Was Patton serious?

The Allies 1939-1945, and those fighting against Germany.

Moderator: John W. Howard

User avatar
Paul_9686
Associate
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: LaGrange, GA

Post by Paul_9686 » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:13 pm

Well, all I can say is, thank God America and Russia never crossed swords in open war, either shortly after WWII, or through the present day.

As Churchill himself said once: "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. "

Yours,
Paul

TheFerret
Supporter
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:43 am
Contact:

Re: Was Patton serious?

Post by TheFerret » Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:03 am

Paul_9686 wrote:
TheFerret wrote:... I saw the motion picture Patton with George C. Scott. I was wondering if that scene in the film where he told Omar Bradley about attacking Russia ...
Begging your pardon, Ferret, but in that scene, Patton wasn't talking to Bradley on the phone, but to Gen. Walter Beedle Smith, Ike's chief-of-staff.

Yours,
Paul
Its been a while since I saw the film. My memory is a bit foggy I guess. I do know that much of the film is fictional, for instance the scene when he runs into the street to shoot his pistol at the German aircraft.

That scene where he is entertained by the Russian General was classic. Even if it never happened it was too funny for words.

User avatar
oleg
Enthusiast
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:59 pm

Post by oleg » Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:21 am

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Oleg,

It is never necessary to kill wound or otherwise incapacitate all a country's manpower to destroy its capacity to continue fighting. For example, being wounded may not disqualify a man from being re-employed, but in most cases it degrades his physical and moral value and even that of those around him.

The USSR had already suffered massive inroads into its prime manpower by 1945, whereas the Western Allies had suffered little drain on theirs.

If war broke out in 1945 between the USSR and the Western Allies, the Red Army had to reach the Atlantic coast at the first attempt just to achieve a stalemate, or such a war was lost.

Why? Because the USSR was already operating close to its manpower limits, the Allies had total air superiority and the Red Army was heavily dependent on Allied deliveries for its mobility and high tech equipment. You might be surprised at how much American gear there was in apparently all-Russian fighters, for instance. (There is a good article by a Russian pilot on this in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies).

Cheers,

Sid.
For example, being wounded may not disqualify a man from being re-employed, but in most cases it degrades his physical and moral value and even that of those around him.
While physical value might be under question the moral value factor is very debatable to put it mildly. Most of my relatives who fought during WW II were wounded at least ones that did not stop them form coming back and going on – if anything their moral even their senior years seem to be far higher than some people I knew that never been to war.
The USSR had already suffered massive inroads into its prime manpower by 1945, whereas the Western Allies had suffered little drain on theirs.{/quote] I don’t see how country with 170 million population in 1945 can be portrayed as being on verge of exhausting its man power.
If war broke out in 1945 between the USSR and the Western Allies, the Red Army had to reach the Atlantic coast at the first attempt just to achieve a stalemate, or such a war was lost.
It could do a lot of things for instance it could go for destruction of the actual forces preemptive employed in the theater or it could do what it did at Balaton and Kursk.

Why? Because the USSR was already operating close to its manpower limits,
Wow – there is this “limit” thing again – sid you by no managed to prove it.
the Allies had total air superiority
this is very debatable – allies had unquestionable advantage in strategic bombers – but tactical aviation wise – they hardly have any advantage – and when it comes to fighters for instance practically any Soviet fighter could run circles around any allied one at the altitudes where the later would have to be to cover its ground forces from the Soviet ground attack planes.
and the Red Army was heavily dependent on Allied deliveries for its mobility and high tech equipment.
Not that heavily LL transport never amounted to more than 25% of total Soviet motor pool and that was achieved by the time USSR went to war against Japan. What exactly do you mean by high-tec equipment?

User avatar
oleg
Enthusiast
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:59 pm

Post by oleg » Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:27 am

Darrin wrote:Total US mil dead during the war was 400,000. This includes all services all theatres combat and non combat related.

Rus suffered from roughly 9 mil mil dead during the war using the same def as above. That is more than 20 times greater than the US dead figure above.

The MUCH higher rus mil losses of all types combined with the MUCH higher general pop deaths spelt doom in any battle bettween them and the west.

