What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union

high psi

03-02-2006, 06:48 AM

Discuss this topic.

Atlantic Friend

03-02-2006, 07:02 AM

Asheren

03-02-2006, 07:34 AM

Hmm Stalin will have reason to invade west and then he would get nuked.

Lokos

03-02-2006, 07:40 AM

The outlined scenario was relatively impossible.

Lokos

Asheren

03-02-2006, 07:50 AM

Difficult to say i read in some cold war era books that some peoples on soviet side had idea of provoking "friendly" fire incident. So the imperialists can taste a power of soviet guns. (and more propably to gain some valuable intel about combat ability of western units)

PrivatePyle

03-02-2006, 07:58 AM

Hmm Stalin will have reason to invade west and then he would get nuked.

The nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more a shot across Russia's bows I reckon, to say "dont mess, look what we have".

They were built with Germany in mind not Japan, though they did save plenty of American lives as fighting for Japan conventially would of been bloody.

oregongrunt

03-02-2006, 12:43 PM

The Russians would have plenty more people to throw at him.

Minardiau

03-02-2006, 01:02 PM

In the book "Politics of War: Australia at war from Churchill to Macarthour" It's mentioned that Churchill was thinking about going to war against the Russians. Montgomery, Patten, Macarthour. They wanted to.

As Churchill said. "The whole reason why we went to war in the first place was to get rid of tyrants. All we have done is replaced one tyrant with another"

Of course Churchill lost the election.

Atlantic Friend

03-02-2006, 01:04 PM

Hmm Stalin will have reason to invade west and then he would get nuked.

Total number of A-bombs in 1945 : 9, IIRC. And it could only be delivered from bombers that could be intercepted.

foxtrot023

03-02-2006, 01:37 PM

Patton would have had his @ss handled to him in a platter. Of course then come the nukes

duck

03-02-2006, 01:53 PM

Would this have been before or after the Ardennes offensive? Also with or without the Wehrmacht? Don't see any chance that the Allied would have joined forces with the SS.

onefast93z28

03-02-2006, 02:12 PM

I believe he means after the war was over.

For what it's worth I have heard of Germans surrendering to US forces and then requesting to be allowed to fight with the US against Russia, they couldn't believe that we didn't plan to fight the USSR.

JVeld

03-02-2006, 02:19 PM

Patton would have had his @ss handled to him in a platter. Of course then come the nukes
I totally agree with you....remember that the USSR emerged from WWII as a Juggernaut of a military force that probably could only be stopped with the use of atomic weapons and even then they had enough soldiers and weapons to wage a hell of a war !!!

Ea$y-8

03-02-2006, 02:27 PM

Then...WW3 would have been kindled from the still burning ashes of WW2. And the Red Army would have gobbled up Europe real fast (economies in shambles, influent Communist Parties, a general wariness of war and destruction).

Plus, if Patton had decided alone to invade the Soviet Union (which first meant defeating Soviet-led forces in Germany and Poland) I'm not sure Truman would have happily jumped on the bandwagon.

If you mean getting the Germans and the Poles to fight for the USSR dream on. Although the Polish would fight against the Germans but not against the Western allies. I don't think the Poles would just let fact that the USSR invaded their country fly. I don't see the Germans letting a mass rape just go by without doing something...

Asheren

03-02-2006, 03:55 PM

evanfitz

03-02-2006, 06:58 PM

Patton was a brilliant military strategist but invading the USSR would not be easy.

I'd say Patton may walk home in defeat.

gaz

03-02-2006, 07:36 PM

Kilgor

03-02-2006, 07:43 PM

Aparently there was a romanian saying that would ever spilt blood in russia would never leave there alive.

But a war with russia to remove stalin no matter how idealistic just would not happen.

bigjeff

03-02-2006, 09:20 PM

I think Patton would hv a dog fight in russia and finally retreat back to US.

Playtime

03-02-2006, 11:10 PM

4 inferior shermans against each superior panther was hard enough.

1 inferior sherman against 4(?) superior T34s would probably be hopless.

Igor01

03-02-2006, 11:39 PM

Wars are fought and won not only with guns and tanks but also with the resolve of people that fight for their land and their families and their willingness to make sacrifices. Example: USSR in Great Patriotic War, Finland in Winter War, Yugoslavia in WWII.

I'd say that all things considered an operation "Soviet Freedom" would be a very hard sell in the US and England while USSR would hold a clear moral advantage. Any new "Drang nach Osten" would have failed spectacularly. If you don't believe me examine the preceeding events of 1941-1945.

RomanS

03-02-2006, 11:42 PM

What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union

he would of been fuked

Kilgor

03-02-2006, 11:53 PM

I'd say that all things considered an operation "Soviet Freedom" would be a very hard sell in the US and England while USSR would hold a clear moral advantage. .

However if a war was fought to remove the eastern stalinist puppet governments back to the pre molitov lines, then the moral authority would definately be with the western powers.

Igor01

03-03-2006, 12:06 AM

However if a war was fought to remove the eastern stalinist puppet governments back to the pre molitov lines, then the moral authority would definately be with the western powers.

Not if this were an unprovoked aggression on the part of the West. After all there was no shortage of "Stalinist puppet governments" in Eastern Europe from late 40's yet even then the West knew better than to declare a unilateral democratization jihad, nukes or no nukes.

Kilgor

03-03-2006, 12:14 AM

Not if this were an unprovoked aggression on the part of the West. After all there was no shortage of "Stalinist puppet governments" in Eastern Europe from late 40's yet even then the West knew better than to declare a unilateral democratization jihad, nukes or no nukes.

Errr, eastern europe was not soviet territory. They were a conquest of war, with puppet leaders who towed the kremlin line. They did not belong to the SU. They should have had their own indendant governments, but stalin wanted his buffer zone and the citizens of such countries had little say in that matter.

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 12:24 AM

Let me start this off by saying from the ww2 related posts I have been seeing lately I knew this topic was coming up.

I know that I could rant all day about how the Tigers are better than T-34s but it is clear to me that a T-34 would use the M4 Sherman as toliet paper. We would need to get M26 Pershing's in our armored divisions if we where to stand a chance. There would be no winning a battle by numbers of tanks outnumbering those of the enemy history has shown the world that you can't win a battle simpley by numbers with Russia (or USSR in this case). But the Soviets had the own heavy tanks - the IS-2 and some IS-3s on the way...

In the case of Airpower the USA has the better of the USSR. We had a massive fleet of long range bombers. and could strike pretty much anywhere in the USSR. And with a guy like ol' Curtis LeMay running things... You can rest easy knowing that it would cause alot of destruction. The USSR had some good plans but I not a expert on fighter aircraft so I don't know much about the air war field.

as far as leadership the Soviets had:

1. Georgi Zhukov
2. Konstantin Rokossovsky
3. Ivan Konev
4. Vasily Chuikov
And a few other great Marshal's

The US had:

1. George Patton
2. Omar Bradely
3. Douglas MacArthur (although not really a tank commader)
4. Matthew Ridgway
5. Creighton Abrams (who would probably rise to a corps commander if not a army)
6. Curtis LeMay

And many others

As far as captured POWs... the USA had captured something like 2 million at least and could be used for a war against the Soviets. We would have enough to from at least one Army Group. It would not be hard to get them to fight the Soviets... The USSR would not have much use for the POWs. They could only trust them with say a Mosin Nagent with 5 rounds of ammo. They could use them to clear mine fields or something like that buts that is about it. Don't make me go into why the USSR would have such a hard time getting the German POWs to fight...

Igor01

03-03-2006, 12:28 AM

Errr, eastern europe was not soviet territory. They were a conquest of war, with puppet leaders who towed the kremlin line.

Please, you know very well that any full-scale conflict would have been aimed at defeating the Soviet regime on the Soviet soil, not at pushing the Soviets back to the the Soviet border.

RomanS

03-03-2006, 12:33 AM

Kilgor

03-03-2006, 12:37 AM

Please, you know very well that any full-scale conflict would have been aimed at defeating the Soviet regime on the Soviet soil, not at pushing the Soviets back to the the Soviet border.

You think after seeing hitler stopped in Russia with a weak and disorganised army, that the western powers would try to do with it a modernized and organised one. I very much doubt it.

Kilgor

03-03-2006, 12:40 AM

Whatever happens we have got, the Maxim gun and they have not

Could easily be replaced with the words "the bomb"

What the soviets do if Leningrad and moscow were glowing a nice shade of green?

Igor01

03-03-2006, 12:41 AM

You think after seeing hitler stopped in Russia with a weak and disorganised army, that the western powers would try to do with it a modernized and organised one. I very much doubt it.

Well I would also add that Hitler was not just stopped, he had his ass together with his one-thousand year Reich handed over to him, but yeah, that's my point exactly, the Allies were anything but suicidal :)

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 12:46 AM

"hey Hans, we know you just lost most of your buddies against Russians in East Front, and you were almost killed there yourself. But how about you go and try it again, now under a new management."

ROFL

I got a better one

*opens door to POW camp* "Hey Hans, Erich, Fritz and the rest of you, Those Soviets came in raped every women they could get their hands on a killed 50 Germans for everyone who killed a Soviet in defense (they really did that)! Not only that but guess what they are deporting vast numbers of people to Siberia to die in gulags along with the rest of your friends who are already there! So do you wanna get sweet revenge for all this? Well here is your chance *throws a rifle into the hands of a POW* join us in a campiagn to destroy the USSR and communism once and for all!

BTW I know most Red Army soldiers didn't rape, murder or send people to gulags this was done by second wave troops. A lot of people talked of the frontline Soviet soldiers as normal acting people and sometimes even gentlemen, but talked of those that fallowed as complete animials.

RomanS

03-03-2006, 01:20 AM

ROFL

I got a better one

BTW I know most Red Army soldiers didn't rape, murder or send people to gulags this was done by second wave troops. A lot of people talked of the frontline Soviet soldiers as normal acting people and sometimes even gentlemen, but talked of those that fallowed as complete animials.

Right, that and Soviets were never invaded by Germans and slaughtered in millions. Babi Yar, was all a hoax. And the rest of the thousands of towns where Germans executed all who looked slavic was staged between 1941-1944

I mean, in your own words killed 50 Germans for everyone who killed a Soviet in defense (they really did that)!
Poor little Germans, they were in defence. Defending themselves against Soviet invaders...

RomanS

03-03-2006, 01:23 AM

Come again and rape our women, exterminate our men and children because we were SUB HUMANS, next time they gonna wish they had a WALL built on their territory....

THANK YOU SOVIET SOLDIERS. I and millions like me alive today so I can say the above thanks to you.

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/Soviet%20Flag%20Over%20Reichstag.jpg

sir-chimp

03-03-2006, 01:38 AM

lol .

