Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fall of France

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Toby View Post
    The Mongolian border conflict....Hardly comparable though eh? The Japanese tanks were even worse than the Italian ones and there weren't that many of them. Another reason Japan stayed out of the Soviet Unions way during WW2
    In 1939 Poland had about 500 tanks & tankettes. Japan had close to 140 in just this battle. No one doubts that the Germans were using blitzkrieg tactics in Poland.

    The point is that the tactics adopted by Zhukov were strongly influenced by 'Deep Battle'. It isn't about the opposition, its about what the Russians did. The Russians deployed 60,00 men & 500 tanks in the final battle. I'm pretty sure this was the largest use of tanks & armored vehicles in a single battle to date (there was a similar sized French deployment at Soissons in 1918, but the Russians had an equal number of armored cars, and there were no German tanks deployed against the French). There was extensive use of deception; a big logistics build up; large scale co-ordination with air units; armored units with motorized infantry; co-ordination of artillery, infantry & armor; a frontal attack to pin the enemy & then a double envelopment.

    This is the sort of battle Russian theorists had planned for in the 20s & 30s. It was also the sort of battle the Germans conducted on a much larger scale a week later in Poland - combat finished here on March 31. So, the Russians didn't just implement these ideas on a large scale in their own army before the Germans, they even used them in combat first. I need to do a bit of digging, but there may also have been use of some of these ideas in the second phase of the Winter War in 1940 - after Vorishilov had comprehensively cocked up the initial attacks. Unfortunately for the Red Army the impact of the purges & Stalin robbed it of the ability to properly implement these ideas against Germany until 1942-3.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Toby View Post
      The Mongolian border conflict....Hardly comparable though eh? The Japanese tanks were even worse than the Italian ones and there weren't that many of them. Another reason Japan stayed out of the Soviet Unions way during WW2
      Germany should have learned the same lesson in Spain....


      Japanese tanks were odd but roughly comparable to anything in Western Europe in 1933, and were often superior in concept and gun power. The Soviet tanks in Manchuria though were primarily T-26's and BT's. The T-26's were locally built and improved copies of the British Vickers 6ton tanks armed with a 45mm gun. The Soviets also had the BT series of tanks with the same gun. This gave the Soviets a gun power advantage they used to very good effect. Here is the thing though. Had the Soviets been armed with the most numerous German tanks the gun power advantage would have been reversed. Japanese tanks in 1939 had a signifigant gun power advantage over the PzII. This is something the Germans already knew. One of the big lessons for the Germans out of Spain was just how badly outgunned they were vs Russian tanks. 45mm armed T-26's shot up Pz I and II's in Spain at 1000m while being immune to return fire just as they did Japanese tanks in Mongolia.

      France was the only country before 1940 that had tanks that could match Russian gun power in sufficient numbers to matter. Then as the rest of the world was catching up with AT gun equipped tanks mounting 37-47mm; the Russian's leap frogged everyone again and went to a 76mm gun.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
        Well of course everybody had to catch up the the German army. The Germans were first to actually implement their doctrine on the battlefield. How can you possibly question that?

        The Soviets may have had some ideas about land warfare doctrine but they were no where near the level the Germans were at. To even suggest the Soviets were near to or on par with ze Germans is silly. To even begin to have a modern armored doctrine they'd need to have radios in their tanks.
        Until the purges they were, and had Stalin pulled the trigger there is not much that could have stopped him. Sure Poland was allied with Frace but as real history shows, France didn't show up for her ally. Perhaps luckily, Stalin was too paranoid to pull the trigger in 36. Hitler was a unmitigated disaster for the world but his defeat created a liberal western Europe.

        There is absolutely nothing about the Soviet army of World War 2 that is special. It was a crude agricultural peasant army. Nothing good comes from Communism.
        Cutting edge artillery innovation matched only by the Americans. Revolutionary tank concepts, truly stunning mastery of logistics given the limited transport network, ability to mass decisive numbers given the same limited transport net, epic resistance battles like Sevastopol, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Germany took all of France in 6 weeks, the battles in the east lasted longer, often much longer than that for single cities. Peasant army they might have been, but they won.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
          So this isn't about facts & knowledge, its about ideology. Explains the quality of your posts. Ideology is the enemy of good history, and this discussion is a historical one. You can't be educated because you don't want to be educated.

          I'll reserve my efforts for people who are willing & able to learn.
          You're correct, I don't see any facts or knowledge in your posts. I have no doubt you've got a soft spot for communism and you're doing what alot of people with said soft spot love to do - glorify the great peoples army.

