Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet/Russian Myths of the Great Patriotic War 1-The Second Front

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

  • #31
    Carl,


    "By October 1942 there were a minimum of ten trained & equipped British divisions in the UK and three US divisions. Another US div. was enroute"



    Given the annual problems of tides and weather, those Divisions could not have been landed until mid 1943. As it was, if D-Day had been a couple of days later than 6.6.44 it would have been disaster with the storm that hit the area.

    I am not at all certain the USA/UK had the means of transporting, re-supplying, and defending that many soldiers across the Channel at that time.

    The command of the sky was also more in doubt than in 1944.

    Having those Allied Divisions thrown back into the channel would help no one, and probably delayed Normandy for yet ANOTHER year.



    John.
    The PLO claims ALL of Israel!!! There will and can NEVER be a "2 State solution".

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
      Send a army to the USSR? I am not joking. In 1941 the US Army laid out plans for establishing a logistics infrastructure in the Persian Gulf that could support a estimated Army Group. Part of this 'plan' was completed for supporting the Lend Lease to the USSR via Persia. Sending a couple US Army corps totaling 80,000 to 100,000 men to the Caucasus in late 1942 was theoretically possible. Not very effcient, but...

      snip

      All I can recall are some summaries of Soviet military teaching from the 1960s or 1970s. That is schoolroom items of the sort taught to candidates for senior ranks. Staff and Command College material. The small bits I recall described the US stratigic effort in the South Pacific as 'fumbling' and wasted or indecisive. Obviously whoever wrote that was no fan of MacAurthur.
      In early 1943, MacArthur passed on a message to Churchill through Major General R.H. Dewing advocating the following:

      "to throw all the reserves of America and Great Britain on the Russian front," and to take over a sector of the southern flank where we would have a secure line of communications through the Caucaus.

      Churchill's response on hearing this, penned to Ismay was: "The General's ideas about the European theatre are singularly untroubled by considerations of transport and distance."

      Quoted in Eric Larrabee's Commander In Chief at page 331.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
        In early 1943, MacArthur passed on a message to Churchill through Major General R.H. Dewing advocating the following:

        "to throw all the reserves of America and Great Britain on the Russian front," and to take over a sector of the southern flank where we would have a secure line of communications through the Caucaus.

        Churchill's response on hearing this, penned to Ismay was: "The General's ideas about the European theatre are singularly untroubled by considerations of transport and distance."

        Quoted in Eric Larrabee's Commander In Chief at page 331.
        They were both right. The Allies did eventually pass a large ammount of material to the USSR via the Persian Gulf/Caucaus. It did take more than two years to expand the transportation structure to handle it. This web page has a few details showing the scope of what the Allies did install

        http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?233...sure=.1dd31859

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ozjohn39 View Post
          Carl,


          "By October 1942 there were a minimum of ten trained & equipped British divisions in the UK and three US divisions. Another US div. was enroute"



          Given the annual problems of tides and weather, those Divisions could not have been landed until mid 1943. As it was, if D-Day had been a couple of days later than 6.6.44 it would have been disaster with the storm that hit the area.

          I am not at all certain the USA/UK had the means of transporting, re-supplying, and defending that many soldiers across the Channel at that time.

          The command of the sky was also more in doubt than in 1944.

          Having those Allied Divisions thrown back into the channel would help no one, and probably delayed Normandy for yet ANOTHER year.



          John.
          Yes, i see your point. Transporting three corps across the Channel is far more difficult than sending the same to Africa for an assualt on that coast. And, obiviously sustaining a army across the Channel is vastly more difficult than sustaining two armies in Tunisia. And, I clearly see how it was easier to send 4,000 Allied aircraft to Africa to wrest air superiority from the Axis than to use the 6000+ (and growing) in the UK to fight just across the Channel.

          Comment


          • #35
            "Yes, i see your point. Transporting three corps across the Channel is far more difficult than sending the same to Africa for an assualt on that coast. And, obiviously sustaining a army across the Channel is vastly more difficult than sustaining two armies in Tunisia. And, I clearly see how it was easier to send 4,000 Allied aircraft to Africa to wrest air superiority from the Axis than to use the 6000+ (and growing) in the UK to fight just across the Channel."


            LOVE the sarcasm!


            Given that my scenario is IN ADDITION to the African campaign, maybe it would be a little difficult after all.

            And if needed, shifting all that lot back to the UK after 13th May 1943 in time for a June landing would take a bit of doing I would expect.


            But then again, what would I know about it?



            John


            (late PS)

            Omitted a reference to the Invasion of Sicily at that same time frame. All needing the logistics etc to support this invasion of France in mid 1943. Having 10 or 12 Divisions available in the UK is not the same as effectively landing them in France.
            Last edited by ozjohn39; 03 Apr 10, 23:32.
            The PLO claims ALL of Israel!!! There will and can NEVER be a "2 State solution".

