lwd
Yeah - even walking to Berlin was not an option since we were providing the shoe leather!
One thing Ivan had though - was good tanks and soldiers who were tough enough to stand up to Fritz! Wait - that's two things!
The more I study the east front the more terrible it seems. On my best day I can't think of an outcome that would have been better - and that's a shame. Concentration camps from Germany all the way to the urals and soldiers on both sides fighting desparately for regimes that were about as hateful as it gets.
cheers
Reb
What if...
- Dragunov
- Associate
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:55 pm
- Location: Ottawa, The True North Strong And Free (and rather cold)
makes sense!
and the sherman...
http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=19
ah...
ahem, ya mean the `grave for seven comrades`?And to avoid embarrassing my countrymen we won't talk about Lee / Grant...
and the sherman...
http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=19
ah...
When Stalin says "Dance" a wise man dances.- Nikita Kruschev
I've seen posts on another forum (so by no means defintiive) that the Russians referred to most tanks as:Dragunov wrote:... ahem, ya mean the `grave for seven comrades`?....
grave for (insert crew size here) comrades/brothers
Would like to see more confirmation or rebutal. Certainly many of the light tanks used on the eastern front deserved such a label.
- Rajin Cajun
- Banned
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:02 pm
- Location: Utah, United States
Reb this is the Soviets we are talking about they went above and beyond us Americans! I mean look at the Typhoon it was made a little big longer then the Ohio.
Yes Comrade American you can fit five in tank but you are wasting precious space for the Proletariat! We can stick seven good comrades in one capitalist tank! And if we factor in Cossacks 10! So we take American Evil Capitalist design and make it Great Working Man Fighting Tank! Hurrah for Comrade Stalin and his 7 comrades per tank plan!
Yes Comrade American you can fit five in tank but you are wasting precious space for the Proletariat! We can stick seven good comrades in one capitalist tank! And if we factor in Cossacks 10! So we take American Evil Capitalist design and make it Great Working Man Fighting Tank! Hurrah for Comrade Stalin and his 7 comrades per tank plan!
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
- Dragunov
- Associate
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:55 pm
- Location: Ottawa, The True North Strong And Free (and rather cold)
blah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee - hooray for Comrade sniper!
nah Rajin, 5 men and 2 good Peoples Commissars to get the job done thouroughly for Comrade Stalin!
hmmmm, where did Oleg go to? i'm sure he'd have somthing to say...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee - hooray for Comrade sniper!
nah Rajin, 5 men and 2 good Peoples Commissars to get the job done thouroughly for Comrade Stalin!
hmmmm, where did Oleg go to? i'm sure he'd have somthing to say...
When Stalin says "Dance" a wise man dances.- Nikita Kruschev
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Five men....but SEVEN Browning machine guns! No wonder Bogie was able to defeat the entire Afrika Corps at that oasis!
I ALWAYS loved the idea of the two front-mounted STATIC ones! Always made me think of a Lee in a dogfight with an Me109!
I ALWAYS loved the idea of the two front-mounted STATIC ones! Always made me think of a Lee in a dogfight with an Me109!
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
-
- New Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:42 pm
Das Reich versus USSR- no lend lease & 3RD Reich vs USA
I tend to think that lend-lease was a little overated by Allied propoganda. I do agree that the comms and wheels support was crucial. I still don't feel that the Whermacht had a chance against the USSR; even if 100% of it's combat power was employed to that end. I think that the Reich already had 90% of their resources in the east... Invading Russia is always a bad idea... There are many many qualifiers to consider: US involvement; German domination of Europe; nuclear technology; actual industrial output; manpower; logistics; radar and jet technology... who knows? Glad the Allies won... Glad the USSR did not totally destroy the German people.
I hold to my opinion about the Reich and the USA. Probably a tougher nut to crack than Russia...
I hold to my opinion about the Reich and the USA. Probably a tougher nut to crack than Russia...
- Rajin Cajun
- Banned
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:02 pm
- Location: Utah, United States
I always wondered what would happen if two political officers had an Ideological difference...would the one quickest to draw his weapon be the winner?Dragunov wrote:blah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee - hooray for Comrade sniper!
nah Rajin, 5 men and 2 good Peoples Commissars to get the job done thouroughly for Comrade Stalin!
hmmmm, where did Oleg go to? i'm sure he'd have somthing to say...
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: Das Reich versus USSR- no lend lease & 3RD Reich vs
Indeed. Both during and post war it some (especially in the west) tended to overrate it. On the other hand the Soviets tended to understate its importance.sgt fauver wrote:I tend to think that lend-lease was a little overated by Allied propoganda.
I suspect the Germans had no where near 90% of their resources in the east. Most of their fighters in the latter stages of the war were deoployed in the west or in defence of Germany as were hugh numbers of guns. While the Soviets halted the German advances with little or no help from lend lease the following offencives were heavily dependent on it. Consider also that the Soviets were also running short by the end of the war. In the absence of lend lease the Soviets would have had a much harder time accumulating and moving the supplies needed for their offencives. This means that they would have been longer times between them giving the Germans more time to recoup. There likely would also have been shortages of some matrials (how severe and of what would depend on whether or not and how much the Soviets reallocated their production). I suspect the result of a German Soviet war without US or UK involvment would have stalemated somewhere in the Soviet Union probably a ways west of the furtherest German advances. Who won if any one did eventually would depend on the details and luck.I do agree that the comms and wheels support was crucial. I still don't feel that the Whermacht had a chance against the USSR; even if 100% of it's combat power was employed to that end. I think that the Reich already had 90% of their resources in the east...
lwd
I concur - Hitler's order sending most / all heavy tanks to the west in preparation for the Ardennes offensive was really dumb - they were an encumbrance in the Ardennes but were badly needed against the Soviet's heavier tanks.
the insistance upon holding Courland was based upon his perceived need for better u-boats which would have been used against the west. How far that went towards easing the problem of taking East Prussia is anyone's guess.
