Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Finest Army of the 20th Century

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>
Poll Question: Japanese Army 1905
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
5 [1.89%]
15 [5.66%]
78 [29.43%]
61 [23.02%]
82 [30.94%]
21 [7.92%]
3 [1.13%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Finest Army of the 20th Century
    Posted: 11-May-2010 at 11:18
 
Though I am very supportive of the U.S. military...
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

The US army has been to best Army in the World from 1943 on. There is no doubt to that.

The U.S. Army was not prepared for the Korean war.  Entire batallions, regiments and the 2nd Infantry Division were over run.  In many of the early battles against North Koreans, U.S. units were not massively outnumbered at the local level, they were out fought. 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

That being said- The US infantry of the 90's was the best trained and effective Infantry the worls has ever seen.
 
The US infantry of today is 3x better. There is no Army in the history of the world that has had the training and the technological edge that the US Army has.
There are many armies of equivelant infantry abilities  For example: Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Canada,  etc.  Then factor in nations who have  excellent military repuations, but cant afford the latest technologies (Turkey, Greece, etc) 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

What did the US do to the 4th largest standing Army in the World in 1990, they were destroying Iraqi T 72s (prettymuch cutting edge tank technology)
The Iraqis were simply not a competitive opponent. Against competitive opponents like North Korea, the U.S. record is more mixed.
 
One could play devils advocate and argue that the U.S. has dropped  "dimes" on opponents who only had access to "pennies".
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 11-May-2010 at 11:50
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2010 at 22:35
Originally posted by Cryptic

 
Though I am very supportive of the U.S. military...
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

The US army has been to best Army in the World from 1943 on. There is no doubt to that.

The U.S. Army was not prepared for the Korean war.  Entire batallions, regiments and the 2nd Infantry Division were over run.  In many of the early battles against North Koreans, U.S. units were not massively outnumbered at the local level, they were out fought. 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

That being said- The US infantry of the 90's was the best trained and effective Infantry the worls has ever seen.
 
The US infantry of today is 3x better. There is no Army in the history of the world that has had the training and the technological edge that the US Army has.
There are many armies of equivelant infantry abilities  For example: Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Canada,  etc.  Then factor in nations who have  excellent military repuations, but cant afford the latest technologies (Turkey, Greece, etc) 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

What did the US do to the 4th largest standing Army in the World in 1990, they were destroying Iraqi T 72s (prettymuch cutting edge tank technology)
The Iraqis were simply not a competitive opponent. Against competitive opponents like North Korea, the U.S. record is more mixed.
 
One could play devils advocate and argue that the U.S. has dropped  "dimes" on opponents who only had access to "pennies".
 
 

This is not a knock on any country but simply my opinion based on my working with them and my background as a US Army officer (FA, CAV and LG) and Military Historian.

 

 

1st. There is no way in of the countries you mention could be on par with the US--simply look at the training budgets. The US training budget alone is higher than any EU countries entire military budget. You have to have realistic and battle focused training. Where do the countries you listed come have that training, the NTC in FT Irwin CA, and the US foots most of the bill for them.

 

2nd All the countries you mention lack the ability to project power, they are not like the US that can have 2 light divs  anywhere in the world in 24 hours and have heavy BCT in 72 hours. That is simply a US thing. The Brits needed US logistical support in the Falklands, I have read the AARs without our support the Brits could not have projected their power thus including their national will to win the war in the Falklands

 

I have trained with many foreign armies, I have seen their training programs and to be honest nobody trains like the US does--true we have more resources than others to conduct training. Not to mention specific countries of the list you gave --Only the British would be on par with the US but honestly they are not in the same ball park when it comes to training dollars. The only Armies that I have worked with (I have worked the British, Germans, Canadians, French, Norwegians, Finns, and Swedes) that given the right technology could hang with the US are the Brits and Norwegians. However both lack the numbers to compete.

 

Really the US National guard trains more the most European armies, and I would take 1 NG BCT up against a division of any European army. That’s not knocking the European armies (Britain excluded) They simply do not train the way the US does and lacks the budget for realistic training. (In other words they don't have an NTC or JRTC)

 

As for N Korea-- Ok take away the Chemical and WMD threat and it would be a very short lived campaign.

 

You mention the Korean war-- The US was caught by surprise and really only had the 2nd ID on the ground-- Read the coldest war-- the US never had numerical superiority in the KW the biggest problem was logistics not fighting force, when an Army is not supplied it tends to flag-- Once the US got really into the war set up the LOCS and got troops into the war what happened-- The US drove the NKs to the border with China-- Only Chinese intervention saved NK. The US was caught unprepared for the influx of Chinese troops and given that Korea was in their back door had much shorter LOCs. But even then the war was fought to a stand still and the status quo was returned which was the initial war aim anyway. Be careful when you mention Korea, because it was not really an Infantry War it was a logistics War.

 

On Iraq-- They were the best Army in the Middle East, they had state of the art Army and airpower in the first gulf war (in the second golf war they were a shadow of themselves).

 
Believe me no Army in the world could have done what the US did.

 

Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2010 at 07:54
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 

You mention the Korean war-- The US was caught by surprise and really only had the 2nd ID on the ground-- Read the coldest war--

 
Be careful when you mention Korea, because it was not really an Infantry War it was a logistics War. 
I have read the book.  I think you need to give the North Koreans more credit.  On several occasions in their drive to Pusan, U.S. units were not gravely ouut numbered (locally) yet they were out fought by the North Koreans.   Even on the Pusan perimeter facing huge U.S. firepower, the North Koreans kept the initiative for a long time
 
The North Koreans just lacked the components of the DIME.  They could compensate for a while, but eventually, U.S. logistics (thousands of 2 1/2 ton trucks, Inchon landing abilities, and air power) wore them down. 
  
