Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

[BDV]

Which is the advantage of expressing common sense

The "common sense" that in 6 short months led to this:



and will spare the forum from the final (1945) snapshot.


May God Protect my children from the fallout of such "common sense"!

[David Thompson]

A post from Apollo144, containing personal remarks about another poster, was removed by this moderator - DT.

A. Civility

The first rule of the forum is: "No insults are tolerated (that includes serious national and religious insults)." Personal remarks in posts are strongly discouraged, and personal insults are forbidden here.

There has been a lot of stimulating information exchanged on this forum, and some excellent discussions of controversial points. With few exceptions, the participants are thoughtful, serious people. If you find an argument is flawed, point out the flaws and the evidence to the contrary, and leave it at that. There is no need to resort to insults which do not prove your point. If you disagree with a contributor, please use your energy to show why his argument is mistaken. This will improve both the tone and quality of our discussions.

National and religious insults are forbidden by this first rule of the forum, and the third rule of the forum prohibits racist remarks and slang expressions for ethnic, religious or racial groups. Posts containing insulting generalizations about nationalities, ethnic groups, societies or religious groups and practices are not permitted here. This includes remarks about collective responsibility.

Nonconforming posts are subject to deletion without warning. Serious breaches of these rules are punishable by banning the poster.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53962

[apollo144]

Which is the advantage of expressing common sense

The "common sense" that in 6 short months led to this:



and will spare the forum from the final (1945) snapshot.


May God Protect my children from the fallout of such "common sense"!

It is because of the deep armoured thrusts that Germany achieved the amount of success that it did. It was the key of all its successes. And you conviniently forget that the red army did the same thing in reverse in the second half of ww2.
Your obsession with heavy artillery leads you to contradict commons sense.

[BDV]

the red army did the same thing in reverse in the second half of ww2.
Your obsession with heavy artillery leads you to contradict commons sense.

Well, it seems that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, all UN armies, all non-german Axis forces saw a need for heavy artillery*, and did their best to cover this need.

But the german results were so spectacular that no question should be raised as to the wisdom of the german approach.

I don't remember now how many artillery pieces we had per kilometer along the front line [at Stalingrad]. Later, when we were fighting outside Kiev, we had more than three hundred pieces per kilometer in the main area of battle. Later on, even that magnitude was exceeded.

Nikita Khruschev Memoirs

____________________________________________________________________________________________

* Actually Wehrmacht, too, finally got religion after the initial OstFront experiences, and did their best to simulate heavy artillery, with their 17 cm Kanone 18 in and 21 cm Mörser 18.

[apollo144]

the red army did the same thing in reverse in the second half of ww2.
Your obsession with heavy artillery leads you to contradict commons sense.

Well, it seems that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, all UN armies, all non-german Axis forces saw a need for heavy artillery, and did their best to cover this need.

But the german results were so spectacular that no question should be raised as to the wisdom of the german approach.

I don't remember now how many artillery pieces we had per kilometer along the front line [at Stalingrad]. Later, when we were fighting outside Kiev, we had more than three hundred pieces per kilometer in the main area of battle. Later on, even that magnitude was exceeded.Nikita Khruschev Memoirs

Well, it seems that the german army like all armies had a correct mix of all types of artillery, which includes heavy and superheavy. It is because of your obsession that you think otherwise. Your remark about the german approach is therefore without merit.
You also forget the issue of ammo. Germany struggled more and more to supply its existing artillery with sufficient amo and you would want it to have even more artillery pieces.
One certainly did not need the number of artillery pieces the red army used to achieve success.And there were tactical answers to the red army practice of using a lot of artillery.

[apollo144]

____________________________________________________________________________________________

* Actually Wehrmacht, too, finally got religion after the initial OstFront experiences, and did their best to simulate heavy artillery, with the 17 cm Kanone 18 in and 21 cm Mörser 18.

A not very smart remark as the 21cm mortar 18 was introduced in 1939 and was used from the beginning on the eastern front(at Brest) . Germany had developed this mortar because of the Maginot line. Heavy artillery has a specific purpose and Germany had a sufficient number of heavy artillery pieces within its mix of artillery pieces. Your obsession makes you want Germany more than it actually needed.

