US/British vs Soviet forces May 1945

[frank1970]

You should not think that the German soldiers were brainless idiots, listening to every order they got.
The Wehrmacht had highly traind and very good educated soldiers. The Wehrmacht officers didn´t like their SS-counterparts because these didn´t look after their soldiers and had much too high losses compared to the Wehrmacht.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by jager506:

The Allied strategic bomber offensive against Germany wreaked havoc

Not according to studies done after the war. They had some successes (going after ballbearing manufacturing or somthing like that, IIRC) but many failures too. Partly because Germany decentralized their industry, yes, but also because strategic bombing rarely destroys that which you want most to destroy: heavy industry tools, metal stampers, die cutters, etc. Its ironic, almost deja vue. After the Gulf War, studies showed the vast majority of destroyed Iraqi AFVs were destroyed not by air power but by direct fire from other AFVs.

German production also grew because of Albert Speer's extremely efficient management by dispersing the production centers,

A tactic the Soviets could use should the situation require it.

As pointed out earlier, the Soviets had by May 1945, sustained at least 12 million casualties, and they had about 6 million men under arms, which means they've reached the 1-in-10 theoretical limit of their 180 million population.

The theoretical limit was just a guess, and it appears not to have applied to the Soviets. By another account, they may have had as many as another 20 million. They had started drafting women too, so you need to realize the Soviets weren't restricted to just half their population, the men, they could get replacements from their entire population. See the previous thread in this forum, and the other thread on this subject in the Art of Wargaming forum.

Also, the US was feeling some pains too. They were in a two front war, and were also proving themselves to be the "Arsenal of Democracy", which means they had a lot of men in their war industry because their war industry was larger than any other combatant. If they had to have those men, it would mean creating difficulties for the war industry, and would probably require full mobilization of women for the industries too.

Finally, I feel the need to repeat this again: all of our arguments here may be meaningless. There is the very real possibility that the ground war would be over before strategic bombing or further mobilization of peoplepower or of industry could have an effect. We were significantly outnumbered on the ground, the Soviets had 100 more divisions than we did, and they outnumbered us in the category of fighter/fighter-bomber, the most important category because as I said earlier, this whole argument I think hinges on what happens in the skies above the battlefields. For our ground forces to survive, the western allies must establish air superiority very quickly, otherwise all the strategic bombing in the world won't stop Soviet tanks making it to Paris. Since we were outnumbered in the air as well however, there is no clear evidence that we could have taken control of the air in a short period of time.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited March 01, 2001).]

[jager506]

OK, I'm not going to continue this argument, just a couple of qualifying points.

Frank, I do not think the German soldiers were brainless idiots, otherwise the great blitzkrieg victories of 1939-41 would not have happened. The elite German divisions, e.g. Gross Deutschland, Hermann Goering, Das Reich etc. could hold their own and/or defeat much larger Allied forces.
What I was trying to say is that these same divisions trained their soldiers to virtually obey orders without question. In Guy Sajer's book "The Forgotten Soldier" (I read the English translation because mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht), I think he recalls having to stand at attention with a grenade about to go off on his helmet. I was a soldier once, no way I'd have done that. That's why I wouldn't have made it in an elite Wehrmacht/SS division. (grin)
And yes, the Wehrmacht and SS had their differences. The Waffen SS thought the Wehrmacht too weak/pathetic to "finish the job properly" and the Wehrmacht considered the SS thugs and gangsters.

Ed wrote:
"We were significantly outnumbered on the ground, the Soviets had 100 more divisions than we did, and they outnumbered us in the category of fighter/fighter-bomber, the most important category because as I said earlier, this whole argument I think hinges on what happens in the skies above the battlefields. For our ground forces to survive, the western allies must establish air superiority very quickly, otherwise all the strategic bombing in the world won't stop Soviet tanks making it to Paris. Since we were outnumbered in the air as well however, there is no clear evidence that we could have taken control of the air in a short period of time."

Agree completely that the central issue revolves around the air-ground situation, but I believe Soviet divisions in 1945 were much smaller than US/UK formations. A full-strength SV division had about 6-8,000 men, slightly less than a third of a full-strength Allied division, which is why it was only about a 2-to-1 difference in ground force strength. Also, I included the US Fifth and British Eighth Armies from the Italian front in my "back of envelope" assessment. Not just those in France.

