Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Did Hans count women? I'll bet he didn't, and yes, the Soviets did have women in their ranks, don't know how many, but much more than "a couple". I don't buy the 10% limit,
Women in the Soviet army often served as medics, snipers or in mortar batteries, sometimes entire companies and battalions; there were also air groups with completely female personnel. So in the ground forces they were usually not in the thickest of the fighting, but still 1st line troops, much more than any other army. There are so many references to them in both Russian and non-Russian literature that there must have been *lots* of them. I think the proportion was still quite small but, knowing the sheer size of the Soviet army, the absolute number must have been huge.
Besides formation (sometimes) of all-female units they were treated just as men, except that Soviet battalions included a gynaecologist in the medical corps. On paper at least...
Cheers, Teppo
------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)
One of the female snipers got a medal (can't remember which one, but a high one, A Hero Of Soviet Union perhaps?) for 103 kills.
Your kind of woman?
Cheers, Teppo
PS. She looked like Hannibal Lecter too.
PPS. There was also a husband and wife who were the leader/asst. leader of an assault gun. They looked very cute, smiling broadley in a tranquil grove while posing in front of their SU-122 or whatever as if it was the family Volvo.
------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)
Originally posted by Teppo Saarinen: Great page, and it showed that my memory is not completely gone yet.
Cheers, Teppo
page is cute , though it shows that women's share was pretty small in the Soviet Army. According to the data on this page we can see that 10% of total britain population was in military service at the end of WWII. I think that it can help to estimate Soviet total manpower as more than 10% of total prewar population. May be 12-15%?
I think it would be a safe to say that had war broken out between the western allies and the soviets in after the Axis surrender (say sept of 1945), the Red Army would have ground the allied armies into the ground and reached the channel.
The Soviets had vastly larger ground forces, better tanks and really, really rough troops. The westerners were used to having more of everything than the Germans, and would have to adapt to the reverse situation very quickly.
Also, the Soviets had a huge airforce, which had wrested air superiority from the Luftwaffe. They would at least have give a good account of themselves, even if the westerners might probably have gained the air battle eventually.
Look at the Chinese intervention in Korea, which was very poorly equipped compared to the Red Army. Still, it completely routed the american troops. The Red Army, surely, would not have fared worse.
The only glimmer of hope for the west would have been the A-bomb. That is a pretty big equaliser, but the Soviet production centers would have been out of range from US long range bombers, so even that might not have been enough to win the war for the west.
Of course, had the war begun directly after the German surrender, then Soviet superiority would have been absolute. A deal with Japan would have been reached in no time to keep them tying up US forces, and the A-bomb was still not ready... It would have been a massacre.
[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited February 15, 2001).]
Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Patton, no matter how brilliant, was also a little "crazy". What makes you think a smaller US army, with weak tanks, would have any more success against the Soviets than the larger Germany army, with Tigers and Panthers, had? US manpower wasn't unlimited, and a fight with the Soviets would be a massive war of attrition, just as its fight with the Wehrmacht was. The Soviets proved, at an incredible price, that they can win a war of attrition with anyone.
Well made points,
But the allied airforce comes in very handy here, the fireflies sure as hell do a lot to level Tank battalion. Bomber Command, Carpet bombing Russian ground forces will make devastating holes and drops in moral in the Russian lines, and I am quite sure the Allies would allow the Luftwaffe to enter the affray. Jet engined fighters, I do not recall a Russian Jet fighter, could be wrong here, dunno?. The Allied Airforce superiority would do more than a great deal to even the odds against the Russian numerical advantage.
Do you believe that the Allies would'nt enlist the remainder of the Wermacht into its OOB, Do you also think that the Allies would'nt use the German Tank designs or improved versions of them in there ordinance? I feel comfident that they would.
If Patton had been allowed his wish I think all efforts would have been placed on the rebuilding of German armaments Factorys, and quite a few were in fact still operational at the end of the war, within just a few months I think the Russians would be back in Poland.
Just my 2 penny's worth.
The StratMan.
Originally posted by Vaxman2: Didn't Patton want to re-equip the Germans to help fight the Russians? Maybe he knew the U.S. didn't have enough manpower to face the Russians alone..
