TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Lets be historically incorrect for a min or two....
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Logistically, i don't think Russia had a prayer, as respondants have already illustrated, they were outgunned, and against superiour air power, I think Russia would've been incapable of maintaining the pace that such an invasion would've required. The only wildcard, in my mind, is the Russian Muhammed-Imar-Bruce-Lee-Chuck-Norrisesque ability to fight in winter.

Gotta be f'ing kidding me.

USSR in 1945 was the most experienced and numerically and technologically superior military force in the entire world. This is fact.

As far as logistics go, what do you think is easier? Shipping supplies across the Atlantic or across Europe in trains? If you answered "the Atlantic" - you probably should stay out of this conversation.

quote:

The problem is they didn't always overlap in areas they would have needed to get supplies to quickly, so just transfering stuff to a different train wouldn't have always been guranteed. If they were going to push through western Germany and into France they would have to make sure that wasn't going to be an issue. I'm not saying they couldn't make some new connecting lines quickly and overcome this, but how much focus do you put on that while you have the U.S., U.K., and France fighting you?

Different rail gauges were hardly an issue. It wouldn't have handicapped the Russian logistics in any noticeable way.

quote:

All that said, the USSR even after their heavy losses had a large expendable population and could have pressed far into Western Europe, however, their gains would eventually have been lost as they simply could not compete with the production capacity of the western allies.

Very important and accurate point. US industries were better organized than those of US and could produce equipment much quicker too. It would only be a matter of years before US military technology would be on par with that of the Soviet technology and having a 4 year head start on nuclear weapons would have been huge.\

The question isn't whether USSR *could* conquer Western Europe - that's largely a given - the real question is how long could they hold on to it and at what cost.

quote:

Right, I agree with you. What I was saying was that right at the end of WWII the US 'could' have nuked just about any city in Russia. We would not have done that though because we did not have enough bombs to do significant damage to a country the size of the USSR.

And just how were you going to get around that little question of flying hundreds of miles through Soviet airspace without getting shot down?

Somehow, I don't think you thought your cunning plan through.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne It's not an implication - its common historical knowledge. Here's another "implication": as troop depletion reaches critical levels - the replacements from a given pool of populace become worse and worse. Large part of it has to do that the soldiers of prime age had already been previously subscripted and killed, another part of it has to do with the fact that there is less and less time to train these troops before the need to use them becomes so great that they are rushed to the front to plug up critical holes. That's called trading space for time, a very basic element of military theory whereas it is acceptable to trade off territory to buy time. Time to train troops, time to build equipment replacements, time to form new military units. The fact that Germans kept greener troops on the Western Front is because US/UK was perceived to be a lesser threat than USSR. If you think that US/Uk/Cnanadian/Australian/French forces outnumbered the German forces, what do you think they thought about a pissed-off 11 million man army that was technologically superior to the US/UK forces by a huge margin and numerically superior coming from the East?

You dont get it. The same thing happened on both eastern and western fronts!!! German armies were depleted on both, and actually its on the Eastern Front that Germans suffered their first setbacks, the critical levels! D-Day happened in 1944. Stalingrad was in 1943. So according to your principle, "troop depletion reaches critical levels" happened on East Front first, NOT western front according to you! LOL

quote:

Rommel was just about the only worthwhile general on Western Front and he committed suicide after what, 4 months after D-Day? D-Day was in June, 1944. Rommel is implicated in the von Stauffenberg assassination plot against Hitler in July of 1944, he is shortly after removed from command. Just how much time did he spend on Western front as an active general? 2 months? Furthermore, Rommel's best contribution would have been to counterattack the Allied troops with his Panzer corps as soon as they landed in Normandy (which is what he wanted to do) but was overruled by Hitler who thought that Normandy landings were a ruse and the larger force would land at Calais (which was geographically closer to England). So tell me, what notable accomplishment did Rommel accomplish on the Western front?

HAHAHA ... I got you here, you dont know anything about German generals, do you? Rommel was called "Desert Fox" for his outstanding successful operations against Allies in North Africa who outnumbered him most of the times. He defeated a 10-times larger British force at Tunisia! LOL, so much for his "little" contribution on the Western front. OH, and he committed suicide not because he was depressed but because Hitler implicated him in assassination plot, so he chose suicide over a publicity trial.

quote:

Furthermore, let's play a little game - draw me up a list of the top 10, 20 or 30 German commanders from 1939-1945 and let's see how many of them have fought on Eastern front vs. Western front?

