Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not to be bogged down in this thread's patented silliness, but what reason did the Russians have for falsifying the initial information which went out about that incident if they didn't have a hand in it?

Meanwhile in Crimea.




Quick to paint Russian insignia on all that gear weren't they?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also a way more important question is why the US, Ukraine and Russia all three refuse to publicise the radar data they have from the time and place of the accident.

Presumably because there'd be useful information about radar capabilities, doctrines, or similar involved in the data that no one wants the other side to have?

Rebels don't get advanced weapon systems from thin air. Russia obviously had a hand in the shoot down, but how far into the cookie jar that hand is will likely forever be a subject of speculation (and no end of conspiracy theories I'm sure), and never have a definitive answer. So w/e. I think the real lesson here is that countries really need to stop selling weapon systems to non-state actors regardless, because that's just a recipe for disaster (*glares at Congress*).

_WHAT_ radar data would the US even have? Even something as powerful as an AN/TPY-2 or a SPY-1 would only have LOS on a track at 33,000 ft from 200-235 miles away. From where would an American radar be able to see what had transpired? A Ticonderoga cruiser or an Arleigh Burke destroyer would literally have to be in the Sea of Azov to witness the events. And civilian traffic controllers in Ukraine and Russia (who would have had zero involvement in the conflict) were similarly confused when MH-17 suddenly dropped off their scopes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mh17-transcript-of-flights-last-moments-reveals-frantic-efforts-to-contact-disappeared-plane-9720715.html

Also some words from the pre-eminent Bill Sweetman on the SA-11. Article is partial since the full piece is locked behind a paywall on Aviation Week:

http://www.terps.com/buk/buk.pdf

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Not to be bogged down in this thread's patented silliness, but what reason did the Russians have for falsifying the initial information which went out about that incident if they didn't have a hand in it?

Meanwhile in Crimea.




Quick to paint Russian insignia on all that gear weren't they?

Yup. It is for victory day. Which is today btw. Happy victory day!

Also, it is in Lugansk, not Crimea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also a way more important question is why the US, Ukraine and Russia all three refuse to publicise the radar data they have from the time and place of the accident.

Presumably because there'd be useful information about radar capabilities, doctrines, or similar involved in the data that no one wants the other side to have?

That is a bs excuse. The issue at hand is way more important than whatever tiny little bit of information can be gleaned from a few radar and sattelite images. Especially in the case of Ukraine, whose radar capabilities are well known by Russia. (After all, Russia designed and built those radar systems.)

If you say so. I'm not sure how you'd actually know that, though.

On the subject of post-Soviet WWII victory parades, the Americans prodded the bear a bit by taking part in the Moldovan one.



(Despite pissing off the Russians, and it being against current revisionist history coming out of Moscow, the US did kind of sort of provide a ton of aid in WWII to the USSR...)


Hah, and following up on victory parades, organisers were naughty and had random people "adopt" deceased patriots.

Moscow's one had a bit of multiculturalism, despite again the government's stance. The Israeli flags were an odd sight, given the two country's histories (my there's a lot of slavs living in Israel...). I suppose the same goes for Israelis fighting with the Russian forces in Ukraine. Takes all types.

 Wyrmalla wrote:



(Despite pissing off the Russians, and it being against current revisionist history coming out of Moscow, the US did kind of sort of provide a ton of aid in WWII to the USSR...)

With the favoured chariot of the war-winning Katyusha rocket artillery being the humble Studebaker US-6 "Deuce and a Half." Not to mention the not-so-sexy equipment of warfighting Soviet industry wasn't exactly putting out in great numbers that Lend-Lease had to make up the difference for like radios, utility vehicles (i.e. jeeps), half-tracks, air-defence radars, and so forth.

US-sponsored ukrainian neo-Nazis are trying to rip off the red flag from the hands of a WW2 veteran, yesterday on May 9th, when people in former USSR usually celebrate "The Victory Day".




