|
|
#121
07-09-2006, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
[ QUOTE ]
And my favoreite..US not nuking Germany, as well as Japan. [/ QUOTE ] You do realize that as of VE-day the atomic bomb had not even been tested, right? 
|
|
#122
07-09-2006, 07:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
Sightless asks how I can be sure that the Germans would have won in the east if they had fully mobilized their economy.
Read the campaigns, it's actually really plain and obvious if you look strictly at the strategic picture. I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically (though they had logistical problems, etc.) But strategic scale, even operational scale in 1941, the Russians are hanging by their underpants. 1941 they're just recruiting as many guys as they lose and replacing armor as fast as they can. All the armies on the front get smashed because they aren't allowed to retreat and have at most 10 days supplies each. The Germans push through. Entire Soviet Armored Corps evaporate. But it's not France. Russia is big, it's deep. The Russians produce tank brigades and shoot them at the front lines like ammunition (no long term outlook/plan). They hold the Germans by throwing up a new line in front of their old ones, over and over again. Eventually the German offensive slows down (due to replacement pools getting exhausted, supply strain, all kinds of shortages, a lot of it caused by the weather) and the Soviets get a breather -- instead of the replacements going straight into the meat grinder, there is enough complacence from the Germans that a new front actually gets to form. Instead of breaking even losses vs. replacements, they actually get gain and get stronger. Then of course next year the Germans still haven't mobilized and the Soviets produce something like 3-4x as much war material each month. Eventually the Soviets throw together an army from the surplus, a German army gets surrounded by the new offensive (surprise surprise) and the whole thing goes on from there. It's not like Germany could just take the Soviet Union easily. More than 1 year. Certainly 2. Full war production. Germany's problem was thinking they could win without full economic mobilization, not that they were incapable of winning at all. There's some good discussions out there on the net on this stuff, which is where I learned most of what I pass along here.
|
|
#123
07-09-2006, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically [/ QUOTE ] The Germans didnt need blocking squads. Blocking squad equals a squad ordered to shoot the guys who run back from the MLA. During the first few years of the war, the russians were very poorly trained and equiped. They did have an advantage in the T-34 but didnt know how to use it.
|
|
#124
07-09-2006, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And my favoreite..US not nuking Germany, as well as Japan. [/ QUOTE ] You do realize that as of VE-day the atomic bomb had not even been tested, right? [/ QUOTE ] I suck at history. Oh well.
|
|
#125
07-11-2006, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically [/ QUOTE ] The Germans didnt need blocking squads. Blocking squad equals a squad ordered to shoot the guys who run back from the MLA. [/ QUOTE ] Does not equal poor tactically. Simply does not follow. Do you think Napoleon was poor tactically? He used "blocking squads". They're called Grenediers - lol. Besides this, the presentation of this idea is way overstated because it's shocking to say "Oh look, they sometimes shot their own men." It's overused. Commissars had the power to shoot a man but it was hardly the standard way to organize attack. In any case, there simply were few Soviet Infantry Division attacks in the entire 1941 campaign. If anything, they were defending. Hardly need commissars to urge anyone to fire their weapon at the approaching "Guy who is going to kill you if you don't fire at them." Easy decisision. The key is keeping your men calm enough to aim and think. Most Soviet attacks were done by starving armored divisions in 1941, and there certainly was no "blocking squad" for those. The problem is not that the Soviet Union is tacticaly missing anything whatsoever. It's all about the fact that they're terribly disorganized at the level where it matters most - operationally. Disorganization is standard tactially, for everyone. Strategically the Soviet Union managed to do the right thing, if not in spite of a horrible supply network. Their problems were operational. Had nothing to do with their combat abilities. Frankly, there was nothing wrong with the Germans tactically either (in fact they were the best in the entire world at the time) but they failed to mobilize for more than a 1 year campaign. Whoops.
