Page 18 of 35 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021222324252627 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 521

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #256
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    There may not be the 'industrial oomph', but this is a USSR in full possession of all its 1941 industry, resources & population. No time & resources lost having to relocate factories & workers or just plain build & train new ones. It won't take nearly the effort to produce that sort of output in this ATL as it would in OTL. Soviet industry won't be running at wartime tempo, but capacity will still be more than enough.

    I would also suggest that if pre-war stocks lasted long enough for Mars & Uranus then they will be more than adequate for this operation with some left to spare.
    Undoutably there was more than enough of most things. Havinng years to build up after all. The only shortages would be 82, 107, and 120mm mortar rounds as this was a new weapon system copied from the French and of course the 76mm rounds needed by the T-34/KV-1 and the zis-3 76mm AT gun. Most stocks in the FE would be 45mm rounds which are more than enough for any tank Japan has.

  2. #257
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Then is it within the relm of probability (note I ask of probability) that the resources of either MARS or URANUS be assigned to Manchuria. If so, what is lacking then to do a AUGUST STORM?
    Logistics and equipment


    1. The truck fleet is small and mostly light 2x4. Soviet industry is not producing many 4x4 platforms at all and no medium or heavy trucks with 4x4/4x6. They are relying on tractors and horses.

    2. Lack of significant road network

    3. Lack of a significant rail network

    4. Short range of Soviet tanks

    It doesn't matter how many tons of supplies you have at the depot, what matters is how fast you can move them in bulk from depot to army, corps, division, brigade, regiment, battalion, company and platoon. The lack of a robust transport net, poor quality movers and fuel hungry tanks means hundred mile dashes and sweeping double envelopment are not likely. The Soviets could likely bag the border divisions as long as some sort of Finland like resistance didn't develop. But after that 12 miles a day would likely be the average of the advance during the exploitation phase. That average was set by Alexander and held true for every army in history except for the Mongols (pure horse) and the Americans (pure motorized). Even the Germans in Barbarossa only exceeded this with the panzer and motorized divisions, the infantry had to walk. The Soviet T-26 has an off road range of about 80 miles. The BT-5 has a 120 miles. The only real breakthrough tanks in any numbers in the east are the BT-7 with its larger though still gasoline engine and range of 200 miles. To add T-34's and their 250 mile range in numbers complicates an already bad supply situation by adding large amounts of diesel fuel that have to be transported. One reason so many BT tanks and T-26's were left in the FE in OTL and were thus used in August Storm was to simplify logistics as they used gas and the Soviets were switching to diesel. Its also why the vastly superior T-44 tank was never deployed against Germany in 1945 despite being available in numbers. Adding another chassis to support at the end of now long logistics line wasn't worth it.

  3. #258
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    1. The truck fleet is small and mostly light 2x4. Soviet industry is not producing many 4x4 platforms at all and no medium or heavy trucks with 4x4/4x6. They are relying on tractors and horses.
    The Red Army did 200 mile sweeps at MARS and URANUS without 4x4 and 4x6 trucks.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    2. Lack of significant road network

    3. Lack of a significant rail network
    Same conditions that existed in 45.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    4. Short range of Soviet tanks
    There was no tank vs tank decision in 39 nor 45. The bulk of Soviet combat power in AUGUST STORM was artillery and motor rifle units. The tank was used in infantry support role.

  4. #259
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The Red Army did 200 mile sweeps at MARS and URANUS without 4x4 and 4x6 trucks.
    That was with longer ranged T-34's and they still ended up getting their nuts chopped at Kharkov when the tanks ran out of fuel. Look at what happened when they attacked a year earlier in the same spot, they didn't just get their nuts chopped, they got the whole package chopped off and ended up so badly weakened the Germans reached Asia. As good as Vatutin was, with no gas, Mainstein bested him. The importance of the 4x4 truck to the Soviets cannot be under estimated, during the second half of LL (43-45) trucks, machine tools, fuels and chemicals dominated not tanks and planes. 2x4 trucks are limited to hard packed forgiving terrain. Once you start into rough terrain they rapidly become useless. Like I said previously, pre-war the Soviets used a lot of tractors and horses. The main Soviet prime movers for divisional and corps level heavy guns were the S-60 and S-65 Stalinets tractors with a road speed of 5km

    Same conditions that existed in 45.
    The Red Army wasn't the same though. They had a much better truck fleet, and years of combat operations on a grand scale that had weeded out the bad commanders and forced the good ones to learn logistics inside and out.