 
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2010 at 08:09
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 

You mention the Korean war-- The US was caught by surprise and really only had the 2nd ID on the ground-- Read the coldest war--

 
Be careful when you mention Korea, because it was not really an Infantry War it was a logistics War. 
I have read the book.  I think you need to give the North Koreans more credit.  On several occasions in their drive to Pusan, U.S. units were not gravely ouut numbered (locally) yet they were out fought by the North Koreans.   Even on the Pusan perimeter facing huge U.S. firepower, the North Koreans kept the initiative for a long time
 
The North Koreans just lacked the components of the DIME.  They could compensate for a while, but eventually, U.S. logistics (thousands of 2 1/2 ton trucks, Inchon landing abilities, and air power) wore them down. 
  
 
 

It is easy to outfight unprepared Army, The US wasn't ready and didn't expect the invasion and underestimated the speed of the NK advance, the initiative is worth 3x the manpower, once the US got on the war footing it was a whole different deal, only the Chinese saved the NKs

Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2010 at 08:31
Originally posted by Mr Bobo

Wehrmacht.

the USA r well equiped but porly trained, there not much compared to the armies of Nazi Germany, and since its based on acheivement anyways.. 

 

 

Now that is silly-- The US is the best trained army in the world--They have relaistic battlefocused training centered around JRTC and the NTC.

 

The German Army was defeated by basically a draftee US army in WW2. The AVF that we have now is vastly superior to our Draftee Army of the 40's.  Rember when the 101st was surrounded at Bastogne, the defeated a numerically superior German Army.

 

2nd what background do you have in the training of the US Army, how can you make that statement, have you trained with the US Army. I have trained with many foreign armies and officers, they all lack the battle focused training the US has. By the way I have worked with several Aussie officer, good guys but where do they send their best officers to train--US based military schools.

 

3rd. You can argue Rommel was the best General in the German army, wasn't he defeated by Patton (I read your book cried Patton)

 

Now don't you think the US army is better trained now than in WW2 yet the US defeated the Germans on the regular

 

I have studied the training methods of the German army and really it wasn't their superiority esp of the infantry it was new Armor tactics that made the Germans great (I a talking about the Wehrmacht, Not SS-- If you want to compare the best infantry off all times I will take US Rangers over the SS)

 

Now according the CIA world fact book:

According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely):
1. USA
2. China
3. Germany
4. India
5. France
6. Russia
7. UK
8. Italy
9. Israel
10. Pakistan
 
according to Global fire power:http://www.globalfirepower.com/
1
Map of United States of America U.S.A.
2
Map of China China
3
Map of Russia Russia
4
Map of India India
5
Map of United Kingdom U.K.
6
Map of France France
7
Map of Germany Germany
8
Map of Brazil Brazil
9
Map of Japan Japan
10
Map of Turkey Turkey
11
Map of Israel Israel
12
Map of South Korea South Korea
13
Map of Italy Italy
14
Map of Indonesia Indonesia
15
Map of Pakistan Pakistan
16
Map of Taiwan Taiwan
17
Map of Egypt Egypt
18
Map of Iran Iran
19
Map of Mexico Mexico
20
Map of North Korea North Korea
21
Map of Sweden Sweden
22
Map of Greece Greece
23
Map of Canada Canada
24
Map of Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia
25
Map of Ukraine Ukraine
26
Map of Australia Australia
27
Map of Spain Spain
28
Map of Thailand Thailand
29
Map of Denmark Denmark
30
Map of Poland Poland

Rank 1-10 Observations: The United States (GFP formula value of 0.184) remains the undisputed leader of our list thanks to their staying "active" in global hotspots, showcasing the world's largest navy and continuing to poor in gobs of money into defense. Our formula sees China edge out Russia but only by the slimmest of margins (0.238 versus 0.241 respectively) with an edge in available manpower and financial capital. France (0.636) and Germany (0.672) are relative equals for the most part but the GFP formula gives a slight edge to France thanks to an aircraft carrier and capable navy as well as a bump in defense spending. Brazil (0.756) is the most powerful South American country on the list thanks to available manpower and a capable navy. Japan (0.920) is a "sleeper" power that sneaks into the top ten with a good navy, strong logistical infrastructure and capital.

Rank 11-20 Observations: Our formula provides for a good disparity between North and South Korea, placing South well-ahead of the North thanks to better infrastructure and capital. Mexico's placement this high on the list is interesting to note - it scored a good balance across the board in all major categories. Israel finally gets a proper placement on this year's list - just out of the top ten - sporting a strong land army with equally strong training, modern equipment and recent combat experience.

Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2010 at 10:32

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

  Now that is silly-- The US is the best trained army in the world--They have relaistic battlefocused training centered around JRTC and the NTC.

 

The German Army was defeated by basically a draftee US army in WW2.

 
Yikes, that is a huge oversimplification.  The Germans lost because they were "Dimed to Death" facing the USA, USSR, Great Britain, French Empire, The Common Wealth etc.  
 
It was the Soviets who truly defeated the Germans. Through out the war, the Germans usually outperformed any adversaries on a unit to unit basis when the numerical odds were anything near equal. In the end, however, superior (though not invincible) German military ability could not compensate for the allies tremendous advantages in other parts of the DIME.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 
Believe me no Army in the world could have done what the US did. 
I agree. But.... it is worth noting that no other country has the U.S. total DIME package. Especially for economics) It has been 150 years since the last time the U.S faced an opponent that had near the same DIME potential (Civil War).  Now compare the U.S. to Germany 1870 to 1945:
 
1870: Prussia punishes France despite France having a better total DIME package 
 
WWI:  Germany is heavily out DIMED for years, yet they are able to use military dime aspects to compensate for other short comings.  Germany ties WWI in the military sense. 
 
