The amount of Soviet Spuads

[Teppo Saarinen]

Originally posted by amatteucci:
According to Krivosheev ultimately the Red Army mobilized a total of 29,574,900 people, the overall figure including also the Navy etc. rises to 34,476,700.

Amedeo

Christ Almighty. So that makes for an even smaller figure, 2.3%. Yup, seems that only those who really wanted to fight did so.

Cheers, Teppo


------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

[Teppo Saarinen]

Originally posted by StratMan:

Stratman, you have to remember that the 3 major allies had had their meeting at Jalta. So it was all decided long before the war ended - who would occupy what, and which countries would fall into each sides' sphere of influence.

Ever wondered why the Soviets didn't help the communist uprising in Greece, though they were just across the border in Bulgaria? Because Greece had been allocated to Britain's sphere of influence. Ever wondered why Yugoslavia got their special status after the war? Because they were the only ones to liberate themselves.

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

[Teppo Saarinen]

Originally posted by Nimits:

Another aspect of an early WWIII that no one has mentioned is the naval power. England, France, and the US would have easily established control of the waters around Russia and defeated the pathetic Russian fleet. American and British carriers would then have been free to roam the Russian coast and strike at target of opportunity, and the Allies could have conducted raids or naval invasions against a thinly held Russian coast, putting into play a wildcard that the Germans by themselves never held.

Think a bit of what you're saying. The Russian coasts? Do you know where they are?

a) The Baltic coasts, only reachable via the Danish Belts. These can be very easily mined from the air or surface, or blocked by occupation, and the Russian land forces would anyway be in Denmark before you could say "The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics". The area was practically littered with mines already, besides which it is shallow with broken coasts and good coastal fortifications. From the mouth of the Belts it is still hundreds of miles to any *Russian* coasts or any industrial targets worth striking. Plus you are all the time within striking distance of the bulk of the Soviet Air Force. I think the correct naval term for this would be "suicide".

b) The Arctic coasts. Besides the fact that it is just a small trip round the Norway away
and the nice weather conditions prevailing there, especially in winter, any TF's would be a long, long way away from their bases and again only a short way away from enemy airfields. Add to this the facts that since the lend-lease has ended there's not much worth striking there (with the exception of the nickel mines - the bombing of which would be quite ineffective) and any invasion forces would be hundreds of miles of very easily defensible terrain away from anything useful, in weather conditions which they would be unaccustomed to as much as the Russians comfortable with.

c) The Black Sea coasts. A somewhat better proposition, especially if Turkey could be drawn into the war, given the short distance to areas worth occupying. Still, in naval terms it's a pond, with Russian/occupied territory on three sides, land-based aircraft within strike distance, and only reachable via the very narrow Strait of Bosporus. The Rumanians are already fighting with the Russians, and Bulgarians could be easily made to do so.

d) The Pacific Coasts. This would be the easiest, with large Allied forces already conversant with amphibious warfare and carrier operations present. Still, what's there? Even if you establish a bridgehead, there's the small trek across the continent of Asia before you reach anything useful.
It's not exactly urban area - how large a force could the Allies supply via the single rail line (destroyed by the Russians as they withdraw)? Plus you have the Chinese and Mongols to worry about too. Everything after the initial landing favors the defender here.

The Germans had a good navy in WW2. How much
of it did they use in their primary front, against Russia? Do you think they wouldn't have built the amphibious stuff if they had thought it would have been of any use against Russia?

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

[Teppo Saarinen]

Originally posted by Rover1gp:

I'm sorry,
If I gave you or anyone the impression the I was talking about anyone from this or any other forum. My refence. WAS To those who would imply that the american soldier was a second rate soldier was directed to some Histroians who have seen fix to make small the contribution of the American Army and soldier, and place them as A second rate soldier. Anything said here in this forum is OK by me. I don't expect to see stuff published here to the general public. Than I may take some issue on it. Heck, I'm glad this forum is here and people (from where ever) are on it and commuincating ideas. It is great fun. Pradon the pun, but I feel like a real Dog.

Rover

[This message has been edited by Rover1gp (edited February 18, 2001).]

I think we may be talking a bit of a morale issue here, too. If you are sent thousands of miles away to a different continent to help out in a war you have no personal stake in at all, you are definitely not going to be nearly as keen on a heroic death than the guy who is defending his home and hearth. This of course excludes an immediate kill-or-be-killed situation where everybody regardless of nationality is basically equal, but otherwise you're just not putting in a 100% effort unless you're a fanatic.