Surprisingly, the cops actually defended the veterans against the neo-Nazis. And of course the traditional Bandera-lovers "Glory to the nation!" "Death to the enemies!" "ukraine - before everything!" "Glory to ukraine!" "Glory to heroes!".

https://www.rt.com/news/342428-ukraine-march-vday-clashes/

ukranian neo-Nazi tourists verbally and water bottles attacked the peaceful demonstration of "Immortal Regiment" action in Venice, Italy. Only after the Italian cops interfered and brifly arrested some of ukranian "hooligans" , the rest buzzed off.
Just to remind - the favorite current ukrainian junta regime's slogan is "ukraine - is Europe!". Somebody actually from Europe should explain those... looking like humans that their Nazi ideas will not fly in real democracy.




See, kids, what happens when you don't wipe out your enemy entirely? It comes back and bites you. I hope the Russians will learn and will never happen again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yup. It is for victory day. Which is today btw. Happy victory day!

They don't celebrate the end of WW2 in US and Canada. I guess it shows who really won the war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agiel wrote:

With the favoured chariot of the war-winning Katyusha rocket artillery being the humble Studebaker US-6 "Deuce and a Half." Not to mention the not-so-sexy equipment of warfighting Soviet industry wasn't exactly putting out in great numbers that Lend-Lease had to make up the difference for like radios, utility vehicles (i.e. jeeps), half-tracks, air-defence radars, and so forth.

1) USSR payed in gold for those "lend-lease" materials.
2) It helped but the overall amount of the materials provided weren't in any strategic numbers to say that just because of them the victory was achieved.
3) UK received tree times of what USSR got and UK wasn't fighting on land until 1944.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
On the subject of post-Soviet WWII victory parades, the Americans prodded the bear a bit by taking part in the Moldovan one.

Met with anger reaction coming form Moldovans , the Moldovan authorities cleared the NATO equipment from the squire where it was displayed.

https://www.rt.com/news/342315-moldova-nato-military-vday-protest/

I guess people of Moldova still remember who actually won the WW2.

(Despite pissing off the Russians, and it being against current revisionist history coming out of Moscow, the US did kind of sort of provide a ton of aid in WWII to the USSR...)

The "land-lease fact was never disputed in Russian history, only the propaganda by USA and it's current lapdogs that "only because of land-lease USSR was able to defend itself."

Hah, and following up on victory parades, organisers were naughty and had random people "adopt" deceased patriots.

The political action "Immortal Regiment" was never about only people whose relatives died in combat. I'll tell you a little secret, on those marches, people who didn't have relatives who fought in combat, still bring the photographs of servicemen and women just to support the cause. Some even carry the photos of Stalin, not even related to him. Of course in the western propaganda media it's shown as a fraud, the prostitutes from press need to come up with Russophobic and mud smear articles to pay for their mortgages and student loans.

Moscow's one had a bit of multiculturalism, despite again the government's stance. The Israeli flags were an odd sight, given the two country's histories (my there's a lot of slavs living in Israel...). I suppose the same goes for Israelis fighting with the Russian forces in Ukraine. Takes all types.

It really shows how little you know about the things post, besides the Russophobic stereotypes. There were and still are a lot of Jews living in Russia and even with open borders some of them don't rush to Israel. Jews in USSR were never oppressed, despite the Western anti-Russian propaganda. They had the same rights as everyone else and had access to university education and high-paying jobs like everyone else. That's why a lot of them were able to find good jobs in Israel after they immigrated. Also, because they were equal citizens in USSR, a lot of them were not only soldiers but also officers in the Red Army. I know this facts could be a shocker to you so take it easy, I don't want you to go cuckoo just like Stephen King did when he herd that the Russians launched the Earth satellite first.

https://www.rt.com/news/342299-immortal-regiment-parade-worldwide/




Team of coaches of team Canada put on "St George ribbon" during the match against team Belarus, which was played on May 9th.

 Yaraton wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yup. It is for victory day. Which is today btw. Happy victory day!

They don't celebrate the end of WW2 in US and Canada. I guess it shows who really won the war.

No, the rest of the world has Remembrance days. Your point?

Meanwhile I'm just reading white noise when it comes to Jewish oppression in Russia being "Western Propoganda". We'll ignore that a body of the Kremlin was dedicated to anti-Zionism...