I thought the Red Air Force had about 12-13,000 or so aircraft of all kinds, of which some 7-8,000 were fighters/fighter-bombers. (The rest were light/medium bombers) Unless I'm way off here, couldn't the RAF AND USAAF field at least 13-14,000 fighters, plus another 3-4,000 fighter-bomber types? Don't see how the western forces would be outnumbered by the Russians.

Finally, as an aside, I spent a good deal of time in the US, mostly in CA (Los Angeles and Palo Alto), where I would often argue the finer points of WWII with military/history buffs. And there was hardly an American who would admit that the US could have ever lost a military contest to the Russians (or any other nation for that matter) at any time in history. What about Vietnam then? The consensus opinion I got was that the US could've won the Nam if they had gone all out - which includes nuking that country back to the Dark Ages, but that was not the point of committing US forces there in the first place... so it went, on and on... basically it came down to (as pointed out in an earlier post on another thread I think) "if I'm American, no way we can lose this war".

Ed, I think you're from TN, so it certainly is kinda refreshing to finally hear a more objective view from an American, except (ironically perhaps?) in this instance I'm championing the American side.

OK, enough of my ranting. Out of curiosity, can any of you guys guess where I'm from? I won't take offence, so fire away.

[jager506]

Hope I'm not posting this again, but my connection got cut earlier. OK, I'm not going to continue this argument, just a couple of final qualifiers.

Frank, I don't think the German soldiers were brainless idiots. If they were, the blitzkrieg campaigns of 1939-41 would not have happened. The elite divisions, e.g. Gross Deutschland, SS Panzer, Hermann Goering etc could hold off and/or defeat much larger Allied forces. But the way the soldiers were trained/indoctrinated, they would have literally jumped out of aircraft without their parachutes. Unquestioning obedience/discipline was the order of the day. In Guy Sajer's book "The Forgotten Soldier" (I read the English translation because schade, mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht), soldiers from Gross Deutschland could stand at attention while a grenade went off on their helmets. I was a soldier once, and just try getting me to even try thinking about that. OK, so I wouldn't have qualified to serve in such elite divisions (grin)

Ed, agree completely that air superiority and ground forces are central to an Allied/SV confrontation. But if my memory serves, the Soviet airforce had 12-13,000 aircraft of all types of which 7-8,000 were fighter/fighter-bombers, rest were light/medium bombers. Couldn't the RAF AND USAAF field at least 24,000 aircraft, of which some 16,000 were fighter/fighter-bombers? That's why I said it would be the Russians who would be outnumbered in the air.

Ed, as an aside, I spent some years in the US, mostly in Los Angeles and Palo Alto. Used to debate the finer points of WWII with American military/history buffs. And you are almost certainly the first American to (publicly at least) admit that the US could have lost a confrontation with the Russians at any time. The consensus opinion I got in my earlier exchanges was that no rational American could contemplate a US loss in any war against any other country. So, while it is kinda refreshing to hear an objective view from an American, ironically perhaps, since I'm the one trying to (grin) champion the American cause here.

OK, enough of my rambling. Out of curiosity, can any of you people guess where I'm from? Won't take offence, so fire away.

[jager506]

Hope I'm not posting this again, but my connection got cut earlier. OK, I'm not going to continue this argument, just a couple of final qualifiers.

Frank, I don't think the German soldiers were brainless idiots. If they were, the blitzkrieg campaigns of 1939-41 would not have happened. The elite divisions, e.g. Gross Deutschland, SS Panzer, Hermann Goering etc could hold off and/or defeat much larger Allied forces. But the way the soldiers were trained/indoctrinated, they would have literally jumped out of aircraft without their parachutes. Unquestioning obedience/discipline was the order of the day. In Guy Sajer's book "The Forgotten Soldier" (I read the English translation because schade, mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht), soldiers from Gross Deutschland could stand at attention while a grenade went off on their helmets. I was a soldier once, and just try getting me to even try thinking about that. OK, so I wouldn't have qualified to serve in such elite divisions (grin)

Ed, agree completely that air superiority and ground forces are central to an Allied/SV confrontation. But if my memory serves, the Soviet airforce had 12-13,000 aircraft of all types of which 7-8,000 were fighter/fighter-bombers, rest were light/medium bombers. Couldn't the RAF AND USAAF field at least 24,000 aircraft, of which some 16,000 were fighter/fighter-bombers? That's why I said it would be the Russians who would be outnumbered in the air.