Take a look at the Italians. Why were they so bloody awful? Because, despite all of Mussolini's pomp and circumstance, they felt they had no business going to other countries to build a New Rome, and in the end they felt that they would fare better under Allied than German occupation. And they were right too. Put an Italian in a situation where he feels he is fighting for a just cause and he'll be every bit as good as anyone else. This is why Italians were loads better against *Germans* than they ever were against the Allies, and why Italian Int. Bde units were loads better man for man than the Italian Army units in Spain.

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

[Teppo Saarinen]

Originally posted by tsbond:

The US and Britain had over 1 million men on the ground during the invasion of France. These forces fought some of the best Germany had and still came out victories with far far fewer casualties when Germany could still Field 700,000 + men. Given the point that Americans and Brits did not have to take any major cities like Berlin casualties were much fewer. Russians gave no care at all for their troops and used them stupidly to be nice. ( a quick edit to give the Canadians and all the other nations involved in the liberation of France their due credit, when I said American and Brit I was thinking all the allies.)

As far as all the talk about Ardennes and battle of the Bulge most people seem to forget or do not know that German forces hit the weakest part of the allied lines. They hit were fragmented divisions were being rebuilt and resting from frontline action. They also had complete and total surprise. And lets not forget the 101st US Airborne at Bastonge stopping the Germans in their tracks and Patton's 3rd army cutting through the Germans in couple of days to relieve them. All I can say is "Nuts"!

[This message has been edited by tsbond (edited February 18, 2001).]

What most people seem to forget is actually the proportion of the German forces in the eastern and western fronts. Anyone who cares to think further than the qualities of Pershing versus King Tiger versus IS-III will actually wonder why the Allies did so *badly*
given the amount of German forces against them, including the Bulge. The fact that they had far less to settle with the Germans makes it more understandable, however.

At the times when the Germans had real trouble in the west - immediately after D-Day
and just before the Bulge - they had to reduce their commitment in the east to 75%.

Read the above bit again. AT NO TIME DID GERMANY HAVE LESS THAN 3/4 OF HER STUFF IN THE EAST. And frequently more, usually something like 90%.

I think I'll write it down once more. Both the Allies and Soviets had huge armies fighting in Europe during the WW2. But Hitler never placed less than $7.50 on the "Russia" counter or more than $2.50 on the "Allies" counter. Then compare this to the exploits of the Allied and Soviet forces.

You can try this with the WIR scenario editor. Put the Italian and West fronts side by side, then gather all of the units from the Axis HQ's and corps counters to a few empty HQ's and compare the forces. And this of course only includes stuff represented in WIR.

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

[NEON DEON]

Moni Kerr
QUOTE:
Airforces alone do not win wars. Soviet bombers can't take punishment? Ever hear of the Sturmovick? Air superiority will take considerably longer to establish than 1 week.
On the ground the Red Army outclasses the Western armies in experience, numbers and tanks(quality and quantity). The most severe problem facing the US army is lack of units. 90 divisions in total on both fronts mean no strategic reserve. Guess what happened in the Ardennes? Eisenhower had so few formations in reserve that he had to scrape up every cook and musician he could find. Wounded were patched up and sent back as fast as possible. If the Germans had more gas it would've been a much closer fight. And the 15th Army doesn't begin to compare to 1st Belorussian front(Zhukov), 2nd Belorussian front(Rokossovsky) or 1st Ukrainian front(Konev). Altogether totaling 2.5 milllion men, 6250 tanks, 41600 artillery pieces, 3255 multiple rocket launchers and 7,500 aircraft.
Throw all the P51s you want into the fight they won't be much help when the Reds are breaking through at 7 or 8 different points, overrunning your forward airfields, and you only have enough reserves to plug one hole.
The Soviet offensive to Berlin started on April 16, Hitler killed himself on the 30th and resistance ceased on May 2nd. It didn't take 5 months.
---------------------------------------------