Ok, if we're at the point were some are saying "The UK didn't fight on land until 1944", I think we're getting pretty close to when we can about lock this thread up for the sheer ridiculousness of the posting.

I'm for creating a new one with the plagiarized title "Cold War: The Reimaged Series".

 motyak wrote:
Ok, if we're at the point were some are saying "The UK didn't fight on land until 1944", I think we're getting pretty close to when we can about lock this thread up for the sheer ridiculousness of the posting.

Stop with the western propaganda, the glorious soviet union did everything during ww2. D day? Actually russians, winning the Pacific theater? Russians.

 Ustrello wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Ok, if we're at the point were some are saying "The UK didn't fight on land until 1944", I think we're getting pretty close to when we can about lock this thread up for the sheer ridiculousness of the posting.

Stop with the western propaganda, the glorious soviet union did everything during ww2. D day? Actually russians, winning the Pacific theater? Russians.

The Russians did not do everything, but they did do by far the most. Well, not in the Pacific of course, but that was only a minor skirmish compared to the real war. More soldiers died in single battles on the Eastern Front than the US lost men in the entire Pacific war. D-Day only began when the Russians had already secured victory, it was only a plot to prevent the Soviet Union from "liberating" the rest of Europe.
Really the only big contributions the Western Allies made during the war were the lend-lease aid, the destruction of German industry and the war in Africa. The UK and US were critical in winning the war, but it can not be denied that their contributions pale next to the sacrifices of the Soviet Union.

And on a funny note, there is indeed plenty of Russians who like to argue that it is actually the Soviet Union who won the Pacific Theatre. After the Nazis were defeated, the USSR invaded Japan-occupied China and the Kuril islands, and was planning an invasion of the Japanese mainland. They like to think that this is what made the Japanese finally surrender.

And please do not lock this thread, dear Motyak. It is too much fun and even brings us really good discussion at times. Especially when baronlveagh and almightywalrus get involved

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Russians did not do everything, but they did do by far the most. Well, not in the Pacific of course, but that was only a minor skirmish compared to the real war. More soldiers died in single battles on the Eastern Front than the US lost men in the entire Pacific war. D-Day only began when the Russians had already secured victory, it was only a plot to prevent the Soviet Union from "liberating" the rest of Europe.

That last sentence is the dumbest I have read on Dakka in a long time. The second dumbest is that the Pacific was a minor skirmish compared to the real war.

First and foremost, to argue that the Russians could have won WWII on their own without the western allies is ridiculous. Had Hitler not bit off more than Germany could chew, there is no doubt that the war would have ended in a stalemate with Germany and some of its allies controlling much of eastern Russia.

This does not mean that Russia did not endure great sacrifices in a war that they helped start (Poland 1939), nor bear the brunt of much of the fighting in the East, but to say they did they most is very misleading. American manufacturing won WWII, pure and simple. Short wars are settled by strategy, long wars by production. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

Consider what America produced in just 1941-1945. It produced not only enough guns and tanks to supply its won forces, but many of its allies. It produced an tens of thousands aircraft in the form of not just fighters and bombers, but transports as well. and it also assembled a massive navy not just in the Pacific but also in the Atlantic. The US alone had 1,200 major combatant ships by the end of 1945, including 27 aircraft carriers and 8 battleships, and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater. And that doesnt even include transports, and you could argue that the single biggest contributor to ending the war in Europe was the Liberty Ship. Not a single country could sail in the ocean and trasport resources such as steel, oil, rubber, food, and so on without the US on them.

Think about the economical cost and time it takes for a country to build something like an aircraft carrier, to fuel it, load it, maintain and sail it with a crew. And then lose it. Or other capital ships. Its not just about body count. That's why many German generals knew the war was lost once the US got involved.

Eastern Europe was a meatgrinder, there is no doubt. But to say the Russians won WWII and the rest was a sideshow is an absolute misunderstanding of what went on in that war.

Read some books.

At the same time, logistics is pointless if you do not have the boots on the ground to capitalize on the advantage in logistics. You can have all the Liberty Ships in the world, but if there's a bunch of German soldiers goose-stepping down Lambeth Walk or Red Square and no one there to stop them then those will be pointless.

