Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contribution of allied armies

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Flarvin
    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

    Not true.
    There are reports that state Stalin held low-level negotiations with Germany right up until "Operation Zhitadelle".

    If the Lend-Lease aid that was sent in the early years had not arrived, I'm convinced some kind of agreement between Stalin and Hitler would have been reached.
    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by tigersqn
      Not true.
      There are reports that state Stalin held low-level negotiations with Germany right up until "Operation Zhitadelle".

      If the Lend-Lease aid that was sent in the early years had not arrived, I'm convinced some kind of agreement between Stalin and Hitler would have been reached.
      Big difference between “low-level negotiations” and surrendering. Hitler would have never accepted anything but unconditional surrender from the Soviets (at least until late 43+). Stalin would never have surrender unconditional to the Germans. And after 42 Stalin would never have made a pact with Hitler, because he had more to gain if he did not.

      (IMHO)As for any threats by Stalin to pull out of the war were just to push the western allies take more of a burden in the war effort.

      Flarvin
      Semper Gumby - Always Flexible

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Flarvin
        Big difference between “low-level negotiations” and surrendering. Hitler would have never accepted anything but unconditional surrender from the Soviets (at least until late 43+). Stalin would never have surrender unconditional to the Germans. And after 42 Stalin would never have made a pact with Hitler, because he had more to gain if he did not.

        (IMHO)As for any threats by Stalin to pull out of the war were just to push the western allies take more of a burden in the war effort.
        I tend to agree, it was such a fundamentally ideological struggle that once started it could only end with the total defeat of the other party.
        Signing out.

        Comment


        • #49
          I cannot help but wonder why the former Soviet Union canot face the simple fact that thier higher death toll was largely a result of their tactics.

          The "hammer and anvil" tactics favored by the Soviets in WWII, which persisted throughout the Cold War as well, placed a premium on massed assaults to break the enemy lines coupled with a complete disregard for the level of casualties sustained.

          Zhukov, in order to retain his edge on Koniev, had no qualms whatsoever about accepting 400,000 casualties to take Berlin, a city destroyed and defended mostly by children and old men. To say that those casualties were unecessary is a massive understatement - in another two to three weeks Berlin would have been starved out, and once Hitler committed suicide, the will to fight was largely lost.

          Because Stalin had an almost inexhaustable supply of men to feed into the meatgrinder, he had no incentive to conserve his troops, nor any qualms about wasting them. Under those circumstances, it would be impossible not to have greater casualty numbers than the Allies, who had fewer people to draw on and, in the case of America, had to ship every single soldier plus his equipment, food and supplies a minimum of three thousand miles just to get him to the battle lines. The Allies had to be more frugal with the lives of their men; therefore, comparisons of combat casualties are meaningless as a rational measure of who did what during WWII. The Allies, as did the Germans, gained considerably from the practice of keeping troops alive as long as possible to gain experience and gain greater combat effectiveness. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, had a constant influx of new recruits, who were intially good for little else other than getting killed quickly.

          Were the Soviet soldiers brave in combat? Yes and no. When your own troops are ordered to shoot you if you fail to attack, bravery has nothing at all to do with it. Some were, but obviously a lot weren't. The question should be, why was it necessary to use force to get Soviet units to attack?

          This whole comparison establishes nothing, based as it is on societies with totally different standards of individual worth and totally different methods of achieving objectives. Life was cheap in the Soviet Union, but it wasn't in Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand nor anywhere else, including Germany.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #50
            Mountain Man,

            From my reading, I believe the Red Army was having some manpower issues like the other participants. Remember the Soviets made sure the surrendered countries participated in the continuing struggle against the Germans. The Romanians took up a significant section of the front lines and the Bulgarians and Yugoslav Partisans took over sections. The Finns were in charge of removing German troops from Finland. They did use Poles and other volunteers to fight the Germans. I feel the Red Army leadership was able to continue some of the same assault tactics because they concentrated their troops. Think about all those elderly grandmother types in the Former Soviet Union that were never able to marry because so many males were killed.

            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


            • #51
              Come 1945 the Red Army had serious manpower problems. Many of the units were understrength and the quality of those who manned them was poor. In the final drive on Berlin they were conscripting men who had been liberated from POW camps or even forced labourers with little or no military experience.

              I think we have to be careful if we ascribe Red Army casualties solely to poor tactics. German caualties on the Eastern Front were also very high and I don't hear suggestions that their tactics were poor. The very nature of 'The War of the Century' led to casualty rates on both sides that would not have been tolerable to Western Democracies.