WWII: Germany is again out DIMED as a totality, but German military compensates and beats France, Norway, Belgium etc.  Pushes Great Britain and USSR to the wall.  Even after U.S. intervention, Germany goes down fighting.  The war was essentialy over in July 1943. Yet it takes two years to finish the Germans despite overwelming total DIME advantages.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

If you want to compare the best infantry off all times I will take US Rangers over the SS)

 

I agree with you.  But it is worth noting that the Allies and Germans had very different approaches to special forces.  The Germans viewed special forces as inefficient. (NCO / Officer leadership drain on other units was not worth the successes of Ranger type units).  The Germans kept special forces to a minimum and concentrated on increasing the efficiency of their elite divisions, instead of creating ultra elite batalions
 
For WWII type combat, the Germans may of had the right idea. Asymetrical warfare favors U.S. and British approach.  What do you think?
 
  
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

I have trained with many foreign armies, I have seen their training programs and to be honest nobody trains like the US does--true we have more resources than others to conduct training. Not to mention specific countries of the list you gave --Only the British would be on par with the US  

Though I do not have first hand experience, and respect those who do, Germany and France are modern nations with long military traditions and professional militaries.  Though they do not have the same Dime package as the U.S. I do not see how the U.S. can be so superior on a unit by unit comparison.



Edited by Cryptic - 12-May-2010 at 12:19
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2010 at 11:41
Originally posted by Genghis

And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


I remember Genghis!! I agree and wonder why they ignored the US military? This is an oldy but modly brought back to life!!
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2010 at 22:57
Originally posted by Cryptic

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

  Now that is silly-- The US is the best trained army in the world--They have relaistic battlefocused training centered around JRTC and the NTC.

 

The German Army was defeated by basically a draftee US army in WW2.

 
Yikes, that is a huge oversimplification.  The Germans lost because they were "Dimed to Death" facing the USA, USSR, Great Britain, French Empire, The Common Wealth etc.  
 
It was the Soviets who truly defeated the Germans. Through out the war, the Germans usually outperformed any adversaries on a unit to unit basis when the numerical odds were anything near equal. In the end, however, superior (though not invincible) German military ability could not compensate for the allies tremendous advantages in other parts of the DIME.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 
Believe me no Army in the world could have done what the US did. 
I agree. But.... it is worth noting that no other country has the U.S. total DIME package. Especially for economics) It has been 150 years since the last time the U.S faced an opponent that had near the same DIME potential (Civil War).  Now compare the U.S. to Germany 1870 to 1945:
 
1870: Prussia punishes France despite France having a better total DIME package 
 
WWI:  Germany is heavily out DIMED for years, yet they are able to use military dime aspects to compensate for other short comings.  Germany ties WWI in the military sense. 
 
WWII: Germany is again out DIMED as a totality, but German military compensates and beats France, Norway, Belgium etc.  Pushes Great Britain and USSR to the wall.  Even after U.S. intervention, Germany goes down fighting.  The war was essentialy over in July 1943. Yet it takes two years to finish the Germans despite overwelming total DIME advantages.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

If you want to compare the best infantry off all times I will take US Rangers over the SS)

 

I agree with you.  But it is worth noting that the Allies and Germans had very different approaches to special forces.  The Germans viewed special forces as inefficient. (NCO / Officer leadership drain on other units was not worth the successes of Ranger type units).  The Germans kept special forces to a minimum and concentrated on increasing the efficiency of their elite divisions, instead of creating ultra elite batalions
 
For WWII type combat, the Germans may of had the right idea. Asymetrical warfare favors U.S. and British approach.  What do you think?
 
  
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

I have trained with many foreign armies, I have seen their training programs and to be honest nobody trains like the US does--true we have more resources than others to conduct training. Not to mention specific countries of the list you gave --Only the British would be on par with the US  

Though I do not have first hand experience, and respect those who do, Germany and France are modern nations with long military traditions and professional militaries.  Though they do not have the same Dime package as the U.S. I do not see how the U.S. can be so superior on a unit by unit comparison.

1st The Soviet Army didn't beat the German Army, The Soviet Winter did, Until the Winter devastated the Eastern Army the Soviets lost nearly every engagement. To quote the Princess Bride one of the "great fallacies is to engage in a land war in Asia" So the Sovets basically beat a decimated German army that has no natural defensive terrain to retreat to. I don't give the Russian Army that much credit. The German Army was at the gates of Moscow, had they been better prepared logistically (i.e. winterized equipment, winter clothing, better LOCS) Russia would have been out of the War, it wasn't so much that the Russians won as the Germans lost. It was a clear lack of proper planning by The Germans, not the Russians actually winning.

 

2nd. The US Army in North Africa under Patton met the German army at is prime and defeated them.

 

3rd You state well it took longer for the US and UK to advance into Germany --well yeah look at the terrain difference- The Soviets got to advance across open plains for the most part against a decimated German eastern army. The US/UK forces had secure a beach front, conduct a LOTS (logistics over the Shore ) operation then advance across Hilly and wooded terrain, against a full German army not devastated by a horrible winter, dug in with a fortifications. The Soviets didn't face any of that. It took the Soviets 2 years to across open plains That is no accomplishment compared to the western front.

The defensive principle in the Soviet case would require 2x the combat forces to be effective

The Western front required 8X combat forces to be successful, guess what the US didn't have 8x the force it was pretty much 1 to 1 with the Germans sometimes having a numerical advantage like at Bastogne. Had there been a soviet div at Bastogne they would have surrendered, Not the 101 the simply said "Nuts"

 

You state that the German army out preformed when the numerical odds were  even. Well i can you some examples of the Germans having superior numbers and lost.

Bastogne, North Africa, The battle of the Bulge. The Germans only out preformed their enemy when they had a tech advantage --TA is a force multiplier.

 

 

On modern unit to unit comparison-- The US trains more, Trains harder, and conduct more battle focused training. In joint exercises like REFORGER, ULCHI focus, FOAL eagle, the US units typically out performs other allied units. I can safely say yes on a unit to unit basis the US is better.

 

I have worked with a lot of different Armies including all the ones you mentioned, and yes they have great martial traditions, but they do not have the training, their countries don't spend as much on training therefore they are not the equal of any US force on a 1 to 1 basis. Honestly they are not the equal of US National Guard units. I saw a HBCT from The Kentucky NG beat up on one  of the countries you listed at the NTC. As for Firepower a US Logistics Company has more firepower than a typical German infantry company.