Ah, I should have known someone would also mention this.
Strat.
Originally posted by StratMan: within just a few months I think the Russians would be back in Poland.
Just my 2 penny's worth.
The StratMan.
it seems that I have something to say at least. can't take it anymore
Stratman,
you have a rich phantasy, but you should look at facts. All russian opperation of 1944-45 show that they were very good students of Germans. So they had very high experience in mobile warfare and huge army that had just broke the bloody neck of the former most powerful military machine. Soviet army of 1945 was not that "incompetent mob" commanded by politicans and idiots in the beginning. The best commanders were in the general staff and in the front line, the use of tanks was totaly changed. It was highly mobile and experienced army with toughest tanks and war economy working at the fullest.
And look now at western army. With higher odds which they had they still used linear tactic of WWI.(look at struggle for Italy).
They had total air and naval supperiority and never tried to used it at full(except of course that barbarian air raids on Dresden and other civil objects). Weak remnants of German army(without air supperiority!!!) had wreaked havoc in Ardennes in the victorious lines of american troops which were thinking that they are marching on Berlin already.
Only Soviet offencive,good weather and very poor german resources helped to survive that crisis. And you still imagine that this army could have some good odds agains russians? pah...cool down a bit
P.S. may be I am kind of emotional guy.. No offence meaned to all you respectfull guys.
P.P.S. Bad English always hinders me to reflect my thoughts perfectly espetialy when I have much to say.
[This message has been edited by Mist (edited February 15, 2001).]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yogi Yohan: I think it would be a safe to say that had war broken out between the western allies and the soviets in after the Axis surrender (say sept of 1945), the Red Army would have ground the allied armies into the ground and reached the channel.
The Soviets had vastly larger ground forces, better tanks and really, really rough troops. The westerners were used to having more of everything than the Germans, and would have to adapt to the reverse situation very quickly.
Also, the Soviets had a huge airforce, which had wrested air superiority from the Luftwaffe. They would at least have give a good account of themselves, even if the westerners might probably have gained the air battle eventually.
Look at the Chinese intervention in Korea, which was very poorly equipped compared to the Red Army. Still, it completely routed the american troops. The Red Army, surely, would not have fared worse.
The only glimmer of hope for the west would have been the A-bomb. That is a pretty big equaliser, but the Soviet production centers would have been out of range from US long range bombers, so even that might not have been enough to win the war for the west.
Of course, had the war begun directly after the German surrender, then Soviet superiority would have been absolute. A deal with Japan would have been reached in no time to keep them tying up US forces, and the A-bomb was still not ready... It would have been a massacre.
--------------------------------------------
You mention the Russians as having a massive airforce, Hmmm, I do not think the attack would have come imeadiately
, maybe six weeks after the Germany's defeat. I really think that the Russian airforce could/would have been ground down in just a few weeks, The allied fighters were far more durable and overall more manouvrable than the Russian counterparts.
A massacre you say, no I think not and here is why.-
1, When Germany invaded Russia in 1941 it was for several reasons, one of these reasons was that Hitler hoped that the rest of Europe would join him in fighting the Russian's. this did in fact happen to a small degree, ie, non German volunteers.
2, Poland, I am not sure about this but, would Poland not have arose as partisans and done no small amount of damage to the Russian supply lines once they realized that the Allies were not going to simply abandom them to there fate under Russia, but instead fight for there freedom, inciteful isn't it, I suspect that more than half of the countries occupied by Russia really and truthfully did not want comunism as there Government, and certainly did not want to be a part of greater Russia. It was only after the west abandoned them that allowed mistrust to set in against the western allies, effectively playing right into Stalin's hands
The Wermacht would have been the first to enlist in the Allied OOB, what of the french, they had manpower at hand, I think that in excess of fifty new divisions could have been fielded very quickly, and all of them would have already had battle experiance, simply from all the remaining heavy equipment that the German armed forces surrendered to the Allies and all the captured equipement that the Allies took prior to the end of the war.
That gives more than enough strengh in numbers to man the lines north to south, indeed in numbers we are talking at least doulble the amount that Hitler could field against the Russians just 12 months prior to the wars end. If you do not think that this would have been enough then also think of this, Pattens Army would also be well equiped with artillery and fairly well mobile, Backed up with a superior Airforce I think that the Russians would have there hands full, BIG TIME.