Ed, as an aside, I spent some years in the US, mostly in Los Angeles and Palo Alto. Used to debate the finer points of WWII with American military/history buffs. And you are almost certainly the first American to (publicly at least) admit that the US could have lost a confrontation with the Russians at any time. The consensus opinion I got in my earlier exchanges was that no rational American could contemplate a US loss in any war against any other country. So, while it is kinda refreshing to hear an objective view from an American, ironically perhaps, since I'm the one trying to (grin) champion the American cause here.

OK, enough of my rambling. Out of curiosity, can any of you people guess where I'm from? Won't take offence, so fire away.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by jager506:

What I was trying to say is that these same divisions trained their soldiers to virtually obey orders without question. In Guy Sajer's book "The Forgotten Soldier" (I read the English translation because mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht), I think he recalls having to stand at attention with a grenade about to go off on his helmet.

The Waffen SS did train their men to obey without question, the Wehrmacht did not. In fact they more or less invented the type of order system I guess most armies use even today. In the Swedish Army we called it "objective direction", that is to say, the subordinate commander is told what objective he needs to accomplish, but not how. Also, a Wehrmacht officer was supposed to understand the general situation so well that he was able to deviate from given orders if an opportunity or danger arose. Of course, he could still be court-martialed if he was mistaken. Initiative was encouraged on every level.

So in this respect, the Waffen-SS resembled more their Soviet opponents than their Wehrmacht brothers in arms. They also suffered much higher casualties than the Wehrmacht. The Grossdeutschland Division, although similar in organisation to the original Waffen-SS Divisions was a Wehrmacht division, so I doubt they would have totally departed from the Wehrmacht way of giving orders.

I don't remember the hand-grenade episode from Sajers book, but it was standard practise at the Waffen-SS training school at Bad Tölz. Another practice was to give a new recruit an Alsatian pup to care for for the duration of their training. Upon "graduation" the SS-man was ordered to strangle the dog.


[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited March 05, 2001).]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by jager506:
Agree completely that the central issue revolves around the air-ground situation, but I believe Soviet divisions in 1945 were much smaller than US/UK formations. A full-strength SV division had about 6-8,000 men, slightly less than a third of a full-strength Allied division, which is why it was only about a 2-to-1 difference in ground force strength. Also, I included the US Fifth and British Eighth Armies from the Italian front in my "back of envelope" assessment. Not just those in France.

OK. Do you have a URL to anywhere that explains the differences in division structure?

This probably means the Soviets won't be able to overrun the Allies as easily as I've been suggesting, but still, a 2:1 ratio, without full air support, is a dangerous situation to be in.

I thought the Red Air Force had about 12-13,000 or so aircraft of all kinds, of which some 7-8,000 were fighters/fighter-bombers. (The rest were light/medium bombers) Unless I'm way off here, couldn't the RAF AND USAAF field at least 13-14,000 fighters, plus another 3-4,000 fighter-bomber types? Don't see how the western forces would be outnumbered by the Russians.

A lot of folks seem to have a problem believing this.

We were outnumbered according to the British at the time. I quote a report on the middle of page 3 of the "Amount of Soviet Sqauds" thread which is a report made by British High Command to Churchill. According to them we were outnumbered in the fighter/fighter-bomber category by about 11,000 planes.

Finally, as an aside, I spent a good deal of time in the US, mostly in CA (Los Angeles and Palo Alto), where I would often argue the finer points of WWII with military/history buffs. And there was hardly an American who would admit that the US could have ever lost a military contest to the Russians (or any other nation for that matter) at any time in history.

Yep, NEON is a good example of this. He refuses to believe that the Allies were outnumbered in the fighter category, he even refuses to accept the possibility of Allied air forces not being able to establish air superiority in "one week".

The last time we really outclassed an opponent, prior to the Gulf War, was probably the Spanish-American War. Our navy was possibly the best afloat at the time, excepting the British, maybe. Since then we always seem to have to come from behind just to catch up with everyone else as far as warfare is concerned.

Currently though, I really do think we have the best army, man-for-man, tank-for-tank, and plane-for-plane. That can easily change though. If the Russians can turn their situation around economically (I hope they do) they can recover most of what they've lost since the collapse of the USSR in military terms if they choose to start another arms race (I hope they don't).

What about Vietnam then? The consensus opinion I got was that the US could've won the Nam if they had gone all out - which includes nuking that country back to the Dark Ages, but that was not the point of committing US forces there in the first place

Short of using nukes, which was politically impossible, there is no way we could have won that war, because we didn't understand the situation, politically, historically, or militarily. We went in with the best of intentions, but the reality on the ground was a lot more complicated then what we bargained for, much like what happened in Somalia.