          Now I gather you've read a book of some sort written by a fellow red proponent that has informed you that despite the actual historic performance of the soviet army (including the huge losses they sustained) they were actually pretty darn good at everything. I'm sorry, but it's just not the case. It is interesting to know that someone is making history books in the bigfella friendly 'pop-up picture' format though. Easy now!

          Zhukov's tactics against the Japanese were nothing special. He simply used his mobility superiority to out maneuver the relatively immobile Japanese. He had a shed load of tanks so he won the day. Also the Japanese weren't exactly a modern force so Zhukov could have probably had the day off with the same result. It's like calling a bar tender a master of his trade because he poured a couple of pots and gave you the correct change.

          I know you're quite well versed in military history (obviously though red tinted goggles) so I must assume that you've simply overlooked the elephant in the room. That elephant being the Soviet tanks lacking radios. The German's couldn't have performed as they did without them. The soviets could group their tanks together just like the Germans did but not a panzer division does that make. An essential component of blitzkrieg is force concentration and cohesion. The soviet flag system worked for all of two seconds in battle so come the 3 second mark the soviet tanks were all fighting their individual wars.

          And for god sake look at the losses the Soviets took. Are you just ignoring them? Because it kind of destroys your whole argument. It's like your trying to inflate a balloon that doesn't just have holes in it but isn't actually a balloon at all. You're actually licking the side of a WeetBix box making 'whooshing' noises. You can try and spin a narrative that the soviet doctrine was actually far superior to that of the Germans if you want to but how do you explain away the dismal historic performance on the battlefield? It's kind of like the story with the T34 and it's superiority. Just ignore the fact that on the battlefield the only way they out performed the german tanks was at the rate they were lost. But sloped armor you see.

          Anyway, you're talking nonsense plain and simple. You may have won over your comrads down at the local bar with your stories of Soviet superiority but not me, oh no. I've played all the call of duty games with special attention given to the soviet campaign that was in one of the versions. You could say I was there.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Until the purges they were, and had Stalin pulled the trigger there is not much that could have stopped him. Sure Poland was allied with Frace but as real history shows, France didn't show up for her ally. Perhaps luckily, Stalin was too paranoid to pull the trigger in 36. Hitler was a unmitigated disaster for the world but his defeat created a liberal western Europe.



            Cutting edge artillery innovation matched only by the Americans. Revolutionary tank concepts, truly stunning mastery of logistics given the limited transport network, ability to mass decisive numbers given the same limited transport net, epic resistance battles like Sevastopol, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Germany took all of France in 6 weeks, the battles in the east lasted longer, often much longer than that for single cities. Peasant army they might have been, but they won.
            I see any offensive use of the red army in 36 as almost certainly ending in disaster. A key part of the soviet victory in ww2 was the fact the Russians were fighting for mother russia - not Stalin. I doubt Stalin could hold together the red army if things went bad.

            Questions:

            'cutting edge artillery innovation' what exactly are you refering to? Cheap rockets on gifted trucks?
            'Revolutionary tank concepts' They had concepts that's for sure? To me Soviet tanks were nothing special. They could have been with the proper engineering but that would slow production.
            'Truly stunning mastery of logistics' Are you easily impressed? I'm sure all of the 350000+ lend lease trucks were stunning when the Russians unboxed them, all shiney and new. Having such a road transport fleet delivered to your ports for essentially nothing will give you a sound logistics foundation. I'm not sure which bits earn the 'truly stunning mastery' title.

            The epic resistance battles you speak of are far to covered in dead russian soldiers for me. Stalin and his government didn't give a single shit about how many russian men were killed achieving his aims. What they lacked in brains they made up for with rivers of their men's blood.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
              Anyway, you're talking nonsense plain and simple. You may have won over your comrads down at the local bar with your stories of Soviet superiority but not me, oh no. I've played all the call of duty games with special attention given to the soviet campaign that was in one of the versions. You could say I was there.
              ALL the Call of Duty games you say? Well fuck, don't I feel stupid. All I've got is books by people who can read Russian & access primary source material. Gee, I feel so....inadequate. Its like having a real, live WW2 veteran on the forum. I just feel lucky to have you here. Thank you for your (cyber) service.