 

Battle focused training is e/t only the Brits have close to what the US has, but remember we train with the brits and the use a lot of US equipment.

 

Asymmetrical warfare-- kind of a German thing, they had to deal with it. It’s one thing I will give the Russians credit-- The Soviet Parisians did a lot of damage to the German Army. I wrote a paper in C3 comparing the eastern front to Iraq and the insurgency in Eastern Europe. The Germans were forced to provide more troops to security and protecting their overstretched logistic lines.

 

The US is a heavy wt, I would almost compare them to the Greek phalanx they roll throw and crush e/t in their path.  Using air drops and glider insertions in WW2 the US kind of broke in to asymmetrical warfare but it quickly became a liner battle.

Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2010 at 23:18

Don't get me wrong I am a huge Wehrmacht fan- I think they were good troops, It was the German General staff that was poor. It was easy for them to beat up on Poland and France. Heck the Poles used Lancers to face a mechanized army. The French were still using WW1 equipment, what did the Benelux countries have-- nothing. The German beat up on paper tigers.

 

When facing modern mech forces the German general staff failed to adapt. (The also failed in Russia, By all rights Moscow should have fallen)

 

When Patton defeated Rommel in 43 his comment was "what a waste of good infantry"  The German army could not adapt. They were drunk with victory over paper tigers and their leaders had a sense of invulnerability based on early victories ( they were functionally fixated and rigid)

 
 
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2010 at 00:37

One more comment on Russia-- Would they have even been able to face Germany without the land lease from the US?

 

Joachim von Ribbentrop stated that there were three reasons the Germans lost (I think there are a lot more but:

 
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union  (this slowed the German advnce, the winter then did them in)
 
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
 
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy..

 

One example of lend  lease success for in transport. The US supplied Russia with 450,000 trucks without which the Russians would have no ability to project force westward.
 
Also the US was the only allied power really fighting on two fronts. Had Japan really went after Russia, and not focused on the Pacific first where would Russia had been?
 
I would argue that the Pacific front was a much harder front to win that the Euro west or east front.

 



Edited by Maximus Germanicus - 13-May-2010 at 00:41
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2010 at 15:22
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

1st The Soviet Army didn't beat the German Army, The Soviet Winter did, Until the Winter devastated the Eastern Army the Soviets lost nearly every engagement.

You need to give the soviets far more credit.  Look at it from their point side. A very competent enemy attacks, in addition to military problems,  the attack almost causes a social collapse as millions of Soviet citizens welcome the invaders (initially).
 
Despite these challenges, the Soviets bounce back.    
 
- General Zhukov stops the enemy at Leningrad  (Summer / fall)
-Germans are stopped at Moscow (winter, but Russians get cold too)
-Stalingrad (summer / fall) Germans are held, Germans are beaten at Stalingrad in winter by equally cold Russians
-Kursk July 1943:  Soviets defeat the best armour the Germans have. Germans are rested, well prepared and it is mid summer.
Fall 1943:  Soviets copy German Blitzkrieg, free Kiev and advance to Rumanian Border
Summer 1944: Soviets clear Belarus, 130,000 Germans captured
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

Had there been a soviet div at Bastogne they would have surrendered, Not the 101 the simply said "Nuts"

 

 
An ordianry Soviet conscript Division?, Yes.  The naval infantry division that stood at Stalingrad (Malmedy Hill), or Chuikov's Sixth Shock Army at the grain elevator or tractor factory would not have surrendered. An ordinary U.S. conscript division would have been in a very, very difficult situation as well.    
 
Please note that I said the Germans were not invicible and that they only usually outperformed their opponents. Bastogne with the heroic resisitance by the 101 against SS panzer divisions is a notable exception.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 

You state that the German army out preformed when the numerical odds were  even. Well i can you some examples of the Germans having superior numbers and lost.

You also need to consider the strategic  situation to see how the Germans bounced back through usually outperforming their adversaries on a unit by unit basis:
-German divisions in Normandy are eventually overwhelmed and fored to retreat. Germans are being pressed hard from the East and their logisitics, industry, petro chemicals are in ruins.  Their opponents have unlimited strategic recesources.  The allies see a collapse and order the pressure to be kept up. Any normal opponent would have collpased.
 
But....
 
The Germans bounce back and perform well at Hutegren Forest, The Bulge, Aachen, Hungary, Market Garden, and actually hold the Russians 50 miles from Berlin.   The
Germans were able to do this becaue they used their greater unit by unit lethality to compensate (for a while) for tremendous DIME shortcomings. 
 
Believe me, I am not a "Waffenophile", but on the broad unit by unit average, the Germans usuallly out performed their opponents. This did not make the Germans "10 feet tall" or invincible, but it did make them a tough bunch to beat. 
 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

  
2nd. The US Army in North Africa under Patton met the German army at is prime and defeated them.

 

The Germans were not in their prime.  They had just been forced to retreat hundreds of miles from El Alamiem.  They were being attacked from two directions (Patton and Montgomery) and were facing a fresh opponent. In addition,their Italian ally was incompetent and unenthusiastic. U.S. airpower and British sea power had cut off their supplies for months. The Germans manage a victory at Kasserine Pass. 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 13-May-2010 at 15:39
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2010 at 16:31
I have basically kept out of this discussion for a number of reasons, but I do have my own point of view!

I will agree that at their best, with reserves of tanks, and aircraft (from 1939 to 1942 or so) and petrol, etc., the Germans were almost invincible! Of course their deeds proved so!

But, I will agree that it was the average Russian warrior, who was well supplied by the USA, actually fought the best German units, and along with the help of the Winter, and as well the stupidity of Hitler, etc., were the ones who actually brought the Nazi's to a standstill and then a retreat!

One only has to look at casualty figures to determine that!

I will even go further than that, and propose that the German High Command, devoted the "best" and "brightest" of their troops towards the East, rather than the West! And still lost!

