#51
Post
by IAR80 » 07 Feb 2003, 19:45
"I did. Every 6th soldier in that area was from an Ost batallion, and the reliability of them was very low. That half of dozen of divisions in the area was of lower combat readiness and overall quality, that is a fact, because Germans were expecting the landing in a different location where they kept their best forces, is it new for you?? "
Hmm... I would describe the reliability of every german serviceman that fought on the eastern front as anything BUT "very low", considering the odds they were up against. And also, it doesn't really take much skill in just aiming a machinegun and keep firing now does it?
"There nothing new. However, as I said Soviets did manage to advance that far, ie Berlin, do you think that Germans were so stupid to leave intact bridges all over the place? Or perhaps, they tried to destroy them, but Soviets managed to work around the problem, which if a logic is applied would be the case with our scenario. "
Work around them? Exactly how could the soviets manage to "work around" in the tighter confines, so to speak, of the Low Countries? In the case of the Eastern Front, yes, the vast expanses of the theatre, german front lines and supply lines stretched thin, it is feasible. But comparison with our scenario is impossible.
"I am sure you are aware of Stalingrad battle and the fact that Soviets supplied their forces without any bridges? And under total German air superiority. You perhaps heard that whole divisions were moved in a matter of hours, and we are talking about 10000 men plus supplies and equipment. "
Yes, I am aware of that, I am also aware that the Volga is the single major river that could pose transportation problems for the soviets resupplying from the east, the rest was an unending expanse of steppe. The bridges over the Ural river was far away from the range of the german bombers. Also the "total german air superiority" was no that "total", actually "dispersed" and "undersupplied" would be the correct adjectives.
"Leningrad, how about this one? Supplying the whole city, millions of civilians alone. Yes, those civilians didn't get much, because most of the stuff went to the front. "
I remember how you boasted that the people of Leningrad were so tough they could survive by eating plaster off the walls. I would hardly call that "supplying" a city. Yes a few supplies got through, just enough to keep the people hoping, but nowhere near enough.
"If this doesn't prove anything, then nothing will and you just keep on insisting how a destroyed bridge will stop advance. If it was the case, then there would be no war, since a destroyed bridge stops it"
A destroyed brdige won't stop the war, but it will stop the kind of war you have in mind.
"I am underestimating the nonexisting fighting spirit of a totally defeated, destroyed army. They had a chance, they lost it, they got tired of the war. really tired. Who wanted to resist was dead by then"
I wouldn't call the german units trapped in Scandinavia, Northern Italy and the POW's the allies captured "dead"...
"You do not make any sence. They tried just that. They failed."
Faced with the prospect of the soviets "returning the favor", wouldn't it make much more sense to try again?
"Right... hm... what can I say? Actually at that point of time it was more like a German=Nazi. It still is Russian=Soviet, back then every German was hated. If you believe conc capms didn't add to it, you are wrong. If you think this alliance wouldn't hurt US -other allies relationship, you are wrong. If you think Poland, or Czehoslovakia would be happy about this, you are wrong.If you think many GI's would understand that, you are wrong.
And I am talking not only about official alliance, even creating ethnic German units under US command wouldn't be welcomed. "
Right... I seriously doubt the GI woudl grumble about the guys that is fighting next to him, just as long as he fights, after all, WWIII would be no walkover. The GI would either have to choose to accept the germans or surrender to the soviets. I wonder what would he choose?
"Really? It rained only when Germans were advancing? And stopped with the Soviet offensive? "
You are saying this as if the germans had everything from proper equipment in sufficient numbers to full and constant supplies.
"Really? After defeating Soviet before the winter they were hoping it would be warm again? They were not ready for such a scale of operation, ie it wasn't their weight category and they lost. Their supply system failed, not that Germany din't have enough warm cloth. "
Weight category... Yes, they did bite off more than they could chew, but that alone does not speak a word about quality...
"I.E. they weren't prepared and couldn't handle this cituation, EXCACTLY what I said before, Germans were good at some type of war. "
I don't this they had a chioce, given the limited reserves in just about everything...