Ed, I think you're from TN, so it certainly is kinda refreshing to finally hear a more objective view from an American, except (ironically perhaps?) in this instance I'm championing the American side.

Yep, Tennessee, GO VOLS!

Its not that rare, actually. I think we could find a number of Americans, in the Art of Wargaming forum for example (Colin comes to mind), that are more objective then what you typically hear. We've got plenty of arrogant, and smug Americans, but as I told Frank, we don't have a monopoly on that. We can find that type of person everywhere. Those who love to hate America have a hard time believing that not all Americans are as evil as they think we are.

[moni kerr]

Here is a link for you Ed. http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat4.html

A comparison between a Soviet and German infantry division in 1941. Of course things change.

[This message has been edited by moni kerr (edited March 05, 2001).]

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
OK. Do you have a URL to anywhere that explains the differences in division structure?

This probably means the Soviets won't be able to overrun the Allies as easily as I've been suggesting, but still, a 2:1 ratio, without full air support, is a dangerous situation to be in.

Hey Ed,
I don't have any full online links, but here are a couple that show the Soviet Mech forces in part: http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/toe.htm for mid-war brigades - a tank corps was made of something like 3 tank brigades and 1 mech brigade, or about 8000 men plus artillery and other support units, a mech corp of 3 mech brigades plus others. Here is a link to a late war Soviet Mech Corps: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/org.html.

Everything I have read indicates that a Soviet rifle division was typically at about 6-8 thousand men, except for the Guards, who were generally built up to full strength, which I believe was around 10,000 men. However, the key to the Soviet strength was a much smaller tail to keep the men fighting, so they had a higher percentage of men fighting but less staying power as a result. The common usage was to burn out a rifle division and pull it out to refit with fresh drafts of men, but many times the units were left in the lines, just as the Germans did.

I see the key battles if something terrible had happened between the west and the Soviets as being 1. tanks, won by the Soviets easily, 2. artillery - won by the west, but only after a tough battle, 3. supplies - won by the west because the Soviets were already having supply problems, and in my mind would be the key issue. I think the Soviets would have won the initial battles but had to pause well short of the channel due to a lack of supplies. Then it would be a race to see who could have built up a stronger force at that point, with the whole situation, ignoring willingness to fight in the first place, depending on what the Americans were doing - they pulled out of Europe so quickly that the timing would have had a major impact on both the initial fighting and any follow ups. I see a big stalemate here though, somewhere in western Germany or at the Rhine.

I personally don't think the air battle would have had a major impact on the initial ground battles. On the other hand, I don't think either side would have been able to generate the support to keep the fighting going. The west was glad to be done, and the Soviets, even under Stalin, would have been hard pressed to generate the willingness to fight that was easy to come by against the Germans.


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

[This message has been edited by RickyB (edited March 05, 2001).]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by moni kerr:
Here is a link for you Ed.

Thanks, Moni. I was really looking for a comparison like this for the '44 or '45 time period. I spent an hour looking for this myself, but couldn't find anything.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by RickyB:
Here is a link to a late war Soviet Mech Corps: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/org.html.

Hi Rick.

The URL above doesn't work for me, geocities.com says it can't find this page.

I personally don't think the air battle would have had a major impact on the initial ground battles.

No, the air would be contested at first, making it difficult for either side to provide ground support. Once Allied airpower gains the upper hand, though, ground support would become very important to the Allies as they faced a numerically superior enemy which had a distinct advantage in armor. The boys on the ground, at least what is left of them, will *really* need those P38J and P47D tank busters. The question is how long does it take to get the upper hand (and no, it'll take more than a week).

On the other hand, I don't think either side would have been able to generate the support to keep the fighting going. The west was glad to be done, and the Soviets, even under Stalin, would have been hard pressed to generate the willingness to fight that was easy to come by against the Germans.

I agree, it is extremely unlikely to have happened as both sides had reasons to avoid another war. This thread started as a far-fetched what if, so we're arguing about it even though we don't really think it could have occurred.

[frank1970]

I do not think that the Allies had an advantage in artillery. They might have had the better organisation but the SU would have had much more guns. If I remember the numbers the SU put 200 guns/km as support in a attack, using 122mm and 155mm guns and a lot of rockets.
The German Landsers were very hard fighters and really fought to the last bullet in the east, and even they did not survive those bombardments as compact formations. The Allied soldiers were absolutely not used to be shelled that much and with so big guns (Germany used 10,5cm guns because of their faster firing). I think they would have run, as the Germans at Stalingrad.

