1945- Soviets continue the drive west!

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ISU-152
Member
Posts: 711
Joined: 14 Nov 2002, 15:02
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

#16

Post by ISU-152 » 15 Jan 2003, 13:34

TIBERIVS wrote:As for dealing with huge casualties, we avoided that before we invaded Japan. We nuked them. The question is if the Soviets would have offered peace after we nuked a few of their cities. I f not then all of our B29 stratafortresses for have been launched against them and most of Eastern Europe would be uninhabitable because of radiation. 8O
If that is to happen you would be living in the underground shelter in California today fearing for your life. Something the americans are not used to. :D

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#17

Post by Tiwaz » 16 Jan 2003, 15:38

Finns joining the attack was mentioned here. Well, being nation to just beginning to think about recovering from 3 wars, from which 2 were fought against masses of Red Army, it would be unlikely.

Even if foreign troops would be transported to Finland it would end up that Finns would be doing most job. No offence to skills of soldiers from other nations but as it was proven with German troops in northern Finland non-native troops take too long to adjust to local conditions.

Nature over here is simply so different from one people meet in central Europe or Italy.


IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 22:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

#18

Post by IAR80 » 27 Jan 2003, 22:05

"Soviets make initial strike with all 6 tanks armies - 6 Ardennes at a time. WA pushed all the way back to France.France in the fear of being occupied, begs for peace.
Or maybe US and UK sufferes so many casualties, that they sue for peace? Say a million in the first couple of months, the public protest and US withdraw their troops from Europe - like Vietnam scenario. "

Boy, this is one cooky scenario. First off, the Ardennes are excellent terrain for up-close tank-busting by infantry, and with the tank killing skills of the allied and more so that of the germans' it would be nothing short of hell for the tank armies. And while the soviet try to drive through the adrennes, the allies can casually land in Denmark and Pommerania, may even an airdrop in Leningrad, since the soviet navy was numerically inferior to that of the allies', not to mention lacking proper equipment and experience. I doubt the soviets would drive head on into the Ardennes, risking to be cut off by allies swingning south from the Low countries and north from Austria. And even if they did, the armies would be cut off from their supplies by constant airstrikes.

(here LeoAU will try to convince you that the Soviet Air Force will shoot the USAAF out of the sky. Really, people... There is a reason the Soviet Airforce was never know as a world class one, because it never was! You can't tell me that a 7.000-15.000 strong "great" airforce stumbles on a few measly thousand german planes which are under supplied and spread out. The allies have, however, held their own against the best the Luftwaffe could throw at them, there simply weren't enough german planes to go around to turn most of the soviet pilots into battle-hardened airmen, unlike the allies).

So I see the allied airforce eventually saving the day, still total defeat of the USSR is highly unlikely since both beligerant sides have been exhausted by the previous war.

"Another example of how Soviets dealt with starvation - siege of Leningrad. Million dead, but the city did not surrender"
Of course a milions seems like a lot, but compared to the total population of Leningrad how much is that? And also, supplies started to trickle in even as early as winter 1941 on frozen lake Ladoga, which definately raised the spirits. Take note that because Finland did not want to go near Leningrad for fear of angering the soviets, the encirclement was never complete.

"Also, the cituation of 41-42, when the 41 crops were lost, and major agricultural areas occupied (and LL was insignificant!) - Soviets survived. In 45 - those areas regained. "
Right, and after years of hardship the manpower pool of the Soviet Union did not suffer in the least...

User avatar
Sieger
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 14 Jan 2003, 21:39
Location: exiled in siberia

#19

Post by Sieger » 28 Jan 2003, 01:11

Don't you think that war weariness would factor into the effectiveness of the Red Army? Being pushed to its limits by the Wehrmacht and surviving at great cost then fighting relatively fresh American troops in Western Europe. If stalin were determined to drive to Paris (a la Czar Alexander in the napoleonic wars) wouldn't his generals and troops get fed up with continuing the war.

If this were the scenario I think the Red Army would be subjected to the same abuse(complete air superiority on the part of the western allies then getting their troops raked by western airpower) that the german army faced. In the months following the normandy landing and the falaise gap fiasco the Wehrmacht was reduced to 100 tanks in the west.