That said - it has been my experience in talking to Americans and Europeans that we do tend to over state the importance of lend lease.
it made things easier for Ivan but he was doing fine without us. Germany never really had much chance in the East.
cheers
Reb
I concur - Hitler's order sending most / all heavy tanks to the west in preparation for the Ardennes offensive was really dumb - they were an encumbrance in the Ardennes but were badly needed against the Soviet's heavier tanks.
the insistance upon holding Courland was based upon his perceived need for better u-boats which would have been used against the west. How far that went towards easing the problem of taking East Prussia is anyone's guess.
That said - it has been my experience in talking to Americans and Europeans that we do tend to over state the importance of lend lease.
it made things easier for Ivan but he was doing fine without us. Germany never really had much chance in the East.
cheers
Reb
-
- New Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:42 pm
The Ardennes
Operation Wacht Am Rhein. We all probaly agree that was a HUGE German mistake.
Besides, the war on the western front ended on D-Day when Hitler would not release the Panzer Divisionen for a counter stroke...
The Calais faint was brilliant on our part. We were lucky that the NAZIs, well Hitler, fell for it...
Besides, the war on the western front ended on D-Day when Hitler would not release the Panzer Divisionen for a counter stroke...
The Calais faint was brilliant on our part. We were lucky that the NAZIs, well Hitler, fell for it...
Sgt Fauver
Well, at the risk of contradicting myself I will have to say I'm one of the minority that think Whact Am Rein was, if not a good idea, about the only option available short of fighting a sort of Okinawa style delaying action which made it only a matter of time. In the Ardennes, the Germans gave themselves a chance to accomplish something: splitting the coalition and tying up or writing off large numbers of troops. The odds were bad though.
Concieved in desperation and not, obviously, executed so well - it was demonstrably silly to strike in the Ardennes with monster tanks like Tiger II. They shouldhave kept sending the big stuff to the east.
But when you're in a card game and can't draw a decent card sometimes you have to kick the table over.
To me, the one huge thing that speaks against the Ardennes offensive was the shortage of petrol. Exacerbated by the necessary secrecy that kept what petrol that was available from being accessed easily.
I'd add that attacking with low quality infantry divisions instead of the panzers (in the initial strike in the North) caused unnecesary delays, and underestimating the US ability to react fast was a huge mistake. Seventh Army was simply too weak to provide adequet flank defense.
All those pz divs sitting around waiting for gas while a few did most of the fighting must have hugely frustrating. but thats hindsite I suppose - you always feel stronger when you have much.
In the end we examine the available forces and petrol and it becomes obvious that this probably never did have a chance. We read always of fulll strenth panzer divisions of "hitler's vaunted SS" etc ad nauseam but when we look closely, even the SS panzers had very little actual fighting power given the crippling shortage of officers and NCOs. 20,000 men sounds like a lot (eg HJ) but when they're short over half their leadership cadre and haven't even done company sized training exercises you really don't have much.
Its also forgotten some times that the dogged defense by 2, 99 and 28 US Infantry divs had something to do with it too!
cheers
Reb
Well, at the risk of contradicting myself I will have to say I'm one of the minority that think Whact Am Rein was, if not a good idea, about the only option available short of fighting a sort of Okinawa style delaying action which made it only a matter of time. In the Ardennes, the Germans gave themselves a chance to accomplish something: splitting the coalition and tying up or writing off large numbers of troops. The odds were bad though.
Concieved in desperation and not, obviously, executed so well - it was demonstrably silly to strike in the Ardennes with monster tanks like Tiger II. They shouldhave kept sending the big stuff to the east.
But when you're in a card game and can't draw a decent card sometimes you have to kick the table over.
To me, the one huge thing that speaks against the Ardennes offensive was the shortage of petrol. Exacerbated by the necessary secrecy that kept what petrol that was available from being accessed easily.
I'd add that attacking with low quality infantry divisions instead of the panzers (in the initial strike in the North) caused unnecesary delays, and underestimating the US ability to react fast was a huge mistake. Seventh Army was simply too weak to provide adequet flank defense.
All those pz divs sitting around waiting for gas while a few did most of the fighting must have hugely frustrating. but thats hindsite I suppose - you always feel stronger when you have much.
In the end we examine the available forces and petrol and it becomes obvious that this probably never did have a chance. We read always of fulll strenth panzer divisions of "hitler's vaunted SS" etc ad nauseam but when we look closely, even the SS panzers had very little actual fighting power given the crippling shortage of officers and NCOs. 20,000 men sounds like a lot (eg HJ) but when they're short over half their leadership cadre and haven't even done company sized training exercises you really don't have much.
Its also forgotten some times that the dogged defense by 2, 99 and 28 US Infantry divs had something to do with it too!
cheers
Reb