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Frank:
I do not think that the Allies had an advantage in artillery. They might have had the better organisation but the SU would have had much more guns. If I remember the numbers the SU put 200 guns/km as support in a attack, using 122mm and 155mm guns and a lot of rockets.
The German Landsers were very hard fighters and really fought to the last bullet in the east, and even they did not survive those bombardments as compact formations. The Allied soldiers were absolutely not used to be shelled that much and with so big guns (Germany used 10,5cm guns because of their faster firing). I think they would have run, as the Germans at Stalingrad.

The Soviets had the advantage in total artillery, but in battle the Americans especially could mass huge quantities quickly on targets of opportunity, whereas the Soviet artillery was relatively inflexible. During the "Battle of the Bulge", the Americans lost a village to an SS Panzer division and quickly fired a barrage from 5 artillery battalions on the village, which by itself caused the SS to pull back behind the village. Nobody else could have done that.

The Soviet artillery would have chewed up the allies in the front lines pretty badly, but their attacking forces would probably get chewed up also, and once the battle got fluid which it would have, the allies would gain the upper hand.


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Hi Rick.
The URL above doesn't work for me, geocities.com says it can't find this page.

Ed,

Try the link without the period at the end. I tried to keep it from adding it to the link but I guess it still didn't work after I edited it. Anyway, as a summary, it shows a Mech Corps having about 18,000 men in it at full strength, and these units were equivalent to a strong tank division in other armies.

By the way, I mentioned the willingness to fight issue primarily because part of the discussion has been based on the allies quickly demobilizing after Germany surrendered, leaving them weaker than they were at the surrender. This was primarily an air issue, but it is the post war strength that seems to be getting compared to the Soviet strength, but if there was the prospect of fighting, it should take into consideration either the lack of desire to fight, or roll back the allied airpower to that in April, rather than June.
------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

[This message has been edited by RickyB (edited March 09, 2001).]

[moni kerr]

Originally posted by RickyB:

Originally posted by Frank:
I do not think that the Allies had an advantage in artillery. They might have had the better organisation but the SU would have had much more guns. If I remember the numbers the SU put 200 guns/km as support in a attack, using 122mm and 155mm guns and a lot of rockets.
The German Landsers were very hard fighters and really fought to the last bullet in the east, and even they did not survive those bombardments as compact formations. The Allied soldiers were absolutely not used to be shelled that much and with so big guns (Germany used 10,5cm guns because of their faster firing). I think they would have run, as the Germans at Stalingrad.

The Soviets had the advantage in total artillery, but in battle the Americans especially could mass huge quantities quickly on targets of opportunity, whereas the Soviet artillery was relatively inflexible. During the "Battle of the Bulge", the Americans lost a village to an SS Panzer division and quickly fired a barrage from 5 artillery battalions on the village, which by itself caused the SS to pull back behind the village. Nobody else could have done that.

The Soviet artillery would have chewed up the allies in the front lines pretty badly, but their attacking forces would probably get chewed up also, and once the battle got fluid which it would have, the allies would gain the upper hand.

I agree... partially. American artillery was much more flexible and copiously supplied with ammunition. It was also far more accurate and flexibly responsive to whatever situation develpoed. However I believe that US doctrine was the weak link in all this. Basically it was "Close with and destroy the enemy" as opposed to the Soviet doctrine which was "Encircle and destroy the enemy". US doctrine required massed firepower(a combination of artillery and air supremacy) to compensate for the deficiency in numbers of formations. Hence Eisenhower's 'Broad Front' strategy. There simply were not enough divisions in the US OOB to fight a mobile defensive war and deliver those "Manstein-like counter blows". And which Western commander compares to Manstein anyway? Which among them can be compared to Zhukov, Rokissovsky, Konev, Vatutin or Vassilevsky for that matter? Surely not Montgomery?

Ther was also a severe replacement shortage in the US army. In March of 1944 even before D-Day the Army was forced to cancel its cherished Army Special Training Program (ASTP) in order to meet replacement requirements. That freed up 150,000 men of whom 73,000 went to the infantry. But by the end of 1944 the US Army was once again facing a replacement crisis. By choosing to fight with 90 divisions the US chose to fight with barest minimum number of formations(original projections were to field over 200 divisions in the ETO) possible. By achieving air supremacy over the Germans it was possible to defeat them. However against the more numerous and well equipped Red Army and Air force the possibility of even a limited victory is slim at best.