Granted the western allies would suffer because their tanks were inferior to the Red Army's.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Re: re

#20

Post by LeoAU » 28 Jan 2003, 01:34

IAR80, you are back. Where have you been? I've been missing your theories. Particularly that one with US landing in Black and Baltic sea regions and cutting off all Soviet forces in Europe.
:lol:
IAR80 wrote: First off, the Ardennes are excellent terrain for up-close tank-busting by infantry, and with the tank killing skills of the allied and more so that of the germans' it would be nothing short of hell for the tank armies.
IAR, I was talking about mass armour offensive, like Germans Ardennes operation, which created probs for Americans, not the actual geographical Ardennes.
And while the soviet try to drive through the adrennes, the allies can casually land in Denmark and Pommerania, may even an airdrop in Leningrad
You are back! And your theories too. :lol: An airdrop in Leningrad????? What for? To be captured? 'Casually land in Denmark and Pommerania ' - how much time would it take to prepare such a 'casual' operation?
(here LeoAU will try to convince you that the Soviet Air Force will shoot the USAAF out of the sky.
With your problem of understanding your opponent, I'll repeat myself. No, it won't shoot US airforce out of the sky. But it won't be shot out of it too. Not in a short period of time. And there would be plenty of time for low altitude air cover
of advancing tank armies.
Really, people... There is a reason the Soviet Airforce was never know as a world class one, because it never was!
In your world, in the world where Romanian air force was known as the world class one, it wasn't. In the world where IAR80, this peace of jank, was a good plane, sure Soviet air force was way too inferior.
Or, alternatively, you may try to come back to reality and realise that Soviet air force was one of the best around and was good at their tasks.
You can't tell me that a 7.000-15.000 strong "great" airforce stumbles on a few measly thousand german planes which are under supplied and spread out. The allies have, however, held their own against the best the Luftwaffe could throw at them, there simply weren't enough german planes to go around to turn most of the soviet pilots into battle-hardened airmen, unlike the allies).

Or perhaps you would spend at least some time on familiarising yourself with the subject? Tell me if you need any help in getting started.
"Another example of how Soviets dealt with starvation - siege of Leningrad. Million dead, but the city did not surrender"
Of course a milions seems like a lot, but compared to the total population of Leningrad how much is that?
8O What's the difference? A million does not only seem to be a lot, it is!!! Any way, it was about quarter of the total population. Is it enough??
And also, supplies started to trickle in even as early as winter 1941 on frozen lake Ladoga, which definately raised the spirits. Take note that because Finland did not want to go near Leningrad for fear of angering the soviets, the encirclement was never complete.
Was or was not Leningrad cut off the main land? Yes. Was there any reliable full time safe supply route? No. Did people suffer from starvation? Did people eat their wallpapers? Yes. Did they surrender. No. Got the point or still NOT?

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 22:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

#21

Post by IAR80 » 29 Jan 2003, 18:39

You are back! And your theories too. An airdrop in Leningrad????? What for? To be captured? 'Casually land in Denmark and Pommerania ' - how much time would it take to prepare such a 'casual' operation? "

First off, a hello to you, too, Leo. Good, now let's get down to bussiness. Your chief counter argument has been, for some time, that such an operation would take a very long time compared to the fast pace of the soviet drive. If I remember correctly, you bring the example of D-Day being executed 2 years after it was first pondered. The problem here is this: the actual army, tanks, planes, ships, trucks, etc, etc. all had to be BUILT first, from practically scratch, that is what actually took 2 years from 1942 to 1944, the planning itself did not take that long. To support this I bring forward the "island hopping" campaign of the US in the Pacific.

"With your problem of understanding your opponent, I'll repeat myself. No, it won't shoot US airforce out of the sky. But it won't be shot out of it too. Not in a short period of time. And there would be plenty of time for low altitude air cover
of advancing tank armies. "

Hmm... This might only be me, but this sounds something like easier said than done. Because as it was already pointed out that supplying such a large army with a devastated infrastructure behind it would be a problem, nowhere would it be more evident than in the air, where constant and consistent air patrols would be hard to maintain especially when on the ground there are thousands of tanks that need fuel, for example. I want to make myself understood, it's not that tanks use the same fuel as planes, it's that there are simply not enough trucks, trains, roads, railroads to supply both. That's why constant air cover would be hard to maintain. Second, an airstike needs only minutes to cause serious damage to an armored column, and chances are that they (strike planes) would be gone before air cover arrives, this is combined with the fact that the soviets never achieved the level of interoperability between army and airforce that the US or germans had.