If I had the time, I'd be happy to find some of the names of the outstanding Germans generals of U-Boats, airplane squadrons, and generals. But since 4/5 of Nazi forces were on the East, so technically there were more generals on the eastern front. So your argument that on the western front german generals were not as good is futile. There's no evidence. Oh wait - the evidence suggests that both fronts failed! So German generals on both Eastern and Western fronts were just as bad. At least in the Western theatre German 100+ divisions (SMALL portion) were able to hold off a large Allies contingent just enough so that the Soviets fighting much larger German contingent occupy half of Europe Yeah, the generals in the East were MUCH MORE effective at slowing down the Red Army ;-)

quote:

I'll state it bluntly. Compared to Stalingrad, Kharkov, Leningrad, Sevastopol, Moscow, etc. and battles outside of Eastern Front (since you did say "one of the most brutal battles of WW2") - I can certainly make a very forceful and convincing argument that Novorossiysk was a piss in the ocean.

Duh. I didnt say it was THE MOST FIERCE battle. But according to Soviet historians, it was in the top 14 most important battles - well, thats pretty high ranking to me. Thats why I said "ONE OF THE MOST ..."


I think you have much higher expertise at determining which Soviet cities played the most important roles in WW2 than Soviet generals, historians ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Stalingrad was in 1943.

umm, it was 6 months of 42' and 2 months of 43'

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Rommel was called "Desert Fox" for his outstanding successful operations against Allies in North Africa who outnumbered him most of the times. He defeated a 10-times larger British force at Tunisia! LOL, so much for his "little" contribution on the Western front.

since when was Africa the "western" front?

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey umm, it was 6 months of 42' and 2 months of 43' since when Africa the "western" front?

I didnt specify when the battle for Stalingrad began. I specified that Germans were defeated at Stalingrad in 1943 (critical levels - achieved at Stalingrad in 1943). After the capitulation, Germans lost a key army which turned the war around for good.

There were only 2 fronts, as desrcribed in history books - western front and eastern front. Hitler was fighting against his enemies on two fronts, too bad they werent a straight line as you think they were. Hitler was fighting a war on TWO fronts. Idiot. Not 4 fronts according to your thinking.

I guess you are talking about the countries' references on the compass: northeastern direction (UK), southeastern (Middle East), soouthern (Africa), Northern (Norway, Finland), south-southwestern ... ahhh fuck it.

quote:

You dont get it. The same thing happened on both eastern and western fronts!!! German armies were depleted on both, and actually its on the Eastern Front that Germans suffered their first setbacks, the critical levels! D-Day happened in 1944. Stalingrad was in 1943. So according to your principle, "troop depletion reaches critical levels" happened on East Front first, NOT western front according to you! LOL

1. I can't make this any simpler for you - Germans generally continued to send their best troops to Eastern Front because that's where the greatest threat was perceived to be coming from. So not only did the Soviets defeat the best German troops long before the Allies even landed in D-Day, but also as the Soviets fought more and more inexperienced troops towards the end of the war - the Allies were fighting troops that were still even greener than those that the Soviets were fighting.

quote:

HAHAHA ... I got you here, you dont know anything about German generals, do you? Rommel was called "Desert Fox" for his outstanding successful operations against Allies who outnumbered him most of the times. He defeated a 10-times larger British force at Tunisia! LOL, so much for his "little" contribution on the Western front. OH, and he committed suicide not because he was depressed but because Hitler implicated him in assassination plot, so he chose suicide over a publicity trial.

"you got me"? "YOU GOT ME"??

How pathetic can you get? Has the entire core of your argument has succumbed to the level of hoping to prove just one tiny fact wrong to me and consider that some sort of Pyrrhic victory? Not surprisingly, you fail here yet again.

I am well familiar with Rommel's accomplishments with the Afrika Korps.

However, it is not relevant to the argument since we are talking about German generals on the Western Front - not Africa. Are you having difficulty with that distinction?

I never said he committed suicide because he was depressed, I clearly stated that he was removed from command because he was suspected being in on the von Stauffenberg assassination plot. Reading comprehension, trust me it's great.

quote:

If I had the time, I'd be happy to find some of the names of the outstanding Germans generals of U-Boats, airplane squadrons, and generals. But since 4/5 of Nazi forces were on the East, so technically there were more generals on the eastern front. So your argument that on the western front german generals were not as good is futile. There's no evidence. Oh wait - the evidence suggests that both fronts failed! So German generals on both Eastern and Western fronts were just as bad. At least in the Western theatre German 100+ divisions (SMALL portion) were able to hold off a large Allies contingent just enough so that the Soviets fighting much larger German contingent occupy half of Europe Yeah, the generals in the East were MUCH MORE effective at slowing down the Red Army ;-)

Oh really? Why don't you read about Sepp Dietrich's, Hoth's, Manstein's, and Guderian's exploits on the Eastern Front and their contributions to the concept of "mobile defense" in 1944-1945?

