of the war, and an Agricultural sector dedicated to supporting an Empire at war.

7) Allies Ability to supply those forces in bulk, largely unhindered.


8) Atom Bomb.



Also Soviet Russia and and her capabilities were unknown,in terms of intelligence,to westerner unlike Germany,a country being shelled from air since 1940/1941.
The West will get all those defecting field officers from the Third Reich in return for protection, Not counting the amount of Poles ready to do anything to get rid of the Soviets.



So in conclusion,high level AC would have little effect on Soviets military capabilities.


The Allies get the Atomic Bomb... Drop that from any altitude and it's going to cause havoc. The Urals are within reach of Allied Bombers. The Allied Bombers and Interdiction planes can easily reach the red armies supply lines, which it relies on or it will starve. No matter what happens, the Soviets can not defend against this. Germany couldn't prevent bombers hitting their targets. Russia relies on a very small network of railway lines to supply the bulk of it's fighting force. All they have to do is quarantine areas of the baltic from the VVS, and create an illusion theres an invasion happening to cause this.


When it came to CAS,Soviets had(granted, not as much as Allies) the experience and capability to inflict serious damage on Allies.

Experience perhaps. But not the capability. They can't fly as high as allied bombers, I don't think any of their planes are as fast as the P-47, P-51, or Typhoon, Sea Fury (I stand corrected if so). They have no responce to the P-80, or the Meteor (not brilliant, but still ahead) They have limited fuel supplies because of the supply train needed to carry the fuel. All their strips of operation are well known...



BUt dont forget,Battle of Kursk was the biggest air battle of all times,which was focused on one thing,CAS. The air battle of kursk was disastrous in it's co-ordination.


Again,the gigantic losses of Soviet airforce and huge KDRs of Luftwaffe were a thing of pre 1943.They were reorganized,elit units were formed,more training hours per pilot were available.Why Germans still managed to conduct aerial assaults even in 1945?Well the Front itself was so huge to cover(up to 1500km from N to S).

No arguments there, - but you simply cant match the superior numbers, quality of the planes, the logistics of keeping the planes flying, and the fact that allied pilots have just as much flying & fighting expereince.


One reason Russians lost so many soldiers tanks and AC was because,they were fighting at the doorstep of their capital,in their own soil.Soviets didnt have the luxury to harness the experience of their veteran troops like USA+UK did.

There were plenty of reasons, perhaps top of them all as a good old Soviet Purge and Stalins over control...


Add the destroyed infrastructure to be repaired in West USSR,they had to finish the war as fast as they could,so they had the manpower and equipment in enormous numbers,they didnt care much about their losses on strategic level.

Means less to fight the allies when the war swaps to against communism, doesn't it?


Since the fight with Allieds be on European soil,not Russian,i think those numbers and KDRs in general would have dramatically changed in favor of USSR(like it did after 1942-43).
Since it'd have luxury like the US,to harness the experience of her troops.

Thats a what if. like most of this. Once your talking about the quality of the troops it's simply a pissing argument. What remains for the Russians, is a lot of territory to secure, a poorly fed army, and a numerically & platform inferior air arm, whoose fuel supplies rely in part on the west.



And someone even mentioned m1-garand or grand whatever its called as a strategic asset, or western tankillers.

-Russians introduced first semi-auto rifles to their divisions in mass numbers starting from 1940/41(svt-40) which was more reliable than its US and German counterpart.


Strategic one about the problems the Russians faced have little to do with the type of gun they are firing. All the guns in the world don't matter if they don't have the ammunition to fire at the troops, and the people pulling the trigger are not fed.



-Russians werent in dire need of Tankdestroyers,unlike Allies which were underpowered in Tank vs. Tank battles,despite the air superiority they had.Because Soviet tanks were, most of the time,capable of destroying the German zoo-class tanks with ease.Especially after introduction of IS-2,and even more powerful is-3.


I hope they concentrate them, and protect them well with aircover, because there is a whole host of allied planes out there looking for them.



Final question,what would the Allieds strategic objective would be with this "what if" war?Capturing Soviet capital and changing regime(impossible)?Pushing Soviets out of eastern Europe(would the cost and risk be worth the prize?)Soviets would still be at the doorstep of Europe,even after Allieds managed to accomplish their objectives...


Don't know, thats' not the what if scenario. Ask Churchill :).


P.S:Stop mentioning Land-Lease program.2 figures that is enough to judge whether it had an important effect.
Aircraft 14,795 Tanks 7,056(source wiki) sent in 4 years.Soviets lost 1000 tanks and 1000 AC in battle of the Kursk alone.Germans lost more than 1000 AC during the supply of 6th Army in Stalingrad etc..Also add that,Tanks were not up to Soviet standarts,and as AC they receieved were inferior,such as p-39 and p-40.

So your saying that 11.3 Billion 1940's Dollars did not help the Soviets at all?

None of that equipment will be working at all, because all of the Major oilfields and their supply network, is within bombing range.

I don't think we're pro U.S in that the 'U.S is going to haul ass'. We're just looking at the situation from Russias perspective and it looks bad. There wasn't any will for the Western allies to fight on, but had it been in the game plan, you can't overlook the Numbers of available manpower, the available logistics. The technological advantage, and the atomic bomb.

gabriel
09 Jun 09,, 16:29
Gabriel,

Others have had a bit of a go at this. I particularly want to tackle it because I have read quite a few posts by residents of former communist countries suggesting that a Nazi victory would have been preferable or no worse that what did happen. I'm not sure if those sort of thoughts are motivating your question, but I suspect they motivate some (others are just idiots with no understanding of history - you are definately not in that category). A very wise person once warned me 'do not ever put hindsight into forethought'. This sort of premise does that on a number of levels.

First a note on perspectives. There are many more people alive today who suffered under communism than did under Nazism. Memories of the horrors of Hitler are more remote, while many more people can connect to personal accounts of communist terror. Further, there are some parts of Eastern Europe whose limited experience of the Nazis was not nearly as unpleasant as their prolonged exposure to Communism. This often leaves Nazism as set of out of context numbers of people killed. I'm going to mix up here what the Allies knew at the time & what we know now to present as good a case as I can as to why siding with Stalin was right. History often forces poor choices, but I think this was by far the least worst.

The first and most obvious point here is that the Western Allies did not rush to associate themselves with the USSR. Indeed, there is a good case to suggest that had they been more amenable to an alliance with Stalin in the late 1930s Hitler would have been boxed in from the outset. As it was they tried to keep a distance from both dictatorships. While the British & French were in no hurry to confront the USSR once it invaded Poland they very nearly interevened in Finland & bombed the Caucases. The Alliance with Stalin was a reluctant one.

Why? Look at the situation in July 1941. Britain facing a triumphant Germany that now controls almost all of Western Europe AND the possibility of Japanese expansion. America is friendly but resolutely neutral (even in the face of ships being sunk by the Germans). What was Churchill to do? he was as resolute an anti-Communist as you are likely to find, but the enemy of mine enemy is very much my friend. When Japan & Germany weighed in against America Roosevelt was hardly going to turn up his nose at the only nation at that time capable of tying up the German Army. Logic alone dictated events.

Next, look at events from the perspective of the time. Germany had swpet all before it for 2 years and Japan had driven the Allies to the edge of their Pacific territories. With hindsight we can now see the gaping flaws in their respective militaries. At the time it was far from certain that Nazism & Japanese Imperialism could be beaten even with the USSR. Without it the task seemed impossible (and it may well have been in the case of the Nazis).

Then there is the strategic issue. Have a look at the relative positions of what would have been the Nazi Empire & what became the Communist Russian Empire. Look at access to industry, infrastructure, resources, oceans. Which is more dangerous? Remember that we didn't see a victorious Nazi Germany get a chance to consolidate its victories. We didn't see it get to properly exploit even the resources it did have. Try to imagine an entity with the population, resources & industrial potential of the USA ruled by Nazis. I don't know about you, but the idea of a Nazi equivalent to the postwar US Navy in addition to equivalents to the threats the real life USSR did pose absolutely terrifies me.

In the postwar world we saw the spread of communism. Some of this would happen no matter what took place in Europe. Indeed, a USSR pushed out of Europe would probably have turned East for more resources - no good news for China there. Most of the remaining communist gains in the postwar world came in former European colonies. If Germany beats Russia there will still be a Cold War - between Britian/US and Nazi Europe. Think of nationalists like Chandra Bose & others in the Middle East. Think of the creole elites of Latin America & even the nationalists of Africa & Asia. I'm betting a good many of those are prepared to take the Nazi coin, especially when its message of virulent & exclusive ethnic nationalism could be made so easily appealing. Look at the violence of some postwar nationalist regimes (Pakistan & Indonesia are a good start) and them scale up. We will never know if the death toll of nazi-inspired fascism/quasi-fascism would have exceeded communism outside China, but I'm betting it does.

Finally there is the question of the bodies. All those bodies. Have a look at nazi killing. it started with a small early purge in 1934, began to get more widespread & professional in 1938 & then took off once Russia was invaded. I don't have an exact figure on how many people the Nazis killed outside combat zones, but Jews & Russian POWs alone gets you close to 10 million. I suspect I could find a few million more without trying too hard. Remember , that is just in 4 years, and it is a regime largely preoccupied with war. We know that the Nazis planned to let tens of milions of Russians starve (their figures). The Naziz planned to clear swathes of Russia & Poland of their populations & reduce the remainder to slavery. There were still millions more Jews to kill, and then there were the likely responses to inevitable uprisings in different parts of Europe. There is no way to compare speculation to what Stalin actually did after 1945, but it looks worse to me. Further, a Nazi victory does not free a single Eastern European from dictatorship. The dictators may have been more papatable, but they might not. The Ustache & Arrow Cross were horrific as the regimes that followed them. Would the Iron Cross have been much better than the Communists?

I have gone on too long here, but I feel its an issue that deserves a decent treatment. I have probably missed a few things here & there, but I think the case for defeating Hitler, even at the expense of a victoriuos Stalin, was both the logical choice at the time and in hindsight.

Since i have bean accused of denying lend and lease and supporting nazis beliefs , let my stress something out:

1. The bulk of the foreign aid to the Soviet Union arrived AFTER the batle of Stalingrad, were our army's , the hungarians, the italians have bean
destroyed.
2. It it still possible for Germany to conclude a victory or stalemate in the east in 1943 but the chances are maybe 10-20 %.
3. At the time of the battle of Stalingrad , american armys were landing in North Africa and Montgomery was cutting down the Africa Armee.
4. The help directed toward the Soviet Union could be also used instead by american and british .

Regarding the Iron Guard , our army had put them down in January 1941.

gabriel
09 Jun 09,, 16:55
P.S:Stop mentioning Land-Lease program.2 figures that is enough to judge whether it had an important effect.
Aircraft 14,795 Tanks 7,056(source wiki) sent in 4 years.Soviets lost 1000 tanks and 1000 AC in battle of the Kursk alone.Germans lost more than 1000 AC during the supply of 6th Army in Stalingrad etc..Also add that,Tanks were not up to Soviet standarts,and as AC they receieved were inferior,such as p-39 and p-40.


It's not about tanks or aircrafts , it's about locomotives and trucks , they allowed the soviet to achieve the strategic mobility without which Bagration could never have happed.

jlvfr
09 Jun 09,, 17:00
It's not about tanks or aircrafts , it's about locomotives and trucks , they allowed the soviet to achieve the strategic mobility without which Bagration could never have happed.

Not to mention massive amounts of raw materials...

gabriel
09 Jun 09,, 18:06
. No the heavy bombers were not very accurate at hitting individual buildings. But rail lines are another matter entirely. So long as the lead bomber drops short- but not too short the creep of the barrage will walk across the tracks in a mile wide path of moon scape.


Sorry Z i don't buy it...

First of all that is a very narrow target:you have to attack it perpendicularly , if a box of bombers drops all of his bombs on the leader because of the separation between the bombers only the bombers in line with the leader would hit it .
Secondly how many bombers does it take to hit a power generation plant ?
and thats a huge target compared to a narrow track.
The damage to the rails could be repaired in less than a day .
During a ww2 bombing on my city , the bombers missed the marshaling area completely.

gunnut
09 Jun 09,, 19:15
I don't get why pro-US guys dont want to take into consideration that,USA had enough of the war at that time,like other western democracies?Would people of USA still had the will to keep fighting against a new but far better,far superior enemy than Germany+Japan of 1945 combined,which is some 10000 kms away?

You're right. We are completely ignoring the will to fight, on both sides. Americans and the western powers were tired of fighting. Then again, Soviets were as well. On top of that, the Russian people weren't exactly fans of Stalin. The initially greeted the Germans as liberators. Only when Germans started to slaughter them did they begin to fight. Western allies had no intention of slaughtering them. Think they would greet the western troops as liberators after Stalin and Hitler's regimes?



And USA strategic bombings would have no effect on Soviet war effort,at least wouldnt effect the production and labor force would remain untouched,for they were deep behind Urals (some 300 km east of Moscow),which must be beyond range of even the b-29's.Also Soviet Russia and and her capabilities were unknown,in terms of intelligence,to westerners,unlike Germany,a country being shelled from air since 1940/1941.So in conclusion,high level AC would have little effect on Soviets military capabilities.When it came to CAS,Soviets had(granted, not as much as Allies) the experience and capability to inflict serious damage on Allies.BUt dont forget,Battle of Kursk was the biggest air battle of all times,which was focused on one thing,CAS.

Those weapons were useless if they couldn't get to where they were needed.



Again,the gigantic losses of Soviet airforce and huge KDRs of Luftwaffe were a thing of pre 1943.They were reorganized,elit units were formed,more training hours per pilot were available.Why Germans still managed to conduct aerial assaults even in 1945?Well the Front itself was so huge to cover(up to 1500km from N to S).

