Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Mist:

page is cute , though it shows that women's share was pretty small in the Soviet Army.

Hmmm. 800,000 the page said, and what was the total size of Soviet army? There were estimates on this or some other thread, was it something like 10,000,000? That would make 8%, not very much proportionally, but compared with the 0% of other countries, a lot Plus the huge numbers they had in arms, and the losses they took, I'm pretty certain the number of women in "men's jobs" and in the war industry was also much larger than other countries in WW2.

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 don't think that the number of women in the Soviet Army was so much due to the lack of men than the communist ideas of equality of the sexes. In fact, given that they were never pressed into service in any large numbers - only a few % as I estimated - I'm pretty sure most were volunteers or specialists.

Cheers, Teppo

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

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

Just in case someone took offence: When I said the Russian troops were "very, very rough" I did not imply that the US soldier was second rate in WW2. The GI's were green at first, and suffered from that when going up against the more experienced German troops. Against raw German units they did just fine. They also suffered from inferior tanks, but that was more than offset by massive superiority in numbers and air support.

Inexperienced does not in any way imply a lack of fighting spirit, somehthing the Yanks showed a lot of on a number of occasions. Also, by the end of the war they had indeed learnt a lot, although I doubt they were yet equal to the Germans at their best.

Be that as it may, the Germans and Russians had been fighting a no pardon given or taken war whose sheer merciless brutality can never be overstated. Hopefully, the world will never know its like, and to date it hasn't. The surviving Soviet troops were used to all kind of deprivations and ordeals, and had fought with equal suicidal stubborness since day one of Barbarossa. The men that crossed the Oder were some very tough customers indeed, and quite frankly, without going through that kind of experience there is NO WAY the individual western soldier would have measuered up to them, not for a long time. This does not mean they were cowards or weaklings, they were not. They were probably far better soldiers than the Russians were in 1941, but not YET as good as the Russians were in 1945.

Finally, yes I'm not American. Should that not make my opinion on the performance of US troops less biased than an Americans? Objectivity demands detachment, I belive.

by Ed Cogburn:
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.
-------------------------------------
I did not say the Russians did not have an airforce, but you are right saying it would not be an easy time for our fly boys, but our aircraft was much more durable and therefor could be put back into the air at a much faster rate, plus, and I have not checked the figures but sombody said that the total number of aircraft that both sides could field would effectively place the west at a two to one advantage. Our fly boys stood a much greater chance of actually bringing there aircraft back to the air-field than the Russian's had, and within a short time this would really make a major differance to the air war securing permanently western air supremacy.

Qoute.
As for the Fireflies, the first battalion of IS-II they ran into would have ruined their day.
--------------------------------------------
My mistake, I did not mean fireflies, I was actually refering to the US fighter bomber that was consistantly fitted with rockets, a real tank buster as I understand it but for the life of me I cannot remember it's designation. However I do agree that the firefly would be out matched by the IS-II and slaughtered by the new IS-III that was indeed being produced in ever more numbers.

qoute.
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.
-----------------------------------------
Yes my mistake again, when I am knakered I don't tend to explain myself incorrectly.
What Luftwaffe? I should have said the airmen that had been captured throughout the war, I am aware that there was very few remaining aircraft.
Jets- I was not necesarilly refering to the ME-262 but to the British Meteor that had shown it's face recently, the Me-262 was better but the Meteor was faster than anything the Russian's had at the time. As far as a protracted war is concerned, well yes I do not think it would be over in a hurry and as so many people point out the Atom bomb would win the battle, I Hate the A-Bomb and would hope that it would not have been used in Europe let alone anywhere else, it is a devasting weapon but altimately it destroy's the art of mobile warfare, there is no doubt it would have been used against the Russians if this hyperthetical war had taken place, but the civilian casualties are never going to be forgotten, it would be a mistake to use it.

Qoute.
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).
-------------------------------------------
I disagree, the Panther was possibly (IMHO the best) the best all round MBT of the war. Many countries including France and Argentina Used the design as there MBT or advanced upon it's design after the war.
The Maus was so prone to break down due to the extremely poor power to weight ratio that it was more or less un-usable in the field, so I would not really want to use such a cumbersome beast, possible the Russians had an engine that would be better suited to the monster, I do not know, but if they did it would take a re-design to fit, which in itself would take to long.

