Page 20 of 35 FirstFirst ... 11121314151617181920212223242526272829 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 513

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #286
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    You're right. Lend-lease provided 100,000 US6 6x6s to the SU.
    Add in the other US trucks excluding Jeeps and the total is north of 175,000. Almost all of them true off road capable.

  2. #287
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,911
    Jan 43 LL trucks made up less than 1% of the Soviet truck fleet. By 1944 more than 1 in 5 Soviet trucks was LL buy 45 it was 1 in 3. This is important because the Spring of 43 is the last Soviet offensive that outran its supplies and got chopped by German reserves. German combat strength would hover around 4000 AFV's in the East until Bagration. Meanwhile Soviet AFV strength dropped from over 10K to under 8K so the ration actually improved for Germany. Plus the German's were falling back on interior lines and scorching the earth. Yes the Soviets got better conceptually, the VVS was dominant etc but the ability to move supplies just behind the advancing troops plays a critical role.

  3. #288
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Give it up. You forgot who I was or else, you would not be asking for sources. They are littered throughout this forum. You have no interest in learning anything or else you would not be repeating crap that we threw out in the 70s, especially those who stood guard. What scared us wasn't Russian numbers. What scared us was that the Russians knew how to use those numbers. I've posted links on NATO's publications. One of them was the Soviet Battle Book published in the 80s, meaning the knowledge was available in the 70s. Those of us who read it can recognize Stalingrad, Kursk, BAGGRATION, Berlin, as well as AUGUST STORM.

    Russian military thought is large, cutting edge, innovative, and deep, worthy of respect and study. You have neither.
    I was quoting sources from elsewhere on the casualties point. You seemed to be disputing them. I never questioned the Soviet ability to carry out large offensive operations. My main bone of contention is that as we all know they had a leadership crisis in the 30's and early 40's....demonstrated vividly in Finland. I fully accept the Japanese lost The Battles of Khalkhyn Gol ..as their attention and resources were aimed elsewhere.
    But if you think a bunch of accounts popping out of the wood work one by one all shouting one way is what counts, then guess what, I'll shout the opposite way ...its gotta be better than a shop full of nodding donkeys....
    Last edited by Toby; 21 Jan 18, at 00:49.

  4. #289
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I knew that was coming, and the Colonel still has his hounds on a leash.
    I went to Delphi 20 years ago, The Oracle there was a priestess high on drugs mumbling incoherent prophesies, Relative of yours?

  5. #290
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,626
    She was also invariably right.

  6. #291
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I was quoting sources from elsewhere on the casualties point.
    Wiki but you've missed the citations which would have lead you to deeper studies. Wiki for most here is the start. We look at the citations which would have lead to a deeper study.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You seemed to be disputing them.
    I've said that 60,000 men did not answered roll call which is curious. I don't know what happened to those 60,000 men. Their enlistment might have been up and gone home and new recruits were needed elsewhere in China ... or they could have died in Siberia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I never questioned the Soviet ability to carry out large offensive operations.
    Keyword right there. Operations. The C2 grouping between tactics and strategy. The Soviets wrote the Masters Thesis on it. The Japanese never even had an Operational Level HQ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    My main bone of contention is that as we all know they had a leadership crisis in the 30's and early 40's....demonstrated vividly in Finland.
    Stalin used 2 ways to purge the Red Army's officer corps, execution or exile. Both Zhukov and Chuikov were freezing their asses off in Siberia and China before returning to European Russia. Obviously, Stalin could not replaced the executed officer corps but he did rebuild it by recalling the exiled group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I fully accept the Japanese lost The Battles of Khalkhyn Gol ..as their attention and resources were aimed elsewhere.
    Where? Pearl Harbour has yet to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    But if you think a bunch of accounts popping out of the wood work one by one all shouting one way is what counts,
    I don't work that way and neither does the WAB. I had this dispute with the WAB for years that Stalin could kick Tojo's ass while the rest of the WAB believe that at the very least, the IJA could have bled the Soviets white. It took years of discussing this issue back and forth proposing numbers and available stock, citing examples and battles.

    It is by no accident that we keep mentioning Operations MARS, URANUS, BAGRATION, AUGUST STORM. You keep mentioning the Soviets rely on numbers but it is nothing out of the ordinary. During WWII, the Western Allies did not begin an attack without a 3 to 1 superiority. The Soviets just prefer a 5/6 to 1 superiority. I have also cited Imphal and Kohima to show the Japanese were absolutely clueless to Operational thinking. They included capturing food and munitions as part of their logistical needs for ~100,000 men. Compare that to the Soviets who built up food stocks, water, and munitions for a million+ men during MARS, URANUS.

    And you want us to believe that the Japanese were better than the Soviets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    then guess what, I'll shout the opposite way ...its gotta be better than a shop full of nodding donkeys....
    No, it just make you a jackass. We keep citing examples to you and instead of taking the lead and read up on what we're suggesting, you want us to handfeed you. BTW, the Japanese also never admitted to losing 60,000 men at Imphal and Kohima or you could call Bill Slim's BIA also liars.

  7. #292
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    She was also invariably right.
    Of course....she was a woman!