Soviet air force might be big, but you should count the number of planes on the western front under the control of the allies.



One reason Russians lost so many soldiers tanks and AC was because,they were fighting at the doorstep of their capital,in their own soil.Soviets didnt have the luxury to harness the experience of their veteran troops like USA+UK did.Add the destroyed infrastructure to be repaired in West USSR,they had to finish the war as fast as they could,so they had the manpower and equipment in enormous numbers,they didnt care much about their losses on strategic level.

Soviets lost huge number of troops because of poor doctrine. Well, poor as in inefficient. Not poor if you wanted a war of attrition like Stalin and Hitler did. In this case, 2 egotistical maniacs were locked in an epic pissing contest.



-Russians werent in dire need of Tankdestroyers,unlike Allies which were underpowered in Tank vs. Tank battles,despite the air superiority they had.Because Soviet tanks were, most of the time,capable of destroying the German zoo-class tanks with ease.Especially after introduction of IS-2,and even more powerful is-3.

Ever noticed the US forces never had good anti air weapons? The reason is the USAAF/USAF is the best anti air weapon in the world. Same thing on the ground. By late 1944, there really was no need for dedicated anti-tank weapons on the ground. German troop concentrations were bombed. Tanks that survived were dealt with by fast moving medium tanks and tank destroyers. Soviet's doctrine of massing tanks, men, and artillery pieces in a prepared defensive "meat grinder" was really suicidal against overwhelming allied air power. Didn't matter how thick the armor was on an IS2, it wouldn't survive against 500lb bombs raining down from the sky.



Final question,what would the Allieds strategic objective would be with this "what if" war?Capturing Soviet capital and changing regime(impossible)?Pushing Soviets out of eastern Europe(would the cost and risk be worth the prize?)Soviets would still be at the doorstep of Europe,even after Allieds managed to accomplish their objectives...

Pushing for democratic reform? Set up a more western styled government? Wasn't that the purpose of western intervention in 1919 and 1920?



P.S:Stop mentioning Land-Lease program.2 figures that is enough to judge whether it had an important effect.
Aircraft 14,795 Tanks 7,056(source wiki) sent in 4 years.Soviets lost 1000 tanks and 1000 AC in battle of the Kursk alone.Germans lost more than 1000 AC during the supply of 6th Army in Stalingrad etc..Also add that,Tanks were not up to Soviet standarts,and as AC they receieved were inferior,such as p-39 and p-40.

Lend-Lease was very important. Soviet Union could not refine high octane avgas used by their fighters. They had to use ours. What would happen if we cut that off and Soviet fighters all of a sudden lost 20% horsepower?

astralis
09 Jun 09,, 19:39
gunnut,


Pushing for democratic reform? Set up a more western styled government? Wasn't that the purpose of western intervention in 1919 and 1920?


no, it was just to keep the commies from taking over. oops.

gunnut
09 Jun 09,, 20:16
gunnut,

no, it was just to keep the commies from taking over. oops.

So the same goal, just expanded a bit on the scale.

astralis
09 Jun 09,, 20:44
gunnut,


So the same goal, just expanded a bit on the scale.

no, vastly more so. the USSR underwent massive militarization, industrialization, and urbanization since 1918-1919, with major political opposition to the communists crushed. western intervention in 1918-1919 meant protecting western interests, occasionally foraying out to deal with the commies/cooperate with the white armies.

wouldn't have that in 1945 or 1946. i can imagine military defeat stopping the soviets and stripping away their control of most of eastern europe, but as the allies went further east they'd be hitting against stronger resistance, simply due to greater level of political indoctrination.

in a very optimistic scenario i can even see the western powers driving into moscow or even the urals but the insurgency would be more than a b*tch and a half. there would be so much space the allies simply would not have enough manpower to secure the area, allowing for russian infiltrators.

the fall of the USSR in 1991 did a better job of dismembering the soviet union than the allies would have done in 1946 (even if they were so inclined). these days even ukraine wants in on NATO, which basically gives US/NATO the boundaries of the third reich of roughly september 1941 :biggrin:

gunnut
09 Jun 09,, 21:44
the fall of the USSR in 1991 did a better job of dismembering the soviet union than the allies would have done in 1946 (even if they were so inclined). these days even ukraine wants in on NATO, which basically gives US/NATO the boundaries of the third reich of roughly september 1941 :biggrin:

I agree. But we waited an extra 45 years for the Soviet Union to crumble and another 15 to incorporate former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.

It all could have happened in the late 1940s...:P

Bigfella
09 Jun 09,, 22:07
Since i have bean accused of denying lend and lease and supporting nazis beliefs

Not by me.


Regarding the Iron Guard , our army had put them down in January 1941

I'm sure the germans would have found some likeminded individuals to run the country on their behalf if the government ever became too independent-minded.

jlvfr
09 Jun 09,, 22:57
I agree. But we waited an extra 45 years for the Soviet Union to crumble and another 15 to incorporate former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.

It all could have happened in the late 1940s...:P

I don't think so... within a few years after WWII, the western military were shadows of their former selfs. The UK's economy was a shambles and the US was too preocupied with getting it's troops back home. Remember, both had to scramble and scrape to be able to send troops to Korea. I remember reading about one US scrap dealer who bought dozens of planes and engines almost literally a few dollars a dozen, and then made a fortune selling them back to the USAAF/USN at the start of the korean war...

The way I see it, the allies had a shot at the USSR in 45 and 46. They were at their peak, the french were fired up by war enthusiasm, which made them a good pool of recruits, the germans were terrified of the russians, which also made them a good pool of recruits and they had good intel on russian tactics and equipment, and the Red Army/air force were at their lowest in terms of reserves, supplies and material rediness.

But, after 46? I'd say all bets are off...

Mihais
09 Jun 09,, 23:44
I'm sure the germans would have found some likeminded individuals to run the country on their behalf if the government ever became too independent-minded.

They tried hard.They found none.Any attempt to try a regime change would have been met by force,as it was the case in August 1944.Preparations for such an alternative started much earlier.We weren't Italy.
Perhaps you are not aware that negociations with the Allies conducted at Cairo,Stockholm and Ankara were carried out in large measure by leaders of the former democratic parties.These were as pro-western in their opinions as they can be.They had the mandate and approval from Antonescu's government.These leaders were deceived by the Allies about their deals with the Soviets,until it was to late but to submit to the USSR.Among their sugestions to the Allies was to send a small number of Allied paratroopers to allow a formal ''surrender'' to Britain and US. Hitler demanded their arrest and execution only to be refused and diplomatically told to mind his own business.
In the end,will all the respect,I sugest you to read some more on the regions history,with all it's subtlety,before putting your shiny armour and mounting the white horse.

p.s
''We will never know if the death toll of nazi-inspired fascism/quasi-fascism would have exceeded communism outside China, but I'm betting it does.''

That's a bet I would never want to win.
p.p.s For all the interpretations and different pov's about what happened almost 70 years ago,today we are good allies where the real fight is.

zraver
10 Jun 09,, 00:25
Sorry Z i don't buy it...

First of all that is a very narrow target:you have to attack it perpendicularly , if a box of bombers drops all of his bombs on the leader because of the separation between the bombers only the bombers in line with the leader would hit it .
Secondly how many bombers does it take to hit a power generation plant ?
and thats a huge target compared to a narrow track.
The damage to the rails could be repaired in less than a day .
During a ww2 bombing on my city , the bombers missed the marshaling area completely.

1. you attack across the track in a bomber stream a mile wide. every break has to be repaired.

2. Every train stopped- stops every train behind it. Those stopped trains are now dead meat for the returning escort fighters (VVS being at the front) who are now masters at locomotive busting

3. every dead locomotive has to be repaired before any train behind it can go.

4. Every train in front of the bombing can't get back to reload until the track is fixed, and if the marshaling yard end up full up you may have trains that unload at all.

The effects stack on top of one another in a cascade of bad news.

gunnut
10 Jun 09,, 00:47
I don't think so... within a few years after WWII, the western military were shadows of their former selfs. The UK's economy was a shambles and the US was too preocupied with getting it's troops back home. Remember, both had to scramble and scrape to be able to send troops to Korea. I remember reading about one US scrap dealer who bought dozens of planes and engines almost literally a few dollars a dozen, and then made a fortune selling them back to the USAAF/USN at the start of the korean war...

The way I see it, the allies had a shot at the USSR in 45 and 46. They were at their peak, the french were fired up by war enthusiasm, which made them a good pool of recruits, the germans were terrified of the russians, which also made them a good pool of recruits and they had good intel on russian tactics and equipment, and the Red Army/air force were at their lowest in terms of reserves, supplies and material rediness.

But, after 46? I'd say all bets are off...

I agree. There was a very narrow window of opportunity, probably before the middle of 1946, in which the allies could launch a campaign against the Soviet Union. After that, people just wanted to go home and get on with their lives.

Also remember, had this happened, there would probably not be a Korean War. It would be replaced by the 2nd Great Patriotic War. :))

zraver
10 Jun 09,, 00:48
I don't get why pro-US guys dont want to take into consideration that,USA had enough of the war at that time,like other western democracies?Would people of USA still had the will to keep fighting against a new but far better,far superior enemy than Germany+Japan of 1945 combined,which is some 10000 kms away?

Same gores for the Soviets- this is a what if.


And USA strategic bombings would have no effect on Soviet war effort,at least wouldnt effect the production and labor force would remain untouched,for they were deep behind Urals (some 300 km east of Moscow),which must be beyond range of even the b-29's.

All the production in the world won't matter if it can't get from the Urals to the battlefield.



Also Soviet Russia and and her capabilities were unknown,in terms of intelligence,to westerners,unlike Germany,a country being shelled from air since 1940/1941.So in conclusion,high level AC would have little effect on Soviets military capabilities.

Wrong, in 1945 Russia and Europe are linked by precious few rail lines, cut those lines and the Red Army starves.


When it came to CAS,Soviets had(granted, not as much as Allies) the experience and capability to inflict serious damage on Allies.BUt dont forget,Battle of Kursk was the biggest air battle of all times,which was focused on one thing,CAS.

1. the battle of Kursk was not the biggest airbattle. Big Week Over Berlin was.


Again,the gigantic losses of Soviet airforce and huge KDRs of Luftwaffe were a thing of pre 1943.

Actually pre-44. The VVS did not gain ascendancy until the Luftwaffe was pulled out to defend the Reich. Even then when the Luftwaffe showed up the VVS died. vs the inferior in numbers Finnish Airforce flying obsolete planes the VVS died. Pilot skill in the VVS a few notable exception not withstanding- SUCKED.


They were reorganized,elit units were formed,more training hours per pilot were available.Why Germans still managed to conduct aerial assaults even in 1945?Well the Front itself was so huge to cover(up to 1500km from N to S).

The rank and file Soviet pilot sucked.


One reason Russians lost so many soldiers tanks and AC was because,they were fighting at the doorstep of their capital,in their own soil.Soviets didnt have the luxury to harness the experience of their veteran troops like USA+UK did.Add the destroyed infrastructure to be repaired in West USSR,they had to finish the war as fast as they could,so they had the manpower and equipment in enormous numbers,they didnt care much about their losses on strategic level.

Which means those same veteran troops just got done fighting for Berlin and are not deep in the USSR training men who don't exist.


Since the fight with Allieds be on European soil,not Russian,i think those numbers and KDRs in general would have dramatically changed in favor of USSR(like it did after 1942-43).Since it'd have luxury like the US,to harness the experience of her troops.

Not jsut the cream of the crop, but the whole crop is outside Berlin and in the bag. Nor does Europe mean anything. The base of the US and UK remain untouchable.


And someone even mentioned m1-garand or grand whatever its called as a strategic asset, or western tankillers.

-Russians introduced first semi-auto rifles to their divisions in mass numbers starting from 1940/41(svt-40) which was more reliable than its US and German counterpart.

Source? The M1 Garand is widely almost universally considered to be the best battle rifle of WWII. One other major point- Every US rifleman had one not just elite units. The US unlike the Germans used the machine gun and submachine gun to support the Rifleman.


-Russians werent in dire need of Tankdestroyers,unlike Allies which were underpowered in Tank vs. Tank battles,

The T-34/85 vs M4A3E8 or T-34/76 vs M4A1(75) has been done to death the tanks were about Equal. The Russians were outclassed vs the German armor every bit as badly as the Western Allies and the loss rate of Soviet tanks lost vs German tank lost is worse.



despite the air superiority they had.Because Soviet tanks were, most of the time,capable of destroying the German zoo-class tanks with ease.Especially after introduction of IS-2,and even more powerful is-3.

The IS-3 did not see combat in the West. The IS was powerful but in limited numbers and a very slow rate of fire. It presented roughly the same problems are the King Tiger. Luckily for the Allies in 45 the Pershing and Centurion/Comet are beginning to arrive enmasse


Final question,what would the Allieds strategic objective would be with this "what if" war?Capturing Soviet capital and changing regime(impossible)?Pushing Soviets out of eastern Europe(would the cost and risk be worth the prize?)Soviets would still be at the doorstep of Europe,even after Allieds managed to accomplish their objectives...

Liberate Poland, react to a Soviet attack, take Berlin, kill communist what ever its a what if.


P.S:Stop mentioning Land-Lease program.2 figures that is enough to judge whether it had an important effect.
Aircraft 14,795 Tanks 7,056(source wiki) sent in 4 years.Soviets lost 1000 tanks and 1000 AC in battle of the Kursk alone.Germans lost more than 1000 AC during the supply of 6th Army in Stalingrad etc..Also add that,Tanks were not up to Soviet standarts,and as AC they receieved were inferior,such as p-39 and p-40.