              Z,

              Time to call it quits man. This guy is like the ultimate expert. Glantz, Zaloga, all those boys at the Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth got nothin' on this guy. Bet none of them have ever played Call of Duty. I mean, what insight could you or I possibly bring to this topic in light of that revelation? Not like you've ever even been inside a real tank. ;-) Best we just give up & go lick our wounds over a discussion of the Marxist dialectic or somesuch.
              sigpic

              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                ALL the Call of Duty games you say? Well fuck, don't I feel stupid. All I've got is books by people who can read Russian & access primary source material. Gee, I feel so....inadequate. Its like having a real, live WW2 veteran on the forum. I just feel lucky to have you here. Thank you for your (cyber) service.

                Z,

                Time to call it quits man. This guy is like the ultimate expert. Glantz, Zaloga, all those boys at the Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth got nothin' on this guy. Bet none of them have ever played Call of Duty. I mean, what insight could you or I possibly bring to this topic in light of that revelation? Not like you've ever even been inside a real tank. ;-) Best we just give up & go lick our wounds over a discussion of the Marxist dialectic or somesuch.

                You're welcome and the pleasure is all mine. Your assessment of Soviet war fighting ability was so full of holes I could have called it out even without playing the Soviet campaign. I think it's the fact that I only play on the highest difficulty setting that gives me the judgement to make that call.

                FYI I've been in several tanks. You'd probably be aware of the centurions at Carabbean Market? I've actually been in more tanks than there have been world wars. Not to mention the call of duty levels that you drove a tank in.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Toby,

                  You might find this interesting. House is a top notch historian with a solid military background - he has actually helped to plan wars, so he gets this stuff. Sure, its not as good as playing video games, but it has some value. :-)

                  It covers quite a bit of ground, but it also speaks to the influence the German perspective on the Russian front has had on Western historians. When I made my remarks about 'outdated' perspectives this is a point I was getting at. Until the early 80s there were next to no decent Western accounts from the Soviet perspective. It took longer again for outsiders to gain decent access to Russian archives or for decent Russian histories to emerge (sadly that process has come to a halt for now). It also took a while for these perspectives to make their way into more accessible Western writings. Even with that, a lot of the old attitudes about Russians persist.

                  The idea that the winners always write history is frequently wrong. In the case of English language accounts of the Russian front German influenced perspectives are still woven deep into the way people view that conflict.

                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                    I agree. And it's a direct result of western governments adopting socialist policy and the coinciding growth of state control. With western countries running huge deficits the economic costs of socialist thinking and state control have been put off for the next generation.
                    Socialism on its own is flawed, but has helped rebalance who has the money and where the money gets spent. I'm not a socialist and I know that. Consumerism, a capitalist concept is to blame in large part for a lot of household debt ( collectively called national debt)...something I think you'll find started in America during the last crash in the 20's and 30's and comes under the heading of Capitalism. The banks want us in debt so they can charge us interest, which works fine until the Banks lose the rule book and forget that loans need repaying. How they could lend money to people who didn't have assets is beyond me, but they did big time. You can't blame that on socialism, you can blame that on greed!

                    Comment


                    • I stated earlier that both systems had merit.From a theoretical POV the Soviets shine in the planning phase.
                      When the show starts,the Soviet side has overwhelming superiority in numbers,plus surprise at a given point and time.That they suffer at tactical level due to ruthless enforcement of the plan is of secondary importance,since quite soon they penetrate the defense and start operating in depth.At which point the defender's losses start to mount.

                      The German approach is not to plan with as much care,but use existing opportunities.Say recon identifies a breach.A German commander will maneuver all he's got there.A Soviet will go there only if it does not derail the timetable.Bc time is more important for the Army/Front than the blood of one division.

                      In practice the Germans failed after 1943 to think operationally.Is not because they got dumber,but because Adolf.They made glaring errors before.But they could rectify some of those.

                      As for the Soviets,fail of the system is confused for fail of doctrine.No amount of training and equipment counts when the troops say " f... you,comrades,the enemy is a liberator".
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                        In 1939 Poland had about 500 tanks & tankettes. Japan had close to 140 in just this battle. No one doubts that the Germans were using blitzkrieg tactics in Poland.

                        The point is that the tactics adopted by Zhukov were strongly influenced by 'Deep Battle'. It isn't about the opposition, its about what the Russians did. The Russians deployed 60,00 men & 500 tanks in the final battle. I'm pretty sure this was the largest use of tanks & armored vehicles in a single battle to date (there was a similar sized French deployment at Soissons in 1918, but the Russians had an equal number of armored cars, and there were no German tanks deployed against the French). There was extensive use of deception; a big logistics build up; large scale co-ordination with air units; armored units with motorized infantry; co-ordination of artillery, infantry & armor; a frontal attack to pin the enemy & then a double envelopment.