RomanS

03-03-2006, 01:51 AM

lol .

off topic and humor is 3 forums down
your should know your home, its ok to get lost sometimes

Lazarou

03-03-2006, 01:58 AM

Churchill and the British War Cabinet had a plan called Operation Unthinkable.

From Wikipedia:
Operation Unthinkable

A plan ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and developed by British Intelligence at the end of WWII that involved driving the Red Army out of Europe and destroying Stalin's Communist government. The majority of the operation would consist of American and British forces but would also entail the use of up to 100,000 surrendered German soldiers. The plan was never carried out and rejected by the British Chiefs of Staff as militarily unfeasible.

A photocopy of the first page of the plan:
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/51/unthinkable4ic.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=unthinkable4ic.jpg)
Russia: threat to western civilisation

The rest of the pages can be found here:
http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

RomanS

03-03-2006, 02:09 AM

Churchill and the British War Cabinet had a plan called Operation Unthinkable.

From Wikipedia:

A photocopy of the first page of the plan:
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/51/unthinkable4ic.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=unthinkable4ic.jpg)

The rest of the pages can be found here:
http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

Kilgor

03-03-2006, 02:10 AM

Did you even read the document ?
It was about bombing baku, not a invasion.

Knowing the state of red army aviation, the brits could have bacially walked in the front door.

RomanS

03-03-2006, 02:15 AM

Did you even read the document ?
It was about bombing baku, not a invasion.

Knowing the state of red army aviation, the brits could have bacially walked in the front door.

could of
would of
should of

the collection of cold war WARRIORS on this web site is awesome

while you have time to wine and complain about evil Russia and SU on a forum. Your American soldiers are being killed by some bearded men in Iraq. But you know what is the most disgusting thing?
I consider them my soldiers too, because I live in US, my step father is an American and he was there, my girl is an AMerican, my best friends here are Americans. But I can't go there to help because of my illness. I need insulin to stay alive, so the armed forces of Russia and US won't risk my ass.

WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE?

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 02:27 AM

Right, that and Soviets were never invaded by Germans and slaughtered in millions. Babi Yar, was all a hoax. And the rest of the thousands of towns where Germans executed all who looked slavic was staged between 1941-1944

I don't deny the halocaust... However if you think the crimes some Germans did against the Soviets is a excuse for the crimes some soviets did against the Germans. Then may I say the Germans where 100% justified because The USSR deported countless batlic and Polish people's to the gulags to almost certain death and let us not forget the Katyn Forest Massacre...

was Das Reich justified in doing what it did to the Soviet civilians? Any decent person would say "no"

Was the USSR justified in doing what it did to German civilians? Any decent person would say "no"

Poor little Germans, they were in defence. Defending themselves against Soviet invaders...

Of course the USSR was invaded Das Reich on 22 June 1941... However once the soviets got on German land the Germans where now on the defensive and thus defending themselves and their country.

RomanS

03-03-2006, 02:33 AM

However if you think the crimes some Germans did against the Soviets is a excuse for the crimes some soviets did against the Germans.

UMMMMMM When ????????????????????

However once the soviets got on German land the Germans where now on the defensive and thus defending themselves and their country.

Oh so here we are exterminating subumans, and than those subhumans getting our asssses handed to us, so we run and get more assses handed to us for what we did there is BAD?

ahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahaha Oh another one .....

Kilgor

03-03-2006, 02:34 AM

WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE?

Alot of us will just sick of seeing the propaganda and spin that the soviet fan club here bring up on a regular basis.

RomanS

03-03-2006, 02:36 AM

Alot of us will just sick of seeing the propaganda and spin that the soviet fan club here bring up on a regular basis.
Im not Soviet

But i wont join the popular here "bashing my mother wagon"
No matter what kind of bitch she was, shes our mom. Im sure you heard word "MOTHERLAND" before. Yeah it does mean business to us. Past is past, let it go, and lets worry about our children now.

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 02:44 AM

Oh so here we are exterminating subumans, and than those subhumans getting our asssses handed to us, so we run and get more assses handed to us for what we did there is BAD?

ahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahaha Oh another one .....

Your grammar mistakes aside...

Although the USSR won against Germany I would say the German soldier was clearly the superior of a Soviet one. They killed WAY more Soviets (soldiers not civilians) than they lost themselves. I wouldn't say they "got their asses handed to them" rather that they lost. there is a massive line between losing and getting your arse kicked.

Losing is where you fail to gain victory over your enemy
Getting your arse kicked is where you lose and embrass yourself

Kilgor

03-03-2006, 02:46 AM

Im not Soviet

But i wont join the popular here "bashing my mother wagon"
No matter what kind of bitch she was, shes our mom. Im sure you heard word "MOTHERLAND" before. Yeah it does mean business to us. Past is past, let it go, and lets worry about our children now.

No one is saying bash your motherland, however your previous form of government on the otherhand was responsible for much bloodshed.

I sure as hell dont assoicate my country with the government.

RomanS

03-03-2006, 02:52 AM

Your grammar mistakes aside...

Thanks for putting it aside. I speak 3 languages. You ?

Although the USSR won against Germany I would say the German soldier was clearly the superior of a Soviet one.
Thats what they all thought about our soldiers. Sub-Humans remember? However put guns aside (PPSH or MP44), fist to fist I put my money on a Russian.

They killed WAY more Soviets (soldiers not civilians) than they lost themselves.
Concerns about my grammar? Sure we can put it aside, but I must ask your age here now.

I wouldn't say they "got their asses handed to them" rather that they lost. there is a massive line between losing and getting your arse kicked.

Losing is where you fail to gain victory over your enemy
Getting your arse kicked is where you lose and embrass yourself
see my above question

RomanS

03-03-2006, 02:55 AM

No one is saying bash your motherland, however your previous form of government on the otherhand was responsible for much bloodshed.

I sure as hell dont assoicate my country with the government.
I dont yell "YEAAAAH IM PROUD OF BLOODSHED" But I do want to assosiate myself with where Im from. Where are you from? Cause Im more than positive that your birthplace has minuses and pluses. I just dont want to outline just the minuses. Its not my business to do so.

Don't blame the ingridients, blame the cook. ONE PERSON, not a whole dish!!!

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 03:08 AM

Thanks for putting it aside. I speak 3 languages. You ?

Two English and bad English... And some German :)

Thats what they all thought about our soldiers. Sub-Humans remember? However put guns aside (PPSH or MP44), fist to fist I put my money on a Russian.

When did I call a Russian sub-human?? I don't think someones nation orgin has anything to do with fighting skill training and working out do.

Concerns about my grammar? Sure we can put it aside, but I must ask your age here now.

Do you see the little area under my username that reads "age" if you do you will see that I am 16 years old... How old are you - comrade?

RomanS

03-03-2006, 03:13 AM

Do you see the little area under my username that reads "age" if you do you will see that I am 16 years old... How old are you - comrade?

Thats great and all, but you should see what many people put in their profiles here. Thats why I ask, to be double sure!

So you are 16, im 26. 10 years difference, my grandparents were involved in Great Patriotic War (WW2), so I hear stories, saw photos.

Germans sucker punched us, you know that too. There was that little agreement written between 2 nations about not atacking eachother. So it's like going in the ring, and punching a man before he puts his mouth piece on, and than punching him again in the balls. Give me a break my young friend.

AGain, one on one in a fair fight when that bell rings it is a different story. I can too claim IM more supperior than you when I clock your nose when you are sleeping...

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 03:13 AM

http://whiteafrican.com/wp-content/FLAMEWAR.gif

I don't think high psi would have posted this thread if he had known that the decussion that fallowed would be the orgins of WWIII between the members of this forum... Can we please cut the BS and get back on topic which if my mermory serves me correctly "What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union"

RomanS

03-03-2006, 03:18 AM

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 03:24 AM

AGain, one on one in a fair fight when that bell rings it is a different story. I can too claim IM more supperior than you when I clock your nose when you are sleeping...

Yes the Germans caught you with your pants down and you were sucker punched. Just to let you know I am a 10th generation German-American. I know Germany took a "cheap shot" on the USSR but however the Soviets use the winter in their favor. For some reason winters get really cold when you invade Russia it is the law of the universe. It is kinda like putting on a fire resistant suit to go fight a guy in a fire pit who is not wearing on. So the Germans and Russians are even... :D

As usual, I bring your BS that you started back to you, so now you raise the FLAME WAR FLAG

No, the whole thing was BS. I wanted to put a stop to it so we could get back on track and hammar out a reasonable conclusion.

RomanS

03-03-2006, 03:29 AM

Yes the Germans caught you with your pants down and you were sucker punched. Just to let you know I am a 10th generation German-American. I know Germany took a "cheap shot" on the USSR but however the Soviets use the winter in their favor. For some reason winters get really cold when you invade Russia it is the law of the universe. It is kinda like putting on a fire resistant suit to go fight a guy in a fire pit who is not wearing on. So the Germans and Russians are even... :D

;)

I dont care if you are 16th generation Darth Vader's grandma. We are both humans, we both have same blood. I already said earlier lets worry about our children. You are part of it.

Let go of the past. We are both proud of our blood. Be it German or Russian blood. Its still RED!

PEACE im out of this stupid thread! no more from me in this one...

Lazarou

03-03-2006, 03:49 AM

There was that little agreement written between 2 nations about not atacking eachother..

...just like there was between the Soviet Union and Finland when the Soviet Union attacked the country in November 1939. You really should stop seeing WW2 as a holy battle against the Infernal Nazi Monster and realise the fact that there were two monsters, both trying to take what they wanted by any means possible.
By signing that "little agreement" (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) the Soviet Union and Germany signed the fate of Europe by deviding it into their own spheres of influence before attacking each other and thus created the basis for the war that is now known as the Second World War.

asch

03-03-2006, 03:51 AM

who the fcuk is Patton, anyway?

hehe, j/k

Lokos

03-03-2006, 06:32 AM

Although the USSR won against Germany I would say the German soldier was clearly the superior of a Soviet one.

Is that so, Herr Oberst? It may interest you to know that there were several German generals who would disagree with that assessment.

I wouldn't say they "got their asses handed to them" rather that they lost. there is a massive line between losing and getting your arse kicked.

The only thing stopping a Soviet offensive after June 1944 was when the advance outran the logistical network supporting it. You want ass kickings? Iassy, Vistula-Oder, Lake Balaton, Bagration, Uranus, Orel, Kharkov-Belgorod and dozens of others.

Losing is where you fail to gain victory over your enemy
Getting your arse kicked is where you lose and embrass yourself

Your grasp of warfare is desultory.

Thats what they all thought about our soldiers. Sub-Humans remember? However put guns aside (PPSH or MP44), fist to fist I put my money on a Russian.