The P-39 was a brutal low level fighter and the P-40 was better than what the Soviets could make at that time. More important are the supplies and trucks. Almost all Soviet 4x4/4x6 trucks,1/2 their artillery ammunition, 90% of their TNT, almost all of their high octane av-gas were allied supplied.


p.s2:About losses of VVS,more than %20 of those were due to noncombat incidents, mostly due to adverse weather conditions,just like the Luftwaffe suffered on Eastern front.I couldnt find the table/source i saw once,but the numbers were far greater than Allieds suffered on West.Maybe someone knows a link and posts it (ac losses other than combat on east)

Even minus 20% the VVS still has 50,000 planes lost in combat....

Tarek Morgen
10 Jun 09,, 00:55
1. the battle of Kursk was not the biggest airbattle. Big Week Over Berlin was.

was the air battle for berlin not considered the last victory for the nazis? (Or rather failure for the allies)

zraver
10 Jun 09,, 01:55
was the air battle for berlin not considered the last victory for the nazis? (Or rather failure for the allies)

Not at all, the Nazi's could not control the skies over their own capitol- thousands upon thousands of allied aircraft day and night. The bombing was so bad that Berlin women had a saying after the war: Better a Russian in the bed, than an American on the head.

Triple C
10 Jun 09,, 03:42
was the air battle for berlin not considered the last victory for the nazis? (Or rather failure for the allies)

No. Maybe you are thinking about the first American daylight bombing raids in the combined strategic bombing offensive of early 1942 that was repulsed under heavily losses from both sides. The Big Week of February 1944 was a triumph. The offensive broke Luftwaffe's backbone, thereafter the Allied forces owned German skies and bombed its targets at will.

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 04:15
1. you attack across the track in a bomber stream a mile wide.


zraver

It does not work that way :
No matter how wide is the bomber formation , the target is still narrow ,the separation alone warrants a miss.

398th Bomb Group Combat Formations By Wally Blackwell, Pilot 601st Squadron December 2003 (http://www.398th.org/Research/8th_AF_Formations_Description.html)

P.s.
It took a hole bomber wing to get a hit inside a power generation plant.

Ironduke
10 Jun 09,, 04:34
Not at all, the Nazi's could not control the skies over their own capitol- thousands upon thousands of allied aircraft day and night. The bombing was so bad that Berlin women had a saying after the war: Better a Russian in the bed, than an American on the head.
Rhymes nicely in English, but it wouldn't in German. Besser einer Russischer im Bett, als einer Amerikanischer auf den Kopf. Might have been made up by an American or Briton. Generally the saying went "Enjoy the war - the peace will be terrible."

Chunder
10 Jun 09,, 06:02
zraver

It does not work that way :
No matter how wide is the bomber formation , the target is still narrow ,the separation alone warrants a miss.

398th Bomb Group Combat Formations By Wally Blackwell, Pilot 601st Squadron December 2003 (http://www.398th.org/Research/8th_AF_Formations_Description.html)

P.s.
It took a hole bomber wing to get a hit inside a power generation plant.


I don't get what the problem is. You don't even need heavy bombers to hit the railway lines... P 47's and P-51's & Corsairs are just as able..

It's not just fixing the track either. You have to remove the locomotive from the line....

Infact because the area is so sparsely settled, Special Forces can cause more havoc than what you could dream of. Pulling out spikes....

Just go target the bridges! Edit: Or Cuttings, or ground in a state of thaw. Plenty of ways to create havoc with a railway track.

Mihais
10 Jun 09,, 06:39
You'll also have a huge number of battle hardened partisans on your disposal.RE bridges,weren't smart weapons used in Burma to attack them?

Chunder
10 Jun 09,, 06:50
You'll also have a huge number of battle hardened partisans on your disposal.RE bridges,weren't smart weapons used in Burma to attack them?

Define Smart weapons. The first use of smart weapon against a bridge that I know of was the LGB in Vietnam against the Thanh Hoa Bridge. I only used the bridge example, of how serious an attack against a railway line can get. It takes something dramatic like that 'Oh no we have to build a bridge, that is serious'. It's not taken into account that a train comming across a cutting thats been collapsed by bomb/rocket attack in the middle of nowhere will take potentially weeks to restore movement to the line - and that the area will be under incessant attack because the enemy will know there will be personell there trying to repair it. Or that pulling spikes means a train has to travel at a snail pace to check over the line. The partisans comment is also interesting as well, as it's very true, you don't even need special forces to pull spikes.

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 06:50
I don't get what the problem is.

circular error probable.


You don't even need heavy bombers to hit the railway lines... P 47's and P-51's & Corsairs are just as able..

P 47's and P-51's & Corsairs don't carry as much punch as a heavy bomber,
a bomber can drop bombs above small/medium FLAK effective range; fighters don't.


It's not just fixing the track either. You have to remove the locomotive from the line....

During the logistical build up for the Battle of the Bulge , all german rail traffic took place at night or in bad weather.


Just go target the bridges!

A bridge is even harder to hit than a rail track because:

1. it has more and better flak coverage.
2. it is not much more wider than the tracks.
3. unlike a rail track which is based almost on flat terrain, it's several meters above water, the height factor makes ballistic targeting more complicated.
(look up the attack on Thanh Hoa Bridge )

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 06:55
The first use of smart weapon against a bridge that I know of was the LGB in Vietnam against the Thanh Hoa Bridge.

:tongue:

Mihais
10 Jun 09,, 07:22
Radio controlled AZON bombs were used both in Burma and in Europe.IIRC they were launched from B24's.So you can have air attacks while SF and partisans can conduct BDA's.The partisans are spread from river Elba to Lithuania and Ukraine.That's ~ 1000km of vulnerable rails.The Lithuanian partisans historically lasted the longest,until mid 50's,but they were present everywhere.Drop them some supplies and the Red Army has to divert vast resources only to guard its rear.The LOC's in the South have to cross Carpathian passes from Ukraine to Hungary.Unconventional warfare is even easier to conduct in such a rough terrain.The same is true in Romania.

Chunder
10 Jun 09,, 08:15
circular error probable.

P 47's and P-51's & Corsairs don't carry as much punch as a heavy bomber,
a bomber can drop bombs above small/medium FLAK effective range; fighters don't.


But they are able to bomb in a Dive with much greater accuracy just like A20,s A26's, B25's... Unless your entire rail network is covered by such effective flack



During the logistical build up for the Battle of the Bulge , all german rail traffic took place at night or in bad weather.


Didn't they still need to repair the tracks though? didn't the battle only last for a month, vs a protracted strategic war being waged by the western allies?



A bridge is even harder to hit than a rail track because:

1. it has more and better flak coverage.
2. it is not much more wider than the tracks.
3. unlike a rail track which is based almost on flat terrain, it's several meters above water, the height factor makes ballistic targeting more complicated.
(look up the attack on Thanh Hoa Bridge )
It was extremely hard to target the bridge. Thats why LGB's were used... Anyhow, you don't even need to target the bridge... Don't think railway tracks had much flack coverage. Would tie up too many resources. Bomb embankments. Nothing like removing a few thousand tonnes of soil in the middle of nowhere to really inconvenience your day :)

Officer of Engineers
10 Jun 09,, 08:24
Nothing like removing a few thousand tonnes of soil in the middle of nowhere to really inconvenience your day :)Easier said than done. The best targets are the engineers themselves.

Tarek Morgen
10 Jun 09,, 12:18
Not at all, the Nazi's could not control the skies over their own capitol- thousands upon thousands of allied aircraft day and night. The bombing was so bad that Berlin women had a saying after the war: Better a Russian in the bed, than an American on the head.

I never heard that saying before. What is still used today is to describe sunny weather as "bombing weather", or a party that is going well in "bombing mood" and anything that is succesful, like a movie, is called to had an "impact like a bomb".


No. Maybe you are thinking about the first American daylight bombing raids in the combined strategic bombing offensive of early 1942 that was repulsed under heavily losses from both sides. The Big Week of February 1944 was a triumph. The offensive broke Luftwaffe's backbone, thereafter the Allied forces owned German skies and bombed its targets at will.

The battle of Berlin - Issue 25 - Wartime: official magazine of the Australian War Memorial (http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/25/article.asp)

gives a somewhat different opinion.

zraver
10 Jun 09,, 12:48
zraver

It does not work that way :
No matter how wide is the bomber formation , the target is still narrow ,the separation alone warrants a miss.

398th Bomb Group Combat Formations By Wally Blackwell, Pilot 601st Squadron December 2003 (http://www.398th.org/Research/8th_AF_Formations_Description.html)

P.s.
It took a hole bomber wing to get a hit inside a power generation plant.

Gabreil, the track forms 1 part of the + the Bomber stream forms the part of the + where the two meet the track goes away. Each bomb might have a very low chance of hitting the track/roadbead but you are talking thousands of bombs. You don't even need direct hits- if you an disrupt/weaken the roadbed and cause the track to be uneven- it has to be repaired. Hit the track and it has to be repaired- each and every hit on the road bed or track stops the trains.

zraver
10 Jun 09,, 13:03
I never heard that saying before. What is still used today is to describe sunny weather as "bombing weather", or a party that is going well in "bombing mood" and anything that is succesful, like a movie, is called to had an "impact like a bomb".



The battle of Berlin - Issue 25 - Wartime: official magazine of the Australian War Memorial (http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/25/article.asp)

gives a somewhat different opinion.

A one sided and misguided opinion. RAF Bomber Command took a beating, no doubt about it, by the end of the war the Luftwaffe air defenses were causing the bombers as many losses at night than the Americans took by day on a bad raid.

But the American bombers forced the Luftwaffe to fight- and die over Germany after it forced them out of France, not over allied troops landing in Normandy or even over German cities like Aachen when the allies got there. The combination of day/night bombing also locked away thousands of high velocity guns, tens of thousands of men, and millions of shells besides the fighters no longer covering the German Army.

Bigfella
10 Jun 09,, 14:55
They tried hard.They found none.Any attempt to try a regime change would have been met by force,as it was the case in August 1944.Preparations for such an alternative started much earlier.We weren't Italy.
Perhaps you are not aware that negociations with the Allies conducted at Cairo,Stockholm and Ankara were carried out in large measure by leaders of the former democratic parties.These were as pro-western in their opinions as they can be.They had the mandate and approval from Antonescu's government.These leaders were deceived by the Allies about their deals with the Soviets,until it was to late but to submit to the USSR.Among their sugestions to the Allies was to send a small number of Allied paratroopers to allow a formal ''surrender'' to Britain and US. Hitler demanded their arrest and execution only to be refused and diplomatically told to mind his own business.
In the end,will all the respect,I sugest you to read some more on the regions history,with all it's subtlety,before putting your shiny armour and mounting the white horse.

First, spare me the lecture. I am no expert in Eastern European history, but I suspect I have at least as good a grasp of the subtleties of history as you, perhaps better.

Second, I have no idea what you are talking about what the armour & horses, but I suspect you are well wide of the mark.

Third, do you really have any doubt that a victorious Hitler would have been able to impose any government he chose on the nations within his reach? Further, do you doubt that he would have found willing collaborators in any of those nations? The only real question was what it was worth to him to do so. This is no insult or attempt to impugn national character, simply a realistic observation about the position any regime within the Nazi sphere of control. What Hitler was able to do given the contingencies of war can at best be taken as a partial indication of what he might have been able to do without such distractions.




p.s
''We will never know if the death toll of nazi-inspired fascism/quasi-fascism would have exceeded communism outside China, but I'm betting it does.''

That's a bet I would never want to win.
p.p.s For all the interpretations and different pov's about what happened almost 70 years ago,today we are good allies where the real fight is

Since you don't have a nation indicated I'm not sure who 'we' is, but I'm happy to have you on board.

If you are Romanian I would have preferred a firm & useful alliance against Nazism and Communism in the late 1930s, but from what I can work out the Western Allies lacked the committment required to make it work. Hope we make a better fist of it this time.:)

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 15:38
... Don't think railway tracks had much flack coverage.
probably not

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 15:47
Gabreil, the track forms 1 part of the + the Bomber stream forms the part of the + where the two meet the track goes away. Each bomb might have a very low chance of hitting the track/roadbead but you are talking thousands of bombs. You don't even need direct hits- if you an disrupt/weaken the roadbed and cause the track to be uneven- it has to be repaired. Hit the track and it has to be repaired- each and every hit on the road bed or track stops the trains.

There would be hits.But what i am saying is that is not cost efective to do it.

Mihais
10 Jun 09,, 16:21
Lecture-a speech read or delivered before an audience or class, esp. for instruction or to set forth some subject.

What's wrong with it?I was reminded something from yours,you learned something new from mine.

''Third, do you really have any doubt that a victorious Hitler would have been able to impose any government he chose on the nations within his reach?''

None.

''The only real question was what it was worth to him to do so''.

In my view none or almost none.If you wish we can debate the issue separately.

''Since you don't have a nation indicated I'm not sure who 'we' is, but I'm happy to have you on board. ''

Corrected.Good to be aboard.

''If you are Romanian I would have preferred a firm & useful alliance against Nazism and Communism in the late 1930s, but from what I can work out the Western Allies lacked the committment required to make it work. Hope we make a better fist of it this time.''

I wish you were PM instead of Chamberlain.:biggrin:

What disturbed me was your comment about hidden Nazi sympathies among some Eastern Europeans.That requires some details.At the time,the vast majority of E Europeans wanted a German victory against Communism,while in the same time wanting a German defeat at the hands of Western Allies.That mindset may have been transmitted to more recent times,but it's not nazism.It's a dilemma analogous to Churchill's problem,like it or not.The fact that the Nazis choose to be murderous bastards instead of liberating crusaders likely cost them the war in the East,and it's not the fault of E Europeans,although we have our share of sins.In the words of a wiser man ''it was more than murder,it was a mistake''.

