Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contribution of allied armies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Eric Weider
    I am very interested to see the discusion our upcoming major feature on Zhukov is going to generate on this forum! It should be intense.

    It will be in the August issue.
    So am I Eric, so am I...
    http://canadiangenealogyandresearch.ca

    Soviet and Canadian medal collector!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by thomas.tmcc
      the germans still bombed the uk then raf fighters were still needed for uk defence .
      can you give me references on that (I don't have only some books on air war, and I cannot find references on that...).
      a brain cell

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by thomas.tmcc
        the germans still bombed the uk then raf fighters were still needed for uk defence .
        I heard only about night raids of few German planes.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Andrey
          I heard only about night raids of few German planes.
          It was a bit more than that. German night bombing continued right the way through into 1944. The so called 'Baedecker' bomber offensive of 1942 were in retaliation for the RAF attacks on German cities. It was also not unusual for German long-range fighter-bombers to make nuisance daylight raids on targets in the south of England - again right through until 1944. It was prudent for Fighter Command to ensure that it was equipped with a large stock of up to date fighters.
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by laszlo.nemedi
            I agree on the KIA.
            And I know UK losses in the WWI was really high, so the economy missed people in the inter-war timeframe. That's why Churchill was very frightened to send Brits into bloody battles.

            I can leave this subject, but I am waiting for Full Monty answer


            I like these "provoking" subjects because it makes me reading statistics, and sometimes I can find refutation of old myths...
            Might be better if we move to a seperate thread. We can discuss it a bit more coherently there and maybe get some more on board who don't necessarily visit this section.
            Signing out.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Full Monty
              Might be better if we move to a seperate thread. We can discuss it a bit more coherently there and maybe get some more on board who don't necessarily visit this section.
              OK, and can you give me your sources on the air raids of Germans after the Blitz?
              a brain cell

              Comment


              • #37
                This post were extracted from
                http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24401
                thread due to changing of topic for discussion
                If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Full Monty
                  I was looking for Andrey to respond after this





                  So I was interested in his explanation of the relatively high Soviet casualty rate in WW2.
                  I didn’t read that Ellis. And I doubt that anyone is able to count the Soviet casualties, even the Russian historians can’t do it now.

                  But it looks like he speaks only about the dead.

                  In a combat or in a battle it is better to count the enemies who were put out of action as the result of the combat or the battle. Usually it means KIA+WIA+MIA (POWs+non-identified KIA) and is called combat casualties. And it is not the same “dead” as the WIAs and POWs often are not “dead”.

                  If to speak about the Red Army.

                  Laszlo is absolutely equal when he speaks about two periods of the war.

                  Commonly, in Russia two periods of the war are marked out: “the initial period of the war” (1941-1942) and “1943-45”.

                  And there is a large difference in those periods.

                  The most part of the Soviet casualties were suffered in “the initial period of the war”. Only imagine the digits: Kiev’s disaster of 1941– 600,000 POWs, Viazma’s encirclement of 1941– 600,000 POWs, Kharkov 1942 – 200,000 (as I remember) POWs, Kerch – 240,000 POWs.

                  In the border battle in the summer of 1941 RKKA lost the most part of its tanks. The significant part of the industry was transferred in the East and could begin its production in the new place only in 1942. So the most time of 1941 and a few months of 1942 RKKA had the shortage of tanks and planes.

                  In the first months of the war RKKA lost the most part of its regular army and often had to send untrained troops in a combat. RKKA had to use divisions of “narodnoie opolchenie”. “Narodnoe opolchenie” means “militia”, it is analogue of the German Volkssturm. For an example, a division of “narodnoe opolchenie” could contain usual workers who got 3-days military training and could have the large shortage of weapon especially of heavy weapon and anti-tank means.

                  So imagine, for an example, what could be the casualties of a division of “narodnoe opolchenie” in a combat against the German SS Division “Das Reich”…

                  But situation changed in 1943 and later.