Also, you said: "Or, alternatively, you may try to come back to reality and realise that Soviet air force was one of the best around and was good at their tasks. "
I emphasise "at their tasks", because through these words you admit that the soviet airforce had, as a whole, little experience and indeed machines needed to counter strategic bombing, more so night-time strategic bombing, which can cause the soviet drive to stop due to lack of supplies, not so much because the factories aren't working, but because railways and, more importantly, bridges are being sistematically destroyed. And with so many rivers running north-south on the road from Moscow to Paris, that would be a problem.

"Was or was not Leningrad cut off the main land? Yes. Was there any reliable full time safe supply route? No. Did people suffer from starvation? Did people eat their wallpapers? Yes. Did they surrender. No. Got the point or still NOT"
My point is that even though the food supplies which arrived were insufficient, they were vital to the morale of the besieged. There always has to be a glimmer of hope, however small, and the people will hang on. My point is that the allied had the potential to respond as similarly to overwhelming odds, as did the russians.

"In the world where IAR80, this peace of jank, was a good plane, "
Really? This "peice of junk" was the third best plane in the world when it came out, and would have been better if it had a more powerful engine. This "piece of junk" gave quite a few headaches to the USAF units bombing Ploiesti, as for its performance on the eastern front, Victor's Royal Romanian Air Force site has a lot of details on this.

Oh, and for the record, I never said the Romanian Air Force was world class or any such superlative, search my posts if you want.

"IAR, I was talking about mass armour offensive, like Germans Ardennes operation, which created probs for Americans, not the actual geographical Ardennes. "

And where might the hammer fall, then? The Ardennes Offensive the germans launched was particularly effective due to the surprise factor (this was a previously calmer sector) and also the weather helped a lot.

Just my 2 cents, the best route would be through the Low Countries but the problem here would be that the various rivers and canals in this region can slow down the Red Army, with the bridges destroyed and all. Second, the US carries can give the allies local air superiority.

User avatar
Madsen
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 23:56
Location: Norway cloose to the Saltstraumen
Contact:

#22

Post by Madsen » 30 Jan 2003, 02:43

How about the Murmansk convoy? sovjet did get allot of supplies from those convoys.
how soon would the feel it in the frontlines?
And if you also got raids on Sovjet oil resource you could let the Red Army advance to they are out of fuel and other supplyies
You could also had nearly 1/2 mill german troops going in from Norway.
Tropps that were well trained in winter warfare. they had been on Murmansk front for several years.. supplied with huge air support from german base in North of Norway. Could reach huge areas in Sovjet from there. And on the eastern front there were many veterans who could go on counter attac now that they dont have the enormous air raids from UK beating their supplies lines.. German produktions of Tiger's increased and STG44 got out to the frontline.
I dont think sovjet could have any chanse.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#23

Post by LeoAU » 30 Jan 2003, 07:53

LILLEBROR wrote:How about the Murmansk convoy? sovjet did get allot of supplies from those convoys.
how soon would the feel it in the frontlines?
Pretty soon, but to what extent? People try to present it the way that without LL Soviet army would just stop advancing, or even lose. Nonsence. It was quite important when the industry and agricultural areas of German occupied territories were lost, but they were regained afterGermany's defeat. But it was never crutial.
Tropps that were well trained in winter warfare. they had been on Murmansk front for several years..
With what success? I don't remember Murmansk being captured! :wink:
And on the eastern front there were many veterans who could go on counter attac now that they dont have the enormous air raids from UK beating their supplies lines.. German produktions of Tiger's increased and STG44 got out to the frontline.
No, US would not ally with Nazies. Hence no German veterans against Soviets. Even if there were, that would be a mass a defeated morale weakened mass of soldiers, best of them were killed in the last 4 years of heavy Eastern front fighting.
I dont think sovjet could have any chanse.
Who thought they had any chances after defeats of 41-42??? With half of European territory occupied, with millions killed or captured, with most factories lost and destroyed, with 80 mln of its population under occupation?