1) Well I have to agree that air forces alone don’t win wars. You must have a (SUPPLIED ARMY) in place and on the ground to do that. That is what Dday did in June of 44. and, yes I have heard of the Sturm. But the Sturm is an attack/dive bomber with extremely limited range not a B17 or B29 with P51 fighter escort. Range is the key here. Range makes the USAAF a strato nitemare for the soviets. Those 7500 Soviet aircraft operating from forward bases would be wiped off the map by (P51 ESCORTED) B17s operating from untouchable airbases far out of the reach of the Sturm and definitely out of escorted range of Soviet level bombers. This is the whole point of air superiority in a week. There is no place the Soviets can position their airfields to be out of range of the Mighty 8th. Well, they could but, then if they did that there would be no aircraft to defend with much less attack with thus giving the USAAF Air supremacy by default. Just on a side note here the British and American Air forces totaled 12,500 operational combat aircraft on June 6 1944 far above the 7500 Soviet aircraft.
2) The Modern US Army has always been Light when it comes to actual combat units cause it is shaped like a Triangle with the fighting arm occupying only the top portion of the triangle the rest being filled in by support and logistics.
3) Eisenhower had reserves they just weren’t in the Ardennes. And as for those cooks and musicians, they held off a much larger force of experienced German soldiers until old Blood & Guts could show up at Bastonge with the imaginary 3rd Army. Then the weather lifted which allowed the USAAF out to play.
4) The German Army would have had a much better chance if they had gas is true but they didn’t thanks to the Mighty 8ths strato campaign against the German synthetic oil industry in 1944.
5) P51s don’t operate from forward airfields and the soviet army is not going to get very far when the other side has air superiority.
6) I miss counted the months it took for the Soviet Army to finish off Berlin. The Bulge started on Dec. 16th and ended around the 25th. So it took four months to capture Berlin from the weakened German army instead of five.

[tsbond]

I don't see your point Teppo. Quality of equipment is only a small part of the big picture. I rarely compare equipment. To me the spirit and quality of your troops can overcome some if not most of the equipments short-fallings.

"The only way I've got to keep them Tiger's busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"
U.S. 3rd Armored Tank Commander, Aachen 1944

The allies made mistakes but I can not see anywhere were they did *badly*. They beat the Germans in France the Low Countries and in there own backyard with far less casualties then the Russians. When I say that I mean % wise. I believe the Russians lost 4 men to every 1 German. To where the US lost fewer then the Germans in almost every battle and still won. With a force that was equal to their own and with better equipment. Part of the 1st SS Panzer division fought at the Bulge, this was considered one of the best if not The best armor force in the world and they lost to force with less experience and equipment that should have had no chance of surviving in a one-on-one fight. The spirit and fighting ability of the American Soldiers had to be extremely high to win this encounter. Of course you still have your point on the morale (which I completely agree with) of the fight and I do not believe that the Germans nor the Americans cared to much for killing each other. They did not show the same zeal of slaughter and out right hatred that was witnessed on the Eastern Front. Which brings me to the point that I think I overstep my bounds sometimes when I try to analyze what men felt 55 years ago and would be most apologetic if some veteran was to ever read this post.

As for the % of forces 7.50 or 2.50, numbers are not very important when the two opposing forces are near equal. 1,000,000 vs. 1,200,000 or 10,000,000 10,200,000 is pretty much the same thing. just more blood and less of nations Pride that would never come home.

At the battle of the Bulge the Germans out numbered the Allies. Here are some numbers although they seem to change a bit depending on the author.
More than a million men fought in the Battle of the Bulge including some 600,000 Germans, 500,000 Americans, and 55,000 British. The German military force consisted of two Armies with ten corps(equal to 29 divisions). While the American military force consisted of a total of three armies with six corps(equal to 31 divisions). At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were as follows: 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured


Again if I did not read your post right then woe on me.....

[moni kerr]

NEON DEON:

1) You seem to think that the Red Air Force is going to sit on the ground and be destroyed. Trust me when I say they'll be up there shooting up USAAF planes while the Sturmovics are shooting up tanks. The West has the advantage in the air but it is going to take alot longer than 1 week to gain air superiority. In the meantime they are going to have to deal with massive ground assaults the like of which they have never experienced and try to stop them without the luxury of air superiority which btw they always had against the Germans. Those 7500 aircraft refer only to the 3 fronts that launched the attack on Berlin.
2)2041000 ground combat soldiers in the US army, 1598000 in the Army Service Forces. In Europe at the end of 1944 the British-American ground forces totaled 79 infantry and 33 armoured divisions or about 1.5 million ground troops. The Red Army comprised 448 infantry divisions and 48 tank corps or about 4.5 million ground troops.
3)It took all available reserves to stop 250000 Germans because there was a shortage of formations not men. That was a direct result of limiting the US Army to 90 divisions. In other words there just were not enough formations to go around. The result was that combat units spent too much time in action and not enough time in recovery.
4)Yep that campaign was quite successful. The British-American forces fought against a German army that had little fuel and no air cover. The Red Army had plenty of fuel and lots of air cover. It would take alot longer than 1 week to deprive them of both.
5)Ditto. The British-Americans are not going to get anywhere until they get air superiority. By that time they are overwhelmed on the ground and are lucky to hold the Reds on the Rhine. If they are not lucky they are back in Britain.
6)You miscounted again. On Jan 12 1945 the Soviets attacked from their positions along the Vistula river just east of Warsaw. Within the first 3 days most of the front line formations of AG Centre and AG A were either destroyed or reduced to half strength. By the 19th the two Army Groups had lost contact with eachother and 1st Ukrainian and 1st Belorussian Fronts were pouring through. By Feb 2 the Soviets had reached the Oder about 50 miles from Berlin having covered over 250 miles and finally stopping after outrunning their supplies. Between Feb 1st and March 31st they were engaged in clearing AG Vistula out of Pomerania to the north and the remnants of AG Centre from Silesia to the south. The offensive against Berlin started on April 16th. By the 25th Berlin was surrounded and the assault on the city began on the 27th. By May 2nd it was all over. How do you convert 16 days into 4 months.?

tsbond:

The American units in the Ardennes fought well despite being surprised and outnumbered. However what really defeated the Germans first was lack of fuel. When the skies cleared it was the fighter bombers. Then it was Patton's 3rd Army. The numbers I get for the Germans are different, 3 armies 6th SS, 5th Pz and 7th Army comprising 28 divisions with 1400 AFVs and 250000 men. I don't have casualty figures but they were high, especially for the Germans.

[NEON DEON]

Originally posted by moni kerr:
NEON DEON:

1) You seem to think that the Red Air Force is going to sit on the ground and be destroyed. Trust me when I say they'll be up there shooting up USAAF planes while the Sturmovics are shooting up tanks. The West has the advantage in the air but it is going to take alot longer than 1 week to gain air superiority. In the meantime they are going to have to deal with massive ground assaults the like of which they have never experienced and try to stop them without the luxury of air superiority which btw they always had against the Germans. Those 7500 aircraft refer only to the 3 fronts that launched the attack on Berlin.
2)2041000 ground combat soldiers in the US army, 1598000 in the Army Service Forces. In Europe at the end of 1944 the British-American ground forces totaled 79 infantry and 33 armoured divisions or about 1.5 million ground troops. The Red Army comprised 448 infantry divisions and 48 tank corps or about 4.5 million ground troops.
3)It took all available reserves to stop 250000 Germans because there was a shortage of formations not men. That was a direct result of limiting the US Army to 90 divisions. In other words there just were not enough formations to go around. The result was that combat units spent too much time in action and not enough time in recovery.
4)Yep that campaign was quite successful. The British-American forces fought against a German army that had little fuel and no air cover. The Red Army had plenty of fuel and lots of air cover. It would take alot longer than 1 week to deprive them of both.
5)Ditto. The British-Americans are not going to get anywhere until they get air superiority. By that time they are overwhelmed on the ground and are lucky to hold the Reds on the Rhine. If they are not lucky they are back in Britain.
6)You miscounted again. On Jan 12 1945 the Soviets attacked from their positions along the Vistula river just east of Warsaw. Within the first 3 days most of the front line formations of AG Centre and AG A were either destroyed or reduced to half strength. By the 19th the two Army Groups had lost contact with eachother and 1st Ukrainian and 1st Belorussian Fronts were pouring through. By Feb 2 the Soviets had reached the Oder about 50 miles from Berlin having covered over 250 miles and finally stopping after outrunning their supplies. Between Feb 1st and March 31st they were engaged in clearing AG Vistula out of Pomerania to the north and the remnants of AG Centre from Silesia to the south. The offensive against Berlin started on April 16th. By the 25th Berlin was surrounded and the assault on the city began on the 27th. By May 2nd it was all over. How do you convert 16 days into 4 months.?

tsbond:

The American units in the Ardennes fought well despite being surprised and outnumbered. However what really defeated the Germans first was lack of fuel. When the skies cleared it was the fighter bombers. Then it was Patton's 3rd Army. The numbers I get for the Germans are different, 3 armies 6th SS, 5th Pz and 7th Army comprising 28 divisions with 1400 AFVs and 250000 men. I don't have casualty figures but they were high, especially for the Germans.