            Comment


            • #36
              The question is not how many divisions can the Allies throw into France versus North Africa in 1942 or 1943, it's how many divisions can the Germans respond with in France versus North Africa. In North Africa, as it turned out, the Axis simply did not have the shipping capacity, either by sea or air, to match the Allied build-up, and they were overwhelmed.
              Even with complete air supremacy in 1944, it was impossible to keep major German reinforcements from moving from Germany to Normandy. If the Germans surpass the Allied build-up, which they can easily do given the complexities of cross-channel and cross-Atlantic supply versus cross-Rhine travel, then Northern France turns into an Allied disaster very quickly.
              Now in the short run that helps the USSR because the Germans will have switched several panzer divisions (most likely) from their Eastern Front to France. In the long run it is no help at all, because those same divisions, and a number of others from France, will be coming back to the Great Patriotic Front in a group - a major German strategic reserve, which they have not had since July 1941, that can be committed anywhere they want - because now they know that there will be no Allied invasion anywhere in Europe for some time to come.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sharposhnikov View Post
                left the USSR further out on a limb than Stalin's diplomacy had already put them in June, 1941.
                Stalin's diplomacy might not have been perfect but if you read at least a little bit about Soviet diplomatic efforts at building a collective security system by means of a number of interconnected bilateral pacts in the 1930s you would never say anything like this. What is often forgotten is the radically anti-Soviet policies of the British (and to an extent, French) ruling circles at the time.
                www.histours.ru

                Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                  Stalin's diplomacy might not have been perfect but if you read at least a little bit about Soviet diplomatic efforts at building a collective security system by means of a number of interconnected bilateral pacts in the 1930s you would never say anything like this. What is often forgotten is the radically anti-Soviet policies of the British (and to an extent, French) ruling circles at the time.
                  I wonder why they were “radically anti-Soviet”?
                  Could it have something to do with the publicly stated intention of the Soviet Union to overthrow the Western democracies?
                  Surely not.
                  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tsar View Post
                    I wonder why they were “radically anti-Soviet”?
                    Could it have something to do with the publicly stated intention of the Soviet Union to overthrow the Western democracies?
                    Surely not.
                    The relations with these countries had already been progressing by early 1930ies when the USSR was recognised by practically all major powers. And it didn't take an Einstein to see that the Soviet Union was much less of a threat than Germany. Still, the pro-Nazi aristocrats thought Hitler was a much nicer guy and even thought of implementing his ideas at home.

                    As for the revolutionary incitement, this issue was heavily overblown in the West and used by unscrupulous Conservatives in their dirty games.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter

                    Well, the "boo boo evil commies are coming" tactics is still alive and well, needless to say it was even more efficient these days.
                    www.histours.ru

                    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      What you speak, my foreign friends, is again not what I mean.

                      You again mean the idea "to land and to enter Berlin".

                      I mean the idea to win the war. From this point of view it is not important what will be the fate of the landing - failure or success. The main idea is to win the war. If it was necessary to make the invasion that would be failed a few months later (Gallipoli type) to help for Stalingrad defenders and to win the war so it would be a good idea.

                      I again recall the story of the Stalingrad Battle. I think the unsuccessfull attacks to north from Stalingrad provided the successful defence in Stalingrad itself. It was necessaru to lose those guys to north from Stalingrad to win in Stalingrad (and to win the war).

                      Is it understandable????

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Just a thought,

                        was the invasion of Sicily in June 1943, and the later invasion of Italy considered the "Second Front".

                        I have never heard it referred to as that.



                        John.
                        The PLO claims ALL of Israel!!! There will and can NEVER be a "2 State solution".

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                          Well, the "boo boo evil commies are coming" tactics is still alive and well, needless to say it was even more efficient these days.

                          If you mean me with that statement you are very wrong.
                          I could care less about Russia. It is a has been nation state that is still trying to recover from 70 years of the worst political theory ever imposed on human beings.
                          If it weren’t for, relatively, high energy cost Russia’s economy would be tottering somewhere between Italy and Portugal.
                          It is only deluded individuals that still think Communism/socialism is so great, or a threat.
                          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by tsar View Post
                            If you mean me with that statement you are very wrong.
                            I could care less about Russia. It is a has been nation state that is still trying to recover from 70 years of the worst political theory ever imposed on human beings.
                            If it weren’t for, relatively, high energy cost Russia’s economy would be tottering somewhere between Italy and Portugal.
                            It is only deluded individuals that still think Communism/socialism is so great, or a threat.
                            Nope, I meant the hysteria of the American Right about Obama and his "Communist policies". But this is offtopic so let's end it here.
                            www.histours.ru

                            Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              "If it was necessary to make the invasion that would be failed a few months later (Gallipoli type) to help for Stalingrad defenders and to win the war so it would be a good idea."



                              If that is what you are asking, then the answer is NO! NO invasion was possible in mid 1942.

                              As I have said, the 'invasion season' in 1943 on the French coast is about 8 weeks long at best, and even then any given day is very dangerous, as D-Day showed very clearly.

                              What the hell is the use of landing up to 10 divisions only to have them 'decimated' and thrown back in the sea. That would NOT help the defenders of Stalingrad, it was already won.

                              And as has been pointed out above, if the invasion is pushed back into the sea the Germans will know for certain that nothing will threaten them until June 1944 at the earliest.

                              That is my last post on this thread.


                              John.
                              Last edited by ozjohn39; 04 Apr 10, 02:43.
                              The PLO claims ALL of Israel!!! There will and can NEVER be a "2 State solution".

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ozjohn39 View Post
                                Just a thought,

                                was the invasion of Sicily in June 1943, and the later invasion of Italy considered the "Second Front".

                                I have never heard it referred to as that.



                                John.
                                No. In Russia it was called a Third Front.

                                Due to Italian geography it was possible for the Germans to use few units to close the frontline. So the Germans used few units to defend against Western Allied troops and still had ability to use the most of their troops against Red Army.

                                Moreover, they knew that siognificant part of Allied troops and ship were used in Italy so they wouldn't be used in North-Wesern France so the Germans could decrease their troops in France and to send them against Red Army...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X