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.

 sebster wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
To get back to the original point i was making afore this got derailed it is this : "The soviets did not win ww2 alone, they did need the western allies." every bit of aid was needed, it could be considered decisive. There are too many myths of soviet invincibillity and thats all they are, myths.

You're not so much getting back to your original point, as much as restating the claim in order to avoid responding to all the ways in which it has been shown as false. You claim the aid was needed and could be considered decisive... but I've shown you production advantaged the Soviets on a rate of 2:1 or higher before lendlease meaningfully started.

The Soviets were, of course, not invincible. But Germany was not capable of a sustained war of production against a country with the resources and brute force industry of Soviet Russia. Once they lost their fast war the game was over, and that happened long before lendlease really kicked in to gear.

you showed nothing but your opinion.

 thekingofkings wrote:
you showed nothing but your opinion.

You seem to have forgotten this;

We'll use 1942 as that's before Lendlease really kicked in to gear.
The Germans produced 1,370,000 rifles and carbines. The Soviets produced 4,049,000 rifles and carbines.
The Germans produced 117,000 machine guns. The Soviets produced 356,000 machine guns.
The Germans produced 9,800 mortars. The Soviets produced 230,000.
The Germans produced 41,000 guns and artillery pieces. The Soviets produced 128,000.
The Germans produced 6,200 tanks and SPG. The Soviets produced 24,700 tanks and SPG.
The Germans produced 11,600 combat aircraft. The Soviets produced 21,700.

Look dude, you might want to think about walking away from this thread. You came in with a strong opinion and it hasn't gone well for you. That's okay, it happens to everyone on the internet sooner or later. It's happened to me more times than I care to remember. No need to take it as a big ego hit and start getting pissy and negative. If you've got too much ego caught up in your opinion so that it isnt possible to learn something, maybe at the very least don't dig yourself a big hole, and just walk away?

 sebster wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
you showed nothing but your opinion.

You seem to have forgotten this;

We'll use 1942 as that's before Lendlease really kicked in to gear.
The Germans produced 1,370,000 rifles and carbines. The Soviets produced 4,049,000 rifles and carbines.
The Germans produced 117,000 machine guns. The Soviets produced 356,000 machine guns.
The Germans produced 9,800 mortars. The Soviets produced 230,000.
The Germans produced 41,000 guns and artillery pieces. The Soviets produced 128,000.
The Germans produced 6,200 tanks and SPG. The Soviets produced 24,700 tanks and SPG.
The Germans produced 11,600 combat aircraft. The Soviets produced 21,700.

Look dude, you might want to think about walking away from this thread. You came in with a strong opinion and it hasn't gone well for you. That's okay, it happens to everyone on the internet sooner or later. It's happened to me more times than I care to remember. No need to take it as a big ego hit and start getting pissy and negative. If you've got too much ego caught up in your opinion so that it isnt possible to learn something, maybe at the very least don't dig yourself a big hole, and just walk away?

good idea, you should try it yourself.

And now I have to use the red text. Be polite, now.

The IS-3 blew it out of the water. There's a reason the Western Allies rapidly cycled through a number of armored vehicles in the late 40s and 50s while the Soviets didn't.

Actually Zaloga did an intensive study of comparisons between versions of the Panther, Sherman, T34, Pershing - M48 in WWII and Korea. The Pershing, while underpowered engine wise, was the equal to the IS 2- its optics, loading, and 90mm gun were superior.

Bu you are correct in that very few Pershings made it to Europe.

The argument about the truck is a strong one. Without that logistics, the Russians would not have been able to build so many tanks and maintain their troops. We have proof-just look at the Germans. If your army is fueled by horses, you can't maintain modern warfare over time.

interesting biography. Before transferring to the GD division he was on their rollbahn trying to get supplies to the front lines in late 1942/1st H 1943. What a nightmare.
His description of being trapped on the wrong side of the Dnieper waiting for days to try to get across is harrowing.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005M3U2CG/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o01_?ie=UTF8&psc=1#nav-subnav

 Frazzled wrote:

The IS-3 blew it out of the water. There's a reason the Western Allies rapidly cycled through a number of armored vehicles in the late 40s and 50s while the Soviets didn't.