My bet, is that the German High Command, many of which had good ties with British Generals, etc., over the years, actually led the Nazi's towards a defense designed to get the Americans and British (French), etc., into Germany proper, before letting the Russians in!

It was only the stupidity of FDR, and others, that led to the final distruciton of Germany! The USA, and its allies in the West,made a very good decision, they decided that it was better that the Germans and the Soviets, destroy one another, than risk more of British, American or French, etc., lives!

Russian soldiers were merely "slavs", (slaves) or lessor humans! E.g. a lot of racisim came into play!

The Soviets actually had to black mail the USA and Britain, etc., into starting a Western front! The elimination of one of Germany's greatest generals, Rommel, etc., the very man who designed the Western Defensive wall, led to an almost easy entry into W. Europe for the allies!

Even then, they (the allies) were close to defeat, but the abundance of air power, finally won the day!

As far as I know, the Allied invasion of W. Europe, was further hastened by the desire of a lot of German commanders to help them! In other words, these old Prussian soldier stock, when faced with the inevitably victory of the Allies, wanted American, British and even French forces to enter Berlin, before the Soviets!

But, Stalin finally pulled out his threat, and said he would not move his armies against the E. German army unless he and his forces would be given control of half of Europe! While Western leaders and commanders worried about loosing troops, Stalin, the pragmatist and communist, had none of these worries!

Any way, I have gone on too long, but some of you might well "fill in the blanks?"

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2010 at 18:11
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

One more comment on Russia-- Would they have even been able to face Germany without the land lease from the US?

 

Joachim von Ribbentrop stated that there were three reasons the Germans lost (I think there are a lot more but:

 
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union  (this slowed the German advnce, the winter then did them in)
 
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
 
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy..

 

One example of lend  lease success for in transport. The US supplied Russia with 450,000 trucks without which the Russians would have no ability to project force westward.
 
Also the US was the only allied power really fighting on two fronts. Had Japan really went after Russia, and not focused on the Pacific first where would Russia had been?
 
I would argue that the Pacific front was a much harder front to win that the Euro west or east front.
 
 
A classic shortsighted american viev, Im not enthusiast of Stalin, Soviets and their army but the credit must be given to those who earned it. Russians fought in Europe against 80% of all German forces while western allied faced 20% of them.
 
I do not think that Japan could have help to conquer Russia. First one needs to know geography and terrain, not to mention very ill equipped Japan army. Russia is the biggest country on earth, from the pacific shores to Moscow are thousands miles of Siberia and its harsh climate, not to mention only one railway. There was no Japan tank that could have fight against Russian tanks and there was no such tank that could go thousands of miles. Going from Pacific even to Ural was for Japan impossible logistically.
 
And remember that Russians did fight against Japanesse but it is hard to call it a fight. In 1938 and 1939 Russians and Japanesse fought 2 major battles, both ended in bloody defeat of Japan army. Japan army was simply poor.
 
Even western front wasnt so easy for the allies, considering their superiority in the air and in numbers.
 
And if I was american i wouldnt try to mention Africa, after this what US army presented in the battle of Kasserine pass.


Edited by Mosquito - 13-May-2010 at 18:15
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2010 at 18:27
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

Don't get me wrong I am a huge Wehrmacht fan- I think they were good troops, It was the German General staff that was poor. It was easy for them to beat up on Poland and France. Heck the Poles used Lancers to face a mechanized army. The French were still using WW1 equipment, what did the Benelux countries have-- nothing. The German beat up on paper tigers.

 

When facing modern mech forces the German general staff failed to adapt. (The also failed in Russia, By all rights Moscow should have fallen)

 

When Patton defeated Rommel in 43 his comment was "what a waste of good infantry"  The German army could not adapt. They were drunk with victory over paper tigers and their leaders had a sense of invulnerability based on early victories ( they were functionally fixated and rigid)

 
 
Your history and military knowledge is limited to Hollywood movies. I laugh when I read such nuissences. Intelligent and educated person usually avoids to write about things in which is complete ignorant. But im also a fan of "Patton" movie.

Edited by Mosquito - 13-May-2010 at 18:27
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 00:33

Go ahead and Laugh Mosquito

1. The Russians being supplied by the Americans as the single biggest reason that the Germans lost came from Von Ribbentrop Who was he-- Just the German Foreign minister I suppose he was ignorant.

2nd When I quote Patton it doesn't come from the movie it comes from his autobiography. Maybe you should read that book, and not just watch television.

3rd. You stated that the Japanese Army couldn't do anything to Russia. I believe Japan has a pretty good track Record against Russia, Russo- Japanese wars come to mind. The soviets did win the Japanese Russian border wars of 38/39 against a Japanese Army that had a bulk of its forces in China.

It is true that Japan Lost the battle of Battle of Lake Khasan it the Soviet Union in 38- It was a bloody battle (sarcastic) the Japanese lost a whole 526 soldiers, and The Russians lost 727 wow.

At the battle of Battle of Khalkhin Golthe Soviets had 22,000 causalities (aprox 8,000 dead 14,000 wounded) vs Japans 18,000 (aprox 9,000 dead, 9,000 wounded)

Now lets look at the initial strength of both Armies.

Russia had 57,000 soldiers, 500 tanks, 250 airplanes

Japan had 38,000 soldiers, 135 tanks, 250 airplanes

So the Japanese were at a numerical disadvantage yet inflicted more casualties.

The Japanese lost the border wars—  I would argue causality wise vs deployed troops Japan had a numerical break even (each side taking about 38,000 causilties), but they lost the land battle true, but it didn’t really fit their over all military plan and militarily of no consequence, defeating China was more important. There is a Military principle known as Economy of force, and Mass, China needed the forces in China, not Mongolia that was the COG for the far east. However if they choose to commit their Army to actually engaging the Soviets Russia could not have won. Also they need not push to the Urals they simply needed to cut off the North Pacific ports where the US Supplies were coming in.