Guderian was the pioneer of "blitzkrieg" warfare and designed the entire concept and spent his entire life on the Eastern Front.

quote:

Duh. I didnt say it was THE MOST FIERCE battle. But according to Soviet historians, it was in the top 14 most important battles - well, thats pretty high ranking to me. Thats why I said "ONE OF THE MOST ..."

Those were honorary titles and had NOTHING to do with historians picking them out, they were assigned by the Politburo. They had NO historical merit whatsoever and for you to rely upon them as some sort of benchmark to qualify the "fierceness" of a city's defense is one of the stupidest things I read in this thread.

quote:

I didnt specify when the battle for Stalingrad began. I specified that Germans were defeated at Stalingrad in 1943 (critical levels - achieved at Stalingrad in 1943). After the capitulation, Germans lost a key army which turned the war around for good.

Actually no it didn't. The war was turned around for good at Zitadelle. After Stalingrad, the Germans still had a quantitative and a qualitative advantage that would have been enough to sue for peace and a stalemate. But not victory.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne 1. I can't make this any simpler for you - Germans generally continued to send their best troops to Eastern Front because that's where the greatest threat was perceived to be coming from. So not only did the Soviets defeat the best German troops long before the Allies even landed in D-Day, but also as the Soviets fought more and more inexperienced troops towards the end of the war - the Allies were fighting troops that were still even greener than those that the Soviets were fighting. "you got me"? "YOU GOT ME"?? How pathetic can you get? Has the entire core of your argument has succumbed to the level of hoping to prove just one tiny fact wrong to me and consider that some sort of Pyrrhic victory? Not surprisingly, you fail here yet again. I am well familiar with Rommel's accomplishments with the Afrika Korps. However, it is not relevant to the argument since we are talking about German generals on the Western Front - not Africa. Are you having difficulty with that distinction? I never said he committed suicide because he was depressed, I clearly stated that he was removed from command because he was suspected being in on the von Stauffenberg assassination plot. Reading comprehension, trust me it's great. Oh really? Why don't you read about Sepp Dietrich's, Hoth's, Manstein's, and Guderian's exploits on the Eastern Front and their contributions to the concept of "mobile defense" in 1944-1945? Guderian was the pioneer of "blitzkrieg" warfare and designed the entire concept and spent his entire life on the Eastern Front. Those were honorary titles and had NOTHING to do with historians picking them out, they were assigned by the Politburo. They had NO historical merit whatsoever and for you to rely upon them as some sort of benchmark to qualify the "fierceness" of a city's defense is one of the stupidest things I read in this thread. Actually no it didn't. The war was turned around for good at Zitadelle. After Stalingrad, the Germans still had a quantitative and a qualitative advantage that would have been enough to sue for peace and a stalemate. But not victory.

If the Western front had such weak green troops as you specified, Allies would have rolled over them in weeks. It didnt happen, and thhey suffered setbacks. Why would Hitler, fighting the war on two fronts, would shift all his best generals to the East and leave his western defenses open? LOL

Hitler did not sue for peace after Stalingrad or Zitadelle. And frankly, once it was evident when Soviet tannks were rolling into Germany, I am pretty sure Hitler didnt choose to surrender to Soviets even then.

Also, dont tell me that blitzkrieg was not used on the Western front! The reason why he spent so much time on Eastern front is while in the west his tactics succeeded (ex. France), he never managed to get them going on the Eastern front.

You still cant prove that Germans shifted all their best troops East and left all the weak "green" ones on the western front, which is a silly assumption. Its only your opinion. Lets keep it that way ;-)

Aqudyne, you're arguing against someone who doesn't use logic as a basis for any argument, don't waste your finger muscles.

quote:

If the Western front had such weak green troops as you specified, Allies would have rolled over them in weeks. It didnt happen, and thhey suffered setbacks. Why would Hitler, fighting the war on two fronts, would shift all his best generals to the East and leave his western defenses open? LOL

For the third time - because his opponents in the East were qualitatively and quantitatively superior to his opponents in the West.

quote:

Hitler did not sue for peace after Stalingrad or Zitadelle. And frankly, once it was evident when Soviet tannks were rolling into Germany, I am pretty sure Hitler didnt choose to surrender to Soviets even then.

No he didn't. The point of that statement was to demonstrate that the war did not "turn around for good" after Stalingrad as you had stated. Germany still had enough troops and equipment to force a stalemate and peace *IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO* and some German generals were quietly agitating for that course of action.

The real turning point of the Eastern Front was Zitadelle.

quote:

Also, dont tell me that blitzkrieg was not used on the Western front! The reason why he spent so much time on Eastern front is while in the west his tactics succeeded (ex. France), he never managed to get them going on the Eastern front.

Uh no. The reason he spent his military career on the Eastern Front was because he was needed there moreso than anywhere else. Blitzkrieg tactics were of course used on Western Front as well, what I am trying to show you is that men of Guderian's caliber were sent to the East because they were needed there.