Actually Zaloga did an intensive study of comparisons between versions of the Panther, Sherman, T34, Pershing - M48 in WWII and Korea. The Pershing, while underpowered engine wise, was the equal to the IS 2- its optics, loading, and 90mm gun were superior.

Bu you are correct in that very few Pershings made it to Europe.

The argument about the truck is a strong one. Without that logistics, the Russians would not have been able to build so many tanks and maintain their troops. We have proof-just look at the Germans. If your army is fueled by horses, you can't maintain modern warfare over time.

interesting biography. Before transferring to the GD division he was on their rollbahn trying to get supplies to the front lines in late 1942/1st H 1943. What a nightmare.
His description of being trapped on the wrong side of the Dnieper waiting for days to try to get across is harrowing.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005M3U2CG/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o01_?ie=UTF8&psc=1#nav-subnav

There were over 2000 of them built by the end of 45'. The need for them in Europe significantly less by the end of the 44-45 winter, so there wasn't a huge rush to ship them over. Had hostilities with Russia looked likely, you could bet there would have been much more shipped over.

Indeed, or the war dragged on.

I should also note that comparing the Pershing and IS-2 is not great.

The Pershing was effectively a panther sized MBT. Its gun was designed for both HE but also antitank applications (I believe its the same 90mm as found on the Jackson Tank Destroyer).

The IS-2 (one of my personal favorites) was a heavy tank designed for infantry assault. Its gun is effectively long barreled artillery, somewhat similar in function and use to an SU or IS -152. Its a 5 inch artillery gun. Its loaded in two parts and designed for HE (personnel and blowing bunkers). Its effective anti-armor by having enough power to blow off the turret. BOOOM! but thats a very secondary role.

Its interesting that both the IS-2 and Pershing were able to have tanks with similar armor protection and BOOM power to a Tiger but substantially less weight.

To really compare you have to look to the T34s successor: the T54.

Naturally, of course, the debate ended when the Centurion Tank came along

Rule Britannia!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Naturally, of course, the debate ended when the Centurion Tank came along

Rule Britannia!

I won't argue that point. The Centurion was a beast.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Naturally, of course, the debate ended when the Centurion Tank came along

Rule Britannia!

Well, once they put the 105 on it. Its original had a 17lber...cool but becoming outclassed.

Pfft, British tanks are the best tanks in the world.

No matter what battlefield, no matter what opponent. You can always, always gaurentee that there is tea available at a British tank.

 sebster wrote:

The Soviets were, of course, not invincible. But Germany was not capable of a sustained war of production against a country with the resources and brute force industry of Soviet Russia. Once they lost their fast war the game was over, and that happened long before lendlease really kicked in to gear.

I broadly agree with your argument but it's worth bearing in mind a couple of points:

1: British bombing, despite ongoing debate, had a huge strategic effect. Steel, synthetic oil, etc etc production was hugely affected, for instance, and Speer details how by 43 it was essentially wiping out his efficiency increases. A million personnel were tied up in AA activities.

2: Soviet production was incredibly effective. It's actually amazing to what extent some of the Five Year Plans actually worked and transformed the USSR into a major industrial power.

But a key architect (in every sense) of the Five Year Plan was actually American. Albert Kahn's company designed just about every single tractor and tank factory that powered their industrialisation.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Pfft, British tanks are the best tanks in the world.

No matter what battlefield, no matter what opponent. You can always, always gaurentee that there is tea available at a British tank.

A compelling argument.

 sebster wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
you showed nothing but your opinion.

You seem to have forgotten this;

We'll use 1942 as that's before Lendlease really kicked in to gear.
The Germans produced 1,370,000 rifles and carbines. The Soviets produced 4,049,000 rifles and carbines.
The Germans produced 117,000 machine guns. The Soviets produced 356,000 machine guns.
The Germans produced 9,800 mortars. The Soviets produced 230,000.
The Germans produced 41,000 guns and artillery pieces. The Soviets produced 128,000.
The Germans produced 6,200 tanks and SPG. The Soviets produced 24,700 tanks and SPG.
The Germans produced 11,600 combat aircraft. The Soviets produced 21,700.

Look dude, you might want to think about walking away from this thread. You came in with a strong opinion and it hasn't gone well for you. That's okay, it happens to everyone on the internet sooner or later. It's happened to me more times than I care to remember. No need to take it as a big ego hit and start getting pissy and negative. If you've got too much ego caught up in your opinion so that it isnt possible to learn something, maybe at the very least don't dig yourself a big hole, and just walk away?