4th  Had America not entered the war the allies would have lost.

5th Russia helped start the war, they also invaded Poland. Had Russia not fought Germany, Germany still would have lost to the Western Powers.

6th once again it is very easy to advance across open planes. The Western Allies had make 4 beach lands and conduct LOTS (Op Torch, Sicily, Italy, Normandy) Did the soviets need to do that—No they just ran their people through a meat grinder on the plains of Eastern Europe until a German army that already lost in Africa, and Italy was worn out.  So by engaging the Germans on 3 fronts (Italy, NA, and Western Europe) how pray tell does that equate to only facing 20% of the German Army.

If you are going to quote numbers give me some facts

7th If you are going to cite battles at least give the names of the battles and causality figures don’t just say a couple of battles. You said a bloody defeat for Japan—How so the  figures are pretty dead even.

8th You said the Japanese army was poor, well they were out numbered by 1.75 to 1 in soldiers and 3x1 in tanks and still caused the same amount if not more causalities—To me that shows that the Japanese had the better Army but lacked numbers.

9th Nice insults- Be a big boy and fight with facts.

10th I will give you some credit the Americans fought poorly at Kasserine pass. However, that was a problem of allied forces not working together not communicating and a lot of US forces breaking their battle cherry. Overall command was from the British 1st Army some say the US wasn’t deployed right, the lack of communication hindered call for Fire, and the French troops in support weren’t armored right. But what was the Fall out Patton was put in charge (yeah Patton)

After the appointment of Patton the US army won the battle of El Guettar

That was followed up by a Breakout at Gabes and with the British Army drove the Germans out of Africa. It  was more of a British fight in North Africa, I will give you that. However, it was mostly an American War after that.

North Africa  allied KIA/WIA/CAP 85,000  Axis KIA/WIA/CAP 950,000 (this amazing since most of the time the Germans were in the defense)

Sicily Campign total# of allied troops 174,000        allied KIA/WIA/CAP 22,000

                          Tota;# Axis troops 270,000            axis  KIA/WIA/CAP 142,000

Italy Campaign The Allies finally had numerical superiority and the Germans yes it was Germans not Italians how fought here ) were defeated

After that the Allies on the western front maintained numerical superiority. However to win a war in the defense against a fortified opponent you need at least 5x1 numerical superiority, The Allies did not have that.

 



Edited by Maximus Germanicus - 14-May-2010 at 02:10
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 01:44

Mosquito Said: 

 

A classic shortsighted american viev, Im not enthusiast of Stalin, Soviets and their army but the credit must be given to those who earned it. Russians fought in Europe against 80% of all German forces while western allied faced 20% of them.

 

Wow an Insult of an American how novel -- don't be jealous and by the way American is capitalized

 

I would recalculate your Numbers if I were you. You are incorrect, the German numbers that I have seen are in reality 5.5 million. The Russians greatly exaggerated the numbers to make themselves look better with 2.5 million of other fronts that is about oh 68/32 however you figure in the force multiplier (troops dug in fortifications etc, etc you Know METT-TC) It gives the Germans aprox troop power of 11M on the east vs 12.5M in the west this figures that an Army in retrograde is worth 2x1 vs an Army conducting defense in depth 5x1. So when you take into account military doctrine--The Western Allies had the harder row to hoe.

 

Mosquito said  I do not think that Japan could have help to conquer Russia. First one needs to know geography and terrain, not to mention very ill equipped Japan army. Russia is the biggest country on earth, from the pacific shores to Moscow are thousands miles of Siberia and its harsh climate, not to mention only one railway. There was no Japan tank that could have fight against Russian tanks and there was no such tank that could go thousands of miles. Going from Pacific even to Ural was for Japan impossible logistically

 

Wrong again chum--See Japan didn't have to take all of Russia just blockade them and seize the costal land-Preventing land lease from the US getting in.

You lack strategic vision

 

Mosquito said  And remember that Russians did fight against Japanese but it is hard to call it a fight. In 1938 and 1939 Russians and Japanese fought 2 major battles, both ended in bloody defeat of Japan army. Japan army was simply poor.

 

Really more exaggeration on your part, look at the true KIA/WIA figures not the exaggerated Russian ones. Your first Major Battle was  the Battle of Lake Khasan  in 38- It was a bloody battle (sarcastic) the Japanese lost a whole 526 soldiers, and The Russians lost 727 wow.

 

 

At the battle of Battle of Khalkhin Golthe Soviets had 22,000 causalities (aprox 8,000 dead 14,000 wounded) vs Japans 18,000 (aprox 9,000 dead, 9,000 wounded)

Now lets look at the initial strength of both Armies.

Russia had 57,000 soldiers, 500 tanks, 250 airplanes

Japan had 38,000 soldiers, 135 tanks, 250 airplanes

So the Japanese were at a numerical disadvantage yet inflicted more casualties.

 

Mosquito said  Even western front wasnt so easy for the allies, considering their superiority in the air and in numbers

 

Well duh, do you nothing of military doctrine. There is a huge difference in fighting a demoralized Army in retrograde in open plains, vs fighting a well dug in Army defending thier Homeland. WAKE UP!!!!

 

Mosquito said And if I was american i wouldnt try to mention Africa, after this what US army presented in the battle of Kasserine pass.

 

 

Yeah, I agree everyone has a bad battle--I explained the background for this earlier.

 

Look buddy I have been in Combat (3 times in fact) You are a arm chair general who is simply anti American. Argue with numbers, facts and not exaggerations. Once again American is in CAPS

 



Edited by Maximus Germanicus - 14-May-2010 at 01:51
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 01:58
Originally posted by Mosquito

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

Don't get me wrong I am a huge Wehrmacht fan- I think they were good troops, It was the German General staff that was poor. It was easy for them to beat up on Poland and France. Heck the Poles used Lancers to face a mechanized army. The French were still using WW1 equipment, what did the Benelux countries have-- nothing. The German beat up on paper tigers.