RomanS, don't even worry about it. This gentleman clearly believes his knowledge of the subject matter is impressive, and thorough - and that his understanding of the facts at hand is adequate. Unfortunately, he is mistaken on both accounts. 'The German soldier was superior' -> Mate, you would be LAUGHED out of a WW2 historiographical debate.

When did I call a Russian sub-human?? I don't think someones nation orgin has anything to do with fighting skill training and working out do.

I know, I'll point out a few instances of Soviet soldiers achieving 10:1 kill rates when facing the Germans, and then I'll say 'the Soviet soldier is clearly superior' and it will HAVE to be true! Yes? Yes?

Do you see the little area under my username that reads "age" if you do you will see that I am 16 years old... How old are you - comrade?

Ugh. I just noticed that part, now. Buddy, before you comment in a military discussion related to the Eastern Front, gain a) knowledge and b) comprehension of military studies. You can do both through reading - but practical experience helps. You're going to be wanting to read something other than Manstein's memoirs, though, understand? I can see you have a real hard-on for the Wehrmacht. Fair enough. Seeing as you're 16 years old, though, and that I'm losing patience with this line of 'debate', I'm going to have to forego giving you the education you'll be getting in college, anyway.

I will say one thing: If, at any point, you say 'The German soldier was superior to the Soviet soldier' or vice versa, or anything to that effect, you make a joke of yourself. Each and every time.

but however the Soviets use the winter in their favor.

You really do tempt me with nonsense like this...

Rasputitsa helped the Soviets more than 'General Winter' ever could. The Kievan operation forestalled the Moscow advance (and the Kievan operation was not a mistake, in doing so), allowing STAVKA to build up a strategic reserve. These two factors, plus heavy Soviet resistance, meant that the Moscow operation was not feasible. Now here's the interesting part: Do you know what the Soviets did with that winter respite? They threw away the best part of a million man strategic reserve for extremely limited gain - because Stalin wanted a general counter-offensive.

Winter '41-'42 was a disaster for the Soviets.

For some reason winters get really cold when you invade Russia it is the law of the universe.

During the Winter War, Finland was experiencing its third coldest winter in recorded history. I don't see you attributing the Soviet failure to winter, though.

Lokos

Atlantic Friend

03-03-2006, 07:13 AM

If you mean getting the Germans and the Poles to fight for the USSR dream on. Although the Polish would fight against the Germans but not against the Western allies. I don't think the Poles would just let fact that the USSR invaded their country fly. I don't see the Germans letting a mass rape just go by without doing something...

By that I mean defeating the Red Army and its proxies.

As for Germany being able to do much about mass rapes, we're talking about a 1945 operation here, which means Germany has exhausted almost every means of defense - and the biggest "Polish" units around are part of the Red Army, courtesy of the Lublin Communist Polish Government in Exile.

Patton going for a US barbarossa in 1945 sounds a recipe for disaster. The United States oly allies are war-weary Great Britain, France and Italy whose economies and war industry are in shambles, and where the Stalin-friendly Communist parties hold 25 to 30% of the electorate... Gone is Germany's military might, gone are independent Eastern European regimes.

Atlantic Friend

03-03-2006, 07:17 AM

You can coun't on it that we would hop on alied wagon as soon as possible.

Ofocours you can intercept them but they had enough to send 100 good luck with guessing. It would be also quite possibel that alied would mount wunderwaffe. V2 with nuke warhead.

Same goes for the Soviets, who got hold of the greatest number of German scientists (which gave them their lead in the early space race), had access to Los alamos information through Fuchs and the Rosenberg, and even built their own copy of the B-29 bomber through reverse-engineering some superforetresses that had to land in Soviet Asia.

Patton goes to Moscow, even if they are frantically working on building American V-2s armed with A-bombs in Los Alamos, the Red Army reaches the Atlantic Coast way before they can be put to some good use.

Atlantic Friend

03-03-2006, 07:41 AM

[img]Can we please cut the BS and get back on topic which if my mermory serves me correctly "What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union"

Hopefully, Truman fires him on the spot and convinves Stalin that Patton has had a bout of dementia making him unable to distinguish Soviet soldiers from Third Reich soldiers.

If he doesn't, here are a few not-so-wild ideas :

Hundreds of thousand US soldiers die in vain battles in Eastern Germany, and then in retreating battles across Western Europe as Soviet rule is extended to all of the continent - which, given Europe is still a colonial power, also means Soviet rule enforced in Asia, Africa, South America.

Spain's Franco plays the USA card as far as he can, and Spain becomes the main US base on the European continent. The Med is a zone of conflict.

The UK may also lose its independence, through direct militray action (doubtful), political turmoil (possible, let's keep in mind a victorious Churchill lost the elections to a very bland Leftist candidate) or trade blackmail (with the confiscation by Soviet forces of ME oil resources, the loss of India and Burma to Communist-influenced regimes, and no prospect of economic receovery through trade with continental Europe).

Canada becomes totally independent from the Commonwealth, as do Australia and New Zealand. India would be a territory ripe for competition between the USA and Soviet Russia, maybe with the US favoring Muslims (against godless communism) and the Soviet Union favoring Hindus (since Gandhi's party is influenced by socialist ideals).

French, Dutch and British possessions in South America and Pacific are seized by the US/Canada (or run by European democratic governments in exile that will have to live off Washington's subsidies for years).

Probably no Israel - the Middle-East is either ripe for Soviet rule too or Washington needs Muslims so bad to fight Soviet influence in the ME that no concession can be made to a Jewish homeland - or a Soviet-inspired Israel (but given Stalin's antisemitism it's highly doubtful).

China, Japan and Korea become the new fulcrum where the USA and the SU fight their Cold War by proxy. NO Wall of Berlin, but maybe a Wall of Seoul.

sir-chimp

03-03-2006, 08:35 AM

off topic and humor is 3 forums down
your should know your home, its ok to get lost sometimes

lol

I was laughing at these "what if" threads my mighty mighty chest beating and keyboard smashing friend. There is an infinite amount of possible endings, with everyone one being right and wrong at the same time. But thanks for the helpful directions.

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 01:34 PM

[quote]Is that so, Herr Oberst? It may interest you to know that there were several German generals who would disagree with that assessment.

And a few soviet ones would agree...

The only thing stopping a Soviet offensive after June 1944 was when the advance outran the logistical network supporting it. You want ass kickings? Iassy, Vistula-Oder, Lake Balaton, Bagration, Uranus, Orel, Kharkov-Belgorod and dozens of others.

Białystok-Minsk, Smolensk, 1st Kiev, Voronezh, Mars, Kharkov and a few others did the Germans who got their arses kicked there :)

'The German soldier was superior' -> Mate, you would be LAUGHED out of a WW2 historiographical debate.

*Cough* Yes, I know of a

I know, I'll point out a few instances of Soviet soldiers achieving 10:1 kill rates when facing the Germans, and then I'll say 'the Soviet soldier is clearly superior' and it will HAVE to be true! Yes? Yes?

So can I, I know of my cases of a Soviet soldier killing large numbers of Germans. But I can also bring up Michael Wittmann, Hans Rudel, Fritz Christen and others. In not all but in most cases the German was the better soldier.

Ugh. I just noticed that part, now. Buddy, before you comment in a military discussion related to the Eastern Front, gain a) knowledge and b) comprehension of military studies. You can do both through reading - but practical experience helps.

I have been studying WWII for the past 3 years, I think I have gotten pretty far considering the time I have been resreaching. I am not some WWII super master.

I can see you have a real hard-on for the Wehrmacht. Fair enough. Seeing as you're 16 years old, though, and that I'm losing patience with this line of 'debate', I'm going to have to forego giving you the education you'll be getting in college, anyway.

First off you anyone who can't see that I have a major hard-on for the Wehrmacht is blind. And what does my age have to do with anything. Would it be better if I was 80 years old and didn't know crap about warfare???

Winter '41-'42 was a disaster for the Soviets.

Winter is were the Soviets seemed to start to win during those two years. However the Red Army did not need good ol' "general winter" to be successful Operation Bagration is a outstanding example.

Lokos

03-03-2006, 02:04 PM

And a few soviet ones would agree...

Yes? Which ones?

Białystok-Minsk, Smolensk, 1st Kiev, Voronezh, Mars, Kharkov and a few others did the Germans who got their arses kicked there

So there are examples of what you call 'ass kickings' on both sides. Yet, the Germans are 'superior soldiers'?

*Cough* Yes, I know of a

This seems an unfinished sentence.

So can I, I know of my cases of a Soviet soldier killing large numbers of Germans. But I can also bring up Michael Wittmann, Hans Rudel, Fritz Christen and others. In not all but in most cases the German was the better soldier.

LOL. I'm sorry, but your mode of analysis of German/Soviet wartime experiences is... lacking.

I have been studying WWII for the past 3 years, I think I have gotten pretty far considering the time I have been resreaching. I am not some WWII super master.

No, you're not. But keep studying.

Any fool can know facts and parrot impressions of 'what happened' handed to them by the various personalities involved. What you need to do is start from neutral ground. Begin with cold, hard military realities and every day common sense - where generalisations of 'superiority' just don't fly. Then fill out that framework with events and specificities. What gave the Germans a tactical and, often, an operational advantage over the Soviets? What was the on-the-ground reality of the Soviet wartime experiences from 1941 until 1945? And for the Germans?

And what does my age have to do with anything

Real easy question to answer. What your age has to do with 'anything' is that you're at a point in your education where critical thinking is not yet a major focus in your curriculum. You've read some Manstein, some biographies of Rommel and Wittman, some German-sourced operational accounts and have decided that things happened the way you think they happened, and that things were the way you think they were - i.e. the way those works portray those things to have been.

Would it be better if I was 80 years old and didn't know crap about warfare???

No, but it doesn't help that you're 16 and don't know crap about warfare, instead.

Winter is were the Soviets seemed to start to win during those two years.

Says who?

However the Red Army did not need good ol' "general winter" to be successful Operation Bagration is a outstanding example.

Soviets began operating year-round in early 1943. Spring, summer, autumn, winter - they were conducting operations throughout each of those seasons. Counteroffensives were conducted as early as July 1941 (!!). Of course the Soviet forces did not need winter to be successful. If anything, it was as much a hindrance for them as it was for the Germans, in terms of waging mobile warfare.

Lokos

Hellfish6

03-03-2006, 03:24 PM

Getting out of politics...

Here are some considerations about an Allied-Soviet war in 1945. This is not a pissing contest, I think these are all fair considerations and I list advantages for both sides.