This reply has nothing to do with this comment, but with a previous comment. I forgot to reply the other day

When I talk about technology, I'm not saying that the Germans didn't have trucks or the Russians didn't have trucks, that would be silly.

The point I'm trying to make is that technology drove the type of war the Germans and Russians fought on the Eastern Front.

Some German soldiers marched all the way to Stalingrad from Poland. Did they do that because they fancied a long walk? Of course not. They marched because there wasn't enough trucks for all of them.

In order to increase the panzer divisions pre-Barbarossa, Hitler halved the existing divisions, due to a lack of tanks. If the trucks had been there, if the tanks had been there, this would not have happened in both examples.

Similary the lack of trucks and tanks forced the Red Army to draw upon a resource that it did not lack for - manpower.

So now you have two armies, forced by technological constraints, to engage in a war of attrition similar to the battles of the Great War, which is why the casualty rate was so high IMO.

That's another reason why German infantry had to be so good - they can't win a resource war, a war of attrition.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That tea is being poured at the wrong angle, and where's the dash of lemon?

I'm very disappointed

Lemon?

LEMON??

This the British Army. Condensed milk is what you'll get and you'll like it whether you like it or not!!! And you WILL like it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Lemon?

LEMON??

This the British Army. Condensed milk is what you'll get and you'll like it whether you like it or not!!! And you WILL like it.

Yeah, if you're in Salisbury plain in the middle of November, condensed milk is fine, but if you're posted to Cyprus, then it's the Mediterranean diet all the way

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument about the truck is a strong one. Without that logistics, the Russians would not have been able to build so many tanks and maintain their troops. We have proof-just look at the Germans.

The argument that trucks made a big difference is a good and fair argument, and no-one is arguing against it. Here's me earlier in the thread;
"The trucks and railway carriages the Soviets received were excellent and made many offensives more effective than they would otherwise have been, but they weren't transformative."
"as I already said the trucks and railway carriages provided by the US played a huge role in ending the war sooner"

The point in dispute is whether lendlease changed the war from one the Soviets would have lost to one they would have won. And the answer there is pretty clear.

If your army is fueled by horses, you can't maintain modern warfare over time.

Or you can just go with the Russian model of putting the men on horseback and hoping they advance fast enough to loot enough food and ammo to keep going. The horses eat grass, and if there's no grass they eat the straw from the roofs of peasant huts. If things go wrong the unit will probably starve and die, but oh well that's life in Soviet Russia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its interesting that both the IS-2 and Pershing were able to have tanks with similar armor protection and BOOM power to a Tiger but substantially less weight.

The Tiger was a 1930s design afterall. It's reputation is really driven by it being the first heavy tank on the scene to carry a gun worthy of a heavy tank. But in most respects, armour to weight, reliability etc its 1930s design showed through. There are reasons the Germans stopped making them in 1944.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
1: British bombing, despite ongoing debate, had a huge strategic effect. Steel, synthetic oil, etc etc production was hugely affected, for instance, and Speer details how by 43 it was essentially wiping out his efficiency increases. A million personnel were tied up in AA activities.

It wasn't just British bombing, they only started a few months before the Americans. And neither the British nor the US started delivering real results until mid 43, by which time we're looking at the Germans being stuck in an inevitable losing position.

Probably the biggest factor before '43 was the British blockade, which gave the Germans some very acute shortages.

2: Soviet production was incredibly effective. It's actually amazing to what extent some of the Five Year Plans actually worked and transformed the USSR into a major industrial power.

But a key architect (in every sense) of the Five Year Plan was actually American. Albert Kahn's company designed just about every single tractor and tank factory that powered their industrialisation.

Kahn should be a lot more famous as one of the creators of the industrial age.

Anyhow, while I think it is interesting to talk about Kahn and other very important American individuals to the development of Soviet industry and armaments (Christie is another worth mentioning), I think there's a very big difference between the actions of private individuals, and government policies.

Afterall, Einstein was born in Germany. But we don't credit Germany with developing the bomb that defeated the Japanese


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When I talk about technology, I'm not saying that the Germans didn't have trucks or the Russians didn't have trucks, that would be silly.

The point I'm trying to make is that technology drove the type of war the Germans and Russians fought on the Eastern Front.