[BDV]

You also forget the issue of ammo. Germany struggled more and more to supply its existing artillery with sufficient amo and you would want it to have even more artillery pieces.

No, that's why I propose these guns (the french trophy heavies) to be used in places where they would not interfere with the logistics of your beloved deep armored strikes, namely Odessa/Sevastopol and Viipuri/Leningrad.

Again, returning to the situation of Odessa, in the end, germans had to divert their own artillery units to reinforce the romanians TWICE!, end of August and early September. How much did THAT interfere with AGS offensive, having to move the artillery and its supply to Odessa and back in the line, and having AGS troops devoid of that fire support for 6 weeks or so? How much easier if Romanians are given 60 GPFs and 30,000 shells in early July (that is, after they demonstrate their trustworthiness) and take care of business themselves?

[apollo144]

You also forget the issue of ammo. Germany struggled more and more to supply its existing artillery with sufficient amo and you would want it to have even more artillery pieces.

No, that's why I propose these guns (the french trophy heavies) to be used in places where they would not interfere with the logistics of your beloved deep armored strikes, namely Odessa/Sevastopol and Viipuri/Leningrad.

Again, returning to the situation of Odessa, in the end, germans had to divert their own artillery units to reinforce the romanians TWICE!, end of August and early September. How much did THAT interfere with AGS offensive, having to move the artillery and it's supply to Odessa and back in the line, and having AGS troops devoid of that fire support for 6 weeks or so? How much easier if Romanians are given 60 GPFs and 30,000 shells in early July (that is, after they demonstrate their trustworthiness) and take care of business themselves?

There was no necessity at all to use these french guns you favour so much. Germany had everything it needed and diverting a few artillery units to Odessa can have no significant effect on the campaign of AGS.

[BDV]

There was no necessity at all to use these french guns you favour so much. Germany had everything it needed and diverting a few artillery units to Odessa can have no significant effect on the campaign of AGS.

The range of these guns, the simple fact that they existed, and the crucial contributions they could have made to Barbarossa, makes me to favor them for a ATL scenario. Of course if available, Morser 18 or Obice da 210 would probably work, although the 4-5 km longer range of the french guns gives them a significant advantage in fighting the russians. But I don't think the germans had hundreds of Morser 18s lying around. They did have hundreds of Grand Puissance Filloux guns lying around, for the next three-four years, until captured by the UN forces, and/or surrender.

[apollo144]

There was no necessity at all to use these french guns you favour so much. Germany had everything it needed and diverting a few artillery units to Odessa can have no significant effect on the campaign of AGS.

The range of these guns, the simple fact that they existed, and the crucial contributions they could have made to Barbarossa, makes me to favor them for a ATL scenario. Of course if available, Morser 18 or Obice da 210 would probably work, although the 4-5 km longer range of the french guns gives them a significant advantage in fighting the russians. But I don't think the germans had hundreds of Morser 18s lying around. They did have hundreds of Grand Puissance Filloux guns lying around, for the next three-four years, until captured by the UN forces, and/or surrender.

You fail to prove that the german field army lacked sufficient heavy artillery so there is no case for putting into use french guns.

[BDV]

You fail to prove that the german field army lacked sufficient heavy artillery so there is no case for putting into use french guns.

I was talking about the romanian army. The finns also had severe problems dealing with the soviet resistance, it took them 2 months to retake Viipuri.

And you know, some take the problems germans themselves had with the Soviet infantry resistance as evidence that the amount of firepower used by Wehrmacht was insufficient. In which case ones mind wanders back to the high power, long range, french guns rusting in depots. The counter is the logistical limitations - which is reasonable for the deep thrusting Wehrmacht. However, logistics is not an acceptable excuse for either the Finnish Army in Karelia, or Romanian Army at Odessa as they were relatively close to their jumpoff points.

And ultimately it is not an acceptable excuse for the Wehrmacht, either.

[waldzee]

You fail to prove that the german field army lacked sufficient heavy artillery so there is no case for putting into use french guns.

I was talking about the romanian army. The finns also had severe problems dealing with the soviet resistance, it took them 2 months to retake Viipuri.