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Re: re

#24

Post by LeoAU » 30 Jan 2003, 09:51

IAR80 wrote: ...The problem here is this: the actual army, tanks, planes, ships, trucks, etc, etc. all had to be BUILT first, from practically scratch, that is what actually took 2 years from 1942 to 1944, the planning itself did not take that long.
The objective of such operation - airdrop on Leningrad please. Do you understand that that would be a total waste of manpower - or did you watch BoB too much and believe they could've captured it? :lol:
Secondly, with these landings, they wouldn't be facing second class troops, old man and boys like it happened in Normandy.
Hmm... This might only be me, but this sounds something like easier said than done. Because as it was already pointed out that supplying such a large army with a devastated infrastructure behind it would be a problem,
It took around 6 hours for Soviet sappers to repair a severely damaged rail road(have to recall where that figure comes from). Germans were really surprised with this.
And Soviet advances of 44-45 weren't happening in prfect conditions, with river crossings, with destroyed infrastructure. It never was easy, but it was always done.
Also, what do you think did more damage to Germans - allied bombing or advanced Soviet ground troops? Hint - allied strategic bombing was a failure.
nowhere would it be more evident than in the air, where constant and consistent air patrols would be hard to maintain
They would be needed in the first 2-3 weeks of advance. After that US airbases would be overrun and the whole front would be collapsed.
, but because railways and, more importantly, bridges are being sistematically destroyed. And with so many rivers running north-south on the road from Moscow to Paris, that would be a problem.
It would be no different to going from Moscow to Berlin. Well, a little, more determination in German troops than in American or more over UK.
My point is that the allied had the potential to respond as similarly to overwhelming odds, as did the russians.
8O :lol: Everyone has a potential, not everyone has ability.
Really? This "peice of junk" was the third best plane in the world when it came out, and would have been better if it had a more powerful engine. This "piece of junk" gave quite a few headaches to the USAF units bombing Ploiesti, as for its performance on the eastern front, Victor's Royal Romanian Air Force site has a lot of details on this.
A very big 'ÍF', keeping in mind that engine is half of the plane. Compare to Soviet counterparts it was.
And where might the hammer fall, then?
I don't really know. The thing is tank armies would be secretly moved,and Soviet were really good at deception and maskirovka. And there will be a big surprise.

wotan
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 23:13
Location: Norway

#25

Post by wotan » 30 Jan 2003, 17:34

Hint - allied strategic bombing was a failure
Well, I'm quite sure that the sovjets was very happy that the germans had 10 000 88's pointing up in the air instead of being used against tanks.
I don't really know. The thing is tank armies would be secretly moved,and Soviet were really good at deception and maskirovka. And there will be a big surprise
LOL :) Tank armies secretly moved??? Com'on Leo, with constant enemy air patrols do u really think u could move such a beast without anybody noticing? Only time u could move such a thing is during night, and then u would have to assembly during the day..
Its a reason Russia stopped creating tank armies u know.. :)

And speaking of the USSR AF it never managed to supress the GER army as much as the allied AF did. Remember that British and american AF outnumbered russia by 3-4 times in combat planes in the region. USAAF alone had almost 80 000 planes during the final stages of the war.

User avatar
Madsen
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 23:56
Location: Norway cloose to the Saltstraumen
Contact:

#26

Post by Madsen » 31 Jan 2003, 00:05

Leo there is some arguments i had for my oppinion.
Sitat:
Tropps that were well trained in winter warfare. they had been on Murmansk front for several years..
With what success? I don't remember Murmansk being captured!
No it wasn't. But image the feeling the german troops would have if their homeland was atacced after they lost the "first"(by that i mean WWII).
They would attac once again even without support from ally's.
and now they could send everything against them. now they dont have to defend whole Norway against an English invation. and if they got help from ally's, huge amount of aircraft would serve fro norwegian bases and hammering sovjet's supply lines with bombers. so then they would reach Murmansk and the railway down in Sovjet..
No, US would not ally with Nazies. Hence no German veterans against Soviets. Even if there were, that would be a mass a defeated morale weakened mass of soldiers, best of them were killed in the last 4 years of heavy Eastern front fighting.
So you think that they would just sit there and watch the war as sovjet an USA/UK fight? i dont think so. One thing i admire the germans, they know how to fight and would sertenly carry on fighting. Do you think they would forget the 2M women who were raped? Dont think so..
Read a sovjet general said once. this was about chances to win a new war.
"do you think the germans would give up? Did they ever give up even in the streets of Berlin?"
And best soldiers killed? ok i give you that but that count also for the russian side to.
Who thought they had any chances after defeats of 41-42??? With half of European territory occupied, with millions killed or captured, with most factories lost and destroyed, with 80 mln of its population under occupation?
Stalin had plenty of two things
1: Land to give away, enemy had a very long way from factories to frontline, easy to destroy supply lines
2: en enormous number of men to waste. german tanks could take out as many as 16-18 enemy tanks for each own losses,but russian had 40 for each german.
if you see on my first thing. land to give away..
There is the same distanse from Ruhr valley factories to Stalingrad as it is the other way, from S to R. Sovjet supply lines was already streched nearly to the limit, and now they wouldn't have the extra supply from Murmansk convoys.

