View Full Version : Lets play world war II mix and match!
Freiwillige
03-02-11, 08:33 PM
You are the rich country of (Insert name Here)
You get to model your Infantry,Armored divisions, air forces and navy, logistics, Artillery and command structure after real WWII models to build the perfect 1944 military. You'r nation has the rights to build the equipment they had.
Country (Norseway) :D
Infantry - German - 1944 model
Armored divisions -German 1944 model
Air Force - US 1944 model
Navy- US 43\45 model
Artillery US-1944 model
Command model - OKW 1943\44
Logistics US - 44' model
USA all the way baby!
I'm serious.
It'd been nice to see an earlier deployment of Pershing and Chaffee tanks of course (not to mention The A-Bomb) but I don't see any foreign branch of service as superior to ours by the end of the war.
But for purposes of argument, leaving my home country out of the mix:
Latest and/or Greatest models
County - The United States of Augusto (USofA)
Infantry - German
Armor - Soviet
Air Force - British
Navy - British
Artillery - Soviet
Command model - Roman (I love multiples of 10) with a Napoleonic General Staff.
Logistics - British
that would make a great sim game 2 person dueller. been trying to rig 2 computers with destroyer command, take a look at ACEs HIGH 2
Freiwillige
03-02-11, 10:07 PM
USA all the way baby!
I'm serious.
It'd been nice to see an earlier deployment of Pershing and Chaffee tanks of course (not to mention The A-Bomb) but I don't see any foreign branch of service as superior to ours by the end of the war.
But for purposes of argument, leaving my home country out of the mix:
Latest and/or Greatest models
County - The United States of Augusto (USofA)
Infantry - German
Armor - Soviet
Air Force - British
Navy - British
Artillery - Soviet
Command model - Roman (I love multiples of 10) with a Napoleonic General Staff.
Logistics - British
Armor soviet? I got two words for you GERMAN OPTICS!
Command Model - Roman:rock:
Sledgehammer427
03-02-11, 10:23 PM
Command Model - Roman:rock:
Country - Humbug.
Infantry - Fallschirmjager 1944
Armor - German
Air Force - American, but add in later model BF-109's
Navy - German, with better admirals.
Artillery - American, circa 1945
Logistics - Soviet, when they got their act together.
Ducimus
03-02-11, 10:27 PM
USAF didn't exist in WW2. Although you had the Army Air Corp.
( I have no idea why im spiltting hairs on this, i just am. )
TLAM Strike
03-02-11, 10:36 PM
Country Tlamistan
Infantry - German
Armored divisions - German
Air Force - German
Navy- British
Artillery - Russian
Command model - German
Logistics - US
gimpy117
03-02-11, 10:53 PM
if the germans could build panthers like we built shermans the war would have gone different. plus the upgrage for the king tiger they had planned
if the germans could build panthers like we built shermans the war would have gone different. plus the upgrage for the king tiger they had planned
I dunno about that. I doubt tank numbers and improvements alone would have changed the outcome of the war. Even an Abrams becomes just a fancy pill box once it's fuel runs out.
Armor soviet? I got two words for you GERMAN OPTICS!
The quality of German armor is well known but the Russians put out some darn good tanks too, especially towards the end of the war, and the T-34 proved to be a far more versatile weapons platform than anything else on either side.
Feuer Frei!
03-02-11, 11:19 PM
Country-DeutscheKraftWerks
Infantry - German
Armored divisions - German
Air Force - German
Navy- German
Artillery - German
Command model - German
Logistics - US
Freiwillige
03-03-11, 12:48 AM
The quality of German armor is well known but the Russians put out some darn good tanks too, especially towards the end of the war, and the T-34 proved to be a far more versatile weapons platform than anything else on either side.
While the T-34 was the tank of its day that everybody else scrambled to cope with there is little doubt that by mid 44' the German's held the upper hand in armor design in anything but numbers.
Also the doctrines of the armored forces were different. The Germans had the tank destroyer role down to an art form with their Stug's, Jagdpanthers, Hetzers, Jagdpanzer IV's, Hummels which no other Army of the time had many equivalent. The American M-10's and M-18's were good.
The Soviets still thought of their armored corps as heavy break through and exploit force and put only a second emphasis on Armored to Armored showdowns.
But back to German optics. The Germans could see farther and more accurately then their oposition, couple that with the hitting power of the 75mm and 88mm guns and you can see why the Germans preferred an ambush tactic engaging and knocking out Soviet armor at 2,000+ Meters
Soviet optics were usually 3 or 4x German optics were 8 and 12X and much better quality.
Tank for tank I would say the Panther is the best compromise of everything in a WWII battle tank. Armored protection, Gun, Rate of fire, cross country maneuverability and speed.
I would make it my choice over even the IS-2 heavy tanks the Soviets fielded at wars end.
By the way the medium Panther and heavy IS-2 were actually about the same tonnage!
While the T-34 was the tank of its day that everybody else scrambled to cope with there is little doubt that by mid 44' the German's held the upper hand in armor design in anything but numbers.
The T34/85, especially the late war models like the T-43 and T-44 was a perfectly fine tank that did fine against German armor. Maybe it wasn't the absolute best in all areas but it was tough and reliable and easy to mass produce. The Germans were tough but not as reliable or as easily produced. High quality always takes more time.
Soviet doctrine and tactics are irrelevant. Augustos armored units would be led by Romans, not Bolsheviks.
TheSatyr
03-03-11, 01:38 AM
Country-Los Boomer
Infantry-German
Armored-German
Air Force-USA
Navy-Japan
Artillery-USSR
Command Model-German
Logistics-USA
Sailor Steve
03-03-11, 01:59 AM
USAF didn't exist in WW2. Although you had the Army Air Corp.
( I have no idea why im spiltting hairs on this, i just am. )
Actually the USAAC became the USAAF in June 1941. So he just left out an extra 'A'.
Snestorm
03-03-11, 05:13 AM
Infantry = Germany
Armor = Russia
Air = USA
Navy = USA
Logistics = USA
Artillery = USA
Command = Germany
Country: The Empire of Wotsitstan
Infantry = Germany
Armor = Germany
Air = Britain
Navy = Britain
Logistics = USA
Artillery = Russian
Command = Germany
Raptor1
03-03-11, 07:33 AM
Erm, let's see.
Country: Hanseatic League of Northern Bigfootia
Infantry - German 43/44 (Panzergrenadiers?)
Armour - Soviet 44/45
Air - US 44/45 (If I could break it down I'll probably say Strategic Air - US 44/45 and Tactical Air - Soviet 44/45, though in the latter category I'm not absolutely decided as to who had it better)
Navy - US 44/45
Logistics - US 44/45
Artillery - Soviet 44/45
Command - Prussia 1866...Well, okay, Soviet 44/45 (You're all really taking the German Command? Are you forgetting how messed up it was?)
And if you'll allow me to add:
Tactical Command and Training - Germany 42/43
Operational Doctrine - Soviet 44/45
HunterICX
03-03-11, 07:49 AM
Nation: Zod
National Anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKofKCziiG4
Infantry: German Motorized Infantry
Armour: German Panzers, Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers
Artillery: Soviet 1944/45
Air: RAF
Navy: RN
Logistics: US 1944/45
Command: General Patton
HunterICX
Feuer Frei!
03-03-11, 07:55 AM
(You're all really taking the German Command? Are you forgetting how messed up it was?)
It was only messed up because Hitler decided to appoint himself Commander-in-Chief of the German Army.
Back in 1941, which kind of made sense since that is when Germany started to slide downhill.
It is a well-known fact that had Hitler not intervened so much on the ground and let his Generals and Commanders dictate the battles more directly, then Germany could have, and imo would have done much much better.
Prime example: the drive on Moscow.
Germany had excellent Military Commanders, Rommel, Heinz Guderian, and Erich von Manstein come to mind.
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 07:59 AM
Nation: Takistan
Infantry-British (totally underrated in my view)
Armor-German
Air Force-USA
Navy-USA
Artillery-USSR
Command Model-German
Logistics-USA
Raptor1
03-03-11, 08:17 AM
It was only messed up because Hitler decided to appoint himself Commander-in-Chief of the German Army.
Back in 1941, which kind of made sense since that is when Germany started to slide downhill.
It is a well-known fact that had Hitler not intervened so much on the ground and let his Generals and Commanders dictate the battles more directly, then Germany could have, and imo would have done much much better.
Prime example: the drive on Moscow.
Germany had excellent Military Commanders, Rommel, Heinz Guderian, and Erich von Manstein come to mind.
Oh, I'm not disputing that Germany had some very good commanders at the time. But besides Hitler personally directing operations, the German High Command was terribly ineffective. The OKW taking direct control of land campaigns, and as a consequence the rivalry between the different High Command in the Eastern and Western Fronts, is a good example of this.
Granted, Hitler is largely responsible for all this, but unless this is about the highly theoretical German Command structure as it was supposed to work, you can't take the German Command and ignore its vast problems.
Feuer Frei!
03-03-11, 08:28 AM
rivalry between the different High Command in the Eastern and Western Fronts, is a good example of this.
Indeed, this was also a big issue for us, the rivalry, spurned on by Hitler.
Everyone wanted to prove to him that they were the best. Everyone wanted to outdo each other to be his 'favourite'.
Everyone wanted to avoid failure. For fear of failure was big.
Ultimately because of this, decisions were made hastily, often not being consulted at the low levels of command, on the ground in most cases with the ground commanders.
But i get your point. :salute:
Indeed, this was also a big issue for us, the rivalry, spurned on by Hitler.
Everyone wanted to prove to him that they were the best. Everyone wanted to outdo each other to be his 'favourite'.
Everyone wanted to avoid failure. For fear of failure was big.
Ultimately because of this, decisions were made hastily, often not being consulted at the low levels of command, on the ground in most cases with the ground commanders.
But i get your point. :salute:
Command rivalries aren't unique to the Germans. There was quite a bit between Montgomery and Patton as well as MacArthur and Nimitz.
There was quite a bit between Montgomery and Patton
That's an understatement :haha:
TLAM Strike
03-03-11, 08:50 AM
Country: The Empire of Wotsitstan
Infantry = Germany
Armor = Germany
Air = Britain
Navy = Britain
Logistics = USA
Artillery = Russian
Command = Germany
We think alike Oberon. ;)
:yeah:
You guys would actually take the British navy over the US Navy? I would think our fleet carriers alone would make the US the obvious choice in that area.
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 09:57 AM
I would think our fleet carriers alone would make the US the obvious choice in that area.
That's exactly why I picked them. The USN of WWII was very much the navy of the future. What I don't understand is the choice for the German navy. Sure, lots of submarines, but weak in the use of surface combatants and entirely lacking in air power. The Kriegsmarine was primarily an anti-shipping force; not at all well suited to major naval engagements.
TLAM Strike
03-03-11, 09:58 AM
You guys would actually take the British navy over the US Navy? I would think our fleet carriers alone would make the US the obvious choice in that area.
The difference was not that great. Brit carriers didn't carry aircraft on deck until the end of the war, at that time they could carry about 75-80% of what a US fleet carrier could carry.
Plus the Spit/SeaSpit could whoop the Zeros @$$.
The Firefly was also a great multipurpose carrier fighter. A/A, A/G, Recon, ASW.
...
What I don't understand is the choice for the German navy. Sure, lots of submarines, but weak in the use of surface combatants and entirely lacking in air power. The Kriegsmarine was primarily an anti-shipping force; not at all well suited to major naval engagements.
Think how many tanks you can build with the resources needed to build a battleship and you will have your answer. The German armed forces of the era were designed to conquer land via land ...:yep:
.
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 10:26 AM
Think how many tanks you can build with the resources needed to build a battleship and you will have your answer. The German armed forces of the era were designed to conquer land via land ...:yep:
.
You're right. And that is why I would not select the German naval model.
Sledgehammer427
03-03-11, 02:04 PM
I picked it on the idea that I am not constrained by the same economical problems that germany had in WWII.
Germany had a fearsome set of ships, but her admirals (and Hitler) were so afraid to use them (rightly so, because they didn't really have the ability to make more,) that they never left port, and got bombed there, or when they did leave port they got swiftly outnumbered and destroyed by the allies.
So I picked germany because, in my little country, I would have had enough metal for 6 Bismarck-class, a handful of Hippers (cute little rhyme innit?) and enough destroyers and auxillaries to guard them all.
I'm sure somebody will come along and blow huge holes in my ideas.
I will have my grain of salt ready.
Task Force
03-03-11, 02:53 PM
Hmm, Task Force Land.
Infantry: German, with all the cool 44 weaponry.
Armor good mix of German and Soviet tanks.
Air:A mix of German aircraft and Soviet numbers.
Navy: British
Logistics:Soviet
Artillery: Soviet
Command German
MaddogK
03-03-11, 03:26 PM
Soviets had logistics ? The same guys who issued 5 bullets to each soldier but only 1/4 of them got rifles. Then when an armed guy fell an unarmed soldier picked the dead guys rifle, loaded in his 5 bullets and continued to fight until he fell.
THESE soviets ?
Thats messed up.
I'd play, but I see no division between logistics and production, R&D, or intel.
UnderseaLcpl
03-03-11, 03:47 PM
This seems kind of silly...but it also sounds like fun. I'll play:up:
Country- Pwnia
Infantry- German Waffen SS. I know, they were bad guys, but man for man they were damned good fighters!
Armor- German (post-1941. I know the Russians had more serviceable and more effective tanks, but I cannot endorse their crew training model. They just threw men away)
Air Force- Russian. An odd choice, I know, but the Russians developed a close air-support model based on the German model in relatively short order and then actually had the resources to employ it effectively. The US and the British did nothing of the sort. They just threw men and machines at the war until the Axis was literally without means to oppose them, and even then they didn't have any success accomplishing their stated objectives. Worse, the Western Allies engaged in massive and ineffective terror-bombings of civilians. Not in my damn airforce!
Navy- I'll take the US Navy. For all their considerable power and subsequent attempts to check the U-boat threat, the Royal Navy was precisely garbage until the US showed up. All they managed to do was to lose every surface naval engagement and fail to adequately address the U-boat threat on their own, in like, multiple ways.
Actually, now that I think about it, screw the US Navy. The only people who had any idea of how to use a Navy with the goal of "force projection" were the Japanese. They were proactive rather than reactive. Were it not for the incredible stroke of luck we had at Midway, they would have beat our asses black and blue before they succumbed to our material superiority. I want US material superiority combined with Japanese naval tactics.
Artillery - German
German artillery targeting and employment was so frakking good that the US uses it as a model for combined-force operations to this day, and it serves very well.
Command Model - German again. The German model of command is so good that their methods are embraced by the world's only remaining superpower. In fact, we go a step beyond that and have adopted German unit tactics, camoflauge, and even helmets.
Logistics- I'd go with the US, though Russians are a close second. There's nothing quite like mindlessly throwing vastly superior resources at the enemy until they give up because they no longer have the means to resist. It's not a good or effective strategy, but it does work. Actually, I take that back. I'd use the British model of logistics. There is nothing quite like throwing someone else's vastly superior resources at the enemy until they no longer have the means to resist.
So I guess what I really want is allied material superiority and axis troops. Can I do that?
Raptor1
03-03-11, 03:59 PM
Soviets had logistics ? The same guys who issued 5 bullets to each soldier but only 1/4 of them got rifles. Then when an armed guy fell an unarmed soldier picked the dead guys rifle, loaded in his 5 bullets and continued to fight until he fell.
THESE soviets ?
Thats messed up.
I'd play, but I see no division between logistics and production, R&D, or intel.
The same Soviets whose war effort is so often substituted for by myths, yes. While it is indeed true that many Soviet units in 1941 and early 1942 were very poorly equipped (Because they were hastily raised, and because the rapid German advance captured many of their weapons and transportation capability), this situation, as far as I know, was never one that was horrible to the extent that you make it and was rectified very quickly.
In fact, I'd have chosen Soviet logistics, especially when one considers they have been able to supply vast offensives over long distances at the same time the Western Allies struggled to advance over much better infrastructure and shorter distances on the Western Front. The fact that Soviet sea supply ability was lacking (Because they didn't really need any) and that Soviet ability to supply their forces came partly because of lend-lease US equipment led me to choose the US/Western Allies instead, though.
UnderseaLcpl
03-03-11, 04:02 PM
Soviets had logistics ? The same guys who issued 5 bullets to each soldier but only 1/4 of them got rifles. Then when an armed guy fell an unarmed soldier picked the dead guys rifle, loaded in his 5 bullets and continued to fight until he fell.
Well, yes, the Soviets did have logistics. Getting such sheer masses of men, guns, armor, and artillery to the front count as logistics. I don't like the idea any more than you do, in fact I find it rather repulsive, but the Soviets did do the majority of the fighting and they did win the war pretty much by themselves. I'm not sure I could be persuaded to fight by the Soviets. I'd probably have taken arms against them, but then I'm not a Soviet.
THESE soviets ?
Yep. THOSE Soviets.
Thats messed up.
Tell me about it.
I'd play, but I see no division between logistics and production, R&D, or intel.
I think you're confusing material superiority with the aforementioned concepts, but I might be wrong. Please elaborate.
frau kaleun
03-03-11, 04:14 PM
Nation: Giggity Republic of Hotchacha
(Airborne) Infantry-Damian Lewis as Major Dick Winters
Armor-Erwin Rommel as himself
Air Force-some cute guy with an accent in a Spitfire
Navy-Jürgen Prochnow as der Alte
Artillery-whoever has the biggest gun
Command Model-I vill be giffink ze kommants, ja?
Logistics-we'll start with a game of nekkid Twister and go from there
:hmmm:
It's entirely possible that I've missed the whole point of this exercise. :shifty: :O:
the_tyrant
03-03-11, 04:28 PM
:hmmm:lets see
Infantry: Germany
Best troops, best weapons,
Armour: Germany
Great tanks, short on mechanical reliability though
Air: US
american planes are of great quality, thats for sure
Japanese pilots often used up all their ammo and still fail to destroy a F6F
Navy: Japan
The best battleships, and the best carriers
Morale: Japan
Most determined troops in the war
Propaganda: Germany
So successful that there is a Goebbels' mass media in China
Troop numbers: Soviet & US
Well the soviet union was able to field the most troops, of course US numbers for the navy
Logistics:US
Well the US was able to supply many allied countries with equipment and supplies
Secret weapons:
this is a tough one:hmmm:
Germany had rockets, Japan had bio weapons, Italy had the human torpedo
but still, America had NUKES
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 04:29 PM
I picked it on the idea that I am not constrained by the same economical problems that germany had in WWII.
Germany had a fearsome set of ships, but her admirals (and Hitler) were so afraid to use them (rightly so, because they didn't really have the ability to make more,) that they never left port, and got bombed there, or when they did leave port they got swiftly outnumbered and destroyed by the allies.
So I picked germany because, in my little country, I would have had enough metal for 6 Bismarck-class, a handful of Hippers (cute little rhyme innit?) and enough destroyers and auxillaries to guard them all.
I'm sure somebody will come along and blow huge holes in my ideas.
I will have my grain of salt ready.
BBs are powerful weapons, but air power rules the seas. Look what happened to Yamato, and she was one big, mean mofo.
Tchocky
03-03-11, 04:30 PM
Infantry - Gurkha
Air Force - Luftwaffe
Attitude - Ireland.
There's a what? What's on? A WAR?! I'm not dressed!
Artillery-whoever has the biggest gun
Pfft, one track mind. :O:
the_tyrant
03-03-11, 04:34 PM
I picked it on the idea that I am not constrained by the same economical problems that germany had in WWII.
Germany had a fearsome set of ships, but her admirals (and Hitler) were so afraid to use them (rightly so, because they didn't really have the ability to make more,) that they never left port, and got bombed there, or when they did leave port they got swiftly outnumbered and destroyed by the allies.
So I picked germany because, in my little country, I would have had enough metal for 6 Bismarck-class, a handful of Hippers (cute little rhyme innit?) and enough destroyers and auxillaries to guard them all.
I'm sure somebody will come along and blow huge holes in my ideas.
I will have my grain of salt ready.
Still, japan planned 6 Yamatos
6 yamatos vs 6 bismarks I'd bet on the yamatos
I presume its not SH4, so one sub can't take out 10 battleships
TLAM Strike
03-03-11, 04:41 PM
BBs are powerful weapons, but air power rules the seas. Look what happened to Yamato, and she was one big, mean mofo.
Oh you mean how she took about 30 bombs and 20 torpedoes before sinking? :03:
If the US didn't have air superiority and only some of those attack planes made it to their target things could have been different.
A Battleship-Carrier force properly used can be a lot more dangerous than a carrier only force.
Freiwillige
03-03-11, 04:49 PM
Well, yes, the Soviets did have logistics. Getting such sheer masses of men, guns, armor, and artillery to the front count as logistics. I don't like the idea any more than you do, in fact I find it rather repulsive, but the Soviets did do the majority of the fighting and they did win the war pretty much by themselves. I'm not sure I could be persuaded to fight by the Soviets. I'd probably have taken arms against them, but then I'm not a Soviet.
Yep. THOSE Soviets.
Tell me about it.
I think you're confusing material superiority with the aforementioned concepts, but I might be wrong. Please elaborate.
The only reason the soviets had any logistics at all is due to lend lease.
We sent them so many trucks that they went from an immobile army on defensive's 1941-1943 to a very German styled mobile army 1944-45.
Lend lease did save the Soviet Union despite all the Russia won da war by dem selves sayers.
Here is where Lend lease proved most effective, Trucks, Rubber and fuel, not tanks, planes and guns.
They had the manpower always did but Germany still walked all over them because they lacked mobility, We gave them that mobility and they quickly turned the tables although getting black eyes all the way to Berlin.
And also for your close air support argument, While not quite a Sturmovik the P-47's and the Typhoons and Tempests were still just about as effective with the added advantage that they were no longer bomb trucks when the payload was dropped but competitive fighters!
I'm with August since you're talking organizational structure, not just equipment. That means if you pick German armor, you get their logistical train, too. No picking and choosing. Ditto german infantry—crappy logistics.
US tanks were not as good, but they were easy for us to keep running (the fact that most americans were familiar with their own cars or farm vehicles didn't hurt—US car ownership was grossly higher than anywhere else on earth, so the lads all knew about keeping their jalopies running).
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 05:41 PM
Oh you mean how she took about 30 bombs and 20 torpedoes before sinking? :03:
And sank no ships in return, yes that's the one.
Bilge_Rat
03-03-11, 05:46 PM
German 44 armor was not that great operationally. Panthers and Tigers were not very mobile off road, broke down often and the germans did not have dedicated tank movers/recovery vehicles. At Anzio, the Germans assembled a dream team of Tigers, Panthers, etc., but most bogged down or broke down before they reached the front line.
In spring 44 on the Ostfront, there is a story I remember of a Soviet tank division entering a town at the height of the spring thaw. In and around the town, they found 200 abandoned German AFVs, all hopelessly stuck in the mud.
Bismark was a POS in reality for WW2. She had the weight per minute of AAA of a USN Fletcher Class or so (and far less effective since the KM had nothing like our 5/38 with VT shells).
She'd have been awesome in WW1.
Yamato was a waste of metal, too. Better to have 3 South Dakotas than 2 Yamatos.
Nation: Giggity Republic of Hotchacha
(Airborne) Infantry-Damian Lewis as Major Dick Winters
Armor-Erwin Rommel as himself
Air Force-some cute guy with an accent in a Spitfire
Navy-Jürgen Prochnow as der Alte
Artillery-whoever has the biggest gun
Command Model-I vill be giffink ze kommants, ja?
Logistics-we'll start with a game of nekkid Twister and go from there
:hmmm:
It's entirely possible that I've missed the whole point of this exercise. :shifty: :O:
:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
the_tyrant
03-03-11, 06:02 PM
Bismark was a POS in reality for WW2. She had the weight per minute of AAA of a USN Fletcher Class or so (and far less effective since the KM had nothing like our 5/38 with VT shells).
She'd have been awesome in WW1.
Yamato was a waste of metal, too. Better to have 3 South Dakotas than 2 Yamatos.
I disagree with you opinion on the Yamato
Japan has less ship manufacturing capability
It couldn't make all those big ships at the same time
Raptor1
03-03-11, 06:05 PM
The only reason the soviets had any logistics at all is due to lend lease.
We sent them so many trucks that they went from an immobile army on defensive's 1941-1943 to a very German styled mobile army 1944-45.
Lend lease did save the Soviet Union despite all the Russia won da war by dem selves sayers.
Here is where Lend lease proved most effective, Trucks, Rubber and fuel, not tanks, planes and guns.
They had the manpower always did but Germany still walked all over them because they lacked mobility, We gave them that mobility and they quickly turned the tables although getting black eyes all the way to Berlin.
And also for your close air support argument, While not quite a Sturmovik the P-47's and the Typhoons and Tempests were still just about as effective with the added advantage that they were no longer bomb trucks when the payload was dropped but competitive fighters!
I'd have to dispute that. I rummaged through some of my sources a while ago because of a thread on the Tanksim forum, and apparently the amount of Jeeps and Trucks that arrived in the Soviet Union amounted to less than half the amount produced by the Soviets during the war (Of course not counting the ones they produced before the war and not counting the ones they captured from the Germans). Though I'm not sure what the ratio was for trucks. Either way, while the amount was certainly significant, it was by no means the only reason the Soviets were able to mount large scale offensives.
Now, I don't have numbers for how much oil and other raw materials was produced by the Soviets during the war, but I do know they had extensive ability to produce many of these.
While the Soviets did not win the war by themselves, the Americans are not solely responsible for victory either, as it is sometimes made out.
Also, the Soviets also never became a very German style mobile army, since their army was heavily constructed on their own pre-war doctrine, which predated the Blitzkrieg. Also, you'll be surprised at how much of the German transport capacity came from old fashioned horse transport rather than trucks and other mechanized assets.
I disagree with you opinion on the Yamato
Japan has less ship manufacturing capability
It couldn't make all those big ships at the same time
Any BBs for the IJN was a waste of metal. One Yamato turret used enough materials to make a large DD, or perhaps 4 Kaibokan.
Given the % of japanese shipping sunk by submarines, 24 more escorts would have been a good investment (and that is just not using the 6 main turrets on 2 BBs!).
You are right regarding large slips for building ships, but the reality is that there was never any reason for large BBs. 4 35k tone CVs also a better idea. The Shokaku Class (probably the best IJN CV) was 25k tons empty. That's 2-3 per Yamato. A whole Kido Butai wasted on 2 ships that did nothing of value. Heck, they did negative value as they tied up units (and crew, and oil, etc) to hang around doing nothing just in case they might be needed.
The US also supplied the CCCP with oil, gas (most high octane avgas used was from the US, actually), and food.
Pretty nice of us considering that the Soviets started the war just like Germany by invading Poland (why they were ever considered on the same side is beyond me, we should have pushed in the west, then let the 2 kill each other in the east til nothing was left, iMHO).
Freiwillige
03-03-11, 07:10 PM
I'd have to dispute that. I rummaged through some of my sources a while ago because of a thread on the Tanksim forum, and apparently the amount of Jeeps and Trucks that arrived in the Soviet Union amounted to less than half the amount produced by the Soviets during the war (Of course not counting the ones they produced before the war and not counting the ones they captured from the Germans). Though I'm not sure what the ratio was for trucks. Either way, while the amount was certainly significant, it was by no means the only reason the Soviets were able to mount large scale offensives.
Now, I don't have numbers for how much oil and other raw materials was produced by the Soviets during the war, but I do know they had extensive ability to produce many of these.
While the Soviets did not win the war by themselves, the Americans are not solely responsible for victory either, as it is sometimes made out.
Also, the Soviets also never became a very German style mobile army, since their army was heavily constructed on their own pre-war doctrine, which predated the Blitzkrieg. Also, you'll be surprised at how much of the German transport capacity came from old fashioned horse transport rather than trucks and other mechanized assets.
My point was that the Russian armored formation gained much mobility by having trucks instead of feet move the infantry with them.
All you have to do is look at operation bagration in spring 1944 to see that it was a total different army in 1944 than in 1942 even. They could now break through and encircle as the Germans found out with an alarming speed.
Even if slightly less than half of their mobility came from lend lease than that is still a large portion!
In a close call battlefield and lets not fool ourselves the Germans even on retreat were more than capable of pulling of tactical victory's one after the other they just didn't have the forces left to reverse anything for long. On something that close even 30% mobility stripped if lend lease didn't happen might have had a huge outcome.
It was a joint affair. Russian's bled more for sure but without the west I believe that their collapse was almost certain considering how close the German army came with 70% of its forces while the other 30% were west and in Africa.
It was that fortunate alliance that forged victory in a close brutal war that was not certain until after mid 44'.
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 07:11 PM
I disagree with you opinion on the Yamato
Japan has less ship manufacturing capability
It couldn't make all those big ships at the same time
The point is that they shouldn't have wasted the man an materiel on prestige platform in the first place. Yamato had such significence that it could not be wasted in combat. As it's keel was laid in 1937, it is very likely that you could have built multiple useful platforms in time to serve during WWII.
The point is that they shouldn't have wasted the man an materiel on prestige platform in the first place. Yamato had such significence that it could not be wasted in combat. As it's keel was laid in 1937, it is very likely that you could have built multiple useful platforms in time to serve during WWII.
This.
Heck, more tankers would have been a good idea, too. And fast AKs.
Task Force
03-03-11, 07:33 PM
The US also supplied the CCCP with oil, gas (most high octane avgas used was from the US, actually), and food.
Pretty nice of us considering that the Soviets started the war just like Germany by invading Poland (why they were ever considered on the same side is beyond me, we should have pushed in the west, then let the 2 kill each other in the east til nothing was left, iMHO).
Because the western allies couldn't have won the war without the soviets? could that be why. The only reason Normandy was as successful as it was is because the Germans were cough up in a extensive 2 to 3 front war and were spread very thin, if the soviets had have been out of the game, the allies would have had to face much larger concentrations of german troops, and the German air force would have been in much more strength.
And if the Germans had broke, all western Europe would be soviet, boom same situation.
Raptor1
03-03-11, 07:41 PM
My point was that the Russian armored formation gained much mobility by having trucks instead of feet move the infantry with them.
All you have to do is look at operation bagration in spring 1944 to see that it was a total different army in 1944 than in 1942 even. They could now break through and encircle as the Germans found out with an alarming speed.
Even if slightly less than half of their mobility came from lend lease than that is still a large portion!
In a close call battlefield and lets not fool ourselves the Germans even on retreat were more than capable of pulling of tactical victory's one after the other they just didn't have the forces left to reverse anything for long. On something that close even 30% mobility stripped if lend lease didn't happen might have had a huge outcome.
It was a joint affair. Russian's bled more for sure but without the west I believe that their collapse was almost certain considering how close the German army came with 70% of its forces while the other 30% were west and in Africa.
It was that fortunate alliance that forged victory in a close brutal war that was not certain until after mid 44'.
Not slightly less than half, slightly less than half what the Soviets produced in the war. That means slightly less than a third, probably more in the vicinity of a fourth or maybe less. While I don't deny that the lend-lease trucks were important enough, they were not the factor that saved the Soviets from defeat.
Also, while the Germans were capable of inflicting significant casualties on the Soviet advance, due to quite a number of factors, very few of these were actual tactical victories, and they hardly mean the Germans were close to winning. Certainly it was a joint effort, but I seriously doubt the Soviets owed their victory to lend-lease.
The US also supplied the CCCP with oil, gas (most high octane avgas used was from the US, actually), and food.
Just because most of it was used doesn't mean that the Soviets were incapable of producing sufficient quantities of it, perhaps by diverting resources from other things. Either way, I don't have numbers for this at the moment, so I'm afraid can't argue about this.
As for food, most sources I've seen put the amount of food delivered to the Soviet Union by tonnage at 25% of the amount produced by the Soviets themselves during the war (So, that would make a fifth).
the_tyrant
03-03-11, 07:50 PM
The point is that they shouldn't have wasted the man an materiel on prestige platform in the first place. Yamato had such significence that it could not be wasted in combat. As it's keel was laid in 1937, it is very likely that you could have built multiple useful platforms in time to serve during WWII.
yes, of course
But it seemed like a good idea at the time
I mean, in 1937 people still believed that the battleship is king
Also, Japan tried to compensate for having less ships with better ships.
They just never caught on with the convoy raiding
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 07:53 PM
yes, of course
But it seemed like a good idea at the time
I mean, in 1937 people still believed that the battleship is king
Also, Japan tried to compensate for having less ships with better ships.
They just never caught on with the convoy raiding
A lack of commerce raiding did not lose the war for Japan. Poor production decisions did. They created and maintained a naval force that was ill-suited for the type of war that was fought. That is the fact at the heart of both tater's argument and my own.
To be fair, I don;t think there is any plausible scenario where they could have made the right decisions and changed the outcome... :)
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 08:02 PM
I think you're absolutley right. Japan's entire strategy and composition was based around the quick strike; the one punch knockout. They were counting on a decisive blow forcing the US to sue for peace. Once it became a war of attrition, it was all but over for Japan.
I read a stat once that the US built more tonnage from jan 1, 1943, until June '43 than Japan built from 1937 - 1945 combined. And we'd not really even hit our stride yet.
Takeda Shingen
03-03-11, 08:09 PM
The Arsenal of Democracy was indeed a well-deserved title.
the_tyrant
03-03-11, 08:10 PM
A lack of commerce raiding did not lose the war for Japan. Poor production decisions did. They created and maintained a naval force that was ill-suited for the type of war that was fought. That is the fact at the heart of both tater's argument and my own.
Well they didn't really have a bad fleet, but more bad doctrine
nothing wrong with their battleship orientated fleet, most navies were like that at the time
surprisingly Japan didn't (or was unwilling to) understand the importance of merchants and convoys
they only created a department for escorting merchants in 43, and only 2nd rate crews were for escort duty
before 43 they used fleet destroyers with crew trained for fleet engagements for escorts.
And the US couldn't have lost, with all those carriers and battleships built during the war
Growler
03-03-11, 08:12 PM
Air Force- Russian. An odd choice, I know, but the Russians developed a close air-support model based on the German model in relatively short order and then actually had the resources to employ it effectively. The US and the British did nothing of the sort. They just threw men and machines at the war until the Axis was literally without means to oppose them, and even then they didn't have any success accomplishing their stated objectives.
This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwood_Richard_Quesada) would beg to differ with you, vis a vis CAS; my only addition would be that the Soviets & Germans both had the need to develop CAS a lot sooner than did the US, as we weren't even engaged in large-scale land combat until Africa in 42, where the Russians and Germans had been throwing a lot of lead at each other for a couple of years already.
I'm with August since you're talking organizational structure, not just equipment. That means if you pick German armor, you get their logistical train, too. No picking and choosing. Ditto german infantry—crappy logistics.
US tanks were not as good, but they were easy for us to keep running (the fact that most americans were familiar with their own cars or farm vehicles didn't hurt—US car ownership was grossly higher than anywhere else on earth, so the lads all knew about keeping their jalopies running).
Exactly.
The resources at hand, manufacturing capabilities, the skill and temperament of the troops, the vision of it's leaders, what it takes to transport troops and materiel out to the battlefield, it all has an effect on the type and quality of the weapons an Army or Navy fields and therefore what combat tactics are employed.
If we'd have fielded tanks similar to the German heavies it would have meant we'd have fielded far less tanks than we did. Even if you apply our manufacturing capabilities they'd still have to be transported thousands of miles across the ocean. That means less of them, and less of the other things that could have occupied the cargo space, that reaches the far off battlefields of Europe and the Pacific. It also means we advance slower. The Sherman's speed and reliability go a long way to trump armor thickness and firepower (and optics).
In short Tigers and Panthers may have been the best choice for the Germans but not necessarily for us.
As for troop comparisons, I don't really think there is such a thing as "the best" troops.
I'd put our top divisions up against any ones, friend or foe. For example Fraus boyfriend Dicky Winters took a half dozen men up against an entire Infantry company defending an artillery battery and kicked their butts. Who fields the better Soldier again?
The true picture is however that there was no shortage of guts or fighting ability on any side during the war. American, German, British, Aussie, Soviet, Chinese, Japanese and the rest, even the Italians, all have distinguished themselves on the battlefield.
When men are sufficiently trained, motivated, and led they can achieve great things. Nationality is immaterial except in the degree a nation can supply those things to their troops when they need them.
Not slightly less than half, slightly less than half what the Soviets produced in the war. That means slightly less than a third, probably more in the vicinity of a fourth or maybe less. While I don't deny that the lend-lease trucks were important enough, they were not the factor that saved the Soviets from defeat.
Also, while the Germans were capable of inflicting significant casualties on the Soviet advance, due to quite a number of factors, very few of these were actual tactical victories, and they hardly mean the Germans were close to winning. Certainly it was a joint effort, but I seriously doubt the Soviets owed their victory to lend-lease.
Just because most of it was used doesn't mean that the Soviets were incapable of producing sufficient quantities of it, perhaps by diverting resources from other things. Either way, I don't have numbers for this at the moment, so I'm afraid can't argue about this.
As for food, most sources I've seen put the amount of food delivered to the Soviet Union by tonnage at 25% of the amount produced by the Soviets themselves during the war (So, that would make a fifth).
Half, a third, quarter, even a 5th. It still is an enormous contribution that contributed much to the eventual Soviet success. After all they didn't win by very much. A mere 5th less of something might have made the difference at the critical moment.
UnderseaLcpl
03-03-11, 09:24 PM
This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwood_Richard_Quesada) would beg to differ with you, vis a vis CAS; my only addition would be that the Soviets & Germans both had the need to develop CAS a lot sooner than did the US, as we weren't even engaged in large-scale land combat until Africa in 42, where the Russians and Germans had been throwing a lot of lead at each other for a couple of years already.
I did some research and it seems like General Quesada had the right idea, thanks for bringing him to my attention. However, his ideas did not win out. The US never really adopted CAS as a combat doctrine during the war. Unescorted daylight strategic bombing with massive losses were the rule at the time. Such results would suggest that something about the military system itself needed to be changed. Even then, it took almost 40 years for the US military to concede that the German military model for CAS was superior by all but completely adopting it, along with virtually every other aspect of it. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it isn't the Germans.
The US never really adopted CAS as a combat doctrine during the war.
Didn't the Marines do a fair amount of CAS development in the Pacific?
UnderseaLcpl
03-03-11, 09:52 PM
Didn't the Marines do a fair amount of CAS development in the Pacific?
CAS development? Are you serious? What the Marines developed during the Pacific war was a way of throwing men and machines at worthless targets with no justifiable effect. The only thing seperating us from the Army in that conflict is some really good PR.
Growler
03-03-11, 10:50 PM
And since I shoved an oar into the conversation already, I guess I oughta contribute something.
Light Infantry: USMC. Pound for pound, the deadliest light-fighters of the war, facing a relentless, persistent foe that yielded nothing before death.
Line Infantry: Imperial Japanese Army. The soldiers of Dai Nippon Teikoku - Ruthless, entirely committed to every fight, complete unwillingness to stand down or surrender. "Duty is heavy; death, lighter than a feather."
Armor: Germany. If the argument is quality, then the Panther Ausf. G wins, hands down. Good ground speed, ground pressure, excellent armor protection from most everything in the Allied arsenal, and deadly main armament created an epic combination of mobility, firepower, and protection.
Artillery: USSR. What the Germans did with six rockets (Nebelwerfer - the "Screaming Meemies"), the Sovs did with truckloads of 'em (Katyusha - "Stalin's Organ"). Modern Rocket artillery says, "Spasiba!" And we don't even need to begin to look at tube artillery - the Sovs practically wrote the book on that.
Fighter Aircraft: US. Sucked at the beginning of the war - who thought it was a good idea to fly a Buffalo? - but by the war's end, the quality and design of US fighter aircraft surpassed everyone. Arguably the best aircraft of the war in the North American P-51; the premier naval aircraft in the F6F; the USMC multirole fighter-bomber in the F4U - which continued to serve and fought in Korea, even as jets emerged onto the scene; the tenacious and durable fighter-turned-mud-mover in the P-47. These were the same designers who created the A-1 Skyraider - first flown in 45 and served until the 70's. Others may be faster, or prettier (I'm looking at you, FW-190D9), but I'll go with the American fighters.
Tactical Air Support: USSR. Developed because they had to, or die trying. Nobody was great at air-ground liaising in WW2, except perhaps the USMC at the end of the war in the Pacific, but the Sovs did the best job of a bad lot, developing their tactics - pardon the pun - on the fly, even as the Wehrmacht was attacking the airfields the pilots just took off from.
Strategic Bombing: USAAF (43-45). While strategic bombing was a flawed concept (Guilio Douhet, Billy Mitchell) based on postwar review of the stalemate in the trenches of the First World War, the USAAF proved that it could still serve a role in diverting assets away from other wartime industries; most notably, by creating a fuel crisis in Germany that made mechanized activity next to impossible, and diverting aircraft away from other activities - first to intercept the bombers, then to escort other interceptors. The equipment was right, the men were right, even though the concept of bombing a nation's cities to encourage its surrender was fundamentally flawed, as had already been proven by the Brits during the Blitz. Nobody else could match the USAAF in heavy bomber, precision-bombing output.
Submarines: USN. With only 52 boats lost, the US Navy's submarines did exactly what the Kriegsmarine wanted the unterseeboote to do - completely and totally isolate an island economy. And in the case of the USN, those boats were responsible for at least half of the IJN's maritime losses, while comprising less than two percent of the USN manpower. there is simply no equivalent efficiency in any other service of any other nation. Other boats may have been better built, but none match the USN's submarine RoI.
Surface Fleet: USN. By dint of sheer tonnage, the USN wins. The US fielded almost as many fleet carriers as Japan had in total carriers; add the jeep and escort carriers into the mix, and it's no contest. Then there's the destroyers - the big kids and the little DEs. Again, numbers and training far surpass anyone else at the time. True, the Japanese and the Germans fielded impressive BBs in Yamato, Musashi, Bismarck, Tirpitz, and others, but Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and New Jersey are also wartime developments, and those would have been protected by swarms of carrier aircraft. Even if they weren't, I point interested observers to the fate of Sprague's Taffy 3 - a bunch of destroyers taking on battleships and cruisers, and turning them back. Training, audacity, and numbers - I like that in a surface fleet.
Logistics, (broken down by Staff responsibilities):
S1 (personnel & administration): UK. Civilians beyond military service age serving as Air Wardens, and in air defence capacities. Women in service, in more diverse roles, largely due to necessity (smallish population); nonetheless, a good example of using maximum available personnel resources. (I know the Sovs fielded women, too, some by accident, some by design; imo the English did it better.)
S2 (intel): UK. Preserved internal security fairly well; developed the answer to Enigma with the assistance of the Polish. The US wouldn't even turn the lights off on the coast during Paukenschlag.
S3 (operations): UK. Managed the defence of the Home Isle with not much in the way of supply, exhausted pilots, battle-weary aircraft, and air defence artillery partly comprised of reservists, all against a first-rate air force (Luftwaffe), while simultaneously working to keep convoys protected and trying to hold on in Africa and the Far East.
S4 (logistics): US. Two wars in opposite directions, both of which required moving a lot of stuff across land and a lot of water. US infantry might have trained with wooden dummy rifles in 41 and 42, but they didn't have to worry about having to field strip the dead for a real one when they hit the combat zone; rarely did the poor doggie wonder who's airplane that was overhead.
S5 (plans): US. Specifically, all of the planning required for Operation Overlord and the literally dozens of supporting plans that all had to work for the invasion to succeed.
Growler
03-03-11, 10:55 PM
I did some research and it seems like General Quesada had the right idea, thanks for bringing him to my attention. However, his ideas did not win out. The US never really adopted CAS as a combat doctrine during the war. Unescorted daylight strategic bombing with massive losses were the rule at the time. Such results would suggest that something about the military system itself needed to be changed. Even then, it took almost 40 years for the US military to concede that the German military model was for CAS was superior by all but completely adopting it, along with virtually every other aspect of it. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it isn't the Germans.
The only thing I would add is that the XVIII Fighter Command began releasing their Thunderbolts and Mustangs to fighter sweeps in mid-to-late 44, as the Luftwaffe began its terminal fade; such sweeps included low-level attacks on targets of opportunity. However, they began to see increases in pilot losses due to the ever-present threat of flak - down to guys on the ground shooting rifles into the strafing aircraft - as well as the inherent hazards of flying fighter aircraft at single-digit altitudes and high rates of speed; they slapped a moratorium on low-level antics in, iirc, March of 45, to last until the end of the war.
CAS development? Are you serious? What the Marines developed during the Pacific war was a way of throwing men and machines at worthless targets with no justifiable effect. The only thing seperating us from the Army in that conflict is some really good PR.
I thought the Marines had begun the practice of using FAC's as early as Guadalcanal. I guess I was mistaken.
But don't you think "throwing men and machines at worthless targets of no justifiable effect" is kind of harsh for men who managed to win their war against a tenacious and committed enemy with less casualties than we suffered in a single Civil war battle?
Jap as line infantry?
They were terrorized when they faced real armies that actually had artillery that didn't use 3-4 guys on foot as the prime mover. They were utterly shattered by the Soviets before the war started. They won an excellent victory in Malaya, but everywhere else? When did they win in a real fight?
"Fighting spirit" is meaningless, or they'd have won the war.
Randomizer
03-04-11, 01:26 AM
For the Armed Forces of Vanilsistan:
Army
Infantry - Foreign Legion with American small arms and German support weapons;
Artillery - Commonwealth organization equipped with American guns;
Armour - Soviet
Combat engineers - German;
Construction engineers - American;
Combat Service Support - American;
Logistics - American;
Navy
Surface ships - American;
Submarines - American;
Logistics tail - American;
Naval aviation - American;
Air Force
Ground support - Soviet;
Air superiority - American;
Transport - American;
Training organization - Commonwealth.
Someone with better US Army ETO doctrine chops can chime in (since I read mostly PTO, large battles tended to be rooting guys out of caves, not real, maneuver warfare), but I recall reading that the US divisional artillery model was a thing of beauty, allowing small units to call in fearful artillery in an accurate fashion.
Growler
03-04-11, 09:35 AM
Jap as line infantry?
They were terrorized when they faced real armies that actually had artillery that didn't use 3-4 guys on foot as the prime mover. They were utterly shattered by the Soviets before the war started. They won an excellent victory in Malaya, but everywhere else? When did they win in a real fight?
"Fighting spirit" is meaningless, or they'd have won the war.
I'd be willing to wager there's more than one Army or Marine Corps veteran who would disagree with your take on the IJA. Guys who fought on Guadalcanal, Iwo, Okinawa, Peleliu, or who flew with the AVG. An enemy that won't give in, even when you're using flamethrowers on them, doesn't sound like a terrorized army to me. As to artillery, do you know of many World War Two artillery pieces that can out-punch the main guns of battleships and heavy cruisers - who, in reported cases, were using their main armament in direct fire?
The Japanese infantry were perpetually undersupplied by USN interdiction during the last half of the war, yet still they fought; still they exacted casualties in return.
And as a result of those tenacious defenses, the predicted casualties of Operations Coronet and Downfall topped, by some estimates, one million American dead and wounded. One million. Sure, Japan would have lost the war, maybe even reduced to near-extinction levels (as some in Japanese High Command promised would be the case). One million invader casualties would have been pretty hard to swallow back home.
They may not have won the war, but it was not through any lack of tenacity.
Growler
03-04-11, 09:36 AM
Someone with better US Army ETO doctrine chops can chime in (since I read mostly PTO, large battles tended to be rooting guys out of caves, not real, maneuver warfare), but I recall reading that the US divisional artillery model was a thing of beauty, allowing small units to call in fearful artillery in an accurate fashion.
Pretty much. A complaint of some German survivors (paraphrased) was that whenever they opened up on an advancing American unit, the GIs would just go to ground and get on the radio. Usually within 15 minutes, shells would be falling on the German positions.
Raptor1
03-04-11, 09:45 AM
I'd be willing to wager there's more than one Army or Marine Corps veteran who would disagree with your take on the IJA. Guys who fought on Guadalcanal, Iwo, Okinawa, Peleliu, or who flew with the AVG. An enemy that won't give in, even when you're using flamethrowers on them, doesn't sound like a terrorized army to me. As to artillery, do you know of many World War Two artillery pieces that can out-punch the main guns of battleships and heavy cruisers - who, in reported cases, were using their main armament in direct fire?
The Japanese infantry were perpetually undersupplied by USN interdiction during the last half of the war, yet still they fought; still they exacted casualties in return.
And as a result of those tenacious defenses, the predicted casualties of Operations Coronet and Downfall topped, by some estimates, one million American dead and wounded. One million. Sure, Japan would have lost the war, maybe even reduced to near-extinction levels (as some in Japanese High Command promised would be the case). One million invader casualties would have been pretty hard to swallow back home.
They may not have won the war, but it was not through any lack of tenacity.
This was all true as long as they were fighting in jungles and islands and not in an open war (And they still lost most of those jungle and island battles). At every point the IJA fought a proper army (That is, everyone but the Chinese) in a maneuver war the Japanese were absolutely obliterated because of the lack of proper doctrine and equipment. The utterly one-sided Soviet invasion of Manchuria is probably the best example of this.
Tenacity they might well have had, but tenacity doesn't compensate for the many other deficiencies of the IJA.
I'd be willing to wager there's more than one Army or Marine Corps veteran who would disagree with your take on the IJA. Guys who fought on Guadalcanal, Iwo, Okinawa, Peleliu, or who flew with the AVG. An enemy that won't give in, even when you're using flamethrowers on them, doesn't sound like a terrorized army to me. As to artillery, do you know of many World War Two artillery pieces that can out-punch the main guns of battleships and heavy cruisers - who, in reported cases, were using their main armament in direct fire?
The Japanese infantry were perpetually undersupplied by USN interdiction during the last half of the war, yet still they fought; still they exacted casualties in return.
And as a result of those tenacious defenses, the predicted casualties of Operations Coronet and Downfall topped, by some estimates, one million American dead and wounded. One million. Sure, Japan would have lost the war, maybe even reduced to near-extinction levels (as some in Japanese High Command promised would be the case). One million invader casualties would have been pretty hard to swallow back home.
They may not have won the war, but it was not through any lack of tenacity.
Yes, but tenacity in defense is not the measure of quality (when they are literally stranded and will be executed if they abandon their posts). In addition, IJA equipment was terrible. Terrible. They had no arty worth mentioning. They had crappy rifles (and worse pistols not that that matters). They had crappy MGs. Like all the axis forces, they had abysmal intelligence. Their attack doctrine seemed to be "Charge!" (aka, "Banzaiiiiii!").
Guadalcanal, in fact—a point at the very apex of Japanese success, this was the IJA at its very best—showed how entirely useless they were against quality troops that were well led. What did they do? They walked into artillery and MGs and literally died to the last man for zero gain. Zero. As raptor said above, in a real battle vs a modern army, they always lost, badly. Always. Malaya was a perfect storm for them. Had the UK forces been even competently led (instead of terribly led) they'd have lost, or at least been slowed for months—and that is with utter air superiority assumed for their side.
IJA troops are near the bottom of my list, frankly.
That doesn't disparage the Marine and Army units that fought them. Their suicidal nature on defense made them fight when any rational force would have surrendered. But the IJA never even managed a pyrrhic victory with their tenacity, merely defeat. Sure, they killed a lot of troops for nothing.
So you'd have line infantry that would all die, killing many of the enemy if it was defense (and almost none on attack)—but they'd almost always lose the battle. Hope you have massive reserves as every unit put onto the line entirely dies.
MaddogK
03-04-11, 11:31 AM
Well, yes, the Soviets did have logistics. Getting such sheer masses of men, guns, armor, and artillery to the front count as logistics. I don't like the idea any more than you do, in fact I find it rather repulsive, but the Soviets did do the majority of the fighting and they did win the war pretty much by themselves. I'm not sure I could be persuaded to fight by the Soviets. I'd probably have taken arms against them, but then I'm not a Soviet.
<snip>
I think you're confusing material superiority with the aforementioned concepts, but I might be wrong. Please elaborate.
From what I understand logistics is an interchangeable term with supply, and tho USA was a unrivaled manufacturing machine at the time transport of all those materials 1000's of miles over open ocean kept the delivery numbers lower than than the production numbers. I would think the British had a better logistical system in place as the production was closer to the delivery location than the Americans, so a british unit could be on the front in days as opposed to weeks or months for the American unit.
Now as R&D goes I feel the Germans were unrivaled at the time, true the Allies had the bomb earlier but I understand the Germans had started earlier developing the weapon and were closer to fielding it but the research wasn't a top priority for the Germans unlike the Allies. The Germans also didn't prioritize the ME 262 or the rocket programs like they should've, and I believe either one of those would've would've changed the outcome of the war if they were ready 6-18 months earlier.
Intel is without question goes to the Allies.
As far as the Soviets winning the Eastern front single-handedly I'd have to point out 1 important factor that hasn't been mentioned yet- weather. The German army was crippled by the Russian winter. All those magnificent German open field tanks got bogged down in the soft Russian mud and broke down or froze. The much lighter and nimbler T-34 remained mobile and made short work of the heavier german armour and disrupted the German supply lines to the front leaving the troops to starve and freeze. The Germans made the same mistake in Europe, those open field tanks were easy targets once they were trapped in the narrow roads and hills of France. The Germans has a much better tank program than anyone in the war but they were too specialized and proved vulnerable once out of their element. It would be a disservice to the russians to say the weather saved their bacon, but TBH if the winter wasn't as harsh as it was the Germans would've destroyed the Soviets on the eastern front with ease.
From what I understand logistics is an interchangeable term with supply, and tho USA was a unrivaled manufacturing machine at the time transport of all those materials 1000's of miles over open ocean kept the delivery numbers lower than than the production numbers. I would think the British had a better logistical system in place as the production was closer to the delivery location than the Americans, so a british unit could be on the front in days as opposed to weeks or months for the American unit.
US logistics and supply (the mechanism for moving men and materiel to the front) was unrivaled. No one was in the same league, not by a wide margin.
Now as R&D goes I feel the Germans were unrivaled at the time, true the Allies had the bomb earlier but I understand the Germans had started earlier developing the weapon and were closer to fielding it but the research wasn't a top priority for the Germans unlike the Allies. The Germans also didn't prioritize the ME 262 or the rocket programs like they should've, and I believe either one of those would've would've changed the outcome of the war if they were ready 6-18 months earlier.
One, the Germans were not even close to an atomic bomb. Not remotely close, and from captured records their weak research was going the wrong direction anyway.
I say that German R&D was in fact negative, not positive. The wasted resources experimenting instead of producing. Engineering is not just building stuff, it's building stuff efficiently, and in a cost-effective way. Having limited industrial capacity, then sending it running in 100 different directions is just dumb. In addition, like their tank, their jets, etc, were not ready for operational prime time in terms of keeping them flying (not to mention having fuel to fly them). The Germans in fact had large numbers of Me262s constructed, but they never managed to fly more than a small number of sorties per day—a tiny fraction of the number of planes theoretically available.
As far as the Soviets winning the Eastern front single-handedly I'd have to point out 1 important factor that hasn't been mentioned yet- weather. The German army was crippled by the Russian winter. All those magnificent German open field tanks got bogged down in the soft Russian mud and broke down or froze. The much lighter and nimbler T-34 remained mobile and made short work of the heavier german armour and disrupted the German supply lines to the front leaving the troops to starve and freeze. The Germans made the same mistake in Europe, those open field tanks were easy targets once they were trapped in the narrow roads and hills of France. The Germans has a much better tank program than anyone in the war but they were too specialized and proved vulnerable once out of their element. It would be a disservice to the russians to say the weather saved their bacon, but TBH if the winter wasn't as harsh as it was the Germans would've destroyed the Soviets on the eastern front with ease.
Yeah, General Winter surely played a role.
In addition, they won at great cost. Even in victory their K/D vs the Germans was not good. The sheer death toll on the part of the CCCP is often used to show they did the heavy lifting, but instead to me it shows that they won in spite of being a bad force that cared nothing for their own troops. They fought more germans in the East, but they lost more for each German they killed/captured by a wide margin than the US and UK did in the west.
Lend-lease was not the majority of Russian arms, but it played a critical role that cannot be ignored. Note also that in the absence of US aid to the CCCP, they might have been forced to move even more troops from the far east. This, combined with increased German victory (many early battles where the CCCP held back or slowed down German advances were very near-run things, after all) might have encouraged the Japanese to move (they were held back due to fear of another drubbing at the hands of the Soviets).
UnderseaLcpl
03-04-11, 12:32 PM
I thought the Marines had begun the practice of using FAC's as early as Guadalcanal. I guess I was mistaken.
No, you're not mistaken. But they did manage to frack the concept up. At the time it was thought that sheer weight of firepower, be it from aircraft or artillery or naval assets would flatten the enemy and allow us to simply walk in and take the territory. Since that never happened even once in the entire war, we were forced to reconsider our attitude. Then we screwed it up again in Korea and Vietnam. Then we just ended up copying the WW2 German model.
But don't you think "throwing men and machines at worthless targets of no justifiable effect" is kind of harsh for men who managed to win their war against a tenacious and committed enemy with less casualties than we suffered in a single Civil war battle?
Harsh? No, not really. Marines don't think like that. Marines think in terms of mission accomplishment. Simply winning a battle or a war is not accomplishing the mission. The fight must be won, and it must be won without undue casualties. Every dead or wounded Marine is a Marine who isn't around to fight later. Every casualty is blemish on our reputation as a fighting force. It is difficult to explain.
MaddogK
03-04-11, 02:37 PM
One, the Germans were not even close to an atomic bomb. Not remotely close, and from captured records their weak research was going the wrong direction anyway.
I say that German R&D was in fact negative, not positive. The wasted resources experimenting instead of producing. Engineering is not just building stuff, it's building stuff efficiently, and in a cost-effective way. Having limited industrial capacity, then sending it running in 100 different directions is just dumb. In addition, like their tank, their jets, etc, were not ready for operational prime time in terms of keeping them flying (not to mention having fuel to fly them). The Germans in fact had large numbers of Me262s constructed, but they never managed to fly more than a small number of sorties per day—a tiny fraction of the number of planes theoretically available.
You are correct, the Germans had abandoned bomb development in 1942 on de-prioritized the project while the Americans made development one of the highest priorities, spent many millions, spied heavily on the german research and grabbed as many german scientists as they could lay their hands on.
By the time there were any large numbers of 262's Germany had lost the pilots to fly them, thus too late to be of any use.
They were not even pointing in the right direction in 1942.
Had we not gotten the german scientists, of course, many of them would not have been used for a german a-bomb, but exterminated, instead.
The fact that Hitler delayed the 262 project to make it a fighter-bomber didn't help either. Neither did his love of BIG and ultimately useless tanks, like the Maus.
In my eyes the strengths and weaknesses of the forces in WWII are:
British:
Strengths:
Attitude, Tenacity, Ingenuity
Weaknesses:
Equipment, leadership, slow to adapt to new ideas
Americans:
Strengths:
Strong industrial base, Attitude, leadership
Weaknesses:
Equipment, slow to adapt to new ideas, sometimes does not listen to allies
Russians:
Strengths:
Manpower, climate, rugged equipment
Weaknesses:
Leadership, low technology, attitude
Germans:
Strengths:
Mentality (Prussian), technology
Weaknesses:
Leadership, manpower, industrial base (post US entry)
Japanese:
Strengths:
Fanatical Attitude, Infiltration
Weaknesses:
Leadership, manpower, Fanatical Attitude, industrial base
It is by no means a complete list, feel free to add to it, oh, and before a flame is started, the 'not listening to allies' bit refers to the sometimes difficult co-operation between the US and British forces, not just in Normandy and Africa, but also during Drumbeat when we warned the US to organise convoys and darkened shipping and ports when the US entered the war but it took them some months to actually implement it, thus helping the Second Happy Times.
RickC Sniper
03-04-11, 03:26 PM
This was all true as long as they were fighting in jungles and islands and not in an open war (And they still lost most of those jungle and island battles). At every point the IJA fought a proper army (That is, everyone but the Chinese) in a maneuver war the Japanese were absolutely obliterated because of the lack of proper doctrine and equipment. The utterly one-sided Soviet invasion of Manchuria is probably the best example of this.
Tenacity they might well have had, but tenacity doesn't compensate for the many other deficiencies of the IJA.
+1
If you take the Japanese line infantry you also have to take their rifles, rations, boots, etc. :down:
They did well on small islands where they had months to dig in and prepare. Put them on offense and it was a bit like mowing down zombies.
:cool:
+1
If you take the Japanese line infantry you also have to take their rifles, rations, boots, etc. :down:
They did well on small islands where they had months to dig in and prepare. Put them on offense and it was a bit like mowing down zombies.
:cool:
You also have to take into account their total inflexibility in battle. No matter how much the situation might change they would follow their original battle plan to the letter.
Growler
03-05-11, 06:54 PM
You also have to take into account their total inflexibility in battle. No matter how much the situation might change they would follow their original battle plan to the letter.
My mistake for misunderstanding; I thought we were combining attributes of all the nations that fought. So, you know, fanatical, dedicated IJA infantry supported by Soviet artillery, German armor, the US Navy, logistics, and aircraft, and mostly US/UK S1 through S5.
Country Boganistan
Infantry - Australian
Armored divisions -German 1941 model with 1944 equipment and US manufacture capability and reliability
Air Force - US 1944 model
Navy- US 43\45 model
Artillery US-1944 model
Command model - British
Logistics US - 44' mode
My mistake for misunderstanding; I thought we were combining attributes of all the nations that fought. So, you know, fanatical, dedicated IJA infantry supported by Soviet artillery, German armor, the US Navy, logistics, and aircraft, and mostly US/UK S1 through S5.
Well yeah but along with the IJA troops you also get the IJA Officers and NCO's to lead them, as well as the IJA training and discipline practices. That makes the IJA Infantry what it is but it also gives it the tactical inflexibility that I mentioned earlier.
TLAM Strike
03-05-11, 09:50 PM
I say if you took an IJN infantryman gave him German weapons, conscripted him in numbers like the Russians and had him lead by an American they would be unstoppable. :O:
Freiwillige
03-05-11, 09:59 PM
I say if you took an German infantryman gave him German weapons, conscripted him in numbers like the Germans and had him lead by Erwin Rommel they would be unstoppable. :O:
Fixed :woot:
TLAM Strike
03-05-11, 10:00 PM
Fixed :woot:
I mean lead on the Squad Level. US NCOs and LTs were some of the most inventive leaders in the war. :03:
EDIT: Oh I see what you did... wasn't Rommel stopped one time? By an Englander at that!
I say that American and British Airborne Forces were the best Light Infantry of the war. Fact. :yep:
Sicily, Normandy, Burma, Holland, New Guinea, Bastogne, Corregidor. Both on the offense and defense they proved indomitable against opponents many times their size and strength.
I mean lead on the Squad Level. US NCOs and LTs were some of the most inventive leaders in the war. :03:
EDIT: Oh I see what you did... wasn't Rommel stopped one time? By an Englander at that!
What really stopped Rommel was a lack of supply and the Quattara depression. Not minimizing the part played by the Desert Rats at all, but Monty wasn't the greatest of the commanders, it was Auchinlek after all that picked the defensive position at El Alamein to halt the German advance. What Monty was good at was preparation before an attack, which is something he could only do with a static front which was the antithesis to Rommels wide flanking advances with the Afrika Korp, if the Quattara depression had not existed, and the Italian fleet had control of the Med, Rommel would have taken the Suez, although admittedly I must also give credit to the RAF for their attacks on the supply trains of the Afrika Korps.
The fact that the British Army seemed to implement a revolving door approach to commanders in the desert theatre indicates how desperate we were for some good news, for some victories in the only theatre we had left for our ground forces after France, it indicates that and the pressure those commanders were under. Some delivered, others could not. Monty was lucky to inherit a favourable static defence position, a tired enemy, and fresh new tanks and men. He built those up until he outnumbered the enemy and then struck, furthermore, he struck at a time when the hero of the Afrika Korps wasn't there, which hampered their decision making process. It took eleven days to create the breakthrough needed for the Eighth army to start its push westwards.
It was after El Alamein that Monty started to pick things up, flanking maneuvers and the like over at the Mareth Line, and he fared well at Medenine against the odds, and he managed to adapt at Caen, turning the British thrust into a lure to draw the German forces in and allow the US forces to flank them, likewise he was crucial at the Battle of the Bulge.
As a defensive commander, Monty excelled, but in large scale attacks...well...Market Garden. :damn:
But, he was a curious chap, and a recognisable figure, like Churchill, and he provided a victory in Africa...and that's what was required of him.
It was after El Alamein that Monty started to pick things up, flanking maneuvers and the like over at the Mareth Line, and he fared well at Medenine against the odds, and he managed to adapt at Caen, turning the British thrust into a lure to draw the German forces in and allow the US forces to flank them, likewise he was crucial at the Battle of the Bulge.
As a defensive commander, Monty excelled, but in large scale attacks...well...Market Garden. :damn:
But, he was a curious chap, and a recognisable figure, like Churchill, and he provided a victory in Africa...and that's what was required of him.
He was a fantastic detailed planner and really got into the low level detail of planning down to the number of shells and ration packs available. He always liked to make sure that he had an overwhelming advantage before attacking and even then was sometimes reluctant until his planning was complete.
He was a fantastic detailed planner and really got into the low level detail of planning down to the number of shells and ration packs available. He always liked to make sure that he had an overwhelming advantage before attacking and even then was sometimes reluctant until his planning was complete.
To be fair to Monty, he was the 'Churchill' of the Desert, he was also good at making public appearances, doing talks, improving morale, with his trademark hats. He was a figure the forces could rally around. :yep:
Jimbuna
03-06-11, 08:50 AM
He also took chances and appeared to care little for the consequences.
Growler
03-06-11, 02:57 PM
He also took chances and appeared to care little for the consequences.
...when he moved at all.
...when he moved at all.
:har:
Freiwillige
03-06-11, 06:25 PM
I like the aggressive style of Rommel and Patton myself. Those were two men cut from the same tree.
Jimbuna
03-06-11, 06:35 PM
...when he moved at all.
Good point, he was usually stopped in his tracks...Operation Goodwood for example (well not stopped exactly but at great cost).
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.