One other thing, a question really, how long do you all think that it would take to re-rout all the Merchants into bringing in the additional supply's that would be required for such an offensive operation, consider the fact that they would now be unaposed?
The StratMan.
----------------------------------------
Einstein rules relativity, well in theory at least.....
[This message has been edited by StratMan (edited February 15, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by StratMan (edited February 15, 2001).]
it seems that I have something to say at least. can't take it anymore
Stratman,
you have a rich phantasy, but you should look at facts. All russian opperation of 1944-45 show that they were very good students of Germans. So they had very high experience in mobile warfare and huge army that had just broke the bloody neck of the former most powerful military machine. Soviet army of 1945 was not that "incompetent mob" commanded by politicans and idiots in the beginning. The best commanders were in the general staff and in the front line, the use of tanks was totaly changed. It was highly mobile and experienced army with toughest tanks and war economy working at the fullest.
---------------------------------------------
Yep, I agree with this.
Qoute
And look now at western army. With higher odds which they had they still used linear tactic of WWI.(look at struggle for Italy).
They had total air and naval supperiority and never tried to used it at full(except of course that barbarian air raids on Dresden and other civil objects). Weak remnants of German army(without air supperiority!!!) had wreaked havoc in Ardennes in the victorious lines of american troops which were thinking that they are marching on Berlin already.
--------------------------------------------
Hmmm. It is my understanding that an awful lot of the troops in this sector were green Divisions with little or no combat experiance up against the best that Germany could field.
quote.
Only Soviet offencive,good weather and very poor german resources helped to survive that crisis.
---------------------------------------------
Yep, I agree with this also, however even without the Russian offensive I believe the Ardeenes offensive was doomed before it started.
quote.
And you still imagine that this army could have some good odds agains russians? pah...cool down a bit
P.S. may be I am kind of emotional guy.. No offence meaned to all you respectfull guys.
P.P.S. Bad English always hinders me to reflect my thoughts perfectly espetialy when I have much to say.
---------------------------------------------
No offence taken, have you read my last post, I would be very interested to know your views.
The StratMan.
---------------------------------------------
Einstein rules relativity, well in theory at least....
Originally posted by StratMan:
The Wermacht would have been the first to enlist in the Allied OOB, what of the french, they had manpower at hand, I think that in excess of fifty new divisions could have been fielded very quickly, and all of them would have already had battle experiance, simply from all the remaining heavy equipment that the German armed forces surrendered to the Allies and all the captured equipement that the Allies took prior to the end of the war.
such a good *theory*! But just how do you imagine this army? French hating germans(to which they so miserably surrendered in 1940), poor remnants of german army tired of the war, and US/British troops which are expecting that the war is over. Funy, very funy! As for the air superiority, it is just just hard to say as who is stronger: elephant or the whale(rhytorical question, so do not bother answering it)
And the last arguement of US would be A-Bomb. Ok! Nuke-em out! Nuke out whole Europe!
and what's then?? who will pay for bills? all Marshals plan just goes to the hell. And all easy earned money will follow it there. The purpose of the each war is a peace which would be better(even from your own point of view) that the peace before the war. Would it be in the discussed case? I doubt. And politicans of 1945 did understand it very well.
[This message has been edited by Mist (edited February 15, 2001).]
Stratman, if I understood you correctly the factors you belive would tilt the balance in favour of the Allies are:
1) Active resistance in the Soviet occupied countries.
2)The remanant Wehrmacht forces would join the Allies.
3)The Allied Air Force was so strong it would quickly win the air battle and decide the conflict.
4)Additonal forces would be mobilised by French and other european nations to combat the threat.
Is this correct?
To answer your points in order;
1) Partisans failed to have any great effect against the Germans (except in Russia) so there is no reason to think that they would be more effective against the Soviets.
2)Perhaps, but in 1945 the Wehrmacht was a shadow of its former self, hardly much to tilt the balance between Soviets and Allies.