1. The Germans failed largely because of logistics. Some of this was due to the nature of the Soviet lands (massive and underdeveloped - I think the only paved all weather road was from Minsk to Moscow). Some of this was also due to lack of German mechanization. For each of their wonderful panzers, there were something like 200 horses that kept the infantry supplied. Even by 1945, this ratio had hardly changed.

If it was one thing the American Army was good at in WWII, it was logistics. You can be assured that the US Army would keep its forces much better supplied than the Germans ever did. The US had many, many engineering brigades dedicated to building the infrastructure needed to maintain a mechanized army - something the Germans never did. Right behind the American tanks would have been the American engineers building roads and railroads.

2. The US Army was vastly inferior to the Soviet Army in terms of equipment. I don't think anyone could dispute that. Even the M26 Pershing was outclassed by the T-34/85 (see Korea, though the US was far better at tank warfare than the Koreans or Chinese were, hence the horrific T-34 losses). In 1945, there were only a handful of M26s in Europe anyways. Man for man, I'd say they were roughly equal. Granted the Americans and British had some comperable tank designs by this time, it would have taken several months to bring them into service in any number. For at least 6-12 months, the Allies would have had to rely on already obsolete Shermans and light tanks.

3. The US would have owned the skies, for the most part. The Germans were never able to touch the Soviet factories in the Urals - the US had several hundred, if not thousands of bombers that could. I'm sure the Soviets would have been able to maintain local air superiority in some places, but by and large I think they were outclassed by the Allies (maybe not plane per plane, but Allied air doctrines and tactics were honed to perfection by 1945 - they knew how to wage strategic bombing campaigns - the Soviets largely did not).

4. Strategically, the US could have invaded from any direction. Forget about the Allies in Europe. Think of the US in the Pacific. The Soviets didn't have to worry about the backdoor when they were fighting the Germans - the Battle of Kalkin-Ghol ensured the Japanese would leave them alone. In 1945, the Soviets would have to worry about 6 Marine Divisions and something like 20 Army divisions in the Pacific. Don't forget the US could have potentially come through Iran, China or anywhere along the Soviet coastline - the USSR had no way of stopping the US Navy.

5. The US was never fully mobilized for war. There were still millions of men of military age in the US that never got drafted. In a crisis, they could all be mobilized, though industrial production would have likely taken a hit. AFAIR, the Soviets had largely expended most of their men of fighting age and the European parts of the USSR were still far from recovered by 1945. I don't think the Soviet Union could have called on massive manpower reserves anymore.

6. In a war, the Soviets would not be able to rely on Lend Lease. I don't remember exact percentages, but the Soviets got thousands of trucks from the US. This is what enabled them to invade Germany so rapidly and spend so much production on tanks and aircraft.

7. The Soviet Army in 1945 was vastly more capable than the Soviet Army in 1941. You can be sure that the Allies would not be able to copy the success the Germans had during their initial invasion.

8. Both sides had ample time to realize what worked and what didn't work in regards to invading over huge land distances. In the mid-late 1940s, many ex-German officers compiled entire volumes of analysis on what worked and what did not on the Eastern Front for the US Army, for example.

9. The Allies were adept at coalition warfare by this time - they could probably rely on other nations to provide men and arms. I don't think the Soviets could count on anyone in their occupied zones to help them and, in fact, if the Allies did attack I wouldn't be suprised at all if those occupied countries actively worked against the Soviets.

That's about all I can think of for now. All in all, I don't think either side could have "won" - I can't imagine the US Army making it all the way to Moskow without a nuclear path blown away for them. I can't see the Soviets making it to the English Channel either - I don't think their logistics and replacement pool was that extensive.

dangerclose

03-03-2006, 04:47 PM

Churchill was right about replacing one tyrant with another.

Stalin murdered countless more than Hitler did and began his own program of exterminating soviet jews before his timely death. It's a shame we couldn't have let the nazis and communists wipe each other out while we sat back in england.

StukaJr

03-03-2006, 04:50 PM

4. Strategically, the US could have invaded from any direction. Forget about the Allies in Europe. Think of the US in the Pacific. The Soviets didn't have to worry about the backdoor when they were fighting the Germans - the Battle of Kalkin-Ghol ensured the Japanese would leave them alone. In 1945, the Soviets would have to worry about 6 Marine Divisions and something like 20 Army divisions in the Pacific. Don't forget the US could have potentially come through Iran, China or anywhere along the Soviet coastline - the USSR had no way of stopping the US Navy.

All throughout WWII, Soviet Union kept large strategic reserves on the Manchurian Border and further to the east - about 60 divisions, with thousands of tanks, planes and indirect Artillery. These were not included in the reserve pool and were never touched - Soviet Command was ready to fight the War on two fronts.

US Would not attack from the East without putting themselves at disadvantage - fighting native opponent in the territories and climate the US Army was poorly prepared to fight (The Koren War was a good illustration of that - now, imagine even the harsher climate). The East of the SU is vast and so are the distances between the cities - the Logistical undertaking of supplying the army would be incredibly strenuous. Limited supply route by singular one way railroads and little number of truck worthy roads is also a recepe for disaster. US's intervention into Russian Civil War of 1918 also showed how little progress could have been made from the East.

Otherwise - I'm in overall agreement with what you've said.

Churchill was right about replacing one tyrant with another.

Stalin murdered countless more than Hitler did

not true and why is this relevant?

and began his own program of exterminating soviet jews before his timely death.

also not true - if you are refering to the Doctors' Plot, you should really review the trickle of evidence that even suggests such plot existed.

It's a shame we couldn't have let the nazis and communists wipe each other out while we sat back in england.

How exactly do two nations wipe each other out? If Hitler was successful in his plans - it would result in the genocide of hundreds of millions and extinction of a number of ethnic peoples... The only Nazi virtue is that they were stopped and destroyed in less than a decade of doing the damage.

Finally, my two cents on:

What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union

He would have gotten Court Martialed? Yes? At least that's what should happen to three star US generals that overules their authority and attacks a Sovereign Nation... Patton was nowhere near the top of the pecking order to make those kind of calls.

Igor01

03-03-2006, 05:35 PM

It's a shame we couldn't have let the nazis and communists wipe each other out while we sat back in england.

This is very disrespectful to those British soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi's. Their struggle and sacrifice meant saving some Soviet lives, while the USSR's heroic efforts saved countless English. Get a clue and grow up.

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 05:43 PM

Yes? Which ones?

Well Georgi Zhukov praised Manstein as a outstanding commander. And Charles de Gaulle (although a Frenchmen) said at Stalingrad (he went there after the war)

"What a remarkable people, having held out this long and against such odds. I speak not of the Russians but of the Germans they have advanced this far."

California Joe

03-03-2006, 07:13 PM

You know, I read these threads and on one hand I'm amazed at the level of study or lack thereof, that manifest in some of the answers. Here is what I've learned:

-Easy8 is seriously outclassed in this argument.
-Roman is a mother country loving motherf*cker
-If I ever need some info on anything WWII I'm calling Lokos
-Patton was an extremely aggressive field general that made lots of rash decisions and statements. Which is why Eisenhower was in charge, not him.
-Josef Stalin was a psychotic prick and you had all better recognize.

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 07:15 PM

-Easy8 is seriously outclassed in this argument.
-Roman is a mother country loving motherf*cker
-If I ever need some info on anything WWII I'm calling Lokos
-Patton was an extremely aggressive field general that made lots of rash decisions and statements. Which is why Eisenhower was in charge, not him.
-Josef Stalin was a psychotic prick and you had all better recognize.

First off thanks for the laugh that I am in anyway outclassed!

Second Patton was a great general and a good example of what a American should be like. He was a suberb general and leader of men. He was a outstanding general this is clear because he never lost a battle he fought in. IMO he should have been president.

California Joe

03-03-2006, 07:31 PM

You really are that stupid aren't you. Amazing. Oh to be 16 and arrogant.

Patton was a maniac. Have you actually ever read anything about him? Do you have a clue? Which kind of general was he again? Great, superb or outstanding? Every country needs a prima donna egomaniac that slaps people as president. Can't argue with that logic.

ibstolidude

03-03-2006, 07:35 PM

Every country needs a prima donna egomaniac that slaps people as president.
That is exactly my campaign theme!
In the words of Dean..."OhhhhhArrrghhhhh Aaaahhhh!"

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 07:38 PM

LOL. I'm sorry, but your mode of analysis of German/Soviet wartime experiences is... lacking.

Sorry for my "lack of knowledge" but my analysis is much better than yours.

Any fool can know facts and parrot impressions of 'what happened' handed to them by the various personalities involved. What you need to do is start from neutral ground. Begin with cold, hard military realities and every day common sense - where generalisations of 'superiority' just don't fly. Then fill out that framework with events and specificities. What gave the Germans a tactical and, often, an operational advantage over the Soviets? What was the on-the-ground reality of the Soviet wartime experiences from 1941 until 1945? And for the Germans?

I have to admit good advice.

Real easy question to answer. What your age has to do with 'anything' is that you're at a point in your education where critical thinking is not yet a major focus in your curriculum. You've read some Manstein, some biographies of Rommel and Wittman, some German-sourced operational accounts and have decided that things happened the way you think they happened, and that things were the way you think they were - i.e. the way those works portray those things to have been.

I have read about Manstein but nothing by him. I don't offen read personal acounts. Most of my WWII-related (save my Man-At-Arms book about the 1st 5 divisions of the Waffen SS)stuff doesn't take sides and just tells it like it is.

No, but it doesn't help that you're 16 and don't know crap about warfare, instead.

Sorry your right... I don't know crap about warfare I know a lot more than you :D

Says who?

You should know both Moscow and Stalingrad where both won in the winter.

If anything, it was as much a hindrance for them as it was for the Germans, in terms of waging mobile warfare.

No, The Soviets had the Germans better in being equiped for winter warfare. Read up on Operation Typhoon and you will see what I am talking about.

Greek soldier

03-03-2006, 07:40 PM

What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union

Greek soldier says:

1) Well, at the back of Patton's head there was such a thought.
2) Had he done that, China would love to get his head.
3) Yes, Nuke war... and back then the whole of Earth would had had thousands of earthquakes of 20 Richter Scale magnitude (the maximum is 12).
4) Had he done that, then neither militaryphotos.net wouldn't had existed nor we would had been able to post here...

See the positive side however... God would had been very proud for creating Patton. He would had awarded him as "the Hitler of the Hitlerest"

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 07:56 PM

You really are that stupid aren't you. Amazing. Oh to be 16 and arrogant.

That is a personal insult I don't think that is allowed here...

Patton was a maniac. Have you actually ever read anything about him? Do you have a clue?

I have read countless stuff about him. And Anyone who knows anything about Patton nationalist maniac... This is why I like the man so much. He was Not only a awesome military commander but a kick ass guy. He didn't take crap from anyone on or off the battle field. He saw and called things how they where he saw the USSR not as a friend - but a future enemy and it turned out he was right.