Another remark that touched a sensitive cord was the one about ''brain-dead anticommunists''.First of all it's an oxymoron.Second,I doubt you'll ever tell a Jew a braindead anti-nazi.I won't take it as an insult because I realize you were not malevolent.

Finally you have a virtual glass of wine on my part,to settle any issue remaining.

jlvfr
10 Jun 09,, 17:29
Why is anyone talking about "bombing tracks" anyway? What's the point?

Before D-Day the allies bombed bridges, stations, turnpoints, repair yards and bridges all over western and north France. And fighter bombers went locomotive hunting. Not one bombed tracks. What's the point? They are easily repairable.

The only track-blowing was done by the resistence, but that was for specific reasons: to derail a specific train, to slow down a troop movement, etc.

Dreadnought
10 Jun 09,, 18:04
After D-Day and when closing in on Japans home islands it became the BB's job of tearing up RR tracks and marshalling yards, bridges and tunnels. Funny though as it carried over into the Korea War as well and even the Vietnam War.

gunnut
10 Jun 09,, 18:12
After D-Day and when closing in on Japans home islands it became the BB's job of tearing up RR tracks and marshalling yards, bridges and tunnels. Funny though as it carried over into the Korea War as well and even the Vietnam War.

What I find amazing was that US battleships were shelling Japanese harbors and there were thousand plane raids by the carrier forces, in addition to B-29s firebombing Japanese cities. We normally only hear about the B-29s and eventually the atomic bombs.

Dreadnought
10 Jun 09,, 18:42
What I find amazing was that US battleships were shelling Japanese harbors and there were thousand plane raids by the carrier forces, in addition to B-29s firebombing Japanese cities. We normally only hear about the B-29s and eventually the atomic bombs.

Yes Gun, when Leyte was over the task force that emerged after refuelling and rearming was by no doubt the most concentrated Naval firepower on the face of the earth. Although we cannot leave out the Brits as KGV was among others in the van and did her job as well and as well the cruisers that were attached.

Chunder
10 Jun 09,, 19:21
Why is anyone talking about "bombing tracks" anyway? What's the point?

Before D-Day the allies bombed bridges, stations, turnpoints, repair yards and bridges all over western and north France. And fighter bombers went locomotive hunting. Not one bombed tracks. What's the point? They are easily repairable.

The only track-blowing was done by the resistence, but that was for specific reasons: to derail a specific train, to slow down a troop movement, etc.

*sigh*...

It's a what if thread...

In as simple as possible terms: There is an argument that the Soviets will be able to beat back the west. there is a counter argument that the soviets face too many disadvantages. One of those being a foward deployed army, reliant on the shipment of food & ammo by rail.


Not one bombed tracks. What's the point? They are easily repairable. I have a few editions of TakeOff devoted to covering the attacks on rail networds in all manner of forms. From shooting up switching station to bombing points. I wouldn't mention it if I didn't read about it. I don't consider myself an armchair general. Just im am a vorocious reader. Now your saying something didn't happen which did happen...


Railway tracks are not easily repairable. You need to have a ready supply of engineering equipment that can be bought to the site and a railway gang thats good at cut and shut work. You need to be fast and efficient @ doing it, because you don't want to be caught with your pants down fixing it. Chances are the planes will be back the next day traiin hunting all over again.

You may need to get a Dozer out there, some fill some metal, some new tracks, sleepers as well, compact it down. If it's a cutting they will definitely need to get a dozer out there. once the dirt is out of the way they will need to stabilize the cutting. They need to do it before another set of planes arrive because the dozer they've got is probably the only one available anyrate... And don't get caught because whilst everyone likes to make light work about army engineering, nobody else will do it, so if they get killed doing it, your stuffed. If you have air superiority allied doctrine was to assign a ground attack squadron a 'sector'. Anything & everything in that sector was fair game. Meaning decision making was done at a squadron level. Even bent or buckled tracks means a derailed train and a few days to get it on the rails again. This makes movement extremely slow & vulnerable between the nodes.

Just a casual observation but since OOE has dropped by maybe he could set us straight on the things needed.

Mihais
10 Jun 09,, 19:37
What I find amazing was that US battleships were shelling Japanese harbors and there were thousand plane raids by the carrier forces, in addition to B-29s firebombing Japanese cities. We normally only hear about the B-29s and eventually the atomic bombs.

Wasn't moving that close to Japanese shore defense an abnormally high risk?

I admit I know almost nothing about that phase of the naval operations in the Pacific.

Parihaka
10 Jun 09,, 19:46
This is a Tallboy attack against the Saumur tunnel, totally blocking it.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/t_images/3121-48.jpg

2 direct hits out of twelve, not bad....

http://www.dambusters.org.uk/images/internal.jpg

The Germans got it cleared just in time for the invading allies to use it.

Parihaka
10 Jun 09,, 19:52
12/13 July 1944

378 Lancasters and 7 Mosquitos of Nos 1, 5 and 8 Groups attacked railway targets at Culmont, Revigny and Tours. Culmont and Tours were accurately bombed but cloud interfered with the all-No 1 Group raid at Revigny and only half of the force bombed. 10 Lancasters were lost on the Revigny raid and 2 on the Culmont raid.


Culmont Railway Depot
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/3121-08.jpg

Parihaka
10 Jun 09,, 20:01
I could show you some rather astonishing shots of the pinpoint bombing of various targets or the more generalised effects of wide area bombing such as marshalling yards, but take it from me, without strong air defence the allies would have made short work of the Russian rail system.

jlvfr
10 Jun 09,, 20:04
Railway tracks are not easily repairable. You need to have a ready supply of engineering equipment that can be bought to the site and a railway gang thats good at cut and shut work. You need to be fast and efficient @ doing it, because you don't want to be caught with your pants down fixing it. Chances are the planes will be back the next day traiin hunting all over again.


Ok, my bad. I should have said "a lot more repairable that stations and such"

Blowing up stations and yards is a lot more eficient, and some may take months to repair...

Parihaka
10 Jun 09,, 20:07
Sorry, just one more

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/saumur3.jpg

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 20:14
Culmont Railway Depot



Sir
It's the same Culmont as Culmont near Chalindrey France ?

Mihais
10 Jun 09,, 20:34
12/13 July 1944

378 Lancasters and 7 Mosquitos of Nos 1, 5 and 8 Groups attacked railway targets at Culmont, Revigny and Tours. Culmont and Tours were accurately bombed but cloud interfered with the all-No 1 Group raid at Revigny and only half of the force bombed. 10 Lancasters were lost on the Revigny raid and 2 on the Culmont raid.


Culmont Railway Depot
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/3121-08.jpg

A picture speaks more than a thousand words.Case closed.Good bye Russian rails

Parihaka
10 Jun 09,, 20:38
Sir
It's the same Culmont as Culmont near Chalindrey France ?

Couldn't tell you for certain but there seems to be only one Culmont on google maps and it has a marshalling yard (although closer to Chalindrey) so I'd expect it was the very same. Do you know the place?

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 21:06
Couldn't tell you for certain but there seems to be only one Culmont on google maps and it has a marshalling yard (although closer to Chalindrey) so I'd expect it was the very same. Do you know the place?

No, but i have sean the picture before somewhere and it was called Chalindrey.

gabriel
10 Jun 09,, 21:46
A picture speaks more than a thousand words.Case closed.Good bye Russian rails

Never claimed that marshaling yards could not be hit.




That's not a easy target to hit from high altitude.Many such targets were hit repeatedly during the strategic bombing offensive.

Parihaka
10 Jun 09,, 23:16
No, but i have sean the picture before somewhere and it was called Chalindrey.

Ah ok. The quote I pasted with it was taken from the daily diary of RAF bomber command, I guess they had a reason to call it Culmont rather than Chalindrey

zraver
11 Jun 09,, 00:32
Why is anyone talking about "bombing tracks" anyway? What's the point?

Special strategic circumstances, unlike France and Germany with large well developed rail netowkrs running on the same guage through out. In May 1945 the Red Army and VVS depend on a just a few lines running from the Source of production (USSR) to the front (Germany/Eastern Europe). If those tracks are cut the Red Army and VVS already low on supplies since the opening of the Vistula offensive and the final push to Berlin will starve.


Before D-Day the allies bombed bridges, stations, turnpoints, repair yards and bridges all over western and north France. And fighter bombers went locomotive hunting. Not one bombed tracks. What's the point? They are easily repairable.

Tracks are not easily repairable in they are bombed in the middle of nowhere. The earth has to be soothed out, gravel brought in to rebuild the road bed, debris cleared etc. if you hit the line before its been converted to the Soviet gauge then the Soviets have to find rails.

Once the line is down, every train on that line is stopped- here come the returning escort fighters putting .5 cal rounds into boilers. Now every train so hit has to be repaired. The only source ready to hand shows the Soviets needed thousands of trains to prepare for Bagration. It seems to follow that heavy combat is heavy combat and it will take just as many trains to keep the Red Army supplied. If they can't get the supplies their numbers do not matter.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 05:14
THe next question is about the most economical way to cut the rails.Enough proof was presented to show that air attacks are viable and effective.But is this the most economical way to do the job?We are talking about a large quantity of munitions,fuel and inevitable high losses among allied airplanes.Another aspect to consider is timing.We are presuming in our ''what if'' scenario some heavy fights in Germany.Those airplanes might be needed for CAS.Aren't SF+partisans+supplies combined with a limited amount of air attacks a cheaper and more surgical way to do the job?Granted they cannot carry but a fraction of explosives carried by aircraft,but 90% of the air munitions are wasted.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 05:17
Never claimed that marshaling yards could not be hit.

Never said you claimed such a thing:biggrin:

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 06:59
Never said you claimed such a thing:biggrin:

Yeah, but unlike France and Germany where there is a huge number of marshaling areas, the railway network in Poland and URSS is smaller, the concentration antiaircraft guns in these areas is a lot higher.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 07:40
Fewer rails means they'll be a lot busier than those in France and Germany.It also means a reduced ability to detour trains.Which leads me to the conclusion that a smaller effort can have disproportionate effect on their ability supply the troops in Germany.That's why I raised the question if it's really worthy to sacrifice bombers for such a job.
AAA cannot actually stop an air raid unless it's very small.It can only punish the attackers and make them less effective.It also acts as deterrence for further ''visits''.But if the attackers have enough planes and determination they''ll make a breach.(i know you are aware of that but just feel the need to state it).

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 07:56
i know you are aware of that but just feel the need to state it.

:tongue:

Each division's transport trucks could bring in 150 tonnes of supply, during one night as far as 600 km to the rear. An that's just the divisional trucks, in absence of any working rail.

Chunder
11 Jun 09,, 10:22
:tongue:

Each division's transport trucks could bring in 150 tonnes of supply, during one night as far as 600 km to the rear. An that's just the divisional trucks, in absence of any working rail.

How much fuel do they need? Where are they getting the fuel from? Since it's not coal? What conditions are the roads in? This is a major operation. The max speed was 45 mph.. absolute max.

See the airlift for For the Battle of Stalingrad required 300 Tonnes of food alone per day, and the Germans couldn't supply that. The berlin airlift required 4000 Tonnes of food a day alone, and that was just for the allied sector.

To keep a city like Berlin going, without mass starvation you need between 2000, & 4000 tonnes of food per day, for the occupying army AND the population. (the people are really going to hate the communists).


Now for some Maths, the Studebaker US6, (lend lease)
5 Tonne Load.

250 Tonne/5 Tonne
30 Trucks. 30 Trucks? To supply an Army? No way.

30 Trucks to supply

2000Tonne/5 Tonne
400 Trucks, Now we're Talking.
Add in Material - 800 Trucks.

Try Moving 800 Trucks along world war 2 roads at a max speed of 72 kmph & see what happens.

Now you need at least Double that because the flow will be both ways. You will need 1600 Trucks minimum on the route, possibly 2000 Trucks alone.

2000 Trucks / 600

1000 Trucks to start moving at sundown from both directions.

45 Seconds to make max speed. V = Vo+ at = Average accelleration of 1.71 M/S^2.

Gap of 2 Seconds before each truck start rolling (be conservative, probably more) Acceleration equivelant = 1.53 MS^2

Displacment S = VOt + 1/2 at^2
Truck 1. 1731.4 Meters
Truck 2. 1549.1 Meters
Difference = 182.3 Meters between Trucks.

Therefor convoy distance is 182.3 Kilometers long.

Thats a damned long convoy. With an estimated 1000 trucks.
This convoy is traveling at a max speed of 72 kmph, (not counting corners, uninproved surfaces, hills, etc.

Fuel Consumption. 2000 Trucks, at 38.5 Litres per 100 km over proposed 600 km supply train. Each truck can carry 151.4 Litres of fuel. They will need 231 litres for the For the Journey. or 200 Kilograms of Fuel. they two convoys over 600 km will need 462 000 litres of fuel. This fuel will weigh 401 Tonnes. So you need another 81 Trucks to supply the fuel, Those trucks in turn must be sustained, so you need 100 Trucks worth of Fuel to keep the convoy going.

You now have about 2100 Trucks on the route.

Operation range at max efficiency 403.73 Km. Meaning 2100 Trucks now have to refuel. Meaning you need 2100 Pumps or the convoy gets even longer. Now, your convoy at minimum possible rate stretches over 364 Kilometers long. Or 5 hours of interrupted transit time assuming pump time for 40 Gallons is a good 10 minutes. Meaning they have 7 Hours of Transit time to transit 600 km. Meaning the whole operation will start late afternoon and end early morning Without even unloading & distribution.