Actually, the epitome of blitzkrieg's success was on the Eastern Front. Nowhere had the German blitzkrieg has been so successful as on the Eastern Front. Only has to look at the 3 week conquest of Poland, Operation Barbarossa, battles of Kiev and Minsk and the Black Summer of 1942 to see that the epitome of Blitzkrief effectiveness was in the East. The Western Front was specifically ill-suited for Blitzkrieg because of dense forestry (this is why largely Wacht Am Rhein failed), multiple rivers that were near each other that slowed down the advance, hedgerows and other terrain in general that wasn't well suited for blitzkrieg. However, USSR with open steppes was suited perfectly for large massed armored formations to penetrate through enemy lines via Schwerpunkt and perform encirclements - the essence of Blitzkrieg.

quote:

You still cant prove that Germans shifted all their best troops East and left all the weak "green" ones on the western front, which is a silly assumption. Its only your opinion. Lets keep it that way ;-)

Actually, that's historical fact. I'm at work right now, otherwise if I were at home I'd provide the sources for you from my library.

And it is only because I am at work and have nothing to do that I have devoted so much time to you. You should be thankful. I normally charge a rate for tutoring.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne For the third time - because his opponents in the East were qualitatively and quantitatively superior to his opponents in the West.

Which doesnt mean that the generals in the West were meek. It was actually Hitler's decisions, and I dont think we can make a conclusion from that that all the great generals went to the East ;-) But anyhow, its not really a big deal. My point is, the generals on the Western front were as equally qualified to defend against Allied invasion, which they held off for long enough to let Soviet take control of over half of Europe.

quote:

No he didn't. The point of that statement was to demonstrate that the war did not "turn around for good" after Stalingrad as you had stated. Germany still had enough troops and equipment to force a stalemate and peace *IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO* and some German generals were quietly agitating for that course of action. The real turning point of the Eastern Front was Zitadelle.

I prefer it called Battle Of Kursk. It was a very important battle, but I think you're trying to show off here by going after the obvious biggest tank battle in history. However, if Soviets lost the cricual battles for Moscow and Stalingrad, there would have not been your Zitadelle ;-) So I think the capitulation of Paulus' entire army at Stalingrad was the biggest victory for Soviet Union in WW2. This victory provided the necessary moral and strategic support base for later victories over Nazi Germany. Stalingrad was also one of the costliest and appalling battlesites of WW2. It was really the first big Soviet victory over Nazis in WW2.

Hitler never chose surrender. Thats why he committed suicide. Attempts to assassinate him to end the war earlier failed.

quote:

Uh no. The reason he spent his military career on the Eastern Front was because he was needed there moreso than anywhere else. Blitzkrieg tactics were of course used on Western Front as well, what I am trying to show you is that men of Guderian's caliber were sent to the East because they were needed there.

Yes. I agree, I never said that great generals were not sent to the Eastern front. The entire discussion was started when it appeared to me that you said that ALL BEST Nazi generals were sent to the Eastern Front, which is not true. Thats why I was arguing ;-)

quote:

Actually, the epitome of blitzkrieg's success was on the Eastern Front. Nowhere had the German blitzkrieg has been so successful as on the Eastern Front. Only has to look at the 3 week conquest of Poland, Operation Barbarossa, battles of Kiev and Minsk and the Black Summer of 1942 to see that the epitome of Blitzkrief effectiveness was in the East. The Western Front was specifically ill-suited for Blitzkrieg because of dense forestry (this is why largely Wacht Am Rhein failed), multiple rivers that were near each other that slowed down the advance, hedgerows and other terrain in general that wasn't well suited for blitzkrieg. However, USSR with open steppes was suited perfectly for large massed armored formations to penetrate through enemy lines via Schwerpunkt and perform encirclements - the essence of Blitzkrieg.

Your education came really handy here ;-) Good one. Too bad Nazis never managed to succeed in their tactics. Russia is just too big to conquer. History is on our side ;-)

quote:

Actually, that's historical fact. I'm at work right now, otherwise if I were at home I'd provide the sources for you from my library. And it is only because I am at work and have nothing to do that I have devoted so much time to you. You should be thankful. I normally charge a rate for tutoring.

Oh, come on, no need to show off with your dimploma. Just because I dont have a degree in history/politics doesnt mean I am stupid compared to you. I read a lot of history and politics. I dont need tutoring, especially from you, and I actually give my services at my college for free when my classmates need it (too bad its not a political program). Thanks, but no thanks.

Also, how come if Soviet Union had better military than Nazis, better training, better armed, they always suffered greater casualties in most battles?