Qoute.
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.
--------------------------------------------
Hmmm, guess you are correct here.
How many German troops surrendered to the western Allies since D-Day, I cannot remember
exactly, but it should be more than enough to fill my qouta of fifty Division's, agreed before it is stated that they may well be short of Arty and support weapons, these could be taken in part from the stocks of captured weapons, but again how long would it have taken to re-route the Merchant fleet supplying Russia to add to the supply of continental Europe, the remainder would be of US origin.

Qoute.
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.
--------------------------------------------
You go with whoever you want, I believe that if Stalin was so worried about the A-Bomb, why the hell did we not press for the Russian withdrawal of occupied countries, if Stalin was so worried than he surely would have conceded. Because we rejected them to there apparent fate it has caused a hell of a lot of mistrust in our future. War has always been a mistake, but sometimes it is unavoidable. The only good thing that Atomic research has given the Planet so far is an un-easy peace for the last fifty six years.
Forcing our hand back in 1945 may well have led to a, I'll let you all decide...

The StratMan.
--------------------------------------------
Einstein rules relativity, well in theory at least.


[This message has been edited by StratMan (edited February 16, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by StratMan (edited February 16, 2001).]

Whew, what a long trip, pretty far from the question, what is the maximum amount of squads the soviets can raise in WIR? and how does this compare actual/potential figures?

For my two cents, the 1945 Red Army/Airforce was BIG, experienced and battle hardened beyond belief, with excellent equipment and ample manpower -it was able to absorb a million casualties in the campaign for Berlin alone.

How much chance would the allies have had if all the eastern front germans were arrayed against them? Well the russians were double/triple/quad that strength.

Lend-lease allowed the soviets to specialise their production further, that is why they have unusually low prod figures in certain categories.

Also, the declassified "Dropshot" 1957(?) US warplans reveal the complete collapse of western europe even with rebuilt french/italian/german forces, and envisaged the mobilisation of an astronomical number of US Divisions to ultimately win. I think it gave a figure of 30 days for soviets to reach the bay of biscay.

Of course, if Patton had had a few australian divisions, he might have had a chance, but we were busy winning the war in the pacific!

Note the board game World in Flames has an expansion set (Patton in flames?)which examines the red star/white star scenario.

Is this phenomenon of quoting previous messages a good idea? I think it makes it harder to follow conversation due to duplication?

Originally posted by Martinov:
Is this phenomenon of quoting previous messages a good idea? I think it makes it harder to follow conversation due to duplication?

As long as you use the qutoing method (the codes embedded in the text), I prefer to see the quoting, particularly the first quote which includes the author, so I don't make a mistake as to who I'm responding to.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 17, 2001).]

Stratman, please fix your quoting codes next time. They're broken in your last post which prevents me from responding point by point. Try a "Reply with Quote" on your last post and you'll see the problem.

Airpower issue: At one point you agree that our air forces would have a bad time of it, then in the next breath dismiss our weakness in tanks claiming they will be offset by air support. What I (and I believe Yogi) are trying to tell you is we don't believe *either* side will establish air supremacy in any reasonable time frame. The air war could last *months*, with air-to-ground support from *both* sides being interrupted and contested by the other. You have way too much confidence in our Air Force's ability to establish dominance over the Soviet Air Force. They didn't have the best planes but they had a **hell** of a lot of them. Notice the similarity? Germany may have had the Panther, but the USSR had a horde of T34s, and we know who won that battle. The Soviets even if they took more losses per week than we did, they still had a lot more than we did to throw into the fight.

As for our ability to destroy the Red Army on the ground, the sheer *size* of the Red Army makes that possibility unlikely. And remember, the Red Army was used to fighting a war against a very good foe without having air supremacy for most of the war. Our Army had air supremecy, and therefore reliable air support, throughout the war. For at least a couple of months after the fighting starts, our Army would have had to get used to being on their own. And once you realize that point, then we're back to comparing tanks, and the Sherman comes up WAY short against the T34/85, and against the Red Army, unlike the Germans, we ***won't*** have the advantage of numbers.