They must still be off loaded at the other end, and the food distributed.

So in short our statistics to use trucks need the following.

At least 2100 trucks if the average transit distance is 600 km.

That convoy will be over 364 Kilometers long for 1000 trucks. Minimum.
The convoy will need over 462 000 litres of fuel to be pumped into it, and they will need to be able to truck, 401 Tonnes of fuel, to keep the trucks going.
That Convoy must be dispersed & hidden to Load & unload. Meaning innefficiency.
One hopes there is no accidents with overloaded trucks or the problem compounds itself.
Thats why armies prefer rail where possible.

Edit: 1 Mosquito raid on a refueling Depot... can you imagine the havoc.

If you want any sort of efficiency that is going to be a very large refueling depot.

Is it worth sacrificing Bombers, if they are lost in appreciable numbers, to halt that convoy? 1 weeks worth of food shortages = an army on starvation. Is it worth say 100 lives to cripple the fighting capacity of 1 million men? Well Eisenhower would look at the number of bombers at his disposal, how many infantry he is loosing on the ground, and you can guess what his answer would be?

Edit: And we are being nice to the logistics effort. We could factor in up hill and down dale. Windy slippery roads, accidents, a mean winter... What happens on unimproved roads, or even inproved roads. A bomb crater in it will mean the convoy will have to slow down, or go around it, creating a muddy mess... until it can be repaired. Find a truckyard without a bituminised surface... it looks like the surface of the moon.

Chunder
11 Jun 09,, 10:48
Lets expand on just how bad the logistics situation for the Soviets is with Berlin

You have 2100 Trucks needed to supply food alone Or there abouts, its a reasonable figure by calculations yes? Naturally you'd expect some men to be jammed on these trucks as well.

The Supply effort at the front is as follows.

T34 Tank needs 1.65 Litres of fuel per kilometer. The Logistics effort needs to supply about 4200 surviving tanks.
It needs to Supply another 3255 rocket trucks with their fuel Requirements.
It needs to supply another few thousand artillery tractors.
It needs to Supply 7000 aircraft with their fuel.
It needs to Supply Amunition & spare parts.


2100 trucks starts to look like chicken feed, doesn't it.... If one, or any thing happens, to any of that convoy, One tips over, there's an attack by partisans on a route, theres a halt because of enemy activity.... the red army, and for that matter the citizens in Soviet Occupied Europe will be crying for a nuke on Moscow, and it will happen to end the war & fast.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 12:27
Let me add a few additions to your calculations.

1.There is almost never a single depot from which a large military unit is supplied,because you don't put all your eggs in single basket.
2.For the same reason you don't see thousands of trucks in a single column.In real world you see dozens at best.It can travel in close column(av. speed <40km/h,distance between vehicles ~50m) or open column (av. speed >40km/h distance b.v ~100m)
3.Because the road density is higher than rail density you'll see many convoys on many parallel roads heading towards a single military formation.It can of course happen that only one road exist,but that creates the dangers you described.
4.Loading/unloading/distribution can be done largely by day because it's going on in camouflaged and heavily protected areas.So you have the entire night to travel.That of course creates another problem.You always have 50% of the trucks sitting idle.
5.A Soviet force of,let's say 300 divisions,needs some150 tonnes per day.That's food,spare parts,but mainly fuel and ammo.As a rule of the thumb,you need more fuel during maneuver phase of a breakthrough,more ammo to actually achieve that breakthrough.All that ammo needs to be carried in secret,or you just told enemy J-2 about your plan.A single Br-2 shell weighs ~50kg,so for a single artillery piece to fire 200 rounds during arty prep. you need 2 full loaded trucks.

Easy,isn't it.

That's why you don't see much action after an army has traveled 500+ km.They wait for the tail to catch up.There are of course exceptions to this rule.

jlvfr
11 Jun 09,, 12:41
And, ofc, you need to also feed and equip the truck drivers & Co...

Keeps on pilling up..

zraver
11 Jun 09,, 15:02
THe next question is about the most economical way to cut the rails.Enough proof was presented to show that air attacks are viable and effective.But is this the most economical way to do the job?We are talking about a large quantity of munitions,fuel and inevitable high losses among allied airplanes.

Losses among the allied heavy bobmers will be minimal- the Soviet fighters jsut can get high enough. Nor will those heavies and their escorts be needed for CAS. The 8th and 12thth are strategic air forces with the 14th and 15th are tactical. So you don't really have a diversion of forces away from the front. Although like vs Germany once the escorts peel off, they will go low and hunt trains.



Another aspect to consider is timing.We are presuming in our ''what if'' scenario some heavy fights in Germany.Those airplanes might be needed for CAS.Aren't SF+partisans+supplies combined with a limited amount of air attacks a cheaper and more surgical way to do the job?Granted they cannot carry but a fraction of explosives carried by aircraft,but 90% of the air munitions are wasted.

The 8th and 12th are not needed for CAS. Plus the Polish Home Army is dead, the last armed Poles are with the Brits and cheering that now they get to actually fight to liberate their homeland. The imbalance in the air is so great the Allies have numerical superiority in both CAS and strategic bombing at the same time.

Until the Allies can reach the Polish Frontier Moscow is out of reach of the heavy bombers so attacking the transport network is about a good a target as you get.

Chunder
11 Jun 09,, 15:07
Let me add a few additions to your calculations.

1.There is almost never a single depot from which a large military unit is supplied,because you don't put all your eggs in single basket.



You still need a depots enough to refuel all trucks, along with the supply for the depots, roughly 1/3rd the distance from it's destinnation. You still need enough pumps so it does not cause over delay. Like I said, I was making it easy. If you want to get pedantic about it, those allied fighter sweeps will still find your depots, causing increased demand at other points, which slows you down even more. I didn't even bother factoring in what happens. But have a look at what happens when your average service station runs out of fuel and how that effects the one down the road. Heck, cheap fuel has the same effect.


2.For the same reason you don't see thousands of trucks in a single column.In real world you see dozens at best.It can travel in close column(av. speed <40km/h,distance between vehicles ~50m) or open column (av. speed >40km/h distance b.v ~100m)

I think we've demonstrated that it's very hard to move so many materials in such a uniformed fashion. You still need an average. And there are not much in the way of improved surfaces after 4 years of total war.


3.Because the road density is higher than rail density you'll see many convoys on many parallel roads heading towards a single military formation.

No you won't Convoy tasking takes them through areas of least resistance. Through other areas they will need armed gaurd. Roads in Poland & Russia are junk. It held the Germans up remember, and it took the Russians months to prepare for the logistics push alone. Have a look at Pakistan / Afghanistan for example.


It can of course happen that only one road exist,but that creates the dangers you described.

If you want 7 1/2 tonne trucks to ship your material in fast, and expedient fashion, you need good roadways. Good roadways mean straight improved surfaces, taking the most direct route. As soon as you opt for alternative it invariable means a greater distance, requiring more trucks, worse road conditions, steeper gradients, etc. All after 4 years of war.


4.Loading/unloading/distribution can be done largely by day because it's going on in camouflaged and heavily protected areas.So you have the entire night to travel.That of course creates another problem.You always have 50% of the trucks sitting idle.
You don't have the entire night for travel. If you want to travel in such a manner you need to set off at 7 pm & be at your destination by 3am. This is the Chinese, North Korean, & North Vietnamese experience with nightime logistics.


5.A Soviet force of,let's say 300 divisions,needs some150 tonnes per day.That's food,spare parts,but mainly fuel and ammo.As a rule of the thumb,you need more fuel during maneuver phase of a breakthrough,more ammo to actually achieve that breakthrough.All that ammo needs to be carried in secret,or you just told enemy J-2 about your plan.A single Br-2 shell weighs ~50kg,so for a single artillery piece to fire 200 rounds during arty prep. you need 2 full loaded trucks.

The practical experience is that the German 6th army needed 300 tonnes of food alone in Stalingrad. The Practical experience is that it takes roughly 1534 Tonnes of food to meet 1700 calories of food per day to feed 2 million people. You can thank Reginald Waite for that...

You need the fuel to move that. All those supplies are within reach of allied bombers. The German Army ground to a halt at the end of the war because it had no fuel. If the Allies land in the baltic, the routes you have left is absolutely minimal. Even the U.S was an absolute biatch to move things about in before the 1960's without rail. And we are talking ww2 europe after 4 years conflict, and in the case of Poland, Greater.


Easy,isn't it.


Not with 2 Million people to take care of. Half of whoom hate you.



That's why you don't see much action after an army has traveled 500+ km.They wait for the tail to catch up.There are of course exceptions to this rule.

If you want to make the greates distance possible, you won't be taveling in unison. The Allies didn't when they reached Normady, it was one great big stream of trucks, one after the other on the way to Cherbourg, it was one great big highway. With supply to smaller divisions, yes you do travel in convoy. Not in a friggin studebaker crunching gears with no synchromesh.

It all adds up to one HUGE trucking effort, at the end of a very long supply line.

zraver
11 Jun 09,, 15:08
:tongue:

Each division's transport trucks could bring in 150 tonnes of supply, during one night as far as 600 km to the rear. An that's just the divisional trucks, in absence of any working rail.

NO they cannot. The what-if is sometime after May 45- the nights are getting shorter, so the trucks will be lucky to do 350km a day. Given the need to hide during the day, breakdowns, road conditions, crew fatigue, accidents, traffic jams, loading and unloading, extra trucks to supply the trucks carrying the supplies etc, the already low levels of reserve fuel, spares and ammo after the Battle Of Berlin there trucks are going to be working overtime to meet a goal they cannot meet. Further some trucks are carrying what supplies the division already has, on top of food and fuel they need to carry fodder the the Soviet Armies horses- nearly as many as the Germans. Combat units have to use those roads as well, as well as staff cars with rights of way.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 16:28
I shared your p.o.v from the start.I had aerial interdiction in mind when I said they'd move in many convoys on many (crappy)roads.One big convoy cannot be hidden no matter what.It is a time and resource consuming process. The conclusion is that's nearly impossible to do such an effort at such a distance and succeed.Regarding the Allies in the West the logistical feature was a marvelous one.Yet even they had to resort to an operational pause.It's just maths;the longer the distance,the larger the number of trucks needed,without considering any enemy interference. In this particular case you'll need a truck capacity at least 400% of the daily needs of a unit.Convoy nr1 arrives at destination,nr 2 is departing to depot,nr 3 and 4 are halfway on their routes to frontline/depot respectively. +everything is needed to supply the convoys.
So the Soviets are declared toast in this case as well.No rails,no roads,bombed to smitherens,attacked from the Baltic Sea,Finland,Romania and Black Sea,harassed by every man able to carry an air dropped weapon from East Germany,Poland and the Baltics.No OPSEC since the partisans will tell everything from eating habits to HQ emplacements.I consider them dead men walking or future POW's.:tongue:
The bad part is that it would have left most of our fellow WABBERS,veterans of the Cold War,unemployed.:biggrin:

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 16:32
Now for some Maths, the Studebaker US6, (lend lease)
5 Tonne Load.

I'am sure that's 2.5 tonne but let's roll with your figures :)


250 Tonne/5 Tonne
30 Trucks. 30 Trucks? To supply an Army? No way.
30 Trucks to supply
2000Tonne/5 Tonne
400 Trucks, Now we're Talking.
Add in Material - 800 Trucks.

I was talking about a division (8-9.000 men+60 transport trucks) not a army,
which in addition to divisional assets has another 350 truck regiment



Try Moving 800 Trucks along world war 2 roads at a max speed of 72 kmph & see what happens.

probably those loaded trucks cannot exceed 60 km/h anyway.


Now you need at least Double that because the flow will be both ways. You will need 1600 Trucks minimum on the route, possibly 2000 Trucks alone.
2000 Trucks / 600
1000 Trucks to start moving at sundown from both directions.
45 Seconds to make max speed. V = Vo+ at = Average accelleration of 1.71 M/S^2.
Gap of 2 Seconds before each truck start rolling (be conservative, probably more) Acceleration equivelant = 1.53 MS^2
Displacment S = VOt + 1/2 at^2
Truck 1. 1731.4 Meters
Truck 2. 1549.1 Meters
Difference = 182.3 Meters between Trucks.
Therefor convoy distance is 182.3 Kilometers long.
Thats a damned long convoy. With an estimated 1000 trucks.
This convoy is traveling at a max speed of 72 kmph, (not counting corners, uninproved surfaces, hills, etc.

700 trucks
350 one end ,350 the other.


Fuel Consumption. 2000 Trucks, at 38.5 Litres per 100 km over proposed 600 km supply train. Each truck can carry 151.4 Litres of fuel. They will need 231 litres for the For the Journey. or 200 Kilograms of Fuel. they two convoys over 600 km will need 462 000 litres of fuel. This fuel will weigh 401 Tonnes. So you need another 81 Trucks to supply the fuel, Those trucks in turn must be sustained, so you need 100 Trucks worth of Fuel to keep the convoy going.

Nice math, now... do it again. (with my figures)

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 16:57
I'am sure that's 2.5 tonne but let's roll with your figures :)

I was talking about a division (8-9.000 men+60 transport trucks) not a army,
which in addition to divisional assets has another 350 truck regiment


probably those loaded trucks cannot exceed 60 km/h anyway.

700 trucks
350 one end ,350 the other.

Nice math, now... do it again. (with my figures)

''Those engineers and their wonderful mathematics'':biggrin:
p.s I bet you know what movie title I paraphrased

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 17:18
NO they cannot. The what-if is sometime after May 45- the nights are getting shorter, so the trucks will be lucky to do 350km a day.