just some of my ideas of this.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#27

Post by LeoAU » 31 Jan 2003, 06:50

wotan wrote:
Hint - allied strategic bombing was a failure
Well, I'm quite sure that the sovjets was very happy that the germans had 10 000 88's pointing up in the air instead of being used against tanks.
Absolutely! But it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a failure!
Tank armies secretly moved??? Com'on Leo, with constant enemy air patrols do u really think u could move such a beast without anybody noticing? Only time u could move such a thing is during night, and then u would have to assembly during the day..
Guess what, they moved at night. And Soviet did manage to concentrate armor, and attack in totally unexpected spot. It might be something new for you, but they were famous for their abillity to decept, hide etc.
And speaking of the USSR AF it never managed to supress the GER army as much as the allied AF did.
Army? :lol: I always thought they captured Berlin and inflicted 80% of German casualties! And large role played VVS (USSR AF). Or Luftwaffe? In this case you should know that Soviets and Germans had full scale war, unlike US initially - just air war where they had the luxury of concentrating on destroying Luftwaffe.
Remember that British and american AF outnumbered russia by 3-4 times in combat planes in the region. USAAF alone had almost 80 000 planes during the final stages of the war.
Around the globe, yes. In Europe the ratio wasn't in favor of Soviets, agree, but it doesn't matter how many planes they had as long as there would be Soviet planes covering tank spearheads. And inital breakthrough would be covered. Then with overrun US air bases, American fighter would have to fly from more distant bases, taking more fuel, and for example Mustang with full tanks isn't exactly a fighter, it is a 'little' unstable in the air, you know.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#28

Post by LeoAU » 31 Jan 2003, 08:29

LILLEBROR wrote:
No it wasn't. But image the feeling the german troops would have if their homeland was atacced after they lost the "first"(by that i mean WWII).
They would attac once again even without support from ally's.
Are we talking about 1945? Right the end of the war in Europe? When half of what's left of German army was in Soviet captivity. Feeling the Germans had? 99% of them were happy to end that hell. And only perhaps 1 percent of fanatics or crazy could continue fighting.
and now they could send everything against them. now they dont have to defend whole Norway against an English invation.
O please, who thought about defending Norway from 44 onwards?
and if they got help from ally's, huge amount of aircraft would serve fro norwegian bases and hammering sovjet's supply lines with bombers. so then they would reach Murmansk and the railway down in Sovjet.
WHy are you obsessed with Murmansk so much any way? First of all, speaking about LL, minority of it came through here. Secondly, if US is at war with USSR, there will be no LL hence no huge importance of Murmansk, not that I can think of.
So you think that they would just sit there and watch the war as sovjet an USA/UK fight? i dont think so.
I do. After concentration camps, millions of Jews and other killed and tortured, no way they would ally with Germans. They may employ some as consultants or something, no more than that. Think of it this way - could US ally with Taliban against Iraq?
One thing i admire the germans, they know how to fight and would sertenly carry on fighting.
I can see you do admire losers. They did know how to fight, but certain type of war - 3-4 weeks campaign against weaker enemy. Once they encountered a real opponent they begun to lose. They knew how to fight in perfect conditions - no rain, no snow, good roads, no minus temperatures, no urban combat fighting, no partisans, full supply. :wink:
Do you think they would forget the 2M women who were raped? Dont think so..
First of all there were no 2 mln raped women. Even if there were, we would have no way to calculate them, therefore, don't repeat someones stupidity. It is pure speculation, that's it.
Secondly, how would a regular German soldier know that '2mln' were raped?
Read a sovjet general said once. this was about chances to win a new war.
"do you think the germans would give up? Did they ever give up even in the streets of Berlin?"
According to the number of capture, hell YES!
And best soldiers killed? ok i give you that but that count also for the russian side to.
Not quite. Soviets lost practically whole army of trained soldiers io 41. Then they had to stop Germans, German veterans in 42-43 with huge losses of barely traned soldiers and pilots and later on, a new generation of veterans emerged. Germans on the other hand had to reduce number of training hours for soldiers and pilots because they had to close the gaps. Exactly cituation they Soviets were in in 41-42, but Soviets did recover unlike Germans.
2: en enormous number of men to waste. german tanks could take out as many as 16-18 enemy tanks for each own losses,but russian had 40 for each german.
This a pure fantasy! Most of Soviet armor losses were to German artillery and personal anti-tank weapons.
There is the same distanse from Ruhr valley factories to Stalingrad as it is the other way, from S to R. Sovjet supply lines was already streched nearly to the limit, and now they wouldn't have the extra supply from Murmansk convoys.
You need to prove first that Soviet supply lines were overstretched nearly to the limit.