As to German aircraft and tank designs. I think you're putting too much faith in those things somehow turning the Red Tide. It would take many months to get those things into high quantity production, keeping in mind that this production would almost have to occur in Britian and the US, as the production facilities in Germany won't be usable as they're in the middle of a battlefield. The Soviets would almost certainly be able to overrun Germany in the early going, anyway.

On the last point, the reason we never pushed was A) our people were just as worried about Stalin attacking us, as Stalin was worried about us attacking him, and B) Roosevelt was a tired man by '45, and did not press Stalin hard, to Churchill's regret. Churchill new what was coming: the "Iron Curtain".

The American Army in Europe was smaller than that of the Russians, but I war against Russia would have used the British, French and other small Allied armies as well as at least some of the Wermacht. Also, consider that the US pretty much fought WWII with one hand behind its back. They did not have to dig nearly as deep into their reserves as did the Germans or other western Allies. The US could have easliy put many more divisions on the field. Also remeber, after August, the American and British units in the Pacific would have been available to deploy against Russia, and could have attack the USSR from the east, where Russia was relatively understrenghted.

Furthermore, though Russian soldiers could be very fanatical, that probably would have done them little good in the long run. In the West, it was the fanatical FJ and SS troops who often got themselves killed in large numbers in heroic but pointless actions against the US and Brits, and the fanatical Japanese infantry died at a much higher rate than the opposing American troops, even on well defended islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

In the air, the Allies would have won air superiorty in the same way they did in Western Europe. The American (Army) Air Force is and has been since 1943 the best Air Force in the world, plane for plane and pilot for pilot. Even when flying outdated planes such as the P-40, P-39/400, and the (Navy) F4F against well-trained and equipped Japanese and German pilots, American squadrons routinely amassed outstanding records and kill ratios. By 1945, the late model P-38s, P-51s, and P-47s were equal to or better than the Russian fighters in quality. Of course, the US strategic bomber force was the best in the world, and the deployment of the B-29 against Russia would have allowed bombing of Russia's Industrial targets.

The biggest factor, though, was training. The American Air Force's pilot training program was the finest in the world at the time (and probably still is today). Its polcies of rotating veterans to the rear allowed new recruits to gain experiance in the US that pilots of other nations had to learn on the front. Also, the USAAF emphsized cooperative team tactics above all else, and in this was equal to or superior than the more individualistic Axis or Russian air forces. Though the US and the UK never had pilots with as many kills as their Axis counterparts, they came out ahead in practically every major air engagement from 1943 to 1945, and won many of the fights in North Africa and the South Pacific before that as well, even though the Allies were often outnumbered.

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.

Of course, had the conflict last long enough for the A-Bomb to be deployed in large numbers, B-29s and captured German V-2s would have made short work of the Russian army and economy.

And yes, I believe that we (the Allies) should have gone on and finished off Russia. I know that, given the attitudes at home it would have been highly unlikely, but it would have been the logical extension of our war to liberate Europe. WW2 was fought to protect both the safety and the freedoms of America, England, France, and all the smaller nationes that were threatened or conquered by foriegn powers. When WW2 ended, half of Europe was still under control of a restrictive and unwanted power. Communist rule was as bad or worse than Nazi oppresion, and the eastern European nations deserved and desired to be free of Russian control as much as the western European nations wanted to be rid of Germany. Stalin and Communism deserved to be stamped out as much as Hitler and Nazism did, maybe even more so. Frankly given a choice between the two, I would have choose a Nazi rule, as the Nazis killed fewer innocent people (including Jews) and allowed (relatively) more freedom than the Communists ever did. It took us 6 years to end the Nazi reign in Europe. Because we ignored Patton's advice, it took us 55 years to end the Soviet reign of the same territory.

The huge soviet army is a force to be dealt with. But, not directly. US and british airpower with a 2 to 1 advantage over the soviet airforce would rest the skies of russian air craft within a week. The first thing that would go from allied airpower would be the russian oil fields in the causasses(from bases in mid east). Then all that russian railroad track (COMPLIMENTS OF US VIA MURMANSK HWY) and the trains that run
on them would be next. So much for the Soviet army driving the Americans,British, and French back across the channel. No supply = no offensive. Next would be the flanks. What flanks? Oh ask Mac Arthur about cutting supply by amphib naval assault. Where? Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Murmansk, Vladivostok. Just the threat of it would tie up scores of Russian divisions.
Now the russian economy has to retool to feed
its troops as well as supply its army with essentials(ammo,trucks,food,oil). It would be more of a nitemare when the b29s come a calling on moscow. Even if the war starts before Japan surrenders, Japan is no factor in 1945. Japan is an island. With no navy(that includes merchant fleet) they have nothing to contribute offensively. Next would be threat perception and the ATOM BOMB.
Since Japan is no longer a military threat. Kiev and Lenningrad become the the target for the bomb instead of hiroshima and
nagasaki.
No need to stand up in front of the bear and
try and punch him in the nose when u can just
step aside and kick him in the butt.)

It would have been interesting to see how much there would be left of a Soviet Tank army after an air attack from rocket carrying P47 thunderbolts.

And just on a number note. There were about 3700 is IIs produced vs 2000 M26 Pershings.
Now meet those after you have been assaulted
by the Thunderbolts and see what happens.)
Try not to miss the Pershings too much as the isII only carried 28 rounds of ammo.

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
The huge soviet army is a force to be dealt with. But, not directly. US and british airpower with a 2 to 1 advantage over the soviet airforce would rest the skies of russian air craft within a week. The first thing that would go from allied airpower would be the russian oil fields in the causasses(from bases in mid east). Then all that russian railroad track (COMPLIMENTS OF US VIA MURMANSK HWY) and the trains that run
on them would be next. So much for the Soviet army driving the Americans,British, and French back across the channel. No supply = no offensive. Next would be the flanks. What flanks? Oh ask Mac Arthur about cutting supply by amphib naval assault. Where? Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Murmansk, Vladivostok. Just the threat of it would tie up scores of Russian divisions.
Now the russian economy has to retool to feed
its troops as well as supply its army with essentials(ammo,trucks,food,oil). It would be more of a nitemare when the b29s come a calling on moscow. Even if the war starts before Japan surrenders, Japan is no factor in 1945. Japan is an island. With no navy(that includes merchant fleet) they have nothing to contribute offensively. Next would be threat perception and the ATOM BOMB.
Since Japan is no longer a military threat. Kiev and Lenningrad become the the target for the bomb instead of hiroshima and
nagasaki.
No need to stand up in front of the bear and
try and punch him in the nose when u can just
step aside and kick him in the butt.)

It would have been interesting to see how much there would be left of a Soviet Tank army after an air attack from rocket carrying P47 thunderbolts.

And just on a number note. There were about 3700 is IIs produced vs 2000 M26 Pershings.
Now meet those after you have been assaulted
by the Thunderbolts and see what happens.)
Try not to miss the Pershings too much as the isII only carried 28 rounds of ammo.

Well, I have to say, Good post, but, I think it would take more than a week to destroy the Russian airforce, maybe two weeks before air supremacy was achieved. Also I would prefer if the A-Bomb was never used, which is possible why I love John Lennon. Deep down I am a pacifist with an agresive nature. Oh, and I never contradict myself.
Often.
Like your style, in a team game, you can be on my side.
The StratMan.

I'm sorry guys, but I don't share your glib optimism about what would happen in a contest between the USSR and the Western Allies in '45. You assume too much.

The Allies were heavily outnumbered on the ground, facing heavy tanks which they had no answer for (except air power, which would largely be unable to help in the beginning), the Soviets were launching 7,500 bomber raids against Berlin in '45, their late war fighters like the Yak9U was very close in capabilities to Allied aircraft, and was being produced in huge numbers. The highest scoring fighter ace of the Allied side in WWII was a Soviet flyer. Claiming Western Air Forces would get air supremecy within a week is just grossly over optimistic. The Soviet industry had recovered much by '45 and was, I strongly believe, no longer as dependent on Western aid as you believe, but more importantly, the war would be over, with the Soviets at the English channel, before production capabilities in the West could provide enough equipment, especially of German design, to make a difference. It would all be over before the US could fill the skies with Me-262 clones, and good heavy tanks on the ground, so let's just agree to disagree. Sorry.