31 may 1945 sunrise 07:54
31 may 1945 sunset 20:01

Chunder
11 Jun 09,, 17:24
I'am sure that's 2.5 tonne but let's roll with your figures :)


Im sketchy on this. I should know, My Grandmother spent her wartime career driving one.
2.5 Tonne is the tare weight. I.E without Load. 5 Tonne is what it can carry. Don't tell anyone this, but's I've towed a tandem trailer with a farmall tractor on the back, and thats just as much. A truck should be able to do better. I'm Using the U6 Model...


I was talking about a division (8-9.000 men+60 transport trucks) not a army,
which in addition to divisional assets has another 350 truck regiment

The Soviets have to support an Army.


probably those loaded trucks cannot exceed 60 km/h anyway.

True, they probably are averaging 40 km/h anyway.



700 trucks
350 one end ,350 the other.

If your supporting a devision, Yeah.


Nice math, now... do it again. (with my figures)
Nah I had enough of crunching numbers :) I think I'd rather just stick to the calory count, figuring what the soviets have in order to reach that calory count, and figuring out the weight.

That figure I gave before included dehydrated potatoes, flour. oats etc. I'm betting what in practice that the soviets have, is your normal everyday spud, therefore Mr Waits calculation, which had the benefit of the allied food machine, are probably off by a factor of 1/3rd or more.

I was erring on the side of the soviets, in regards to the benefit of feasability, but Zraver is much more closer to the mark. 350 Km a day. Works out to 8 3/4Hours travel per truck at an average of 40kmph, not counting refueling. So over the proposed distance, one probably needs close to 1300 trucks for the distance, if we presume that its 350 trucks operating a 600 km distance.

There are a few factors affecting road transport. There is a wide gap of probability. In the first instance I was pretty kind to the transport effort. I can always pull out what the travel is more likely to be like in the given circumstances.

Cool looking truck but thats just about it. Grandmother drove one. The old man drove one too, they had a few still lying around in Vietnam times. Now he's driven a hell of a lot of trucks, but for all the hell you can put them through, you'd never get him in one ever again... Btw, Gran could change a tyre on one in under 5 minutes now thats impressive, for a woman that raised three boys.

Edit: btw i like your new sig :p

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 17:42
Im sketchy on this. I should know, My Grandmother spent her wartime career driving one.
2.5 Tonne is the tare weight. I.E without Load. 5 Tonne is what it can carry. Don't tell anyone this, but's I've towed a tandem trailer with a farmall tractor on the back, and thats just as much. A truck should be able to do better. I'm Using the U6 Model...

The soviet trucks carried only 2.5 tonne, probably the Studebaker is stronger.



If your supporting a devision, Yeah.


To eliminate the confusion let my explain
1 soviet division by the end of the war is understrength in combat personnel.
1 soviet corps is equivalent to a american division
1 soviet ARMY is equivalent to a american corps.
1 soviet front is equivalent to a american field army.

I'm not talking about quality here, only men.

So no : I'm supporting the equivalent of a American corps.



Nah I had enough of crunching numbers :)
:biggrin:

Dreadnought
11 Jun 09,, 17:50
A very brief glimpse of shore bombardment from the BB's.

YouTube - USS Missouri (and other IOWA Class Battleships) footage (sound repaired) HIST 2001 VHS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRMfriHguUc&feature=related)

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 17:56
''
''700 trucks
350 one end ,350 the other.
If your supporting a devision, Yeah

I was erring on the side of the soviets, in regards to the benefit of feasability, but Zraver is much more closer to the mark. 350 Km a day. Works out to 8 3/4Hours travel per truck at an average of 40kmph, not counting refueling. So over the proposed distance, one probably needs close to 1300 trucks for the distance, if we presume that its 350 trucks operating a 600 km distance.''

A German division on Eastern front used an average of 200 tonnes/day.A Soviet division even less.That's the practice.So,an average Soviet division needs ~80 trucks/day.Of course,the Americans look like magnates compared to any German or Russian,but these guys managed to fight a war that way.The benefits of the American abundence is that you have German officers complaining that the Americans never lack artillery ammo.

So,while the Red Army is larger,its a short distance runner.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 17:57
The soviet trucks carried only 2.5 tonne, probably the Studebaker is stronger.



To eliminate the confusion let my explain
1 soviet division by the end of the war is understrength in combat personnel.
1 soviet corps is equivalent to a american division
1 soviet ARMY is equivalent to a american corps.
1 soviet front is equivalent to a american field army.

I'm not talking about quality here, only men.

So no : I'm supporting the equivalent of a American corps.

:biggrin:

You were faster.

Chunder
11 Jun 09,, 18:04
Nice math, now... do it again. (with my figures)

OK you've enticed me. Standard soviet diet over reliance on spuds.

1700/Callorie count of the spuds,
comes out to 4208.8 tonnes of spuds to feed 2.3 million troops in Germany. Of course it won't be all spuds, so try 3500 - 4000 tonnes of food needed.

This is what it will take to feed them.

You will need 700 trucks to transport them. (3500 Tonnes) 800 if it's (4000 Tonnes).

Supplying food alone you need over the what if distance of 600 the following:

350 kmh a day - average speed 40 kmph. Say this includes dispersal to make it fair...
You Need 1400 - 1600 trucks depending on the tonnage needed.
Since they are only making 350 km a day (its not unreasonable with a winter appoaching) you need to double the number to make the distance (lets say the distance is 700, make it even stevens aye, just for the exercise.) You actually need between 2800 trucks to 3200 trucks on the roads over a 700 km transit distance. For food purposes alone.

269.5 Liters of fuel per truck.

If running 2800 trucks = 744,529 litres, 647.7 Tonnes of Fuel
If Running 3200 trucks = 862,400 litres, 750.3 Tonnes of Fuel.

if 2800, 130 trucks needed to supply them fuel
If 3200, 150 trucks needed to supply them fuel

Fuel trucks themselves need fuel if 130 trucks, need another 30 trucks to supply them fuel
If 150 trucks, need 35 trucks to supply them fuel.

You then need trucks to supply them with fuel. (8 trucks), then you need to supply them fuel)

To supply the food logistics alone, you need to run between 2960 to 3385 trucks at least...

Then we can figure out all the rest. No good at ammo calculation! Nor tank usage. But for a protracted offensive, I don't know how many trucks you'd need. 8000? more? who knows.

Still, theres domino effect incase of a breakdown on a dog leg, a refueling hitchup, (Station bombed, pump not working etc).

I think the Soviets will have exhausted themselves.

Edit, just read your post. I was using the Studebaker US6 figures for fuel consumption. but if it's 2.5 tonne, it's double that amount of trucks (oh mah gawed) hang on i'll find the shite i was using.

Edit: here it is http://www.autogallery.org.ru/gstuder.htm oops, was in lb's not kilos...

Ok, well then it;s pretty much double the amount of trucks, and the amount of fuel....

So now we need 5380 -6770 trucks minimum, over 700 km... wows...

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 18:16
Then we can figure out all the rest. No good at ammo calculation! Nor tank usage. But for a protracted offensive, I don't know how many trucks you'd need. 8000? more? who knows.


12.000 trucks for the whole Bagration thing but that's 5 fronts
In Berlin are only 3 so 7200 trucks is my estimate.

gunnut
11 Jun 09,, 18:22
Trucks break down and they will need mechanics, spare parts, and tow trucks...

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 18:33
12.000 trucks for the whole Bagration thing but that's 5 fronts
In Berlin are only 3 so 7200 trucks is my estimate.

But i have completely disregarded the fact that from June-1944-may 1945
there is a significant amount of trucks being delivered to the URSS trough L&L. :redface:

gunnut
11 Jun 09,, 18:39
But i have completely disregarded the fact that from June-1944-may 1945
there is a significant amount of trucks being delivered to the URSS trough L&L. :redface:

Yep, Soviets used our trucks so they could concentrate on building tanks. Imagine the flow of the trucks from the US stops along with the spare parts to keep them running.

gabriel
11 Jun 09,, 18:44
Yep, Soviets used our trucks so they could concentrate on building tanks. Imagine the flow of the trucks from the US stops along with the spare parts to keep them running.

Last deliveries were in september 1945 , how long did the trucks kept running after that ?

gunnut
11 Jun 09,, 18:52
Last deliveries were in september 1945 , how long did the trucks kept running after that ?

That depends on if they were pushed for war or had a chance to settle down in peace.

If they were pushed for war, then any break down will result in either salvaging the truck for useful parts or improvise parts from other machines to make them work. Either way the lives of the trucks will be shorter than normal.

If they had a chance to setting down with custom parts replicated by the Soviet machine shops, then they could live a long time.

zraver
11 Jun 09,, 22:49
That depends on if they were pushed for war or had a chance to settle down in peace.

If they were pushed for war, then any break down will result in either salvaging the truck for useful parts or improvise parts from other machines to make them work. Either way the lives of the trucks will be shorter than normal.

If they had a chance to setting down with custom parts replicated by the Soviet machine shops, then they could live a long time.

The number of trucks delivered vs the number of trucks that survived the war is a huge gap. In 1945 ledn lease trucks make up 41.9% of the Red Armies motor pool but nearly all of its front line vehicles. American trucks being 4x4/4x6 were given the hardest tasks (combat) with the resulting high breakdowns. A huge number were also converted to rocket launchers, mobile mortars etc. May 1945 is spring time and a lot of the roads will be mud. Since the Soviets can't pack 200 divisions on to Autobahn only improved roadways, a lot of trucks are going to face even heavier wear than normals trying to get through the mud.

Add in the poor overall level of Soviet mechanical skill and chances are that when a truck breaks down, there won't be a mechanic ready at hand to fix it, even if the parts are. Mechanical skill was one of the secret weapons of the US in WWII. Almost unit had multiple people who could tear apart and engine and put in back together, get parts from dissimilar types to work in a pinch and improvise improvements. The Brits and Germans had this as well to a degree, but the mostly peasant Soviet and Japanese populations could not.

Most of the rear area supply moving- ie getting the supplies from rail heads to depots where divisional/corps/army transport can get it too the unit is going to be on the less capable Soviet trucks. The farther back the break in the rail lines- the farther they have to travel.

Gabriel, with your information on the sunrise sunset, each truck has about 7 hours of travel time allowing 1 hour to load and 1 hour to unload/hide. 7x 40 280km day. This might be doable for divisional trucks go to a Army or front depot, by higher level formations having to go back farther to bring supplies up will have a problem. In particular if the Red Army is advancing in combat- double all supply requirements and more than double transport needs as the wounded have to be transported.

2.3 million men need about 10.35lbs of supplies a day just to survive- 2 pounds of food and 1 gallon of water. That is 23,850,000lbs pounds or 11,903 tons on 2381 perfectly loaded trucks per day just for food and water. That does not include the fodder for the horses, ammunition and explosives, spare parts and fuel an Army will need. Each horse needs 20+ pounds of hay a day, I don't know how many horses the Red Army had in 1945 but it was a lot. Even just 50,000 translates to an additional 1 million pounds (500 tons) of transported good per day or 100 more trucks.

This before break downs, combat loss, lost (as in don't know where they are), requisitioned by other units of the myriad of other things that can happen the Soviets need almost 10,000 trucks just to meet the assistance requirements of the troops, but that is trucks going from the front line to the point of supply, if you break that up to multiple points of supply, ie from rail to army from army to division each step doubles the number of trucks. So if you have 3 steps rail to army, army to division, division to combat unit you need 30,000 trucks a day just for sustenance.

Now we ahve basic loads, not every one is a combat troops, but combat troopers use more ammo. 90 rounds and 3 grenades per day per infantry man actually engaged in combat at a minimum. Roughly 6 pounds per trooper to start- close to 14 million pounds before combat and then somewhat less. Each tank needs on average 10kg per shell, less for the F-34 equipped T-34/76 more for the 122/152 equipped SU's. IIRC roughly 60 rounds for the T-34/85 so 600kg of ammo per tank... Do you see how bad the numbers are getting? Without months to prepare and stockpile the Red Army can't do it on trucks.

Chunder
12 Jun 09,, 02:32
The horse fodder depends on what sort of fodder it is, and whether it's compressed. I don't think you would be able to do it on . If it's a 5 Tonne truck, then yes it's 100. If it.s 2.5 then it's 200.
If it's silage, then you will likely get the tonnage, if it's hay, with 10% moisture content. You'll need more than 200 Trucks, Especially in the winter when the hay will be in demand by the horses as opposed to the silage, and since it will be a soviet winter.

So you either need mechanical balers at industrial depots across the country, since modern day balers arn't available, or you will probably be using 400 trucks or more to car the hay. 1 tonne of water = 1 Cubic meter. 2.5 tonne of water = 2.5 cubic meters of space. Hay at 10% moisture will get you 22.5? cuibic meteters required to transport that, uncompressed.

I don't think your going to get 22.5 cubic meters of hay onto one of those trucks uncompressed. because it will actually need more than 22.5 cubic meters because the straw isn't airtight in itself. Try 45 cubic meters of space. If uncompressed.

Edit, so in a soviet winter, without compaction, youll need at least over the 600 - 700 km's, 1600 trucks to carry hay. for 500 tonnes, giving the benefit of the doubt in major propotions there mate :) Just looking at the bed of the Us6 indicates to me you'll need 3200 trucks to transport the hay over said distance to meet daily demands, again minimum, because you need fuel for them etc. I was Quizzing the old man over his trucking days in the 50's/60/70's. 40 kmh Average is about on the money, and it can get much worse of course, if your loaded maximum on windy roads, because of the gear ratios. Further, the condition of the roads exponentially effects your fuel usage. Accelleration/Deceleration etc compound the problem. For a 20 tonne truck going up hill and down dale in the 50's your looking at a rediculous 3 gallons to the mile... Thats frankly attrocious! And we still arn't taking into account the soviet winter. His time in the army the armies policy was to load everything at half weight so it could get the speed.