              Another factor behind Soviet casualties was that a large proportion of the 1941 army was captured meaning that men were being conscripted and thrown into battle without adequate training. This inevitably led to higher casualty rates which in turn meant more 'raw recruits' etc. etc. Thankfully for us the Soviets had sufficient manpower to absorb these losses.
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • #52
                The "hammer and anvil" tactics favored by the Soviets in WWII, which persisted throughout the Cold War as well, placed a premium on massed assaults to break the enemy lines coupled with a complete disregard for the level of casualties sustained.
                Such tactics were used by the Soviet command mostly in 1941/42. 1943 - 1945 was a much different story. Of course, this is all new to you since you're still clinging to some of your convenient stereotypes you like to use as explanations.

                Zhukov, in order to retain his edge on Koniev, had no qualms whatsoever about accepting 400,000 casualties to take Berlin,
                Once again Mountain Man, you've proven that you're capable of little more than overexaggeration and oversimplification of facts. As i've already previously written, the Red Army never suffered 400,000 casualties in taking Berlin. I cited my source.. you on the other hand cited some bogus figure from the "that one book I might have read 10 years ago" source. Your figures are overinflated and incorrect. And by the way, his name was KONEV not KONIEV.

                Because Stalin had an almost inexhaustable supply of men to feed into the meatgrinder, he had no incentive to conserve his troops, nor any qualms about wasting them.
                Another oversimplification - Stalin did not have an "inexhaustible" supply of men. You'd have to be either a high school history student or a complete idiot to write this. I'd like to see what kind of qualms FDR would have had faced with an Eastern Front type scenario on American soil -- maybe something to think about, Mountain Man.

                Were the Soviet soldiers brave in combat? Yes and no. When your own troops are ordered to shoot you if you fail to attack, bravery has nothing at all to do with it. Some were, but obviously a lot weren't. The question should be, why was it necessary to use force to get Soviet units to attack?
                Do you have an actual source reference for this or did you just watch "Enemy at the Gates" for your ideas?? In any case, what you write is largely influenced by 1) an almost complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the Red Army and the GPW and 2) your anti-Russian / anti-Soviet bias. Therefore, I don't think there's much chance to expect an educated discussion from you.

                This whole comparison establishes nothing, based as it is on societies with totally different standards of individual worth and totally different methods of achieving objectives. Life was cheap in the Soviet Union, but it wasn't in Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand nor anywhere else, including Germany.
                The comparison is impractical because neither British nor American troops were faced with the kind of war that befell the Red Army. Your "life is cheap in the USSR" theory may be convenient for you.. but in reality it's just as simplistic, ridiculous and idiotic as the rest of what you write.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Come 1945 the Red Army had serious manpower problems.
                  At war's end, the Red Army numbered ~ 11,000,000+ active combat personnel - where is the manpower shortage?

                  Many of the units were understrength and the quality of those who manned them was poor.
                  By comparison with 1941/42, most units in 1945 were not understrength and they were anything but poor quality.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Now I am on MountainMan side (edit: in this issue) :

                    the tactics of Soviet troops surely improved in the years of fight, but the higher commanders did not really care the price of a success, so they easily ordered another attack than thinking of stopping the attack in order to preserve manpower.

                    I can prove that in dec 1944 the army commander (and his staff) planned the attack of a regiment (meter by meter), which led to a very rigid attack without alternatives.

                    I don't say the Western powers' commanders were better commanders but surely they were more sensible on the manpower loss.
                    a brain cell

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by MountainMan
                      I cannot help but wonder why the former Soviet Union canot face the simple fact that thier higher death toll was largely a result of their tactics.

                      The "hammer and anvil" tactics favored by the Soviets in WWII, which persisted throughout the Cold War as well, placed a premium on massed assaults to break the enemy lines coupled with a complete disregard for the level of casualties sustained.

                      Zhukov, in order to retain his edge on Koniev, had no qualms whatsoever about accepting 400,000 casualties to take Berlin, a city destroyed and defended mostly by children and old men. To say that those casualties were unecessary is a massive understatement - in another two to three weeks Berlin would have been starved out, and once Hitler committed suicide, the will to fight was largely lost.

                      Because Stalin had an almost inexhaustable supply of men to feed into the meatgrinder, he had no incentive to conserve his troops, nor any qualms about wasting them. Under those circumstances, it would be impossible not to have greater casualty numbers than the Allies, who had fewer people to draw on and, in the case of America, had to ship every single soldier plus his equipment, food and supplies a minimum of three thousand miles just to get him to the battle lines. The Allies had to be more frugal with the lives of their men; therefore, comparisons of combat casualties are meaningless as a rational measure of who did what during WWII. The Allies, as did the Germans, gained considerably from the practice of keeping troops alive as long as possible to gain experience and gain greater combat effectiveness. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, had a constant influx of new recruits, who were intially good for little else other than getting killed quickly.