|
|
#127
07-12-2006, 06:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically [/ QUOTE ] The Germans didnt need blocking squads. Blocking squad equals a squad ordered to shoot the guys who run back from the MLA. [/ QUOTE ] Does not equal poor tactically. Simply does not follow. Do you think Napoleon was poor tactically? He used "blocking squads". They're called Grenediers - lol. Besides this, the presentation of this idea is way overstated because it's shocking to say "Oh look, they sometimes shot their own men." It's overused. Commissars had the power to shoot a man but it was hardly the standard way to organize attack. In any case, there simply were few Soviet Infantry Division attacks in the entire 1941 campaign. If anything, they were defending. Hardly need commissars to urge anyone to fire their weapon at the approaching "Guy who is going to kill you if you don't fire at them." Easy decisision. The key is keeping your men calm enough to aim and think. Most Soviet attacks were done by starving armored divisions in 1941, and there certainly was no "blocking squad" for those. The problem is not that the Soviet Union is tacticaly missing anything whatsoever. It's all about the fact that they're terribly disorganized at the level where it matters most - operationally. Disorganization is standard tactially, for everyone. Strategically the Soviet Union managed to do the right thing, if not in spite of a horrible supply network. Their problems were operational. Had nothing to do with their combat abilities. Frankly, there was nothing wrong with the Germans tactically either (in fact they were the best in the entire world at the time) but they failed to mobilize for more than a 1 year campaign. Whoops. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree at the start of the war the Soviets where both inferior tacticaly and operationaly to the Germans. This isnt praising the Germans, the soviets would have been tacticaly inferior to allmost any western army. You cant expect levied conscripts with no training to understand the intiricacies of fire and manouvre etc, expecialy when under fire. Also you cant say the Soviets where purely on the defence as there where numerous botched counter attacks. After a few years, after Stalin had given more independence to his Generals (opposite trend to Hitler) the soveits caught up tacticaly and far surpassed the Germans operationaly. Also I quote you saying you dont buy any of that [censored] about the Soviets being tacticaly inferior then end your post by saying the Germans where the best in the world tacticaly. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#128
07-12-2006, 12:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The allies not invading and whiping Russia off the face of the map after the fall of Berlin like Patton wanted to. [/ QUOTE ] This a joke. The Germans Had 80%+ Plus of there combat power on the East front and after Kursk the Russians just rolled over it like a steamroller. Operation Bagration deystroyed army group centre in a month. In contrast the Western Allies had a hard time progressing against the side show of German forces deplyed in the West and were severly repulsed during the Ardennes offencive. Add to this the superiority of Russian armour (T-34 >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>Sherman) and infantry organsiation (SMG squad>>>>>>>>>>>& gt;>rifle squad) and the fact that America is a democracy and thus much more sensitive to casualties. Yes the Russians were facing a man power shortage, but so were the western allies. If anything we are luky that even Stalin was exhausted by the blood shed and he didnt decide to roll over the western allies with his vast armour and artilery formations. [/ QUOTE ] I have no idea where this idea of Russian military superiority comes from. Look at the casualty figures. For every one German killed on the Eastern Front there were five Russians killed and two taken prisoner. This only changed when the Germans defeated themselves by not adequately supplying their troops. Smaller Western military powers could quite easily crush the Soviets given adequate time and supplies. What the Soviets did win was the propaganda campaign. Stalin turned the war from Nazism vs. Communism to foreigners vs. Russians. If the Germans did not aid this through their atrocities, there would have been enough internal dissent within Russia to halt Soviet war progress.
|
|
#129
07-12-2006, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?
[ QUOTE ]
For every one German killed on the Eastern Front there were five Russians killed and two taken prisoner. [/ QUOTE ] For the entire war yes. This will tend to happen when you launch a giant sneak attack against a totaly unprepared enemy. You are going to kill alot of them and take many prisoners. Espeicaly when that enemy has just purged all his officers. If you look at the casualty ratios after 43 then things change. The Western Allies faces 20% of the German combat power and enjoyed massive advatages in men and equipment yet they found it hard going against the Wermacht. After Kursk the Russians basicaly cut through the Germans other 80% like a knife through butter. You should read up on Operation Bagration which deystroyed massive formations (army group centre)of the Wermacht in the blink of an eye(relative to operational warfare). Bliztzkrieg looked like a childens party compared to what the Russians visited on the Germans in 43,44 and 45. To assume that the Russian in 40/41 are the same as the Russians in 44/45 is a massive error. Also Russian superiority in armour is an objective and undeniable fact. The T-34 85mm medium battle tank was a far superior tank to the 75mm Sherman and could have scored kills against the Pershing, whereas the Sherman would have been impotent against the IS2,IS3 and the IS4 Heavy tanks that was coming on line in 45. In 45 the Russian war machine was the most lethal and massive concentration of men and equipment in the western theatre.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