OK I DIDNT MISS COUNT THIS TIME!!!!
The bulge ended in December. The Russians didnt reach berlin till mid april. That four months! four not 2 weeks. Unsless of course the Russians time warped thru jan/feb/march/april.

As for the Russian air force. Would you care to elaborate on where the rest of the Russian air force is? bye the way I didnt count the airforce in the Pacific or the one in ITaly.And one more time. The Russians lose air superiority in a week because they are destroyed on the ground. The fighters come up but they go back down hard. One week. Its over for the Russian air force in one week.
Plane for plane pilot for pilot the Soviet Union was no match for the USAAF. In pieces On the ground in one week or back in Russia flying in military parades.

[NEON DEON]

Ed

QUOTE:
Ok, one good Mustang fighter versus four above-average Yak9U fighters. Who wins? Hint: numbers matter.
Reply:
Well, yes numbers do matter. So if that’s the case where is the 4 to 1 advantage? How do 7500 operational combat aircraft equal to the 12,800 operational combat aircraft the US and British air force had at DDAY???? And four to one might not be enough considering the P51 (Cadillac of the sky!) Mustang had a 19 to 1 kill ratio.!!!!


Quote:
The Soviet Sturmovik is considered by many, including folks in the West, to have been the best ground-attack, anti-tank, aircraft in the war. The A-26 may have been better but it didn't show up until mid '45. The Sturmovik was built like a tank; the modern Su-xx fighters carry on that tradition. There are German fighters who talked after the war about emptying there entire plane's ammunition into a Sturmovik and the damn thing kept flying.

Reply:
The sturm is an attack aircraft with very limited range. Forcing it into a ground support role from a forward airbase would leave it open to massed B17 raids escorted by those pesky P51s. The Sturm can take a lot of punishment but, if you take a look at the Me 109 dog fighting armament vs. the P51 then mix in the speed equation along with a better targeting sight and more ammo too, you get a dead Sturm. Sorry, but if a Mustang jumps a Sturm, the Sturm is going down.

Quote:
The Allied strategic raids did draw down the number of German fighters, but this still isn't evidence to dismiss the Soviet Air Force, particularly considering the Soviet Air Force spent most of its effort as a support arm of the Army (the Soviet Air Force wasn't an independent arm of the Soviet armed forces, it was still subordinate to the Army).
Reply:
Well that makes the soviet air force one-dimensional. Since the Soviets never had to deal with strategic bombing from the Germans it leaves them extremely vulnerable to allied strategic bombing.


Quote:
So? There wasn't a Luftwaffe to contest air superiority during the Bulge. No one is suggesting that the US Air Force isn't good at providing air-to-ground support to the US Army. What we are saying is that if air superiority is still being contested, air support will not be nearly as substantal or effective, as long as the air support planes are themselves targets of enemy fighters.

Reply:
1) Range is the key here. Range makes the USAAF a strato nitemare for the soviets. Those 7500 Soviet aircraft operating from forward bases would be wiped off the map by (P51 ESCORTED) B17s operating from untouchable airbases far out of the reach of the Sturm and definitely out of escorted range of Soviet level bombers. This is the whole point of air superiority in a week. There is no place the Soviets can position their airfields to be out of range of the Mighty 8th. Well, they could but then if they did that there would be no aircraft to defend with much less attack with thus giving the USAAF Air supremacy by default. Just on a side note here the British and American Air forces totaled 12,500 operational combat aircraft on June 6 1944 far above the 7500 Soviet aircraft.

Quote:
That's because they knew there was no possibility of success on the Eastern Front. Their precious troops and tanks and fuel they have accumulated for the Bulge would simply have been swallowed up in the East, probably not doing much more than putting a dent in the Soviet front line.

Reply:
Well interesting choice of words because that’s exactly what Hitler did on the Western front. Put a temporary 50-mile dent in the American line.


Quote:
Wrong, more like one month, see the other post which refutes your claim.
Reply:
I guess I will have to qualify this quote a bit. This refers to my mistake of saying it took 5 months for the soviets to take Berlin. I think it might have been a bit confusing. The Bulge ended around Christmas time. So it didn’t take the Soviet army Five months to take Berlin it took four. Never did I mean to infer that the battle for Berlin took 5 or 4 months by its self what I meant was it took 4 months for the Russians to get to and take Berlin.