KTG17 wrote:
First and foremost, to argue that the Russians could have won WWII on their own without the western allies is ridiculous.

Your argument is ridiculous. The Soviet Union won the war on its own power. If you want to argue that Western aid was the only reason USSR won the war, then you must supply evidence. Calling something ridiculous is not evidence.

KTG17 wrote:
American manufacturing won WWII, pure and simple.

Now that is the dumbest thing I have read in my entire life.

KTG17 wrote:
Consider what America produced in just 1941-1945. It produced not only enough guns and tanks to supply its won forces, but many of its allies. It produced an tens of thousands aircraft in the form of not just fighters and bombers, but transports as well. and it also assembled a massive navy not just in the Pacific but also in the Atlantic. The US alone had 1,200 major combatant ships by the end of 1945, including 27 aircraft carriers and 8 battleships, and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater. And that doesnt even include transports, and you could argue that the single biggest contributor to ending the war in Europe was the Liberty Ship. Not a single country could sail in the ocean and trasport resources such as steel, oil, rubber, food, and so on without the US on them.

Think about the economical cost and time it takes for a country to build something like an aircraft carrier, to fuel it, load it, maintain and sail it with a crew. And then lose it. Or other capital ships. Its not just about body count. That's why many German generals knew the war was lost once the US got involved.

And were was all that American power at Brest? At Sevastopol? At Moscow? At Stalingrad? At Kursk? At Berlin? You say so much was contributed by the Americans, but where were they when there was actual fighting to be done? Wars are not won in factories. Victories are made possible by factories, but in the end, the victory itself has to be won on the frontlines. There are plenty of historical examples where wars were won by the side with much less industrial power. If war were won by industrial power alone, then no officer would need to study strategy and tactics anymore.

KTG17 wrote:
Eastern Europe was a meatgrinder, there is no doubt. But to say the Russians won WWII and the rest was a sideshow is an absolute misunderstanding of what went on in that war.

Read some books.

The Soviet Union lost more soldiers at Stalingrad alone (which was a single battle on the Eastern Front) than the US lost people in the entire war. Russia lost 12-13% of its entire population, Belarus lost more than 25%. 1 in 4 of all Belarusians died in WW2. Next to that, the US lost a paltry 419,000 people. The entire US participiation in WW2 is a minor skirmish compared to the battle of Stalingrad, let alone next to the entire Great Patriotic War.

I will assume ignorance rather than malice, but your comment is an insult to those who gave their lives to save the world from nazism, and you should be ashamed to say something like that the day after Victory Day.

Here's the thing, you're both wrong. And right at the same time. Russia, alone, could not have defeated Germany, driven them back, sure, but not defeated. American production power also did not defeat Germany. It was the combined effort of both sides that won the war. The two front war caused Germany to lose. Don't try and turn what was an Allied victory into another wedge.

Also, IC, saying that the USSR lost more soldiers is not a good argument considering the amount was also heavily caused by mis-management, and the purging of the army by Stalin. They did lose more, but that's not actually a good thing.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Soviet Union won the war on its own power. If you want to argue that Western aid was the only reason USSR won the war, then you must supply evidence.

Won on its own power?!?!?! LOL WHAT

And were was all that American power at Brest? At Sevastopol? At Moscow? At Stalingrad? At Kursk? At Berlin? You say so much was contributed by the Americans, but where were they when there was actual fighting to be done? Wars are not won in factories. Victories are made possible by factories, but in the end, the victory itself has to be won on the frontlines.

What did the russians mount their katyusha rockets on? How were russians able to move men and material around? Yes it takes one soldier to kill another, but you have to transport them, their supplies, food, ammo, etc. That's called called logistics, and yes, in modern warfare good generals have to have a far better understanding of logistics than tactics. What are you managing when it comes to logistics? Resources. Why are resources so important? Because without bullets and proper uniforms, tools, weapons, and food the soldier is worthless.

Was the Soviet Union transporting material to western allies? Ever? No. They didnt need them.

There are plenty of historical examples where wars were won by the side with much less industrial power.