I have seen the ulimate website which has everything on this great hero:

http://www.pattonhq.com/homeghq.html

Which kind of general was he again? Great, superb or outstanding? Every country needs a prima donna egomaniac that slaps people as president. Can't argue with that logic.

All of the bold face... We need him because as I stated above HE WOULD NOT TAKE CRAP FROM ANYONE think how he would have dealt with the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, think of how he would have dealt with the bombing of the USS cole, think of how he would have dealt with China becoming involved in the Korean war, think of how he would have dealt with the NK after they took hold of that submarine. As you can see he would have dealt with a lot of issues long ago and we wouldn't have to worry about any of that today!

CPL Trevoga

03-03-2006, 07:59 PM

Ea$y-8

03-03-2006, 08:02 PM

^ well said we are finally getting somewhere.

duck

03-03-2006, 08:13 PM

That is a personal insult I don't think that is allowed here...

I have read countless stuff about him. And Anyone who knows anything about Patton nationalist maniac... This is why I like the man so much. He was Not only a awesome military commander but a kick ass guy. He didn't take crap from anyone on or off the battle field. He saw and called things how they where he saw the USSR not as a friend - but a future enemy and it turned out he was right.

I have seen the ulimate website which has everything on this great hero:

http://www.pattonhq.com/homeghq.html

All of the bold face... We need him because as I stated above HE WOULD NOT TAKE CRAP FROM ANYONE think how he would have dealt with the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, think of how he would have dealt with the bombing of the USS cole, think of how he would have dealt with China becoming involved in the Korean war, think of how he would have dealt with the NK after they took hold of that submarine. As you can see he would have dealt with a lot of issues long ago and we wouldn't have to worry about any of that today!

Yes, because all of us would be dead after a nuclear winter.

IronCross1985

03-04-2006, 12:05 AM

if Patton..generally an armor general invaded the USSR with his measly little Shermans...the Russian T-34's with their sloped armor would be shooting fish in a barrel...keep in mind that the T-34's could take a german 88 head on and keep rolling...plus the sheer size of the Russian military would overwhelm the allies..a dual front strategy would also not work on Russia since it's size is so massive...pretty much it would have been a slog until the bitter end..and the allies would probably be pushed back to Britain or even the US

IronCross1985

03-04-2006, 12:15 AM

Thats great and all, but you should see what many people put in their profiles here. Thats why I ask, to be double sure!

So you are 16, im 26. 10 years difference, my grandparents were involved in Great Patriotic War (WW2), so I hear stories, saw photos.

Germans sucker punched us, you know that too. There was that little agreement written between 2 nations about not atacking eachother. So it's like going in the ring, and punching a man before he puts his mouth piece on, and than punching him again in the balls. Give me a break my young friend.

AGain, one on one in a fair fight when that bell rings it is a different story. I can too claim IM more supperior than you when I clock your nose when you are sleeping...

Roamn I agree with you..the Russian soldier was superiour...screw the germans superior technology in small arms and aviation..the Russian soldier was going to fight to the death...much like the japanese fought to the death...And dont forget..the germans may have had better small arms in general..but the Russian T-34 tank was the tank that won the war in Europe..In my opinion it was one of the top 5 most crucial weapons contributed to winning the second world war.

Ea$y-8

03-04-2006, 12:33 AM

Roamn I agree with you..the Russian soldier was superiour...screw the germans superior technology in small arms and aviation..the Russian soldier was going to fight to the death...

First off a German soldier was not only better armed but trained. And second if a soldiers will to fight and die was in anyway a major factor than the Japanese would have the better of Germans, Soviets, and Americans. Man for man the German soldier was more offen that not the superior of a Soviet one, But if you have 1 German for every 10 Soviets the Soviets could lose 9 and keep going but if the Germans lost 1 - game over.

And yes the T-34 played a big role. It was a outstanding break threw in tank design and made all current Panzers at the time obsolete. And thus the Tiger and Panther were born (btw it is worth noting one idea for the new Panther was to copy the T-34)... IMO the Tiger was better than the T-34 but anyone who knows anything about WWII knows that a T-34 could blow a Sherman to hell.

Lokos

03-04-2006, 01:06 AM

1. The Germans failed largely because of logistics. Some of this was due to the nature of the Soviet lands (massive and underdeveloped - I think the only paved all weather road was from Minsk to Moscow). Some of this was also due to lack of German mechanization. For each of their wonderful panzers, there were something like 200 horses that kept the infantry supplied. Even by 1945, this ratio had hardly changed.

While you're right to point out logistics as one of the factors involved in the German defeat, there were numerous others involved that cannot be dismissed lightly, and that should, in fact, be seen as just as important. Force ratio, strategic focus, equipment doctrine, generation of combat forces (as an adjunct of the fore ratio), regeneration of combat forces (or the inability thereof on the part of the Germans) etc. etc.

If it was one thing the American Army was good at in WWII, it was logistics.

Logistics, effective use of a firepower based doctrine, a workable force generation/regeneration system, uniform standard of training (adequate), excellent technical support, a massive pool of educated potential recruits and reasonable leadership. Overall, an effective fighting force.

The US had many, many engineering brigades dedicated to building the infrastructure needed to maintain a mechanized army - something the Germans never did. Right behind the American tanks would have been the American engineers building roads and railroads.

Absolutely.

The US Army was vastly inferior to the Soviet Army in terms of equipment.

Not even I, a person with an obvious Soviet bias, would go that far. p-)

For at least 6-12 months, the Allies would have had to rely on already obsolete Shermans and light tanks.

Truly, they were not as bad as you say. The 76mm gun on the Sherman was comparable to the performance of the 85mm gun on the T-34, especially when once considers the high performance anti tank ammunition available to WA tank crews. The deciding factor would have been, IMHO, the Soviet propensity for audacious operational maneuver.

The Germans were never able to touch the Soviet factories in the Urals - the US had several hundred, if not thousands of bombers that could.

While this is true, one should not forget that there were more than ten thousand Soviet aircraft between Western Europe and the Urals.

Strategically, the US could have invaded from any direction. Forget about the Allies in Europe. Think of the US in the Pacific. The Soviets didn't have to worry about the backdoor when they were fighting the Germans - the Battle of Kalkin-Ghol ensured the Japanese would leave them alone. In 1945, the Soviets would have to worry about 6 Marine Divisions and something like 20 Army divisions in the Pacific.

They would contest those 26 divisions with the 60 divisions of the Far Eastern 1st Red Banner Army and 2nd Red Banner Army. :)

The US was never fully mobilized for war. There were still millions of men of military age in the US that never got drafted.

True.

AFAIR, the Soviets had largely expended most of their men of fighting age and the European parts of the USSR were still far from recovered by 1945.

To an extent. Each year the graduating class of 18 year olds was climbing in number. By 1945, that number had reached 2 million. The WA would have had to eliminate a very significant portion of Soviet manpower (there were 12.5 million men in the RKKA in 1945).

7. The Soviet Army in 1945 was vastly more capable than the Soviet Army in 1941. You can be sure that the Allies would not be able to copy the success the Germans had during their initial invasion.

You can be sure that the Soviets would take to the offensive, ASAP. It was their strategic bread and butter. They would certainly not wait for the Allies to strike blows at will. Look at the Field Regulations 1944.

6. In a war, the Soviets would not be able to rely on Lend Lease. I don't remember exact percentages, but the Soviets got thousands of trucks from the US. This is what enabled them to invade Germany so rapidly and spend so much production on tanks and aircraft.

While true, it does not stand that LL was going to be a significant factor in this potential continuation war.

8. Both sides had ample time to realize what worked and what didn't work in regards to invading over huge land distances. In the mid-late 1940s, many ex-German officers compiled entire volumes of analysis on what worked and what did not on the Eastern Front for the US Army, for example.

I would, generally, be wary of the monographs compiled by the German officers who ended up working for the US Army. Their characterizations of Soviet soldiery and tactics were, to say the least, at times quite flawed. The dangerous stereotyping (i.e. impenetrability of Soviet bridgeheads once reinforced, the hardiness of the Soviet soldier, the inflexibility of Soviet commanders etc.) might have been embarassing, had it been put in practice. In any case, these monographs were compiled in the early 50's. Probably not quite in time for a Pattol-led war on the SU. :)

That's about all I can think of for now. All in all, I don't think either side could have "won" - I can't imagine the US Army making it all the way to Moskow without a nuclear path blown away for them. I can't see the Soviets making it to the English Channel either - I don't think their logistics and replacement pool was that extensive.

We'll never know, either way.

Stalin murdered countless more than Hitler

That's a big call, there, buddy.

So Stalin, according to you, was personally responsible for the deaths of more than 6 million Jews, 2-4 million Poles, 1 million Yugoslavs, and 27 million Soviet citizens? That is to say, between 36 and 38 million people? Not including the six or so million Germans who perished, the half a million Hungarians, half a million Romanians, several hundred thousand Italians, three hundred thousand Americans, several hundred thousand British/Canadian/Australian citizens etc.

Well Georgi Zhukov praised Manstein as a outstanding commander.

And this, to you, speaks of German soldierly superiority?

What about the German officers who began praying once they learned that opposite them sat the feared 'Herr Tschukov (Zhukov)'? What about Krebb's double take during the peace negotiations in Berlin 1945 when he learned the man he was talking to was the infamous Chuikov, commander of the 62nd Army and defender of Stalingrad?

Does this speak to Soviet soldierly superiority, would you say?

"What a remarkable people, having held out this long and against such odds. I speak not of the Russians but of the Germans they have advanced this far."

I think you miss the point of De Gaulle's statement.

If I ever need some info on anything WWII I'm calling Lokos

CJ, for you, anything.

:D

-Josef Stalin was a psychotic prick and you had all better recognize.

You give him too much credit. :P I hold that he had no prick, and was compensating throughout his career.

IMO he should have been president.

LOL. The wisdom of 16-year olds.

Sorry for my "lack of knowledge" but my analysis is much better than yours.

Really? How so?

Most of my WWII-related (save my Man-At-Arms book about the 1st 5 divisions of the Waffen SS)stuff doesn't take sides and just tells it like it is.

And which 'stuff' is this? Name the works, please.

Sorry your right... I don't know crap about warfare I know a lot more than you

Really? How many WW2/military studies centred history courses have you completed? And how many wars have you fought in? I've got to say, I've only done one of each, but I daresay it's more than you.

You should know both Moscow and Stalingrad where both won in the winter.

And what would the difference have been, were they fought in summer? Do you think that somehow, magically, there would have been a greater supply base for the 6th Army, or that Typhoon would not be opposed by the better part of a million-strong STAVKA strategic reserve?