                  The Western Allies fought against the German Army of 1943-45 and not against the German Army of 1941. The German Army of 1941 was lost in Russia – in Moscow, Leningrad, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, the Caucasus…

                  Nobody knows how the US Army could operate against the German Army of 1941. The British troops fought against few German divisions in Northern Africa and, in the spite of the fact that Africa was considered an auxiliary direction by the Germans, the Germans showed in Northern Africa their large combat effectiveness in the combats against the British troops. And remember that the Germans in Northern Africa had the shortage of everything – tanks, planes, fuel, soldiers and so on.

                  The German Army of 1941 operated in the conditions of complete air supremacy. The Western Allies NEVER fought in the conditions of the German air supremacy.

                  And I do not suppose that the Western Allies operated too well in Africa, Sicily, Italy where the Germans had completely few forces but prevented the huge success of the Western Allies.

                  If you want to compare the combat casualties’ ratio of RKKA and US/British Armies you must to compare only the casualties of the same period of the war.

                  It means that you must to speak only about the actions of RKKA in 1944-45.
                  And it is better to speak about a few concrete operations. Operation “Bagration”, Vistula-Oder Operation, Berlin Operation, Eastern Pomerania Operation, the Liberation of the Balkans and so on.

                  Count the results of these operations – the initial forces ratios, the common combat casualties of RKKA and the Germans (not only dead), the results of the operation.

                  And compare it with the concrete operations of the Western Allies in France, Belgium and Germany.

                  I doubt that the results of the actions of the Western Allies were better. Moreover, the successes and the effectiveness of RKKA in 1944-45 were much better.

                  Westerners often like to recall the Soviet assault of Zeelow Highs when Zhukov’s troops suffered heavy casualties but got the success of the strategic level – the road on Berlin was opened. It is considered an example of low effectiveness of Red Army and of disparaging of the Soviet commanders to the lives of ordinary Soviet soldiers. I can to remind the battle in the Hurtgen Forest in the Autumn of 1944 when the Western Allies also suffered heavy casualties but the generals continued to send their soldiers in new and new attacks as sometimes it is necessary to suffer casualties to get a success.
                  Last edited by Andrey; 28 Mar 05, 10:37.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    As you probably noticed Andrey I decided to move the statistics question out so as to avoid too much 'thread highjacking'.

                    It's difficult to try and split the stats over certain periods of the war. I'd agree to the point about the fact that the German Army of 1941-2 is different to the German Army of 1944-5 but whether one was 'better' than the other is a very subjective matter. The latter was better equipped and fought with a different battle doctine to that of the early war years.

                    I also take your point about POWs but I'm trying to factor them out of the equation because in different periods of the war more prisoners were taken from different nations than others.

                    Anyway, let me run these figures past you and then you can comment on whether they're correct, roughly 'in the ballpark' , or totally wrong.

                    Total mobilised - 29 874 900
                    KIA/Died from wounds - 6 885 100
                    POW/Missing - 4 559 000
                    Signing out.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Andrey
                      If you want to compare the combat casualties’ ratio of RKKA and US/British Armies you must to compare only the casualties of the same period of the war.

                      It means that you must to speak only about the actions of RKKA in 1944-45.
                      And it is better to speak about a few concrete operations. Operation “Bagration”, Vistula-Oder Operation, Berlin Operation, Eastern Pomerania Operation, the Liberation of the Balkans and so on.

                      Count the results of these operations – the initial forces ratios, the common combat casualties of RKKA and the Germans (not only dead), the results of the operation.

                      And compare it with the concrete operations of the Western Allies in France, Belgium and Germany.

                      I doubt that the results of the actions of the Western Allies were better. Moreover, the successes and the effectiveness of RKKA in 1944-45 were much better.
                      I think that if it is possible we should look at Allied casualties from 'Torch' (November 1942) onwards. We'll see what emerges over at the other thread first
                      Signing out.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Full Monty
                        As you probably noticed Andrey I decided to move the statistics question out so as to avoid too much 'thread highjacking'.