User avatar
Madsen
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 23:56
Location: Norway cloose to the Saltstraumen
Contact:

#29

Post by Madsen » 31 Jan 2003, 17:57

Sitat:
and now they could send everything against them. now they dont have to defend whole Norway against an English invation.
O please, who thought about defending Norway from 44 onwards?

Sitat:
and if they got help from ally's, huge amount of aircraft would serve fro norwegian bases and hammering sovjet's supply lines with bombers. so then they would reach Murmansk and the railway down in Sovjet.
WHy are you obsessed with Murmansk so much any way? First of all, speaking about LL, minority of it came through here. Secondly, if US is at war with USSR, there will be no LL hence no huge importance of Murmansk, not that I can think of.
first of all. german had huge forces in Norway at the end of the war(45)
they had nearly 400 000 men here. and they had plans and orders for defending Norway from invation.
2. Im not obsessed by Murmansk. what i think of is that from Murmansk area the Railroad go down into sovjet. Railroad=communication= supply line. and therefore a way suited for an advance.
3.
Sitat:

So you think that they would just sit there and watch the war as sovjet an USA/UK fight? i dont think so.

I do. After concentration camps, millions of Jews and other killed and tortured, no way they would ally with Germans. They may employ some as consultants or something, no more than that. Think of it this way - could US ally with Taliban against Iraq?
if the Red Army continue fighting then germany also would i think. and this time they were defending their own homeland. and then the allied commanders would have two choice: give aid to the germans,or loose a still massive army, they could end up in fighting both Red Army and Germany. and to the jews and other you mentioned: Sovjet was just as bad. and the allied knew it.
4.
[First of all there were no 2 mln raped women. Even if there were, we would have no way to calculate them, therefore, don't repeat someones stupidity. It is pure speculation, that's it.
Secondly, how would a regular German soldier know that '2mln' were raped?
/quote]
2mln? 1mln? 10mln? = MANY
reports are many of raping, and i dont say the German was any better,
this is facts that they did it. numbers is not that important. the German troops knew the Red Army would do the same. and i think if you know(or think) that your enemy would rape your wife and children, you would fight as hell to prevent that.
5.
Sitat:
And best soldiers killed? ok i give you that but that count also for the russian side to.
Not quite. Soviets lost practically whole army of trained soldiers io 41. Then they had to stop Germans, German veterans in 42-43 with huge losses of barely traned soldiers and pilots and later on, a new generation of veterans emerged. Germans on the other hand had to reduce number of training hours for soldiers and pilots because they had to close the gaps. Exactly cituation they Soviets were in in 41-42, but Soviets did recover unlike Germans.
On the Eastern front you become a veteran in short time. the thing i'm thinking of is more like the officers and CO who had experience in battle since 1939.
it take more time to become a good CO than a good foot soldier.
6.
Sitat:

2: en enormous number of men to waste. german tanks could take out as many as 16-18 enemy tanks for each own losses,but russian had 40 for each german.