No, The Soviets had the Germans better in being equiped for winter warfare. Read up on Operation Typhoon and you will see what I am talking about.

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you post some numbers? A lot of people like to say 'the Germas weren't equipped for winter warfare'. But, to that, I say: the Soviets weren't equipped for warfare, period. By winter 1941 the Soviet rifle division was an organization that cannot be compared to its June predecessor. Stripped of artillery, tank support, motorized elements and cut down in manpower, it could only be used to slow down (but rarely stop) a German advance through enormous sacrifice. But let us, for a moment, say that the winter did assist the Soviets, in particular. How would you say the Germans could have circumvented starting Typhoon so late in the year?

If you say 'don't go south', I'll be tempted to slap you. Honest to God, I will.

US-Soviet war would have been a bloodbath, both sides had well suppplied and experienced military, most likely it would have been a stalemate.

That depends. If the Soviets break through anywhere and begin the exploitation phase of operations on a strategic level (and this is most certainly what they would have attempted), the WA would have been in serious trouble.

the Russian soldier was going to fight to the death...much like the japanese fought to the death...

I really dislike stereotypes of any nationality. Soviet soldiers participating in the Manchurian campaign were as amazed at the propensity of Japanese soldiers to throw themselves under tank tracks laden with explosives as the Germans were when the fighting for the Brest fortress just wouldn't end. Soviet soldiers, generally, did not fight to the death any more or less than American, German, British or Japanese soldiers.

First off a German soldier was not only better armed but trained

What a fantastic analysis.

1) How was the German soldier 'better armed' post 1943? Do you even comprehend the ratio of sub machine gunners in the RKKA compared to the Wehrmacht? The economy of force present in 1945 rifle divisions of the Soviets? Can you understand that the Soviets would field a division of 3,000 men that had the same firepower at its disposal as a 10,000 man German division?

2) Whilst the German recruitment system did emphasise a lengthier training period than Soviet force generation, your generalization is a gross overstatement. Soviet tank crews, for example, were trained for between three and six months, which is comparable to the German system. Generally, only Soviet infantry was somewhat undertrained.

MO the Tiger was better than the T-34 but anyone who knows anything about WWII knows that a T-34 could blow a Sherman to hell.

Anyone who knows anything about WW2 also knows that a Sherman could blow a T-34 to hell, too, when armed with the late-war standard 76mm gun. Furthermore, don't compare the ultra-heavy (according to Soviet classification) Tiger to the T-34 medium tank. Don't even compare the KV-1S/JS-1/JS-2/SU-100/ISU-152/ISU-122 to the Tiger. The Soviets had no analogue to the German Pz kmpf wgn VIE, or the Konigstiger. Different tank doctrines.

Lokos

Reaver180

03-04-2006, 07:45 AM

Hi,

one question, since I'm sadly not that informed about the Soviet fighting doctrine. What was their comparable force component to the Panzergrenadiere? Were they truck mobile only or did they have dedicated AFVs?

And another somewhat OTL question, are there good Russian sources on the defense of the Crimea?

Lokos

03-04-2006, 10:41 AM

What was their comparable force component to the Panzergrenadiere?

The tankovniki. Whilst the Soviets certainly did have truck-borne motostrelkovaya diviziya (motorized rifle divisions), their true equivalent to the Panzergrenadieren would have been the tankovniki. Between four and eight men (armed with SMGs) riding a T34 (on the outside, using specially installed hand rails).

These units typically suffered huge losses (and I mean huge, even by Soviet standards), but they performed in their role admirably, supporting the advance of independent tank brigades throughout the exploitation phase - and sometimes even during the breakthrough. They would dismount upon approaching an enemy line of resistance, and engage German infantry in close combat (under 200 metres), in order to protect their tanks.

And another somewhat OTL question, are there good Russian sources on the defense of the Crimea?

Not a huge number in terms of accessible English-language works. But there was a General Staff study of the Crimean operations IIRC.

Lokos

Reaver180

03-04-2006, 11:37 AM

The tankovniki. Whilst the Soviets certainly did have truck-borne motostrelkovaya diviziya (motorized rifle divisions), their true equivalent to the Panzergrenadieren would have been the tankovniki. Between four and eight men (armed with SMGs) riding a T34 (on the outside, using specially installed hand rails).

These units typically suffered huge losses (and I mean huge, even by Soviet standards), but they performed in their role admirably, supporting the advance of independent tank brigades throughout the exploitation phase - and sometimes even during the breakthrough. They would dismount upon approaching an enemy line of resistance, and engage German infantry in close combat (under 200 metres), in order to protect their tanks.

Ah, I see. I heard of them, but I thought that these were makeshift methods. So the tank riding was the official deployment method? The part about the casualties I can certainly believe then.

Not a huge number in terms of accessible English-language works. But there was a General Staff study of the Crimean operations IIRC.

OK, thanks, I was curious, because right now I'm reading Manstein's account of the operation.

Lokos

03-04-2006, 11:49 AM

Ah, I see. I heard of them, but I thought that these were makeshift methods. So the tank riding was the official deployment method? The part about the casualties I can certainly believe then.

Well... more or less 'official'. How do I explain it? They were official makeshift methods. The Soviets did not have half tracks at the time, or APCs. In order to effectively support their rapidly advancing tank forces, Soviet infantry was given the best available CQB weapon (the PPSh 41/43) and employed as tank borne anti-infantry. Their job was to kill German AT capability, wherever the tank brigade was faced by it.

It was either this, or to leave the tanks unsupported.

The part about the casualties I can certainly believe then.

Tankovniki had the worst casualties of any infantry occupation. It was because, often, the Soviets learned that they had hit a Main Line of Resistance when the first tank and its riders were eliminated by German anti-tank and machinegunners. Tankovniki, as such, would begin numerous engagements out in the open, when the ambushing Germans first opened fire. This caused many casualties.

OK, thanks, I was curious, because right now I'm reading Manstein's account of the operation.

Any and all memoirs, as a matter of course, should be read with a critical eye. Any time he states 'facts' or makes a characterization, get out your pen, underline it in red and cross-reference the assertion. Manstein is one of those infamous German generals from 1941-1943 who wrote memoirs and left modern readers with the impression that the judgements they made in 1941 still rang true in 1945. I'll tell you what: few German generals who had a major role in the 1944-1945 phase of the conflict left memoirs.

Lokos

Reaver180

03-04-2006, 12:08 PM

Well... more or less 'official'. How do I explain it? They were official makeshift methods. The Soviets did not have half tracks at the time, or APCs. In order to effectively support their rapidly advancing tank forces, Soviet infantry was given the best available CQB weapon (the PPSh 41/43) and employed as tank borne anti-infantry. Their job was to kill German AT capability, wherever the tank brigade was faced by it.

It was either this, or to leave the tanks unsupported.

Well, yes, certainly a viable, if dangerous, solution. And PPSh was really an awesome weapon, ell liked by any soldier who could get one (and the necessary ammo).

Tankovniki had the worst casualties of any infantry occupation. It was because, often, the Soviets learned that they had hit a Main Line of Resistance when the first tank and its riders were eliminated by German anti-tank and machinegunners. Tankovniki, as such, would begin numerous engagements out in the open, when the ambushing Germans first opened fire. This caused many casualties.

Well, yes, as I said, certainly dangerous.

Any and all memoirs, as a matter of course, should be read with a critical eye. Any time he states 'facts' or makes a characterization, get out your pen, underline it in red and cross-reference the assertion. Manstein is one of those infamous German generals from 1941-1943 who wrote memoirs and left modern readers with the impression that the judgements they made in 1941 still rang true in 1945. I'll tell you what: few German generals who had a major role in the 1944-1945 phase of the conflict left memoirs.

Lokos

Well, a certain self-serving spin is always to be expected. But I'm inclined to give Manstein some leeway considering he did have undeniable successes, particularly his plan for the invasion of France, IMO one of the most brilliant military masterstrokes in the 20th century.

But I'm interested, which German generals do you mean? I read some of your posts, and you seem critical of the "prominent" names like Guderian, Manstein etc. Probably also due to their spin in their memoirs. I would be interested to know who in your opinion would be the German general that gave the Russians the most worries. And also what do you think of Heinrici? He certainly did all he could at Seelow and stalled Zhukov numerous times IIRC.

Thanks.

Lokos

03-04-2006, 12:38 PM

Well, a certain self-serving spin is always to be expected. But I'm inclined to give Manstein some leeway considering he did have undeniable successes, particularly his plan for the invasion of France, IMO one of the most brilliant military masterstrokes in the 20th century.

It's the first bit that ends up being painful to bear witness to. Manstein, like many German generals of that era, ended up blaming the failure of the Wehrmacht solely on Hitler, absolving himself of any responsibility - and at the same time taking away the credit of the opposing forces for their victories over that military insitituion.

I agree, though, that he was a brilliant operational artist. His 'backhanded strokes/blows' saved Army Group South from being more or less eviscerated.

But I'm interested, which German generals do you mean? I read some of your posts, and you seem critical of the "prominent" names like Guderian, Manstein etc. Probably also due to their spin in their memoirs.

Guderian and Manstein are special cases - as their memoirs have been the most widely read, and by many are considered gosepl, despite the self-serving agenda prevalent in both accounts.

I would be interested to know who in your opinion would be the German general that gave the Russians the most worries.

Manstein, Model, Heinrici, Hoth, Muller, Raus etc. In short: Manstein. Operationally speaking, he was probably the most capable commander of the war.

And also what do you think of Heinrici?

A great defensive commander.

Lokos

ABNINF

03-04-2006, 12:46 PM

I'm not going to get into the p***ing contest over who had the better soldiers, equipment, etc... but I noticed one thing that I think was missing, I may be wrong, there's alot to sift through on this thread. One of the MAJOR reasons the US was able to get a leg up on Germany was the fact that we used our airpower to cripple the German war machine. While, at times it was achieved by widespread destruction of an entire town, finding, locating, and destroying the manufacturing base of the Third Reich was a strongpoint of the US' tactics.

Drako

03-04-2006, 02:29 PM

If there was a clash between USSR and the western armies the fight would be long and bloody but USSR would prolly win. What I'm sure is that Red Army would be backed up by armies from Poland, Czech, Slovakia, East Germany and others. Why? Because average soldier didn't know sh*t about politics and all people in command were indoctrinated by communists. So basically soldiers would do what their commanders told them to do. It's enough to look at what happened in Poland in '45 and '46 when the soviet controlled polish units were fighting against AK units.