Quote:
Also, taking a major city is always difficult particularly considering Berlin's size, and air support is much less effective (except for the case of incendiary fire-bombing which I don't know if the Soviets ever did), and the Germans had pulled everything they had left into the Berlin area for a final stand. Taking one month sounds about right. We let the Soviets have the honor of taking Berlin because we didn't have the stomach for the heavy casualties that would come of that. The one thing that is guarantteed to come out of a fight with the Red Army of '45 is heavy casualties.

Reply:
Allied fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo had to be the low point of the war. It was a horrible thing to do to a civilian population. The A bomb was right up there too. Whats really bad is that the firestorm that resulted in Tokyo from the bombing actually killed more people than the Hiroshima A Bomb. Which actually leads into the high casualties thing. . Truman’s reason for dropping the bomb was to avoid heavy casualties if the US had to Attack Mainland Japan. So if the US faces a protracted war with high casualties then the bomb gets dropped on Russia. The Russians climb back in their T34/85s and motor on back to the Soviet Union. Since Truman cant force the issue cause he is really bluffing at this point due to the fact there are only 2 workable bombs. Truman negotiates a conditional surrender leaving Stalin in charge. EEK! The end of the world! In 1949, The Soviet Union develops the bomb. And since its former Allies used the bomb on them they see no reason not to launch a full-scale first strike nuclear assault on the US. The US retaliates plunging the earth into Nuclear Winter thus ending the human race. Wow I am sure glad The Russians and Americans shook hands at the Elbe rather than shoot at one another!

[GDS_Starfury]

Ok after making my eyes bleed reading through this thread there are a few things that virtually everyone either missed or didnt find directly important enough to discuss or only hit upon lighty.
A: the Allied infusion of supplies that let the russians keep more men at the front instead of in the rear would have dried up instantly.
B: by baseing bombers and escorts in Mongolia, China and possibly even parts of the mid east the allies could have hit Russian industrial centers...specificly petrol/oil/lubrication refineries. While other industries could be moved these couldnt and we knew were they were. If you dont think that Allied bombers could reach these targets keep in mind there were planes about to be built that could but were either scraped or shelved due to the historic conclusion to WW2 (ya think the B-36 appeared overnight). Also aircraft could have been based in locals such as Turkey for a more direct threat. A vehicle heavy army like the Reds woulda been outta gas fast.
C: due to their most recent offensive and the expenditures it required the Russians were at the end of their own logisitics chain while the allies had more to use at a close distance. This is the main reason they COULDNT reach the Channel. If so many western armies got torn up in russia for this reason the reverse would be true to.
D: I dont care what army you have in the field if the Allies had nuked either Leningrad the Ruskis would have called it quits then and there. If one wanted a 1 way trip you could even add Moscow and Stalingrad to this list.
E: Nimits hit upon the naval topic. While the US Navy couldnt directly effect a war in central Europe it would have been useful in holding the Baltic flank and the east russian coast specificly Vladidovstock. The Russians were not strong everywere and having US Marines knocking on your back door and threatening the trans-siberian railway would at the very least force combat units out of Europe and across their own country.

The part about a air campaign I found kinda funny.
Mist: your ruski air force didnt kill the lufftwaffe so much as a lack of fuel did. The Russain system was not a superior one, it just relied on overwhelming numbers and long pauses to resupply. Saying that the western allies used ww1 tactics is also absurd. Italy was not central europe and the terrain there is quiet nasty. While by no means perfect there are to many instances or succsesful manuver warfare to list here.
Also just cause your Russain dont be full of yourself and a lot of the false histories you guys get fed. Also dont make comments on things like Dresden and not discuss Soviet war attrocities. And finally dont hide insults behind smily faces
(brief pause in post to reread something)

[This message has been edited by GDS_Starfury (edited February 19, 2001).]

[Martinov]

Originally posted by GDS_Starfury:
Mist . . . Also just cause your Russain dont be full of yourself and a lot of the false histories you guys get fed. Also dont make comments on things like Dresden and not discuss Soviet war attrocities. And finally dont hide insults behind smily faces
B]

Why not? is all that US talk about "free speech" false?. Perhaps the blood in your eyes obscured his earlier apology for his poor english expression.

Originally posted Mist:

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.