                        It's difficult to try and split the stats over certain periods of the war. I'd agree to the point about the fact that the German Army of 1941-2 is different to the German Army of 1944-5 but whether one was 'better' than the other is a very subjective matter. The latter was better equipped and fought with a different battle doctine to that of the early war years.
                        Do you really suppose that the German Army of 1944-45 could be considered better than the German Army of 1941-42?

                        In any case it is more correct to speak about "relative might" of Axis forces to Allied Forces.

                        At least it is undoubtedly that the US, British and Soviet Armies were much and much more powerful in 1944-45 than in 1941-42.

                        And the "relative might" (and the level of its air support to ground troops) of Liftwaffe of 1944-45 was large worse than the one of Luftwaffe of 1941-42.

                        I also take your point about POWs but I'm trying to factor them out of the equation because in different periods of the war more prisoners were taken from different nations than others.
                        This problem is decided by the counting of the POWs in the same time.

                        Anyway, let me run these figures past you and then you can comment on whether they're correct, roughly 'in the ballpark' , or totally wrong.

                        Total mobilised - 29 874 900
                        KIA/Died from wounds - 6 885 100
                        POW/Missing - 4 559 000
                        May be, you are right here, I myself have no concrete digits of the Soviet casualties but your digits are looked like the correct ones for me.

                        But these are the common digits for the whole war and they do not show anything about the period of 1944-45.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hey am I the only one that has spotted an error? The movement of Soviet Industry East of the Urals was a bit exagerated. There were already major industrial areas built there that few people in the West knew about. Example? Magnetorosk (spelling?). Sure a number of factories were moved and operated in the open until buildings were made for them, but the Soviet Union would not have survived without these unknown industrial areas. Also there was a stockpiling of strategic materials that lasted for several years while mining was disrupted. There was a great article on this in Command Magazine.

                          Also people, no one can take away from the accomplishments of the Red Army against the Germans. They did not always look good at it, but they kicked German posteriors back into Germany. The Western Powers were also a great boon to the Soviets. It is very likely that without major Lendlease Aid Stalin would have made Peace with Hitler.

                          Pruitt
                          Last edited by Pruitt; 26 Apr 05, 00:38.
                          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Pruitt
                            Hey am I the only one that has spotted an error? The movement of Soviet Industry East of the Urals was a bit exagerated. There were already major industrial areas built there that few people in the West knew about. Example? Magnetorosk (spelling?). Sure a number of factories were moved and operated in the open until buildings were made for them, but the Soviet Union would not have survived without these unknown industrial areas. Also there was a stockpiling of strategic materials that lasted for several years while mining was disrupted. There was a great article on this in Command Magazine.
                            Yep, there existed some industrial facilities in Ural area. Most famous ones were Tchelyabinsky Tractor plant, Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Plant and some others. But they were not major ones as you wrote. Majority of Soviet pre-war tanks were built by Kharkov plant and Kirov plant. Also major sourcs of Nikel and Manganese were on Ukraine.
                            If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Pruitt
                              It is very likely that without major Lendlease Aid Stalin would have made Peace with Hitler.
                              I truly doubt that. Neither side would have accepted anything less then unconditional surrender, which they would have never given into unless totally defeated.

                              Flarvin
                              Semper Gumby - Always Flexible

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Flarvin,

                                Yet Stalin had already cut a deal with Hitler once before? You would also think the Chinese leader Chiang Kai Shek would have not sent out feelers to the Japanese, but he did. Some Germans were also trying to talk to some British politicians about an Armistice after Dunkirk. The number two man in the Nazi Party (Hess) even flew to Scotland near the home of one of the politicians in pursuit of this.

                                Lots of things were possible that did not happen. Stalin threatened several times to pull out if he did not get more aid and a second front.

                                Pruitt
                                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X