Asheren

03-04-2006, 04:27 PM

You forgot one thing it took soviet years to completly suppres AK and change Poland in to communist state. Many peoples lost their will to fight due to lack of western support. Many peoples fought not for soviets or because they were communist but to restore Polish indepednece. Stalin knew that he would never be able to change our country in to soviet republic. In situation that he basicaly gave us weapon we could make much military stronger resistance movment than AK ever was.

Ezekiel25:17

03-04-2006, 04:44 PM

Wow, how surpising. Russia strong and West weak!!!!!

Then why do Russians on this forum live in the west?

Ea$y-8

03-04-2006, 05:02 PM

Not even I, a person with an obvious Soviet bias, would go that far. p-)

So, you have a bias for the USSR. So why can't I have a hard-on for the Wehrmacht.

They would contest those 26 divisions with the 60 divisions of the Far Eastern 1st Red Banner Army and 2nd Red Banner Army. :)

Yes, But that also leaves out our mighty fleet in the Pacific with a lot of bombers on those carriers sitting around with nothing to do! If things got to messy for our boys in Siberia they could pull back to the coast and let naval gunfire chew up the Soviets and then launch a offensive inland once more.

LOL. The wisdom of 16-year olds.

That is just my political view, I think he would be a great president because he won’t put up with 1/8 of the stuff other presidents have/will. I think he would put a end to things that we had to deal with. If he became president today we just might make the Middle East a good place for Americans.

Really? How so?

I just said that because I wanted to come down two your level and duke it out there.

And which 'stuff' is this? Name the works, please.

Very well first off I am the owner of the fallowing: The Illustrated History of WWII, American Heritage: New History of WWII, Inside Hitler’s Germany, How Hitler could have won WWII, The Second World War, The Fall of Berlin, and Operation Cidital and a number of films about it.

Really? How many WW2/military studies centred history courses have you completed? And how many wars have you fought in? I've got to say, I've only done one of each, but I daresay it's more than you.

Well in MS I completed a full history project on WWII and got a 100% if that means anything. I have not fought in any wars, if you don’t count flame wars on the internet. Please tell me what wars did you fight in and what country you fought for.

And what would the difference have been, were they fought in summer? Do you think that somehow, magically, there would have been a greater supply base for the 6th Army, or that Typhoon would not be opposed by the better part of a million-strong STAVKA strategic reserve?

No, Hitler (the USSR’s greatest Field Marshal :D) was at his finest in screwing up things. He went for the oil south of Stalingrad and left the flanks badly exposed as the 62nd Army kept sucking troops into the city. Had it been summer the Soviets probably still would have broken threw but the Germans probably would have lasted a lot longer (Germans froze in there Panzers as they slept and if you wanna see what I am talking about rent “Stalingrad”). At Moscow the Germans where forced to use rags to keep themselves warm. However the soviet had the right winter stuff.

So Stalin, according to you, was personally responsible for the deaths of more than 6 million Jews, 2-4 million Poles, 1 million Yugoslavs, and 27 million Soviet citizens? That is to say, between 36 and 38 million people? Not including the six or so million Germans who perished, the half a million Hungarians, half a million Romanians, several hundred thousand Italians, three hundred thousand Americans, several hundred thousand British/Canadian/Australian citizens etc

Hold on. Hitler is not responsible for every death in Europe at the time! Did you forget that the UK(common wealth soon fallowed) and France declared war on Germany when they where rolling over Poland. So one could say “they made war on themselves and are at fault because of it”, Also Romania, Hungary, Italy fallowed Hitler so it ain’t his fault with them. And did you forget to leave out the many millions of people who where shipped off to gulags in/after WWII or the people who died because of Stalin’s invasions of Finland, Baltic States and Eastern Poland (don’t forget to leave that little thing with Romania in 1940)? Also two more things

1. I have talked to a few Ukrainians and they call Stalin “worse than Hitler”
2. And the worst man who ever lived is Mao Zedong – killed 80 million people - that is more than all of WWII, WWI and the US civil war put together!! Mao was worse than Hitler or Stalin but is almost never spoken off when comparing the evil doers of history He isn’t even in my book of “the most evil men and women in history”.

And this, to you, speaks of German soldierly superiority?

What about the German officers who began praying once they learned that opposite them sat the feared 'Herr Tschukov (Zhukov)'? What about Krebb's double take during the peace negotiations in Berlin 1945 when he learned the man he was talking to was the infamous Chuikov, commander of the 62nd Army and defender of Stalingrad?

Does this speak to Soviet soldierly superiority, would you say?

Yes it does, I don’t hold double standards and if my above comments mean anything than your comments of the same natural mean something as well. And btw it is worth mentioning that when the Germans were closing in on Moscow people poured into the churches (Stalin didn’t normally allow this since people in the USSR were often strongly discouraged from religion). It is rather interesting that people when they find themselves in a world of **** they cast aside their atheism…

1) How was the German soldier 'better armed' post 1943? Do you even comprehend the ratio of sub machine gunners in the RKKA compared to the Wehrmacht? The economy of force present in 1945 rifle divisions of the Soviets? Can you understand that the Soviets would field a division of 3,000 men that had the same firepower at its disposal as a 10,000 man German division?

2) Whilst the German recruitment system did emphasise a lengthier training period than Soviet force generation, your generalization is a gross overstatement. Soviet tank crews, for example, were trained for between three and six months, which is comparable to the German system. Generally, only Soviet infantry was somewhat undertrained.

I say it was better because expect in rare cases (like Berlin or Operation Bagration) the Germans generally inflicted more dead on the Soviets than they took. I would never call the Soviets never say the Soviets where poorly equipped (anyone who says this is a idiot). The T-34/85 and IS-2 where both good tanks and the burp gun was pretty good as far as small arms go German soldiers often would prefer to use SVT-40 and burp guns over Kar98s and Gewehr 41s (hell the Germans made the Gewehr 43 base on the SVT-40).

Anyone who knows anything about WW2 also knows that a Sherman could blow a T-34 to hell, too, when armed with the late-war standard 76mm gun. Furthermore, don't compare the ultra-heavy (according to Soviet classification) Tiger to the T-34 medium tank. Don't even compare the KV-1S/JS-1/JS-2/SU-100/ISU-152/ISU-122 to the Tiger. The Soviets had no analogue to the German Pz kmpf wgn VIE, or the Konigstiger. Different tank doctrines.

Would it be better to compare the T-34 to the Panther (btw the Panther was inspired by the T-34 and one design for it was just a copy of the T-34).
Well the Sherman’s seemed to have a rough time handling even the Panzer IV where as the T-34/85 could blow it to scrap metal. I think the T-34 was much better than a Sherman. I don’t have any respect for the Sherman (the crews I have a lot of respect for). And I know there is a difference between Soviet and German armor doctrine

California Joe

03-04-2006, 05:22 PM

Kid, everytime you make an actual real valid point you screw up your credibilty with your lack of critical thinking in areas like Patton for President. Do you have any idea what a clusterf*ck a guy like that would have been politically? Teddy Roosevelt was the last big stick President. He was a genius. He also was living in a completely different world. How exactly would George S. Patton make the middle east a better place for Americans if he was President right now? By swearing at them and brandishing ivory handled pistols? And the books you own and have read are about 100 short of the ones I've read on the subject and about 1000 less than Lokos and some of the other posters in this thread. The movies you've seen are just movies. Not historical fact. England and France declared war because one of their allies was attacked. Period.

Ea$y-8

03-04-2006, 05:28 PM

You really don't like me do you CJ? Patton is just my kinda guy he is one of my role models. I don't think he would become president due to the fact he was so politically incorrect.

CPL Trevoga

03-04-2006, 06:23 PM

So, you have a bias for the USSR. So why can't I have a hard-on for the Wehrmacht.

www.battlefront.com/
http://www.battlefield.ru/

Some good stuff there.

Would it be better to compare the T-34 to the Panther (btw the Panther was inspired by the T-34 and one design for it was just a copy of the T-34).
Well the Sherman’s seemed to have a rough time handling even the Panzer IV where as the T-34/85 could blow it to scrap metal. I think the T-34 was much better than a Sherman. I don’t have any respect for the Sherman (the crews I have a lot of respect for). And I know there is a difference between Soviet and German armor doctrine

I wouldn't put so much emphasis on equipment. Those tanks are compatible,
they both have strong and weak points. Germans used caputered T-34, Soviets used Panthers and Shermans. Warfare is all about gaining unfair advantage.

Ea$y-8

03-04-2006, 06:42 PM

Those tanks are compatible, they both have strong and weak points. Germans used caputered T-34, Soviets used Panthers and Shermans. Warfare is all about gaining unfair advantage.

Correct.

Even the Sherman has a strong point. its secondary turrent MG... Hans Ulrich Rudel (the famous stuka ace) noted that he hated the guns ontop of the Shermans because they shoot him down once.

ABNINF

03-05-2006, 12:26 AM

Steven Ambrose is regarded by many as one of the most knowledgable sources on WWII. Read Citizen Soldiers. It's an amazing book that encompasses all of the European Theater, from D-Day to VE-Day. In the book, he gives an honest and fair perspective on Patton. While admitting that he was a good general, harsh, but honestly cared for his troops, he made alot of mistakes. One was a particular battle, I can't remember the name. The were hundreds of German soldiers holed up in a near impenetrable castle, defending it. Instead of advancing around it, they(Germans) had no artillery, cutting them off and laying seige in order to force the eventual surrender, he wasted soldiers lives by commiting to a frontal assault on the castle. Even after the inital assault bogged down due to HEAVY German resistance, and the company commander leading the assault stated that he couldn't get into the castle with a battalion, he continued to force the assault. The castle was eventually taken, at the cost of many lives, and a weeks worth of advance was stalled, just to take this castle. So, Patton could be extremely rash at times.

Lokos

03-05-2006, 12:35 AM

So, you have a bias for the USSR. So why can't I have a hard-on for the Wehrmacht.

You didn't happen to notice the P-), did you?

Yes, But that also leaves out our mighty fleet in the Pacific with a lot of bombers on those carriers sitting around with nothing to do!

Believeth you me, the Soviets could put up a lot more a/c in the air in that particular theater than the US. A lot more. They used 5,368 a/c against the Japanese in August Storm, for example. How many bombers do you think were on those carriers, combined?

If things got to messy for our boys in Siberia they could pull back to the coast and let naval gunfire chew up the Soviets and then launch a offensive inland once more.

And Soviet naval aviation would, of course, just be sitting pretty, letting that happen, yes?

I think he would be a great president because he won’t put up with 1/8 of the stuff other presidents have/will.

You haven't a clue of what you're talking about.

I just said that because I wanted to come down two your level and duke it out there.

The problem is that I can back up my statement. Can you say the same?