As well the west not spprisingly had better treatment of its cas. Somewhere between 30-50% of the rus cas never returned to the front line. The avgerage time the rus cas spent out of the line up was roughly 2 months or 60 days. Less than 25% of the US cas never returned to front line service. Also the avg US cas spent about 14 days in hospital before retuiring to service.
First of all if use the same defention as above the number of "rus" deaths will be higher. Secondly, "The MUCH higher rus mil losses of all types combined with the MUCH higher general pop deaths spelt doom in any battle bettween them and the west." this is thesis that needs to be proven - for ones the logiostiacl effort sustaining expeditionary force that is needed to to defeat the Army would by far exid that that was needed to sustain Drive against Germany. The land forces currently availble to allies in Europe would suffer the same fate that UN forces suffered in Korea - that is run for their life.

In general - chnaces are that the whole affair would end the way the Korena war ended - that is in stalmate.

TheFerret
Supporter
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:43 am
Contact:

Post by TheFerret » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:47 pm

oleg wrote: In general - chnaces are that the whole affair would end the way the Korena war ended - that is in stalmate.
In my own ever-so-humble opinion I believe the reason the US Army could not acheive total victory in the Korean War was because of Truman sacking MacArthur. If MacArthur would have been allowed to fight the war his way the North Koreans would have been defeated.

Just my opinion.

User avatar
oleg
Enthusiast
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:59 pm

Post by oleg » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:51 pm

TheFerret wrote:
oleg wrote: In general - chnaces are that the whole affair would end the way the Korena war ended - that is in stalmate.
In my own ever-so-humble opinion I believe the reason the US Army could not acheive total victory in the Korean War was because of Truman sacking MacArthur. If MacArthur would have been allowed to fight the war his way the North Koreans would have been defeated.

Just my opinion.
If by his way you mean nucking the hell out of china - then that would be very bad idea , since -chances are that would make USSR to enter the war officially and by that time it too had nukes.

User avatar
Paul_9686
Associate
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: LaGrange, GA

Re: Was Patton serious?

Post by Paul_9686 » Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:31 pm

TheFerret wrote:That scene where he is entertained by the Russian General was classic. Even if it never happened it was too funny for words.
That was where I learned how to say "SOB" in Russian, Ferret. :wink:

Yours,
Paul

Darrin
Contributor
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:04 am

Post by Darrin » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:55 pm

oleg wrote:
the Allies had total air superiority
this is very debatable – allies had unquestionable advantage in strategic bombers – but tactical aviation wise – they hardly have any advantage – and when it comes to fighters for instance practically any Soviet fighter could run circles around any allied one at the altitudes where the later would have to be to cover its ground forces from the Soviet ground attack planes.
and the Red Army was heavily dependent on Allied deliveries for its mobility and high tech equipment.
Not that heavily LL transport never amounted to more than 25% of total Soviet motor pool and that was achieved by the time USSR went to war against Japan. What exactly do you mean by high-tec equipment?


The end of the war saw the combined allied airforce all countries, services and theatres outnumber the the total rus airforce by over 4 TIMES. That certainly qualifys as outnumbered and does not take into account seveal other factors.

The rus planes were made up of 20% LL planes. Replacments for these allied built planes and spare parts would quickly dry up. These newly built allied planes could switch to being used by the allied airforce then the rus making the ratio even more lopsided.

Roughly 55% of the alum avilable to rus was made in the west. This alum was important not just to make many things in the planaes but other things outside of a/c such as T34 tank eng.

60% of avgas and 50% of HE avilable to rus were made in the west. Without the avgas the number of sorties and training fights would obviously suffer considerablly. The low ammout of HE avilable would also considerably decrease the avil of bombs and rockets not just in planes but also in the arty as well.

Most of the radios in the sov pllanes for instance came from the west.

Also about 50% of the avilable tires in rus were made in the west. Abviouly this goes even deeper than tires it cncerns rubber in ever corner of rus which they were short on and ONLY had syn rubber to use. No artifical rubber plants like the allies had in africa and southeast asia.

28% of machine tools were made in the west. These were generally much better at doing thier job than the rus varity.

60% of trucks avil in rus during the war came from the west.

90% of rails, locommotives etc...