3)The Soviets were used to fight an enemy with superior fighters and training. They defeated the Luftwaffe through massive numbers and insensitivty to losses. I belive as you do that the allies would eventually have won the air battle, but before that the Red Air Force would have had time to cause great damage and deny air superiority to the allies. Meanwhile, the land battle would be decided.
4)It takes time to raise, equip and train new units, time the allies would not have when facing the Soviet behemoth. The stocks of captured weapons were not that big either, France operated a few Panther batallions after the war, but not more.
Note also that I'm talking about the initial phase of the war, which I belive the Soviets would win and advance to the English channel. What happens then is anybodys guess, but in the very long run I suppose the Allies would have prevailed, with A-bombs and a healthier economy. But the first round, the battle for the continent would have gone to Russia, no doubt about that, and especially so if Japan was still fighting by the time the new war begun.
1) Partisans failed to have any great effect against the Germans (except in Russia) so there is no reason to think that they would be more effective against the Soviets.
-------------------
Well I agree with this to a point, but the resistance did a lot of damage and caused huge confusion on the 5th and 6th of June 1944, causing a great deal of havoc to the German supply lines and taking many combat ready men and equipment from the beachheads.
2)Perhaps, but in 1945 the Wehrmacht was a shadow of its former self, hardly much to tilt the balance between Soviets and Allies.
-------------------
I agree again to an extent. But surely fifty Divisions could have been put together from this shadow, I do not know the figures but I am sure Germany had still an Army of some 600,000 at the end, posible more, There was on the other hand still a great deal of very good and experienced General staff available for the Allies to use.
3)The Soviets were used to fight an enemy with superior fighters and training. They defeated the Luftwaffe through massive numbers and insensitivty to losses. I belive as you do that the allies would eventually have won the air battle, but before that the Red Air Force would have had time to cause great damage and deny air superiority to the allies. Meanwhile, the land battle would be decided.
--------------------------------
Not sure I can add to this.
4)It takes time to raise, equip and train new units, time the allies would not have when facing the Soviet behemoth. The stocks of captured weapons were not that big either, France operated a few Panther batallions after the war, but not more.
---------------------------------------
Agreed, I did mention that the Allied were not in an imeadiate position to start an offensive against Russia,I thought I also said that the offensive could not have happenned for at least six weeks after the end of the war. As far as a large proportion of the German POW's are concerned, there are already trained and battle hardenned, I did'nt mention German Panzers as captured weapons, but stocks of artillery pieces instead. Even at the end of the comflict Germany had many factory's that were operational and many more that could have been put in good order within six weeks. it is 1:30 am here I am tired from far to many hours work and less than half the amount of sleep I need for over a week now, but I sure that I said "firefly" in another post while referring to aircraft, what was the famous US fighter bomber that was used highly sucessfully as an anti-tank platform, this aircraft and others would account for a great deal of Russian AFV's in the first few weeks, whether or not it would be enough to at least equal the balance of AFV's is debateable, but the B-17 is not. used on advanced unentrenched land units in a carpet bombing raid would be devasting, and no one can deny that they could also hold there own against enemy fighters.
qoute.
Note also that I'm talking about the initial phase of the war, which I belive the Soviets would win and advance to the English channel. What happens then is anybodys guess, but in the very long run I suppose the Allies would have prevailed, with A-bombs and a healthier economy. But the first round, the battle for the continent would have gone to Russia, no doubt about that, and especially so if Japan was still fighting by the time the new war begun.
---------------------------------
I am also talking about the initial phase of the war. nobody has yet come forward with an answer to how long it would take to re-direct the merchant fleet to suplying Europe instead of the Russians, I think six to eight weeks would be sufficient.
I think that this would make for an excellant game, there has been some very interesting thoughts in the posts, but you do realize that I am talking hyperthetically (spelling), don't you, I also mean no offence to anyone, just find alternate history an interesting study.
The StratMan.
--------------------------------------
No Mist,
It is "Nuke-em to they glow shoot them in the dark and let God sort it out in the end."
First off TO MIST.