This a pure fantasy! Most of Soviet armor losses were to German artillery and personal anti-tank weapons.
okay, if you say it in that way. i counted the same weapon against each other. i dont know how many AT guns you need for the same value in tanks. what i pointed was the huge number of suicide attacs Sovjet did and won just by outnumbering germans.
Let me say it i a other way. if a german rifleman kiled 5 Sovjet rifleman before he was killed, it wouldn't bee at any help when Sovjet had 10 rifleman for each german rifleman( numbers are only ex)
7.
You need to prove first that Soviet supply lines were overstretched nearly to the limit.
what i mean is that if German troops had problems with supplys because of distance then Sovjet would have to face the same distance.
from A to B is it just as long as from B to A. and even worse if you count in USAAF or RAF bombers do their best to stop them.
8 and last. You dont get any way with beeing unpolite.
hilsen Lillebror

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 22:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

#30

Post by IAR80 » 31 Jan 2003, 22:58

"The objective of such operation - airdrop on Leningrad please. Do you understand that that would be a total waste of manpower - or did you watch BoB too much and believe they could've captured it?
Secondly, with these landings, they wouldn't be facing second class troops, old man and boys like it happened in Normandy. "

First, I was talking about Leningrad because of its simbolic value, I wasn't hinting at a battle plan or anything, but if the situation demanded, it could be done. Also, about the Normandy landings and old men and boys, I'm sure you really did mot mean that and the true purpose of that phrase would be to make me say "You're nuts!" thereby disqualifying me as a decent conversation partner. You've tried this one before, Leo, remember? I'm sure everyone will raise an eyebrow reading that phrase and will definately look into things and discover your affirmation is untrue.

"It took around 6 hours for Soviet sappers to repair a severely damaged rail road(have to recall where that figure comes from). Germans were really surprised with this.
And Soviet advances of 44-45 weren't happening in prfect conditions, with river crossings, with destroyed infrastructure. It never was easy, but it was always done.
Also, what do you think did more damage to Germans - allied bombing or advanced Soviet ground troops? Hint - allied strategic bombing was a failure. "

Hmm... impressive, point given, but how long was that section of rail? And second, the real "bottlenecks" are bridges, not necesarily any lenght of railway, and bridges are not at all easy to rebuild. And also, I never even hinted the advance would be stopped, it would only be slowed down, of course. The strategic bombing campaign was a failure if we look at its original objective: to force Germany to surrender only by waging air war, but that does not mean the destruction caused by the strategic bombing can be ingored.

"They would be needed in the first 2-3 weeks of advance. After that US airbases would be overrun and the whole front would be collapsed. "
Hmm... I really have my doubts about an advance that quick, so the allies would not even have time to scramble. One time I remember the soviets overrunning a major airbase was the Tatsinskaya (correct my spelling here, ok?) airbase west of Stalingrad, effectively completing the isolation of the 6th Army, but that was a whole different situation. Have there been any such other cases?

"It would be no different to going from Moscow to Berlin. Well, a little, more determination in German troops than in American or more over UK. "
Just a little bit longer and a little bit tougher, huh? Right after another "little" push? That sound to me like the very last drop for both sides...

"I don't really know. The thing is tank armies would be secretly moved,and Soviet were really good at deception and maskirovka. And there will be a big surprise. "
Hmm... I guess we'll never know. After all, they were in the same boat for a while and surely they knew each other's strenghts and weaknesses, and knew relatively well what they were up against and who they were up against. After the last war I doubt anyone would make assumptions or underestimations on either side. And I SERIOUSLY doubt that even the most brilliant strategist can mask 6 tank armies without relying on his enemy underestimating him.

"Are we talking about 1945? Right the end of the war in Europe? When half of what's left of German army was in Soviet captivity. Feeling the Germans had? 99% of them were happy to end that hell. And only perhaps 1 percent of fanatics or crazy could continue fighting"

Hmm... Not necesarily... Perhaps you are underestimating the fighting spirit of anyone non-russian? It would make more sense for the germans to take up the very arms they were defeated with to fight against communism. There were several hundreds of thousand german troops that were (as in non-old men or youths) regular which were cut off in Norway, Denmark, Northern Italy, units which were fully capable of fighting another war. There is a saying "If you push a man far enough, he will start pushing back". Unless you are the adept of an ideology promoting the idea of soviets being superhumans the only logical conclusion is that if all men are equal, all have the potential to endure hardships just as the "great" soviets did.

