Originally posted by Ironduke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fall of France
Collapse
X
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostGive 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.
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,, 01:49.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostI was quoting sources from elsewhere on the casualties point.
Originally posted by Toby View PostYou seemed to be disputing them.
Originally posted by Toby View PostI never questioned the Soviet ability to carry out large offensive operations.
Originally posted by Toby View PostMy 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.
Originally posted by Toby View PostI fully accept the Japanese lost The Battles of Khalkhyn Gol ..as their attention and resources were aimed elsewhere.
Originally posted by Toby View PostBut if you think a bunch of accounts popping out of the wood work one by one all shouting one way is what counts,
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?
Originally posted by Toby View Postthen guess what, I'll shout the opposite way ...its gotta be better than a shop full of nodding donkeys....Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostWiki 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.
or they could have died in Siberia.
Where? Pearl Harbour has yet to happen.
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?
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
Anyway, I need a pint!
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
It is by no accident that we keep mentioning Operations MARS, URANUS, BAGRATION, AUGUST STORM.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostToby,
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostFrom 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.
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."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostJapanese 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.
Comment
-
Japan lasted as long as it did because it was placed on the backburner as the strategically least important theater.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
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostJapan 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 was not an industrial powerhouse during WWII."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
Comment