  8. #293
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Wiki but you've missed the citations which would have lead you to deeper studies. Wiki for most here is the start. We look at the citations which would have lead to a deeper study.
    Alzheimer's can be a real bugger at times. I quoted the author of the citation, you even said you had the book.

    or they could have died in Siberia.
    very likely


    Where? Pearl Harbour has yet to happen.
    the 2nd Sino-Japanese war!!!! You know? that other big war to the south!

    I don't work that way and neither does the WAB. I had this dispute with the WAB for years that Stalin could kick Tojo's ass while the rest of the WAB believe that at the very least, the IJA could have bled the Soviets white. It took years of discussing this issue back and forth proposing numbers and available stock, citing examples and battles.
    Fine, I get that you are very well read. I don't doubt that for a second

    It is by no accident that we keep mentioning Operations MARS, URANUS, BAGRATION, AUGUST STORM. You keep mentioning the Soviets rely on numbers but it is nothing out of the ordinary. During WWII, the Western Allies did not begin an attack without a 3 to 1 superiority. The Soviets just prefer a 5/6 to 1 superiority. I have also cited Imphal and Kohima to show the Japanese were absolutely clueless to Operational thinking. They included capturing food and munitions as part of their logistical needs for ~100,000 men. Compare that to the Soviets who built up food stocks, water, and munitions for a million+ men during MARS, URANUS.
    All armies capture food. The Soviets did have the advantage of being in their own country though

    And you want us to believe that the Japanese were better than the Soviets?
    From 41 onwards The Japanese were fighting the Americans, Australians, British/British Indian army, The Chinese both nationalist and communist and latterly the Soviets from 45 and still only surrendered due to 2 atom bombs! which puts holes in your conclusion. Further, just look at Japanese industry after the war and look at Soviet industry. The Japanese are far superior.

    No, it just make you a jackass. We keep citing examples to you and instead of taking the lead and read up on what we're suggesting, you want us to handfeed you. BTW, the Japanese also never admitted to losing 60,000 men at Imphal and Kohima or you could call Bill Slim's BIA also liars
    Thank you. I'll continue to be a jackass just as long as you pretend to be the font of all knowledge. No doubt propaganda was used on all sides. Although Bill Slim would have found it a lot harder to misplace 60,000 men! Call the British all you like but we tend not to be as proficient at mass extermination..Unlike others!

    Anyway, I need a pint!

  9. #294
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,911
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post

    It is by no accident that we keep mentioning Operations MARS, URANUS, BAGRATION, AUGUST STORM.
    Toby,

    And why we argue about things like trucks. Mars and Uranus both ended contrary to Soviet designs, Bagration didn't. Its why we get into the weeds and spend less time on body counts.

  10. #295
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Toby,

    And why we argue about things like trucks. Mars and Uranus both ended contrary to Soviet designs, Bagration didn't. Its why we get into the weeds and spend less time on body counts.
    Bagration didn't get into the weeds because Germany was a spent force fighting on all fronts.

  11. #296
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    From 41 onwards The Japanese were fighting the Americans, Australians, British/British Indian army, The Chinese both nationalist and communist and latterly the Soviets from 45 and still only surrendered due to 2 atom bombs! which puts holes in your conclusion. Further, just look at Japanese industry after the war and look at Soviet industry. The Japanese are far superior.
    Japanese vs Soviet industry....

    Tanks and self-propelled guns production
    Soviets: 100,000+
    Japanese: 4500

    That number alone should make you think. Japan had but a fraction of the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union.

    Furthermore, Japan historically did not face the full brunt of the US war effort. The US divided its war efforts in a roughly 85 (Atlantic) to 15 (Pacific) ratio.

    Japan lasted as long as it did because it was placed on the backburner as the strategically least important theater.

  12. #297
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Japanese vs Soviet industry....

    Tanks and self-propelled guns production
    Soviets: 100,000+
    Japanese: 4500

    That number alone should make you think. Japan had but a fraction of the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union.
    Japan had a fraction of its industry producing tanks is all that says. Like the UK its primary concern was its navy. I never said the Soviets or Russians are not good at producing armaments. Lets face it that's all they seem to be good at producing!

    Furthermore, Japan historically did not face the full brunt of the US war effort. The US divided its war efforts in a roughly 85 (Atlantic) to 15 (Pacific) ratio.
    Agreed and had US industrial power been brought to bare on Japan from 41 onward then Japan would have been brought to its knees alot sooner
    Japan lasted as long as it did because it was placed on the backburner as the strategically least important theater.
    Still took 2 atom bombs to finish it though.

  13. #298
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,477
    Japan lasted as long as it did because it was placed on the backburner as the strategically least important theater.
    and also because of the tyranny of distance and island-hopping. the islands essentially allowed them to fight WWI battles, which was the only thing the IJA could ever really do.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  14. #299
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    and also because of the tyranny of distance and island-hopping. the islands essentially allowed them to fight WWI battles, which was the only thing the IJA could ever really do.
    Interesting point

  15. #300
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Japan had a fraction of its industry producing tanks is all that says. Like the UK its primary concern was its navy. I never said the Soviets or Russians are not good at producing armaments. Lets face it that's all they seem to be good at producing!
    Japan's naval production during WWII was anemic. Even at zero naval production, there's not enough slack industrial capacity to make up for but a smidge in matching Soviet industrial capacity. The Soviets historically had 20x the crude oil, 3x the iron, and 3x the coal production of Japan during the war.

    Japan was not an industrial powerhouse during WWII.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 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
  •