Here's your Zitadelle, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zitadelle

Strength (NAZIS)
2,700 tanks
800,000 infantry,
2,000 aircraft

SOVIETS:
3,600 tanks
1,300,000 infantry,
2,400 aircraft


Casualties
German Kursk :
50,000 dead, wounded, or captured
300 tanks
200 aircraft ,
Soviet Kursk :
500,000 dead, wounded, or captured
900 tanks
200 aircraft German Kursk :
180,000 dead, wounded, or captured
1,600 tanks
1,000 aircraft ,
Soviet Kursk :
607,737 dead, wounded, or captured
1,500 tanks
1,000 aircraft

quote:

Which doesnt mean that the generals in the West were meek. It was actually Hitler's decisions, and I dont think we can make a conclusion from that that all the great generals went to the East ;-) But anyhow, its not really a big deal. My point is, the generals on the Western front were as equally qualified to defend against Allied invasion, which they held off for long enough to let Soviet take control of over half of Europe.

There were some decent generals in the West, only one I would describe as great (Rommel) though and he wasnt there long enough to make a lick of a difference.

quote:

I prefer it called Battle Of Kursk. It was a very important battle, but I think you're trying to show off here by going after the obvious biggest tank battle in history. However, if Soviets lost the cricual battles for Moscow and Stalingrad, there would have not been your Zitadelle ;-) So I think the capitulation of Paulus' entire army at Stalingrad was the biggest victory for Soviet Union in WW2. This victory provided the necessary moral and strategic support base for later victories over Nazi Germany. Stalingrad was also one of the costliest and appalling battlesites of WW2. It was really the first big Soviet victory over Nazis in WW2.

Actually, if we are going to be technical let's use the full name "Battle of the Kursk Salient". I prefer Zitadelle because it encompasses not just the battle itself but the months leading up to its preparation which were instrumental in its failure since the tank delieveries of Panzer Mark VI that were anticipated were being delayed. But I digress.

Referring to Moscow and Stalingrad in this context is pointless. What if a dozen bears shat in the woods in 1939 and Guderian's command tank was stuck in a dung pile so big that he got pissed and went home? These chain references to previous battles are historically meaningless.

What constitutes a "turning point of the war"? It is when there is a near certainty of an outcome. After Stalingrad the war could have still become a stalemate had Mainstein and Guderian fought mobile defense. However, after Hitler squandered 70,000+ of his best troops and just about all of his mobile reserve at Kursk, it was clear that germany could not replace these losses at all and from that time on could have never again mounted an offensive significant enough to shift the momentum in its favor.

Historians largely consider Stalingrad to be the "political" turning point of the war, but Kursk is considered the "military" turning point of the war.

quote:

Yes. I agree, I never said that great generals were not sent to the Eastern front. The entire discussion was started when it appeared to me that you said that ALL BEST Nazi generals were sent to the Eastern Front, which is not true. Thats why I was arguing ;-)

Pretty sure I never said "all". But vast majority of the good generals ended up on Eastern Front.

quote:

Oh, come on, no need to show off with your dimploma. Just because I dont have a degree in history/politics doesnt mean I am stupid compared to you. I read a lot of history and politics. I dont need tutoring, especially from you, and I actually give my services at my college for free when my classmates need it (too bad its not a political program). Thanks, but no thanks.

I didn't mention my diploma so I could lord it over you, that's what idiots do who think that a piece of paper immediately validates whatever pile of dog shit falls out of their mouth.

I mentioned it in the specific context of demonstrating to you what is generally thought of Suvorov's work in academic circles.

My arguments are not validated by my diploma, my arguments are validated by thorough, well-thought out logical and sequential arguments that are buttressed and bolstered with a plethora of relevant facts.

quote:

Also, how come if Soviet Union had better military than Nazis, better training, better armed, they always suffered greater casualties in most battles?

That's because the "experience" and "training" factor has to be factored in context in 1945 which the Army that we are hypothetically pitting against the West, the Red Army of 1945 and that's what I was referring to.

Soviet troops only started to gain experience from 1943 onwards because in 1941-1942, very few got to live through more than a handful of battles.

Now, if you want to know why Soviets incurred more losses in Kursk there are 2 reasons. Lack of latitude in tactical decision making at a platoon/detachment level in armored units and lack of radios.

What does this mean? It means that Soviet troops had to communicate through hand signals out of hatches which was very hazardous during battles, or a commander's tank would have a central radio that would broadcast on all relevant frequency bands but the subordinate tank units would not be able to respond or report. Furthermore, for any tactical decision - the commander would have to contact his CO and request permission to carry out an action which greatly hampered the Soviet ability to rapidly respond to crises, this rule began to slacken in 1944-45, allowing Soviet ground armor commanders more latitude in tactical decisions.

Germans had 2 way radios from beginning and their commanders had the latitude to make tactical decisions on the spot. So for example of a Wehrmacht commander realized that his armor detachment was being encircled, he could immediately make the executive decision to retreat and break out of the encirclement and reconnect with his main force.