Like you said, things keep on getting worse...

gabriel
12 Jun 09,, 02:52
Gabriel, with your information on the sunrise sunset, each truck has about 7 hours of travel time allowing 1 hour to load and 1 hour to unload/hide. 7x 40 280km day. This might be doable for divisional trucks go to a Army or front depot, by higher level formations having to go back farther to bring supplies up will have a problem. In particular if the Red Army is advancing in combat- double all supply requirements and more than double transport needs as the wounded have to be transported.

8 pm to 8 am that makes 12 hours including loading and reloading, so from 9 pm to 7 am, that leaves 10 hours ?


2.3 million men need about 10.35lbs of supplies a day just to survive- 2 pounds of food and 1 gallon of water. That is 23,850,000lbs pounds or 11,903 tons on 2381 perfectly loaded trucks per day just for food and water.

I doubt that any russian quartermaster would agree to carry 1 gallon of water for each soldier , each day, from several hundred km to the rear.:)
I bet that if i start digging in my back-yard , after 3-4 meters i have found water.
1400 trucks-no more.


That does not include the fodder for the horses, ammunition and explosives, spare parts and fuel an Army will need. Each horse needs 20+ pounds of hay a day, I don't know how many horses the Red Army had in 1945 but it was a lot. Even just 50,000 translates to an additional 1 million pounds (500 tons) of transported good per day or 100 more trucks.

Hay- same as above, except that when you have to do it , you use horse drawn wagons not trucks.


This before break downs, combat loss, lost (as in don't know where they are), requisitioned by other units of the myriad of other things that can happen the Soviets need almost 10,000 trucks just to meet the assistance requirements of the troops, but that is trucks going from the front line to the point of supply, if you break that up to multiple points of supply, ie from rail to army from army to division each step doubles the number of trucks. So if you have 3 steps rail to army, army to division, division to combat unit you need 30,000 trucks a day just for sustenance.


The russian division had very little organic support for logistic use. (unlike the germans.) The pressure was not even at corps level but at army level ( the equivalent of a US army corps.).
The higher figures that i have seen for a division service element is around 900 men and 90 trucks.
Of course that supplies were not brought from army depots for several hundred km to the rear as normal practice , but during offensive operations such things did happen


Now we ahve basic loads, not every one is a combat troops, but combat troopers use more ammo. 90 rounds and 3 grenades per day per infantry man actually engaged in combat at a minimum. Roughly 6 pounds per trooper to start- close to 14 million pounds before combat and then somewhat less. Each tank needs on average 10kg per shell, less for the F-34 equipped T-34/76 more for the 122/152 equipped SU's. IIRC roughly 60 rounds for the T-34/85 so 600kg of ammo per tank... Do you see how bad the numbers are getting?

I know how high the numbers are.
The issue of supplies for a rifle division is around 350-400 tonnes,
for a mechanized corps between 800-900 tonnes during offensive operations.
That is food, fodder, fuel but mostly munitions.


Without months to prepare and stockpile the Red Army can't do it on trucks.
No offensive operation takes place before a period of logistical build up.

Chunder
12 Jun 09,, 04:00
1400 trucks-no more.

To do what?

To carry how much food. You need 1700 calories. Times that by 2.3 million. What was the soviet soldiers staple diet? How much weight of that doe he need to make 1700 calories. Times it all by 2.3 million.

I assumed they were drinking from the land.



Hay- same as above, except that when you have to do it , you use horse drawn wagons not trucks.


You need lots of pasture to run horses, assuming the farming population has no animals of their own. There is no pasture in winter. You will have to supply the horses food. When you eat up the farmers pasture, they won't have any fodder to store for their animals for the winter.... Want to use a horse drawn wagon, you'll need 2 clydsdales horses per cart. Now, since they have to still bring it from the same old distance, being clydesdales, they will litterally EAT most of that on their journey there, leaving non for their return journey. The horses will die in winter. You will also need a hell of a lot more horses. Since they are only going to average 6 k's an hour, you need 12 x the number of horses than you do trucks. So you will need 42666 clysdales to move that. Thats stupendous. They in turn need their own fodder. Your simply replacing fuel with fodder. You are going to need something like 100 000 horses all up to supply the journey and the horses at the other end, and they will be on the same road routes as well... as thousands of trucks, getting in the way, getting stuck in the mud, getting broken cartwheels with their drivers 50 000 horse handlers freezing their butts off...Who in turn need to be fed.

For gods sake man use trucks :) you'll need 1/6th of the drivers for starters, meaning the other 41,666 people can be used for something else... and more fodder is actually used for horses used in fighting.




The russian division had very little organic support for logistic use. (unlike the germans.) The pressure was not even at corps level but at army level ( the equivalent of a US army corps.).
The higher figures that i have seen for a division service element is around 900 men and 90 trucks.
Of course that supplies were not brought from army depots for several hundred km to the rear as normal practice , but during offensive operations such things did happen


This is starting to make good humanitarian grounds for the U.S to deploy nukes to save the USSR's own people from their own political masters, let alone saving allied lives.



I know how high the numbers are.

Through the roof, especially if you use horses.


The issue of supplies for a rifle division is around 350-400 tonnes,
for a mechanized corps between 800-900 tonnes during offensive operations.
That is food, fodder, fuel but mostly munitions.


Pure mathamatics tells us that the soviet occupation force will require a minimum of 3500 tonnes of food per day, on absolute rations. It's more like 4000 Tonnes if you want to make sure. The supply cases are easily available from case studies like the Berlin airlift... where people weren't fighting.


No offensive operation takes place before a period of logistical build up.
The what if, is that the allies switch to a war against the Soviets after the fall of Nazi Germany. There isn't going to be a good logistical build up, you've just taken a capital city with hundreds of thousands of casualties. During that time youve been in overdrive supplying them. Oh and theres problems, big problems. They will be totally unprepared to face immediate allied onslaught on logistics. Their ability to recover from aerial raids on undefended lines will be weeks, as the logistics take up is attempted by trucks / horses / whatever. Rail won't be safe at all. One hopes the new multi role nature of the war, particularly for the soviets doesn't include dropping bombs on mountainous roadways/cuttings/bridges etc...

You need an army to supply an army.

gabriel
12 Jun 09,, 04:11
To do what?

To carry how much food. You need 1700 calories. Times that by 2.3 million. What was the soviet soldiers staple diet? How much weight of that doe he need to make 1700 calories. Times it all by 2.3 million.

I assumed they were drinking from the land.


1400 trucks * 2500 kg = 3500 tones of food.
Pure mathamatics tells us that the soviet occupation force will require a minimum of 3500 tonnes of food per day, on absolute rations. It's more like 4000 Tonnes if you want to make sure. The supply cases are easily available from case studies like the Berlin airlift... where people weren't fighting

gabriel
12 Jun 09,, 04:19
You need lots of pasture to run horses, assuming the farming population has no animals of their own. There is no pasture in winter. You will have to supply the horses food. When you eat up the farmers pasture, they won't have any fodder to store for their animals for the winter.... Want to use a horse drawn wagon, you'll need 2 clydsdales horses per cart. Now, since they have to still bring it from the same old distance, being clydesdales, they will litterally EAT most of that on their journey there, leaving non for their return journey. The horses will die in winter. You will also need a hell of a lot more horses. Since they are only going to average 6 k's an hour, you need 12 x the number of horses than you do trucks. So you will need 42666 clysdales to move that. Thats stupendous. They in turn need their own fodder. Your simply replacing fuel with fodder. You are going to need something like 100 000 horses all up to supply the journey and the horses at the other end, and they will be on the same road routes as well... as thousands of trucks, getting in the way, getting stuck in the mud, getting broken cartwheels with their drivers 50 000 horse handlers freezing their butts off...Who in turn need to be fed.
For gods sake man use trucks


Late may = winter ? :confused:

Chunder
12 Jun 09,, 04:49
1400 trucks * 2500 kg = 3500 tones of food.
Pure mathamatics tells us that the soviet occupation force will require a minimum of 3500 tonnes of food per day, on absolute rations. It's more like 4000 Tonnes if you want to make sure. The supply cases are easily available from case studies like the Berlin airlift... where people weren't fighting

Yes but this: 1400 Trucks don't supply an army with food per day. They can if they can make the round trip each day, which they don't.



Each division's transport trucks could bring in 150 tonnes of supply, during one night as far as 600 km to the rear

600 km's is the going distance, it's also reasonable because the populations in those areas are suffering food shortages and are on subsitence. It's probably more than that, but were using 600 km for the distance, from your suggestion.

A Studebaker won't get 600 k's in one night. Not at 40 k's an hour on a good road, average speed, not taking into account road conditions. Anything short of that, it will need to stop. The US6 falls several hundred kilometers short of that goal in optimum conditions. Meaning a 2 day transit. Because there is a 2 day transit, You will need, 1 Batch leaving. 1 Batch Stopped enroute, 1 batch leaving the front, 1 Batch Stopped enroute to resupply. You will need 1400*4 - 5600 using your figures. Judging on the need of the army and it's morale, 1400 is significantly less. I wouldn't want to find myself short of 4200 trucks....
5600 trucks now need fuel. The supplying Trucks need Fuel. So you need to supply them with fuel trucks, the fuel trucks need fuel. All Fuel is got from a centralised resource. Bomb the centralised resource. You have access to Iran, you have access to bomb the fuel supply. + your not getting any frome lend lease. Oh.. and you also need to supply all those planes with fuel as well.


Horses make the situation exponentially worse, without compaction, because the truck isn't carrying what it can carry... If the red army moves 50 000 horses into an area, it will devastate the community & the food supplies. Even in Late May during the thaw, you have farmers livestock leaving barns gobbling up anything that might appear. You might as well have forced a famine on the people. Let alone if you want to supply the horses, which you will need to do in winter, You will also need to shelter them. (Too bad for the for the poor horses carting the hay)... Stuff the horses, use trucks.

Gab, this is strategically a gaping wound. By any stretch of the imagination. WW2 era roads. Bad in good weather, attrocious in the wet, Really attrocious in winter. Look at the documentary Long Way Round, for a good example of an untended to roads because no attention has been paid to them. The potential for major delays on such roads is so disproportionately large it's horrible. Im old enough to remember the days of just gravel roads and sparse local government, which still exists in many areas. On a wet day those roads would lead to ruts, potholes damaging axles, 1/3rd of the normal driving speed. Occasional spin outs and getting stuck on the side of the road... with 50 cars a day using the road...

Can't do it.

gabriel
12 Jun 09,, 05:45
Each division's transport trucks could bring in 150 tonnes of supply, during one night as far as 600 km to the rear. An that's just the divisional trucks, in absence of any working rail.
Each division has 9000 soldiers
9000 soldiers * 2 kg food = 18 tones
Where is the difference ?


That is food, fodder, fuel but mostly munitions.

Chunder
12 Jun 09,, 06:19
Each division has 9000 soldiers
9000 soldiers * 2 kg food = 18 tones
Where is the difference ?

You need 5600 trucks to carry food. To feed the 2.3 Million soviets. Add up every soviet asset in germany and it's probably more than that. You need to supply everyone, not just the devisions.

Your not going to get that food supply closer than 600 km's, because for 600 km's to ther ear is country on famine/ rations. They need to go on roads.

you will need a minimum absolute of 231 litres of fuel to go that distance.
you will need*que Dr Evil overtone 1 Million, Two Hundred & Ninty Three thousand, 600 litres of Fuel

- Thats assuming it's straight, perfect driving conditions, and maximum fuel efficiency.

"What are you Laughing at?" "Dr Evil, this is 1945, what does 1293600 Litres mean".

"Oooh... make that *que dramatic music* One Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Five point 4 Tonnes of fuel "

"Oh, Ok then, But Dr Evil we, we, we, we'll need another 225 trucks to supply them, and 15 to supply them, we, we, we'll need 5,840 Trucks..."

"So what Mr Stalin. why don't you cry us a rain-bow".

Our roads can't do that. Whose to say you won't use your giant "Laser" on our roads. We have 100,000 horses on those roads breaking axles, along with all the other problems, we have to supply them arms and other stuff as well!

Dude, im getting tired of this fast. I'm doing my level best here to impart on you the logistics needed, to keep 2.3 million people alive.... as far as food goes... This will probably be my last post. Mathamatically, 5840 trucks or your army starves. The allies fight a starving army. The army routes. Logically, your looking at AT LEAST 7500 because they don't actually do 38.5 litres per 100 km's for the food effort, to fuel Assorted refueling stations, and the risk that those stations will always have.

There is no way, on logistics alone, that 5840 trucks, let alone 7500 trucks, let alone 100, 000 Horses towing 50,000 carts using 50,000 men, in all conditions, to supply 50,000 horses with food (try using horses in winter, ask a farmer if you don't beleive me), all sharing the same roads, as many as there may be, can sustain that army without a logistical crisis. Add in Fuel required to run a 5000 plane VVS dedicated to preventing an attack by the western allies, the actual army itself, every form of equipement on the front traveling to the front of effecting repairs, from slow tanks, to, bulldozers, infantrymen, horses, artillery, ambulances, staff cars, repair trucks, ammunition trucks, Prisoners of war road repair works, clearing traffic jams, towing trucks out of the mud, cleaning up overturned trucks, carts having their wheels replaced. All going on shitty roads, after 4 years of war, with an army thats lost 20 odd million manpower. All in the middle of the night.