I might have thought an "artist" and a "historian" would be fascinated by the way the same historical events/possibilities are interpreted.

And while into speculation - the soviet spy network had penetrated very deeply (esp. in British circles) who knows what effect it could have had? And France, Italy and Greece had powerful communist partisan networks (might have seen a few allied trains going up in smoke!) that were historically pulled into line by Stalin. And if you needed russian motivation, just imagine
Patton "Hell, no, those nazis are great guys, got some totenkopf and jugend right here helping out with security duties!"

Atrocities? The Germans attempted to EXTERMINATE the Russians (amongst others) - I'm not sure the word atrocity is valid under such circumstances. It's more a western front kind of word.

If the w.allies had the will and stomach for casualties (which I doubt) they surely must eventually have won - after all russia had been virtually singlehandedly fighting the greatest war in history for four years, and the w.allies were just raising a sweat.

"I don't agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it" - Some Stupid Yank.

[Yogi Yohan]

OK, many posts later, I have to admit that if the numerical strenght of the US, UK and Red Air Forces are those quoted, ie about 2:1 in favour of the west, then the west would have finished off the Soviet Air Force fairly fast. How fast I do not know, but not fast enough to provide decisive air support in the first week, which is when the ground war is decided.

Besides this, I think the time and the iniciator of the war is of paramount importance. In May 1945 there is no A-bomb and many Allied divisions are tied down in the Pacific. Japan is a natural ally to the Soviets. It is a good time for Russia to fight, so the Allies would NOT have started a war then. A war in May would have been initiated by the Soviets, giving them the initial first strike advantage.

On the other hand, after August 1945, there are A-bombs and no Japanese, so a lot of western ground and air forces can hit the Soviets from the Pacific area. Had the Soviets not attacked in May, then they would not do so after the Jap surrender either, so a "late" World War III would have been started by the west, giving them the advantage. So the two scenarios I would envisage would be:

World War III begins May 1945: The Soviet Union launches massive offensives from the Baltic to the Adriatic. The Red Air Force strikes airbases within their range and destroy many Allied planes on the ground, delying the onset of Allied air superiority. Allied ground forces are badly outnumbered and inferior in every way and are damaged beyond repair in the first few days. Communists sabotage allied supplies, especially in France and Italy. Soviet spearheads cross the Rhine and establish bridgeheads on the west bank within a week-ten days. Only the over-extension of supply lines force them to pause there (about the distance they advanced in each of their great offensives against the Germans). After that, anything might have happened, but probably the Soviets reach the channel in their next push.

World War III begins October 1945:
The West opens the war with massive airstrikes against Soviet airbases. Knowing their forces are not up to assaulting the Soviets head-on, Allied forces dig in and prepare for in depth defense, waiting for air power and A-bombs to decide the war. Soviet counterattacks do push deep into western Germany, but at a high cost. A-bombs vaporize entire Soviet armies as they mass to attack the allied front. Eventually, the Soviets give in and agree to a negotiated peace.

[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited February 19, 2001).]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
Well, yes numbers do matter. So if that’s the case where is the 4 to 1 advantage? How do 7500 operational combat aircraft equal to the 12,800 operational combat aircraft the US and British air force had at DDAY???? And four to one might not be enough considering the P51 (Cadillac of the sky!) Mustang had a 19 to 1 kill ratio.!!!!

They had more than 7500 planes for Chist's sakes, please read what I said. I referred to the 7,500 **BOMBER** raid against Berlin, they had more fighters than you shake a stick at. The 12,800 operational aircraft number includes all types. The Allied Air Forces were heavy with strategic bombers. The Allies would have found themselves wishing they had more fighters when it came time to try to defend Allied armies against the Red Tide.

The sturm is an attack aircraft with very limited range. Forcing it into a ground support role from a forward airbase would leave it open to massed B17 raids escorted by those pesky P51s. The Sturm can take a lot of punishment but, if you take a look at the Me 109 dog fighting armament vs. the P51 then mix in the speed equation along with a better targeting sight and more ammo too, you get a dead Sturm. Sorry, but if a Mustang jumps a Sturm, the Sturm is going down.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Your assumption that the P51 would rule the skies is dangerously flawed. You keep assuming an outnumbered Allied Air force will automatically win just because you're not impressed by the Soviet Air Force. The Allies would be outnumbered, and facing a competent enemy. The fight for the skies would go on longer than 1 week, if for no other reason than the sheer number of fighters the Soviets had.