For a Soviet commander the process involved radioing to his CO who would be in a headquarters, describing situation, obtaining permission, relaying the order via hand signals and THEN retreating if he was allowed to.

Like I said, the Soviets began to eliminate those rules in 1943 and somewhat update the equipment in order to emulate German efficiency in the matter much closely.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Strength (NAZIS) 2,700 tanks 800,000 infantry, 2,000 aircraft SOVIETS: 3,600 tanks 1,300,000 infantry, 2,400 aircraft

wow, there's no end to your stupidity

the soviet tanks were matchboxes compared to that of the Germans. If I had 1 million toy tanks and 3 German tanks defeated me, yet my 1 million toy tanks were able to destroy one real tank, would you consider the German general a superior commander?

the Soviets produced something like 50,000 t-34s because they needed a 5-10/1 ratio to even consider engaging the Germans

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey wow, there's no end to your stupidity the soviet tanks were matchboxes compared to that of the Germans. If I had 1 million toy tanks and 3 German tanks defeated me, yet my 1 million toy tanks were able to destroy one real tank, would you consider the German general a superior commander? the Soviets produced something like 50,000 t-34s because they needed a 5-10/1 ratio to even consider engaging the Germans

You're a pathetic loser trying to jump bandwagons. Listen to someone who actually has the dimploma to kick your ass in this field. So STFU, dick!

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne The fact is that the Red Army broke the back of the German Wehrmacht by 1944. Their elite, cream-of-the-crop troops. What the US/UK forces faced on Western Front was what Germany already began scraping the bottom of the barrel for.

quote:

The fact that Germans kept greener troops on the Western Front is because US/UK was perceived to be a lesser threat than USSR. If you think that US/Uk/Cnanadian/Australian/French forces outnumbered the German forces, what do you think they thought about a pissed-off 11 million man army that was technologically superior to the US/UK forces by a huge margin and numerically superior coming from the East?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne My arguments are not validated by my diploma, my arguments are validated by thorough, well-thought out logical and sequential arguments that are buttressed and bolstered with a plethora of relevant facts. That's because the "experience" and "training" factor has to be factored in context in 1945 which the Army that we are hypothetically pitting against the West, the Red Army of 1945 and that's what I was referring to. Soviet troops only started to gain experience from 1943 onwards because in 1941-1942, very few got to live through more than a handful of battles. Now, if you want to know why Soviets incurred more losses in Kursk there are 2 reasons. Lack of latitude in tactical decision making at a platoon/detachment level in armored units and lack of radios. What does this mean? It means that Soviet troops had to communicate through hand signals out of hatches which was very hazardous during battles, or a commander's tank would have a central radio that would broadcast on all relevant frequency bands but the subordinate tank units would not be able to respond or report. Furthermore, for any tactical decision - the commander would have to contact his CO and request permission to carry out an action which greatly hampered the Soviet ability to rapidly respond to crises, this rule began to slacken in 1944-45, allowing Soviet ground armor commanders more latitude in tactical decisions. Germans had 2 way radios from beginning and their commanders had the latitude to make tactical decisions on the spot. So for example of a Wehrmacht commander realized that his armor detachment was being encircled, he could immediately make the executive decision to retreat and break out of the encirclement and reconnect with his main force. For a Soviet commander the process involved radioing to his CO who would be in a headquarters, describing situation, obtaining permission, relaying the order via hand signals and THEN retreating if he was allowed to. Like I said, the Soviets began to eliminate those rules in 1943 and somewhat update the equipment in order to emulate German efficiency in the matter much closely.

To tell you the truth, you squeeked out well on that one ;-) I'll give you credit for that ;-) Though I know I could find another latter battle where Soviets suffered greater casualties, out of respect for your great responses (unlike the other dimbwhits on here like Dopey) I won't bother ;-) Plus we are only arguing about something really stupid - Suvorov. If you dont think his story is credible enough, well, I dont have the proof to say that he has the facts. I hope you're not protecting Soviets here, and being just a historian ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium You're a pathetic loser trying to jump bandwagons. Listen to someone who actually has the dimploma to kick your ass in this field. So STFU, dick!

those quotes by Aquadyne you provided have nothing to do with what I said kiddo

do some research on how many tanks from each side parished in battle kiddo

the t-34 is what won the war for the Soviets along with the harsh winter and Hitler's stupidity. although they were far inferior, there were so many of them! so direct numbers comparison like you provided is useless since 100 German tanks could easily destroy maybe 1000 t-34s, probably more if they were tigers.

read up on this before arguing your moronic case, they have books on it in Russian I am sure since yo have trouble understanding English.

wikipedia ruski anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey those quotes by Aquadyne you provided have nothing to do with what I said kiddo do some research on how many tanks from each side parished in battle kiddo the t-34 is what won the war for the Soviets along with the harsh winter and Hitler's stupidity. although they were far inferior, there were so many of them! so direct numbers comparison like you provided is useless since 100 German tanks could easily destroy maybe 1000 t-34s, probably more if they were tigers. read up on this before arguing your moronic case, they have books on it in Russian I am sure since yo have trouble understanding English. wikipedia ruski anyone?