"DO your home work. And this 300K Soviet losses - do you at least know that it wasn't the number of killed? Do you know that the number of Germans POWs only was higher than total Soviet casualties in that operation? "
My bad about the killed... Yes, the soviets captured about 130.000 of the 200.000 defending Berlin. Considering the kind of hell on earth unleashed unleashed by the soviets it is quite a high number. Second, these units were surrounded with no hope of ever surrendering to the allies... There was nothing else to do...
"They are not a world apart. Germany + all of the axis provided soldiers, you didn't forget that, right? Plus occupied territory with around 80mln Soviet citizen, i.e more than a third. No manpower shortage? You are joking, right? Soviet population was less in 42 than German+axis, or you are not aware of this fact?
Plenty of territory to fall back? Exactly where? Most of the industrial and agricultural lands were lost, so, retreate where??? "
And of the 80 mln, how many do you think the germans managed to keep an eye on? How many of these were partisans that caused huge problems to the communication lines? Like I said before, the theatre was simply too large for the german army to cover, and soviet units could and did get left behind. My point is that the german army could not fully control the vast area it conquered.
Just a few dozen kms to the east, Astrakhan, Kuybishev, Kazan, the german army would have literally disintegrated. The germans could not have advanced further than Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, while the Red Army could have survived long enough at the foot of the Urals or even behind them so they could reorganize and launch they counter-offensive roughly "on-schedule" from a historical point of view.
"Unless you do some further reading, this is pointless. Most of the Soviet lost tanks were not destroyed by German tanks, BUT by artillery and personal antitank weapons and mines. Strange that such a common fact is unknown by you.
If you don't prove me wrong, we'll just assume I am correct. If you need some fugures, ok, I'll find them for you. "
Don't worry, I can look them up myself, and I'll post them if they do not match your views...
"Temporary, which further advance proved. Are you saying they couldn't advance any further no more? Well, they did some time later.
They did, which proves you are wrong, so, this example just proves me right, Soviet supply lines weren't overstretched, thank you very much. "
Temporary... As in "Let me catch my breath?", temporary? "Just gimme a second here?" stuff? That sounds like overstretched supply lines to me.
"What partisan movement? Where? Did they meet any in Germany? Poland? Would they face the same communist movement in France, the one Germans faced? Obviously not, US would have to deal with them. Do you know that it was quite strong in France? "
In Germany? Every able bodied man was drafted, there was no one left to become a partisan... And in Poland... the russians were viewed as liberators at first, naturally...
And about communism in France. Strong? How strong? In numbers, not the volume of their rantings, extremists are particularaly noisy...
"Do you understand that Soviets had around 12 mln battle experienced men. Do you understand that US Marines would've met guards tank armies.
Would you like me to tell you what would've happend with all those commandos etc? The point you are trying to make is superiority of western soldiers, the mistake Germans once made. "
Of course, the question can go the other way: What the men of the 5th Guards, for example, would do if they faced the Marines? Also, I belive LILLEBROR is trying to say that the western soldiers were no pushovers, NOT that the soviets are somehow inferior soldeirs. The soldiers of both sides were veterans, mostly, anyway.
"There was simply nothing what could've stopped them in 45. "
Nothing except another army, right? You cannot be serious about that, now can you? Do you honestly think that if the situation was so, Stalin would not have taken advantage of it?
My point... The soviets were not stopped by the germans that NEVER:
1) Had enough supplies
2) Had enough men
3) Had enough tanks that could match the soviet ones
4) Had enough tanks, period
5) Had enough transportation for those supplies
6) Had total air superiority (striking anywhere, anytime) (of course, except for the first weeks or so, before the front widened)
5) Had an artillery that was numerous enough to be employed in roles other than pinpoint bombardments
This is the army that the soviets faced, this is the kind of army the soviets defeated, this is NOT the kind of army the soviets would face in this scenario. I am not minimizing the struggle of the soviets, I am showing what the soviets did overcome: a very motivated and highly trained enemy, but one that had serious drawbacks in war material and number of men.
Also, when was the last time and what were the conditions when the soviets tried and accomplished the kind of close air support tactics you so boldly support?
And Victor, very good points, BTW.