Shot wars yes, long ones, no. Especially when two countries are producing at total-war levels.

If war were won by industrial power alone, then no officer would need to study strategy and tactics anymore.

It depends on what level the officer is. Believe me, no famous general in history was clueless about his supply lines and the resources needed to keep his army running. Alexander the Great understood it, Grant understood it, Patton understood it, Montgomery especially understood it. Hitler did not. The difference is a professional military leader, and an amateur one.

Even the professional ones screw up at times. Poor logistics is what cost Napoleon Russia, not the fighting of the Russian soldier.

The Soviet Union lost more soldiers at Stalingrad alone (which was a single battle on the Eastern Front) than the US lost people in the entire war. Russia lost 12-13% of its entire population, Belarus lost more than 25%. 1 in 4 of all Belarusians died in WW2. Next to that, the US lost a paltry 419,000 people. The entire US participiation in WW2 is a minor skirmish compared to the battle of Stalingrad, let alone next to the entire Great Patriotic War.

Losing a gakload of people is a measurement of failure, not success. Many Russian soldiers were killed due to the tactics of their own leaders, not because of the tactics of the Germans. Russia, managed to win in a single theater of operation (Eastern Europe). The US fought in the Atlantic, Africa, Europe, South East Asia, and the Pacific, and so did the British and Australians. They fought a global war, the Russians fought a regional one.

And Great Patriotic War? WWII was started after Gemany invaded Poland. Two weeks later, Russia rolls into Poland, not to defeat Germany, but to slice up half of Poland for itself. It made a deal with the devil. If Russia had been really honorable, it would have kicked the Germans right out of Poland and returned Poland to the Poles. But it didnt, and later suffered the consequences. That's Russia's history. Shameful.

I will assume ignorance rather than malice, but your comment is an insult to those who gave their lives to save the world from nazism, and you should be ashamed to say something like that the day after Victory Day.

I don't mean any disrespect to those who lost their lives, just those who dont have a real understanding of history and what it took to make it.

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Soviet Union won the war on its own power. If you want to argue that Western aid was the only reason USSR won the war, then you must supply evidence.

Won on its own power?!?!?! LOL WHAT

"lol what" is even less an argument than "that is ridiculous". Have you not learned about arguments and discussion at school? Maybe it would be a wise decision for you to go back there then.

And were was all that American power at Brest? At Sevastopol? At Moscow? At Stalingrad? At Kursk? At Berlin? You say so much was contributed by the Americans, but where were they when there was actual fighting to be done? Wars are not won in factories. Victories are made possible by factories, but in the end, the victory itself has to be won on the frontlines.

KTG17 wrote:
What did the russians mount their katyusha rockets on?

On Rails. Those rails were then mounted on ZiS 6 trucks, ZiS 5 trucks, ZiS 12 trucks, GaZ AA trucks, Studebaker trucks, GaZ 67 jeeps, T-60 tanks and pretty much every other kind of truck, jeep and light tank that was available. Most of them were installed on ZiS 6 trucks before 1943. After 1943 most were mounted on Studebaker trucks because those had better cross-country performance than the ZiS trucks.

KTG17 wrote:
How were russians able to move men and material around?

The famous Russian railroad network. If trains were not available, the soldiers went on foot. Material in those cases was mostly transported with horses or with GaZ and ZiS trucks.

KTG17 wrote:
Yes it takes one soldier to kill another, but you have to transport them, their supplies, food, ammo, etc. That's called called logistics, and yes, in modern warfare good generals have to have a far better understanding of logistics than tactics. What are you managing when it comes to logistics? Resources. Why are resources so important? Because without bullets and proper uniforms, tools, weapons, and food the soldier is worthless.

Generals have to know strategy. Logistics is only a single aspect of strategy. To focus on one aspect above others is to invite defeat. The Germans were great at logistics. They even managed to increase production despite their factories and supply lines being bombed into dust. Yet for all their mastery of logistics they still lost simply because German soldiers died faster than they could be replaced.

KTG17 wrote:


Was the Soviet Union transporting material to western allies? Ever? No. They didnt need them.

Yup. You don't need a lot of material when you are barely fighting.