[RickyB]

Originally posted by moni kerr:
I agree... partially. American artillery was much more flexible and copiously supplied with ammunition. It was also far more accurate and flexibly responsive to whatever situation develpoed. However I believe that US doctrine was the weak link in all this. Basically it was "Close with and destroy the enemy" as opposed to the Soviet doctrine which was "Encircle and destroy the enemy". US doctrine required massed firepower(a combination of artillery and air supremacy) to compensate for the deficiency in numbers of formations. Hence Eisenhower's 'Broad Front' strategy. There simply were not enough divisions in the US OOB to fight a mobile defensive war and deliver those "Manstein-like counter blows". And which Western commander compares to Manstein anyway? Which among them can be compared to Zhukov, Rokissovsky, Konev, Vatutin or Vassilevsky for that matter? Surely not Montgomery?

Ther was also a severe replacement shortage in the US army. In March of 1944 even before D-Day the Army was forced to cancel its cherished Army Special Training Program (ASTP) in order to meet replacement requirements. That freed up 150,000 men of whom 73,000 went to the infantry. But by the end of 1944 the US Army was once again facing a replacement crisis. By choosing to fight with 90 divisions the US chose to fight with barest minimum number of formations(original projections were to field over 200 divisions in the ETO) possible. By achieving air supremacy over the Germans it was possible to defeat them. However against the more numerous and well equipped Red Army and Air force the possibility of even a limited victory is slim at best.

Can't argue with you about your comments, as I agree with them. My comments a few posts back started out analyzing the advantages that I thought the two sides would have (ignoring the obvious numerical disparity, although not as great as many state on these forums), and I think the allied side would have a slight advantage in artillery over the course of the first couple of weeks. The Soviet tanks would dominate on the other hand, I feel.

Ultimately, I think the key for the initial fighting would come down to supplies, with the Soviets unable to reach the channel because of supply problems, and then a stalemate for awhile. This would be heavily affected by how heavy the losses were on each side during the initial fighting - it the Soviets could badly damage the West, they would ultimately win, but if they suffered heavily while pushing back the West, their attacks would peter out. At that point I doubt the West could easily push the Soviets back, unless they could totally dominate the air and cut the Soviet supply lines.

Another issue would be how heavily the Americans had pulled out before the fighting - to be a fair analysis, the situation must be looked at as of May 1, not June or July or later.

------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

[RickyB]

Ed and others,

Here is a link to a site with some more details on Soviet unit OOBs/TO&E data. It is not the most responsive site at times, but there is some information on it. Try variations of the link if it isn't found: http://www.skalman.nu/soviet/ww2-army.htm and I will leave it without a period.

------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Frank:
I do not think that the Allies had an advantage in artillery. They might have had the better organisation but the SU would have had much more guns.

Hi Frank,

The Americans had a distinct advantage. Read the section on US artillery practice here:

http://tigertank.com/aslcrossroads/tactical/arty.htm


One small battle I read about on the net somewhere (I can't find it now) mentioned a US infantry unit getting trapped on a hill, and the only help coming anytime soon was artillery (an arty spotter was with the unit). This desperate situation had greater priority than any other fire support missions, so beginning with the local arty battalion, the fire support request moved quickly up the chain of command, ending up with division level arty. Within literally minutes (7-9? can't remember), there were 4 or 5 arty battalions zeroed in and firing-for-effect. They laid a ring of steel around that hill and the unit on it. The infantry unit survived long enough for a counterattack to reach them.

US arty could also coordinate its strike times, allowing arty at different locations, even distant ones, to have their arty fire reach the target at the same time, with devestating effect. This was routinely done during the Gulf War.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited March 10, 2001).]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by RickyB:
The Soviet artillery would have chewed up the allies in the front lines pretty badly, but their attacking forces would probably get chewed up also, and once the battle got fluid which it would have, the allies would gain the upper hand.

I'm not to sure this would go on indefinitely. We know the US was good at counterbattery fire, and could mass fire on one target, so how good were the Soviets at counterbattery fire? I suspect the Allies could gain the upper hand in a protracted conflict, but just as with the air war, it wouldn't happen quickly, and we're back to the issue of how much damage could the Soviets do to our ground forces before the advantages the Allies had could kick in.