    There was no tank vs tank decision in 39 nor 45. The bulk of Soviet combat power in AUGUST STORM was artillery and motor rifle units. The tank was used in infantry support role.
    Sir, the Soviets are not going to break through without tanks and infantry is not an arm of exploitation. One of the most painfully learned lessons of WWI was that enemy reserves moving over open ground on shorter lines are always faster than attacking infantry moving over artillery damaged terrain. Additionally, the Soviet-Japanese battles in Mongolia used tanks as break through weapons and tank on tank clashes did occur, if not on the scale of the later WWII. Japan had 2 armored divisions and some additional armored units so tank on tank clashes would occur. For several years in the 1930's Japan was the number 3 producer of tanks in the world after the USSR and Germany but ahead of France and the UK. I don't think you are arguing that Soviet infantry would fix bayonets and charge, the Japanese would win that fight. The bulk of Soviet tanks available in the FE have very short ranges, suitable for penetrating a division and maybe getting into a corps areas, but not really suitable for wide and deep breakthroughs.
    Last edited by zraver; 07 Jan 18, at 23:57.

  5. #260
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Jason, I am confused by your position. You said in 1942 that the Soviets lacked logistics and equipment to do a AUGUST STORM but we've shown that the Soviets were capable of establishing a 200 mile LOC using 2x2 and 2x4 trucks. While the T-34 does make a big difference, within the FE theatre, they would be overkill since they would never start an action without infantry and artillery.

    And the only von Manstien the Japanese had was being clobbered by the YORKTOWN, HORNET, and ENTERPRISE.

  6. #261
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Jason, I am confused by your position. You said in 1942 that the Soviets lacked logistics and equipment to do a AUGUST STORM but we've shown that the Soviets were capable of establishing a 200 mile LOC using 2x2 and 2x4 trucks. While the T-34 does make a big difference, within the FE theatre, they would be overkill since they would never start an action without infantry and artillery.

    The T-34's were key since they had the range to exploit the break through. The T-26 and BT-5 do not. The most common tank in Uranus and Mars was the T-34 with a range in excess of 200 miles. The most common Soviet tanks in 42 had half that range.

    And the only von Manstien the Japanese had was being clobbered by the YORKTOWN, HORNET, and ENTERPRISE.
    Not true, Yamashita and Homma were both very good and ran circles around the allies in 41/42. Komatsubara fought Zhukov to a draw until Japan made public promises not to expand the fighting in Mongolia which let Zhukov pull troops from the rest of the border areas. Though Komatsubara died of cancer in 1940.

  7. #262
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,958
    Sir, I am not arguing the Japanese would win, but I do not think a Soviet offensive in 1942 would look anything like August Storm. The main Soviet supply base at least for the clashes in 39 is in Chita some 600km from where the fighting took place. It took the Soviets between 4,000 and 10,000 trucks to sustain Zhukov's operation in 1939. The Soviets had the same problems Rommel and Guderian had... and endless sea of grass that ate up fuel and wore out tanks and that is just getting to the border.

  8. #263
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The T-34's were key since they had the range to exploit the break through. The T-26 and BT-5 do not. The most common tank in Uranus and Mars was the T-34 with a range in excess of 200 miles. The most common Soviet tanks in 42 had half that range.
    Ok, so now we have the point of divergence, the T-34.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Not true, Yamashita and Homma were both very good and ran circles around the allies in 41/42.
    They ran circles around the allies because they did things the allies didn't expect, using jungles instead of the roads but it was a race between who would be bingo ammo and food first

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Komatsubara fought Zhukov to a draw until Japan made public promises not to expand the fighting in Mongolia which let Zhukov pull troops from the rest of the border areas. Though Komatsubara died of cancer in 1940.
    He broke the first tenent of warfare. He lost the enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Sir, I am not arguing the Japanese would win, but I do not think a Soviet offensive in 1942 would look anything like August Storm. The main Soviet supply base at least for the clashes in 39 is in Chita some 600km from where the fighting took place. It took the Soviets between 4,000 and 10,000 trucks to sustain Zhukov's operation in 1939. The Soviets had the same problems Rommel and Guderian had... and endless sea of grass that ate up fuel and wore out tanks and that is just getting to the border.
    I'm trying to see your point. I certainly agree that the campaign would take longer but I cannot see it being uglier for the Russians. I also cannot see Zuhkov planning anything less bold. The North Front might meet more resistance but I can't see the Japanese being prepared for the East and West Fronts.

  9. #264
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    1. The truck fleet is small and mostly light 2x4. Soviet industry is not producing many 4x4 platforms at all and no medium or heavy trucks with 4x4/4x6. They are relying on tractors and horses.
    Z,

    On the truck issue, the Russians had over 50,000 4/6 trucks by the end of 1941 when production seems to have scaled back, likely as a result of LL. There were over 30,000 GAZ-AAA which could carry 2000kg off road and 20,000 Zis-6 which could carry double that (more capacity than the Studebaker but less than the Ford trucks they received). Some of those ended up as Katyushas once production of those ramped up in late 1941. Others mounted different types of light guns (AA etc.), towed artillery, or just did normal truck stuff.