Nuke Moscow and save the army & the people, and your own army.

gabriel
12 Jun 09,, 06:49
To feed the 2.3 Million soviets. Add up every soviet asset in germany and it's probably more than that. You need to supply everyone, not just the devisions.

It's called division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(military)).

2.3 milions divided in 255 military divisions = 9019 soldiers


"What are you Laughing at?" "Dr Evil, this is 1945, what does 1293600 Litres mean".
= 1500 tonnes fuel.
=6 tonnes per DIVISION each day just for supply transport.


Dude, im getting tired of this fast. I'm doing my level best here to impart on you the logistics needed, to keep 2.3 million people alive.... as far as food goes... This will probably be my last post. Mathamatically, 5840 trucks or your army starves.

Don't like logistics myself also. :(

Chunder
12 Jun 09,, 07:46
It's called division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(military)).

It's called a spelling error.


2.3 milions divided in 255 military divisions = 9019 soldiers

= 1500 tonnes fuel.
=6 tonnes per DIVISION each day just for supply transport.

Who cares how many d I visions (sic) are in 2.3 million men you need to feed 2.3 million men.

It's not 6 tonnes per supply transport. it's 6 tonnes for food supply, for men. Not including horses, Not including ordnance, Not including medical supplies, Not including fuel for heating where applicable, Not including supplies for field repairs. All based on the pretext that the transport system will be able to handle that, through various roads & node points.


Don't like logistics myself also. :(
This is why I'm taking my towl and heading home mate:

This is what annoys me
a) Why get pedantic with numbers, or spelling errors, the post is long, I have to do multiple re-edits because of grammatical mistakes anyway?

b)It's annoying enough calculating this stuff out. Let alone putting calculation into logical outcome, only to start talking about divisions (sic) and other small side errors.

c) Someone brings up using feeding horses. You say they don't need to feed them, because of Pasture. This assumes the farmer will be quite happy to sacrifice what little he does have, so the soviet horses can eat him out of land. I raise this, and bring up horse requirements in winter and practical transport methods. You ask what Winter has to do with it. This war isn't going to be running only in the spring & summer. Then you say use horses instead of trucks. Despite the fact that you will need about 100,000 horses to provide 50 000 with fodder, during winter. Those horses will be freezing to death. So you might as well have stuck with the trucks, so you just side tracked Zraver for no point, but we still have to go through 3 + posts, long ones at that, to try and discuss the horse situation.

d) After factoring the most cosy possible conditions for the soviets, your still saying that to supply a division only needs 6 tonnes of supplies. It doesn't. If your going to pick on me for spelling, can I at least point that out? If you know what the numbers are at least try not to 'own' the numbers. Because right now those roads are looking like hell.

e) It doesn't matter how much travelling time you give, even if you give the US6 12 hours of travelling time, which you don't. Modern Military nightime logistical movement in the past 5 Major wars, by an enemy combatant facing the west, takes place between 7pm & 3am. Adjusted to suit nightime conditions. Thats 8 hours. The bottom of the line is the convoy must stop for the day giving the conditions of movement you outlined to us. Your still well short of 600 km's in either circumstance. Which means you will need 4 times, and not 2 times the amount of trucks. Why not just acknowlege it as logistical reality, instead of arguing over the time they in theory have to travel. Especially when the route they are travelling will have so much war equipment and supplies will have truckloads of the stuff on the main supply routes. It doesn't matter, the routes going to be so clogged and shithouse, you can't make use of that 12 hours at optimum driving conditions, so why not just accept that trucks will be doing about 300 k's a day. Why does this have to be made any clearer? And despite all of this, you then lay down a blanket statement, that they will need only 1400 trucks to meet their daily calory intake. Next time if I knew I was in for such a debate I'd simply say
"thats not true" instead of providing practical examples, references, names, etc.

f) All of this is so obviously going to result in a humanitarian disaster, much like Napoleon except in reverse. We've estimated how many trucks will be on known roads that are known to be dodgy as all hell combined. We've hadn't even got to all the support that moves with them. But yet, from your gist, the Soviets are somehow are able to. We got to this point, after arguing that western attacks on railway lines would be too costly, despite there being readily available photographic evidence. We argued that Heavy bombers couldn't hit the lines, never mind what dive bombing could do to it. We argued they couldn't hit, no matter what allied fighters did to trains in france and germany as they found them.

Geez... the point of continuing this is none. zero.

Bigfella
12 Jun 09,, 09:39
[QUOTE]''Since you don't have a nation indicated I'm not sure who 'we' is, but I'm happy to have you on board. ''

Corrected.Good to be aboard.

BF gives virtual salute.


''If you are Romanian I would have preferred a firm & useful alliance against Nazism and Communism in the late 1930s, but from what I can work out the Western Allies lacked the committment required to make it work. Hope we make a better fist of it this time.''

I wish you were PM instead of Chamberlain.:biggrin:

Not just his fault I am afraid. Nor just the Brits for that matter. The French must share the blame. To be fair so must some of the nations Of E.Europe, but that is for another day.


What disturbed me was your comment about hidden Nazi sympathies among some Eastern Europeans.That requires some details.At the time,the vast majority of E Europeans wanted a German victory against Communism,while in the same time wanting a German defeat at the hands of Western Allies.That mindset may have been transmitted to more recent times,but it's not nazism.It's a dilemma analogous to Churchill's problem,like it or not.The fact that the Nazis choose to be murderous bastards instead of liberating crusaders likely cost them the war in the East,and it's not the fault of E Europeans,although we have our share of sins.In the words of a wiser man ''it was more than murder,it was a mistake''.

Just to be clear, I'm not out to defame the character of E.Europeans. Over the past few years I have encountered a number on the internet. Most were, like yourself, Gabriel & the other E.Europeans on WAB thoroughly intelligent & likeable types. One or two were not, among them a few with pronounced fascist tendenceis & Nazi sympathies.

They were not really the ones I was aiming at, however. The comments I was going for were the 'the nazis weren't as bad as the communists'. Often the rider 'unless you were a Jew' was added. My issue was never that the comments were factually incorrect - in many places the nazis were not as bad as the communists. My problem was more that the comments ignored the wider implications of a nazi victory and made comparisons (4 years rule vs 40) that were meaningless. For me such comments are analogous to Western left wingers who would point to any failure in the post-communist nations of E.Europe and imply that throwing off communism was a mistake. At best suspect history.

As a much younger person we made close friends with a Finnish family who attempted to explain the difficulty of having a set of bad choices, none of which you want to make (the mother of the family grew up in Karelia, which has been part of Russia since the Winter War. She & my mother went back to see where she had grown up - now a ghost town. it was a terrible experience). I won't claim to understand the issues on a personal level, but I most definately get how shitty it was to be caught in between nazism & communism.

For the record (and speaking as a lifelong leftwinger) I wish Bolshevism had been crushed early, but I'm glad the Nazis lost WW2.


Another remark that touched a sensitive cord was the one about ''brain-dead anticommunists''.First of all it's an oxymoron.Second,I doubt you'll ever tell a Jew a braindead anti-nazi.I won't take it as an insult because I realize you were not malevolent.

If it makes you feel any better, I consider E.European anti-communists to be pretty well informed on the issue. Not at all braindead (well, some probably are, but you get the point). My comments were aimed elsewhere. I'll PM you & explain.


Finally you have a virtual glass of wine on my part,to settle any issue remaining.

I don't think we have any issues. I enjoy your posts, even when we don't agree. Not much of a wine drinker (does Romania do a good beer?), but have one for me next time you're at it.:)

gabriel
12 Jun 09,, 10:17
This has bean a very long tread, and i know that i did get on some peoples nerves sometimes, please except my apologies.
As for the theme of this tread i can safely say that the soviet army would not starve to death :
It would not starve to death because it would be us ( East Europeans) who would starve to death before them.
Now , the allied air-power is capable to cause huge logistical problems for the red army in terms of fuel and ammunition needed to
conduct defensive operations.
But that was also the case with Germany, remember that.
The cost of a 5 years war was to great for all of the sides involved to allow it to continue.
In my opinion this tread has reach a conclusion and i say good bye.

zraver
12 Jun 09,, 16:48
The Red Army could not live off the land. eastern Europe was already stripped bare or torched by the Germans. This means supplies have to come by rail across those territories. In fact everything has to come by rail most of the distance. This includes hay, early May is spring but the grass is not yet high enough to feed tens of thousands of horses. Nor are replacement horses close at hand. The German army had stripped Germany of horses and accidentally added to Germany's food woes by making the diversion of gasoline to farm tractors imperative for food production during the war.

The 1,293,600 liters of fuel is per day under optimal conditions just for the supply trucks not for the combat units. And that is under optimal conditios which it won't be. For one, returning trucks carry wounded and hospitals are not co-located with depots.

1700 calories is a starvation diet for troops in combat. The US MRE is about 5,000 calories and is designed so that if a soldier gets just 1 a day they won't starve in combat. 5000 calories is roughly 2 pounds of high density foods. If your transportign raw foods like potatoes your going to pay more in weight due to water, and if your transporting bulk foods like lentils and beans you can get the most efficient use of the trucks. It is likely to be a mixture of both. So probably 3 pounds per person per day.

They are going to have to transport water for at least some large segment of the army as Berlin is a built up city and the water mains are busted.

Then we get to combat units the T-34/85 needs about 600kg of ammunition and 584 liters of fuel each. Consider that any army wants to have 3 basic loads on hand that is 1800kg of ammo and 1600 liters of fuel each, but since the battle for Berlin just ended that has to be brought in. Artillery needs even more ammo- a lot more ammo. Soviet artillery and rockets just got done firing millions of shells, if they are going to support the infantry and tankers they now need millions more. The list of things the army needs is almost endless.

This is where the Red Army ends up in the bag, its not sitting in Berlin and surrounding areas drawing on local stores built up over time- it jsut got to the area over broken battered ground, its vehicles are worn out, its horses are exhausted, the men are tired and the available stocks of all types of consumables are low so they have to resupply under threat from the biggest assemblage of air power ever seen.

Mihais
12 Jun 09,, 17:48
''I don't think we have any issues. I enjoy your posts, even when we don't agree. Not much of a wine drinker (does Romania do a good beer?), but have one for me next time you're at it.''

I'm not into beer,but a few years ago some friends from England couldn't get enough Ursus and Ciuc.The fact that they bought 7,8 for the price of one back home added considerably to their enthusiasm.:biggrin:

''Not just his fault I am afraid. Nor just the Brits for that matter. The French must share the blame. To be fair so must some of the nations Of E.Europe, but that is for another day.''

I thought you wouldn't like to be a French.:biggrin: Anglo-Saxon legacy....My buddies drilled me in that regard.
Seriously,they were more to blame.At the time(before Munich) all they had to do was to really raise the tone and flex some muscles.They had a larger leverage over Hitler thanks to their army and alliances.Of course it's a long story.But Adolf faced either a coup or deep humiliation without Munich.


''For the record (and speaking as a lifelong leftwinger) I wish Bolshevism had been crushed early, but I'm glad the Nazis lost WW2.''

Me too.Something that would be really interesting to discuss would be the inner stability of a Nazi regime that survives somehow the war.The commies managed to crumble by themselves(with a little help from the arms race in the 80's).Little doubt it would be a bloody mess worldwide,as you pointed out.But they were far from ''one party under the Fuhrer''.

''One or two were not, among them a few with pronounced fascist tendenceis & Nazi sympathies.''

Nutcases are everywhere and off all colours.I'm still waiting to meet one that can argue in a coherent manner his case.I''ll even offer to protect his right to speak freely as long as he does that.I doubt I'll ever need to make that effort,though.

gunnut
12 Jun 09,, 18:17
This brings up another question. How did the western allies supply their troops on the western front? There must be 2 million men between the US, UK, Canada, France, and others, from Rome to Bavaria to Antwerp. Western troops were more "spoiled" and they had to have their smokes and candy bars so that would add to the 3 lb per person allowance. How were these men supplied?

Officer of Engineers
12 Jun 09,, 19:17
Red Ball Express - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ball_Express)

zraver
12 Jun 09,, 19:30
This brings up another question. How did the western allies supply their troops on the western front? There must be 2 million men between the US, UK, Canada, France, and others, from Rome to Bavaria to Antwerp. Western troops were more "spoiled" and they had to have their smokes and candy bars so that would add to the 3 lb per person allowance. How were these men supplied?

Fewer divisions, more trucks, more and better roads across France, closer to the point of supply (ports) and a narrower frontage.I think in France at its peak the Allies had just over a million men, considerably fewer in Italy. These peaks were achieved after the destruction of the Luftwaffe, the liberation of the Balkans and the opening of Antwerp. The Soviets have more than twice the men and considerably less than half the transport capacity all types from trucks to trains to road capacity.

jlvfr
12 Jun 09,, 20:11
With the end of the war in Italy, massive amounts of supplies could be diverted north...

zraver
13 Jun 09,, 19:19
With the end of the war in Italy, massive amounts of supplies could be diverted north...

It also opens up Italy as a shipping point from the US that is well and truly outside the range of Soviet aircraft. It completely exposes the Southern flank of the Red Army (the Brits are already in the Balkans), means the Allies can support Turkey in safety and sortie into the black sea where the ancient Soviet fleet will be dead meat.

other options from the South include direct support of Iraq/Iran from Turkey,a direct ground border with the Soviet Union from Turkey and using Turkey as a new Great Britain/China super sized airbase to reach deep into the USSR.

Triple C
14 Jun 09,, 12:43
No one said supplying the Allied Armies was easy, but as others have pointed out, they have got trucks, ships and heavy transport aircrafts like no other. Allied engineering capability was also far greater than the Red Army's and IIRC successfully repaired the railroads and bridges in France for military purposes.