"I do. After concentration camps, millions of Jews and other killed and tortured, no way they would ally with Germans. They may employ some as consultants or something, no more than that. Think of it this way - could US ally with Taliban against Iraq? "

Wrong. It is the man that makes the cloth, not the cloth that makes the man. In the same way society is defined by leaders, not leaders by society, that's why they stand out. The Taliban were afghan and human beings first, given the circumstances, if you wanted to survive you were a savage Taliban, bow down to the rules wether you like it or not. Some liked it, some not. Point: the US has a problem with the taliban leadership, individuals can simply switch sides, turn over a new leaf, etc. Same with Germany, the problem was Hitler, not every single german and german soldier. Would there be adverse sentiment? Yes, of course, but given the options, it is a better choice than to stand alone.

"I can see you do admire losers. They did know how to fight, but certain type of war - 3-4 weeks campaign against weaker enemy. Once they encountered a real opponent they begun to lose. They knew how to fight in perfect conditions - no rain, no snow, good roads, no minus temperatures, no urban combat fighting, no partisans, full supply. "

This is a very superficial way to look at the Eastern Front performance of the germans. Let's take this statement apart piece by piece, shall we?

Rain and Bad Roads-
Naturally, the germans were impeded, they were the ones advancing, no? The soviets stood their ground as Stalin ordered originally.

Snow-
The germans suffered most because their winter equipment (clothes and machinery) was not present in the 1941 campaign, simply because the original strategy did not forsee such an outcome. While the soviet soldier had some kind of protection from the weather the german soldier had NONE, Z-E-R-O, during a time when -20 degrees Celsius was considered a "warm" day. I'd like to imagine yourself, Leo, fighting for your life when your fingers are so frozen you cannot pull the trigger. Yes, this was pretty close to reality, one of Hitler's famous blunders. Strange the soviet super-soldier did not manage to take advantage of this so early on in the war...

Partisans-
The prime reason the partisan activity was so intense is because the frontline was so wide, the german army could not be everywhere at the same time, the limited number of german forces, compared to the size of the theatre, were best used on the frontline and the German High Command had literally no men to spare to root out partisans.

Full supply
Strange how the german army faced a constant shortage in supplies throughout the campaign, especially fuel, not to mention an adequate number of tanks that could deal with the soviet ones.

"According to the number of capture, hell YES! "
And how many would that be, considering the soviet forces lost almost 300.000 men during the Battle for Berlin.

"Not quite. Soviets lost practically whole army of trained soldiers io 41. Then they had to stop Germans, German veterans in 42-43 with huge losses of barely traned soldiers and pilots and later on, a new generation of veterans emerged. Germans on the other hand had to reduce number of training hours for soldiers and pilots because they had to close the gaps. Exactly cituation they Soviets were in in 41-42, but Soviets did recover unlike Germans. "

The situation of the german and soviet personell problems are a world apart. While Germany had a limited number of men which could be replaced and little territory to fall back on, the Red Army never even came close to the manpower shortage suffered by the Germans and had plenty of territory to fall back on, while the Wehrmacht was already stretched thin at the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad.

"This a pure fantasy! Most of Soviet armor losses were to German artillery and personal anti-tank weapons. "

No, actually this is the most erroneus affirmation I have ever read. Besides the fact that german aritllery was never in sufficient numbers to be deployed in such roles and the fact that the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck (the PzB anti tank rifle was totally ineffective against soviet armor) would arrive barely two years after Barbarossa started, it is proof of how far an individual can bend facts to match his own views. Can you imagine what kind of artillery the germans had and what kind of soldier the german one was if the soviets lost 6000 T-34/43s in only three battles (one of them being the one the three battles for Kharkov) in the summer of 1942?!

One more phrase like that and I will report you to a moderator, Leo!

"You need to prove first that Soviet supply lines were overstretched nearly to the limit"

He doesn't need to, the facts speak for themselves: the soviet summer offensive of 1944 stopped on the Vistula, not because of the weather, but because supplies were falling behind.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”