    Given that the Russians produced 1 million of the Zis-5 during the war its fair to assume the capacity existed to produce more 4/6 trucks in preparation for an offensive over difficult terrain. I'm not assuming another 50,000 magically appear, but the units attacking from Mongolia aren't going to be completely reliant on the smaller 4/2 trucks for supply.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  10. #265
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,958
    [QUOTE=Bigfella;1033551]Z,

    On the truck issue, the Russians had over 50,000 4/6 trucks by the end of 1941 when production seems to have scaled back, likely as a result of LL. There were over 30,000 GAZ-AAA which could carry 2000kg off road and 20,000 Zis-6 which could carry double that (more capacity than the Studebaker but less than the Ford trucks they received). Some of those ended up as Katyushas once production of those ramped up in late 1941. Others mounted different types of light guns (AA etc.), towed artillery, or just did normal truck stuff.[/quote[

    The Gaz-AAA was a Gaz-MM with a quad AAA mount, it was not 4x6. It was 2x6 Look at period pictures, solid front axel no differential pumkin.

    Given that the Russians produced 1 million of the Zis-5 during the war its fair to assume the capacity existed to produce more 4/6 trucks in preparation for an offensive over difficult terrain. I'm not assuming another 50,000 magically appear, but the units attacking from Mongolia aren't going to be completely reliant on the smaller 4/2 trucks for supply.
    The Zis-5 is 2x6 It was 2x6 Look at period pictures, solid front axel no differential pumkin.

  11. #266
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Ok, so now we have the point of divergence, the T-34.
    Yup, its range is key for this discussion.

    They ran circles around the allies because they did things the allies didn't expect, using jungles instead of the roads but it was a race between who would be bingo ammo and food first
    All true, but that just proves they were tatically adept and resourceful.

    He broke the first tenent of warfare. He lost the enemy.
    He didn't, the Japanese government did. He was just a divisional commander who fought as well as could be dreamed of given the resources he had.

    I'm trying to see your point. I certainly agree that the campaign would take longer but I cannot see it being uglier for the Russians. I also cannot see Zuhkov planning anything less bold. The North Front might meet more resistance but I can't see the Japanese being prepared for the East and West Fronts.
    The Soviets have 2 districts in OTL. The 780K men is an advantage, but not as great as in 45 when they had 3 fronts and 1.5 million troops. The Japanese are also stronger on both (relative) quality and quantity in 42.

  12. #267
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,822
    Was going to reply earlier, but I had to double check my math.

    The T-34/85 is ideally going to get closer to 170 miles off-road.

    The 250-mile figure seems to be based on road radius, if all 3 external tanks are filled with diesel.

    They put engine oil in the 3rd external tank, because the T-34 burned through oil faster than it burned through fuel.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 08 Jan 18, at 19:56.

  13. #268
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Yup, its range is key for this discussion.
    How would the T-34 be key for the East and West Fronts since the IJA never saw and never even considered being enveloped by them? By the time the IJA knew of them, it was already too late to even put up a hasty defence.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    All true, but that just proves they were tatically adept and resourceful.
    And it also proves that they could not think operationally and prepared to fight the next battle nor even the enevitable counter-attack from an enemy still on the battlefield and not denied contingencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    He didn't, the Japanese government did. He was just a divisional commander who fought as well as could be dreamed of given the resources he had.
    His recee and intel were failures. He didn't know he was facing a superior enemy and he was blinded by Zuhkov's fixing force.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The Soviets have 2 districts in OTL. The 780K men is an advantage, but not as great as in 45 when they had 3 fronts and 1.5 million troops. The Japanese are also stronger on both (relative) quality and quantity in 42.
    That would not make sense to me that Zhukov would attack with such low odds. He prefered at least 5 to 1 advantage and the build up be as stealthy as possible.

  14. #269
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The Gaz-AAA was a Gaz-MM with a quad AAA mount, it was not 4x6. It was 2x6 Look at period pictures, solid front axel no differential pumkin.



    The Zis-5 is 2x6 It was 2x6 Look at period pictures, solid front axel no differential pumkin.
    Sorry Z, that isn't what the specs say. Both classified as 6x4.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  15. #270
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,822
    This site has a load of spec sheets on the GAZ-AAA:

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...ks/GAZ_AAA.htm

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Fall of Pelosi?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 22:15
  2. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  3. The Fall of Communism
    By Leader in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Jul 05,, 10:40
  4. The fall of France
    By tarek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 23:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •