Lets play world war II mix and match!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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!

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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'.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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.

Originally Posted by tater

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).

[August]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

[tater]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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).

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

[tater]

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.

[Oberon]

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.