Well that makes the soviet air force one-dimensional. Since the Soviets never had to deal with strategic bombing from the Germans it leaves them extremely vulnerable to allied strategic bombing.

The Germans tried some long range bombing of Moscow, so the Soviets wouldn't be surprised by the strategic bombing of the Allies. Moreover, the Soviets got US B-17s during the war as lend lease, so they had a good idea of what they were up against.

Range is the key here. Range makes the USAAF a strato nitemare for the soviets. Those 7500 Soviet aircraft operating from forward bases would be wiped off the map by (P51 ESCORTED) B17s operating from untouchable airbases far out of the reach of the Sturm and definitely out of escorted range of Soviet level bombers.

Fine. While the B17s are bombing Soviet targets, the Soviet Army is DESTROYING the Allied armies on the ground in Europe. I repeat, this fight won't last long enough for strategic bombing to make a difference, assuming strategic bombing even has a positive aspect anyway. There's a thread in the ArtOfWar forum about this. And you made the 7500 number mistake again.

Well interesting choice of words because that’s exactly what Hitler did on the Western front. Put a temporary 50-mile dent in the American line.

The dent in the East wouldn't have been 50 miles deep.

The Bulge ended around Christmas time. So it didn’t take the Soviet army Five months to take Berlin it took four.

Did you even bother to read what the other guy said? Their offensive against Berlin didn't start until April. It took one month, max.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
OK, many posts later, I have to admit that if the numerical strenght of the US, UK and Red Air Forces are those quoted, ie about 2:1 in favour of the west, then the west would have finished off the Soviet Air Force fairly fast.

Whoever posted this 2:1 ratio, would you please tell us where you got it, and whether its just the total number of aircraft for both sides. Allied air forces are bomber heavy, I don't believe the Allies would have had a 2:1 ratio in fighters and fighter-bombers. The Soviets had scads of those.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Martinov:
"I don't agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it" - Some Stupid Yank.

Actually, it was a stupid frog called Voltaire.

[Martinov]

The WIE book says:

June '44
4,600 Luftwaffe aircraft split about 50-50 between two fronts against 13,400 soviet aircraft.

May '45
17,500 Soviet aircraft.

incidentally, it hypothesises the german:soviet effectiveness

'41 10-1, 6-1
'42 4-1
'43 4-1,3-1
'44 2.5-1, 1.5-1

So be careful not to compare the '45 allied with the '41 russian! (Does anyone think those strategic bombers achieved anything anyway? Germany's fronts collapsed before their war production did, also wasn't a-bomb production limited to 2 per year or something?)

[moni kerr]

NEON DEON:

Allied forces landed in Normandy June 6th 1944. They captured Liepzig in early April 1945. Therefore it took them 10 months to capture Liepzig. Has the absurdity of your 4 month claim set in yet?

[GDS_Starfury]

Martinov: point taken, there are some dangers to posting at 5:45am. I dont think anyone should be reticted in what they say just be prepared for the counter point (even if its nasty)
Yogi: the thing ppl keep missing is that nuke would not have been used in a tactical sense, ie hitting Soviet forces in the field. Due to the limited number of devices it was considered purly a strategic weapon until the late 50's when smalled systems were brought into service.

[Rover1gp]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martinov:
I might have thought an "artist" and a "historian" would be fascinated by the way the same historical events/possibilities are interpreted.

Without all sides of the story (and if I must, His-story) I don't see how any wouldbe histroian would gain a correct perspective of the whole thing in the first place. This of course is provided that the evidence in question is valid and evaluated towards the sum of all of it's parts. If I were to say that the Russain army and war effort were the complete and total causes for the defeat of Nazi Germany and thus the state. Than I would be in complete violation to the above statement. Those are not the complete facts as evaluated towards the sum of all of the parts. unless you wanted to add say two more years or so (if ever) to the time it would have taken the Russin army and state to defeat the German Army by it's self. I completely agree that the Russains defeated the greater part of the German Army, in a skillful manner. But than it took a skillful manner, because the Germans were skillful players. I mean If they were stupid players than The Soviets Job would have been easier. But they probably would not have learned as much. But really did the Russain have any choice in the manner. War is insane.....what's new.

Well I can see I'm gettng carried away so I must be off. Actually I think I am off. So I'll make like a tree instead and leave.

Say good night Rover

Good night, Rover