KTG17 wrote:

There are plenty of historical examples where wars were won by the side with much less industrial power.

Shot wars yes, long ones, no. Especially when two countries are producing at total-war levels.

The Great Patriotic War was actually a rather short war. 4 years is not very long.

KTG17 wrote:

If war were won by industrial power alone, then no officer would need to study strategy and tactics anymore.

It depends on what level the officer is. Believe me, no famous general in history was clueless about his supply lines and the resources needed to keep his army running. Alexander the Great understood it, Grant understood it, Patton understood it, Montgomery especially understood it. Hitler did not. The difference is a professional military leader, and an amateur one.

Even the professional ones screw up at times. Poor logistics is what cost Napoleon Russia, not the fighting of the Russian soldier.

Napoleon's success as a military genius depended largely on his mastery of logistics. The French army under his command had a better grasp of logistics than any other force of the period. Yet he still lost in Russia. Napoleon would not have had any problem with his logistics if it had not been for the Russian soldier. Napoleon's most crucial mistake during the invasion was that he let his army be outflanked, so that the Russians could harass his supplies. And that goes to show that having a good grasp of manoeuvre warfare is as important for a strategist as having a good grasp of logistics.

KTG17 wrote:

The Soviet Union lost more soldiers at Stalingrad alone (which was a single battle on the Eastern Front) than the US lost people in the entire war. Russia lost 12-13% of its entire population, Belarus lost more than 25%. 1 in 4 of all Belarusians died in WW2. Next to that, the US lost a paltry 419,000 people. The entire US participiation in WW2 is a minor skirmish compared to the battle of Stalingrad, let alone next to the entire Great Patriotic War.

Losing a gakload of people is a measurement of failure, not success. Many Russian soldiers were killed due to the tactics of their own leaders, not because of the tactics of the Germans. Russia, managed to win in a single theater of operation (Eastern Europe). The US fought in the Atlantic, Africa, Europe, South East Asia, and the Pacific, and so did the British and Australians. They fought a global war, the Russians fought a regional one.

The Germans too, lost more men at Stalingrad than the US lost in the entire war. When both sides suffer such massive casualties, it is not a measurement of anything except the fierceness of the war. Then when one side in the same war suffers only a fraction of the casualties of all other sides and wasn't present at any major decisive battle, then it is easy to say that side might just as well not have participated. The simple truth is that WW2 would have been won by the Allies regardless of whether the US participated or not.
You can call what the US did "fighting", but it is like a kid's fight at the playground compared to a life-or-death battle during a war. The Eastern Front may have been only a single theatre, but it was were 90% of the fighting took place and were the entire war was decided. In comparison, all other fronts were trivial.

KTG17 wrote:
And Great Patriotic War? WWII was started after Gemany invaded Poland. Two weeks later, Russia rolls into Poland, not to defeat Germany, but to slice up half of Poland for itself. It made a deal with the devil. If Russia had been really honorable, it would have kicked the Germans right out of Poland and returned Poland to the Poles. But it didnt, and later suffered the consequences.

WW2 was started then. But neither Russia nor the US participated in it. The Great Patriotic War started when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

KTG17 wrote:
I don't mean any disrespect to those who lost their lives, just those who dont have a real understanding of history and what it took to make it.

Ah, so that is the reason you have so little self-respect?

The victory in WW2 was borne on a three legged table of American money, Russian blood, and Commonwealth tenacity. Take away any one of those and it falls..

 Iron_Captain wrote:
"lol what" is even less an argument than "that is ridiculous". Have you not learned about arguments and discussion at school? Maybe it would be a wise decision for you to go back there then.

Sorry, I was taken back at the ignorance of your statement. And still are. Along with some of the other nonsense you are posting below.

On Rails. Those rails were then mounted on ZiS 6 trucks, ZiS 5 trucks, ZiS 12 trucks, GaZ AA trucks, Studebaker trucks, GaZ 67 jeeps, T-60 tanks and pretty much every other kind of truck, jeep and light tank that was available. Most of them were installed on ZiS 6 trucks before 1943. After 1943 most were mounted on Studebaker trucks because those had better cross-country performance than the ZiS trucks.