A person, Company, organization, or Nation. CAN ONLY HAVE THE ETHICS IT CAN AFFORD. There is not a person on this planet,(barring the compeletly insane) even if he decides he is bad, that does not have some sence of what is right and what is wrong. America in 1945 was a very strong country and could afford to have a certain amount of ethical point of view. That view being freedom. It is easier for America to have that point of view because of our great ecominics. Once that problem is out of the way. It becomes far easier to express your point of views on the world.
We did not fight this war for ecomonic reasons. We fought this war because we were attacked by the Japaness.
We didn't fight a war with Germany because of ecomonics reason. We fought a war with them, because on Dec. 8 1941 Hitler declared war on us.
Once those things happen. This country, who could afford to have a good ethical point of view, begun to exert it on the world and has, ever since. This Country in which we Americas live in, was founded on certain principals, that all people have certain inalienable rights. That all people are created equal. All men, be they Russains, Poles, Czechs, Hungarian, Rumainians, East Germans and any other occupied country the Commies decided to enslave for there own purposes, had those rights. Granted PR has gotten a bad name. But there is good PR and there is bad PR and there is Black PR. Good PR has no lies in it. Offers the indiviual to come look and see for himself if there is truth to what is presented before him. Over time we have (at least, most) becomed adept at spotting Bad PR. Black PR is Filled with lies, and and hides the truth from the individual. Seeks to cause harm, on fame and person ( or state, Company, Organization, or Nation). It's very nature is of a covert means of destroying.
Patton than, was a man who was brought up on theses principals. And like so many Americans back than, believed in them. Towards the end of the war, he wanted to enter Czechoslovakia because of there cries for help over a radio broadcast he had intercepted, but was deny by Allied Supreme Command, to do so. He chump at the bit to stop the Russains from occuping other countries. Not because of PR or Just because he as a warrior. But because he thought, what the Commies were up to, was wrong and he wanted to stop it. He was right.
He was a man who, like most of us, did not want to see evil men doing evil things. That is inherintly right.
I agree with your point on Russain operational doctrine. Towards the end of the war they had the superior Doctrine. The Germans either wouldn't, more like couldn't, match the way the Russains begun structing their Armies, especally their tank Armies.
A German Corps consisted, in most cases of two to four division plus army assets when avalible. Russain Armies starting in mid 1943 consisted of 2 to 3 tank or mech corps and up 10 infantry divisions plus Front assists. The mere size of these formation is one indiction of their thoughts on operational doctine. And they used them in a skillful manner that found the Germans woefully out number at the point of impact. Truly the Russains rewrote the book on mobile warfare. I won't agure that point with you on this one.
Lend-Lease: Let me give you some figure on lend-lease that always seems to up end up missing from most of the Post I see here and on the other forums. This is from the WWII Encyclopedia Volume #8. Chapter 82 "Balance of strength". Subheading "Lend lease Materiel..." Pg 1092 to 1093. Written By Lt. Col. Eddy Bauer.
"There was more to come, and this would be more important. It is true that the arms sent under the lend-lease agreement totalled only ten or perhaps 15 percent of those manufactured in Russia, but can it really be believed that the Soviet war production
could have reached these record figures that the Communist historians boast of today, and with good reason, without massive imports of explosives and strategic raw materials as we call them today? Actually, without relaxing their own armaments programmes, the British Americans, and Canadians supplied the Soviet Union with:
218,000 tons of various explosives
1,200,000 tons of stell
170,000 tons of aluminium
217,000 tons of copper
29,000 tons of tin
6,500 tons of nickel
48,000 tons of lead
42,000 tons of zinc
103,000 tons of rubber
93,000 tons of jute
"Finally, under the industrial heading can be added 26,000 machine-tools and from the United States. 1,045 locomotives and 8,260 wagons, built especially for the Soviet Union's broad gauge railways."
In the post on all forums I have seen, I never see these figure ever brought up. Thought I would bring this to light.
[This message has been edited by Rover1gp (edited February 16, 2001).]
It is strange how history is changed as we go. I just finished the book Russia's War By Richard Overy. In the book he gives the following which are different from yours:
Copper: 339,599 Tons
Aluminium: 261,311 tons
Explosives: 325,784 tons
Also he gives the following
Aircraft (all types): 14,203 amazing!
