Originally posted by Bigfella
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fall of France
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThen 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?
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View Post1. 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.
Originally posted by zraver View Post2. Lack of significant road network
3. Lack of a significant rail network
Originally posted by zraver View Post4. Short range of Soviet tanksChimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThe Red Army did 200 mile sweeps at MARS and URANUS without 4x4 and 4x6 trucks.
Same conditions that existed in 45.
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.Last edited by zraver; 08 Jan 18,, 00:57.
Comment
-
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.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostJason, 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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe 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.
Originally posted by zraver View PostNot true, Yamashita and Homma were both very good and ran circles around the allies in 41/42.
Originally posted by zraver View PostKomatsubara 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.
Originally posted by zraver View PostSir, 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.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View Post1. 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.
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.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
[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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostOk, so now we have the point of divergence, the T-34.
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
He broke the first tenent of warfare. He lost the enemy.
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.
Comment
-
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,, 20:56."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostYup, its range is key for this discussion.
Originally posted by zraver View PostAll true, but that just proves they were tatically adept and resourceful.
Originally posted by zraver View PostHe 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.
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe 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.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe 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.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
This site has a load of spec sheets on the GAZ-AAA:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...ks/GAZ_AAA.htm"Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
Comment