                        This is the sort of battle Russian theorists had planned for in the 20s & 30s. It was also the sort of battle the Germans conducted on a much larger scale a week later in Poland - combat finished here on March 31. So, the Russians didn't just implement these ideas on a large scale in their own army before the Germans, they even used them in combat first. I need to do a bit of digging, but there may also have been use of some of these ideas in the second phase of the Winter War in 1940 - after Vorishilov had comprehensively cocked up the initial attacks. Unfortunately for the Red Army the impact of the purges & Stalin robbed it of the ability to properly implement these ideas against Germany until 1942-3.
                        I take your point, I don't think I realised the extent of the purges when we did O level.....Just reading that about 30,000 officers were purged from the Red army, thats catastrophic in anybodies book. Stalin was obviously completely paranoid and probably with good reason

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          Germany should have learned the same lesson in Spain....


                          Japanese tanks were odd but roughly comparable to anything in Western Europe in 1933, and were often superior in concept and gun power. The Soviet tanks in Manchuria though were primarily T-26's and BT's. The T-26's were locally built and improved copies of the British Vickers 6ton tanks armed with a 45mm gun. The Soviets also had the BT series of tanks with the same gun. This gave the Soviets a gun power advantage they used to very good effect. Here is the thing though. Had the Soviets been armed with the most numerous German tanks the gun power advantage would have been reversed. Japanese tanks in 1939 had a signifigant gun power advantage over the PzII. This is something the Germans already knew. One of the big lessons for the Germans out of Spain was just how badly outgunned they were vs Russian tanks. 45mm armed T-26's shot up Pz I and II's in Spain at 1000m while being immune to return fire just as they did Japanese tanks in Mongolia.

                          France was the only country before 1940 that had tanks that could match Russian gun power in sufficient numbers to matter. Then as the rest of the world was catching up with AT gun equipped tanks mounting 37-47mm; the Russian's leap frogged everyone again and went to a 76mm gun.
                          From memory I was always left with the impression that Japanese tanks were inferior and unreliable and there weren't that many of them. I see what you are saying with regards to the Soviets being ahead in terms of the gun barrel and calibre of ammunition. Makes me wonder why they didn't take the next logical step and put a radio in their tanks.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                            Toby,

                            You might find this interesting. House is a top notch historian with a solid military background - he has actually helped to plan wars, so he gets this stuff. Sure, its not as good as playing video games, but it has some value. :-)

                            It covers quite a bit of ground, but it also speaks to the influence the German perspective on the Russian front has had on Western historians. When I made my remarks about 'outdated' perspectives this is a point I was getting at. Until the early 80s there were next to no decent Western accounts from the Soviet perspective. It took longer again for outsiders to gain decent access to Russian archives or for decent Russian histories to emerge (sadly that process has come to a halt for now). It also took a while for these perspectives to make their way into more accessible Western writings. Even with that, a lot of the old attitudes about Russians persist.

                            The idea that the winners always write history is frequently wrong. In the case of English language accounts of the Russian front German influenced perspectives are still woven deep into the way people view that conflict.

                            Cheers, I'll watch it later when my head clears....time for another coffee now

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                              You're welcome and the pleasure is all mine. Your assessment of Soviet war fighting ability was so full of holes I could have called it out even without playing the Soviet campaign. I think it's the fact that I only play on the highest difficulty setting that gives me the judgement to make that call.

                              FYI I've been in several tanks. You'd probably be aware of the centurions at Carabbean Market? I've actually been in more tanks than there have been world wars. Not to mention the call of duty levels that you drove a tank in.
                              Call of Duty??? thats f--kin priceless..... RAOFLAO

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mihais View Post

                                In practice the Germans failed after 1943 to think operationally.Is not because they got dumber,but because Adolf.They made glaring errors before.But they could rectify some of those.

                                As for the Soviets,fail of the system is confused for fail of doctrine.No amount of training and equipment counts when the troops say " f... you,comrades,the enemy is a liberator".
                                Adolf was Germany's biggest enemy in 43. Let your commanders do their job is the lesson. That coupled with an Aryan mindset completely blinded the Krauts. They could have treated the Ukrainians and Baltic countries far better as they were natural allies against Stalin. Very stupid !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X