Tanks: 6,196
Trucks: 363,080
Telephone wire: 956,688 (miles) wow!
this is on pg. 196
Another thing the Lend-Lease did was supply 56.6 percent of all rails used for trains and over 1900 locomotives. Soviets could only build 92 locomotives themselves, and 1,087 cars compared to the Lend-lease of 11,075 train cars.
On a side note the letters stenciled on the Studebaker Trucks "USA" was translated in Russian to "Ubit sukinasyna Adolfa" - to kill that son-of-bitch adolf!"
Anyway the numbers certainly change as you read different books.
It is a good book that is very good reading goes into lots of politics and operational warfare.
here is the info:
Russia's War
Richard Overy
A Penguin Book
ISBN:0-14-027169-4
1998
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." <br />-Adolf Hitler
"Also, the Soviets had a huge air force, which had wrested air superiority from the Luftwaffe. They would at least have give a good account of themselves, even if the westerners might probably have gained the air battle eventually."
Have to say something on this quote.
The Russians did not destroyed the German air force simple fact. That job was mostly the US and UK.
The Russians still had many major issues of using Airpower to support ground operations in 1945. Mostly in the execution phase.
All else aside the US and British Fighters and Bombers would have cleared the sky's of Russian aircraft quickly, considering a vast number of Russian planes were old Allied planes to begin with. The P51 was unmatched in any Theater and the US had plenty of them and 4 years of experience to man them. The Spitfires and Typhoons and etc etc where so far ahead of the Russians in Communications Radar, Tactics that the fight would be over quickly.
Here are some aircraft numbers for Europe all types.
December 1944 UK: 14,500 US: 12,200 USSR: 15,800
I don't think the Russians could contend with an almost 2:1 odds with an Enemy that has far better air superiority fighters, bombers and tactics.
As far as the ground battle goes I am sure the Russians would have rolled over the Allies at first but I don't think they would have made the channel. From all of my reading on Stalin (and it is a lot) do you think for one moment if Stalin thought he could do it successfully he would not have? The Russian army was damn tired and would have lost a major morale drop to attack the Allies. They had fought Germany hard because they hated them to the core. But to ask them to start a brand new war with the very ones they have been told were their Allies would not go over well even under their harsh regime. Also Stalin knew all about the US and the A-Bomb and how close they were to finishing it. He also knew they would have no problem removing Moscow or hitting Russian forces with it Germany and no moral problems with it either. He had all intentions of taking Europe but knew he had to wait. To think the Allied armies where that big of a pushover I think is a sad thing to say and incorrect. I don't take anything from the fact that Russia defeated the German army but the Allies (and when I say Allies I mean the free world US UK Canada Australia etc.) fought hard and learned their lessons to. To mention even in a off set way that they were a second rate force would be wrong in more then one way.
"Look at the Chinese intervention in Korea, which was very poorly equipped compared to the Red Army. Still, it completely routed the American troops. The Red Army, surely, would not have fared worse."
They routed them for a bit true but they quickly regrouped and started defeating the Chinese quickly. And would have beat them if the cease-fire did not occur.
[This message has been edited by tsbond (edited February 15, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by tsbond (edited February 15, 2001).]
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." <br />-Adolf Hitler
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tsbond: It is strange how history is changed as we go. I just finished the book Russia's War By Richard Overy. In the book he gives the following which are different from yours:
Copper: 339,599 Tons
Aluminium: 261,311 tons
Explosives: 325,784 tons
Also he gives the following
Aircraft (all types): 14,203 amazing!
Tanks: 6,196
Trucks: 363,080
Telephone wire: 956,688 (miles) wow!
Man you got that right. I was just thinking about that earilier after I wrote my last post. It is the problem with History and histroians. We have to find sources that can be consider trustworthy and go from there. records help for sure. Sometime eye witness accounts help but are not always trustworthy. And Unforunately there are bias people out there with very "fixed Ideas" about history. Or their own prefered Ideas about histroy. Still most of what is avalible is exstenive. And many sources agree with each other. I.E stragetic raw materials to Russia. How must for sure was actually sent there is questionable. But We can both Agree that the material was sent.