You are such a ****. You are now the first person to be placed on my ignore list. You lack logic, sense, and respect. Its pointless arguing with you. I hope you are happy now if thats what you wanted to achieve.

I wanted to edit my previous post, but fuck it.

Why so many Russians died vs Germans after 1943-ish?

Here's my answer, courtesy of the expert. You lack logic and have terrible reading skills, Dopey:

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Soviet troops only started to gain experience from 1943 onwards because in 1941-1942, very few got to live through more than a handful of battles. Now, if you want to know why Soviets incurred more losses in Kursk there are 2 reasons. Lack of latitude in tactical decision making at a platoon/detachment level in armored units and lack of radios. What does this mean? It means that Soviet troops had to communicate through hand signals out of hatches which was very hazardous during battles, or a commander's tank would have a central radio that would broadcast on all relevant frequency bands but the subordinate tank units would not be able to respond or report. Furthermore, for any tactical decision - the commander would have to contact his CO and request permission to carry out an action which greatly hampered the Soviet ability to rapidly respond to crises, this rule began to slacken in 1944-45, allowing Soviet ground armor commanders more latitude in tactical decisions. Germans had 2 way radios from beginning and their commanders had the latitude to make tactical decisions on the spot. So for example of a Wehrmacht commander realized that his armor detachment was being encircled, he could immediately make the executive decision to retreat and break out of the encirclement and reconnect with his main force. For a Soviet commander the process involved radioing to his CO who would be in a headquarters, describing situation, obtaining permission, relaying the order via hand signals and THEN retreating if he was allowed to. Like I said, the Soviets began to eliminate those rules in 1943 and somewhat update the equipment in order to emulate German efficiency in the matter much closely.

quote:

wow, there's no end to your stupidity the soviet tanks were matchboxes compared to that of the Germans. If I had 1 million toy tanks and 3 German tanks defeated me, yet my 1 million toy tanks were able to destroy one real tank, would you consider the German general a superior commander? the Soviets produced something like 50,000 t-34s because they needed a 5-10/1 ratio to even consider engaging the Germans

Yes, the T-34 was designed for mass production and was produced in much more numerous quantities than any other German tank but it was also a very simple and functional tank. The Soviet innovations to T-34 consisted of the sloped frontal armor which provided additional protection from AT rounds by deflecting them upwards (something that Germans later copied) and very broad tracks that permitted the T-34 greater mobility than German tracks because it allowed the T-34 to dissipate its weight upon the ground much more evenly and make it much more maneuverable.

Then we come to the questions of which tanks we are talking. Panzer Mark I, II, III were obsolete by 1941 and Mark IV that was fighting in the opening stages of campaign against the Russia was already proving to be obsolete. The Mark IV had a 75 mm gun whereas the T-34 had a 76 mm gun. A difference so small is pretty much insignificant but the T-34 had better armor and mobility. However, at that stage the Russians still used the WW I doctrine of using tanks as infantry support pieces, i.e. distributing tanks piecemeal through infantry divisions rather than mass them in their own armored divisions and utilize Blitzkrieg, that was one of the major reasons why Russian tank forces fared so poorly in the beginning.

Moving on to Mark V (Tiger) and Mark VI (Panther), these were exceptional tanks but they were produced in so few numbers comparatively speaking as to nullify their advantages in many ways. The Soviet upgrades to the T-34/85 and the development of IS-1 and IS-2 as well as the SU series of tank destroyers, makes the quality argument very difficult.

Dopey, it is incorrect to refer to the Soviet tanks as matchboxes. They were well designed pieces of equipment. But Germans and Soviets had 2 different approaches to tank design. Germans viewed them strictly as fighting machines and nothing more, Soviets viewed tanks as utilitarian machines that could perform the role of a tractor (pulling supplies or other machinery behind it) or ferrying troops on the back of the tank. it is worth noting that USSR never put an armored personnel carrier (along the lines of the German Sdkfz 232 or 251) into mass production.

Furthermore, Germans made their tanks with a complex design and it made it for a much longer time to produce a tank, whereas the Soviets simplified the design as much as possible in order to maximize mass production.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Why so many Russians died vs Germans after 1943-ish? Here's my answer, courtesy of the expert. You lack logic and have terrible reading skills, Dopey:

The most lethal German tank, the Tiger, was produced in large numbers in 43'

But how does his argument have anything to do with tanks?? Do you know anything about this war? Are you talking out of your ass? I will let Aquadyne set you straight when he/she comes back.