Exactly. Had Russia been able to produce enough vehicles on their own, they wouldn't have been begging for ours.

Generals have to know strategy. Logistics is only a single aspect of strategy. To focus on one aspect above others is to invite defeat. The Germans were great at logistics. They even managed to increase production despite their factories and supply lines being bombed into dust. Yet for all their mastery of logistics they still lost simply because German soldiers died faster than they could be replaced.

Of course generals have to know strategy. They also have to know how to brush their teeth and put their boots on. You are missing the bigger picture.

The German army was NOT a master at logistics, and they didn't increase production in EVERYTHING. Most of their army was under-supplied, and horse driven. The US didn't use horse driven transportation during the entire war. And economically the Germans had to deal with the lack of oil, steel, and other resources the last couple of years during the war despite the 'increased production', which was never going to outproduce the west.

And keep in mind, the Germans and Russians only had to worry about moving things around one theater. Not across two different oceans and 5 continents.

You don't need a lot of material when you are barely fighting.

No, we were smart enough to pick the time and place of most of our battles. And when we did, we generally tried to do it in a way that didn't throw away our own troops. Nor did we machine gun them down if they retreated. Yet the outcome is that we had far more effect on the global war than the russians did in their little area. Look at a map. The distance between Berlin and Moscow isn't that great. Now compare it to the world map.

The Great Patriotic War was actually a rather short war. 4 years is not very long.

Yet still decided by production and resources.

Napoleon's success as a military genius depended largely on his mastery of logistics. The French army under his command had a better grasp of logistics than any other force of the period. Yet he still lost in Russia. Napoleon would not have had any problem with his logistics if it had not been for the Russian soldier. Napoleon's most crucial mistake during the invasion was that he let his army be outflanked, so that the Russians could harass his supplies. And that goes to show that having a good grasp of manoeuvre warfare is as important for a strategist as having a good grasp of logistics.

Without logistics the army would have never left France. I am not saying without strategy you can't win, but you seem to think you can throw a mob together and race across from one place to another without any thought of what its going to take to do it an win and you are wrong. A ton of work goes on behind just moving a single division. If you think that logistics aren't on the foremost of a general's mind when he is 'manoeuvre'-ing around the countryside, then you are clueless. The production of resources, the ability to get them where they are needed, determine how maneuverable his army is going to be in the first place, which will no doubt affect his strategy. Ask Rommel.

Had the German army been prepared for winter in 1941, the first part of that war would have been very different. The lack of logistics to plan and move winter uniforms, anti-freeze, food, etc, meant that the German army could no longer move and THEN began to suffer from Russian attacks. That is an excellent example of how being all concerned about strategy from the amateur mind (Hitler), led to the near collapse of his army due to poor planning. Up till that point the Germans were kicking the crap out of the russians.

You can call what the US did "fighting", but it is like a kid's fight at the playground compared to a life-or-death battle during a war. The Eastern Front may have been only a single theatre, but it was were 90% of the fighting took place and were the entire war was decided. In comparison, all other fronts were trivial.

90% of the fighting? Where the hell do you get your statistics from? Right out of your ass. World War II was a global war, hence the name. China suffered millions of casualties too. Some estimate nearly 20 million. Thats not too far behind the Soviet Union, statistically.

WW2 was started then. But neither Russia nor the US participated in it. The Great Patriotic War started when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

Oh Russia participated in it all right. It decapitated Poland. It literally attacked the country England and France declared war on Germany for attacking.

Seriously, you've got A LOT of reading to do. Like real books, not comics.

Anyone catch that Russia standing up three new divisions due to NATO expansion of some sort.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's the thing, you're both wrong. And right at the same time. Russia, alone, could not have defeated Germany, driven them back, sure, but not defeated. American production power also did not defeat Germany. It was the combined effort of both sides that won the war. The two front war caused Germany to lose. Don't try and turn what was an Allied victory into another wedge.

This. Please, for the love of God, this.

This thread has repeatedly gone off topic at the drop of a hat, been riddled with rudeness, spam and other violations of the rules. The final time this happened is the last straw. As such it is being locked.