Darrin
Contributor
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:04 am

Post by Darrin » Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:20 pm

Nuclear bombs

The US did not have enough bombs to send waves. The US by the end of 46 had made 8 of which 2 were used within a week in japan. That means the US had a min of 6 avilable bombs. It is quite possible that if a state of near war was present the prod could have been ramped up even more than this.

The us had dropped 2 bombs on seperate japanese cites with a week. Without even botherring for conflict to start on the homeland. It seems likly the rus were going to be treated the same as the japanese. Even if the US had some moral problem about attcking rus cities there would be other ways for the US to cause huge effects with thier nukes without causing much civ losses.

They could drop a bomb(s) near gronzy where 60% of rus oil was produced which would send the all the T34 tanks and trucks on empty. They could also drop a bomb(s) on the don basin were 60% of thier coal was produced. The coal was used to power all those locokatives and help make steel as well as other things.

The non nuclear threat

As early as Dday each US soilder was issued with two sets of special ruberizzed uniforms. The west had the rubber esp natural to do this after the war that the rus did not have. The allied dom in the air meant the rus would ony resort to arty to deposit any chem/bio.

Darrin
Contributor
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:04 am

Post by Darrin » Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:30 pm

oleg wrote:
One cannot properly use the word "abandoned" to describe a course of action that was never adopted in the first place.
I understand that my English is far from being perfect but its is my understanding that one can use "abandoned" in regarding to the plan that was drawn but was not adopted.

You are wrong. In mil parlance plans are often drawn up without thier being any intention of them being carried out. For example a plan was drawn up in the 30s by the US for dealing with both jap and UK at the same time. This plan was ordered to be drawn up and was accepeted once finisheed but never actually implimted for obvious reasons. Look up case yellow I believe and you might educate yourself.

User avatar
oleg
Enthusiast
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:59 pm

Post by oleg » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:32 am

Darrin wrote:
oleg wrote:
the Allies had total air superiority
this is very debatable – allies had unquestionable advantage in strategic bombers – but tactical aviation wise – they hardly have any advantage – and when it comes to fighters for instance practically any Soviet fighter could run circles around any allied one at the altitudes where the later would have to be to cover its ground forces from the Soviet ground attack planes.
and the Red Army was heavily dependent on Allied deliveries for its mobility and high tech equipment.
Not that heavily LL transport never amounted to more than 25% of total Soviet motor pool and that was achieved by the time USSR went to war against Japan. What exactly do you mean by high-tec equipment?


The end of the war saw the combined allied airforce all countries, services and theatres outnumber the the total rus airforce by over 4 TIMES. That certainly qualifys as outnumbered and does not take into account seveal other factors.

The rus planes were made up of 20% LL planes. Replacments for these allied built planes and spare parts would quickly dry up. These newly built allied planes could switch to being used by the allied airforce then the rus making the ratio even more lopsided.

Roughly 55% of the alum avilable to rus was made in the west. This alum was important not just to make many things in the planaes but other things outside of a/c such as T34 tank eng.

60% of avgas and 50% of HE avilable to rus were made in the west. Without the avgas the number of sorties and training fights would obviously suffer considerablly. The low ammout of HE avilable would also considerably decrease the avil of bombs and rockets not just in planes but also in the arty as well.

Most of the radios in the sov pllanes for instance came from the west.

Also about 50% of the avilable tires in rus were made in the west. Abviouly this goes even deeper than tires it cncerns rubber in ever corner of rus which they were short on and ONLY had syn rubber to use. No artifical rubber plants like the allies had in africa and southeast asia.

28% of machine tools were made in the west. These were generally much better at doing thier job than the rus varity.

60% of trucks avil in rus during the war came from the west.

90% of rails, locommotives etc...
there are so many mistakes here that it is not even funny.. ne as it may what do you use as your source?

User avatar
oleg
Enthusiast
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:59 pm

Post by oleg » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:34 am

Darrin wrote:Nuclear bombs

The US did not have enough bombs to send waves. The US by the end of 46 had made 8 of which 2 were used within a week in japan. That means the US had a min of 6 avilable bombs. It is quite possible that if a state of near war was present the prod could have been ramped up even more than this.