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

In order to increase the panzer divisions pre-Barbarossa, Hitler halved the existing divisions, due to a lack of tanks. If the trucks had been there, if the tanks had been there, this would not have happened in both examples.

Actually, the Fall of France, start of Barbarossa was basically the peak time for trucks in the German army. They took a crazy number from the French. This was probably one reason for the increase in the number of panzer divisions - given the resources they now had it made sense to move to more divisions with less tanks but supplemented by a lot more motorised men, guns and artillery.

Similary the lack of trucks and tanks forced the Red Army to draw upon a resource that it did not lack for - manpower.

So now you have two armies, forced by technological constraints, to engage in a war of attrition similar to the battles of the Great War, which is why the casualty rate was so high IMO.

Not really though. The war in the east remained highly mobile with many big encircling maneuvers. Remember the Fall of France happened in six weeks, with most German infantry marching from the border to Paris. Meanwhile the Allies Normandy campaign, fighting over the same ground, were in bogged down grind with a couple of breakthroughs. Mechanisation and motorisation was a huge benefit to the western allies, but it wasn't the only factor at play. The Germans were more hardened and deployment reflected the hard won lessons from the early stages of the war.

That's another reason why German infantry had to be so good - they can't win a resource war, a war of attrition.

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You don't make a strategic decision to maybe have more elite troops, or maybe have less elite troops. No-one would ever think 'oh we've got lots of troops so lets just let them be gak'. You try and make your troops as good as you can, and then come up against whatever political and infrastructure limitations your country might have. The Germans troops were excellent because they had high quality officers and excellent doctrines.

There was certainly a resource war of attrition, but that was more a product of both sides dealing with the armies and strategic circumstances they had. Both sides were always looking for decision breakthroughs.

In response to Sebster.

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You don't make a strategic decision to maybe have more elite troops, or maybe have less elite troops. No-one would ever think 'oh we've got lots of troops so lets just let them be gak'. You try and make your troops as good as you can, and then come up against whatever political and infrastructure limitations your country might have. The Germans troops were excellent because they had high quality officers and excellent doctrines.

I don't deny the skill of the average German soldier, but for most of the latter end of the war, the Germans were on the defensive, and defence is easier than attack. The terrain in Italy and Normandy was a massive boost to the defending Germans, but when the situation was reversed, battle of the bulge, the Germans had a hell of a time trying to shift dug in American infantry, and ultimately, the delays cost them...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You also overlook the fact that one of the reasons why the Germans attacked France in 1940 was becuase they couldn't play the long game.

They couldn't match the resources of the British Empire, the British blockade and its effects from the Great War were still remembered in Germany, and long term, the allies superior resources would win the day. So again, German doctrine is driven by industrial and technological constraints.

If they don't defeat France quickly, they don't win the war and we're back to 1914 again for the Germans...

A lot of that comes from the fact that Germany went to war about four years too early. They were hoping no one would kick up a fuss about them invading Poland....

I'm not quite sure how they thought no one would, but hey they already had Austria and Czechoslovakia by then.

Or you can just go with the Russian model of putting the men on horseback and hoping they advance fast enough to loot enough food and ammo to keep going. The horses eat grass, and if there's no grass they eat the straw from the roofs of peasant huts. If things go wrong the unit will probably starve and die, but oh well that's life in Soviet Russia.{/quote]
Disagree. Soviet forces had a substantial train and truck logistical tail. While they had beaucoup infantry formations initially their logistics were mechanized (after 1941). By 1943 they had substantial mechanized formations as well, which increased through the war. Of course they paled next to the US, but the US intentionally kept the number of their divisions limited so they could focus on that.

The Tiger was a 1930s design afterall. It's reputation is really driven by it being the first heavy tank on the scene to carry a gun worthy of a heavy tank. But in most respects, armour to weight, reliability etc its 1930s design showed through. There are reasons the Germans stopped making them in 1944{/quote]

Agreed that its development had started pre-war.

Hardly.
1. The French Char would be considered the first heavy in WWII. Its armor and firepower was substantially heavier than German armor-thus advancing driving the development of the PZIV.
2. Inversely the Soviets started the war with two heavies for their time: the T34 and the KV1. The KV1 was effectively the Tiger of 1941 and early 1942. The German shock at the T34 drove the PZVI.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Lemon?