Yes there were logistical concerns for the Soviets in respect to communication, but the tanks each army used played a huuuuuuuge role! German tanks were harder to destroy, had larger, more accurate cannons, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I wanted to edit my previous post, but fuck it.

And you couldn't find the "edit" link? <75

As far as me defending the Soviets, it's neither here nor there. I had family who fought for the Waffen SS and family who fought for the Red Army. I'm rather indifferent to both sides, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Dopey, it is incorrect to refer to the Soviet tanks as matchboxes. They were well designed pieces of equipment.

i said they were matchboxes in comparison to the German tanks in response to some numbers he provided.

of course they were not "matchboxes," that was a gross exaggeration to make him look stupid. If anything was close to a matchbox it was the Shermans.

I stand by my opinion that 2,700 German tanks would hold an advantage over 3,600 t-34s.

That, and the point of my original post was to illustrate how giving generalized tank numbers doesn't prove anything if you don't know the details of the battle. ie what kind of tanks they were, how they were used, accuracy/navigation of air support, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey The most lethal German tank, the Tiger, was produced in large numbers in 43' But how does his argument have anything to do with tanks?? Do you know anything about this war? Are you talking out of your ass? I will let Aquadyne set you straight when he/she comes back. Yes there were logistical concerns for the Soviets in respect to communication, but the tanks each army used played a huuuuuuuge role! German tanks were harder to destroy, had larger, more accurate cannons, etc. And you couldn't find the "edit" link? <75

From Wikipedia:

A major problem with the Tiger was its very high production cost. During the Second World War over 40,000 American Sherman and 58,000 Soviet T-34s were produced, compared to 1,350 Tiger I and 500 Tiger II tanks. The German designs were expensive in terms of time, raw materials and Reichsmarks, the Tiger I costing over twice as much as a contemporary Panzer IV and four times a Stug III assault gun. [1] The closest counterpart to the Tiger from the United States was the M26 Pershing (around 200 deployed during the war) and IS-2 from the USSR (about 3,800 built during the war).

Tigers were produced in very low numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne From Wikipedia: A major problem with the Tiger was its very high production cost. During the Second World War over 40,000 American Sherman and 58,000 Soviet T-34s were produced, compared to 1,350 Tiger I and 500 Tiger II tanks. The German designs were expensive in terms of time, raw materials and Reichsmarks, the Tiger I costing over twice as much as a contemporary Panzer IV and four times a Stug III assault gun. [1] The closest counterpart to the Tiger from the United States was the M26 Pershing (around 200 deployed during the war) and IS-2 from the USSR (about 3,800 built during the war). Tigers were produced in very low numbers.

yes, of course, but they were better tanks, and produced towards the end of the war, that is why they inflicted many casualties towards the end of the war

better as in more lethal, harder to destroy, not a better strategic weapon

do you have any link stats on the number of tanks destroyed by tank?

I'm curious to see how many t-34s were destroyed in comparison with panthers

quote:

do you have any link stats on the number of tanks destroyed by tank? I'm curious to see how many t-34s were destroyed in comparison with panthers

I doubt those kind of statistics exist at all.

But there are multiple instances of anecdotal evidence of well-positioned Tiger tanks destroying 10, 20, 30 Soviet T-34's in a single engagement. I recall reading an instance of a single Tiger destroying over 50 Soviet tanks in a single engagement from a defensive position because it had such a long range and was well defended by auxiliary forces and well camouflaged. This is largely due to the fact that the 88 mm gun on the Tiger could engage targets at a very long range (2000 m), meaning that most of the time the only way to overtake a well-positioned Tiger was to swamp them with multiple T-34's and try to get as many as possible to virtually point blank range to deal a kill shot to a Tiger. Of course, many T-34's would be destroyed in a suicide rush like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne I doubt those kind of statistics exist at all. But there are multiple instances of anecdotal evidence of well-positioned Tiger tanks destroying 10, 20, 30 Soviet T-34's in a single engagement. I recall reading an instance of a single Tiger destroying over 50 Soviet tanks in a single engagement from a defensive position because it had such a long range and was well defended by auxiliary forces and well camouflaged. This is largely due to the fact that the 88 mm gun on the Tiger could engage targets at a very long range (2000 m), meaning that most of the time the only way to overtake a well-positioned Tiger was to swamp them with multiple T-34's and try to get as many as possible to virtually point blank range to deal a kill shot to a Tiger. Of course, many T-34's would be destroyed in a suicide rush like that.

there have to be some sort of raw stats

if the Soviets produced 58,000 t-34s, how many were left standing in 45?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.