                      Were the Soviet soldiers brave in combat? Yes and no. When your own troops are ordered to shoot you if you fail to attack, bravery has nothing at all to do with it. Some were, but obviously a lot weren't. The question should be, why was it necessary to use force to get Soviet units to attack?

                      This whole comparison establishes nothing, based as it is on societies with totally different standards of individual worth and totally different methods of achieving objectives. Life was cheap in the Soviet Union, but it wasn't in Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand nor anywhere else, including Germany.
                      MM, are you able to read?

                      This thread is NOT about the Soviet tactics.

                      If you want to discuss it make new thread.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Full Monty
                        Come 1945 the Red Army had serious manpower problems. Many of the units were understrength and the quality of those who manned them was poor. In the final drive on Berlin they were conscripting men who had been liberated from POW camps or even forced labourers with little or no military experience.
                        Nope, RKKA had no so serious problems with manning. Especially taking into account large resources of liberated territorries.
                        As for usage of former POWs and forced labours those people were volunteers, as they wanted to make revenge by their own hands.
                        Of course lots of former POWs found themselves in Soviet camps....

                        I think we have to be careful if we ascribe Red Army casualties solely to poor tactics. German caualties on the Eastern Front were also very high and I don't hear suggestions that their tactics were poor. The very nature of 'The War of the Century' led to casualty rates on both sides that would not have been tolerable to Western Democracies.
                        Have to say that Soviet casaulities on battlefield was ~2.3 times greater than German. Mostly because of unseccessfull first years of the war.
                        Major number of Soviet casaulities were civilian ones....

                        Another factor behind Soviet casualties was that a large proportion of the 1941 army was captured meaning that men were being conscripted and thrown into battle without adequate training. This inevitably led to higher casualty rates which in turn meant more 'raw recruits' etc. etc. Thankfully for us the Soviets had sufficient manpower to absorb these losses.
                        I also have to mention the fact which is not well-known. Germans took in prison not only soldiers, but also civilians of call-up age. So, some number of POWs in reality never been soldiers.
                        Especially this is actual for Byelorussia and some other territories captured in the very first weeks of the war
                        If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by laszlo.nemedi
                          Now I am on MountainMan side (edit: in this issue) :

                          the tactics of Soviet troops surely improved in the years of fight, but the higher commanders did not really care the price of a success, so they easily ordered another attack than thinking of stopping the attack in order to preserve manpower.

                          I can prove that in dec 1944 the army commander (and his staff) planned the attack of a regiment (meter by meter), which led to a very rigid attack without alternatives.

                          I don't say the Western powers' commanders were better commanders but surely they were more sensible on the manpower loss.
                          Following archival materials can confirm Laszlo's statements
                          If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Real figures losses of the Soviet troops for Berlin operation April 16 - May 08:

                            Formation/manpower on 16 April/ casaulities {irretrievable/sanitary/Total}

                            2nd Byelorussian Front (without 5th Gds TA and 19th A): 441,600/{13,070/46,040/59,110}

                            1st Byelorussian Front: 908,500/{37,610/141,880/179,490}

                            1st Ukrainian Front: 550,900/{27,580/86,245/113,825}

                            Dniepr Flotilla: 5,200/{16/11/27}

                            Total: 1,906,200/{78,291/274,184/352,475}

                            1st & 2nd Polish Armies: 155,900/{2,825/6,067/8,892}

                            Source: "Rosia i SSSR v voinakh XX veka", 2001
                            If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Lets compare casaulities of Berlin operation and in the Kursk battle (defensive part July 5-23):

                              Formation/manpower on the begining of operation/Losses{Irretrievable/Sanitary/total}

                              Central Front (July 05- July 11): 738,000/{15,336/18,561/33,897}

                              Voronezh Front (all period): 534,700/{27,542/46,350/73,892}

                              Stepnoi Front (July 9-23): -/{27,452/42,606/70,058}

                              Total: 1,272,700/{70,330/107,517/177,847}
                              If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                It can be easy to say Stalin threw away his soldiers because he had an overabundance of men.

                                The same can be said of the American army, the Sherman was an inferior design. The decision was made to keep mass producing them and attack in mass to defeat German tanks, yet blood thirsty Stalin made a better tank to protect his tankers.

                                As for the allies conserving soldiers, there were no battles on the scale seen on the Eastern Front, no Stalingrad, Kursk, or Budapest. Those that come close show equal losses, scale wise.

                                Take a look at the Pacific Theatre, how many men did the Marines lose in the First day of Iwo Jima, 3,000 dead, and that number kept rising.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X