LEMON??

This the British Army. Condensed milk is what you'll get and you'll like it whether you like it or not!!! And you WILL like it.

However, he is correct that the pouring technique is sloppy. Everyone knows that you have to place a hand on the lid as you pour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


Afterall, Einstein was born in Germany. But we don't credit Germany with developing the bomb that defeated the Japanese

Well, Einstein wasn't actively involved in the development of the Atomic bomb. His discovery revealed the physical process which allowed for the release of the energy contained in an atom but that discovery was in 1905. His recommendation for the US to begin a nuclear weapons programme and meetings with Roosevelt probably started the Manhattan project but apart from that, his input was non-existent.

So whats the overall point of this thread? That Russia had it covered, no one else needed to get involved because their contribution was negligible? Cause thats all I'm reading from some people.

I doubt that Russia could have really won this on its own.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So whats the overall point of this thread? That Russia had it covered, no one else needed to get involved because their contribution was negligible? Cause thats all I'm reading from some people.

I doubt that Russia could have really won this on its own.

I started the thread with the contention that Operation Overlord was unnecessary, if the only end game was defeat Nazi Germany. The Soviets could have defeated the Nazis without D-Day.

Whether that would have been good for Europe is another matter.

The start of the thread was to consider the Russian nationalist claims that the Soviet Union could have won the war by themselves from mid-1944 if D-Day had not happened.

This may be true however it ignores the fact that everything up to D-Day did happen, and naturally affected the course of the war to that point. So then the discussion broadened to whether the Soviets could have won the war by themselves entirely, presumably assuming that Germany successfully invaded the UK in 1940-41 and pacified their western front. Or perhaps the Germans never invaded France, and concentrated their efforts completely on the Soviet Union.

BY mid 1944 the Allies also could have defeated Germany without the USSR's help, so its kind of a stupid argument.

 Frazzled wrote:
BY mid 1944 the Allies also could have defeated Germany without the USSR's help, so its kind of a stupid argument.

Without the USSR involved you would still need a change in the aims of invasion, highly unlikely given the hypothetical of German manpower and resources not squandered away in the East to bolster the western approaches.

Atomic weapons would also be no guarantee surrender or change of attitude to Germans opposed to the terms of allied surrender at the time.

Without an ideological war in the east you may have seen a regime change, but again, total capitulation was unpalatable to a lot of Germans.

 Frazzled wrote:
BY mid 1944 the Allies also could have defeated Germany without the USSR's help, so its kind of a stupid argument.

That's pushing it. If Germany had the Eastern Front resources on hand to guard the French shores, we'd never have cracked that nut.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
BY mid 1944 the Allies also could have defeated Germany without the USSR's help, so its kind of a stupid argument.

That's pushing it. If Germany had the Eastern Front resources on hand to guard the French shores, we'd never have cracked that nut.

Eeeeh... We still could by using our vastly superior intelligence warfare. We managed to make German High Command believe the real invasion was happening in Calais even after we had already landed forces in Normandy. All we'd need to do is spread some more disinformation about a second main invasion force coming in from the south of France (or some other location like that) as well to divert German forces there.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
BY mid 1944 the Allies also could have defeated Germany without the USSR's help, so its kind of a stupid argument.

That's pushing it. If Germany had the Eastern Front resources on hand to guard the French shores, we'd never have cracked that nut.

Its the same argument. By mid 1944 they were a broken force. It would have been much harder, but still do-able. Also if its delayed until 1945 and Germany is now radioactive is extraordinarily easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
BY mid 1944 the Allies also could have defeated Germany without the USSR's help, so its kind of a stupid argument.

That's pushing it. If Germany had the Eastern Front resources on hand to guard the French shores, we'd never have cracked that nut.

Eeeeh... We still could by using our vastly superior intelligence warfare. We managed to make German High Command believe the real invasion was happening in Calais even after we had already landed forces in Normandy. All we'd need to do is spread some more disinformation about a second main invasion force coming in from the south of France (or some other location like that) as well to divert German forces there.

Don't forget we did actually invade through Southern France. That gets forgotten a lot. (Operation Dragoon).

If the USSR is no longer fighting Germany -through some sort of truce I guess the Russians stop at the border or something its hard to envision- then Germany still has to station large formations there, plus they would not have been able to move substantial quantities west in time.