The us had dropped 2 bombs on seperate japanese cites with a week. Without even botherring for conflict to start on the homeland. It seems likly the rus were going to be treated the same as the japanese. Even if the US had some moral problem about attcking rus cities there would be other ways for the US to cause huge effects with thier nukes without causing much civ losses.

They could drop a bomb(s) near gronzy where 60% of rus oil was produced which would send the all the T34 tanks and trucks on empty. They could also drop a bomb(s) on the don basin were 60% of thier coal was produced. The coal was used to power all those locokatives and help make steel as well as other things.

The non nuclear threat

As early as Dday each US soilder was issued with two sets of special ruberizzed uniforms. The west had the rubber esp natural to do this after the war that the rus did not have. The allied dom in the air meant the rus would ony resort to arty to deposit any chem/bio.


1st of all why "rus" did not have?
2. what dominance?

User avatar
oleg
Enthusiast
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:59 pm

Post by oleg » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:36 am

Darrin wrote:
oleg wrote:
One cannot properly use the word "abandoned" to describe a course of action that was never adopted in the first place.
I understand that my English is far from being perfect but its is my understanding that one can use "abandoned" in regarding to the plan that was drawn but was not adopted.

You are wrong. In mil parlance plans are often drawn up without thier being any intention of them being carried out. For example a plan was drawn up in the 30s by the US for dealing with both jap and UK at the same time. This plan was ordered to be drawn up and was accepeted once finisheed but never actually implimted for obvious reasons. Look up case yellow I believe and you might educate yourself.
educate on what -on meaning of word abandoned? if the paln is not implimented than it is ... (fill in the blank Darrin)

Darrin
Contributor
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:04 am

Post by Darrin » Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:54 am

oleg wrote:
Also Eastern European forces in Soviet Army hardly amounted to anything beyond the token size.

And while many Soviet divisions were blow established strength –that happened to be the case thorough the entire war –which did not stop them form achieving victory. All in all in May of 1945 Soviet Army was largest land force in Europe.

The nukmber of rummaians alone at the end of the war was 400,000 this does not count hun, cheq, polezs etc. It seems there were at least a million non Sov Union forces in europe. That surrly is a large number about 10% of the overall rus army.

While the rus armed forces were large not all of the 12+ mil were in europe. Part of rus was in the asia and gaurding the long southern border say 10-20%. While the rus armed forces may of been the most numerous in europe it certainly was not the largest in the world. That tile at the end of WWII belonged tothe US.

The US didn't just loose millions in soilders from its manpower str and even more millions in the pop str. From which the army is recruited and supported. Rus may have even outnumbered the combined allied forces in europe but ONLY by a small margin in total manpower. Plus the rus soilders were not equivalent man tot man to the alllied soilders. Two rus soilders were probably equivalent to each allied soilder making any manpower comparsons misleading. Taking the better preformace of the allied armies into acount it would be luky if rus had similar numbers.

While the rus might out number the allies slightly in manpower in europe the allies would have a huge adv in manpower in the pacific over rus. Which alone could lead to a deadlyt two front war leading to huge rus losses.

The total number of allied div US and CW around the world would be close to 200. These divs were larger than thier sov couterparts, had more equip, pers, replacments, supplies etc.... Plus these 200 western div were better preforming man for man for the sov couterpart.

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:46 am

Hi Oleg,

If being wounded was regarded as somehow likely to enhance the value of a soldier, then presumably wounding would be part of the basic training in all armies! I have heard some unlikely arguments in my time on Feldgrau and that is well up there with them.

If the USSR wasn't always operating at the limits of its available manpower, why did you note earlier that its divisions spent much of the war under strength?

A population of 170 million doesn't give 170 million men available for the armed forces. For a start under half were men. Of these a high proportion were under conscription age or too old. The USSR mobilised to its maximum and managed to put 34 million into uniform, amongst whom 26,000,000 injuries and deaths were distributed. This is a very serious casualty ratio.

Besides, however lightly you may consider the Red Army to have suffered, the Western Allies had suffered far less by 1945.

As for your final question, I think Darrin answers that more than adequately.

Cheers,

Sid.

Post Reply