 

When facing modern mech forces the German general staff failed to adapt. (The also failed in Russia, By all rights Moscow should have fallen)

 

When Patton defeated Rommel in 43 his comment was "what a waste of good infantry"  The German army could not adapt. They were drunk with victory over paper tigers and their leaders had a sense of invulnerability based on early victories ( they were functionally fixated and rigid)

 
 
Your history and military knowledge is limited to Hollywood movies. I laugh when I read such nuissences. Intelligent and educated person usually avoids to write about things in which is complete ignorant. But im also a fan of "Patton" movie.
 

And you sir lack proper grammar. Further if you would actually read Patton’s AB you would see that my quotes come from his book not TV. I think that your blatant anti Americanism is annoying. I find people like you resort to name calling when they can't support their arguments with facts.

 

Before you say someone lacks Military Knowledge it is best to understand their background first, you just made another baseless claim you can't back up.

 

However, you did impress me with your ignorance and exaggerations. I think you should take your own advice "Intelligent and educated person usually avoids to write about things in which is complete ignorant", you are ignorant of all things military. Oh and also Intelligent and educated persons know to put American in CAPS and spell out  I am or use an apostrophe.

 

When you can give me all the operational equations for force on force combat to include force multipliers we can start talking about military operations.

 

When you can give me all the operational equations for force on force combat to include force multipliers we can start talking about military operations.

But until then you simply spout of numbers like amateurs do--Numbers do not paint the picture. If you understood the difference between the linear battle field the Soviets had and the ease of resupply vs logistics over the shore the US had to deal with you would gain greater insight into war.

 



Edited by Maximus Germanicus - 14-May-2010 at 02:07
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 03:14

Crptic it is a fact that Russian winter halted the German offensive. It was the Winter that beat them not the Russains. A full half of German KIA were non combat related. Further when The Russians began an Offense it was against a demoralized Army.  Further the Russian never really outfought the Germans they just threw numbers at them. The Germans lost more so than the Russains won due to poor planning on the German staff.

Below are some sources I will cite.
 

In the central sector on the 4 December 1941 the Army Group Centre continues its advance on Moscow, particularly in the area of Tula, South of the capital. But the next night brings the great frost thirty five degrees below zero.

 

The tanks will not start, the guns will not fire and thousands of men suffer from frostbite. The following day the 5 December the German offensive stalls in front of Moscow, due to lack of equipment combined with the terrible winter conditions and the Russians launch a general counter- offensive all along the front, especially on the Moscow front.

  

By the 11 December 1941 the Russians announce the liberation of 400 places in the Moscow area and the destruction of 17 German divisions, including seven armoured and three motorised divisions. Hitler announces the end of the winter campaign against Russia, Operation Barbarossa has ended in failure.

 

On the 20 December 1941 Josef Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister makes a broadcast an appeal for warm clothing for German soldiers serving in Russia.

 

Albert Speer recalled:

 

“We were quite happy about the success of the German Armies in Russia and the first inkling that something is wrong was when Goebbels made a big action in the whole of Germany to collect furs and winter clothes for the German troops, and then we knew that something was happening that was not foreseen.”

The World at War by Richard Holmes published by Ebury Press 2007.

 

According to Glantz by early December, the temperatures,[54] dropped as low as twenty to fifty below zero. Freezing German troops, who still had no winter clothing, and German vehicles, which were not designed for such severe weather. More than 130,000 cases of frostbite were reported among German soldiers.[35] Frozen grease had to be removed from every loaded shell[35] and vehicles had to be heated for hours before use.

The Axis offensive on Moscow stopped. As Guderian wrote in his journal, "the offensive on Moscow failed…. We underestimated the enemy's strength, as well as his size and climate. Fortunately, I stopped my troops on 5 December, otherwise the catastrophe would be unavoidable."[55]

We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down
— Hitler

Hitler was overconfident due to his rapid success in Western Europe, as well as the Red Army's ineptitude in the Winter War. He expected victory in a few months and did not prepare for a war lasting into the winter; troops lacked adequate clothing. He hoped a quick victory against the Red Army would encourage Britain to accept peace terms.

In preparation for the attack, Hitler moved 3.2 million men to the Soviet border, launched many aerial surveillance missions over Soviet territory, and stockpiled vast amounts of material in the East. Yet the Soviets were still taken by surprise. This has mostly to do with Stalin's unshakeable belief that the Third Reich was unlikely to attack only two years after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He also was convinced the Nazis would probably finish their war with Britain before opening a new front. Despite repeated warnings from his intelligence services, Stalin refused to give them full credence, fearing the information to be British misinformation designed to spark a war between the Nazis and the USSR. The German government also aided in this deception. They told Stalin that the troops were being moved to bring them out of range of British bombers. They also explained that they were trying to trick the British into thinking they were planning to attack the Soviet Union, while in fact the troops and supplies were being stockpiled for an invasion of Britain. It has been established that communist spy Dr. Richard Sorge gave Stalin the exact launch date; also Swedish cryptanalysts led by Arne Beurling knew the date beforehand. As a result of all this Stalin's preparations against a possible German invasion in 1941 were halfhearted.

Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa

The main cause of German failure was faulty logistical planning. The objectives of Operation Barbarossa were quite unrealistic from the very beginning. The start of the war was the most favorable for Germans, as they took the Russians by surprise and destroyed a large part of the Soviet army in the first weeks. When these favorable conditions gave way to harsh conditions of the fall and winter they failed. Viktor Suvorov in his book "Suicide" has argued that, even if the Germans had met no resistance at all, their troops still could not have moved fast enough to meet the objectives of Operation Barbarossa on time.

This was well understood by the German supply units even before the operation, but their warnings were disregarded. The entire German planning was based on the premise that within five weeks the German troops would have attained full strategic freedom due to a complete collapse of the Red Army. Only then would it have been possible to diverge all logistic support to the fuel requirements of the few mobile units needed to occupy the defeated state. However, they had underestimated the primary mobilisation size of the Red Army by half. Early August new armies had taken the place of the destroyed ones. This fact alone implied the failure of Operation Barbarossa, for the Germans now had to limit their operations for a month to bring up new supplies, leaving only six weeks to complete the battle before the start of the mud season, an impossible task.