Very well first off I am the owner of the fallowing: The Illustrated History of WWII, American Heritage: New History of WWII, Inside Hitler’s Germany, How Hitler could have won WWII, The Second World War, The Fall of Berlin, and Operation Cidital and a number of films about it.

So, not one single academic work. That's just fantastic. Mate, if you want to learn about WW2, stop reading encyclopedias, generalist works, 'illustrated histories' and third party sourced non-academic American works. Start with the Journal of Military Studies, the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, the numerous journals of WW2 history and historiography, the operational and strategic accounts of the war (David Glantz's and John Erickson's works stand tall, in this specific regard - these are, respectively, Stumbling Colossus/Clash of Titans by Glantz and The Road to Stalingrad/The Road to Berlin by Erickson).

Then, when you feel like getting into the nuts and bolts of it... Statistical studies of military operations, such as Rudiger Overmans' authoritative opus on German casualties in WW2 and G. F. Krivosheev's statistical analysis of Soviet casualties and losses.

Well in MS I completed a full history project on WWII and got a 100% if that means anything

Holy Jesus. I'm talking about a full 12-16 subject three year history course...

Please tell me what wars did you fight in and what country you fought for.

Kosovo War 1998-1999, for Serbia.

No, Hitler (the USSR’s greatest Field Marshal ) was at his finest in screwing up things.

Sayeth Manstein and Guderian. Unfortunately, Hitler was also personally responsible for directing the destruction of Poland, France, the Low Countries and Yugoslavia (some of the finest military operations ever). Explain this for me, why don't you?

He went for the oil south of Stalingrad and left the flanks badly exposed as the 62nd Army kept sucking troops into the city.

Seeing as the oil was the actual objective of the campaign, why am I not surprised? Would it surprise YOU to know that Stalingrad was the detour?

Had it been summer the Soviets probably still would have broken threw but the Germans probably would have lasted a lot longer (Germans froze in there Panzers as they slept and if you wanna see what I am talking about rent “Stalingrad”).

Or maybe I'll just read a book, instead. Oh, wait, I have. Germans weren't freezing 'in their panzers' until the encirclement was complete, already.

At Moscow the Germans where forced to use rags to keep themselves warm. However the soviet had the right winter stuff.

The Germans had enough winter equipment for over 60 divisions. They also began a national drive for warm winter garb - the results of which were shipped to the Heer throughout October-December. But do tell, how could they have avoided this terrible burden of winter, in the first place?

Hold on. Hitler is not responsible for every death in Europe at the time!

No, you're right, beginning a war doesn't mean you bear the responsibility for its consequences. How silly of me.

Did you forget that the UK(common wealth soon fallowed) and France declared war on Germany when they where rolling over Poland.

Did you forget that Hitler knew they were obligated to do so? Or did you just not know that?

Also Romania, Hungary, Italy fallowed Hitler so it ain’t his fault with them.

You really don't get the concept of 'satellite state', do you? The Axis obligated those states to allocate resources to Hitler's war. Do you really think the Romanians were wild about going to war with the Soviets? Or the Hungarians?

And did you forget to leave out the many millions of people who where shipped off to gulags in/after WWII or the people who died because of Stalin’s invasions of Finland, Baltic States and Eastern Poland (don’t forget to leave that little thing with Romania in 1940)?

Yeah, I must have. *rolls eyes*

1. I have talked to a few Ukrainians and they call Stalin “worse than Hitler”

Were they the ones guarding Hitler's concentration camps? I know a few Ukrainians did.

And btw it is worth mentioning that when the Germans were closing in on Moscow people poured into the churches (Stalin didn’t normally allow this since people in the USSR were often strongly discouraged from religion).

You really don't know much about the SU. I'm sorry, but you don't. By August 1941, Stalin was once again in bed with the Church, which was busy praising him as the 'Father of the People' and blessing columns of tanks bought with church money.

Yes it does, I don’t hold double standards and if my above comments mean anything than your comments of the same natural mean something as well.

So the position you hold is: 'The Germans were superior soldiers to the Soviets who were superior soldiers to the Germans'?

I say it was better because expect in rare cases (like Berlin or Operation Bagration) the Germans generally inflicted more dead on the Soviets than they took.

Apart from the fact that there were a lot more cases than those you mention, the German kill/loss ratio slid throughout the war, until it finally dipped under 1:1 in its terminal stages. Before then, for over two years, the Germans were on the defensive. Believe it or not, a defender has an easier time inflicting a casualty than an attacker.

Would it be better to compare the T-34 to the Panther (btw the Panther was inspired by the T-34 and one design for it was just a copy of the T-34).

No. The Soviet Union did not have an analogue to the Panther (termed a 'heavy' tank) or the Tiger ('super heavy'). Their specialist AT assets were the ISU/SU series SPGs. The SU-152 was known as the Zveroboi (Beast Killer) because of its ability to serrate a Tiger's turret from the main chassis. In Soviet tank doctrine, tanks were primarily used for exploitation of the rear and support of the infantry, not fighting other tanks.

Well the Sherman’s seemed to have a rough time handling even the Panzer IV where as the T-34/85 could blow it to scrap metal.

Who told you this?

A 76mm Sherman could kill a Pz IV from any practicable distance, and the Pz IV's 75mm could kill a Sherman from any practicable distance. The differential was in training and combat variables. The T34/Sherman/Pz IV were analogues with similar capabilities.

I think the T-34 was much better than a Sherman.

That's your opinion, and I've seen good arguments both ways. Unfortunately, all such arguments are largely semantic. Both were effective tanks at a low cost per unit to manufacture and maintain. Whether their combat coefficient was 1.0 or 1.1 didn't really make much difference.

Look, I'm sorry if I've disparaged you throughout this thread. But you're 16, and you're under the impression that the books you've read and the movies you've watched give you the ability to debate this on the same level as some here can (foxtrot, Kitsune for example).

I don't like putting down people because they know less. Knowledge can be gained. And you seem to have an alright, if somewhat politically uncanny, head on your shoulders. So, bow out, and learn as much as you can. Take WW2 history at college. Use the college's library to the fullest and absorb what the academic world has to offer on the subject.

I guarantee you, you'll be a more complete student of history for it.

Regards,
Lokos

PS. Listen to CJ. Patton as president would have been the worst idea since... I'm having trouble finding an adequate comparison.

Reaver180

03-05-2006, 10:13 AM

It's the first bit that ends up being painful to bear witness to. Manstein, like many German generals of that era, ended up blaming the failure of the Wehrmacht solely on Hitler, absolving himself of any responsibility - and at the same time taking away the credit of the opposing forces for their victories over that military insitituion.

I agree, though, that he was a brilliant operational artist. His 'backhanded strokes/blows' saved Army Group South from being more or less eviscerated.

Well, Hitler was the big bogeyman, and shifting blame on him was relatively easy after the war.
Well, anyway, Manstein's recipe for success amounts to making him CinC of the Eastern front and practically removing Hitler from the war effort altogether. Impossible really if we look at the realities. Not to mention that the high command itself was far from perfect and had several *censored**censored**censored**censored*ups in Russia.

Guderian and Manstein are special cases - as their memoirs have been the most widely read, and by many are considered gosepl, despite the self-serving agenda prevalent in both accounts.

Agreed, though as with Manstein, Guderian has several successes speaking for him. He could be quite disobedient when it suited him, repeatedly sucking the German units in another direction of attack and not the one ordered by the high command.
One interesting question to wonder about is what would have happened if the high command followed his suggestion and went immediately after Moscow, ignoring the threat of Kiev.

A highly risky move considering the vast flank and the threat by the Soviet army. But would the Red army really have the ability to conduct a decisive counterstrike in 1941? If their display in mid 1941 is anything to go by, they would have problems. Still an all or nothing blow that offered a fast way to Moscow during a short window of opportunity. Needless to say that failure would have meant total defeat.

Lokos

03-05-2006, 12:04 PM

All the Kievan concentration would have had to do was to place itself, or an element of itself, along the supply route of Guderian's grouping. It would have been calamitous. Even a disruption of three or four days of constant supplies would have meant Guderian's panzers would be out of fuel and ammo, and would still have a great many Soviet formations in front of them.

I agree with everything that you said above, though.

Lokos

Ea$y-8

03-05-2006, 12:25 PM

Look, I'm sorry if I've disparaged you throughout this thread. But you're 16, and you're under the impression that the books you've read and the movies you've watched give you the ability to debate this on the same level as some here can (foxtrot, Kitsune for example).

I don't like putting down people because they know less. Knowledge can be gained. And you seem to have an alright, if somewhat politically uncanny, head on your shoulders. So, bow out, and learn as much as you can. Take WW2 history at college. Use the college's library to the fullest and absorb what the academic world has to offer on the subject.

I guarantee you, you'll be a more complete student of history for it.

I know I am not in league with some Kitsune, foxtrot or you... There I said it you know more than me and I admit defeat. I am 16 and I know a lot more about WWII than your average teenager believe me. I have come a long way in my studies but you have had whole courses (and a lot more time on your hand) to study this subject. I will remove myself from this thread.

BTW (as if you didn't already know this) Fall Gelb was Erich von Manstein's plan Hitler just got it approved. And I know about the drive for winter gear but from what I have read it gave me the impression that it was to little to late.

Atlantic Friend

03-05-2006, 02:13 PM

All of the bold face... We need him because as I stated above HE WOULD NOT TAKE CRAP FROM ANYONE

Instead he would have been the one dealing crap to everyone else, which is something else that not taking any. Do you know that in a 1945 speech he apparently likened both Republican and democrat parties to Nazi organizations ?

Atlantic Friend

03-05-2006, 02:19 PM

All of the bold face... We need him because as I stated above HE WOULD NOT TAKE CRAP FROM ANYONE think how he would have dealt with the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, think of how he would have dealt with the bombing of the USS cole, think of how he would have dealt with China becoming involved in the Korean war, think of how he would have dealt with the NK after they took hold of that submarine. As you can see he would have dealt with a lot of issues long ago and we wouldn't have to worry about any of that today!

I'd like to know how the good General would have single-handedly won the Korean War, conquered Iran, and identified AQ terrorists even BEFORE these events / threats would have revealed themselves...

IronCross1985

03-05-2006, 04:09 PM

First off a German soldier was not only better armed but trained. And second if a soldiers will to fight and die was in anyway a major factor than the Japanese would have the better of Germans, Soviets, and Americans. Man for man the German soldier was more offen that not the superior of a Soviet one, But if you have 1 German for every 10 Soviets the Soviets could lose 9 and keep going but if the Germans lost 1 - game over.

And yes the T-34 played a big role. It was a outstanding break threw in tank design and made all current Panzers at the time obsolete. And thus the Tiger and Panther were born (btw it is worth noting one idea for the new Panther was to copy the T-34)... IMO the Tiger was be