And you know, some take the problems germans themselves had with the Soviet infantry resistance as evidence that the amount of firepower used by Wehrmacht was insufficient. In which case ones mind wanders back to the high power, long range, french guns rusting in depots. The counter is the logistical limitations - which is reasonable for the deep thrusting Wehrmacht. However, logistics is not an acceptable excuse for either the Finnish Army in Karelia, or Romanian Army at Odessa as they were relatively close to their jumpoff points.

And ultimately it is not an acceptable excuse for the Wehrmacht, either.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of the limitations on the Wehrmacht was the continous shortage of munitions on the Eastern Front, due largely to the administrative mess Ukraine sunk into form 1941-44.
Your analysis is correct, BDV,- heavy artillery is the first to be delayed when production screws up. Unfortunately, you appear to have acquired a' lil Camp follower' sniffing at your heels in this thread...

[apollo144]

You fail to prove that the german field army lacked sufficient heavy artillery so there is no case for putting into use french guns.

I was talking about the romanian army. The finns also had severe problems dealing with the soviet resistance, it took them 2 months to retake Viipuri.

And you know, some take the problems germans themselves had with the Soviet infantry resistance as evidence that the amount of firepower used by Wehrmacht was insufficient. In which case ones mind wanders back to the high power, long range, french guns rusting in depots. The counter is the logistical limitations - which is reasonable for the deep thrusting Wehrmacht. However, logistics is not an acceptable excuse for either the Finnish Army in Karelia, or Romanian Army at Odessa as they were relatively close to their jumpoff points.

And ultimately it is not an acceptable excuse for the Wehrmacht, either.

You only succeed in further showing your tunnelvision about heavy artillery to the exclusion of all other weapons. You err when you think that tackling enemy entrenched infantry is only about heavy artillery. It is about a mix of weapons.
You err even more when you think that a number of alledgedly unused french guns would make a significant difference.

[apollo144]

You fail to prove that the german field army lacked sufficient heavy artillery so there is no case for putting into use french guns.

I was talking about the romanian army. The finns also had severe problems dealing with the soviet resistance, it took them 2 months to retake Viipuri.

And you know, some take the problems germans themselves had with the Soviet infantry resistance as evidence that the amount of firepower used by Wehrmacht was insufficient. In which case ones mind wanders back to the high power, long range, french guns rusting in depots. The counter is the logistical limitations - which is reasonable for the deep thrusting Wehrmacht. However, logistics is not an acceptable excuse for either the Finnish Army in Karelia, or Romanian Army at Odessa as they were relatively close to their jumpoff points.

And ultimately it is not an acceptable excuse for the Wehrmacht, either.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of the limitations on the Wehrmacht was the continous shortage of munitions on the Eastern Front, due largely to the administrative mess Ukraine sunk into form 1941-44.
Your analysis is correct, BDV,- heavy artillery is the first to be delayed when production screws up. Unfortunately, you appear to have acquired a' lil Camp follower' sniffing at your heels in this thread...

You seem to have an obsession about the Ukraine as there is no link between ammunition shortages and the Ukraine.
Actually there was not even a continuous ammunition shortage on the eastern front.

[BDV]

You only succeed in further showing your tunnelvision about heavy artillery to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Oh, heavy artillery was not the only available firepower that the Axis failed to deploy against RKKA. The trophy 75 mm french guns (thousands of them!) weren't upgraded to PAK 97/38 and distributed to frontline troops until AFTER the Saturn/Uranus debacle.

You err when you think that tackling enemy entrenched infantry is only about heavy artillery. It is about a mix of weapons.

But of course you are correct. Not "only". But heavy artillery is a key ingredient of that mix, as it was for UN forces, non-German Axis forces, and finally for Germans themselves during Wacht Am Rhein. Without heavy artillery, you're looking at 3:1 casualties against the defender (Romanians at Odessa), or months of outflanking maneuvers, as the Finns did in Karelia.

You err even more when you think that a number of alledgedly unused french guns would make a significant difference.

Should I trust you or the historical record on the fall of Odessa and the survival of Leningrad?