And even if the Germans had fulfilled the original plan, i.e. reached the Arkhangelsk-Volga line, it probably would not have ended the war. The Soviet Union still had vast reserves and industrial bases in Ural and Siberia, so the war could have continued for a long time.

There were also many minor causes, such as the cold and mud, but they all stem from the Germans' unrealistic assumption that they could finish the war during the summer.

German troops were mostly unprepared for the brutal Russian cold. Germans were not equipped with adequate cold-weather gear, and some soldiers had to pack newspapers into their jackets to stay warm. To operate furnaces and heaters, the Germans also burned precious fuel that was difficult to re-supply.

German infantry and tanks stormed 300 miles ahead in the first week, but their supply lines struggled to keep up. Russian railroads could at first not be used due to a difference in railway gauge. The result was a game of catch-up: a surge across the abyss, and then a wait for supplies. The long convoys of slow-moving vehicles were also favorite targets of Soviet guerrillas. Low on oil, Hitler diverted his troops south from their drive to Moscow and into Ukraine, where they seized economic capitals, like Kiev, Donetsk, and numerous oil fields. There, the troops waited for supplies to catch up, bringing winter ever closer.

That autumn, the terrain slowed the Wehrmacht’s progress and eventually brought them to a stop. The ground in Russia was either a very loose sand in the summer, a sticky muck in the fall, or an impassable snow during the winter. In the autumn, when the Wehrmacht resumed their march on Moscow, their tanks, infantry transports, supply trucks, and other wheeled vehicles were paralyzed in the thick mud. The German tanks, which were not designed for cold climates, had narrow treads that gave little traction in the mud.

Weapons also were in terrible shape. To load shells into a tank’s main gun, frozen grease had to be chipped off with a knife. Automatic guns only fired one shot at a time. Only grenades worked properly, and when soldiers could actually pull out the pins, they were a favorite method for suicide.

Supply lines struggled through the harsh Russian terrain — paths were few, railroads could not be easily used because the gauge was different than that in Western Europe. Although the army powered ahead at first, supply lines stuggled to keep up and were lightly guarded. Trucks, especially those that broke down, were easy targets for guerilla forces. Lack of supplies significantly slowed down the Blitzkrieg, and the invasion often halted to wait for trucks. The gasoline needed just to make it through the muck was almost as much as the trucks could carry, making the troops’ gasoline shortage even worse.

Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 03:28
Originally posted by opuslola


It was only the stupidity of FDR, and others, that led to the final distruciton of Germany! The USA, and its allies in the West,made a very good decision, they decided that it was better that the Germans and the Soviets, destroy one another, than risk more of British, American or French, etc., lives!

Russian soldiers were merely "slavs", (slaves) or lessor humans! E.g. a lot of racisim came into play!

The Soviets actually had to black mail the USA and Britain, etc., into starting a Western front! The elimination of one of Germany's greatest generals, Rommel, etc., the very man who designed the Western Defensive wall, led to an almost easy entry into W. Europe for the allies! 


Regards,
 
I agree with a lot of your statements. I do think the Allies let the Russians take more causlities. But I don't think it was racism.
 
The Soviets helped start the war they invaded Poland they signed a non agression pact with Germany I think the wester allies simply thought the Russains were getting what the deserved. Further Stalin was as evil as Hitler, maybe even worse.
 
Since both countrues were devasted (Russia and Germany) it was a win win for the west.
 
I will give the Poles credit they had some brass ones. They went right after the invaders even with outdated equipment sometimes mounted on horseback. The also did a heck of a lot of damage to the Germans, had the Russians not attacked them from Behind the Poles could have resisited a lot longer.
 
Germany sustained relatively heavy losses, especially in vehicles and planes: Poland cost the Germans approximately the equipment of an entire armored division and 25% of its air strength.[83] As for duration, the September Campaign lasted only about one week less than the Battle of France in 1940, even though the Anglo-French forces were much closer to parity with the Germans in numerical strength and equipment.[Note 8] Furthermore, the Polish Army was preparing the Romanian Bridgehead, which would have prolonged Polish defence, but this plan was cancelled due to the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September 1939.[84] Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans. Under German occupation, the Polish army continued to fight underground, as Armia Krajowa and forest partisans – Leśni. The Polish resistance movement in World War II in German-occupied Poland was the largest resistance movement in all of occupied Europe.[85]

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

Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 08-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 171
  Quote Maximus Germanicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2010 at 03:56

My total argument can be summed up in the following points:

 

The Russian didn't beat the Germans- The Germans lost the war due to poor logistical planning an incompetent General staff and staff planners, a culture where orders could not be questioned and free thinking was not rewarded. Had the Brits been in command of the German Army (because I think they had a better General staff then the US did) they would have rolled Russia like a carpet.

 

The Allies could not have won WW2 without the US. Britain simply didn't have the industrial base to sustain the war, nor did they have the man power to invade Germany, or even the landing craft for that matter. The Russians could not have succeeded without land lease (quote from Von Ribbentrop) The Brits relied heavily in lend lease to keep their Army equipped.

 

Germany fighting on one Front with Italy still in the war would have beaten Russia. But I don't think they ever could have taken the UK. With or without US help.

 

The Allies could have won the war without Russia.

 

The US Army of the 90's was the best Army of the 20th century, no Army in history has had the overwhelming firepower and the technological gap between themselves and their opponents.

 

Top 5 Armies:

 

US circa 90-99

Germany  39-43

Israel 70's

UK 39-45

UK 14-18

 

Even today we have a huge advantage over our next closest rival China. There has never been this kind of gap except for the early years of the WW2 but if you figure the entire common wealth the UK was pretty close. Just spread out.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.