[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 17, 2001).]

Ouch! No way the Russain army pushes the allies off the continent in short order. For one thing the P51 Mustang rulez the sky. Russian bombing raids would dry up fast cause thier bombers couldnt take the punishment. How do you think the Russians were able to launch those bomber raids in the first place?? The P51. courtesy of your friendly USAAF. And again you cant look on the 1945 USAAF and try and compare it to 41-45 Luftwaffe or Russain airforce. Its a different level all together. Gee! look what happened to the stronger bigger better equiped german 15th army in the bulge when the weather lifted!!! Death from above. Oh by the way the Germans severly weakend the Russian front in December 44 to launch the battle. With no reserves and a weakened eastern front it still took the big bad russian army five full months to take Berlin!!!!!!!!!! Now if a decimated Whermacht can hold off the Russians for 5 months with little to no air force how in the world is the russian army gonna push around a fully supplied US Army with the biggest and best airforce on the planet??

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
Ouch! No way the Russain army pushes the allies off the continent in short order. For one thing the P51 Mustang rulez the sky. Russian bombing raids would dry up fast cause thier bombers couldnt take the punishment. How do you think the Russians were able to launch those bomber raids in the first place?? The P51. courtesy of your friendly USAAF. And again you cant look on the 1945 USAAF and try and compare it to 41-45 Luftwaffe or Russain airforce. Its a different level all together. Gee! look what happened to the stronger bigger better equiped german 15th army in the bulge when the weather lifted!!! Death from above. Oh by the way the Germans severly weakend the Russian front in December 44 to launch the battle. With no reserves and a weakened eastern front it still took the big bad russian army five full months to take Berlin!!!!!!!!!! Now if a decimated Whermacht can hold off the Russians for 5 months with little to no air force how in the world is the russian army gonna push around a fully supplied US Army with the biggest and best airforce on the planet??

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.

If the allied armies and airforces are so overwhelming, why does it take them so long to defeat the small fraction of wehrmacht forces I send to the Western and Mediterranean "sideshows" in WIR (and thats with total air superiority over a fuel-less luftwaffe).

It's good to see the spirit of Patton still alive and strong - I wonder what it would have been like as US casualties lists started being counted in the millions - its a hell of a long way to the Urals (ask Mr Hilter).

Quote By Yogi Yohan
"Finally, yes I'm not American. Should that not make my opinion on the performance of US troops less biased than an Americans? Objectivity demands detachment, I belive."


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).]

Hey Ed,
Just how do you get all those cool looking stand out quotes like yours? Everytime I try to do it, mine always come out looking lifeless and sad.

Why do I feel I'm talking about hair curls with those lines.

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
Ouch! No way the Russain army pushes the allies off the continent in short order. For one thing the P51 Mustang rulez the sky.

Ok, one good Mustang fighter versus four above-average Yak9U fighters. Who wins? Hint: numbers matter.

Russian bombing raids would dry up fast cause thier bombers couldnt take the punishment.

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.

How do you think the Russians were able to launch those bomber raids in the first place?? The P51. courtesy of your friendly USAAF.

The Allied strategic raids did draw down the number of German fighters, but this still isn't evidence to dismiss the Soviet Air Force, particulary 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).

And again you cant look on the 1945 USAAF and try and compare it to 41-45 Luftwaffe or Russain airforce. Its a different level all together. Gee! look what happened to the stronger bigger better equiped german 15th army in the bulge when the weather lifted!!! Death from above.

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.

Oh by the way the Germans severly weakend the Russian front in December 44 to launch the battle.

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.

With no reserves and a weakened eastern front it still took the big bad russian army five full months to take Berlin!!!!!!!!!! Now if a decimated Whermacht can hold off the Russians for 5 months with little to no air force how in the world is the russian army gonna push around a fully supplied US Army with the biggest and best airforce on the planet??

Wrong, more like one month, see the other post which refutes your claim.

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.