[This message has been edited by Rover1gp (edited February 16, 2001).]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tsbond:
[B
As far as the ground battle goes I am sure the Russians would have rolled over the Allies at first but I don't think they would have made the channel. From all of my reading on Stalin (and it is a lot) do you think for one moment if Stalin thought he could do it successfully he would not have? The Russian army was damn tired and would have lost a major morale drop to attack the Allies. They had fought Germany hard because they hated them to the core. But to ask them to start a brand new war with the very ones they have been told were their Allies would not go over well even under their harsh regime. Also Stalin knew all about the US and the A-Bomb and how close they were to finishing it. He also knew they would have no problem removing Moscow or hitting Russian forces with it Germany and no moral problems with it either. He had all intentions of taking Europe but knew he had to wait. To think the Allied armies where that big of a pushover I think is a sad thing to say and incorrect. I don't take anything from the fact that Russia defeated the German army but the Allies (and when I say Allies I mean the free world US UK Canada Australia etc.) fought hard and learned their lessons to. To mention even in a off set way that they were a second rate force would be wrong in more then one way.
I agree with you about the American fighting man. I think he was as good as any soldier. As Dogged on defense as the Russian, I.E. 28th infantry division's fighting against the 5th Panzer Army during the 1944 German winter Offensive. And was capable of taking the Initiative as the Germans.
There Are those who will tell you, or imply that the American soldier was a second rate fighting man. (And granted there were times that the American soldiers did not give a good accounting of themselves. But they remained few.)Most of those people who would imply or say those sorts of things are probable not from this country.
In the end the American fighting man won the war in the Pacific and the Battles in Europe.
If I were in the war back than, I would rather have fought against the Germans instead of the Japaness.
Originally posted by StratMan: Well made points,
But the allied airforce comes in very handy here, the fireflies sure as hell do a lot to level Tank battalion. Bomber Command, Carpet bombing Russian ground forces will make devastating holes and drops in moral in the Russian lines, and I am quite sure the Allies would allow the Luftwaffe to enter the affray. Jet engined fighters, I do not recall a Russian Jet fighter, could be wrong here, dunno?. The Allied Airforce superiority would do more than a great deal to even the odds against the Russian numerical advantage.
Do you believe that the Allies would'nt enlist the remainder of the Wermacht into its OOB, Do you also think that the Allies would'nt use the German Tank designs or improved versions of them in there ordinance? I feel comfident that they would.
If Patton had been allowed his wish I think all efforts would have been placed on the rebuilding of German armaments Factorys, and quite a few were in fact still operational at the end of the war, within just a few months I think the Russians would be back in Poland.
Just my 2 penny's worth.
The StratMan.
And the Soviets didn't have an air force? You are too confident here. The Soviet's had a huge airforce, although not as good as the air forces in the West, but some of their planes like the Yak-3 were really good, and they had a lot of veteren pilots. Western air power might prevail after a protracted struggle for air supremacy, but it would still have been very rough for the Western Allies, and complete freedom for attack aircraft would remain impossible for quite some time, meaning no uncontested carpet-bombing of Soviet troops.
As for the Fireflies, the first battalion of IS-II they ran into would have ruined their day.
What Luftwaffe? Your forgetting we went to an aweful lot of trouble to destroy the Luftwaffe before hostilities ceased, and half or more of what was left, including examples of the Me-262, was now in *Soviet* hands. The jet fighters wouldn't have an impact on this fight anyway, unless you're thinking of a war lasting several years. There were few of them, the factories producing them were German, so we don't know how much of the Me-262 production facilities were controlled by the Soviets. Same problem with German tank designs, the fighting would likely be over before anyone could take advantage of these, and more than likely the Soviets would have found some of the examples of new German designs, like the Maus (which they did get their hands on). You seem to be forgetting that half of Germany was already in Soviet hands, and a majority of the Wehrmacht was facing the Soviets at the time of surrender, so most of the Wehrmacht surrendered to the Soviets, and wouldn't be available to help us.
I have to go with Yogi on this one. The Soviet Steam Roller would end up working just as well on the Western Allies as it worked on the Wehrmacht. As for Stalin, he and/or his advisors may very well have believed they could drive the Western Allies to the English Channel, the one thing that probably stopped them from trying was the A-bomb.
[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 16, 2001).]