Just to add some more here. Berlin was encircled by April 25th and the assault on the city began on the 26th. With 8 armies(4 of them tank armies) assaulting the city from every direction it was all over in a week.

Also remember that the Germans were fighting a desperate rearguard action in the east so that as many as possible could surrender to the British-Americans. Just before midnight on April 27th von Mantueffel reported that more than half of his divisions had stopped fighting and that 100000 men were fleeing west to surrender to the Americans.

"The Soviet armies were well-trained and well-equipped. Their plan was to surround and capture the city on the sixth day of the offensive. By the 11th day, the Red Army was at the Elbe River."

"Contrary to the Soviet plan, Berlin did not surrender until May 2, a full 17 days after the offensive began. The American and Soviet troops first met on April 25 at the Elbe River, 10 days after the offensive began."

"While it is difficult to say exactly how many Soviet soldiers actually participated in the assault on Berlin, the Berlin Medal was awarded to nearly 1,082,000 troops. That means the Soviet forces had more than 10 times the men the Germans had during the fight for the city itself. Even so, it took the Red Army from April 21, when it first reached the city, until May 2 to capture Berlin -- a total of 12 days."

This is all (above in "")was from an interview with Siegfried Knappe. A German Officer in Berlin at the end. who wrote a book on his experience (which is really good I read it). Russia even at this time could not stand toe-toe to the shadow of an army that was gasping for breath. I think Russian troops were ok but they still had major problems organizing offensives and carrying out major operations.

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"!

The Russians could have been crippled after fine and strategic strikes on supply lines by air. Fuel and trains would have been a major target.

web reference link: http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=PRinterview


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

Originally posted by tsbond:
The Russians could have been crippled after fine and strategic strikes on supply lines by air. Fuel and trains would have been a major target.
[This message has been edited by tsbond (edited February 18, 2001).]

I personally think the supply issue would have been the key to any fighting that occured between the two sides. The Soviet pattern had been consistent - gather supplies for a few months and then launch an overwhelming attack, but they were getting quicker as the war went on. This pattern was pretty consistent for all sides, actually - even the Germans had pauses during Barbarossa, although much shorter. The Soviets got by on much less than any other combatants, but they relied on masses of artillery, requiring shells, and their tanks required lots of fuel.

The Red Air Force never dominated anything but the front lines during the war - they never became real adept at using air power into the depths of the German rear. In part this was due to fairly short range for the Surmoviks, and also their C&C was fairly primitive. I don't believe they ever used more than primitive radar, if any, either.

Anyway, the Soviets would have required at least a short (1-2 months???) pause before being ready to strike for "the channel". Based on their normal lunges, this would require at least 2 offensives - first to the Rhine. They could not have reached it in one attack, especially as their supply situation was getting worse the farther west they went. I doubt that the West could stop the Soviets, but they might have been able to stop them short of the Rhine. The Americans, as someone said, had by far the best artillery of a major power in the war. The Soviet infantry would be pounded pretty well by it, reducing the support for the tanks. Nobody, including the Soviets, was ever able to operate tanks effectively without decent infantry support throughout the war. However, as someone else said, the Western allies did not have large numbers of reserve units, making it tough to respond. But then the Germans hadn't for 2 years either, and the Americans had much greater wheeled mobility than anyone else, making it easier to move around the men that were available. Also, the front would have shrunk as it moved west, up until the Rhine being crossed, improving the situation.

As to the air, the Western allies would have gained dominance before the Soviets reached the channel, say during the pause after the first offensive came to a halt, wherever that would have been. The West tank busters were not as good as the Sturmovik or the various German ones, but they had great tactical airpower that was good at operating in the depths of the enemy rear. The Soviets would have had a tough time moving up supplies throughout, and it would get worse as their airpower declined.

Anyway, I think the Soviets would have pushed forward at least a fair distance, possibly reaching the Rhine at which point they would probably have reached a stalemate like happened in Korea. The longer the battle lasted, the tougher for the Soviets to continue the fight so far from home and all.

It would have definitely been extremely bloody for both sides, and I really think it would have eventually ended in a stalemate somewhere in western Germany. Love the ideas of everyone on this issue.

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

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